"Next fall, he plans to pursue sociology and will enter the Ph.D. program at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana"
Well, that will certainly not help his socioeconomic status.
During my undergraduate career, we had a speaker come in who was the subject of a recent novel. Growing up, he was a bright kid who lived in a miserable ghetto with violent, useless schools. He managed, somehow, to catch the attention of a local journalist who helped him get into college, where he excelled.
What did he choose to do with his college education? Did he choose to become an engineer, or a businessman?
No. He decided to get a PHD in Sociology and become a social worker.
I am mystified by the exceptional poor students that follow this path. Maybe they pursue subjects like sociology because it tells them that the reason they grew up poor is that society has wronged them. However, it is certainly an ineffective way to increase the prospects of themselves and their families.
Perhaps people who have managed to grow up without a lot of money better understand how to live a happy life with a job that doesn't pay $100k.
Let me quote a very famous person who grew up in poverty, Charles Dickens:
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery.
One secret to being happy with a $30k or $40k salary is to maintain a healthy perspective on your social class: If you know that a lot of people struggle to live on $18k, your $30k salary will fell fantastically great. Whereas if everyone you meet has a $150k salary and a trust fund, you'd better have the same or you will feel poor. Happiness is relative. That's the entire point of this article.
It's not surprising to find that many of the happiest grad students are people for whom a grad student salary seems quite adequate, even generous.
Hey, I didn't say this was a general theory of human motivation! This is merely a glib theory of human motivation!
(Indeed, I don't believe in a general theory of human motivation. Keeping your lifestyle from creeping up to a range in which you've got to rake in a large salary to feel adequate is merely one approach to keeping yourself happy. And it surely doesn't work for everyone.)
Maybe they go into sociology because they are good at it, or they enjoy it, or they can't find anything more lucrative, or (most likely of all) it was the first interesting opportunity to cross their path... exactly the same reasons anybody else would do it.
And those people shouldn't be surprised if they remain poor.
This article is all about the deprivations that poor students experience in relation to rich students. I am merely pointing out that studying sociology is an ineffective way of alleviating these deprivations.
I missed the paragraph in the article that discussed how much happier they were than everybody else because they weren't pursuing money, but that is certainly another topic that can be discussed.
I do, however, think it odd that you can walk through a poor, violent ghetto and find a family who has a son that scored 1500 on the SAT and went to a good college. Maybe he is pursuing something "more important than money", but it would seem that money would be really important to someone in his situation.
"Following your dreams" is important, but it is foolish to dismiss the value of avoiding material deprivation and being financially independent.
I think we read it different ways. I read this as a "fish out of water" story, not a "sucks to be them" story.
Well off families tend to promote well-offness as a virtue to be striven for. Poor families don't tend to do that.
I feel like you're leaving out this whole gap between rich and living in the ghetto. There's, you know, middle class, which is where someone getting bachelors degree from Stanford and a PhD from Notre Dame in sociology is going to land.
I agree with you. This is a "fish out of water" story. Career aspirations are influenced by several factors; including socioeconomic status,race, parental expectation, parental occupations, and parental education level. I'm sure nearly all of those will negatively impact someone coming from the ghetto.
Neither one of my parents are athletes, and I don't know any professional athletes. And my parents have always valued academics over athletics. So while I'm sure I would be supported if I decided I wanted to become an athlete, it would not be the most convenient career path. I would have to find mentors myself, and start out with not a lot of significant support or career advice from the people in my life.
So if you look at it from a sociological perspective, he is definitely an outlier for even getting a phd. He personally experienced the differences in socioeconomic levels, so I can understand why he would be attracted to sociology.
Well off families tend to promote well-offness as a virtue to be striven for. Poor families don't tend to do that.
That doesn't match my experience. I've known plenty of students from low-income backgrounds whose parents were very much concerned that their kids make the most of their education in terms of future income. My ex majored in finance because she wanted to be able to take care of her parents (both postal workers) later in life.
On the other hand, I come from a reasonably well-off background, and my parents have never pressured me. I happen to like CS, which is fortunate, but my sister majored in history and they never gave her grief over it. (Of course, now she can't find a job, but that's a different story.)
People who grew up poor often feel a responsibility to one's community over wealth. I know from growing up in a middle class family that I feel no real compulsion to wealth. That social worker money is enough, and that's what matters.
Some people study a subject they are interested in, and not one that might make them better off.
I've met my share of smart people that are unhappy or bored out of their skulls, because they pursued a career for "socioeconomic status". Me included.
Well, that will certainly not help his socioeconomic status.
During my undergraduate career, we had a speaker come in who was the subject of a recent novel. Growing up, he was a bright kid who lived in a miserable ghetto with violent, useless schools. He managed, somehow, to catch the attention of a local journalist who helped him get into college, where he excelled.
What did he choose to do with his college education? Did he choose to become an engineer, or a businessman?
No. He decided to get a PHD in Sociology and become a social worker.
I am mystified by the exceptional poor students that follow this path. Maybe they pursue subjects like sociology because it tells them that the reason they grew up poor is that society has wronged them. However, it is certainly an ineffective way to increase the prospects of themselves and their families.