Current Issue 

These articles are available to current subscribers only. To access the full article you will need to follow the link and then login on the site.

 If you are not a current Subscriber you can subscribe now:    

Click here to access:  Issue #217 July 2010  (Full Issue)

To view charts below please click on the chart.

Gini Indexes of Income Inequality for Workers, Families and Households 1947 to 2008		Gini Indexes of Income Inequality for White, Black and Hispanic Families, 1947 to 2008

Consequences of Inequaltiy, 1967 to 2007

Among the myths we are taught as Americans is that education is the great social equalizer. Education provides social mobility. Anyone can go to college. Et cetera ad nauseam.

In fact the data say that the opposite is true. Education as an industry is more appropriately described as the engine of social division. The sorting and "classification" processes of education are especially true of higher education. Colleges and universities flagrantly practice class-based selective admission. Many of these institutions even brag about what they do and they leave a public record in their wake.

Since the abandonment of progrssive social policy by federal and state governments around 1980, the "classification" processes of higher education have been unleashed with brutal vengeance. While there is evidence that K-12 has made progress in broadening educational opportunity and attainment across socio-economic classes, the opposite has been occurring in higher education for the last three decades.

• In 1970 a 24 year old born into the top family income quartile was 6.5 times more likely to have earned a bachelor's degree than was another 24 year old born into the bottom quartile of family income.
• In 1980 at the end of the progressive era a 24 year old born into the top quartile of family income was 5.2 times more likely to have completed a bachelor's degree than was another 24 year old born into the bottom quartile of family income.
• By 1990 a 24 year old from the top family income quartile was 7.7 times more likely to have a bachelor's degree than was a 24 year old from the bottom quartile.
• By 2000 a 24 year old from the top quartile was 8.7 times more likely to have a bachelor's degree than was another 24 year old from the bottom family income quartile.
• by 2008 the gap between the 24 year olds from the top and bottom family income quartiles was 8.1 times.

During the regressive policy era, from 1980 to present, our education system has increased bachelor's degree attainment by age 24:

• By 41.6 percentage points for 24 year olds from the top quartile of family income (above $107,000 in 2008),
• By 14.7 percentage points for 24 years olds from the third quartile of family income (between $67,000 and $107,000),
• By 7.4 percentage points for 24 year olds from the second quartile of family income (between $38,000 and $67,000),
• By 2.8 percentage points for 24 year olds from the bottom family income quartile (below $38,000).

Indeed regressive social policy has its beneficiaries--almost entirely for those from the highest income classes of inherited educational opportunity and class privilege. Regressive higher education policy is highly divisive.

To read more of this analysis: 

You can read the complete article by logging in as a subscriber. If you are not a subscriber we invite you to subscribe today.          

If you are not a current Subscriber you can subscribe now: