The Closing of the Millennial Mind on Campus

[Bubba]

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2 ... AifQ%3D%3D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

By Edward Morrissey,
The Fiscal Times

April 23, 2015

Completing a college education, people have long presumed, shows that a young adult has not just mastered a particular subject but has broadened his or her intellect by exposure to many different disciplines, philosophies, and diverse approaches to both knowledge and life.

A successful college education replaces ignorance with insight, and insularity with confidence and engagement. With the escalating price and debt loads from tuition becoming a crippling fiscal burden to young adults, delivering on those values becomes more important than ever to their economic survival.

Unfortunately, most of our universities and colleges end up promoting ignorance, insularity, fear, and infantilism. Rather than seek out heterodox opinions, the faculties and student bodies of these schools attempt to insulate themselves from opponents through speech codes, demands for “trigger warnings,” demagoguery and shouting down of alternate views. Instead of education producing open minds, these institutions end up indoctrinating young adults on how best to keep their minds closed, limited to the boundaries of groupthink rather than freed to pursue truth.

Three incidents this week demonstrate the gap between education and indoctrination. Oberlin College in Ohio and Georgetown University in Washington DC both had groups invite Christina Hoff Sommers, a conservative critic of the current version of feminism, to speak on their campuses. Sommers, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, composes a weekly video blog called the Factual Feminist, and most of her work challenges both the assumptions and conclusions of “third-wave” feminism, especially as practiced on college campuses.

Much of what Sommers writes aims to counter the arguments that have become treated as unconditional truths, but which do not stand up to empirical tests. Those assumptions include the oft-cited and roundly debunked claim that one in five women on American college have been or will be victims of sexual assault during their student careers, or that women only earn 78 cents on the dollar compared to men. Both of these continue to be promoted not just by campus activists but also by the White House, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The Department of Justice’s own data actually suggests that colleges and universities are slightly safer than the US at large when it comes to sexual assault, and the rate of those attacks on campus is six for every 1,000 people, or 0.6 percent. Even if only one in five attacks get reported, then the rate would be 2.4 percent rather than 20 percent.

Needless to say, this pushback on popular feminist narratives hasn’t endeared Sommers to activists at these schools. In an environment with free and open dialogue – a college campus, say, which most Americans would have assumed qualified for the task – Sommers’ opponents would have offered a spirited debate on these topics and statistics.

They could also have invited their own speakers to campus to make their own arguments without any challenge to them. Instead, students at both schools encouraged their colleagues to declare themselves victims, provided shelter from opposing points of view on the basis of Sommers’ ideas being somehow “unsafe,” and made it clear that they’d prefer to see Sommers speak elsewhere.

At Oberlin, activists authored an essay in the student newspaper calling her a “rape denialist” and accusing her of encouraging violence against women. At both colleges, protesters plastered “trigger warnings” around the campuses near the venues where Sommers spoke. At both campuses, students complained that having Sommers speak at their schools created an “unsafe” environment for them, which necessitated the establishment of “safe spaces” to deal with the discomfort of having their assumptions challenged.

Ironically, the point of feminism had once been that women didn’t need paternalistic protection from life provided to them by male-dominated institutions. Sommers herself noted the contradiction between feminism and “trigger warnings” in her most recent vlog entry prior to her appearances at Oberlin and Georgetown. Not only do they have “no basis in scientific fact,” Sommers explains, but they “convey the idea that women are helpless children, delicate little injured birds who can’t cope with clapping,” let alone any sort of debate or challenge.

Even the good news comes freighted with recognition of the scope of the issue. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) announced earlier this week that after almost a decade of engagement with George Mason University, the school had finally agreed to dump its speech codes in favor of unfettered free debate. “Freedom of speech and academic freedom are core values of a university’s mission,” said GMU Foundation Professor of Law Todd Zywicki. “I’m delighted that George Mason has joined the ranks of universities that have committed themselves to the full protection of free speech.”

Unfortunately, the ranks of universities aligning their policies to those core values remains very low indeed. GMU became only the 20th school to get a green light rating from FIRE, having been preceded by William & Mary and the University of Virginia – which Rolling Stone recently smeared in its publication of fabulism about rape culture on campuses.

