Is Poverty In America More A Choice Or A Condition?

[sj5 4]

Some people here in USA are just being lazy and not bothered being poor so they live in poverty lines..

[Nancy2015 2]

Condition.

[Fandango 1,439]

Sure - but a choice resulting from a perceived lack of alternative options. If we're being that ####### about the definition - the only people who truly make "no choices" whatsoever are lying in hospital coma wards

But how many choices are needed, really? One can choose to excel in school & go on to uni, study hard, get a good job.

One can screw around in school, enlist in community college & do well, then go to uni

One could get scholarships/grants or student loans if money is an issue.

One could enlist in the military.

One could go to trade school & become skilled in a labor field...you know how much a Mercedes mechanic gets? Actually, forget that...you know how much a good NAIL TECHNICIAN could make??? I worked through college at a chop shop (read: $12 fills with coupons), and at 17 years old, was filing income tax returns in excess of $40k. Doing nails! If you are good at a trade, you will never go hungry so long as you are willing to work & have the drive to be the best at what you do.

I know you said the word 'perceived' but I think that's splitting hairs a bit....there ARE options and choices out there and they are not hard to see. Whether or not someone perceives it differently is beyond anyone's control, really. We can't get to the point where now we're justifying someone's perception...especially when it's incorrect.

[peejay 327]

I haven't seen everything in life, but I have enough years under my belt to believe that almost no one wants to willingly live in poverty. That said, I have repeatedly watched people do things that defy logic or reason and through their own actions they end up living in poverty. In America today I believe that scenario is more the rule than the exception.

I have personally seen many more examples of squandered opportunities than I have seen cases of shear bad luck.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure - but a choice resulting from a perceived lack of alternative options. If we're being that ####### about the definition - the only people who truly make "no choices" whatsoever are lying in hospital coma wards

But how many choices are needed, really? One can choose to excel in school & go on to uni, study hard, get a good job.

One can screw around in school, enlist in community college & do well, then go to uni

One could get scholarships/grants or student loans if money is an issue.

One could enlist in the military.

One could go to trade school & become skilled in a labor field...you know how much a Mercedes mechanic gets? Actually, forget that...you know how much a good NAIL TECHNICIAN could make??? I worked through college at a chop shop (read: $12 fills with coupons), and at 17 years old, was filing income tax returns in excess of $40k. Doing nails! If you are good at a trade, you will never go hungry so long as you are willing to work & have the drive to be the best at what you do.

I know you said the word 'perceived' but I think that's splitting hairs a bit....there ARE options and choices out there and they are not hard to see. Whether or not someone perceives it differently is beyond anyone's control, really. We can't get to the point where now we're justifying someone's perception...especially when it's incorrect.

It depends what a person expects from life - those choices which are essentially defined and constrained by (yes) effort and hard work, but also by a person's general outlook.

What we're essentially talking about is whether poverty is the result of being the product of your background and upbringing. Clearly there are many successful people out there who started out with nothing, or less than nothing - people who fought against the odds and won. Those tend to be more the exception than the rule. Ultimately whatever a person does with their life is their responsibility - I don't deny that.

I might have mentioned this previously - but its interesting to me that some of the kids who join inner city gangs seem to be hardwired against the normal modes of achieving success (scorning the education system) and instead idolise gangster lifestyles (via hip-hop music etc) as "the only way that they can succeed". Insular modes of thinking are the problem there - but its hard to see how this can be overcome - especially as the distance between the extremely poor and even the moderately affluent seems to increase almost exponentially.

People build bars for their own cages, I guess is the point. As I said - its shares many of the characteristics with depression.

[Alex+R 0]

We just spent the day with my friend who teaches in the public schools of Oakland, CA in a particularly hard-luck area. She was telling me that anyone who thinks there is a level playing field for children in the US is just sadly misinformed. She asked (not verbatim), "how is a good kid who is really interested in learning going to be able to when 75% of our job here is to control the zoo of kids? How, when we're spending 25% of our time only to real teaching, is the kid supposed to filter out the noise of the other kids who don't care?"

She said she and other new teachers have good control over their students, but she is just completing her last day of school this week and she will not go back to teaching. She said most teachers in her school are just doing the minimum to get by because the pay doesn't reflect the work load and because they're tired. The average teacher burnout in her area is 2 years. She says these schools are awful, that soon you realize that you don't need to be doing this for 30,000 a year. She said the good teachers say "I don't need to scrub "F*** [last name]"off desks every day for the rest of my life" so they get better jobs in better districts or they quit teaching all together. Only the bad teachers who don't get spots in good districts are bounced back to the poor schools.

So these kids are stuck with the bay area's worst teachers (and some Teach for America volunteers like my friend) who can't control their classrooms. These kids are years behind their peers in things like reading and math.

