DEMOGRAPHICS

 

In the world of predictive metrics, demographics is far and away the leader. Most one year-olds will become two, most seventeen year-olds will become eighteen, and so forth. Therefore, there is a high degree of confidence behind the forecast that the USA will relatively soon (2040-45) have no ethnic majority. Not only will we be a nation of multiple minorities, but “all” will have the right to vote. Historically, this is a highly unusual combination.

Note that in looking at data, whether demographic or otherwise, percentages normally follow absolutes — i.e., the former are typically derivative, not determinative. Equally true is that the more interesting percentage often is related to the composition of change, not the absolute numbers. For example, for the past 25 years, all the growth in the K-12 student population has been minorities.

Will white America need heavy therapy to avoid becoming totally stressed out? How will the country’s inevitable demographic transition dictate a changing of the guard with respect to political power? Will struggles in this regard become inflammatory to the point of violence? The 2015-16 campus uprisings and the incendiary presidential campaign are not comforting with respect to the outlook for civilized debate.

Will the USA become even more balkanized than it is at present? Reportedly, from a geographical and socioeconomic standpoint, “likes” increasingly are marrying and living with “likes.” This spills over to political homogeneity as well.

Accompanying the demographic evolution is a lessening of the bonds of English as the national language. Not only will the cost structure of governance have to rise to accommodate multiple tongues, but in some areas the mere existence of such diversity will coincide with expressed irritation. With multiple minorities, there will be a greater mixing of marriages from an ethnic standpoint, creative arts, food. There will be a declining appreciation or knowledge of what heretofore was considered the standard narrative of American history.

Overall, there might be more ethnic identification when it comes to identifying who is employed, who pays which taxes, who reaps social security benefits in retirement, who receives welfare payments — i.e., which group is earning and gaining wealth and which is receiving government benefits not directly linked to what they have contributed. It would not be surprising if bottom line economic factors relating to generational and ethnic gaps become connected to heightened ethnic tensions.

DIGITIZATION

 

*Simply put, the penetration and implementation of iDevices will continue until your every breath is calibrated 24/7, accompanied by instructional to-dos relevant to each second of your work or leisure day. More people may be attracted to “must be good” labels like gluten-free, organic, fair-traded, vegan, but few will chuck their tablet or smart phone even as they advocate for the “natural” life. In fact, few are connecting the dots that suggest being “on” 24/7 because of those iDevices is tied to the feeling that something is amiss emotionally, that personal control is increasingly elusive.

Ironically, the economic benefits of the inventors/implementers of iDevices directly accrue to a relatively small group of people, thus accentuating inequality, often despite the professed political preferences of those involved.

*The philosophical free market requirement of complete information being available to all participants is closer to being met, which, among other impacts (example, outside the USA, the isolated farmer with a smartphone now knows the true market prices for his products) has led to more negotiating of prices than ever in the USA, something which has long been true in much of the rest of the world. Products being sold by many physical retailers will be perpetually on sale.

Whether digitization and globalization are a net plus to the world seems obvious; do not a billion people go on Facebook every day? However, considering the growth of ISIS, the decimation of many commodity dependent countries/currencies, the widening of inequality in many areas, the dramatic change in the impact of China on the world’s economy, the expressed irritation over free trade agreements — maybe there should be a more nuanced view about the brave new world.

\EDUCATION AND INEQUALITY

 

*The education system is mostly dysfunctional, from preschool through college. The good news is that its defects are on the front page and more people are recognizing that those negatively affected by reform are kicking and screaming about a list of red herrings that have nothing to do with the real issue: ensuring that a quality education is available to all children, from birth through receipt of a diploma or equivalent certificate.

Only through a complete re-examination of education, at every age level, will it be possible to assess the reality of opportunity inequality and its consequences for income and wealth inequality.

*While it might seem contradictory to the logic of higher education — defined as college, there should be increased messaging about the opportunities in the marketable skills area that can lift more families economically. To do so, there must be a politically acceptable way to convey the message that college, while attractive financially on average (even after associated debt), is not the automatically appropriate path for everyone.

SOCIETY

 

*Single parenthood has become completely acceptable, despite its documentable negative outcomes: below-average household income, absence of a father figure – especially impacting boys, depressed educational aspirations, and the necessity for large amounts of remedial expenditures as government agencies and non-profit organizations attempt to offset the situational negatives.

