Are excellence and attempting upward mobility the same thing?

[TheAutumnOak]

I love threads like this because they make me think...

 

I was raised in poverty and so was DH...DH was raised by a single mom with four kids...She worked hard...She came here from Puerto Rico as a adult with only a fourth grade education...She doesn't speak English (I think she doesn't want to), and really didn't know how to motivate her children, or what she should motivate them to do...She is a hard worker and very disciplined, but uneducated...DH is also very disciplined...He went to college but didn't finish...He works as a manager of a retail store...According to his family, he is doing well...He is not in jail, his job is legal, he supports his family, and no longer lives in the ghetto...

 

I was raised by a single mom who was an alchoholic and not around...I lived in the projects - gangs, shootings, people doing drugs in front of you, robberies, and everything else that comes along with living in a huge building where everyone has government housing...I was not concerned about my education at all when I was in high school...I had WAY too many problems at home...I was in honors classes, but did no homework, and ended up with a 2.5 GPA...I went to a college that had "onsite admissions" because I didn't want to bother with filling out a college application after my mom said she wouldn't help me...I never finished college, and now I am here - homeschooling my boys...

 

DH and I know that education is important, but we didn't grow up like most people here on the boards did...I read this forum and hang out here because it helps me with my perspective...I like seeing how people feel who had a "normal" life, and were raised with their parents involved in their lives...I want my boys to end up better than we did, but it is a struggle to maintain the right focus...

 

I said all of this to say that everything depends on your perspective...To some, we are doing well...To others, we are not...To ourselves, we are doing the best we can, but want to give our boys the opportunity to do better...

 

My answer to the OP is that I think excellence and upward mobility can be two different things, and that depends on your definition...One can move upward and not acheive "excellence", whatever "excellence" means...The key is to figure out what "excellence" means...

[NASDAQ]

I don't need upward mobility. I'd be happy just keeping my kids even with where we are.

 

I think having a professional degree is more useful than being a welder if one is able to do either, for a couple reasons. First, becoming a ticketed tradesperson here is not a short road, and I'm not sure much time would be saved over going to college. Second, the trades require people to be in fairly good shape, and we often see our tradespeople having to work less as they become older, right when lawyers and accountants are coming into their best earning years.

 

I think we should be realistic in what we prepare our children for. Not every child can or should go to university. Not every child can or should weld. Easy to say, right? My oldest is five.

 

I do think that all children, whether they become welders or accountants, will benefit from as much of a strong liberal arts education as they are capable of achieving.

[anabelneri]

The largest occupations in the U.S. are: retail cashier, office clerk/administrative assistant, food preparation & serving, janitors and cleaners, customer service representatives, health aides and attendants, and registered nurses. Aside from the R.N.'s (who require at least an Associate's if not a Bachelor's these days), none had an average wage above the overall national median of $21/hr.

 

This made me snort because I have a graduate degree and can't make more than $21/hour in my field. Clearly "upward mobility" was not on my radar when I was making decisions about appropriate careers. I look back, like other PPs, with regrets. I don't remember ever having decent career counselling. I would have seriously benefited from someone who could help me survey my options and plug in numbers and get a really good sense of the choice I was making.

 

But I think that's what kids in all economic levels could use. It's a pie-in-the-sky dream, sure, but still fun to have.

 

My husband came from a family in poverty. He did the bootstrap-thing and pulled himself out by becoming serious about his education. He didn't go to a great high school, but he took advantage of every educational opportunity available to him. He had no guidance from his parents; they didn't have any to give. He figured out everything for himself. He went to college on loans, and to grad school on loans. Unlike me, he chose a field that pays well.

 

His siblings, on the other hand, haven't found that same path. Like me, they lacked decent career counseling. We probably have the same earning potential, but they'll be working in the fields mentioned above and I'll be working in a more "educated" field, and I'll be the one paying off student loans.

 

I'm curious about folks who have experienced the western European model of education where kids get sorted out into different types of schools as teenagers. Does that sort of educational system change this conversation?

