Queens College Secondary Education &Amp: Fill & Download for Free

Socioeconomic class of your parents.Predicts about 75% of life outcomes in most developed nations.As late as 2011 aristocratic surnames appear among the ranks of lawyers, considered for this purpose a high-status position, at a frequency almost six times that of their occurrence in the population as a whole. Mr Clark reckons that even in famously mobile Sweden, some 70-80% of a family’s social status is transmitted from generation to generation across a span of centuries. Other economists use similar techniques to reveal comparable immobility in societies from 19th-century Spain to post-Qing-dynasty China. Inherited advantage is detectable for a very long time.A second method relies on the chance overrepresentation of rare surnames in high- or low-status groups at some point in the past. If very few Britons are called Micklethwait, for example, and people with that name were disproportionately wealthy in 1800, then you can gauge long-run mobility by studying how long it takes the Micklethwait name to lose its wealth-predicting power. In a paper written by Mr Clark and Neil Cummins of Queens College, City University of New York, the authors use data from probate records of 19th-century estates to classify rare surnames into different wealth categories. They then use similar data to see how common each surname is in these categories in subsequent years. Again, some 70-80% of economic advantage seems to be transmitted from generation to generation.Mr Clark’s conclusion is that the underlying rate of social mobility is both low and surprisingly constant across countries and eras: the introduction of universal secondary education scarcely affects intergenerational mobility rates in Britain, for example. This consistency, he suggests, shows that low mobility may be down to differences in underlying “social competence”. Such competence is potentially heritable and is reinforced by the human tendency to mate with partners of similar traits and ability.Source: Nomencracy

I'm going to touch on a bit more personal information than I usually like to give.I'm from the small town of Rayland, Ohio. It's about a half mile from end to end, a population floating at about 400, a singular Dairy Queen on one of the two State Routes that grazes the outskirts of town.The high school is one of several in the county, a large, rural district pulling only 1000 7th-12th grade students over 128 square miles. The largest employers for years were the steel mills, the coal mines, and the power plants, and farmland is everywhere.The county has two colleges. Franciscan University in Steubenville is a small, expensive Catholic university. The primary non-theological majors are nursing and education. There's a community college in Steubenville as well, with your standard two-year degree tracks. And that's it.Harrison County, the direct western border, has no post-secondary education choices. Columbiana immediately north has satellite campuses for both Kent State University, offering non-STEM two- and four-year programs along with nursing and early-childhood education, and the community college based in Steubenville. Belmont County has a community college and a satellite campus of Ohio University (not to be confused with Ohio State) that offer about the same programs as Columbiana's selection.Pittsburgh houses the nearest research universities, but they're an hour away, and out-of-state, and so will cost students from my town over $40,000 a year for just tuition.The choices we face are either to try and become a teacher in an environment without enough children to sustain more teaching jobs, a nurse in an environment where 40% of the hospitals have closed their doors in the last year, a welder/machinist where there are no more mills or mines, or a carpenter where nobody is building new homes. (Forget plumbers and HVAC technicians; homeowners need jobs to pay for those services.)Or we can move. Maybe we do get the nursing degree and move to Pittsburgh, where the starting pay is 70% higher. Maybe we become a teacher and move to Cleveland where the pay is $55,000 for what pays $26,000 here.Maybe we move to Columbus or Akron or Cincinnati and go to a solid University that doesn't cost anything different from the low-priority satellite campuses but that has high-return degrees. And once we go to those cities for those schools, and there are things to do and people with like interests and housing that doesn't actually cost anything different because people in an economically depressed environment with only one real asset will try and artificially inflate the value (or just leave it overpriced on the market for six years), there's no reason to come back.Some do; family, maybe a farm, maybe the familiarity, but most of us stay gone. Our children will be born into better opportunity than we were. We're just chasing it.

The last monarch not to go to school was, in fact, the present one: Elizabeth II. Like all her predecessors, she was tutored at home instead - though both her father and his brother, and their father too, went to the Royal Naval College as teenagers, receiving only their primary education at home.All her children have received at least secondary education at school rather Han at home - so, without burrowing through the manifold minor multifurcations of the family tree, I’d have to say the answer is: the Queen.