NYTimes: For Poor, Leap to College Often Ends in a Hard Fall

As much as policymakers talk about earning a college degree is a great equalizer for upward mobility, it is often not a smooth transition for low-income and first-generation students according to the New York Times. Without proper guidance and support, this group is most likely to drop out of college and face staggering college debts that cripple their lifetime earnings.

Low-income strivers face uphill climbs, especially at Ball High School, where a third of the girls’ class failed to graduate on schedule. But by the time the triplets donned mortarboards in the class of 2008, their story seemed to validate the promise of education as the great equalizer. Angelica, a daughter of a struggling Mexican immigrant, was headed to Emory University. Bianca enrolled in community college, and Melissa left for Texas State University, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s alma mater. “It felt like we were taking off, from one life to another,” Melissa said. “It felt like, ‘Here we go!’ ” Four years later, their story seems less like a tribute to upward mobility than a study of obstacles in an age of soaring economic inequality. Not one of them has a four-year degree. Only one is still studying full time, and two have crushing debts. Angelica, who left Emory owing more than $60,000, is a clerk in a Galveston furniture store. Each showed the ability to do college work, even excel at it. But the need to earn money brought one set of strains, campus alienation brought others, and ties to boyfriends not in school added complications. With little guidance from family or school officials, college became a leap that they braved without a safety net. The story of their lost footing is also the story of something larger — the growing role that education plays in preserving class divisions. Poor students have long trailed affluent peers in school performance, but from grade-school tests to college completion, the gaps are growing. With school success and earning prospects ever more entwined, the consequences carry far: education, a force meant to erode class barriers, appears to be fortifying them.

Review: Unfaithful Angels - How Social Work Has Abandoned its Mission (1994)

Unfaithful Angels: How Social Work Has Abandoned its Mission (1994), by Harry Specht and Mark E. Courtney, is a critique of the evolution and status of the social work profession in the United States up to the last decade of the twentieth century. The authors contended that social workers have largely abandoned the original tenets of Jane Addams and Mary Richmond, early pioneers of societal improvement through community organization and social case work, respectively. Social workers today are primarily trained to use a psychotherapeutic or psychoanalytic approach to help build individual's sense of self-esteem. This type of training neglects the increasingly vulnerable underclass and the macro dimension (community capacity building and policy advocacy). Since most social workers aspire to establish private practices, their clientele is largely middle-class because work in the public social services is daunting, underpaid, and under-appreciated by policymakers and the general public.


As a result, Specht and Courtney argue that this trend has betrayed the original mission of social work, which was primarily to direct those in need to appropriate resources. Students are entering social work to become clinical private practitioners in order to make money and become their own boss.  Furthermore, clinical social workers offer individualized treatment that resembles the therapy of psychologists and psychotherapists. This is a mistake for two reasons: 1) the authors believe that society's problems are caused by the social isolation of modern life (fewer people participate in civic associations and live close to their family), and 2) it is the job of psychptherapists to help people with emotional and mental problems. Social workers should return to their original mission by connecting people with resources and supporting sustainable communities. I provide the preamble to the NASW Code of Ethics (2008) below:

The primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance human well­being and help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty. A historic and defining feature of social work is the profession’s focus on individual well­being in a social context and the well­being of society. Fundamental to social work is attention to the environmental forces that create, contribute to, and address problems in living.

Based on the preamble above, Specht and Courtney argue that social workers should stay true to their original mission--improving the welfare of families and empowering communities to achieve economic and social justice. Social workers should spend less time fighting for clinical licensure protection and third-party reimbursements. Instead, social workers should focus instead on promoting policies and services that enhance social participation and community well-being. In other words, social workers should work on addressing the environmental conditions that hinders their clients' well-being (e.g., lack of jobs, inadequate transportation or child care arrangements, etc.) rather than looking for irrelevant psychological treatments.

Recommendations included public policy and fiscal support at federal, state, and county levels to redirect the social work profession toward a community-oriented social care system in every neighborhood. Although their guidelines are vague and impractical (everything ties back to funding, and governments are notoriously conservative when it comes to allocating funds for the poor), they believe this will ensure a healthier society for all. While some readers may not agree with the authors' views, it is timely and relevant because social work has drifted too far from its original mission of providing resources for the oppressed and marginalized. The arguments and proposals of these two educators in the field will be of much interest to academics, professionals, social welfare students, and other readers who are searching for antipoverty frameworks..

What Can You Do With a Degree in Education?

If you find joy in helping others learn, a degree in education is a both versatile and flexible. The education industry is one of the largest employers in the United States. Education is also considered a helping-profession (along with counseling, ministry, nursing, and social work).

A bachelor's degree can help you obtain a teaching position in elementary or secondary education. In some cases, some schools (such as Northwestern University's School of Education and Social Policy) provide non-teaching, pre-professional majors in education. A master's degree in education is often pursued by those who want to specialize in a specific subject, counsel students (may require licensure), develop curriculum, conduct policy research, or serve in an administrative role. A doctorate in education prepares you for research, policy-making, and senior administrative positions. 

Common career paths include K-12 schools, colleges and universities, local state and federal government, professional associations, and research and consulting firms. With a degree in education, you can also pursue a variety of non-teaching careers, such as a community organizer, corporate trainer, counselor, curriculum specialist, higher education administrator,  journalist, librarian, museum curator, policy analyst, and textbook author! It is a very versatile degree with many career options.

Education professionals can be found in the following industries below:

• K-12 Education
• Higher Education
• Adult and Continuing Education
• Business and Industry
• Government
• Nonprofit