Baltimore: Surprised? Even Poor Whites Have It Better Than Blacks (2014, houses)

[Infinite_heights77]

http://www.theroot.com/articles/cult..._the_poor.html

Surprised? Even Poor Whites Have It Better Than Blacks

Blacks
A 25-year study of blacks and whites in Baltimore finds that income status can be an equalizer, but race does make a difference.
By: Teresa Wiltz

Posted: July 10 2014 3:00 AM
















Boarded up row houses in east Baltimore, three blocks north of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Dec. 2, 2003 Alex Wong/Getty Images

[/CENTER]



From birth, practically, we’re told—again and again—that education is the golden ticket to the American dream. This is a meritocracy! Study diligently, put the work in and you, too, can get ahead, leapfrogging over your parents on the social strata. All you have to do is grab those bootstraps and pull. Hard.Or not.

For 25 years, a group of researchers from Johns Hopkins University tracked 800 mostly low-income schoolchildren from Baltimore from the start of first grade until they were just shy of 30 years old. In one of the very few projects to compare and contrast the lives of poor black and poor white kids, the researchers interviewed the youngsters, their parents and teachers, checking in with them regularly over the years. What the sociologists found was disheartening: The long-held truism that education trumps social class didn’t hold up. The children who were born poor tended to stay poor—no matter their race.

More often than not, one’s lot in life is determined by that of one’s parents. Almost half the kids surveyed remained in the same social class as their parents—and almost none of the kids, black or white, from low-income families graduated from college. Four percent of kids from poor homes finished college by age 28, compared with 45 percent of kids coming from more well-off backgrounds, even though the disadvantaged kids spoke of wanting to continue their educations. They, too, believed that education was the key to getting ahead.

[Infinite_heights77]

Interesting article!

[Hamish Forbes]

Originally Posted by Infinite_heights77

Interesting article!

The link above does not work (at least for me), so I can't read the paper.

But I am wondering what variables the investigators controlled for.

In other words, did they compare white kids from two-parent homes to black kids from two-parent homes? Did they compare kids of equal intelligence: e.g., black kids with IQs of 100 to white kids with IQs of 100?

If so, the study might have something meaningful to say. If not, just more bunk in a field already filthy rich with bunk . . .

[GoPhils]

Can't seem to open the link from my phone at least but the title seems to contradict the excerpt you posted...

[Infinite_heights77]

My apologies! Try the link now.

http://www.theroot.com/articles/cult..._the_poor.html

I didn't contradict anything? Just copied and pasted title as in Start New Thread window.

[picardlx]

Google or Yahoo Search the first sentence and many sites are presented.

[Infinite_heights77]

This article is only a glimpse of the totality of this discussion from a book that had been released by a John Hopkins professor who has studied this matter for over a 25 year period. The professor of this study, John Alexander, appeared on the Melissa Harris-Perry show this past weekend discussed his findings and research. His forthcoming work, The Long Shadow: Family Background, Disadvantaged Urban Youth and the Transition to Adulthood should be an interesting read.

[Infinite_heights77]

I think I know that dude walking in the photo!!! Lol!

[Infinite_heights77]

Here's a little excerpt...

How the 'long shadow' of an inner city childhood affects adult success -- ScienceDaily

How the 'long shadow' of an inner city childhood affects adult success

[RIGHT]Date:[/RIGHT]
June 2, 2014

[RIGHT]Source:[/RIGHT]
Johns Hopkins University

[RIGHT]Summary:[/RIGHT]
Nearly 800 Baltimore school children were followed in a ground-breaking study for a quarter of a century. The conclusion: their fates were substantially determined by the economic status of the family they were born into. Through repeated interviews with the children and their parents and teachers, the research team observed the group as its members made their way through elementary, middle and high school, joined the work force and started families

In a groundbreaking study, Johns Hopkins University researchers followed nearly 800 Baltimore school children for a quarter of a century and discovered that their fates were substantially determined by the family they were born into.

"A family's resources and the doors they open cast a long shadow over children's life trajectories," Johns Hopkins sociologist Karl Alexander says in a forthcoming book, The Long Shadow: Family Background, Disadvantaged Urban Youth and the Transition to Adulthood. "This view is at odds with the popular ethos that we are makers of our own fortune."

[Hamish Forbes]

In the tabloid-like summary linked above, there is no mention of correcting for family structure or IQ. And yet, and yet:, all that notwithstanding:

“We see a very clear pattern of white privilege that probably extends back a few generations to Baltimore’s boom times [in the ’40s to ’50s],” Alexander says. “I personally think there’s a lot of racism in the mix, but we can’t quantify that.”

Until proven otherwise, an equally valid interpretation would be "We see a very clear pattern of white efficacy that probably extends back deeply into the subjects' cultural values," Forbes says, "I personally think that there is no element of racism at all in the mix, which we could quantify if we were even minimally competent. If our field of inquiry had standards that extended beyond the knee-jerk acceptance of politicized wishful thinking, we would in fact be required to quantify these aspects before our inflammatory work was published. If we were either unable or unwilling to do this, we probably shouldn't hold tenured appointments at schools like Johns Hopkins."

Perhaps these points are addressed in the book, but conveniently omitted from the tabloid-like summary linked above . . .

By the way, I knew one of the authors, once upon a time.