- #1
jobyts
- 227
- 64
I found this one interesting:
http://nextshark.com/one-comic-perfectly-sums-up-class-differences-in-society/
http://nextshark.com/one-comic-perfectly-sums-up-class-differences-in-society/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/o...o-survive-the-college-admissions-madness.htmlAll should hear and heed the stories of Peter Hart and Jenna Leahy.
Peter didn’t try for the Ivy League. That wasn’t the kind of student he’d been at New Trier High School, in an affluent Chicago suburb. Most of its graduating seniors go on to higher education, and most know, from where they stand among their peers, what sort of college they can hope to attend. A friend of Peter’s was ranked near the summit of their class; she set her sights on Yale — and ended up there. Peter was ranked in the top third, and aimed for the University of Michigan or maybe the special undergraduate business school at the University of Illinois.
Both rejected him.
He went to Indiana University instead...
Upon graduation, he took a plum job in the Chicago office of the Boston Consulting Group, where he recognized one of the other new hires: the friend from New Trier who’d gone to Yale. Traveling a more gilded path, she’d arrived at the same destination. [emphasis added]
russ_watters said:1. The lack of symetry between the two "dad" scenes (why was only the poor one sick?) felt manipulative.
3. "Paula's house is full of people and not much else"...except a flat-screen TV. "It's damp"? Damp? Really?
4. My first thought after reading this was "what did she do wrong that she ended up with a job as a waitress after getting a degree from 'polytech'?" Does "polytech" offer a degree in Art History?
After a while thinking about the message and finding it vaguely whiney/annoying ("class"? really?),
So I guess the main thing I dislike about this is the sense of futility and worse, that people think that it's ok think it is ok to be a failure. It's not. It's not ok to be a failure and its not ok to accept thinking like a failure.
But not enough that it should matter here -- unless since this is a cartoon it is ok to exaggerate. Assuming your first link's claim of a 25% difference is controlled for other factors/life choices (seems unlikely, but don't feel like looking into it more), the girl's father should be in his early to mid 50s when she's graduating from college and his average life expectancy is about 67.QuantumCurt said:Socioeconomic class has been pretty closely tied to overall health and life expectancy.
But to the girl's father, not to her.Less access to medical care, aside from just the stress, is a significant contributor here as well.
You probably can't buy a CRT unless it's 2nd hand, but you miss the point: the point is that the cartoon is being manipulative and dishonest when in one frame it shows the girl sitting on a bare floor in an empty room whereas in the other she's sitting on a couch, watching TV. They directly contradict each other: only one can be true.I could go buy a flat screen TV down the street at Dollar General for less than $100 right now. Specifying it as a 'flat screen' seems to suggest a greater expense, but this distinction is needless. All TV's are flat screens today. I wouldn't even know where to go to get a CRT TV.
What does any of that have to do with what kind of job she got after she graduated? Having parental financial support means having less debt when you graduate, but has nothing to do with why she's waiting tables instead of working an STEM job.It's not necessarily that she did anything wrong as such. When a student has access to a much greater source of financial support in their parents, the immediacy of looming student loan debt is less crucial. Paula may not have any type of outside support from her family. Richard has a much easier time of receiving financial support from outside institutions as well because the lender realizes that a wealthier family is a better bet for a loan client.
I am indeed. "Class" in the US is arbitrary/bastardized - mostly a myth. Like "poor" and "homeless". As the issue disappeared, the definition had to be adjusted over time to keep the word relevant and today it bears no resemblance to what it used to mean. Know any Indian-Americans? Ask one if they think "class" exists in the US.I hope you aren't trying to suggest that class stratification such as this doesn't exist in the US.
I say Paula is a failure. She apparently graduated from a technical university and is waiting tables instead of working a $60,000 STEM job. That's failure. And presuming that if there was any societal or bad-luck reason for her failure it would be shown in the cartoon, I am left to conclude that it was her fault.Who says that Paula is a failure? Perhaps she's simply doing the best that she can with the resources that are available to her.
