Economic Inequality in Education and the Advantage of the Internet

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

My program director told me about an awesome study today; about an epidemiologist with an economy degree who recently proved that farm subsidies cost the US more in healthcare than it generates in economic benefits.

Is it because of the cheap corn that is used as a filler in all it's glorious and "nutritious" forms in American "food"?

"murkia". 

Yes, it's to do with all the high-calorie low-nutrient processed forms of subsidized foods which farms grow at artificially elevated rates thanks to subsidies, which are sold at below-market rates to be used as filler in processed foods which are then sold at below-market prices, which poor Americans then disproportionately consume using subsidized income, leading to long-term health problems that are treated using subsidized funding.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

My program director told me about an awesome study today; about an epidemiologist with an economy degree who recently proved that farm subsidies cost the US more in healthcare than it generates in economic benefits.

Sounds like someone shat in his high-fructose corn syrup based punch bowl.

Her. Both my program director and the epidemiologist are women.

And you are showing an infantile naivete about epidemiological method.

[NewSpag]

My program director told me about an awesome study today; about an epidemiologist with an economy degree who recently proved that farm subsidies cost the US more in healthcare than it generates in economic benefits.

Sounds like someone shat in his high-fructose corn syrup based punch bowl.

Her. Both my program director and the epidemiologist are women.

And you are showing an infantile naivete about epidemiological method.

Sorry.  "Its" tends to offend people and "his/her" is too much work so I tend to go with "his" by default.  That was supposed to be a joke.  But on the bright side you pointing out my infantile naivete about epidemiological method actually spurred me to start reading the epidemiology wikipedia page.  Shame can be a powerful motivator.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

My program director told me about an awesome study today; about an epidemiologist with an economy degree who recently proved that farm subsidies cost the US more in healthcare than it generates in economic benefits.

Sounds like someone shat in his high-fructose corn syrup based punch bowl.

Her. Both my program director and the epidemiologist are women.

And you are showing an infantile naivete about epidemiological method.

Sorry.  "Its" tends to offend people and "his/her" is too much work so I tend to go with "his" by default.  That was supposed to be a joke.  But on the bright side you pointing out my infantile naivete about epidemiological method actually spurred me to start reading the epidemiology wikipedia page.  Shame can be a powerful motivator.

Silver lining FTW!

[Triple Zero]

Yes, it's to do with all the high-calorie low-nutrient processed forms of subsidized foods which farms grow at artificially elevated rates thanks to subsidies, which are sold at below-market rates to be used as filler in processed foods which are then sold at below-market prices, which poor Americans then disproportionately consume using subsidized income, leading to long-term health problems that are treated using subsidized funding.

Hmmm. Qui bono?

[Cain]

Everyone except those who eat the food.

It's cheap to produce, thanks to subsidies, its not very filling (so people buy more of it), if it's high in sugar it can be addictive, so it becomes habit forming.

I've been paying closer attention to calorie content in supermarkets of late, and it is amazing to see the differences between certain kinds of food and others.  A pre-made wrap, for example, can be up to 550 calories, whereas a whole can of soup can be around 120-200, depending on exact content (obviously, more vegetable orientated soups, like minestrone or leek and potato are lower than cream of chicken).  They cost around the same, too.

It's also interesting to note how they present the calories.  By law, UK products have to show how much of a product makes up the daily recommended calorie intake (which itself is on the high end of the scale - 2500 for an adult male?  If he works a physical job, maybe...I get by on around 700-1000 quite happily).  But especially on junk food, made to appeal to children, they are presented in a misleading way.  Example: fried chicken straws, basically breaded chicken pieces, are show as 2% on the label on the front.  You have to look quite closely to see that 2% applies to each stick.  Of which there are about 20+.  Some yoghurts show you a calorie value for 1/5 of a pot.  And so on and so forth.

Anyway, that digression took place because, for a long time, I've suspected there is a fairly obvious link between low-income families, poor diet and poor learning.  I don't have statistics, but I know from personal experience of spending long hours studying and concentrating on complex texts how not only how much I've eaten, but what I've eaten can affect my ability to internalize and recall information.  I also know from my time teaching at primary school how "bad behaviour" (being unsettled, calling out etc) was more present among children lower income backgrounds (our school was in a fairly prosperous region, so these students were in the minority), and their particular kinds of behaviour suggested an excess of energy, followed by "sugar crashes" and a loss of motivation.

I could also see what they were having for snacks and break and what their lunches were.  Which does help.

Of course, there are other factors which can explain such behaviour, and do not have to do with diet (the skills normally associated with better income - personal discipline, for example, may be less observable some lower income family, and so the child does not place a high value on behaving in class, speaking out of turn etc).  But honestly, diet seems a more likely culprit, based on personal experience.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Healthy body = healthy mind. If their diet makes them fat and weak or skinny and weak, there's no reason to assume it's affecting their brain any differently. Not always easy to tell, tho, lot of "bookie" types have shit physical condition, too, on account of they sit around reading all day and not getting up off their arses and exercising.

[Cain]

Yes.  I keep in mind the example of the Russian Chess Team - in addition to being chess experts, they are also trained physically very hard, to be in peak physical condition.  The logic is fairly obvious, chess matches can take a huge amount of time, and if your concentration is wavering due to poor physical condition, then you are likely to lose.  Their training is almost military in style - up at 6am, morning runs, drills, a carefully monitored diet...

This is the other reason why PE is done at schools too, of course.  Only problem being that it is often taught so badly it ends up putting students off exercising for life.

[Reginald Ret]

Yes.  I keep in mind the example of the Russian Chess Team - in addition to being chess experts, they are also trained physically very hard, to be in peak physical condition.  The logic is fairly obvious, chess matches can take a huge amount of time, and if your concentration is wavering due to poor physical condition, then you are likely to lose.  Their training is almost military in style - up at 6am, morning runs, drills, a carefully monitored diet...

This is the other reason why PE is done at schools too, of course.  Only problem being that it is often taught so badly it ends up putting students off exercising for life.

That same problem also applies to learning. If i didn't have a pathological escapism driven need to read EVERYTHING i wouldn't have learned anything in the first eight years after highschool.