题目内容
How do we measure the economic return to higher education Typically it is calculated as the difference between average wages of college graduates and those who have not graduated from college. In 1997, for example, college graduates earned an average of ＄ 40, 508 versus just ＄ 23, 970 for non-college graduates. Based on these income levels, the economic return to a college education is approximately 69 percent, the difference between the two income levels. But this simple calculation ignores the fact that college graduates tend to come from higher socioeconomic levels, are more highly motivated, and probably have higher IQs than non graduations. Although these factors influence inc0mes, they are not the result of college attendance. Therefore the result of the study is an overstatement of the returns to higher education.More sophisticated analyses adjust for these extraneous influences. For instance economists Orley Ashenfelter and Alan Krueger, estimate that each year of post-high school education results in a wage premium of between 15 and 16 percent. Their study is particularly relevant because they examined the earnings differences for identical twins with different education levels, allowing them to control for genetic and socioeconomic factors. Other research puts the wage premium for college graduates at nearly 50 per cent.Unfortunately, you can’t spend a college wage premium. Income levels for the average college graduate have stagnated. After adjusting for inflation, the average income of college graduates holding full-time jobs rose by only 4. 4 per cent between 1979 and 1997, or at a minuscule annual rate of 0.2 percent. At the same time, workers with only high-school degrees saw their real income plummet by 15 percent. Bottom line: the much-ballyhooed college wage "premium" is due primarily to the fall in inflation-adjusted salaries of workers who haven’t been to college.In fact, if you don’t go on to graduate school or are not among the top graduates at one of the nation’s elite colleges, chances are your sky-high tuition is buying you no economic advantage whatsoever. In recent decades the flood of graduates has been so great that an increasing proportion have found themselves, within a few years, working as sales clerks, cab drivers, and in other jobs that do not, require a college degree.In 1995, approximately 40 percent of people with some college education--and 10 percent of those with a college degree—worked at jobs requiring only high-school skills. That’s up from 30 percent and 6 percent, respectively, in 1971. What does the author mean when he says "you can’t spend a college wage premium" (para. 3)().
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
This book is an attempt to introduce the reader to the United States. It intends to give a concise but fairly well rounded overview of present day American so dety; not only a picture of surface phenomena, but insights into American culture and insights about the American people.Various aspects of American life are presented through articles written mainly by Americans themselves, or by westerners familiar with the United States. Most were written by scholars or specialists on the topic of the field. A number of articles were written by sociologists. This gives a perspective that goes beyond the common articles written for the average tourist, for the person with passing curiosity, or for the ordinary man-in-the-street. A number of articles were also selected with the idea of presenting different, sometimes conflicting, points of view about the same topic. This it is hoped, will help the reader to gain better understanding and to help him draw his own conclusions.It should be stressed that the viewpoints of the various authors are not necessarily those of the compilers of this book. We may agree with all of some articles, only partially with others and possibly disagree considerably with a few of the selections. To allow the reader to use his own judgement, we have generally kept the articles in their original form. If changes were made they were to make the language easier or to make the articles more manageable for the reader.Most of the articles in this book were selected on the basis of the following criteria:1. Their suitability for giving accurate information about a topic or some aspect of the topic. These articles should help present a well-rounded picture of the whole. In this respect, we have sometimes given preference to an earlier article rather than a later one if the former gives a more insightful or more comprehensive treatment of the subject.2. Their appeal to the ordinary reader. These articles should be authoritative and reliable, yet not too elementary. The contents should be of interest to most readers.3. Their linguistic quality and degree of difficulty. The level for which these articles are intended is college students of English, other college students with a fairly good command of English, and the general reader interested in the U. S. and with fairly good comprehension of the language.4. Their general relevance to Chinese readers or Chinese society. These articles should have some general significance to China, either present or future, and not be totally irrelevant.Obviously no one book can give a completely comprehensive picture of description of such a vast and complex nation. Many readers may disagree with our choice of topics; most likely a number will say we have left out important ones. Many may feel we did not use our best judgment in selecting the articles. We must admit that we did not always agree among ourselves. We were further restricted by the limited amount of materials to choose from. Needless to say, we welcome suggestions and criticisms from our readers. And in spite of all its shortcomings, if the book has helped the reader to gain some insight and understanding about the United States and its people and has stimulated the reader to go further, and to study more, then in a modest way this book will have accomplished much of what if was intended to do. What kind of overview does the book intend to give about American society
Not long ago, it seemed that there would come a day quite soon when science would reveal that every food would be toxic and every practice lethal. Or, at any rate, that is how things appeared to many ordinary people. The supposition was based on half-digested and partially understood scientific reports. As a code of belief it still has its disciples—only the other day I found myself sitting at dinner between women who, to hear them talk, seemed to imagine that every article in the supermarket was deadly. But I am pleased to report that, at long last, I detect the first signs that my fellow citizens are beginning to emerge from the gloomy depression in which it has been fashionable to hide for the past 20 years or so. There are now a handful of daring souls who are prepared once again to eat the odd spoonful of strawberry’ jam and take the consequences. They have noticed, perhaps, that for all the talk about refined sugar, the strawberry jam, mortality rate is somewhat lower than they had previously been led to expect. The loss of nerve, from which the ordinary person seems to be recovering, was caused by several factors. First, he was told by various professional watchdogs, public analysts and medical officers of health that it would be a good