The word "class" is meaningless, so I'll rephrase: parents pass things onto their kids. Money. Knowledge. Attitude. These things can either help their kids or hurt them. Based on this cartoon - and I agree, the most important thing separating people is attitude.It really is not a mystery that the upper class in the US has a significantly greater leg up on the lower classes.
Don't confuse the fact that something doesn't happen with a conclusion that it can't. The US is a free society and as such, there simply are no actual barriers to mobility. The problem in the US that creates the lack of mobility is cultural. It's the attitude.That's why the socioeconomic system in the US is so incredibly immobile. It's hard to jump from a lower class to an upper class, and rarely actually happens.
russ_watters said:But not enough that it should matter here -- unless since this is a cartoon it is ok to exaggerate. Assuming your first link's claim of a 25% difference is controlled for other factors/life choices (seems unlikely, but don't feel like looking into it more), the girl's father should be in his early to mid 50s when she's graduating from college and his average life expectancy is about 67.
And perhaps more to the point, there should not be much of a correllation between the sick parent and the kid's success/failure. I dated that girl as well (old dad married young mom, dad died when she was in college) and she turned-out fine as well.
But to the girl's father, not to her.
You probably can't buy a CRT unless it's 2nd hand, but you miss the point: the point is that the cartoon is being manipulative and dishonest when in one frame it shows the girl sitting on a bare floor in an empty room whereas in the other she's sitting on a couch, watching TV. They directly contradict each other: only one can be true.
What does any of that have to do with what kind of job she got after she graduated? Having parental financial support means having less debt when you graduate, but has nothing to do with why she's waiting tables instead of working an STEM job.
I am indeed. "Class" in the US is arbitrary/bastardized - mostly a myth. Like "poor" and "homeless". As the issue disappeared, the definition had to be adjusted over time to keep the word relevant and today it bears no resemblance to what it used to mean. Know any Indian-Americans? Ask one if they think "class" exists in the US.
Don't confuse the fact that something doesn't happen with a conclusion that it can't. The US is a free society and as such, there simply are no actual barriers to mobility. The problem in the US that creates the lack of mobility is cultural. It's the attitude.
Again: not enough that it should matter here. In order for this cartoon to be meaningful it has to be showing typical/common situations. Otherwise, I could just as easily re-write it to show the rich kid getting hit by a bus in the last frame.QuantumCurt said:These are all issues that would very easily affect a kid.
Exactly: So if that's the other side of the coin, they should show it that way.If Richard's parents were sick (because it turns out that rich people do occasionally get sick too), they're likely to be able to afford professional care. Richard probably won't have to take time away from school to care for them.
"Many", "more likely". How many?(I'll provide, later) Again, if this cartoon is intended to be a commentary on a social reality, it needs to accurately reflect the typical reality.There are many college grads that are unemployed after college, and this isn't in any sense exclusive to the lower classes. I will add that many previous points can be tied in here - Richard is more likely to have gotten connections for obtaining good internships and research experiences.
Agreed. One of the issues I always see with these types of commentaries is the idea of "fairness", though. Richard gets a foot in the door because of his dad. Is that unfair? Would it be more fair to find a way to deny Richard's parents the freedom to help their kids? And does that present a barrier to Paula's success? Why can't we ignore Richard completely here and focus on Paula and the reasons why she failed?If Richard is studying engineering and Dad is a respected engineer at a top firm, Richard basically has a foot already in the door. This internship is going to look great on his future applications. Paula isn't so likely to have had this 'foot in the door' opportunity that Richard had. That being said, there are many internships available that don't require having an 'in' of any kind. I'm doing an internship at Fermilab this summer, and neither of my parents even have college degrees.
Fairy tales are fairy tales and they aren't a counter-point here. We're supposed to be talking about whether this cartoon reflects reality, not whether some other untold stories do.People in the US grow up constantly being told that they can do anything they want to do, and are surrounded by rags to riches type stories, that almost never reflect reality.
