The two readings from Listen Up yelled out that disadvantages still emanate for people seeking to improve their economic situations by attaining higher education. Both authors give first hand accounts of the struggles they faced while in college, and then after. These articles infuriated me because here are women working hard trying to change their situation but unable to escape the system to which they were either born into or for some unfortunate event found themselves in.
Aisha Hakim-Dyce's "Reality Check" expresses her difficult time trying to make money while at school to pay for all her expenses. Hakim-Dyce was seeking higher education but could not afford to live off of the work-study program. She seriously considered go-go dancing as a way to make fast money to pay off her debts and to be able to live.
At first I was appalled that she would only believe this was her only option. She states, "None of my attempts at self-development translated into employment opportunities. I was constantly depressed and often thought of dropping out of school in order to hold down a full-time job to cover my living expenses." This is extremely sad. Education is suppose to offer a way out of poverty a way to better your life, yet here she is unable to even pay for food. The reason I was appalled by her decision to seriously consider go-go dancing is because it is "depleting experience... demoralizing and dehumanizing work." I did not understand why she did not try to be a waitress. The hours are flexible and depending on the establishment you can make some serious money through tips. You would not be selling you body (to an extent) to make a quick buck. However, by the end of the piece I stopped judging her and realized she felt this way for only reasons she knows. This saddened me. The challenges the poor must face are completely unfair.
Maria Cristina Rangel's "Knowledge Is Power" is just as depressing. Her situation is a little different. She was untraditional student going to Smith to try and get out of her unfortunate situation. "I wanted a better life for myself and wanted to ensure that my daughters would know more than the rural, misogynistic, racist, homophobic area of Washington state I grew up in, where the only options for an uneducated Chicana single mother seemed to be migrant farm labor, factory work and marriage." She had two kids already and was overwhelmed by the expectations put upon her. As an untraditional student she did not get the same grants or work-study opportunities as a traditional student. This in itself does not seem fair. Also, "under welfare reform, recipients of TAFDC, which she was on, are able to receive only two years of benefits within a five-year period. Recipients are required to enroll in training or job-preparation activity in exchange for their benefits, and the pursuit of higher education does not qualify as valid training." This is just one of the problems she face. She realized that reform was needed and set her sights on this goal.
This last essay really pushed me over the edge. I wanted to shout, WE MUST HELP THOSE WHO ARE TRYING!!!!!! We cannot continue to say that these women on welfare are lazy and only give them some help while at the same time limiting their chances of succeeding. Welfare, is not something someone wishes to be on and I feel as though our system says they are "helping" they are actually hurting people who find themselves in need of real help. We must acknowledge the realities and set up programs that allow people to make a better life for themselves and to finally be able to get off welfare. We must stop thinking and assuming "that you (people on welfare) are trying to scrw the DTA over..."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree completely with Emily's last point. Welfare is not enough to live on and is really only the last resort for many people in this country to ensure they can at least get some food on the table. Furthermore, it is nearly impossible to get an education and work and care for ones kids all at the same time. The government should have grants to help hard working people get the education they need to succeed, especially women whose work opportunities and comparative income are far less than that of men.
ReplyDeleteThere need to be more government support programs and assistance for people who cannot afford college education. One example of successful government aid to the poor are community colleges. They are not completely free so they do pose a certain financial burden, but are incomparably less expensive than a private school like Smith or Colgate. A two-year degree from college can make a huge difference in future career success. The state of California has a program where students do two years at a community college and then depending on their grades, have the option to complete two more years at a four year college in the University of California system. It allows a lot of students who couldn't otherwise afford it to be able to have a degree from a university. Additionally, the government spending money for free/subsidized education is a way to help the poor without being criticized as supporting lazy people who are taking advantage of the system, so it could potentially have more political success. Students must maintain a certain GPA, so it ensures that they are working hard. Unfortunately, with many of the state budget cuts, public school tuitions are all rising. I suppose this is the conservative argument - that the state paying for programs like this ends up bankrupting it.
ReplyDeleteAnother point this article raised was how privileged a private college education is. We value our liberal arts education because it makes us more well-rounded community members, taking for granted that we'll be able to financially support ourselves. We have the privilege of studying things like "Western Traditions" instead of having to focus on a vocation.
I think this post and both of the examples from Listen Up highlight the need to view 'equal opportunity' with a grain of salt. I feel that in society today there are most certainly opportunities that are provided to better onself but when obstacles such as juggling jobs while attending school are present many of the barriers to advancement that are in place are insurmountable. This creates the situation where many less privileged individuals remain in the lower strata of society and are similarly unsuccessful as those who didn't even make attempts to go to school and create a better life for themself. I do not mean to take a cynical stance but I think the trend of underprivileged individuals struggling even when provided 'equal opportunity' needs to reassesd in order to create a more horizontal system, rather than the hierarchy that still remains in place.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with what is being said DJT there is no such thing as equal opportunity inside your own line of work. One does not need to go to school to create a better life for themselves look at all the athletes and artist who are "successful". The higher education, does not determine if I become successful or not. I could sit on my couch and get just as much enjoyment out of life. I feel that the culture of power does not apply to me because it is not my culture. I live in it because I have a choice. A choice that everyone has. I will not criticize people if they successful according to the demands of the Hierarchy that you speak about.
ReplyDeleteI think Emily's post highlights the often glorified idea that higher education will result in living a better lifestyle. So many times, people of lower classes cannot attend receive higher levels of education because they cannot afford it. These issues only perpetuate the issue of class in our society. I think it is great that schools like Harvard are trying to gain more students from households of lower income by paying their full tuition if their income is below a certain level. Programs and grants make it possible for plenty of students to attend college, myself included.
ReplyDeleteI think Emily's last point is very true also. If people are trying to succeed and are trying to make something better for themselves, they should be helped. Welfare is not enough as we've seen in our readings. Why should some people be held accountable for circumstances they can't help?