Health/Education

Stories about health issues, education, and the politics of both.

‘My perseverance…kept me going:’ A late-bloomer student speaks out

Photo by JSmith Photo/Flickr (Creative Commons)

A post earlier this week explored the circumstances that land some minority college graduates in the job market later than their college peers. Family finances, work responsibilities, a lack of familiarity with the system experienced by many first-generation college students, even immigration status in some cases can add years to the time it takes to earn a degree.

The post generated some thoughtful comments, among them this mini-essay relating the personal experience of one reader, Jorge Nicolás Leal, who struggled through college and is pursuing a doctorate, albeit later in life than some of his fellow candidates.

I’m posting a slightly edited excerpt here, with Leal’s permission:

While I started college right after high school, my limited knowledge of the U.S. university system – combined with my desire to have fun as a young person – prevented me from excelling during my college education. I was a mediocre student at best, mainly because I didn’t know what I was getting myself into, which resources were available, and what possible consequences low grades could have on my academic life down the line.

After six years as an undergrad, I eventually “finished” school (with that pesky math class remaining) and went into the labor force. While I knew I wanted to eventually go back to school and pursue a post-graduate degree, I had no idea as to how to go about it. Eventually I ended going back to school, finishing that math class, getting a double major, earning an M.A. and now – finally- at 34 years of age, I am about to start my Ph.D. program.

I should note that I continued to work all throughout this post-B.A. education. It has been a lengthy, yet enriching learning experience, as I had to learn how to understand the value of a post-graduate education and how to navigate the system to reach my goals.

Unfortunately, our priorities as minorities are more urgent (supporting our families for instance). Therefore, few of us can choose to pursue degrees beyond our bachelors’. So more role models are needed. I can only say it was my perseverance that kept me going, as very few of my friends have chosen to pursue graduate degrees, so I didn’t know where to turn or who to seek out for advice.

This conversation thread began with a post earlier this week on a report from Georgetown University that found black and Latino degree holders earning less over their lifetime than their white and Asian counterparts. The report didn’t go into the reasons why, but since then, some readers have pointed to factors that force some of these students to put off studies until later.

According to census data from 2008, among minority college students over 35, both black and Latino students outnumbered Asian students by more than double in that age group.

The previous post highlighted an essay on the LATISM (Latinos in Social Media) blog by Ph.D. holder and workforce consultant Miguel Angel Corona, a one-time college dropout who eventually returned, finding himself surrounded by students a decade younger. Corona wrote:

If you’re a returning Latino adult student reading my short personal account, I hope it serves as an incentive, particularly on the nights when you’re working late or when you feel your efforts aren’t paying off. Believe me, they will one day.

FILED UNDER: Health/Education

August 10, 2011 | 12:05 PM | By Leslie Berestein Rojas

Minorities and the late-bloomer education

Photo by sea turtle/Flickr (Creative Commons)

A post earlier this week related the results of a Georgetown University study that showed black and Latino degree holders earning less than their white and Asian counterparts.

While no detailed explanation was given, the report hinted at “occupational concentration” as one possible factor.

There is much more to be explored on this topic, but one reader, Tim Mariner, offered this insight:

One possible explanation might be that perhaps blacks and latinos earn advanced degrees later in life because they don’t have the resources to complete these degrees earlier. Since the study measured lifetime earnings, it would be impossible for them to catch up unless their earnings before attaining these degrees was very strong.

And then as if planned, a post today on the LATISM (Latinos in Social Media) blog captured that late-bloomer experience that comes with the territory. Latino workforce consultant and advanced-degree holder Miguel Angel Corona wrote about the circuitous road that led him to his doctorate two years ago, one that took far longer than that of some fellow graduates:

I was an average student in high school at best. I didn’t set foot on a college campus until six years after graduating from high school. I bounced from one community college to another racking up college credits that weren’t leading to any particular degree. In the five years I spent working and attending school part-time, I easily could’ve earned my college degree.

It was hard not thinking about that fact. And then, I did the most foolish thing a college student could do – I quit school. It took another year before I made a genuine commitment to finish my degree. Despite my strong resolve, earlier academic mistakes made my journey even more challenging.

I never thought about how old I’d feel sitting in an introductory English class with recent high school graduates. The majority of them were almost 10 years younger than me.