I can't be bothered with such issues. I can't imagine why i would care how rich people treat other rich people. What matters to me is figuring out how Paula could have taken a path that usually leads to success and right when she got to the end, she failed.In principle it is entirely possible for someone to come from nothing and hit it big...
They come into a lot of wealth and become 'New Money.' The problem is that this isn't really enough to consider them as upper class. The upper class isn't the people with the most monetary wealth, it's the people with the most power and prestige.
An attitude needs to be more than just "positive", it needs to be "good". It needs to be focused and pointed in a direction that leads to success. If Paula took a "positive attitude" into art school, her odds of success were very low because she made a stupid decision. Maybe you consider those two different things, but I consider them two parts of the same thing.There are countless examples of people who have worked their asses off for their entire life and had a very positive attitude the whole way through. And yet the vast majority of these people have never achieved the upward mobility embodied by the "American Dream." Attitude counts for a lot, but it certainly is not everything.
Regardless of the specific reason, the point of my annoyance is due to the fact that if this cartoon is supposed to present social commentary, it should accurately reflect the typical situation. Graduating from college, even if not with an STEM degree provides a near certain path out of poverty. Here's the reality:That could very easily be why she's waiting tables.
I'm not so sure that's what was intended: the loan frames were shown side-by-side and his parents paid for his college, so what does he need a loan for if not for a house? And since it was already established that she was paying for college via loans/a job, there was no need to apply for something she already had.Bandersnatch said:The cartoon suggests that she didn't finish her college due to having to look after an ailing parent/not being able to secure a loan to continue her studies without parental financial support.
In the US, kids with wealthy parents are ineligible for many loans and grants, this hurt my kids when they applied for loans.Bandersnatch said:The cartoon suggests that she didn't finish her college due to having to look after an ailing parent/not being able to secure a loan to continue her studies without parental financial support.
russ_watters said:I say Paula is a failure. She apparently graduated from a technical university and is waiting tables instead of working a $60,000 STEM job. That's failure. And presuming that if there was any societal or bad-luck reason for her failure it would be shown in the cartoon, I am left to conclude that it was her fault.
russ_watters said:I am indeed. "Class" in the US is arbitrary/bastardized - mostly a myth. Like "poor" and "homeless".
I'm sure they do, but the average starting STEM salary is $66k, not $60k (again: US numbers). Yes, I pulled $60k out of the air and was wrong low. My bad.Ben Niehoff said:You think entry-level STEM jobs exist that pay $60k? haha
Frankly, that's another pretty stupid part of the cartoon. Who is throwing him a black-tie party? For what? Who does stuff like that?But what the cartoon is really about is the fact that society is congratulating Richard and patting him on the back for his accomplishments, when in reality he had so much handed to him...
Again, I don't think people do that and I most certainly am not. I'm simply looking for a plausiable explanation for her failure, given that she appears to have failed right at the end of her journey when it looks like she should have succeeded....while at the same time being quite judgmental of Paula, casting a moral judgment on her character due to her economic situation. Even you are doing it.
Specifically, the definitions/statistics are twisted to make the numbers look much, much larger than they really are based on more logical/traditional definitions. The problem with "poor" is worse in Europe than in the US, for example. In the US at least we use an absolute standard (though we change it yearly for an ever-increasing standard of living). In Europe it is a fixed fraction of median income, which means "poor" is defined in terms of equality not in terms of living conditions. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what the word "poor" actually means.Ben Niehoff said:I'm very curious what you mean by this. Do you think homeless people don't exist? Or poor people? What do you mean?