FIRE has rated 437 colleges and universities in the US for their commitment to free speech on campus, spokesman Nico Perrino informed me in an e-mail. Over half of those earn a red light (where policies explicitly restrict speech), and another 39 percent get a yellow rating (policies which can be applied to restrict speech). Perrino said that FIRE is currently working with another 29 schools to support free speech fully, but even if they all converted tomorrow, it would still mean that only 11.2 percent of those rated campuses actually gives students the right to express themselves openly and have access to a broad range of opinion.

The tantrums thrown by students at Oberlin and Georgetown, and the endorsement of speech restraints and indoctrination by school administrators, remain the rule rather than the exception. That prompts the question: what value are these students actually gaining for their mortgaging of their financial futures?

Better yet, considering that student loans primarily get backed by taxpayers, what outcomes will we see from this investment in social and monetary capital? We are creating a generation of “delicate little injured birds” whose only developed skill involves curling up into a ball at the first sign of adverse experience. Perhaps we should invest in trade school education instead.

[madhatter]

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2 ... AifQ%3D%3D

By Edward Morrissey,
The Fiscal Times

April 23, 2015

Completing a college education, people have long presumed, shows that a young adult has not just mastered a particular subject but has broadened his or her intellect by exposure to many different disciplines, philosophies, and diverse approaches to both knowledge and life.

A successful college education replaces ignorance with insight, and insularity with confidence and engagement. With the escalating price and debt loads from tuition becoming a crippling fiscal burden to young adults, delivering on those values becomes more important than ever to their economic survival.

Unfortunately, most of our universities and colleges end up promoting ignorance, insularity, fear, and infantilism. Rather than seek out heterodox opinions, the faculties and student bodies of these schools attempt to insulate themselves from opponents through speech codes, demands for “trigger warnings,” demagoguery and shouting down of alternate views. Instead of education producing open minds, these institutions end up indoctrinating young adults on how best to keep their minds closed, limited to the boundaries of groupthink rather than freed to pursue truth.

Three incidents this week demonstrate the gap between education and indoctrination. Oberlin College in Ohio and Georgetown University in Washington DC both had groups invite Christina Hoff Sommers, a conservative critic of the current version of feminism, to speak on their campuses. Sommers, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, composes a weekly video blog called the Factual Feminist, and most of her work challenges both the assumptions and conclusions of “third-wave” feminism, especially as practiced on college campuses.

Much of what Sommers writes aims to counter the arguments that have become treated as unconditional truths, but which do not stand up to empirical tests. Those assumptions include the oft-cited and roundly debunked claim that one in five women on American college have been or will be victims of sexual assault during their student careers, or that women only earn 78 cents on the dollar compared to men. Both of these continue to be promoted not just by campus activists but also by the White House, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The Department of Justice’s own data actually suggests that colleges and universities are slightly safer than the US at large when it comes to sexual assault, and the rate of those attacks on campus is six for every 1,000 people, or 0.6 percent. Even if only one in five attacks get reported, then the rate would be 2.4 percent rather than 20 percent.

Needless to say, this pushback on popular feminist narratives hasn’t endeared Sommers to activists at these schools. In an environment with free and open dialogue – a college campus, say, which most Americans would have assumed qualified for the task – Sommers’ opponents would have offered a spirited debate on these topics and statistics.

They could also have invited their own speakers to campus to make their own arguments without any challenge to them. Instead, students at both schools encouraged their colleagues to declare themselves victims, provided shelter from opposing points of view on the basis of Sommers’ ideas being somehow “unsafe,” and made it clear that they’d prefer to see Sommers speak elsewhere.

At Oberlin, activists authored an essay in the student newspaper calling her a “rape denialist” and accusing her of encouraging violence against women. At both colleges, protesters plastered “trigger warnings” around the campuses near the venues where Sommers spoke. At both campuses, students complained that having Sommers speak at their schools created an “unsafe” environment for them, which necessitated the establishment of “safe spaces” to deal with the discomfort of having their assumptions challenged.

Ironically, the point of feminism had once been that women didn’t need paternalistic protection from life provided to them by male-dominated institutions. Sommers herself noted the contradiction between feminism and “trigger warnings” in her most recent vlog entry prior to her appearances at Oberlin and Georgetown. Not only do they have “no basis in scientific fact,” Sommers explains, but they “convey the idea that women are helpless children, delicate little injured birds who can’t cope with clapping,” let alone any sort of debate or challenge.

