Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obviously, you don't remember reading about the island of alphas in high school. (Brave New World)
And what happens in a world where everyone has a bachelors degree? Will we have low unemployment and high salaries or will employers simply demand a masters degree? Then a PhD...Then who knows what.
Yes, more education does result in higher employment rates and higher salaries BECAUSE most people don't have a bachelors degree so it sets you apart. When everyone has a bachelors degree, a bachelors degree will be like a high school diploma is now. It'll get you a job at McDonalds. WHY you ask?? Because not everyone is college material. The only way everyone is going to get a college degree is if we dummy down college. We're already doing it because we're sending kids to college who do not belong.
The more people who have a certain skill, the less that skill is worth. The more bachelors degrees out there, the less a bachelors degree will be worth. Your problem is you are assuming that there will be more jobs for more graduates when there won't be. What you'll have is more graduates competing for the same jobs which will drive the wages for those jobs down.
We can't make people smarter so we'd have do dummy down education in order to have more graduates at any level. Dummying down college so more people can get a bachelors degree isn't the answer here. Not by a long shot. In fact, it's a waste of money and time. The only people who like this idea are parents who think their child is smarter than he is, colleges who collect more tuition and banks who write sizeable student loans.
I can tell you from experience in the classroom that most students don't belong on the college track. Many more are there than belong. Because they are there, we have to dummy down the college prep track so they can pass. Then we hear stories of kids who had good grades in high school who flunked out of college in their first year. It would have been far better for them if we'd accepted early on that they belonged on a tech track not a college track. I would much rather teach a rigorous class that prepares my students for college than teach to the bottom of the class that doesn't even belong there.
And I wasn't calling you in particular an a**. In engineering we have a saying: To assume makes and a** out of you (u) and me. Assumptions are bad and we all could use reminders not to use them.
Well, it's been a long time since I read "Brave New World" and I do not base my life decisions on science fiction, or any fiction. Likewise, I don't put much faith in predictive non-fiction either. For the latter, I refer you to "The Population Bomb" of the early 70s. A latter-day Malthus, Ehrlich was. The population was going to outstrip the world's ability to feed it. Mass starvation was coming. ZPG! ZPG! NO ONE predicted the huge drop in birth rates, well below replacement levels in many countries in Europe and Japan, around replacement in some European countries and the US, and even getting close to replacement in many developing countries such as Mexico. And what is the predictor for slowing population growth? Why EDUCATION, especially of women! Plus, crop yields have increased. There will be another record harvest of corn and soybeans in the midwest, and the price of a bushel will go down and the farmers will complain. (I've lived in Big Ag country; I've seen this happen before.) Meanwhile, it seems that NO SF writer or even non-fiction writer of 100+ years ago predicted the invention of the computer, which really DID change our lives.
I think it's total baloney that " most students don't belong on the college track", and demeaning to the students to decide for them which "track" they belong in. Are you unfamiliar with late bloomers?
I've heard that expression about assume, and I have gotten infractions for using it.
There shouldn't be any age requirement to leave school. It should require a test of basic skills, to prove perfect mastery of all of those skills, such as reading, writing, arithmetic, and anything else we consider a basic skill. And kids of all ages should be allowed to get jobs. That wouldn't necessarily reduce wages for adults, because the kids, with their wages, would be consumers who would stimulate the economy, by putting more demand on it.
That would be much better than what we have now: kids graduating from high school without being able to do basic skills, because we only care about their age, not whether they're ready to graduate. They should be required to spend the rest of their lives in school, if necessary, to acquire basic skills, even if that means they have to live in homeless shelters while going to school.
Education in general would be improved, because kids with basic skills would wait till they were mature enough to continue their education, and would not waste the time, but would be motivated to make the best use of whatever education they were willing to take time off their jobs for.
But no, that won't happen, because education is controlled by government, and incompetence is a basic characteristic of government.
Well, it's been a long time since I read "Brave New World" and I do not base my life decisions on science fiction, or any fiction. Likewise, I don't put much faith in predictive non-fiction either. For the latter, I refer you to "The Population Bomb" of the early 70s. A latter-day Malthus, Ehrlich was. The population was going to outstrip the world's ability to feed it. Mass starvation was coming. ZPG! ZPG! NO ONE predicted the huge drop in birth rates, well below replacement levels in many countries in Europe and Japan, around replacement in some European countries and the US, and even getting close to replacement in many developing countries such as Mexico. And what is the predictor for slowing population growth? Why EDUCATION, especially of women! Plus, crop yields have increased. There will be another record harvest of corn and soybeans in the midwest, and the price of a bushel will go down and the farmers will complain. (I've lived in Big Ag country; I've seen this happen before.) Meanwhile, it seems that NO SF writer or even non-fiction writer of 100+ years ago predicted the invention of the computer, which really DID change our lives.