Please explain: what is "the class system"? How do I measure a person's "class"? What implications are there for being in one "class" or another?jobyts said:More than the fact the the class system exists...
russ_watters said:I see you didn't ask me about my problem with "class". Are we agreed that that one is completely arbitrary/useless/meaningless?
russ_watters said:I'm sure they do, but the average starting STEM salary is $66k, not $60k (again: US numbers). Yes, I pulled $60k out of the air and was wrong low. My bad.
http://www.burning-glass.com/research/stem/
Again, I don't think people do that and I most certainly am not. I'm simply looking for a plausiable explanation for her failure, given that she appears to have failed right at the end of her journey when it looks like she should have succeeded.
russ_watters said:Specifically, the definitions/statistics are twisted to make the numbers look much, much larger than they really are based on more logical/traditional definitions. The problem with "poor" is worse in Europe than in the US, for example. In the US at least we use an absolute standard (though we change it yearly for an ever-increasing standard of living). In Europe it is a fixed fraction of median income, which means "poor" is defined in terms of equality not in terms of living conditions. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what the word "poor" actually means.
For "homeless", there are several different measures, some more useful than others. It is common to count "homeless" throughout a year, which vastly overstates the issue because it is often a very temporary thing. It also includes people who are temporarily in transition, like a buddy of mine who planned an apartment transition poorly and had to live with friends for a couple of weeks.
Another one I don't like is "food insecure". But we need that one to measure a hunger problem when hunger doesn't actually exist at any measurable level.
I thought I was pretty clear in saying I don't think it exists/means anything. That's why I'm asking those who think it exists/means something what they think it means. I can't very well define a concept I don't think exists and I don't think it is unreasonable to ask people to define a word they are using!Ben Niehoff said:To me it seems clear that you are defining "class" differently that what most people mean by it. What do you think "class" means?
Because doctors and researchers are STEM.Ben Niehoff said:Huh? Why have they thrown the entire healthcare industry in with STEM in this study?
You are very badly mistaken.When I was in college, the higher-ups in the engineering school frequently told us that our engineering degrees would earn us starting salaries of $60k+. Not for all engineering degrees, but certainly for computer engineering, which is what I did. It turns out my school was woefully out of touch, and was over-selling the value of their degrees. I'm pretty sure the only entry-level engineering jobs paying over $60k are for petroleum engineers.
Yes, and? I still haven't gotten an answer!You're calling her a "failure" simply for having a waitressing job, and you're asking (in bold print!) what she must have "done wrong" to end up in that situation.
And that fits your definition of "success"?Even if we do assume that she has graduated with some technical degree, maybe she wasn't able to find a job in her field in a reasonable amount of time?
All possibilities. That's why I asked!Maybe her sick father is preventing her from moving across the country for a job. Maybe she doesn't have the resources to wait around for months for the "perfect" job offer, and has to take something in order to put food on the table.
Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't: again, that's why I asked. Also, I suggested that logically if society or luck caused it, the cartoon probably would have explicitly said it. But either way, it is possible (better, even), to examine typical reasons.The fact that she has had to make practical choices and choose her battles does not make her a "failure" and certainly doesn't mean she "did something wrong".
Now you are putting words (meanings) in my mouth I didn't say. I never suggested she's a failure at life, just a failure at realizing the typical outcome of her situation (a STEM student).Presumably she's still in the prime of her life...it seems absurd to be calling her a "failure".
russ_watters said:But now we need to define what it means to fail. I define a failure in that situation as and end result that is far below the typical result for that situation. How would you define success/failure there?
These questions and their answers are not personal: I'm not saying she's a failure as a person, just a failure as an STEM student.
...
Now you are putting words (meanings) in my mouth I didn't say. I never suggested she's a failure at life, just a failure at realizing the typical outcome of her situation (a STEM student).
russ_watters said:I thought I was pretty clear in saying I don't think it exists/means anything. That's why I'm asking those who think it exists/means something what they think it means. I can't very well define a concept I don't think exists and I don't think it is unreasonable to ask people to define a word they are using!