 

Re: excellence. When I think about my education and about excellence, I hear the coach from the movie "The Replacements":

When the Washington Sentinels left the stadium that day, there was no tickertape parade, no endorsement deals for sneakers or soda pop, or breakfast cereal. Just a locker to be cleaned out, and a ride home to catch. But what they didn't know, was that their lives had been changed forever because they had been part of something great. And greatness, no matter how brief, stays with a man. Every athlete dreams of a second chance, these men lived it.

 

My education was excellent. And it stays with me. No matter what choices my daughters make (or face) I do hope that they have that experience of excellence. I think the benefit of an excellent education is not just about earning potential, but about a change in how we see the world. Having a wider perspective, a deeper knowledge, a connection to history, a grasp of the intricacies of science or math, all these things change us. It's like going from all the crazy intimacies of daily life to being an astronaut in space gazing at the blue-green marble that is home.

 

But I don't think that higher education is the only path to excellence. I've met a couple families where the experience of growing up in that family is an experience of excellence. Those families weren't all upper-income families, or even higher-education families. What mattered wasn't the sorts of careers those children could aspire to, or income levels, but what mattered was the love. Maybe it was this all-embracing sense of home that they both have; I don't know. I do know that I want that for my daughters. I have no idea what the future holds for them. But I want them to have that sense of excellence, that sense of home.

 

:)

[serendipitous journey]

 

I'm curious about folks who have experienced the western European model of education where kids get sorted out into different types of schools as teenagers. Does that sort of educational system change this conversation?

 

:)

 

I am so very grateful to have been born into a country with a more flexible university system. In the European system I'd never have made it into higher education at all. Whenever I have to submit college transcripts for something, it's a mess: some credit for training in the National Guard, community college in Florida (dual enrollment in high school), New College (Florida university system, one semester), community college again (couldn't afford to stay at university), Emory University in Atlanta (one summer, funded by a wealthy aunt who had appeared in my life and taken me on as a project, for which I am ever grateful), Wellesley College (got financial aid, plus extra money from family and my campus job, obtained a bachelor's degree, mediocre GPA due to Family Drama of an extreme sort), courses at MIT where I worked as a technician, and a truncated attempt at a PhD from Boston University (I have a master's from that). The American system may not be perfect but this was possible for me: a master's degree in Neuroscience, and the chance to meet my marvelous husband.

 

Also, I hope to come back for an advanced degree after the littles are older: this is a very American dream to have!

 

I love threads like this because they make me think...

 

...To ourselves, we are doing the best we can, but want to give our boys the opportunity to do better...

 

My answer to the OP is that I think excellence and upward mobility can be two different things, and that depends on your definition...One can move upward and not acheive "excellence", whatever "excellence" means...The key is to figure out what "excellence" means...

 

AutumnOak put this beautifully. I am so grateful that my boys have a better life than I had but I do want more for them. I have been "upwardly mobile" and my children are being raised in a sphere where college education is virtually assumed, and graduate education in an economically-viable field is very likely. But I am homeschooling them largely because the schools around us are full of spiritually at-risk children. Cheating on high-stakes tests, drug use, general entitledness are all rampant. This is nothing like the risks borne by children in violent or poor neighborhoods, but if I want my little ones to have a chance to be excellent humans I think something extra is required.

 

AutumnOak also touched on the "something better" in one's outlook ... there are effects of a difficult and deprived upbringing deeper than the external, material ones, especially if you are living in connection with family that are still trapped in the life you've moved beyond (or are trying to move beyond). Keeping your higher goals firmly in mind & heart can be such a challenge.

 

Regarding the OP: many homeschoolers are looking at other ways toward an economically viable lifestyle. Milestones Academy, for example, suggests an online bachelor's, a certification in accountancy, or Montessori teacher training instead of the final two years of high school as a way to prepare for financial independence. But of course financial independence is not the only goal of a liberal college education ...

[frogger]

I know I don't take time to post here much although I read to get curriculum ideas but wanted to comment even though I'm somewhat of a stranger. My Grandpa was a coal miner which is about as low on them totem pole as one could get. Grandma raised 6 kids while running a farm by herself. It was hard. The interesting thing is that although none of my aunts or uncles or my mother had a superior education by the standards of this board they turned out all vastly successful. They simply went to the local public school but I think what they learned at home was more important. Take care of each other, work hard (VERY), and do something productive. One aunt who married a fisherman and another uncle both became millionaires and the rest are what I would call upper middle class. My mom dropped out of school and married at 16 but her husband died in a car wreck. She managed to put herself through college and medical school while being a single mother to 4 children. That's not what I would choose now that I can look back in hindsight and see how much she missed out on but the point is that it is amazing what people can do when they put their mind to it.

