The question of education and its accessibility is probably a concern for all states interested in the well-being of their country. In my opinion, the idea of investing in all social strata is the most correct, but the idea that children need more investment than other people does not quite fit with my principles. Nevertheless, the need to invest in early childhood development is evident, and I agree.
I want to point out that I like the idea of the cycle of life and its two main principles: comprehensiveness and individuality. On the one hand, life is a cyclical mechanism, so each stage requires adherence to general principles: health, education, society, performance (Sachs, 2015). The seemingly obvious idea that more significant investments bring more excellent results probably seems strange to many. However, I believe that sooner or later, a tree is bound to grow on fertile soil. On the other hand, life is unique, and each person’s life is one, so each stage is different. No two paths to becoming a decent adult are the same; I don’t believe all millennials are stamped. No one loses their individuality, so treating each person with respect is an obligation, not a matter of choice.
There is a minor point that particularly interested me: online education. In the ongoing stressful epidemic, online courses and video lessons have been a solution to many problems. I know it has allowed many people to try new activities, and I think it is the right way to keep precisely the individual part of the circle of life.
Early Childhood Development is an idea about a suitable investment, and it’s close to my heart. Cumulative socio-economic changes in social consciousness, education, and accessibility have a positive effect. I noticed the Heckman scheme and the unequal investment effect at different ages (Sachs, 2015). Although I am convinced of the need to invest resources at all stages, their unequal value does not cause dissonance. Moreover, I would like to see the state not stop at what it has achieved and achieve equality for all segments of society.
I want to express my attitude to the setting of the Sustainable Development Goals. I like this idea because it gives insight into states’ intentions and their involvement in social issues in society. Accessibility of education should always be in states’ plans because the problem of inequality of people in education remains relevant (Sachs, 2015). The unfortunate gap in the availability of higher education resonates even more with society. It is mainly due to the need to get out of the “comfort zone” of low and middle-class people interested in higher education.
The illusion of accessibility created by the capitalist stock market in America must be condemned. In my opinion, solving all problems through the market system is not quite right, except that the “more you work, more you get” incentive practically does not work at the moment. Training remains a privilege and an expensive pleasure, but it does not guarantee 100% success because the current economy does not put failure into these amounts. America remains one of the wealthiest countries that continue to face discrimination based on immutable attributes. The illusion of choosing “to be rich” does not work among low- and middle-class families because education is not a primary necessity for them. The preference even for blue-collar jobs and low-skilled labor remains a pressing issue.
The operation of social elevators is a process in which people can move either at their level or to ascend to higher floors. Population mobility is a moot point since low “floors” stand too little chance (Sachs, 2015). I am concerned about the future application of my knowledge. This was probably a concern for me at the first stages as well. All people who graduate with a bachelor’s or master’s degree have a vested interest in advancing their careers. People who have come this far should no longer be deterred from their path.
Social mobility remains a subject of educational inequality since children from poorer families cannot afford college. I was not aware of the existence of the Gini coefficient, but now I think it best gives a clear indication of the problems in social mobility (Sachs, 2015). Mobility in the U.S. remains too low because the degree of inequality in obtaining even the first degrees of education is high because of the family income gap. In my opinion, children from low-income families are concerned with other problems, than higher education.
Higher education plays a role in life because universities train highly qualified specialists, whose work is then used and applied for the country’s development. I liked the idea of the dual impact of higher education on technological development. On the one hand, it is the internal transformation of skilled employees into increased productivity and benefits. On the other is the introduction of foreign technology and its validation to the conditions of the country. Only the combined result of these two paths gives development in the technological process.
I somewhat agree that there should be a sharing of experience between countries: the new UN Sustainable Development Solution Network is the idea of transnational interaction between universities (Sachs, 2015). The exchange and adaptation of technology is a long, ongoing process. However, I view this with skepticism since leaving specialists for better places is a problem for many countries. In my opinion, domestic policy should be aimed at improving education more than knowledge sharing. While borrowing the learning process technology is a great idea, the lack of equitable relations in society may not allow for high SDSN results.
Reference
Sachs, J. D. (2015). The age of sustainable development. Columbia University Press.