Rachel Cohen's 'Education Isn T The Key To A Good Income'

Rachel Cohen's essay, "Education Isn't the Key to a Good Income," published at The Atlantic on 26 Sept. 2017, was written to show the many different studies and opinions on the idea that school quality might not be the most significant force in economic growth. Cohen uses several studies done by well-known economists Raj Chetty and Jesse Rothstein. Though several other people and their opinions were mentioned, the essay was focused around the two main studies. The 25.7 million readers of The Atlantic are nearly split between men and women and many of the readers access the magazine online. The average household income for digital and print readers is $89,952 which means that the people reading Cohen's article are wealthy. Even though Cohen …show more content…
She focuses mostly on reporting on the studies done and does not have her own input. Many of her paragraphs are devoted to findings that give no definite answer and are just estimates. In paragraphs eight, nine, and ten Cohen explains that Rothstein does not have a definite answer and that teachers have known all along that schools are not the most important factors. Cohen explains in paragraph eleven that Rothstein thinks that just because his findings indicate that schools are not the most dominant factor, we should still invest in making schools better. In paragraphs twelve and thirteen, Cohen explains that politicians do not draw the same conclusions that Rothstein does and that economists have always believed that the gap between people that are educated and people that are not is a big factor but Rothstein proves otherwise. Paragraphs fourteen and fifteen are devoted to explaining additional factors other than schools like interfirm inequality and differences in labor markets. Cohen explains in paragraphs sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen that Rothstein's research matches well with research done in Canada. In paragraphs nineteen and twenty, Cohen recognizes Rothstein's warnings that there are unidentified characteristics that cannot be quantified. Though Cohen was not effective in her delivery, she does show that there might not be an answer and that anything can be a factor in a …show more content…
In paragraph two, Cohen opens with Raj Chetty's work and how his findings give possible answers to the argument. Cohen identifies that a poor child raised in Utah has a better chance at rising the economic ladder than a poor child from Baltimore. Cohen fails to identify why people from Utah have a much better chance at success. Cohen explains, "They couldn't say exactly why, but they concluded that five correlated factors—segregation, family structure, income inequality, local school quality, and social capital—were likely to make a difference." The reason that you are more likely to reach the top in Utah is that the Mormon community makes sure that any homeless person is given shelter and proper nutrition, that every family gets what it needs to prosper. This shows that Cohen did not put much thought into exploring Chetty's work instead reporting on