On
October 23rd 2014, James Piereson and Naomi Schafer Riley wrote an article
called "Getting more poor people into college won't fix income
inequality" in the Opinions section of the Washington Post. Piereson and Riley are making comments
on a decision made by President Obama to encourage colleges
and universities to offer more opportunities for
low-income students. Apparently, the idea Washington has is that the
solution to repairing the large imbalance in our economy is related to higher
education.
Piereson
and Riley strongly disagree with this. They don't believe that the solution for
poor kids lies in high education, but rather elementary and secondary
education. They criticize that getting the impoverished into college isn't an
original idea, nor is it very helpful. Many colleges have actually applied this
new policy, even big schools like Yale and Harvard; and they determined that
just because the prices are lower, doesn't mean it will encourage the 70,000
students to apply. For example, Harvard created a policy in 2004 that stated
that "no student whose
family income was less than $40,000 would pay a cent to attend; the
university gained 20 additional low-income students in a class of 1,600."
So the price isn't the problem, but rather the system.
I believe
the intended audience is based more towards college-bound students and families
(especially those who meet financial requirements), students in general, people
who work in the education field, people looking at the inequality of our nation
and those concerned with the quality of education America. Though some jabs are
made at political administration for their unhelpful
participation, I don't believe the article is trying to get policies to change.
It seems as though they wish to get people to acknowledge that change is
certainly necessary. Not tiny changes or little suggestions here or
there-those aren't cutting it. But big changes that mean having to throw an
entire system out of the window.
I don't know very much about either author James
Piereson or Naomi Schafer Riley. All I do know is that Riley has a Twitter and
advertises it at the bottom of the article. I'm not sure how credible either
author is-it's not as if I can click on their names and be linked to a
biography about their literary works. They're staff for the newspaper; no more,
no less. I believe that by being staff that that title gives them a certain
amount of credibility.
Finally,
their argument. I'm a little bias because I feel so strongly about education
(and they agree with me) so bear with me. They claim that income inequality
isn't the barrier preventing low-income high-achieving kids from going to
big name schools, but rather their quality of education. If money truly was the
issue than the schools would’ve seen a greater influx of 'poor' students; but they’re
not. The gap isn't income and it can't be fixed by shoving more poor kids in
universities like Harvard. It isn't as though they're talking without any
evidence to back them up, they're dropping names like: "Richard H. Sander of the UCLA
School of Law, Caroline Hoxby of Stanford and Christopher
Avery of Harvard, Washington Post’s Jay Mathews, KIPP, and Sean
Reardon of Stanford University. Their sources seem reliable-most being from
high-education institutions themselves. So they know what they're
talking about when it comes to statistics and they do a good job using their
evidence to support themselves. I believe that even someone not in the intended
audience might be swayed by this article. But there is one thing that I think
could improve the article. Riley and Piereson both express great dismay at the
education system of today, but neither have any solutions to getting where we
want to go. Every journalist has something to critique or challenge,
but none offer any logical solutions. I think if they had given more than just
their two-cents, but a step towards the solution we need; it would be a better
article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/getting-more-poor-kids-into-college-wont-fix-income-inequality/2014/10/23/494e491a-4fc5-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html
No comments:
Post a Comment