social inequality 1048316 史慧娟

Social mobility is the fundamental motivation for the development of a country. However, recently the situation in the United States is that inequality is growing and social mobility is slowing. A study showed that 62 percent of Americans raised in the top one-fifth of the income scale stay in the top two-fifths; 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths. This condition is serious and is barely seen in many developing countries. Then, what makes for the decline in social mobility in America?Firstly, to a large degree, education makes for the decline in social mobility in the United States. Education was long praised as a good equalizer while instead of counteracting the inequalities, it now magnify them. Higher education in the United States is highly stratified, showering the most resources on the most-advantaged students. Low-income and minority students can only be concentrated in community colleges, which spend much less time and money on an individual students than private school where high-income and white students study. And the system of college admissions exacerbates inequalities. They pride themselves on defending race-based affirmative-action programs, but their policies tend to benefit the most economically advantaged students of color and do little things for low-income students. Thus, the fundamental reason is that they use public money to support a fairy small group at the top.
Secondly, actually, higher education has only a little to do with social inequality. The fundamental reason is our national arteriosclerosis that our federal, state and local policies contribute to *** the poor difficult to do business or find decent jobs.
In addition, the first reason contributes to the second reason in some way. As we promote higher education, a host of jobs are only open to people who have college credentials, but actually these jobs do not need those high requirements and they belonged to those poor people but are now foreclosed to them. As a result, many poor people are not employed and our economy become more rigid.
Thus, those two elements are two major reasons which contribute to society inequality. We should take some effective action to stop society inequality.

总体行文比较流畅，表达比较清晰，用词无明显错误，但是仔细分析有些地方还是欠缺考虑的，在此提点小意见，嘿嘿 ……
1.文章题目不大明确，通篇读下来知道主要讲的是分析导致社会不公的原因，用social inequality来做标题我觉得有点太宽泛了点，还有种可能就是social inequality不是文章标题，只是起提示作用，但还是觉得有个标题比较好。
2."Education was long praised as a good equalizer while instead of counteracting the inequalities, it now magnify them."在这一句中我觉得while的用法有些不太合适，这里慧娟应该是想表达“但是”的意思，但是我觉得while在表达转折意思的时候，前后分句应该是有一层同类东西作比较的关系如：The first two services are free, while the third costs £35.00.这里我觉得可以直接写成：Education was long praised as a good equalizer . However,instead of counteracting the inequalities, it now magnify them.
3."And the system of college admissions exacerbates inequalities. They pride themselves on defending race-based affirmative-action programs, but their policies tend to benefit the most economically advantaged students of color and do little things for low-income students. 该小段中的they指代不够明确，慧娟应该指的是colleges,但是前面出现的是"the system of college admissions"而且这里是单数应该指的不是这个，所以这里应该直接用colleges而不是they.
4.有些地方逻辑不大让人信服，慧娟在第一段中说"Firstly, to a large degree, education makes for the decline in social mobility in the United States. "又在第二段中说"actually, higher education has only a little to do with social inequality. The fundamental reason is ……"这里有些前后矛盾。并且如果说导致社会不公的根本原因是慧娟说的第二个原因，但是慧娟对第一原因（次要原因）写得比较详尽，而对第二原因（主要原因）写得比较少，我觉得这里篇幅安排得不大合适。
5，慧娟在其文章中陈述到导致社会不公的原因第一是教育第二是政策，并在第三段写到"In addition, the first reason contributes to the second reason in some way. "但其后给的论据是"As we promote higher education, a host of jobs are only open to people who have college credentials, but actually these jobs do not need those high requirements and they belonged to those poor people but are now foreclosed to them. As a result, many poor people are not employed and our economy become more rigid."我认为是不能支撑其论点的。并且在这段最后一句中得出"our economy become more rigid"的结论我认为也是不能得出的 。

同意你搭档的看法，另外文章明显虎头蛇尾，前面应该借鉴了不少其它的文章，后面在语言和论述上都差了不少。