*There is a reexamination finally taking place about the relationship between non-productive drug laws and the numbers incarcerated, with the latter having a deleterious impact on family formations. Maybe the USA will give up its world leadership in prison population.

*Children are being employed to peddle every product and service imaginable. This marketing practice is both obscene and absurd and cannot possibly be tied to the healthy emotional growth of a young person.

FEDERAL RESERVE and the ECONOMY

*By any conventional measurement of money supply growth or federal debt compared with the size of the economy, the current approach to financing the American economy, namely having the Federal Reserve continuously creating money, is not sustainable. The “excuse” for the Fed being the de facto economic mastermind is that Congress has totally failed in its role, inclusive of fiscal measures which would have reduced the burden that has fallen almost entirely to the Fed since the Great Recession of 2007-08. An offshoot of this same political paralysis in the nation’s capital is that corporations have little confidence in their forecasts for economic growth, even as the USA outperforms the majority of developed countries. Reflecting this cautious, even skeptical, attitude, which is heightened by reduced growth in China, American companies have paid off high-cost debt and piled up cash to record levels.

*With globalization, there is little possibility of governments regulating capital flows in a manner which restrains economic inequality (although a wealth tax would be beneficial). Other changes which can be made to address inequality — higher marginal tax rates, fixing the carried interest rule pertinent to hedge funds — will not appreciably narrow the income gap unless the opportunity gap is fixed.People do not object to others making more money; they object to uneven playing fields. For example, Wall Street players right now are paid handsomely to simply participate in the financial world lottery, even though it is Other Peoples’ Money (OPM) which is the source of the funds for the ticket. To add to the insanity, Wall Street gets a substantial piece of the lottery winnings as well. As defined, the industry overall cannot really lose, even when the same cannot be said of the clients. The bankruptcies associated with the 2007-08 financial debacle do not contradict this observation

*Meanwhile, to those on Main Street America, the perception of corporations is that they will do whatever they will in pursuit of profit. The recognition of their essential amorality is now entrenched. We are simply human capital ingredients in a stew where a very few eat more than heartily and the very many get sustenance and little more.

**

The majority of Americans tell pollsters that they are unhappy. Which of the above situations drives this characterization? Or is it the overall impact of change, uncertainty, a nagging feeling that something is not right with the picture previously implicitly in the mind of the average head of household?

 Is the appeal of extremist politicians a psychological transference; people want to believe that there are “answers,” solutions which would reinstate what they thought to be the American way. They do not want to confront the necessity for the attitudinal adjustments which will be mandatory as the demographic evolution of the USA unfolds in unrelenting fashion.

http://BobHowittBooks.com/?page_id=22

[Quess what year this was written; relatedly, what aspects are not relevant in 2016

(Q) What is the single most important requirement (other than “papers” of course) concerning personal advancement for immigrants in the United States?

(A) If a Hispanic speaks Spanish, the typical American will label him an “Immigrant.” In contrast, if he speaks English, he is described as “bilingual.”  In other words, use of the English language changes the “status” of an individual from a legal term to a descriptor of skill. To be clear, for the individual who wants to rise beyond the level of his parents, wherever they reside, language capability does not mean the ability to simply say “hello;” it does not stop with the ability to adequately verbalize.  It means the ability to both speak and write coherently in English. And sorry Googlers, you cannot click on a website link to find something pertinent to show your boss when it’s 9am and he wants your written report on his desk by noon.  With respect to accent, if one cannot speak and write in English, then accent is irrelevant. If one is truly skilled in the English language, then accent is also fundamentally irrelevant, even if it is admitted that sometimes a job application may be rejected with the excuse given as “non-understandibility.”

[Political Implication: immigration advocacy groups should be vigorously promoting English to all immigrants; to not do so is a disservice to those who represent their constituency.]

(Q) If you have command of the English language, but lack “papers,” what happens?

(A) Each individual of course makes his own ethical decision. With command of the language, one has a better chance of getting a job, albeit illegally, but this only buys time until the Human Resources manager reports back that the social security number presented at the time of initial employment did not match up with the one in the BCIS computer.  Besides, in most cases, the fear factor (of discovery) will mean that the job accepted is beneath the educational qualifications of the individual.

