« Wouldn't it be great if we all owned a home! | Main | Debt: If its good enough for Uncle Sam, its good enough for me. »
January 12, 2004
The Death of Horatio Alger, Part II: Education
I wanted to expand on some of the ideas expressed in this blog entry as it relates to education and society. In Thoughts on America from a Foreigner I mentioned that in Switzerland, education is paid for all the way through college. I think this notion that education should be a public server like water, police, and the military, has more merit than people give credit.Crime) Statistics show that education is more of a crime deterrent than punishment. That is to say the number of those who are convicted and punished, but go on to commit crimes again is quite hight. However, the odds of a person committing a crime in the first place diminishes exponentially depending on the quality and quantity of their education. This is only counting blue collar crimes. White collar crimes such as stealing pensions from millions of elderly like Enron did, is a whole other matter. Crime is obviously a big problem in our country that costs us all enormous sums of money. A good portion of our tax dollars goes towards jails and courts.
Overpopulation) Statistically, those who have less education are more likely to have more children and less likely to be able to take care of their children. By take care I mostly mean ensure said child gets a proper education. Many of these children become a tremendous burden on the system as their parents claim entitlements and/or give their children up to be taken care of by the system itself. These children tend not to do as well (not to get a good education) as their 2 parent counterparts. When the children of poor, uneducated parents do not get a good education, it perpetuates income/class immobility.
Class Mobility) Which leads us to the Horatio Alger story. Quality and quantity of education is the number one factor in determining ones class mobility. Many of you may know that I did not graduate from college. However, my parents were educated and I did go to decent schools. I consider myself educated and believe I have many options as to what I could do to make a living and/or move up the socioeconomic spectrum should I desire to. My school wasn't nearly as good as my wife's school which was in a more affluent area, however, it was much better than the schools in the ghettos. Having educated parents gives you a tremendous advantage. In the absence of this advantage, one must rely on the public school system, which varies in quality depending on the affluence of your area. My Junior High only had one set of books for the whole school, which remained at school for the kids to share. We weren't able to take books home and thus had little homework. As a youngster that was great, but if they couldn't afford books in a middle-middle class school, how did the lower class schools fare. Meanwhile, Governor Schwarzenegger just reduced school funding in my home state. This will likely not affect the wealthy that much. I'll give you one guess as to who it will affect.
In thinking on this issue I realized how lucky I am. I was born to a middle class family that did experience some income/class mobility. In many ways I am in a high enough class that I do not need to worry about most of these issue. My children will likely do as well if not better than I because of it. Very little of this good fortune can be attributed to anything special I did. I do not believe I worked that much harder, if harder at all, than those who are stuck in lower classes. I would never have learned about computers if I had not gone to at least a middle class school. If I had been born to a lower class family, I probably would not be where I am today. Obviously, this begs questions of environment vs. genetics. Even if I was born the same person, just to a lower class family, I would not have it as easy as I do. This goes with my philosophy that money isn't deserved. Just because you worked hard doesn't mean you deserve this or that. If that were the case, there would be a lot of less fortunate people who should have a lot more than you since they worked harder. As I mentioned in "Why We Spend," too often those WITH money spend frivolously because they feel it is deserved. They worked hard for it, why not buy what they want. This self-centered attitude only perpetuates the problem. Recognizing these things is only a first step however. I believe those 'with', have an obligation to help those 'without'. I'm not just saying I think they should. I think they have an 'obligation'. In the long run it helps all of us, and I'm not just speaking karmically. Crime, debt, resource depletion. These issues affect us all and we all must work together if anything is to be done.
What do I think can be done? I'm not sure. I'm pessimistic about where and when the next major 'movement' will be. I'm cynical of movements in general as the past few big movements only served to stall the inevitable commercialization of America. But I digress.
What will I do about it? I will start by understanding the ramifications of my relationship with money and how I spend. How will I fulfill my obligation? I don't know, but I'm going to figure it out.
Posted by wonko at January 12, 2004 07:33 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.wayfargone.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/202
Comments
Reading this inspired this picture in my mind: The African plains spread out, covering all the eye can see. A visibly hurt lion stammers across the field and toward its potential and suspecting prey. As the lion nears, its prey escapes. The lion, unable to track the animal, lies down and awaits a much easier target, a target that never appears. A stronger more agile lion (from a different pride) appears, caring in its mouth the prey the previous lion so eagerly tried to catch. The larger and stronger lion drops the dead carcass down in front of the small hurt lion and begins to nudge the carcass closer. The hurt lion smiles and thanks the bigger and more powerful lion for all its help and consideration.
Yea, I know, lions don't talk. The greater of them also do not help the lesser. It is somehow an instinctual thing, as a commenter in the previous post said: "Survival of the Fittest". We're not the only species in the animal kingdom to maintain this behavior. Therefore, is it possible to change?
Posted by: obigabu at January 13, 2004 08:32 AM
While I am normally lumped with the pessimists on these issues, I think I agree with the optimists on this one. The lives of animals, such as lions, are almost entirely devoted to survival. Humans, as a species, have evolved to the point where we have the necessary resources to not have to worry about survival. People would quickly argue with me that a good percentage of the population of this planet still does have to worry about survival first. You would be right, but I would argue that as a whole, we DO have the resources to ensure every person on this planet shouldn't have to worry about survival, we just don't put that as a priority. In fact, we seem to have that as our last priority, well under personal wealth amassment. So yes, I think humans are in a unique position, among the mammals on this planet, to put aside our darwinian instincts and work together towards mutual gain that far exceeds whatever personal gain we might achieve with our pre-evolutionary, animal tendencies.
On the flip side, Carl Sagan said, on why we haven't had proof of life on other planets, "The temptation is to deduce that there are at most only a few advanced extraterrestrial civilizations - either because we are one of the first technical civilizations to have emerged, or because it is the fate of all such civilizations to destroy themselves before they are much further along."
Posted by: Wonko at January 13, 2004 05:10 PM
The question still remains - are we the way we are because of our instinct? Could you compare the way humans have become with the domestication of animals? If so, just because a dog becomes domesticated doesn't mean that it loses the instinct (for example) to be a pact animal. If you were to put that dog back into a mix of others, one would establish dominance; the others would obey, and at the same time would be fighting for the lead. This would show you that even know the dogs have become so far removed from their natural instincts; they still exist for them in certain situations.
We as humans have the natural instinct to compete. It is this competition to be better than someone else that generally leads to the lack of compassion we have towards one another. The idea of helping someone else out is like the lion bringing food to another, it just doesn't happen. That would bring the person being helped closer to the person helping out. "I want to be the best, and to do that I must knock everyone else down."
Posted by: Obigabu at January 13, 2004 05:37 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)