Even the good news comes freighted with recognition of the scope of the issue. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) announced earlier this week that after almost a decade of engagement with George Mason University, the school had finally agreed to dump its speech codes in favor of unfettered free debate. “Freedom of speech and academic freedom are core values of a university’s mission,” said GMU Foundation Professor of Law Todd Zywicki. “I’m delighted that George Mason has joined the ranks of universities that have committed themselves to the full protection of free speech.”

Unfortunately, the ranks of universities aligning their policies to those core values remains very low indeed. GMU became only the 20th school to get a green light rating from FIRE, having been preceded by William & Mary and the University of Virginia – which Rolling Stone recently smeared in its publication of fabulism about rape culture on campuses.

FIRE has rated 437 colleges and universities in the US for their commitment to free speech on campus, spokesman Nico Perrino informed me in an e-mail. Over half of those earn a red light (where policies explicitly restrict speech), and another 39 percent get a yellow rating (policies which can be applied to restrict speech). Perrino said that FIRE is currently working with another 29 schools to support free speech fully, but even if they all converted tomorrow, it would still mean that only 11.2 percent of those rated campuses actually gives students the right to express themselves openly and have access to a broad range of opinion.

The tantrums thrown by students at Oberlin and Georgetown, and the endorsement of speech restraints and indoctrination by school administrators, remain the rule rather than the exception. That prompts the question: what value are these students actually gaining for their mortgaging of their financial futures?

Better yet, considering that student loans primarily get backed by taxpayers, what outcomes will we see from this investment in social and monetary capital? We are creating a generation of “delicate little injured birds” whose only developed skill involves curling up into a ball at the first sign of adverse experience. Perhaps we should invest in trade school education instead.

Rather than seek out heterodox opinions, the left wing KZoners attempt to insulate themselves from opponents through speech codes, demands for “trigger warnings,” demagoguery, ignorance, and shouting down of alternate views.

the rest of it pretty much says the same thing....not surprising in the least...and this takes place in the public school systems as well...your tax dollars at work creating an endless supply of mindless group-think (barely) useful idiots for generations to come...

congrats america, you built that...prepare to reap your reward...

[Bubba]

No Mor Chikin: Johns Hopkins Students Ban Chick-fil-A From Campus

http://news.yahoo.com/no-mor-chikin-joh ... 34775.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

And if you haven't seen this article....wow!

The college campuses are filled with folks that think they are really bright and righteous...but they're not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... ign-peers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A good intro ...and the deeper you dig (read the entire summary report) the more depressing it gets.

Not sure it is mentioned in this article but millennials (16-34 yrs) do worse than older folk on the tests given. As if we didn't expect it.

[Bubba]

It's not just college campuses...

A new YouGov poll of almost 1,000 Americans released on Wednesday shows just how much of our birthrights we Americans, like Esau of old, are willing to trade for a morsel of self-congratulation. A plurality of Americans, 41 percent, would support a law that would criminalize speech for content if it “intended to stir up hatred against a group” based on ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Only 37 percent --barely over a third of Americans – would oppose it.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2 ... ate-Speech" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;?

[madhatter]

It's not just college campuses...

A new YouGov poll of almost 1,000 Americans released on Wednesday shows just how much of our birthrights we Americans, like Esau of old, are willing to trade for a morsel of self-congratulation. A plurality of Americans, 41 percent, would support a law that would criminalize speech for content if it “intended to stir up hatred against a group” based on ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Only 37 percent --barely over a third of Americans – would oppose it.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2 ... ate-Speech" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;?

[XtremeJibber2001]

Not sure it is mentioned in this article but millennials (16-34 yrs) do worse than older folk on the tests given. As if we didn't expect it.

As someone in the aforementioned age range, I'd argue some of us at the upper end are actually Gen-Xers

Anyway, I don't put much credence in standardized testing. As someone who did poorly in Highschool (lazy) and poorly on the SATs, I've done just fine. There's been plenty of content posted here that might lead one to assess my thinking and literacy abilities as deficient . However, I think there's a lot more to one's success than literacy, math, and technical skills. In the American workplace, EQ as well as leadership skills plays a big role in one's success.