 

 

My older brother also never graduated from high school but makes $140,000 a year. I realize not everyone can do these things but I really hate that college is touted as the only opportunity, although for many it is important. I realize my perspective is skewed by my very independent family who makes jobs rather than taking them but I still think we all have different paths and talents and that there is no one answer for everyone. Children need to be looked at as individuals to see what they want and can handle and what they love and where they would excel.

 

I also want to add that I think a majority of people move to the upper class through investments and painstaking time and careful management. I realize that when it takes every penny to live it is hard to get that first investment started and often you lose it (like we did) and so you start scratching away at money again. I don't talk to everyone about their finances but it seems to me that hourly wages will seldom make you rich. Many people with college degrees don't make that much above the median. I will say that being able to live off just your paycheck is a nice thing even if you don't get wealthy from it. There is a lot of stress and extra work involved in investments and businesses and sometimes it doesn't pay for years. You live off Top Ramon for a decade while everyone else lives normal and then you finally make some money and the IRS takes it all despite that it really was 10 years pay even if it all came in one year. Forced savings. :) You may just lose it all before the IRS even gets there.

[Hunter]

This has been a very educational thread for me. I had no idea of some of the assumptions and prejudices some wealthier moms have about lower income moms. I always knew that lower income moms were sometimes thought of as lazy and negligent, but I never knew that there was an underlying assumption that that they were also likely to be abusive and sneaky, and scheming to purposely hold their children back.

 

I have seen the behaviors described, exhibited by a couple dads, who were otherwise generally abusive and just thought of that as part of their general nastiness, and did not connect it in any way to their income levels.

 

I have seen tired moms with no imagination, but have never yet encountered a low income homeschool mom who I didn't believe was wanting the very best for her child, even if she wasn't able to gather the resources necessary to give it to them. Maybe I've just been naive :-0

 

This has caught me by surprise and helps me more understand the stigma I've encountered and didn't understand. I really was clueless to what was behind certain things that were being said.

 

I'm not going to go back and respond to every comment and I'm not going to try and prove my opinions--which truthfully are not yet fully formed and static. I started this thread as prompt, rather than having an agenda of my own...other than maybe curiosity and boredom while stuck inside during a snowstorm.

 

I think this has been a good thread. I really appreciate the time people took to respond. Thank you! I really learned something.

[Hannah]

This has been a very educational thread for me. I had no idea of some of the assumptions and prejudices some wealthier moms have about lower income moms. I always knew that lower income moms were sometimes thought of as lazy and negligent, but I never knew that there was an underlying assumption that that they were also likely to be abusive and sneaky, and scheming to purposely hold their children back.

 

 

 

Hunter, I'm afraid I don't know where you saw this?

Besides the example where the mother held her children back (and the poster specifically stated that they were not lower income), the other posts were about a lack of knowledge, rather than wilfullness to hold children back.

 

What I’ve taken away from this post is that aspirations are about what one knows is possible. If you can't conceive it, you can't dream it.

 

I think at this point in history, the internet is levelling the playing field on what we can conceive and therefore aspire to. My children are getting a way better education than I did (in spite of a university education), just because I have access to information about what an excellent education is.

I chanced upon a reference to "The Well-trained Mind" through reading a baby development forum 12 years ago and it changed the world for my children. I now know what is possible.

 

ETA: And there are probably people going, "If you think WTM is the be-all and end-all of an excellent eduction, you have NO idea" LOL, but it is way more than I every new before.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Hannah

[choirfarm]

I will be looking forward to your responses because I don't see any threads talkind about lower income scheming to hold their children back.. Are you sure you aren't letting something color your interpretations??? I know I think it is possible for anyone of any economic background to do anything they want. Many of my relatives have been dirt poor, rural people. You also need to define some of your points as in what makes people happy.. For my grandparents, living in the same house and simply made them happy. They lived lower middle class and wanted ot stay there

This has been a very educational thread for me. I had no idea of some of the assumptions and prejudices some wealthier moms have about lower income moms. I always knew that lower income moms were sometimes thought of as lazy and negligent, but I never knew that there was an underlying assumption that that they were also likely to be abusive and sneaky, and scheming to purposely hold their children back.