[Political Implication: simplistic though it may seem, if one has command of the English language, there is a chance of becoming a valued employee, which means there is a better chance of something really good happening, like sponsorship for the path which ultimately leads to residency.]

(Q) What if there is no demonstrated intention to seek papers?

(A) The employee referenced above is working on borrowed time; given the current immigration situation, the work situation can actually extend for many years, depending on the nature and disposition of the employer. The would-be student without papers will be limited to a few schools which look the other way with respect to a social security card and/or are willing to take anybody who will pay the highest tuition rate.

 [Political Implication: if you are in the United States for an extended period of time without papers and have no apparent intention to seek papers, because the process is difficult and long, do not bother to seek your definition of “justice,” because you neither have political standing nor a legitimate case to present. It is recognized that intention is not the only factor of course, as the regulatory landscape changes periodically, there is a high chance of paperwork screw-ups because of the lengthy delays involved in any immigration case, and the requirement, for certain individuals, to return home for up to 10 years in order to move ahead with status adjustment, is almost self-defeating in terms of resolving the current crisis.]

(Q) If you know English and have papers, what is the value of the academic degree?

(A) Considerable, huge, all-important!!! Without a degree, you cannot get in the door in most places to have the conversation you seek about fulfilling your career job aspirations. Potential employers perceive immigrants who hold academic degrees earned in the United States as hardworking individuals who are serious about upward mobility and have a good work ethic, thus making them     better employees and a trusted bridge between the business and the Spanish-speaking community.

[Political Implication: when immigration reform ultimately takes place, it is highly likely that people with English skills and with education and/or pursuing same will be in a relatively advantageous position.]

(Q) Is an American college degree synonymous with a particular level of knowledge?

(A) Unfortunately no. Over the years, as the goal of maximizing the number of people with degrees has been pursued, there has been an inevitable slippage in educational standards at all levels.  As a consequence, the degree does not connote the historical level of knowledge.  Therefore, there is a    push for those with Associates degrees to pursue their Bachelor’s, with the latter urged by the marketplace to get their Master’s (in the skill set relevant to their career goal).  For academic and high-level technological positions, a Ph’d is often a requirement.  At each educational level, fortunately the anticipated lifetime compensation rises significantly, typically more than enough to justify the incremental investment. At the same time, immigrants who may have earned advanced degrees at institutions comparable to the top American universities are overlooked, even considered less capable, if they struggle with the English language.

[Political Implication: many countries have immigration regulations which specifically favor newcomers with particular academic/career disciplines. Given the composition of American graduate schools, wherein the higher-tech component is dominated by foreign students, and the heavy retirements projected near-term for math and science employees in this country, it would be entirely natural for those disciplines to receive additional and favorable attention in any immigration legislation.]

(Q) Does not a college degree have other usefulness?

(A) Individuals coming from countries where they have earned a degree but have been disappointed in their inability to quickly find a job in their career area often still value the American university degree as increasing their ability to open doors back in their home country, to which they want to return. In those cases, in the extreme, the American degree—as a nice piece of paper properly framed and hung on the wall—may be more important than the knowledge it purportedly represents.  Interestingly, age and gender are important additional factors in this regard, as in other countries, there is typically more bias toward hiring younger applicants and males than is true in the United States.

[Political Implication: it is somewhat hard for an individual who gets papers solely to facilitate back-and-forth travel to his home country and/or who gets a degree for its “face value” to argue to the prototypical American resident/homeowner that the former is investing time, energy, and money in becoming a full-fledged resident/citizen of the United States.]

(Q) Is not there something fundamentally unfair in the whole immigration discussion, given the history of American territorial acquisitions?

(A) Er, uh, yes, but—sorry! Nonetheless, in the world of geopolitics, what is done is usually done unless    there is an appetite for a cathartic war (name the last one which fit this description) or a series of  wars which inevitably leave more innocent people dead than the historical culprits, who usually are long deceased.

[Political Implication: recognition of prior bloodshed in redrawing maps still should be part of the background discussion about that elusive “fairness” concept in dealing with “illegal” immigrants.]

(Q) What about the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) and its impact on immigration?

(A) If I am a Mexican farmer, for example, and my bushel of corn (if yellow, not white) has to compete with that of an American farmer whose bushel has its real costs offset by a subsidy from the American taxpayers, it does not seem fair. If I consequently cross the border to work on that American farm, it does not seem like a criminal action because the playing field is not truly level. This extends to other countries and products.