How can you say a kid who graduates from that school is just as ready for the real world, as long as he "worked hard"? Not to mention that my friend said most of the kids won't be able to work hard because they have family obligations that prevent them from devoting themselves to their schoolwork.

This is just a perspective that a lot of people don't consider.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

About 40-50 years ago it used to be said in the UK that the 11 plus exam (which determined which secondary school you would get into after leaving primary school), effectively determined the course of the rest of your life. If you did well and got into the local grammar school you had a good shot at getting becoming a doctor, solicitor or other high-paid professional.

If you didn't - you were essentially condemned to the ranks of the low-wage "unskilled" work force.

I think they've since abolished that particular exam - but when I took it in 1988 my borderline case got me a place at a crappy comprehensive. I wasn't a slacker in school either - and I made the best I could of things at the comprehensive, but I've no doubt that I would have done (a lot) better academically had I got an extra % or 2 on that exam when I was 10/11.

But back in the days when people left school with GCE's (higher education being very much the exception) - an arbitrary exam in your final primary school year could essentially make or break you.

Edited June 13, 2007 by erekose

[homesick_american 1]

About 40-50 years ago it used to be said in the UK that the 11 plus exam (which determined which secondary school you would get into after leaving primary school), effectively determined the course of the rest of your life. If you did well and got into the local grammar school you had a good shot at getting becoming a doctor, solicitor or other high-paid professional.

If you didn't - you were essentially condemned to the ranks of the low-wage "unskilled" work force.

I think they've since abolished that particular exam - but when I took it in 1988 my borderline case got me a place at a crappy comprehensive. I wasn't a slacker in school either - and I made the best I could of things at the comprehensive, but I've no doubt that I would have done (a lot) better academically had I got an extra % or 2 on that exam when I was 10/11.

But back in the days when people left school with GCE's (higher education being very much the exception) - an arbitrary exam in your final primary school year could essentially make or break you.

My husband passed his 11+ and got to go to a grammar school. I shudder to think what could have happened to him if he had not. However, I don't agree that getting rid of them is the best way to go. I think the best and brightest should have access to what a grammar school has to offer...definitely.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

About 40-50 years ago it used to be said in the UK that the 11 plus exam (which determined which secondary school you would get into after leaving primary school), effectively determined the course of the rest of your life. If you did well and got into the local grammar school you had a good shot at getting becoming a doctor, solicitor or other high-paid professional.

If you didn't - you were essentially condemned to the ranks of the low-wage "unskilled" work force.

I think they've since abolished that particular exam - but when I took it in 1988 my borderline case got me a place at a crappy comprehensive. I wasn't a slacker in school either - and I made the best I could of things at the comprehensive, but I've no doubt that I would have done (a lot) better academically had I got an extra % or 2 on that exam when I was 10/11.

But back in the days when people left school with GCE's (higher education being very much the exception) - an arbitrary exam in your final primary school year could essentially make or break you.

My husband passed his 11+ and got to go to a grammar school. I shudder to think what could have happened to him if he had not. However, I don't agree that getting rid of them is the best way to go. I think the best and brightest should have access to what a grammar school has to offer...definitely.

Certainly we shouldn't encourage schools to become homogenous, standards-wise - but the issue with the 11 plus is whether a written exam (actually the first written exam I ever took in my life) at age 10-11 is a good test of someone's ability. I remember going into (and out of) that test with a sense of bewilderment over it - its not like with the GSCEs and A-Levels where the whole focus of your school year is (should be) cramming for your exams and learning the stuff that's going to be taught. As I recall (it was nearly 20 years ago) we had maybe 2 weeks prep time, if that.

The other side of it is that I lived with a half mile of the 2 grammar schools in our town - yet I was given a place at a school over 3 miles from my house. Got out of there with 6Bs, 2Cs and 1D - As I said, I wasn't a slacker either; and I honestly believe that my high school academic grades were negatively influenced by the school I was assigned on the basis of an arbitrary 30 minute test.

That didn't make as much of a difference to me as I was able to made up for it in higher education; but in my dad's generation that would have been much. As I said back then that test essentially determined your net income for the rest of your life.

Edited June 13, 2007 by erekose

[BJZags 17]

Certainly we shouldn't encourage schools to become homogenous, standards-wise . . .

Hmm . .sounds a bit like "no child left-behind" -- teach to the lowest common denominator. Institutional influences such as this are "conditions", but there is also a lot to say about "choices" that people make (i.e. stupid people making the same stupid decisions, but expecting better results). Only given the two choices, I'd have to put a hand in each pot to find the cause.