 

I have seen the behaviors described, exhibited by a couple dads, who were otherwise generally abusive and just thought of that as part of their general nastiness, and did not connect it in any way to their income levels.

 

I have seen tired moms with no imagination, but have never yet encountered a low income homeschool mom who I didn't believe was wanting the very best for her child, even if she wasn't able to gather the resources necessary to give it to them. Maybe I've just been naive :-0

 

This has caught me by surprise and helps me more understand the stigma I've encountered and didn't understand. I really was clueless to what was behind certain things that were being said.

 

I'm not going to go back and respond to every comment and I'm not going to try and prove my opinions--which truthfully are not yet fully formed and static. I started this thread as prompt, rather than having an agenda of my own...other than maybe curiosity and boredom while stuck inside during a snowstorm.

 

I think this has been a good thread. I really appreciate the time people took to respond. Thank you! I really learned something.

[beaners]

This has been a very educational thread for me. I had no idea of some of the assumptions and prejudices some wealthier moms have about lower income moms. I always knew that lower income moms were sometimes thought of as lazy and negligent, but I never knew that there was an underlying assumption that that they were also likely to be abusive and sneaky, and scheming to purposely hold their children back.

 

I have seen the behaviors described, exhibited by a couple dads, who were otherwise generally abusive and just thought of that as part of their general nastiness, and did not connect it in any way to their income levels.

 

I have seen tired moms with no imagination, but have never yet encountered a low income homeschool mom who I didn't believe was wanting the very best for her child, even if she wasn't able to gather the resources necessary to give it to them. Maybe I've just been naive :-0

 

This has caught me by surprise and helps me more understand the stigma I've encountered and didn't understand. I really was clueless to what was behind certain things that were being said.

 

I'm not going to go back and respond to every comment and I'm not going to try and prove my opinions--which truthfully are not yet fully formed and static. I started this thread as prompt, rather than having an agenda of my own...other than maybe curiosity and boredom while stuck inside during a snowstorm.

 

I think this has been a good thread. I really appreciate the time people took to respond. Thank you! I really learned something.

 

I know you said you don't feel like proving your statements, but would you mind giving some of us a general direction to look in and see where you drew these conclusions? Every time I see a statement like this, I wonder if I personally worded something poorly or one of my comments was misunderstood. If that was the case, I would like the chance to clear that up.

 

I didn't see anyone call parents abusive or sneaky, although I did personally say it was negligent for a parent to choose homeschooling if the children were worse off specifically because of that decision. We lost electricity and were without food when I was growing up, because one parent wanted to stay home instead of work. I was very blessed that my custody arrangement didn't have me living in that house all the time.

 

I spent a couple years living in Memphis, working crappy jobs and staying in weekly motels when I wasn't crashing on someone's couch. I made a lot of good friends, and was on good speaking terms with even more people. Almost everyone I know there was or is living in poverty. I saw mothers who did prevent their children from getting ahead of them, but they weren't homeschooling. I also saw good mothers who didn't know enough themselves to help their children.

 

I've lived in short-term poverty and around generational poverty, and I don't want my children to live in any kind of poverty. I'd prefer they have middle class values like investing, instead of some of the values some people think are necessary to survive in poverty. I have a friend whose disappearance remains unsolved partially because of no-snitching. Her husband had threatened to kill her and they were signing divorce papers the night she disappeared. I don't want my children to live within a culture where that is normal and acceptable.

 

I will stand by the fact that it is unacceptable to graduate a neuro-typical high school student who is unable to read and perform basic mathematical operations. Even if a local school is doing that, parents should not be. If that failing school is the local comparison, parents do need to do better than provide an equal education. Of course, if the conversation is about AP Calculus or Shakespeare, I don't think this is a concern.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Excellence and upward mobility are not necessarily the same thing. Neither is required to be tied to higher education or to the parents' income level or socio-economic status.