[Political Implication: resolution of equitable economic relationships, most importantly between the United States and Mexico, would be disproportionately important to gaining political acceptance of a package of immigration reforms. The whole issue of “free” trade agreements causes ordinary eyeballs to glaze over, but is actually quite central to a broader philosophical discussion of immigration.]

(Q) Are immigrants net contributors to the American economy?

(A) Entire staffs of research experts have come to opposite conclusions. The negative argument focuses on two factors: the cost of required Kindergarten-12^th grade public education and healthcare expenditures.  With respect to the former, there are policies with respect to student eligibility for college aid which prevent a positive outcome to society’s educational investment, so you cannot    blame the aspiring immigrant. Concerning healthcare, the whole system is a mess, to which all sectors, including heavy immigrant users of charity care, are contributors.

[Political Implication: there are specific legislative steps which could be taken to rectify the educational situation—they have been adopted by some states but federal legislation is needed. Healthcare requires an overall re-do, with no special spotlight on immigrants.]

(Q) What is the attitude of immigration advocacy groups with respect to immigrant criminal activity?

(A) Similar to the knee-jerk reaction of certain racial groups when “one of theirs” is apprehended (and, in the case of immigration, lacks papers), there is an unfortunate tendency of immigration advocates to be silent on (1) the issue of whether a crime has been committed, (2) the necessity of labeling that person, if convicted, as a criminal regardless of his immigration difficulties and/or the economic misfortunes of his family back in the “home country,” and (3) the need to publicly state that, at a certain level of criminal activity, such an individual should be promptly deported.

[Political Implication: an easy way to dissipate public goodwill and legislative support would be to inadvertently appear to be advocating that all illegal immigrants should be protected regardless of the  propensity of some to commit crimes.  In contrast, it would aid the cause of immigrant advocates to be the first in the chorus which supports booting the bad guys out of the country.]

(Q) “I know many people who do not file an income tax return. Is that a good idea?”

(A) This is not a bright idea if you are trying to convince people that you have been in the U.S. for more than a few months, that you are genuinely interested in becoming a full-fledged participant in this country, and that you realize taxes have to be paid.  To put a point on the latter, over a certain  income threshold, a tax return must be filed even if no taxes (either incremental or absolute) are owed and no refund is due. Lacking a social security number, a person can obtain a tax ID number.

 [Political Implication: this is simple–file a tax return, using a Tax ID number if needed. It is a crucial part of creating a paper trail that is part of a possible demonstration that, despite your illegal status, you really want to be here. Expect nothing politically if you are not willing to do this.]

(Q) What has been the political role of immigration advocacy groups?

(A) By frequently seeming to indiscriminately support all illegal immigrants and all demands by these individuals, the mainline advocacy groups may have worsened the situation by turning off people looking for reasonable compromises. Their inability to match their parade fervor (on one occasion stupidly including flags of their home countries) with political support for the aborted Kennedy-McCain bill (even though some were quietly in favor of it) exacerbated the adverse climate with respect to immigration. Advocacy groups must by definition want the number of illegal immigrants to be reduced; otherwise they have zero chance of a satisfactory political outcome.

[Political Implication: advocacy groups must make the classic decision: do they want to be “right” or do they want to “win.” If they stay with the former as their dominant theme, the number of “justice now” signs will be matched by the number of political losses. If they decide that the latter is more critical, then they will work hard behind the scenes to, for example, provide prospective to the myriad of details in a bill like Kennedy-McCain, which is referenced as the only attempt in recent years at compromise.]

http://BobHowittBooks.com/?page_id=22

As Executive-Director of a foundation which has had many Hispanic members of its various education programs, I have been enrolled in an on-going course in the dynamics of immigration. In 2011, I came to believe that dialogue on this subject would be enhanced by answering the questions listed below. They are in no order, as a method of getting people to think about each question separately, not as part of a group — where there is a tendency to believe that one answers covers an entire subset.

My premise was – and still is in 2016, as almost all the questions remain pertinent today, even with the political noise being generated on the right — that only by agreement on “yes” or “no” answers to these questions can conversation move to the challenge of immigration reform.

*Does immigration in the age of economical air travel, internet and cell phone have fundamentally different characteristics, because of these advances, from prior waves of immigration?