And IMO that's a product of coddling kids too much, giving them all praise and "participation awards" for nothing and causing them to not understand what "success" and "failure" mean. Real life is harsh. If people don't set goals and then judge themselves pass/fail against those goals, ten years later they look back/up from a situation they don't like and wonder how they got there.Ben Niehoff said:I don't think "success vs. failure" is a reasonable way to look at life, precisely because it tends to attach moral judgments to people's economic status, and also tends to overlook circumstances beyond one's control. Plus it's a very black-and-white way of looking at things that obscures the reality of it. If someone gets a degree in field X and then makes a career at doing Y, are they a "success" or a "failure"?
I think it's also a recipe for making people depressed, if they are too concerned over whether they "succeeded" or "failed" at something, rather than looking at the bigger picture. I guess my point is I'm not overly concerned with "grading" people as though life were a standardized test.
Not only was that not the first usage, the context should be clear from literally every other sentence around it. By the same token, I'd appreciate if the default assumptions about my thoughts weren't so negative.Your original statement was that she was "a failure" (unqualified). So it is not unreasonable to interpret those words as stated. Surely you can correct miscommunications without becoming accusatory.
It isn't my thread or my choice to use the word. If someone asks in the physics section if time travel exists, the typical answer is "depends on what you mean by time travel".Ben Niehoff said:My thought here is that you need to make up your mind. Either there is a specific thing you have in mind which you think does not exist, or you're not sure what the word "class" means.
So you are saying there are no clear lines. There used to be and are in other countries that still have "classes".Similarly, "class" distinctions are not immutable bins that people fall into. But people who are widely separated can definitely see a difference.
russ_watters said:Terrible.
For the cartoon itself, I found a few quality issues:
1. The lack of symetry between the two "dad" scenes (why was only the poor one sick?) felt manipulative.
2. I realize the chronology was non-linear to enable the "punchline" to be last, but it makes less sense that way.
3. "Paula's house is full of people and not much else"...except a flat-screen TV. "It's damp"? Damp? Really?
4. My first thought after reading this was "what did she do wrong that she ended up with a job as a waitress after getting a degree from 'polytech'?" Does "polytech" offer a degree in Art History?
jobyts said:More than the fact the the class system exists or whether it is good/bad/ineviteable, the point the author trying to make is Richard's failure to realize the handouts he received in different stages of his life.
My journey was also non-typical and not too dissimilar to yours. So I certainly get that timelines can vary, but if I were to make a comic strip of my journey to adulthood, it wouldn't end with a shot of me chipping paint on the deck of a frigate at age 26, it would end with me sitting behind a desk at my first engineering job at age 27.BobG said:I think the point is that it's harder for low income people to complete their degrees - with the main factor being time. If you're working full time, it's going to be extremely difficult to complete a STEM degree as quickly as a person that can devote all of their time to being a full time student. And it's that extended time that gives one the opportunity to experience extra outside challenges (with a sick parent being a lot more sympathetic example than "getting knocked up and becoming a single parent working full time and trying to complete a degree part time"). What the outside challenge is is beside the point. There will be more of them the longer one spends as a full time worker/part time student.
It can be very non-linear. I spent 20 years in the Air Force. Many military personnel eventually get a degree. On top of taking fewer classes per semester and having their education disrupted by TDYs, deployments, remote assignments, etc, they have to complete more credit hours to get their degree than the average student...
Well,Tobias Funke said:That's my interpretation as well. It's a very straightforward cartoon and I don't see what all the fuss is about.
russ_watters said:Interestingly, clicking on the link to the whole strip now takes you to a comment from a reader who felt personally insulted by it: he started in the column on the right and ended in the column on the left because, according to him, his family "espoused hard work and high expectations" and didn't let those same sort of hardships get in the way of that.
russ_watters said:Well,
1. "Class" is still undefined.
2. If the cartoon is all about Richard, why bother putting Paula in it at all? If there is going to be contrast for the sake of contrast, it should represent some reality.
With the two issues above, if it is all about Richard, to me the cartoon doesn't say anything useful about anything. Its just a fictional story with no value. Are there Richards in the real world who don't realize how good they have it? Sure. Are there Richards who do? Definitely. So what?