 

There are parents in the world that are unconcerned with their children pursuing excellence. There are many that actually put up road blocks to their children achieving academic or personal excellence.

 

There are also parents who don't want their children to be upwardly mobile. They think it is uppity of their children to expect more than what their parents could provide or they just don't care or they have come to think upward mobility isn't possible.

 

None of these attitudes need to be tied to the present income level of a parent.

 

Ultimately it comes down to how you view education. Is it strictly utilitarian and designed to meet a set of credentials tied to future expectations or is it something more?

 

Personally I believe that academic or personal excellence is a noble goal. When my children were just beginning their formal education I listened to another mother explain that the adults in her family didn't need higher education to get where they were and that she had no desire for her kids to have any serious higher education so she was designing their entire K-12 program so that they could avoid difficult and unpleasant subjects like Shakespeare, Algebra, higher level science courses, etc. because she thought they would never need this knowledge. In that moment I suddenly realized that I did have a strong opinion on the value of education. I knew that I viewed education as a lifelong pursuit that should be motivated by curiosity and a love of learning, that education doesn't need to be tied to higher education to be successful, and that if I don't prepare my kids for the highest possible level of success I will be removing opportunities rather than creating them. Ultimately this level of preparation could lead to personal satisfaction, academic successes, higher level education, and possibly upward mobility.

 

Do I hope my kids are "upwardly mobile"? I suppose I do-I hope they have far greater success in life than my husband and I-be that measured in educational accomplishments, income, career success, or personal satisfaction. I think that they day parents stop hoping and helping their kids strive for more than the previous generation we are in trouble. That is the sort of selflessness that needs to be part of parenting.

[regentrude]

I'm curious about folks who have experienced the western European model of education where kids get sorted out into different types of schools as teenagers. Does that sort of educational system change this conversation?

 

No, it does not change this aspect entirely.

In one sense, it is financially much easier to obtain a great education in, say, Germany, because students do not have to pay tuition at the university, and because the quality of the public high schools is much better, so that very few students attend private schools. If you pass the college prep high school finals (Abitur) with any kind of passing grades, you can get admitted into any university (except for a few subjects which are limited and where actual grades matter); so whether you attend a public high school or a private one has no effect on your university admission.

OTOH, it is true that the percentage of students from low-income families who attend (free!) college prep schools is significantly lower than from higher income families. Let me explain why:

Based on grades, the teacher recommends the student for the sort of school. In some states, the recommendation is binding; so grades are what matters. A student who makes the cut will go to college prep high school, no matter what his background. In other (most) states, parental wish overrules teacher recommendation. So, parents who push for their kids to go to college prep school will send them even if the teacher recommends otherwise.

Low income students can be disadvantaged in this process by two ways: often, the parents do not send them to these schools because for them, a university degree is not on the radar, since nobody in their family has ever gone to such a school or has a higher education.

They may also be disadvantaged when they are on the borderline of making the grade cut for the recommendation. The teacher will typically decide to recommend the kid if he thinks that he can succeed at the college prep school with strong support of educated parents. At the same time, he will recommend against sending a kid who does not have the support at home to be likely successful. (This is an actual problem only in states where teacher recommendation is binding; in others parents could overrule. Only, most low-income families would not override teacher recommendations at all.)

 

It should be noted that any person who does not attend a college prep high school can still finish the respective degree, either by doing a three year program after 10th grade of the non-college prep high school (my niece did this), or by taking night classes, or by self study and external examination. So, technically, anybody who is intellectually capable still can go to university (passing the exam guarantees entrance).

Edited January 22, 2012 by regentrude

[TracyP]

You'd have to show me multiple peer-reviewed scientific studies to prove this to me. I lived in Western Europe and this was not my experience at all.

 

And I think maybe upward mobility needs to be defined here. It could mean several different things. I'm not sure I really understand what you're asking, though.

 

The statistics on upward mobility in the US have been all over the news over the last two weeks. I listened to them dig a little deeper on NPR, and they came to the conclusion that it depended on where you started. Basically, the lower your income, the less your chances for upward mobility. The hard question is...WHY?