*Do “illegal/undocumented” immigrants exhibit wide differences in their commitment to being here?

*Can one discuss immigration and ignore the history of the United States’ involvement in the geopolitics of the majority of countries in central and South America?

*Has impartial research conclusively demonstrated that illegal immigration is a net economic benefit to America or a net drain from the collective wallets of American citizens?

* Did the 2007 Kennedy-McCain immigration bill fail because it was too anti-immigrant?

*Is entering the country without documentation a civil offense?

*Do welfare benefits in the United States provide more economic support than wages in many countries?

*Is English language usage by third generation immigrants twenty times that of first generation?

*Does it help create good immigration legislation for letter-to-the editor writers to equate illegal immigration with running a traffic light because both are violations?

*Does American illicit drug consumption drive up crime in Colombia, which reduces employment opportunities and causes some Colombians to come to the U.S. and overstay their tourist visas?

*Does the United States generate sufficient homegrown math and science college graduates to spur innovation and capital investment?

*Are the fees associated with obtaining a green card the most critical issue for immigrants?

*If you entered the country legally and are now undocumented, is this a criminal offense?

*Are 25% of young people in this country either immigrants or the children of immigrants?

*Would immigrants be willing to pay a large fine if they could apply for legalization without having to return to their home country?

*Is illegal immigration a political issue whose resolution requires an unusual set of compromises that fundamentally have no connection to party affiliation?

*Does it make sense for immigration policy to make no distinction between high school drop-outs working manual labor and master’s degrees holders?

*Are employers eager to be enforcers of immigration laws?

*Is the uncertainty and time delay in obtaining a green card its most critical issue?

*Is it good for immigrants to learn the “instrumental culture” of the United States in order to succeed?

*Can an immigration bill be passed requiring families to be split because of different legal situations?

*As a driver, would you prefer that others on the road be unlicensed?

*Is the United States entitled to have a border and a set of rules about entering the country?

*Is the American education system required to educate all young people through high school graduation?

*Are local police forces in favor of being trained under 287(g) to be junior immigration officers as well?

*Did the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill fail because it was too pro-immigrant?

*Do employers take advantage of undocumented employees?

*Are high school drop-outs from Mexico the biggest source of illegal immigrants?

*Can immigrants maintain their “expressive culture” and succeed in the United States?

*Did over half of undocumented immigrants enter the United States legally?

*Can anybody argue against the following person, who has overstayed his tourist visa, from becoming a resident: he entered the country legally, learned rudimentary English, paid his income taxes, has a high school diploma or GED or equivalent, is married, was at one job for three years, and has had the same home address for three years?

*Is the case for immigration reform helped when advocates (a) label their opponents racist, (b) defend every immigrant who commits a crime, or (c) march in the streets carrying the flag of their “home” country?

*Can taxpayers be repaid, for their investment through high school, if an undocumented young person is deprived of a college education and ensuing commensurate career path?

*Has the Supreme Court ruled that “children can neither affect their parents’ conduct nor their own undocumented status” as its reasoning for mandating free education through high school?

If you answered half “Yes” and half “No,” you are ready for political negotiations!

http://BobHowittBooks.com/?page_id=22

 

Each child is an individual.

Each child can learn.

Each child has educational needs beyond those met by the school.

Each child has involvement with adults: parents, relatives, and others interested in his/her future.

Each child must be emotionally healthy in order to develop.

Each child is pressured by demands at home, at school, by peers, and by those who care about him/her.

Each child must be equipped with the tools to make positive decisions and to know the consequences of negative decisions.

Each child will periodically appear to be rebelling against authority figures.

Each child has both unasked and unanswered questions.

Each child must be equipped with a value structure.

Each child is facing a world in which traditional values-­ cultural, religious, family — are under attack.

Each child needs someone unconditionally committed to his/her future.

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

 

In choosing a school, the prospective collegian often has multiple “helpful” people in his or her ear: mother, father, best friend, sibling, high school counselor, teacher, outside education advisor, and, of course, oneself.

Assume the student’s final decision is among three colleges with different characteristics.

A way to put together the inputs from different sources is to assign scores for each of the voices in the student’s ear. In order words, the reflective student is analyzing how each of the voices would react to certain variables.

