The other day we were having a discussion in my sociology class, and my prof. was trying to explain the concept of dependent and independent variables.
He used income and education as two variable that correlate, and asked the class which one was dependent and which one was independent. Of course, the first answer that came up was income depends on education. I raised my hand and suggested that the opposite can also be said, that education could be considered a function of education. After all, aren't middle class and upper middle class people more educated than poor people in general. Don't they have much better opportunity and more access to better schools?
So my prof. said that I was wrong, because you don't have to be rich to be highly educated. The problem is that in my opinion the opposite is also true, you don't have to be highly educated in order to be rich. I'm trying to be humble. He's the prof. But some times prof. can be very dogmatic too. Any opinions?
He used income and education as two variable that correlate, and asked the class which one was dependent and which one was independent. Of course, the first answer that came up was income depends on education. I raised my hand and suggested that the opposite can also be said, that education could be considered a function of education. After all, aren't middle class and upper middle class people more educated than poor people in general. Don't they have much better opportunity and more access to better schools?
So my prof. said that I was wrong, because you don't have to be rich to be highly educated. The problem is that in my opinion the opposite is also true, you don't have to be highly educated in order to be rich. I'm trying to be humble. He's the prof. But some times prof. can be very dogmatic too. Any opinions?