 

 

 

I grew up hearing that you need to do what you love and be excellent at it. My grandpa said again and again, "I don't care if you want to be a garbage truck driver, you be the best darn garbage truck driver there has ever been." (BTW, my grandpa is the son of a lumberjack/farmer. He married at 18 and had a child (my dad) 6 mos later.;) He put himself through college and ended up w/ degrees in both engineering and business. He and his 4 siblings are all very educated and wealthy.) My dad actually moved down the economic ladder. He chose to be a farmer and small business owner. He is couldn't be happier, and he couldn't care less about upward mobility.

 

BUT, if you are living in poverty then upward mobility is important. OP, are you suggesting that some people should just accept the fact that they will never be better off than they are now? That they should just give up and learn to be happy where they are? I do not think that a 4 year college should be the end goal for everyone, but there is no way I will shut that door by offering a less rigorous education. That is a horribly bad idea, IMO. I do not think there has been so drastic a change in the last 50 years that upward mobility is no longer possible. SOMETHING has changed, there is no doubt. I hope that "something" is not that a certain segment of the population has given up.

 

I will also add that *my* economic status has not changed since childhood. I remain in the middle class. My husband's economic status has drastically improved. He grew up with single mom living on food stamps and disability. After we met, I encouraged him to reach for more. He decided to go to college to be an electrician. He got up at 3:30 every morning to go to work on a turkey farm and then went to school. He went back to work after school for another 3-4 hours and also worked weekends. He loves what he does and he is very good at it. It is not easy, but that does not mean that a person should not try.

[kubiac]

I think it's important to practice excellence. Literally, get practice doing routine things to the highest level of your ability. In school, we can help our kids with practicing excellence in writing and math, etc. As parents, we can help our kids practice being excellent humans and friends and citizens. If they have practice being excellent while they are children, they should be able to carry that over to being adults who add value to the company they work for, or simply add value their local communities. And building value should, by all rights, be rewarded in our current capitalist system.

[mamajag]

I don't think a 4-year college education can be the default much longer. My husband works in the oilfield in a position that doesn't require a degree of any sort. We will clear 6 figures for the first time this year. A few years ago he had decided he wanted to pursue a business degree in order to get into the managerial side of his industry. He completed his associates but stopped after that because his friends on the managerial side were topping out at less that 65k and worked nearly around the clock. At the time he was making that and had 6 months of the year off (not at the same time as he was on a 2 week rotation). Some of these people had Master's degrees and massive student loans. We have been told on quite a few occasions that DH doesn't deserve that pay as it isn't a job that requires education.

 

He is a production operator in the oilfield and has worked in the Gulf of Mexico and is currently in North Dakota. His job requires a huge knowledge base, but it isn't something that translates easily into a 4-year degree. The most successful people in these positions have mechanical and computer skills and are strong in math and were trained hands on in the field in a very sink or swim manner.

 

DH and I both come from lower income families. He scored a 20 on his ACT the same year I took it in 7th grade and got the same score. I am a SAHM dedicated to educating my children for the sake of them being educated and informed and able to think for themselves. Whether that leads to a prestigious job and lots of money or just a career they love that makes ends meet makes no difference to me. I want them to have a happy, successful life by whatever means they judge that by.

[Rosie_0801]

OP, are you suggesting that some people should just accept the fact that they will never be better off than they are now? That they should just give up and learn to be happy where they are? I do not think that a 4 year college should be the end goal for everyone, but there is no way I will shut that door by offering a less rigorous education.

 

I thought she was being more practical. If a teenager can't find a job and their not so supportive (for whatever reason) parents haven't a lot of money, the best plan is probably to do a cc course and get financially independent as quickly as possible. When they are employed, they can move out and save for a car so they can actually get to college, if that is their dream. As evidence by the anecdotes, one doesn't miss the window of opportunity by not going straight from high school to college. Sometimes there are very good reasons to make detours. If someone who wants to attend college graduates high school so poorly prepared they can't pass the entrance exams, they will keep working until they can. It's the long road, but is obviously possible. I don't think this is about accepting that you are in the lower socio-economic bracket in a "suck it up, Princess" kind of way so much as accepting that you are going to have to take the long road, so nose to the grindstone and keep working until you get there.