The scoring system goes from 5: which means maximum confidence in a positive outcome for the student if he attends the different schools listed, to 1: the least confidence in a positive outcome.

These scores are applied to a list of variables relevant to the student and each of the schools being seriously considered by the student. Here are a few factors, in alphabetical order:

Ability to make friends

Academic rigor

Availability of desired major

Distance from home

Extracurricular opportunities

Net cost of attendance

Networking reputation

Time management

When you go to a high quality restaurant and pay for an expensive meal, but it is great food, drink, and ambiance, the price fades from memory. While the financial impact will reappear on the next credit card statement, the overall experience remains positive.

If you go to a college which scores high on all the non-financial characteristics, it probably is worth it, even with the debt that will become totally evident when the monthly repayment schedule commences.

To state the obvious, the summary score on the inputs from various voices is not meant to be a conclusive “answer” for the student; it is more like a stimulus to the student doing methodical thinking about the selection of a college.

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

Here is the essay prompt: “when the student checks his Facebook page on his Apple iPhone, he sees that the meeting to protest income inequality and white power is to be held at Starbucks.”

When I gave this topic to a mature college student, he wrote about several economic factors, such as the inadequate level of minimum wages. He did not comment on the point I was making in the prompt, which was, to my way of thinking, terribly obvious.

Specifically, each of the companies in the prompt is led by a member of what you would have to call the white power structure, while every customer/usage/patronage of their businesses exacerbates the extent of income inequality. Whether Democrat or Republican, whether deliberate or implicitly muffled, Messrs. Zuckerberg, Cook, and Schultz have to be smiling on their way to the bank, even while voicing their conceptual support for the socially aware protestors.

Imagine that Sanders acolyte protestors (which include the above referenced student) are advocating a redistribution of the wealth the very same people are helping to create with their purchases — although I somehow doubt they have thought through the impact on their own lives if they followed the dictates of their protest signs. Imagine that our form of government was a version of statism, whether Marxist or socialist or fascist or even the Western Europe hybrid welfare state model. The thrust of such approaches is fundamentally how to redistribute the economic pie, inherently pitting one sector’s view of equity with that of another, inevitably accompanied by either conflict (to put it mildly) or a hardening of the economic arteries caused by a stifling bureaucracy.

The multiple versions of creativity that underlie Facebook, Apple, and Starbucks are unlikely to be the product of politically correct committees in a statist government environment The latter would be more concerned with protecting existing jobs, e.g. those of Borders, the 40,000 employee book retailer that disappeared without a whimper as Amazon, Costco, and iDevices collectively usurped its function. Ironically, keeping a Borders alive could have meant less income inequality, but it seems unlikely that people of any political persuasion would line up to drop their Facebook accounts or discard their iPhones or skip their lattes to make this vision a reality.

The Sanders acolytes have a dilemma: do they stay with broad brush slogans that cannot help but be hypocritical, or do they drill down, in a practical way, on specific individual issues. The latter is harder work for sure. They should realize that the redistribution alternative, in the extreme, risks a damaging of the entrepreneurial drive which helps set this country apart and which enables the USA, even with its well-recognized faults, to grow and attract people (and currencies) from around the world.

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

 

 

 

                                 

I am not sure whether it is a curiosity question or has more substance, but I would be interested in an analysis of changes in majors by college students. Currently, this subject is not even considered an issue; changing is commonplace, no big deal.

Nonetheless, what I am especially interested in is the “why” behind changes which can safely be categorized as moves toward less academic rigor, e.g., from Engineering to Business Administration.

[Note: the thrust of this essay is about changes in majors after a young person has enrolled in college. There is a valid related discussion, although not here, about the age at which the conversation about different career paths should commence. Some educators believe it is middle school where the first pulling back of the future curtain should occur, and they host Career Days accordingly. The focus there is exposure to different career paths and the education necessary for those paths; there is no attempt to promote a specific career/major to a child of that age. Think of it as being more like first-level research, with the adults taking the lead in a non-aggressive fashion.]

These are some of the inputs which could be relevant to dealing with this question:

*is there a disconnect between what the student thought he brought to the table academically and what is actually the situation. The point here is not IQ, but general academic preparation.

*to what extent did the new college student know as a high schooler what the requirements (skill in certain subjects, time, energy, writing/reading loads) were for a particular major. [Enter the aforementioned Career Days.]

