HodgBlog

In the United States at least, people with a post-secondary degree tend to earn more than people without one. For instance, looking at the statistics for people aged 25-34 in 2007, the median annual income for high-school graduates was about $25,000, while people with an Associates (2-year) degree earned $31,000, and those with a Bachelor’s (4-year) degree earned nearly $41,000. Since earning these degrees has such a positive affect on income, it should be good news for women that, as Mark Perry recently noted in his blog, women are now receiving more post-secondary degrees than men, even at the doctoral level.

However, if you look at the situation in more detail, using the US Department of Education statistics for the 2006-2007 graduation year (for bachelors, masters, and doctoral degrees), you’ll find that higher education may not be as women-dominated as the overall statistics would indicate:

• In Computer Science, women receive only about 20% to 25% of the degrees at each level.
• In Engineering, women receive only about 15% to 20% of the degrees at each level.
• In Math, women receive about 44% of the Bachelor’s degrees, 40% of Masters degrees, and 30% of Doctoral degrees.
• In the Physical Sciences, women receive about 40% of the Bachelors and Masters degrees, and 30% of Doctoral degrees.
• Women continue to receive more degrees than men at all levels in areas they have dominated since at least the early 1970s: Ethnic and Gender Studies, Communication, Education, English Language and Literature, Foreign Languages, Liberal Arts, Public Administration, Social Services, and Visual and Performing Arts.
• There has been a shift in the area of Biological Sciences from male-dominated at all levels in the 1950s to female-dominated at all levels today.
• Women continue to dominate the Health Sciences area at the bachelors and masters degree level (this has been true since the 1970s), and are also now (since the 1980s) ahead in doctoral degrees.
• In Psychology, women surpassed men at the Bachelors degree level in the late 1970s, and at the doctoral degree level in the mid 1980s.

Looking at the income statistics for men and women separately (again, in the 25-34 age group for 2007, so as to discount any left-over problems from previous decades), we can see that the median income for all women is $27,000 per year, while for men it is about $33,500, in spite of the fact that a higher percentage of women have post-secondary degrees. In fact, men in this age group with 4-year degrees are earning about $47,000, while women earn $36,000. This is likely due to the difference in the subject area of the degrees noted above — salaries for engineers are certainly higher than those for teachers.

So, I am not sure that the fact that women are earning more college degrees than men translates into anything very meaningful.

1 Comment »

I recently read an interesting book by James Tooley called The Beautiful Tree: A Personal Journey Into How the World’s Poorest People Are Educating Themselves, published by the Cato Institute.

This book describes how the governments of many countries in the developing world are failing to educate their children, because their government-run schools are basically worthless. The author described seeing many schools where only a small fraction of the teachers even arrived at the school on any given day, and an even smaller fraction were engaged in meaningful teaching activities (he also did careful studies that documented these problems, as well as poor educational outcomes); this system was made possible by wide-spread government corruption. Perhaps it is no surprise that everyone involved is apparently aware of the issues at the government schools, from the children and their parents, to government officials at all levels, to the international aid agencies and foreign governments that continue to give money for education to the government agencies that are running the schools. So of course, middle- and upper-class families living there send their children to for-profit private schools.

But the real surprise in this book was that Tooley found that many extremely poor people in these countries were also sending their children to for-profit private schools — low-cost schools run by entrepreneurs of similar backgrounds to the poor families, living in the same neighborhoods (rural areas or urban slums). And although these poor private schools tended to have dismal facilities by our standards (poor lighting, poor sanitation, etc.), this was more than balanced by much greater level of accountability than the government-run schools, as parents would immediately withdraw their children (and their tuition money) from poorly-performing schools. Tooley also documented, through careful study, that these low-cost private schools (so low in cost as to be affordable by workers at the very bottom of the social scale) had much better educational outcomes than the nearby government-run schools.

After reading this book, I was left wondering (as Tooley certainly intended) why international aid organizations and US and other governments would continue to pour money into corrupt and ineffective government-run educational programs in these countries. Tooley suggested instead that we direct our aid money in two directions that seemed worthwhile to me. First, he suggested setting up scholarship funds for poor children’s tuition in the low-cost private schools. The cost of such tuition per student is very low, in US dollars or European currencies, and the return in educational provision is high. Tooley has apparently already been involved in setting up one organization that provides such scholarships. Second, the major barrier for educational entrepreneurs in setting up or improving their schools is the lack of financing — banks will not or cannot lend to them, in spite of their financial soundness. So, the idea would be to set up micro-credit institutions dedicated to funding such educational ventures. I haven’t been able to find any projects of this nature that are in progress, but definitely the ideas of micro-credit are well developed in general, and maybe someone will start one up soon. We’ll have to wait and see.

No comments yet: add one »

What is going on with California lately? Last year, they passed an initiative that banned gay marriage. This year, apparently there is going to be an initiative that would check immigration documents of the parents of any child born in the state when they try to get a birth certificate, report the parents to immigration officials if they can’t produce documents proving their legal immigration status, and then grant the child some kind of a second-class birth certificate in an attempt to deny the child citizenship (see this BBC Mundo article, in Spanish).

Our Constitution states that anyone born in the US is a citizen. Our country’s principles of civil rights are supposed to protect minority groups from laws that deny them equal protection. Why is California trying to circumvent these fundamental principles? What happened to the California that used to exist, where people stood up for the rights of others instead of trying to take them away?

