You can register to get it through the "Access Data" tab. If you don't want to do that Google "HERI freshman survey". If that's still too much work, click on "Images" to see slides people have put together to summarize the data. You can also search for "The American Freshman: 40 year trends" to get summary reports.
Instead of going through the scavenger hunt, quote the numbers you believe support your viewpoint.
But just looking at one source it says no community colleges were represented and 60 private colleges and 12 public colleges were represented.
That automatically skews the results to more privileged people who can consider it an outlet to “be a better person in the world and mommy and daddy can support me while I get my unpaid internship in NYC and then become a journalist who can’t support myself” over the people who will eventually have to depend on themselves to exchange enough labor for money to support their need for food and shelter.
Also notice that 80% went to college to get a job. Where is the related statistic that poorer people spent money and time to go to college without the expectations of getting a better job 50 years ago?
>quote the numbers you believe support your viewpoint.
HN guidelines expect intellectual curiosity, not spoon feeding (maybe that's also a change in cultural norms). I've already clearly described the trend and given you multiple avenues to look at the data, if you were curious enough to do so. If it's not apparent, the two goals are not mutually exclusive. Figure 14 of the previously mentioned paper gives you the numbers:
-In 1966,about 85% said developing a philosophy of life is a priority, while about 42% said being very well off financially was a priority
-By 2006, nearly 75% said being very well off financially was a priority while developing a philosophy of life dipped below 50%
In other words, priorities inverted.
>That automatically skews the results to more privileged people
The authors took measures to control for "more privileged" students when comparing public/private data. From the paper:
"By disaggregating CIRP median household income by public and private institutions and comparing each set of reporting students, we are able to tease out the
differences in parental income over time relative to each other and relative to the national median household income"
>Where is the related statistic that poorer people spent money and time to go to college without the expectations of getting a better job 50 years ago?
Note the paper also discusses how the relative wealth of parents of incoming freshman has increased. Implying poorer students were a larger share of the student body at the time when developing a philosophy of life was a more dominant priority.
You should read the report and look at the data. It's rare to find longitudinal data that spans so many decades.
You can register to get it through the "Access Data" tab. If you don't want to do that Google "HERI freshman survey". If that's still too much work, click on "Images" to see slides people have put together to summarize the data. You can also search for "The American Freshman: 40 year trends" to get summary reports.
Instead of going through the scavenger hunt, quote the numbers you believe support your viewpoint.
But just looking at one source it says no community colleges were represented and 60 private colleges and 12 public colleges were represented.
That automatically skews the results to more privileged people who can consider it an outlet to “be a better person in the world and mommy and daddy can support me while I get my unpaid internship in NYC and then become a journalist who can’t support myself” over the people who will eventually have to depend on themselves to exchange enough labor for money to support their need for food and shelter.
https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/HERI-TFS-Brief.pdf
Also notice that 80% went to college to get a job. Where is the related statistic that poorer people spent money and time to go to college without the expectations of getting a better job 50 years ago?
>quote the numbers you believe support your viewpoint.
HN guidelines expect intellectual curiosity, not spoon feeding (maybe that's also a change in cultural norms). I've already clearly described the trend and given you multiple avenues to look at the data, if you were curious enough to do so. If it's not apparent, the two goals are not mutually exclusive. Figure 14 of the previously mentioned paper gives you the numbers:
-In 1966,about 85% said developing a philosophy of life is a priority, while about 42% said being very well off financially was a priority
-By 2006, nearly 75% said being very well off financially was a priority while developing a philosophy of life dipped below 50%
In other words, priorities inverted.
>That automatically skews the results to more privileged people
The authors took measures to control for "more privileged" students when comparing public/private data. From the paper:
"By disaggregating CIRP median household income by public and private institutions and comparing each set of reporting students, we are able to tease out the differences in parental income over time relative to each other and relative to the national median household income"
>Where is the related statistic that poorer people spent money and time to go to college without the expectations of getting a better job 50 years ago?
Note the paper also discusses how the relative wealth of parents of incoming freshman has increased. Implying poorer students were a larger share of the student body at the time when developing a philosophy of life was a more dominant priority.
You should read the report and look at the data. It's rare to find longitudinal data that spans so many decades.
2 replies →