Sound familiar? For aspiring college students lacking resources – and in some cases, those whose families lack legal status – extending or putting off studies while working is commonplace.

Good insight, good post.

FILED UNDER: Health/Education

August 8, 2011 | 12:26 PM | By Leslie Berestein Rojas

Black and Latino degree holders earn less – why?

Source: “The College Payoff: Education, Occupations, Lifetime Earnings,” Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce

A report released last Friday by Georgetown University that correlates educational attainment and occupation with lifetime earnings contained an interesting if disturbing detail: Black and Latino degree holders earn less than their white and Asian counterparts.

From the executive summary:

African-Americans and Latinos earn less than their White counterparts, even among the most highly-educated workers.

African-Americans and Latinos with Master’s degrees don’t exceed the median lifetime earnings of Whites with Bachelor’s degrees. However, at the graduate degree level, Asians make more than all other races/ethnicities, including Whites.

The full report further breaks down the gaps but doesn’t offer much of an explanation, though it hints at “occupational concentration” possibly playing a part:

While the gaps are smallest at the some college/no degree, Associate’s, Master’s, and Doctoral degree levels, they are large again among Bachelor’s and Professional degree holders.

These patterns suggest that more study is needed regarding the nature of occupational concentration by race/ethnicity at the high and low ends of the occupational ladder.

The best-paid occupations for people with bachelor’s degrees? The top five listed are chief executives and legislators; computer and information systems managers; aerospace, biomedical, agricultural, chemical, computer hardware, environmental, marine, materials, petroleum, mining and geological engineers; computer software engineers; and marketing and sales managers.

And while this is no surprise, women continue to have it rougher financially as well, earning less than men “at every level of educational attainment,” according to the report.

Sigh.

FILED UNDER: Economy, Health/Education

July 29, 2011 | 4:29 PM | By Leslie Berestein Rojas

What causes prejudice against foreigners, and is there an antidote?

Photo by Paula Bronstein/Getty Images

A street in a busy shopping district of Oslo this week, after a bombing in the Norwegian capital city and a shooting massacre on a nearby island left at least 76 people dead.

In light of the recent mass murders in Norway perpetrated by Anders Behring Breivik, a domestic terrorist motivated by anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim bias, Scientific American has an interesting Q&A with Steven Neuberg, a professor of psychology at Arizona State University.

Neuberg discusses the psychology of anti-immigrant prejudice, how it can turn deadly, and what lies at its root. An excerpt:

We’re highly dependent on people in our own groups. In fact, one could argue that our highly ultrasocial, interdependent form of group living may be the most important human adaptation. People tend to be invested in members of their groups, to have ongoing histories of fair exchanges and reciprocal relations, to treat one another reasonably well, to create and follow a set of agreed-upon norms, and thereby build up trust.

Outsiders aren’t going to have that same built-up investment in us or our group. Because of this, we tend to believe that people who are foreign to us are more likely to pose certain kinds of threats: We believe they may be more interested in taking our resources, more likely to cheat us in exchanges, to violate our norms and values, to take more than their fair share, and the like. These perceptions of threats are linked to negative emotions such as anger and moral disgust that contribute to anti-immigrant prejudices.

Feelings of contempt toward people believed to be “less” than others “can serve to motivate extreme actions,” Neuberg said. Are there antidotes? The forming of friendships across ethnic lines helps, he said, as does the integration of immigrants into the fabric of their new society.

It’s a timely scientific take on an emotionally charged and complicated issue. For those who like their weekend reading on the heavier side, it’s a great read.

FILED UNDER: Health/Education, Politics/Justice, Anders Behring Breivik, Anti-immigrant, Arizona State University, Norway, Norway killings, Norway massacre

July 28, 2011 | 11:19 AM | By Leslie Berestein Rojas

Longer immigration court wait times, with especially long waits in L.A.

Source: Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

The time it takes for immigration courts to decide cases continues to stretch, with average wait times getting longer by the year lately, according to a new report. And longest waits are in Los Angeles.

This is according to federal data obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University in New York, which keeps tabs on federal enforcement spending.

According to the report released today, average immigration court wait times grew longer during the first six months of federal fiscal year 2011, which began last Oct. 1. During this time the average wait for an immigrant’s case to be decided reached 302 days, a jump of 7.5 percent in the last six months and almost 30 percent higher than the average time it took in FY 2009.