 

Rosie

[TracyP]

I thought she was being more practical. If a teenager can't find a job and their not so supportive (for whatever reason) parents haven't a lot of money, the best plan is probably to do a cc course and get financially independent as quickly as possible. When they are employed, they can move out and save for a car so they can actually get to college, if that is their dream. As evidence by the anecdotes, one doesn't miss the window of opportunity by not going straight from high school to college. Sometimes there are very good reasons to make detours. If someone who wants to attend college graduates high school so poorly prepared they can't pass the entrance exams, they will keep working until they can. It's the long road, but is obviously possible. I don't think this is about accepting that you are in the lower socio-economic bracket in a "suck it up, Princess" kind of way so much as accepting that you are going to have to take the long road, so nose to the grindstone and keep working until you get there.

 

Rosie

 

Rosie, I agree with what you are saying here and I don't think all students need to or should take the "standard 4 yr college" path. My initial reaction to the OP's original post was actually agreement. What I disagree with is comments like this:

 

 

Can/should lower income families gear their studies towards what will be most likely to enrich their lives? Should they slow down a little and smell the roses and cover the basic a little better, if they are freed from having to rush towards AP exams that statistically have less chance of being needed? Is it wrong to set different goals for lower income students? Is it being a good mom to force a child to prepare for a life in a different sub society than they live in, and statistically have little chance of entering, just in case they are one of the rare individuals to break out, and that everyone wants to pretend is the norm?

 

 

 

I think the goal for every student should be to reach their fullest potential. I do not think this changes with income level. Every student should be allowed to develop and follow their interests. Not every child will shoot for calculus in high school. What I hear Hunter saying in the words that I bolded is that maybe we should stop filling our kids' heads with this b.s. that someday you can improve your life and climb up the economic ladder. Maybe that is not what she means, but I have seen this line of thinking. Some people really think you should just accept that you were born as one of the "have nots" and leave it be. I don't agree, and I worry that this way of thinking may be at least one source of the problem.

[Hunter]

I just watched sil, a college educated person whose family makes over $100k/yr, force one of her children to turn down his merit scholarship. She doesn't want him to move away from home nor will she invest a cent in his education - not even his SS bennie check. He doesn't have the start up funds to get to the college and find a job, even if he wanted to have his mother not speak to him .His sibs were allowed to go to CC. One was not allowed to take any job after earning his two year degree that was in line with his degree except a state union job (state's not hiring) - until his uncle took him to the side, told him that if he wanted out of poverty he needed to get his resume together and grow a set. This kid now has an excellent job where he can grow technically or move in to management, with benefits, after doing what his mama wanted him to do with a $9/hr part time job with no bennies while waiting for state hiring to open up. That slowed his life down and limited his possibilities considerably. So, no I don't think it's right to force a child to limit his education, especially when the parents have the money or the child is awarded scholarships. Lack of education closes many doors. Having an education opens doors to opportunities.

 

Hmmm... I misread this :-( I now see that this was NOT about a low income family. Maybe I misread some of the others :-0 I don't really have time to go back and reread everything, so I'm just going to assume I've misread all the posts like this one :-0

 

TracyP, my QUESTIONS were prompts, not comments. Can a question be disagreed with?

 

Yes, despite my attempts to ask questions, I think that my opinion that ALL low income homeschooling students shouldn't be EXPECTED to take AP courses, as the ONLY acceptable way to do high school, showed through. I think people think I have stronger opinions than I do though.

 

I was far more interested in setting up a conversation for everyone, than being such a key player in it. I think this is a sensitive subject that kind of brings a knee-jerk reaction in some of us, huh? Interesting, but triggering. I have found myself feeling very reactive and have seen myself and others misunderstand quickly read posts.

 

I've been testy, even though I was seriously trying not to be. I'm sorry.

[choirfarm]

 

Yes, despite my attempts to ask questions, I think that my opinion that ALL low income homeschooling students shouldn't be EXPECTED to take AP courses, as the ONLY acceptable way to do high school, showed through. I think people think I have stronger opinions than I do though.