thing if he knew the contents of all the foods he bought. But when he saw the lists of ingredients dutifully printed on the sides of packets and bottles, he trembled and feared for his safety. The second thing which once frightened the timid but which, I do believe, is now frightening them less, was the remarkable scientific advance which, all unremarked by the general public and its legislators, has been revolutionising analytical chemistry. What this galloping advance in analytical acuity means is that scientists can now isolate the tiniest amounts of harmful substances in foods which ,hitherto, have always been considered safe, or in some cases beneficial. Now there are sophisticated tests which can detect poisons in the tiniest amount—not even enough to kill a mouse. Over the years the general public has been bombarded with half-correct newspaper reports of the increasing number of foods which detailed investigation has proved contain harmful substances in some degree. And so it came to pass that few foods could face the charge of toxicity with equanimity. Gradually, I do believe, a still small voice has come to be heard amid the hubbub—the voice of common sense. Surprisingly, it was first heard in the United states. Prolonged tests on mice had shown that saccharin was—even to a minuscule degree—carcinogenic. A few years ago, such a finding would have led to public turmoil and the exclusion of all saccharin from the American scene. This time, however, there was a pause for reflection. If even a huge intake of saccharin could only be expected to give you cancer 70 or 80 years hence, did it really matter Or should one insist on the government protecting one from being poisoned, not merely during one’s lifetime, but after one’s death as well Nitrosamines will undoubtedly posion you—if you take a poisonous dose. But when it was found recently that tiny traces can be detected in whisky, people kept their nerve and reckoned that, just as the minute amounts of gold which every schoolboy knows can be found in seawater do no one any good, so the picograms of nitrosamines did them no harm. I salute the dawn of common sense. Not long ago people were under the impression that
The "standard of living" of any country means the average person’s share of the goods and services which the country produces. A country’s standard of living, therefore, depends first and foremost on its capacity to produce wealth. "Wealth" in this sense is not money, for we do not live on money but on things that money can buy- "goods "such as food and clothing, and "services" such as transport and entertainment.A country’s capacity to produce wealth depends upon many factors, most of which have an effect on one another. Wealth depends to a great extent upon a country’s natural resources, such as coal, gold, and other minerals, water supply and so on. Some regions of the world are well supplied with coal and minerals, and have a fertile soil and a favourable climate; other regions possess none of them. The USA is one of the wealthiest regions of the world because she has vast natural resources within her borders, her soil is fertile, and her climate is varied. The Sahara Desert, on the other hand, is one of the least wealthy.Next to natural resources comes the ability to turn them to use. Sound and stable political conditions, and freedom from foreign invasion, enable a country to develop its natural resources peacefully and steadily, and to produce more wealth than another country equally well served by nature but less well ordered. Another important factor is the technical efficiency of a country’s people. Old countries that have, through many centuries, trained up numerous skilled craftsmen and technicians are better placed to produce wealth than countries whose workers are largely unskilled. Wealth also produces wealth. As a country becomes wealthier, its people have a large margin for saving, and can put their savings into factories and machines which will help workers to produce more goods in their working day.A country’s standard of living does not only depend upon the wealth that is produced and consumed within its own borders, but also upon what is indirectly produced through international trade. For example, Britain’s wealth in foodstuffs and other agricultural products would be much less if she had to depend only on those grown at home. Trade makes it possible for her surplus manufactured goods to be traded abroad for the agricultural product that would other wise be lacking. A country’s wealth is, therefore, much influenced by its manufacturing capacity, provided that other countries can be found ready to accept its manufactures. The best title for the passage would be ().
How do we measure the economic return to higher education Typically it is calculated as the difference between average wages of college graduates and those who have not graduated from college. In 1997, for example, college graduates earned an average of ＄ 40, 508 versus just ＄ 23, 970 for non-college graduates. Based on these income levels, the economic return to a college education is approximately 69 percent, the difference between the two income levels. But this simple calculation ignores the fact that college graduates tend to come from higher socioeconomic levels, are more highly motivated, and probably have higher IQs than non graduations. Although these factors influence inc0mes, they are not the result of college attendance. Therefore the result of the study is an overstatement of the returns to higher education.More sophisticated analyses adjust for these extraneous influences. For instance economists Orley Ashenfelter and Alan Krueger, estimate that each year of post-high school education results in a wage premium of between 15 and 16 percent. Their study is particularly relevant because they examined the earnings differences for identical twins with different education levels, allowing them to control for genetic and socioeconomic factors. Other research puts the wage premium for college graduates at nearly 50 per cent.Unfortunately, you can’t spend a college wage premium. Income levels for the average college graduate have stagnated. After adjusting for inflation, the average income of college graduates holding full-time jobs rose by only 4. 4 per cent between 1979 and 1997, or at a minuscule annual rate of 0.2 percent. At the same time, workers with only high-school degrees saw their real income plummet by 15 percent. Bottom line: the much-ballyhooed college wage "premium" is due primarily to the fall in inflation-adjusted salaries of workers who haven’t been to college.In fact, if you don’t go on to graduate school or are not among the top graduates at one of the nation’s elite colleges, chances are your sky-high tuition is buying you no economic advantage whatsoever. In recent decades the flood of graduates has been so great that an increasing proportion have found themselves, within a few years, working as sales clerks, cab drivers, and in other jobs that do not, require a college degree.In 1995, approximately 40 percent of people with some college education--and 10 percent of those with a college degree—worked at jobs requiring only high-school skills. That’s up from 30 percent and 6 percent, respectively, in 1971. The traditional calculation of the economic return to higher education is inaccurate because().
微信支付 
支付宝支付