No comments yet: add one »

I recently read a book called The Middle of Everywhere, by Mary Pipher. In it, Ms. Pipher shares stories of refugees who were settled in Lincoln, Nebraska over the past 10-20 years.

Many of the stories Ms. Pipher shared in her book were somewhat familiar to me — I’ve traveled a lot, I make an effort to follow the international news, and here in Seattle I have a lot of contact with immigrants in my volunteer work (teaching English as a Second Language and Spanish-English interpreting). Certainly, all immigrants have some things in common: they have to adjust to a new culture, in many cases a new language, and often a completely different job from what they did before. But this book focuses on refugees, who have additional difficulties, such as mental health issues arising from their history of being subject to war, political persecution, death threats, and the like in their home countries. So, as I read the stories in this book, at times I thought that the refugees it describes had little in common with the immigrants I normally come in contact with. But really, the differences are not as large as I thought at first. Even immigrants who lack official refugee status (it’s pretty hard to get) may have been persecuted at home for their beliefs, gender, or membership in an ethnic group, or may be trying to leave a country at war. Some of the women and children who come here are escaping domestic violence. And even the average undocumented Mexican immigrant worker has probably come here to work because he didn’t have any chance of making a living wage at home. All of these types of immigrants have a lot in common with refugees, in that they came here because they felt they really had no choice.

So, I really think this book is relevant and important for everyone living in a more privileged country to read. It is also well-written, and even though many of the stories might make us uncomfortable, we still need to know about them.

No comments yet: add one »

In my volunteer work (teaching English to adult immigrants and Spanish-English interpreting), I come in contact with a lot of immigrants — some are here legally, and some are not. Illegal immigration has also been in the news a lot lately, so I find myself thinking about the subject frequently. When I hear what our so-called leaders are saying about illegal immigration, I get frustrated, because I don’t think they’re thinking constructively. So, I decided I’d better get my own thoughts together.

Facts and Statistics

• According to the Pew Hispanic Center, there were about 11 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S., as of March 2005, which is about 3.8% of the total U.S. population.
• Of the 11 million estimated illegal immigrants living in the U.S., again according to the Pew Hispanic Center, about 7.2 million of them are working illegally, amounting to 5% of the U.S. workforce.
• The most common industries for illegal immigrants in the U.S. are construction (1.4 million illegal workers, or 12% of the workforce) and “leisure and hospitality” (1.2 million illegal workers, or 10% of the workforce).
• The median earnings of illegal workers are around $400 per week for men, and less (I am not sure how much less) for women.

Observations

• Basic economics (and logic) tells us that people make decisions based on benefits to themselves. So, who is benefiting from illegal immigrant labor?
  • The businesses that hire illegal workers are benefiting. Clearly, if businesses could hire legal residents at the same total cost (considering salary, benefits, hours, and productivity) as illegal workers, they would hire the workers with papers, to avoid legal problems. So, the illegal workers must be working for lower wages than legal residents would, doing work that legal residents would not do, or working under conditions that legal residents would not tolerate.
  • The illegal workers are benefiting. Typical workers I have met say they came here because they had very little chance of finding work of any type in Mexico, and literally no way to live without work (i.e. not many social services, food banks, soup kitchens, etc.). Here, they can find some work, and they say that even if they are living on the streets of Seattle (many do), their life here is better than what they had available at home: at least they will not starve if they have to go a week or two without working. The people I’ve met who have families here, especially the women, are an inspiration for their dedication to improving their lives and the lives of their children.
  • There are some costs offsetting the benefits. For the illegal workers, these include the cost to get here (hiring someone to convey them across the border, risking life in desert crossings, etc.) and the risk of deportation. For businesses, they include the risk of fines and bad publicity if they are discovered hiring illegal workers. But the fact that we currently have 7 million illegal workers means that these costs must be much lower than the benefits for these two groups.
• This situation is not new. Illegal immigrants have been coming here for decades, mostly from Mexico, and there has been ample work for them for decades. The risk of being discovered and deported has seldom or never been high enough to discourage people from coming here to work; the risk of fines has seldom or never been high enough for businesses to stop using illegal immigrant labor.
• The public in the U.S. is asking for solutions to the “problem” of illegal immigration. But the politicians (funded by business interests) are not offering effective solutions on a scale that would make any difference, any more than they have for the last few decades. Here are the options that I think could actually reduce the number of illegal immigrant workers:
  • The most reliable and humane way to do so would be to improve conditions in Mexico and Central America. If all Mexicans had real options for a good life at home, they wouldn’t come so far from their families and familiar settings to work illegally here — the net benefit would no longer outweigh the cost.
  • We could also erase the advantage businesses gain by hiring illegal workers: make sure that illegal workers have the same salary, benefits, and workplace protections that legal workers do, or give them legal status.
  • The other option is to increase enforcement by a lot (deportations of workers or fines to businesses) to increase the economic costs to businesses or workers.
• The other question is whether illegal immigrant labor is a problem at all. I do not think it is a problem that the workers are working here to improve their lives. But they experience problems due to the fact that they are living and working here illegally, such as constant fear, lowered social status, and loss of employment rights. It’s not a particularly easy life, and it doesn’t seem right that people who are merely trying to improve their lives, and who are also contributing to our economy, should have to live that way.

18 Comments »