 

 

Now this is different than what I thought you were asking. NO.. not everyone should take AP courses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not wealthy, poor or everyone in between. The lower income families that I talked about earlier, had their children go to our local cc. Is it the most rigorous?? NO, but they took enough dual credit that they graduated with a high school diploma AND an AA degree. It only costs 20 dollars an hour to take a dual credit class at our local cc. Then they stay at home and go to UT Tyler or Stephen F or somewhere. They work as well. They get a decent education. They don't go in debt to get it.. That is a GREAT education. It will help them in life!!!

 

You were asking if they should shoot for excellence. I don't think AP is the end all be all of excellence!!!!! That is a completely different question. I agree with you on that point!!

[Bluegoat]

I was in the middle of typing out my previous post while you posted this.

 

I mentioned that my husband is having health problems from his job. He does not have a college degree. He had a 35 ACT, but he didn't finish all of his credits for his degree. It's hard to work forever in a field that doesn't require a degree. It's usually very hard on you physically. It doesn't make someone with a degree "better," but it does give them more and different options that you appreciate when they aren't available.

 

It isn't about living in a subdivision in the nicest part of town. It's about being able to get a decent paying job at Target (managers must have a degree!) or being able to get a customer service line job at an insurance firm (no degree? resume gets tossed.) if something happens to you or your current line of work. No matter what other skills you have, no matter how self-sufficient you may be, you still have to pay taxes on the land that feeds you.

 

It's not. However, most folks without a college degree aren't making a decent living as a skilled tradesman. They're working for minimum wage or just above in a low-skill service job.

 

The largest occupations in the U.S. are: retail cashier, office clerk/administrative assistant, food preparation & serving, janitors and cleaners, customer service representatives, health aides and attendants, and registered nurses. Aside from the R.N.'s (who require at least an Associate's if not a Bachelor's these days), none had an average wage above the overall national median of $21/hr.

 

While I think everyone who puts in an honest day's work deserves respect, those aren't the kind of jobs I hope my children will have as adults. Too little pay, autonomy, and career advancement potential.

 

 

I have a significant number of university educated professionals, and tradesmen in my family, as well as the simply uneducated. I think people looking for upward mobility are sometimes a little off on what the advantages of those kinds of jobs are.

 

It hasn't really been my experience that a university degree in regularly better than a trade as far as making a living. In general, I've seen people with very specific kinds of university education do well - nursing, proffesional degrees, accountants. In the case of profesional degrees, that means usually doing a four year degree first, plus at least two more. And then in many other areas (social work say), one needs a masters level or even higher to get a job - my husband with a Bsc in science was largely unemployable, it was only by spending 20 years in the army (physically hard work often in a high-stress environment) that he got particular skills that got him a civil service job.

 

Most people I know with just a BA or BSc have not had an easy time getting a job - they are working in cafes, retail, and service industry jobs, trying to pay off their debt. This is even true of many I know with graduate degrees.

 

In a lot of cases, the cost for university education to the competitive level is so high that anyone who earns a trade will be more able to save for retirement than those with just a degree.

 

On the other hand the people I know with trades have spent two years at community college and then began to work to get papers, and usually making decent money and owing little. And within a few years they were making more money than many with a degree. Many are in a position to be self-employed. And they are also able to save for retirement, and often have more choice about where they live.

 

The physicality can be an issue in some jobs, but I am not sure that it isn't the case university type jobs as well. Medical types have seriously physical jobs. My laywer friends, even as partners, have long hours with very high stress jobs. (One I go to church with often comes Sunday mornings from the office, and returns there after the service is done.) My step-dad, a GP in that high earning part of his life, works over 70 hours a week in a high stress job. My friends in academia are hugely stressed trying to publish enough to get tenure and don't get to spend much time with their young families (and the money is not great).

 

Now, these people are all really dedicated to and love what they do, but it takes a toll for sure, including physically.

 

Even my dh, who is a civil servant, spends half the year on a remote island and is always wondering if job cuts will mean him. We are very much dependent on what government happens to be doing.

 

Those without any sort of degree or qualification often have trouble getting by in a good job, though even then not always if they want to create their own job. That isn't the same as a trade vs a university degree though.