[Bubba]

Not sure it is mentioned in this article but millennials (16-34 yrs) do worse than older folk on the tests given. As if we didn't expect it.

As someone in the aforementioned age range, I'd argue some of us at the upper end are actually Gen-Xers

Anyway, I don't put much credence in standardized testing. As someone who did poorly in Highschool (lazy) and poorly on the SATs, I've done just fine. There's been plenty of content posted here that might lead one to assess my thinking and literacy abilities to be deficient . However, I think there's a lot more to one's success than literacy, math, and technical skills. In the American workplace, EQ as well as leadership skills plays a big role in one's success.

I, for one, think you've come a long way in your thinking and literacy abilities since you first appeared on KZone.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Not sure it is mentioned in this article but millennials (16-34 yrs) do worse than older folk on the tests given. As if we didn't expect it.

As someone in the aforementioned age range, I'd argue some of us at the upper end are actually Gen-Xers

Anyway, I don't put much credence in standardized testing. As someone who did poorly in Highschool (lazy) and poorly on the SATs, I've done just fine. There's been plenty of content posted here that might lead one to assess my thinking and literacy abilities as deficient . However, I think there's a lot more to one's success than literacy, math, and technical skills. In the American workplace, EQ as well as leadership skills plays a big role in one's success.

Yeah...sorta agree with you but.... the type of skills assessed by standardized tests ARE the skills schools are supposed to be learning: numeracy and literacy. And they are failing at this task.

Please tell me what skills you think the millennials are not, at least slightly, more deficient at than previous age groups?

Not trying to sound like a grumpy old man (56 years old) but I fear we have failed to pass on the culture that made our parents generation the most successful in history (more or less). I feel our culture truly is in decline.

[Geoff]

Please tell me what skills you think the millennials are not, at least slightly, more deficient at than previous age groups?

Not trying to sound like a grumpy old man (56 years old) but I fear we have failed to pass on the culture that made our parents generation the most successful in history (more or less). I feel our culture truly is in decline.

They're not. The difference is the internet exposes us to all the morons we wouldn't otherwise be exposed to.

"The Greatest Generation" was the most successful in history because they bombed the rest of the world to rubble. In 1950, the United States was 50% of the world economy. There was an enormous labor shortage. Any dolt could get a factory job that paid middle class wages. This had little to do with level of education, work ethic, or anything but the dumb luck of being born at a time when there was a huge labor shortage and no competition.

The economy continues to grow faster than the population is growing. The lifetime standard of living of millennials is going to be far higher than "the Greatest Generation" or the Boomers. The difference is that there isn't a labor shortage now so there is going to be a helluva lot more income stratification. The top-5% is going to see unprecedented affluence. The bottom 50% is going to be mired in the working class. Other than the post-WW II blip that lasted 50 years, that has been the historical norm in the United States. 32% of the US adult population now has a college degree. In 1950, it was 6%. I think if you only look at that top 5% or so, you won't see much difference. The difference is there are now 5x more college grads and most of them attended 3rd tier state schools or private schools where having the tuition money is the only criteria for admission.

[Bubba]

Please tell me what skills you think the millennials are not, at least slightly, more deficient at than previous age groups?

Not trying to sound like a grumpy old man (56 years old) but I fear we have failed to pass on the culture that made our parents generation the most successful in history (more or less). I feel our culture truly is in decline.

They're not. The difference is the internet exposes us to all the morons we wouldn't otherwise be exposed to.

"The Greatest Generation" was the most successful in history because they bombed the rest of the world to rubble. In 1950, the United States was 50% of the world economy. There was an enormous labor shortage. Any dolt could get a factory job that paid middle class wages. This had little to do with level of education, work ethic, or anything but the dumb luck of being born at a time when there was a huge labor shortage and no competition.