[homesick_american 1]

Certainly we shouldn't encourage schools to become homogenous, standards-wise - but the issue with the 11 plus is whether a written exam (actually the first written exam I ever took in my life) at age 10-11 is a good test of someone's ability. I remember going into (and out of) that test with a sense of bewilderment over it - its not like with the GSCEs and A-Levels where the whole focus of your school year is (should be) cramming for your exams and learning the stuff that's going to be taught. As I recall (it was nearly 20 years ago) we had maybe 2 weeks prep time, if that.

The other side of it is that I lived with a half mile of the 2 grammar schools in our town - yet I was given a place at a school over 3 miles from my house. Got out of there with 6Bs, 2Cs and 1D - As I said, I wasn't a slacker either; and I honestly believe that my high school academic grades were negatively influenced by the school I was assigned on the basis of an arbitrary 30 minute test.

That didn't make as much of a difference to me as I was able to made up for it in higher education; but in my dad's generation that would have been much. As I said back then that test essentially determined your net income for the rest of your life.

The 11+ is more of an intelligence test than anything, sort of like the old-style American SATs, which could be used in place of standard IQ exams to join Mensa. As far as I can tell it's not the kind of test you can really study for, but like the SAT you can be coached on test-taking strategies. Middle class children tend to perform better on the test than working class children, but that doesn't mean that the system should be done away with.

I think that perhaps children should have another opportunity to join a grammar school; the 11+ shouldn't be the only chance you get, but I cannot fault a system that gave my husband an education for free that would have cost tens of thousands of pounds at a private school. The real problem is not with the grammar schools but with the kids cast aside by the system; they seem to be thrown into comprehensives and ignored. Clearly this is not fair to them, but with such limited resources you have to prioritize the kids who are most likely to be helped by what you have to offer. This sucks for the kids who fall just short of the standard.

I'm assuming those grades are for your GCSE/O-levels and not your A-levels; the phenomenon of taking more than a handful of A-level exams seems to be more recent.

I don't know when you went to school but I don't know anyone here in the UK now who laments their position in life and says, "boy, I wish I'd aced my 11+!" My husband was born in the late 1960s so he encountered the UK state school system in the 1970s and early 1980s; he got his BSc in 1988. I DO know people who were born into poor working-class families who passed their 11+ exams, went on to uni, and have moved out of the working class and into the middle class. They credit the grammar school with giving them that social mobility.

We don't have a universal curriculum or a national exam in the USA, though education at the secondary level is pretty similar from state to state. We were lucky in Dallas to have the magnet school system, including what is acknowledged as one of the best...if not THE best...public high schools in the country. The most capable children are chosen from a massive pool of applicants and the school is kept as racially balanced as possible, so it is not 100% middle class white children. That's as close as we got in Dallas to a grammar school, but the Talented and Gifted magnet school (or TAG magnet) is an unmitigated success. Just think about what the 200 pupils there would face if we clung to outdated and frankly unfair ideas about 'equality'. There is really no such thing as equality in academics, since all children perform at different levels. Equality in the UK seems to mean throwing children together into comprehensives without any regard for academic ability. This is how things are mostly done in large US cities, and having gone to regular state schools I can say that the more academically-minded pupils did not benefit in the slightest from being put into classes with less academic pupils; all they did was take up the teacher's time and hold the rest of us back. Only in high school were we streamed and sorted into ability-appropriate courses, and it was then that a lot of "average" kids really began to shine.

I think if the UK gets rid of grammar schools and does not offer a similar alternative for the brightest pupils, it will be shooting itself in the foot. There is really no shame in streaming. Some kids will grow up to be lawyers, doctors, CEOs, scientists, etc. Some kids will not. I think it's society's responsibility to direct resources appropriately. I don't see the point in neglecting less able pupils, but equally there is no point in penalizing the bright students for being bright because you don't want to project an elitist image. The UK's obsession with equality is, quite frankly, frightening. This is not to say that the US system is not without its flaws. Clearly it is flawed on many levels...but getting rid of grammar schools and throwing all the kids together in the same building would make the UK system MORE like ours. The UK school system used to be clearly superior to the US system, though it has been slipping as of late to the point where it is only marginally, if at all, better. I think the UK is neglecting its brightest pupils in the interest of 'fairness' and I think this is having an effect on the country's academic achievement as a whole.

Sorry if this seems a bit schizophrenic, but I am a product of US state schools. Plus, it's nearly 11pm.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As with most of this type of assessment I think the importance placed on examinations is overly disproportionate - more of an emphasis should be given to coursework IMO. Having done enough examinations through HS, College and University to last a lifetime - I honestly don't believe that they are a fair test of a person's ability as so much relies on... for example, what side of bed you got out of in the morning; or if you are going into the exam hall crippled with allergies.

While I got out of my High School (in 1994) with respectable grades, I honestly believe I could (and would) have done much better in a different school and a more healthy learning environment. In that respect, the comprehensive wasn't the best environment for me, psychologically speaking.