Some courts have far worse backlogs than others. From the report:

During the first six months of FY 2011, the court with the longest overall decision time was Los Angeles, where cases averaged 745 days to decide. The New York court posted the second longest decision time of 646 days, followed by Philadelphia where cases averaged 600 days to decide. The Phoenix court was fourth (583 days) while the Portland court was fifth (531 days).

The same five courts had the longest average decision times for cases resulting in removal orders. However, their order was slightly different: New York (602 days), Los Angeles (532 days), Portland (521 days), Phoenix (464 days), and Philadelphia (440 days).

The length of time immigrants must wait varies by their country of origin. Particularly in deportation cases, different countries have different rules determining which deportees they take back, if any, and this affects wait times. From the report:

Among nationalities, and limiting comparisons to the 50 countries with the most cases decided during the first half of FY 2011, Armenians currently had the longest decision times averaging 955 days – more than three times the national average of 302 days. Other nationalities within the top five for their overall average decision times were Indonesia (930 days), China (691 days), Bangladesh (685 days), and Mali (682 days).

The top 50 nationalities with the most cases that had the fastest average decision times were: Mexico (173 days), Honduras (217 days), Cuba (230 days), Canada (264 days), and Costa Rica (279 days).

The amount of time it takes for the Executive Office for Immigration Review to decide an immigrant’s fate is often reflected in how much time that person spends in immigrant detention, though some of the shortest waits posted were in detention center courts. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement records through late May show that the average length of stay in immigrant detention has dropped since 2007, as the Obama administration has carried out a record number of deportations in the past couple of years.

However, the bulk of these removals are to Mexico, the country whose nationals spend the least amount of time on average waiting for an immigration court decision.

FILED UNDER: Health/Education, EOIR, Executive Office for Immigration Review, ICE, Immigrant detention, Immigration courts, Record deportations, Syracuse University, TRAC, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

July 27, 2011 | 1:18 PM | By Leslie Berestein Rojas

Readers react to the California Dream Act

Photo by Leslie Berestein Rojas/KPCC

Students' t-shirts at the AB 130 signing ceremony at Los Angeles City College Monday, July 25, 2011

Readers have posted close to 30 comments since Monday on a piece related to the California Dream Act, half of which was signed into law that day by Gov. Jerry Brown in Los Angeles.

The bill that became law, known as AB 130, is the slimmer of two bills that would make it easier for undocumented college students to pay tuition. AB 130 gives these students access to privately funded university scholarships derived from non-state funds.

The more contentious AB 131, which remains hung up in a state Senate committee, would give them access to publicly funded financial aid, which only U.S. citizen and legal resident students are entitled to now.

Public funds or not, the idea of giving undocumented students an easier path through college clearly rattles some. California already allows undocumented college students who meet residency criteria to pay in-state tuition rates, unlike many other states.

Bobeast lamented:

“qualify for in-state tuition under California law”
So they qualify for “in-state” tuition, even if they had to sneak to get in-state? Have we lost our minds? By what theory, legal. moral, or otherwise, should we afford the rights of citizenship to those who snuck into our country uninvited? I honestly think we’ve simply gone stupid as a society.

Several readers who back the tuition proposals argued that many of the young people who benefit came here at a very early age, brought by their parents with no say in the decision.

Getyourfactsstraight replied:

“uninvited” did you have a choice on where you were born or where you grew up? I think not. So technically you are uninvited here too.

Samantha echoed this:

most of these students had no choice coming here, their parents smuggled them illegally; and theyre just trying to live their life as best as they can. For some of us illegal immigrants, going back to mexico would pretty much be signing a death sentence especially where there are so many narcotics

Jennifer Luchsinger wrote:

I’m disgusted. While I am a firm advocate of education, if these students cannot obtain legal employment, then they will not be required to add to the tax base in our state, nor will they be required to pay taxes to the IRS. We pay taxes so that we can live in a safe society. I have absolutely ZERO sympathy for these students, or their families.

Some of the comments I won’t reprint, as the exchanges became heated and personal at times. But they do point to the highly controversial nature of these proposals, especially AB 131. The bill’s proponents in the state legislature are trying to move to the Senate floor by the end of August in a political climate that is complicated by the state’s financial crisis.