The economy continues to grow faster than the population is growing. The lifetime standard of living of millennials is going to be far higher than "the Greatest Generation" or the Boomers. The difference is that there isn't a labor shortage now so there is going to be a helluva lot more income stratification. The top-5% is going to see unprecedented affluence. The bottom 50% is going to be mired in the working class. Other than the post-WW II blip that lasted 50 years, that has been the historical norm in the United States. 32% of the US adult population now has a college degree. In 1950, it was 6%. I think if you only look at that top 5% or so, you won't see much difference. The difference is there are now 5x more college grads and most of them attended 3rd tier state schools or private schools where having the tuition money is the only criteria for admission.

I think your "facts" might be a little confused. Immediately following the war there was, in fact, a labor surplus. Unemployment rose to almost 8% at one point in either 1949 or 1950. The rate dropped during the Korean War, then rose again following Korea back up to over 6%. It was up and down through the rest of the 1950s and the 1960 election was impacted by the slow economy of the latter part of the decade. It started a steady decline in the 1960s because of the Kennedy tax cuts as well as the Vietnam War, then rose again to almost 9% in 1975.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Please tell me what skills you think the millennials are not, at least slightly, more deficient at than previous age groups?

Not trying to sound like a grumpy old man (56 years old) but I fear we have failed to pass on the culture that made our parents generation the most successful in history (more or less). I feel our culture truly is in decline.

They're not. The difference is the internet exposes us to all the morons we wouldn't otherwise be exposed to.

"The Greatest Generation" was the most successful in history because they bombed the rest of the world to rubble. In 1950, the United States was 50% of the world economy. There was an enormous labor shortage. Any dolt could get a factory job that paid middle class wages. This had little to do with level of education, work ethic, or anything but the dumb luck of being born at a time when there was a huge labor shortage and no competition.

The economy continues to grow faster than the population is growing. The lifetime standard of living of millennials is going to be far higher than "the Greatest Generation" or the Boomers. The difference is that there isn't a labor shortage now so there is going to be a helluva lot more income stratification. The top-5% is going to see unprecedented affluence. The bottom 50% is going to be mired in the working class. Other than the post-WW II blip that lasted 50 years, that has been the historical norm in the United States. 32% of the US adult population now has a college degree. In 1950, it was 6%. I think if you only look at that top 5% or so, you won't see much difference. The difference is there are now 5x more college grads and most of them attended 3rd tier state schools or private schools where having the tuition money is the only criteria for admission.

You make some reasonable points but...aside from the dynamics of college enrollment and job opportunities there is still a lot of data re literacy and numeracy which shows this generation is clearly inferior to the ones that preceded it. Not likely due to their native intelligence but likely due to really bad parenting (self-esteem more valued than competency) and really bad choices made in our educational practices.

Why do YOU think they dumbed down the SATs?

[Geoff]

Why do YOU think they dumbed down the SATs?

They didn't dumb them down. They re-baselined the scores. The reason is because a lot more people started taking the test who have little business ever going to college. If you only have less than 10% of the population going to college like in 1950, it's mostly the smartest, best educated people taking the test. Now, everybody takes it. In the population of 16-year-olds, the results of the top-10% who really should be going to college haven't changed particularly. The C student who sucks at math and can't read at grade level is now taking the SAT test. More frighteningly, they also go to some watered down state school or for-profit private college and rack up big education debt that they'll never be able to pay back because they didn't learn any 21st century job skills.

From this commentary, I think it's obvious that I'm not signing up for the Bernie Sanders "everybody goes to college for free" thing. I 100% support free college for elite students that follows the European model. Spend your money where you're going to get a good return for it. Competitive exams. If you don't qualify, you don't get a dime of assistance. For everybody else, European style trade and vocational training with lots of apprenticeships. It's not a "right" to go to college. You have to be born smart enough to be able to handle the work and then earn your way in on merit by doing your K-12 academics properly.

[Bubba]

Why do YOU think they dumbed down the SATs?

They didn't dumb them down. They re-baselined the scores. The reason is because a lot more people started taking the test who have little business ever going to college. If you only have less than 10% of the population going to college like in 1950, it's mostly the smartest, best educated people taking the test. Now, everybody takes it. In the population of 16-year-olds, the results of the top-10% who really should be going to college haven't changed particularly. The C student who sucks at math and can't read at grade level is now taking the SAT test. More frighteningly, they also go to some watered down state school or for-profit private college and rack up big education debt that they'll never be able to pay back because they didn't learn any 21st century job skills.