[homesick_american 1]

As with most of this type of assessment I think the importance placed on examinations is overly disproportionate - more of an emphasis should be given to coursework IMO. Having done enough examinations through HS, College and University to last a lifetime - I honestly don't believe that they are a fair test of a person's ability as so much relies on... for example, what side of bed you got out of in the morning; or if you are going into the exam hall crippled with allergies.

While I got out of my High School (in 1994) with respectable grades, I honestly believe I could (and would) have done much better in a different school and a more healthy learning environment. In that respect, the comprehensive wasn't the best environment for me, psychologically speaking.

That's a whole other kettle of fish...I agree that British schoolchildren take a ridiculous number of exams. When I was a kid in Texas public schools, we took standardized tests to measure our progress but these were not given in the lower primary grades and were not given every year. In high school we had to take an exit exam in order to graduate but the test was so easy that nobody I knew gave it much thought after passing it in 10th grade, two full years before graduation. Some core subjects used standardized final exams in secondary school but some didn't, and since examination trends were so fleeting it never seemed to be the same year on year.

Since the US system is a baccalaureate system in (to my knowledge) all fifty states, standardized tests aren't as common as they are in the UK and qualifications in a single subject at the secondary level basically don't exist. University entrance exams like the SAT or the ACT are optional, as are all SAT-II exams, sometimes called "achievement tests", as they are taken only by university-bound students. AP tests are also optional and the scores can be assessed for university credit. I took three SAT-IIs and five AP exams as a high school senior but I took more tests than the average student. A few took more, but most took fewer. US students probably take more standardized tests now than I took as a student, but NCLB was way after my time; I graduated from high school in 1993 prior to the current craze for standardized tests.

I think an examination is not an entirely objective way to measure a pupil's abilities, since it also reflects their socioeconomic background and the quality of instruction they've received...but since coursework is not universal and teachers are not clones, coursework is not an objective measurement either particularly since you now have pushy parents pestering or even threatening teachers and support staff at schools so that their children receive higher marks. This is true in the UK and the US.

As for your education...clearly you are an intelligent, well-spoken, and educated person so it can't have been all bad. I don't think any of us can really say that we got a perfect education with nothing but terrific teachers in an environment that was always conducive to learning. My high school had pregnant girls; kids on marijuana, cocaine, and heroin; a student who was shot and killed for his car my sophomore year; a race riot immediately after the Rodney King verdict in LA; several bomb threats; and day-to-day disruptions from kids who didn't really want to be there. I went to school in one of America's largest cities and the student body at my high school included kids from some of Dallas's wealthiest families, and kids from some of Dallas's poorest families. Black, white, Hispanic, Asian, and kids from every continent and religion you could think of. It was not a homogenous mix and it wasn't even always a happy mix, but most of us did OK. I had a few outstanding teachers, but most were just average and I had some who were really bad. My 10th grade English teacher mostly let us fart around in class while he worked on other things; he was the school's baseball coach and clearly had no interest in teaching, but coaches in my school were required to teach since coaching high school sports isn't really a full-time job. I used to hate getting coaches as teachers; there was only one who was any good. My first-year Spanish teacher was a coach, and by the time I got to second-year Spanish, which was taught by a different teacher, I didn't know anything. The second-year Spanish teacher had to work flat out to get us up to speed before she could even start on the second-year curriculum, which wasn't fair to us or to her. Yep...we had plenty of sh!tty teachers!

[Donna A 4]

well i think its a little of both. my ex's friend chose to be in poverty so he could get welfare benifits cuz he was sickly. so he thought it was better to live poorly as long as he had medical benifits.

now on the other hand some people are just simply to stupid to want to better themselves. example...my neice is pregnant with her 3rd child now. 3 different fathers...none of them working...none paying support...living on welfare...cant get ahead cuz she is just to stupid to realize kids cost money so stop spreading ur legs. does she want to be poor...no. but she is so far buried cuz of her stupid choices she cant get out easily. so this is the condition she got herself into. wasnt by choice but by stupidity.

[homesick_american 1]

well i think its a little of both. my ex's friend chose to be in poverty so he could get welfare benifits cuz he was sickly. so he thought it was better to live poorly as long as he had medical benifits.

now on the other hand some people are just simply to stupid to want to better themselves. example...my neice is pregnant with her 3rd child now. 3 different fathers...none of them working...none paying support...living on welfare...cant get ahead cuz she is just to stupid to realize kids cost money so stop spreading ur legs. does she want to be poor...no. but she is so far buried cuz of her stupid choices she cant get out easily. so this is the condition she got herself into. wasnt by choice but by stupidity.

Well...it was a choice; she could have chosen not to have sex with those men, she could have chosen to use protection, she could have chosen to have abortions, etc. There were a lot of choices she could have made to avoid the situation she's in. Just because you feel she's "stupid" does not mean that she lacked for choices here.