On the other hand, Gregory Mantsios’ point of view on the “effects on Family” that over the years, the upper-class who have more of an advantage due to better education, healthcare coverage and are fundamentally more well balanced have a better chance at getting married which gives them better family activities because they have financial acumen (Mantsios290). The wealthier you are, the more opportunities your family is given. Mr. Mantsios list four myths in his article that are relative to the “effects on family” which are: 1. “Rich or poor, we are all equal in the eyes of the law, and such basic needs as health care and education are provided to all regardless of economic standing.” 2. “We are, essentially, a middle- class nation. Despite …show more content…
In today’s society divorce is out of control. Furthermore, many people live together out of wedlock. There are many children born to single women and are fatherless. People should look back in the past and consider some of the ideals of the 1940’s and 1950’s that society had about getting married and keeping the marriage and family together; it might be the answer for our future survival. All things considered, life events are not going to get any easier and many people are lower-middle class these days as mentioned by Gregory Mantsios (Mantsios 286). Conversely, it would behoove everyone to take classes on how to stay in a relationship and maybe with two people working toward their goals together, they may just get ahead in this …show more content…
“The higher the student’s social status is, the higher the probability is that they will get higher grades” (Mantsios 294). Today the patterns persist as Mr. Mantsios’ article shows “that of the students who took the College Board Exam (SAT) - the students who score lower points were of lower class whereas, the students of high class, scored higher on the tests”(Mantsios 294). Mr. Mantsios “compares a study that was done in 1978 by Richard De Lone for the Carnegie Council on Children, which showed a relationship between class and test scores to a survey done by College Board, thirty years later, to reveal that there is no difference; test scores are still linked to family income” (Mantsios 294). Mr. Mantsios states that class standing and consequently life chances, are largely determined at birth” (Mantsios
In the article, Gregory Mantsio reveals a chart based on the test results of 1,465,744 SAT takers in the year of 2006. The chart given, displays the amount of the family income and how it affects the scores of those who had taken the SAT. The facts given, indicates that the more money the family has, income that the family receives, the higher the scores are. For example, if you had a job or career that allowed you to be able to bring in more than $100,000, then your child is more likely to receive a median score of approximately 1,100. But the question is, how can this be so? One reason is quite simple: The children born into a higher class has much more access to educational resources, are exposed to vocabulary and spoken language in their early childhood, and experience less stress than those who are in a lower class. Which in the long run, gives the children in the higher class a better chance when it comes to succeeding in life. Compared to those in a lower class whose scores are below the approximated amount of 1,100 due to their family
I feel the author is attempting to convey that class means everything when it comes to education. Mantsios lists several references and charts that show what the odds would be if you were low, middle, or high class to attend a university and what level of education you might obtain.
Standardized testing has been proven to be biased towards those of ethnic and socioeconomic disadvantaged groups. Wealthy students become more prepared for standardized tests through better life experiences, such as top-quality schools and test prep tutors. Steven Syverson implies that students with high SAT scores are presumed to be “bright” and encouraged to consider the most selective colleges, with no regard to their academic performance in high school (57). Those students that were considered elite, but did not perform well their parents suggested to admission counselors that they were “not challenged” in high school (Syverson 57). According to Marchant and Paulson, race, parent education, and family income were found to account as much as 94% of the variance in scores among states (85:62). Students that belong to multiple disadvantage categories suffered greatly in the scoring criteria. The majority of students with socioeconomic disadvantages are discouraged from attending college. However, those that choose to further their education are more than likely the first ones in their family to attend college. Due to the large debate involving the admissions process using the SAT score, more colleges have adopted the SAT Optional policy because it is “consistent with their institutional mission and
Marriage is the legal or formally recognized union of a man and a woman, or two people or the same sex as partners in a relationship. Marriage rates in the United States have changed drastically since the last 90’s and early 2000 years (Cherlin 2004). Marital decline perspective and marital resilience perspective are the two primary perspectives and which we believe are the results from the decline. The marital decline perspective is the view that the American culture has become increasingly individualistic and preoccupied with personal happiness (Amato, 2004). The change in attitudes has changed the meaning of marriage as a whole, from a formal institution
(262). Dalton goes forth and argues no matter individuals are born into a gloomy social class; he or she can still can breack though and go up in class. Dalton’s idea could happen to anyone but, the possibility is very slim. It’s a hard reality a person in lower class doing proficient in school having the likely hood of attending a University and also a full ride. In reality, the group who has more resources has the greater opportunity than those with less assists.
Marriage is a commitment that seems to be getting harder to keep. The social standards placed on an individual by society and influenced by the media inevitably lead some to consider divorce as a “quick-fix” option. “Have it your way” has become a motto in the United States. It has become a country without any consideration of the psychological effects of marriage and divorce. The overwhelmingly high divorce rate is caused by a lack of moral beliefs and marital expectations.
