I grew up working class and I wear cotton tank tops under my blouses; I do not know what a shell is. Tressie's points are great, but I'd love to see more exploration of the handicap those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds face when trying to acclimate to white-collar jobs.
Once I am done with it (since I probably shouldn't write about it before that), I will send you the story of me suing my landlady over this sort of thing (plus other stuff).
This article is well-intentioned and I fully support hammering home EVERY EFFECT the shutdown has, but I couldn't help but think that it'd be nice to hear more stories of people who have been affected by, say, the cutoff of WIC; many of whom are low-wage private industry workers.
hahahahaha yeah, move to Boston, paying nearly NYC rents to live in a city 1/10th the size isn't insane. /bitter
I actually don't wildly disagree with her advice, but nothing can stop me from making the easy joke that Slate writers are capable of trolling any topic at this point.
@stuffisthings I like a lot of these suggestions. Stripping protection from non-federal loans would likely shrink the availability of those loans, but the easy availability of private loans is part of why tuition is sky-high. As you allude to, it's also important to note only PRIVATE higher ed has had really insane tuition rises; most of the increase in public higher ed tuition is due to the loss of state funding, not actual expenditure increases.
@highjump well I'm sure their adjuncts were WORKING full-time, whether or not they were paid like it.
@3jane One more thing - I think it would lead to better outcomes if we rewarded schools for adopting need-blind admissions policies and/or using institutional grants to close the gap between scholarships/federal aid rather than expecting students to take out private loans.
Higher ed worker here. I'm with Cowen, and would add: 1) Schools already try to ensure that students end up at a school that is appropriate for their abilities: it's called the admissions process. If the admissions process is failing, look at the primary and secondary education system first. 2) Historically, colleges have not been about getting people jobs making lots of money (how useful was YOUR career services office?). That's a useful side effect of prestigious institutions, but it's not really any school's main mission. I'm perturbed by the suggestion that we should suddenly judge a college on a metric we've NEVER measured them on and what the effects might be. I mean, what are schools going to do? Force companies to interview their graduates? 3) As Cowen says, I'm not sure what problem this is fixing. I might argue that we're blaming colleges for employment problems that aren't necessarily colleges' fault (unless you think colleges should be forcing everyone to major in software engineering). 4) The gaming of these rankings will be OUTRAGEOUS. The US News & World Report rankings--which have no incentives beyond prestige and increasing/improving applicant pools--are gamed to a hilarious degree. 5) The third plank, again, sounds like a great idea, but Cowen makes a great point about it leading to enrollment of students who aren't adequately prepared for the level of rigor at the institution. I haven't looked at this deeply, but my instinct questions the idea that schools are currently disincentivized from admitting Pell-eligible students anyway? If a student is truly a "get" for the school and is Pell-eligible, the financial grants they are offered will reflect that (that's how I went to college). In my opinion, we need to acknowledge that not everyone will or SHOULD go to college and look at providing low-skill/education work that people can survive on. We are a service economy now, so this means that work will be in services and retail, not manufacturing (as it used to be). Raise the minimum wage.
@Bill Fostex are mammoths an NFL thing or a Christmas thing?