An estimated 24,000 undocumented youths graduate each year from the state’s high schools, according to the office of Gil Cedillo, the Democratic Assembly member who sponsored both bills. It’s estimated that AB 131 would cost between $32 million and $35 million annually, although a portion of this money is already set aside each year for high school students who qualify in terms of income and GPA for Cal Grants college tuition grants, according to Cedillo’s office.

FILED UNDER: Health/Education, Politics/Justice, AB 130, AB 131, California Dream Act, Dream Act, Gil Cedillo, Gov. Jerry Brown

July 27, 2011 | 10:15 AM | By Leslie Berestein Rojas

Examining the high school dropout crisis

Photo by anna vignet/Flickr (Creative Commons)

An NPR series this week has focused on the high school dropout crisis, which disproportionately affects black and Latino teens. According to U.S. Department of Education statistics, in spite of lower overall dropout rates since 1980, Latino teens’ rates remain the highest. And while boys receive much of the attention, nearly as many girls drop out, too.

From a piece yesterday, which profiled Lauren Ortega of San Bernardino, now 20:

Of the million or so kids who drop out of school every year, nearly half are girls. They drop out for the same reasons boys do: they skip school, fall behind academically and they’re bored. But the single biggest reason girls drop out is because they get pregnant.

Young Latinas are the most susceptible to this, according to the piece, which cites national figures stating that 41 percent of Latinas who drop out of school do so because they become pregnant. The question that remains is how to break the cycle.

The five-part series continues today with a piece profiling teens in Baltimore, where “the vast majority of kids who never finish school drop out because of extreme poverty, homelessness and a drug epidemic that has left some neighborhoods desolate and dangerous.”

An overview this weekend presented some bleak statistics:

The unemployment rate for people without a high school diploma is nearly twice that of the general population.

Over a lifetime, a high school dropout will earn $200,000 less than a high school graduate and almost $1 million less than a college graduate.

Dropouts are more likely to commit crimes, abuse drugs and alcohol, become teenage parents, live in poverty and commit suicide.

Dropouts cost federal and state governments hundreds of billions of dollars in lost earnings, welfare and medical costs, and billions more for dropouts who end up in prison.

A broad solution has remained out of reach, though some measures that have been tested have worked better than others. The education website Edutopia had an interesting piece a few years ago, “How to End the Dropout Crisis,” that outlined several of these strategies.

FILED UNDER: Health/Education, High school dropout rates, Teen pregnancy

July 25, 2011 | 4:01 PM | By Leslie Berestein Rojas

Now that half the California Dream Act is law, what’s next?

Photo by Leslie Berestein Rojas/KPCC

Students' t-shirts at the AB 130 signing ceremony today at Los Angeles City College, July 25, 2011

As students peered through bookshelves to catch a glimpse, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a piece of legislation known as AB 130 in the library of Los Angeles City College, a community college serving students on the working-class southern fringe of Hollywood.

Photo by Leslie Berestein Rojas/KPCC

Gov. Jerry Brown addresses the crowd at Los Angeles City College, July 25, 2011

The bill is one-half of a legislative package referred to as the California Dream Act, two bills sponsored by Democratic Assembly member Gil Cedillo that aim to make it easier for undocumented college students to pay for college. The mood was celebratory as Brown put pen to paper, granting these students access to scholarships based on private, non-state funding previously unavailable to them.

But afterward, the students in the library made no bones about being disappointed that AB 130′s companion bill, AB 131, has yet to make it to the Senate floor for a vote. That bill would enable them to access public state-funded financial aid, including Cal Grants, as U.S. citizen and legal resident students do now.

“It’s good that AB 130 passed,” said Shirley Santos, 19, a sophomore at Fullerton City College studying to become a biochemist. “But it’s not complete.”

Santos, who arrived in the United States at age five with her family and remains undocumented, wore a white t-shirt depicting a half-full glass with a question mark, as did several of her friends.

It’s a milestone just that AB 130 has come as far as it has, with similar legislation sponsored by Cedillo having been vetoed three times by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. It was the easiest to pass of the two bills. The prospects for AB 131, which would involve the use of state funding, remain unclear. Opponents have raised questions about how the state would pay for the student aid while it struggles through a financial crisis.

Continue reading →