Tests measuring students’ achievement demonstrate that particular groups of students score far below students of other groups. Records indicate that the discrepancy in the academic dominance of certain groups over other groups is strongly associated with socio-economic status, with lower achieving students typically hailing from increased poverty-stricken backgrounds. While poverty is exclusive to no one particular ethnicity, it exists in disproportionately high rates among Hispanic and Black communities and their students. The root of this gap in educational achievement has been shown to be multi-faceted, with origins undoubtedly dating back centuries (EdSource, 2003).
In this era we live in, we are brought up to think divorce is bound to happen. According to The American Psychological Association, “about 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce” and “the divorce rate for subsequent marriages is even higher.” Many adults decide that it is less messy to just live with one another rather than actually get married. This is beginning to drive the rates of marriage down. Many have speculated that relationships will continue to evolve, especially if the human lifespan continues expand. Fiction writers such as Drew Magary and real world scientists such as Aubrey de Grey have explored this very topic of relationships.
More Americans are getting divorced at an astonishing rate, according to the McKinley Irvin Family Law, there are about 16,800 divorces per week. This phenomenon has triggered a general panic among young adults. Therefore, animated by their fear of getting divorced, young adults have elaborated a new solution to avoid divorce which is cohabitation. They see cohabitation as a test to avoid divorce. However, does cohabitation really work? Meg Jay in her text entitled “The Downside of Living Together” defends the idea that seeing cohabitation as a preventive way to avoid divorce leads to increase the chance of divorce. I believe that cohabitation
In her article she points out how social class has become the main gateway to opportunity in America. The widening academic divide means that kids who grow up poor will most likely stay poor and the kids who grow up rich will most likely stay rich. About fifty years ago the main concern about getting a good education relied on your race but now it's about your social class. Researchers are starting to believe that children who come from higher income families tend to do better in school and get higher test scores.
One tough thing about today's American family is divorce. In 1816, one marriage out of one hundred ended in divorce. Then between the years 1869-1888, divorce increased up to one hundred and fifty percent. And the worse, between the years 1960-1980, the divorce rate increased up to two hundred and fifty percent. Divorce rates peaked in 1981 and then started to decline a little during the mid 1980's. However, divorce rates now are as high as they have ever been. Now fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce. There are five reasons for the increase in divorce. The first reason is in modern societies; individual happiness is regarded to be important so when people are unhappy with their marriage, they break-up and split. The second reason is it is easier to get divorced financially. The third reason is that women's economic independence has contributed. The fourth reason is the stigma of divorce has lessened so people are not
Marriage is one of those things most women and some men look forward to in life. This generation is different from the rest of the generations before, where you had to get married by a certain age and follow a standard of living. Nowadays everyone has the option of getting married or not. There is so much individuality, and liberty to do whatever we please without lives that we can marry the same sex. Even if a couple does marry and say their vows that should mean so much to them, they are getting divorced the next day. “Among adults who have been married, the study discovered that one-third (33%) have experienced at least one divorce. That means that among all Americans 18 years of age or older, whether they have been married or not, 25% have gone through a marital split (New Marriage).” “Around the world, people are marrying later and divorcing often (Sernau).” Now that this epidemic of marriage and divorce has taken place over the last few generations parenting suffers a great deal.
Throughout the last half of the century, our society has watched the divorce rate of married couples skyrocket to numbers previously not seen. Although their has been a slight decline in divorce rates, “half of first marriages still were expected to dissolve before death.” (Stacy, 15, 1991) Whatever happened to that meaningful exchange of words, “until death do us part,” uttered by the bride and groom to each other on their wedding day? What could have been the cause of such inflated divorce rates? Perhaps young married couples are not mature enough to be engaged in such a trremendous responsibility, or, maybe, the couples really do not know each other as well as they thought. Possibly, they have been blinded by infatuation rather than by true love, or, quite simply, the couples mistakenly have different relational expectations.
Social class has a major influence over the success and experience of young people in education; evidence suggests social class affects educational achievement, treatment by teachers and whether a young person is accepted into higher education. “34.6 per cent of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) achieved five or more A*-C grades at GCSE or equivalent including English and mathematics GCSEs, compared to 62.0 per cent of all other pupils” (Attew, 2012). Pupils eligible for FSM are those whose families earn less than £16,000 a year (Shepherd, J. Sedghi, A. and Evans, L. 2012). Thus working-class young people are less likely to obtain good GCSE grades than middle-class and upper-class young people.
Research reveals that the higher the social class, the higher the levels of educational achievement are likely to be. The children of parents in higher social classes are more likely to stay on in post compulsory education, more likely to achieve examination passes when at school, and more likely to gain university entrance. These features painted a true picture of British education in the twentieth century and can be argued to follow this trend today. However, whether there has been any reduction in the inequalities is more debatable, but some research suggests that these inequalities are as great as ever, despite the overall improvements within the education system. Many researchers argue that IQ tests are biased in favour of the middle class, since members of this group largely construct them.