*more specifically, does the student know in advance when prerequisite courses are gatekeepers with respect to pursuing particular majors.

*is the role of the high school guidance counselor, and maybe the college advisor as well, too often merely a smell test concerning a student’s intentions; how often do they bring a broad and deep knowledge of colleges and majors to the conversation with the student.

*more pointedly, is the match of student and college logical for the pursuit of a specific major.

*are students, in choosing initial majors, unduly sensitive — to the desires of parents for “recognizable” or “bankable” majors, or — to those in their community who wish them to return as role models with expertise in areas of local need, as defined by adults.

*has the student arrived at a revised understanding of self and of the value of the time/cost/debt associated with the initial major he or she previously selected. [If a student has been thinking about his or her prospective path for many years prior to entering college, the odds should be greater that he or she has arrived at a better understanding of self.]

*has the previously chosen major been made questionable by a complete disconnect with a professor or individual class where the student’s confidence has been seriously shaken.

*is the change in majors really a mask for deeper issues – e.g. , an absence of academic support from the college and/or difficulties in adjusting socially to an environment new to the student.

*almost forgot – how many shifts in majors are for the pursuit of higher paying disciplines. [This can be perilous if there is no real passion for the “money major.”]

Overall, when students are thinking about changing their majors, are they undertaking serious research, asking multiple questions, consulting with relevant people, and analyzing all of the inputs?

How many such changes represent a well thought out “going to?” How many are a semi-impulsive “going from?”

Are there systemic changes in the modus operandi at the high school level which would better prepare students for higher education, regardless of their majors? (Easy answer here, “yes!”)

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

Sitting solo on a public bench outside a panaderia in Pomona, California and munching a delicious pastry from said location, watching the sun being slowly replaced by dusk and white America being rapidly transformed into a colorful mosaic, it is easy to become reflective at the corner of Garey and Franklin. With my writing energies historically being better expressed along negative theme lines (consult my therapist for the reasons), the thoughts of your lowly author went along these lines:

An affluent white person has what you might call a “perpetual passport.” He can wander into a less privileged community –physically, empathetically, financially—while always having the ability to return to his whiteness, to assume his natal place in the power structure. He needs no green card, no visa, and there is no expiration date on his passport. As part of the white history of the country, he cannot even reject his “passport.”

And yet “whitey” has only a limited ability to hold back what is happening right in front of his eyes: a transfer of power. Moreover, whether “he,” individually or collectively, has the foresight and resolve to participate in a rational progression toward greater sharing of that power, accomplished in a peaceful manner, is open for debate.

The American historical narrative that a senior citizen grew up with is being rewritten, a process which will only intensify, reflecting the combination of demographic change and greater empowerment for those who have previously been disenfranchised. What heretofore have been labeled as “aberrations” –slavery, military excursions, resistance to women being able to vote – are now increasingly considered to be integral to the historical story of white power and its hold on the structure of society.

For some, as a specific example of said revisionary approach, the fathering of an illegitimate child of a slave mother by Thomas Jefferson to some observers almost negates his many contributions to creating a new and stable country.

In such fashion, the concept of evaluating a person on his body of work goes by the boards, replaced by a simple checklist of whether he, whatever the historical context, acted in accordance with the standards of contemporary America—or at least an important and growing part of it.

As a corollary to this view, the country’s numerous foreign wars are lumped together under the heading of a military-industrial complex agenda. Little attention is paid to actions thought to be in pursuit of admirable objectives, such as saving the lives of innocent people; those are offset, in the opinion of many, by egregious errors regarding non-white cultures.

The answer to why women were suppressed is of course simple: to maximize white male power.

The existence of slavery is the clinching argument that the prior American narrative was fraudulent. Slavery is not to be considered the horrible mistake of a young, evolving nation—instead, in fact, it was the necessary centerpiece of the American white power design, of how this country was built.

What is transpiring is not a calm look at our history as a necessary initial step to preparing those in power for a hypothetical peaceful transition (aka, downgrading) in their positions. It is more akin to “The Fire Next Time,” or its contemporary counterpart, “Between the World and Me.”

Time to quit, writing that is. As is typical of less affluent areas around the world, the street lighting at Garey and Franklin is subpar, insufficient for old-fashioned writing on one of those little notepads which, with an accompanying pen, are my perpetual companions.