From this commentary, I think it's obvious that I'm not signing up for the Bernie Sanders "everybody goes to college for free" thing. I 100% support free college for elite students that follows the European model. Spend your money where you're going to get a good return for it. Competitive exams. If you don't qualify, you don't get a dime of assistance. For everybody else, European style trade and vocational training with lots of apprenticeships. It's not a "right" to go to college. You have to be born smart enough to be able to handle the work and then earn your way in on merit by doing your K-12 academics properly.

Where are you getting your statistics? Not that your general point of view is incorrect, it's that the statistics you cite are significantly incorrect. According to this report http://www.postsecondary.org/last12/1131101age.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; in 1950 almost 30% of 18-19 year olds were enrolling in college and almost 20% of 20-21 year olds were enrolled. I'm actually surprised that the older age brackets didn't have higher enrollment percentages given the GI Bill and higher unemployment rates following the war.

[img]School Enrollment Rates by Age
The chart on page 1 of this issue of OPPORTUNITY shows school enrollment rates by age group between 18 and
34 years for the years from 1950 through 2000.
• For those 18 to 19 years, enrollment rates increased from 29.4 percent in 1950 to 61.2 percent by 2000.
• For those 20 to 21 years, school enrollment rates increased from 18.8 percent in 1959 to 44.1 percent in
2000.
• For those 22 to 24 years, enrollment rates grew from 8.6 percent in 1959 to 24.6 percent by 2000.
• For people 25 to 29 years, school enrollment rates increased from 3.0 percent in 1950 to 11.4 percent in
2000.
• For people 30 to 34 years, enrollment rates increased from 1.1 percent in 1952 to 6.7 percent in 2000.
Clearly, at every age, school enrollment rates have increased greatly over the last five decades.
[/img]

[madhatter]

Why do YOU think they dumbed down the SATs?

They didn't dumb them down. They re-baselined the scores. The reason is because a lot more people started taking the test who have little business ever going to college. If you only have less than 10% of the population going to college like in 1950, it's mostly the smartest, best educated people taking the test. Now, everybody takes it. In the population of 16-year-olds, the results of the top-10% who really should be going to college haven't changed particularly. The C student who sucks at math and can't read at grade level is now taking the SAT test. More frighteningly, they also go to some watered down state school or for-profit private college and rack up big education debt that they'll never be able to pay back because they didn't learn any 21st century job skills.

From this commentary, I think it's obvious that I'm not signing up for the Bernie Sanders "everybody goes to college for free" thing. I 100% support free college for elite students that follows the European model. Spend your money where you're going to get a good return for it. Competitive exams. If you don't qualify, you don't get a dime of assistance. For everybody else, European style trade and vocational training with lots of apprenticeships. It's not a "right" to go to college. You have to be born smart enough to be able to handle the work and then earn your way in on merit by doing your K-12 academics properly.

Where are you getting your statistics? Not that your general point of view is incorrect, it's that the statistics you cite are significantly incorrect. cuz he just makes up any old sh!t and posts it as fact all the time... nothing new here...According to this report http://www.postsecondary.org/last12/1131101age.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; in 1950 almost 30% of 18-19 year olds were enrolling in college and almost 20% of 20-21 year olds were enrolled. I'm actually surprised that the older age brackets didn't have higher enrollment percentages given the GI Bill and higher unemployment rates following the war.

[img]School Enrollment Rates by Age
The chart on page 1 of this issue of OPPORTUNITY shows school enrollment rates by age group between 18 and
34 years for the years from 1950 through 2000.
• For those 18 to 19 years, enrollment rates increased from 29.4 percent in 1950 to 61.2 percent by 2000.
• For those 20 to 21 years, school enrollment rates increased from 18.8 percent in 1959 to 44.1 percent in
2000.
• For those 22 to 24 years, enrollment rates grew from 8.6 percent in 1959 to 24.6 percent by 2000.
• For people 25 to 29 years, school enrollment rates increased from 3.0 percent in 1950 to 11.4 percent in
2000.
• For people 30 to 34 years, enrollment rates increased from 1.1 percent in 1952 to 6.7 percent in 2000.
Clearly, at every age, school enrollment rates have increased greatly over the last five decades.
[/img]