Will I eventually connect at least some of the above dots? I do not know. Thinking about these topics is quite depressing.

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

“New Study gives high marks to Jersey Community Colleges” was the heading for a Star Ledger” article of 1-20-16. Its supporting information was that “17% of community college students earned a Bachelor’s degree within six years of starting college, versus 14% nationally.”

Yipes, with success like that, there would be no such thing as misleading advertising. In fact it seems there is justification for applying the term “misleading” to the entire educational system:

*The free high school diploma does not remotely mean the student is ready for the paid experience of college. And a student’s change during his K-12 years from ESL to regular classes does not necessarily mean no ESL will be needed at college.

*Receipt of a two-year diploma does not automatically equate with being ready either for a four-year college or for the job market.

*Earning a four-year degree is a ticket to possible conversations about employment; however, with a majority of professions and employers requiring higher credentials than ever (a nice economic benefit to vendors of higher education), there can still be a rude awakening at that first job interview. (Positive note: even during the Great Recession, Bachelor-degree holders at least were able to get jobs; unemployment was about one-third of that of high school graduates.)

More philosophically, there is a growing debate about the purpose of college – is it educating a young person to be a well-rounded citizen — or is it getting a student ready for the world of full-time employment. Some colleges and companies are collaborating more on the design of curricula; that partnership tells you directly the purpose of that school.

*No, those three-hour classes are not really three hours, more like 2.5 hours.

*Students are fourth on the list of priorities for many professors, who can be more concerned with getting published or receiving citations in professional journals or winning grants for their pet projects.

*Regardless of what college A says, or how the law reads, college B will in all probability not accept 100% of those credits from college A.

*All that hoopla about the college’s Career Center? About 2% of graduates find their jobs as a result of using said resource.

*College financial statements are insulting. Example A: the school lists 13 thirteen types of fees, ranging from $359 down to $5.00; included is a $150 fee for Academic Excellence and Success. These fee designations are simply a way that the college can say with a straight face that its tuition only went up x%, when the total cost is going up more rapidly because of the proliferation of fees. Besides, isn’t academic success supposed to be the central idea of the higher education program being sold to the customer students.

*The college financial award letter covering Pell grants and Federal loans is often misunderstood by college newcomers. Grants are not repaid, while loans must be repaid – they should be identified separately. And in neither case is the money coming from the college that is patting itself on the back for giving the award to the student. The college is fully aware that financially challenged students not familiar with the world of higher education frequently make no distinction between the two categories of financial aid. The reason is that they are simply happy to be accepted by the school, and the latter knows that if the debt portion were separately discussed, some students might have second thoughts about their selection of that college.

*College itself has been oversold, as if it were the one and only path to a happy life. It is no coincidence that many high schoolers are indifferent to the task of figuring out a life path. Simply put, they do not like school and cannot think warmly about the idea of spending another several years in a classroom, in part learning more stuff they have no current interest in and cannot see being useful in their lives.

So where is the message about the merits of becoming a policeperson, an electrician, a plumber, a beautician, a specialist in the repair of computers, an auto mechanic? Where is the analysis of what is required to earn the credentials associated with these marketable skills, which can generate income of $25-30 an hour without the time and money required for a Bachelor’s degree?

A Pew Research report of 2-5-2016 used the label of NEET to categorize the 17% of Americans ages 16-29 who are Neither Employed nor in Education or Training. The ratio for blacks was 22%; for Hispanics, 20%; for whites, 13%. Two-thirds had a high school education or less. Does not this data call for a different approach to communicating the longer list of options which are available to high schoolers not fixated on the college route to a career?

The message about different choices should be delivered at schools covering every level of the socioeconomic ladder. The profile of the messenger should vary to accommodate the logical point of view by a student that says, “I cannot be what I cannot see.”

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22

 

In Norway, the government funds all primary and secondary schools nationally. It then provides tuition-free access to college, plus an identical allowance for living expenses. Nonetheless, only 14% of children from the least educated families go to college, compared with 58% of the children from the most educated families (Hechinger Report). These numbers are similar to those in the United States, which has a completely fragmented educational system at every level. Moreover, at present, one-third of American K-12 students are from families without higher education, which would suggest, all other things being equal, that college enrollments will not grow. Education reform anyone?

http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22