I think it's total baloney that " most students don't belong on the college track", and demeaning to the students to decide for them which "track" they belong in. Are you unfamiliar with late bloomers?
I've heard that expression about assume, and I have gotten infractions for using it.
I'm quite familiar with late bloomers (I am one) however, the fact remains that the majority of the population simply isn't college material late blooming or not. The only way they can be is to dummy down college until it's nothing more than a fancy high school diploma. Then college diplomas will be a dime a dozen and worth nothing. What do you think that accomplishes? What makes any degree valuable is its rarity. If it's not rare, it's not valuable.
The moral of the story of the island of the alphas is that we can't all be alphas. What makes an alpha special is its rarity. All that will happen if we send the majority to college is the majority will have low paying jobs AND a college degree. What do you think that accomplishes besides disillusionment and bitterness?
The most important thing about alphas, etc., is that they should decide for themselves. It would be too draconian for a government to stereotype people into classes. If they decide to be alphas, and can't hack it, the natural order of things should motivate them to rethink their decision. And that motivation should not come from people, but only from natural consequences.
Obviously, you don't remember reading about the island of alphas in high school. (Brave New World)
And what happens in a world where everyone has a bachelors degree? Will we have low unemployment and high salaries or will employers simply demand a masters degree? Then a PhD...Then who knows what.
Yes, more education does result in higher employment rates and higher salaries BECAUSE most people don't have a bachelors degree so it sets you apart. When everyone has a bachelors degree, a bachelors degree will be like a high school diploma is now. It'll get you a job at McDonalds. WHY you ask?? Because not everyone is college material. The only way everyone is going to get a college degree is if we dummy down college. We're already doing it because we're sending kids to college who do not belong.
The more people who have a certain skill, the less that skill is worth. The more bachelors degrees out there, the less a bachelors degree will be worth. Your problem is you are assuming that there will be more jobs for more graduates when there won't be. What you'll have is more graduates competing for the same jobs which will drive the wages for those jobs down.
We can't make people smarter so we'd have do dummy down education in order to have more graduates at any level. Dummying down college so more people can get a bachelors degree isn't the answer here. Not by a long shot. In fact, it's a waste of money and time. The only people who like this idea are parents who think their child is smarter than he is, colleges who collect more tuition and banks who write sizeable student loans.
I can tell you from experience in the classroom that most students don't belong on the college track. Many more are there than belong. Because they are there, we have to dummy down the college prep track so they can pass. Then we hear stories of kids who had good grades in high school who flunked out of college in their first year. It would have been far better for them if we'd accepted early on that they belonged on a tech track not a college track. I would much rather teach a rigorous class that prepares my students for college than teach to the bottom of the class that doesn't even belong there.
And I wasn't calling you in particular an a**. In engineering we have a saying: To assume makes and a** out of you (u) and me. Assumptions are bad and we all could use reminders not to use them.
Great observation, which is why I think that we teachers should be given the authority to let a failing student fail! What's the point of sending kids to school if they don't learn anything? We've seen it happen already. High school diplomas are worthless these days, whereas in my parents' generation, they were seen as an indicator of possessing basic workplace skills, even marketable trades. We are letting the education system go down the tubes by mandating that schools "teach all students," even when the skills being taught aren't what every student needs or wants to learn. We would do better if we had multiple options for our children, tracks for those who want to go into trades, ways to test out of whole grades, options for advanced students, free homeschooling options, etc. Look at the other countries, education is meaningless if everyone has a bachelor's degree. In some countries, you aren't even considered a professional with one bachelor's degree; you need two or more! It's ludicrous. How can we stop this?
This is the stupidest question I have heard in a while, not calling you stupid, but this question is. Society would collapse within 2 generations. You have to force kids to do all sorts of things.
When was the first compulsory school? How did society avoid collapsing before then?
Kids aren't mature enough to make decisions about what's best for themselves or for society. That's why we don't let them vote, drink, serve in the military, etc. until they are 18.
When was the first compulsory school? How did society avoid collapsing before then?
Society was a lot less complex. Children usually worked from a young age (have you ever read the book The Jungle by Upton Sinclair? Yeah.). If they didn't work in factories or forced labor camps they usually worked on the family farm or helped with daily chores (laundry, cooking, etc.). Older girls helped out the mother with raising younger children, etc. In case you hadn't noticed, there are child labor laws now in developed countries and jobs require higher and higher levels of education in general. Also, back in "ye olde olden tymes" the raising of children was done much more communally. Children were not coddled generally and were "to be seen but not heard". Society in general viewed them as very much subservient to adults.
Kids aren't mature enough to make decisions about what's best for themselves or for society. That's why we don't let them vote, drink, serve in the military, etc. until they are 18.
Well, recall there was a time, probably in my parents' parents' generation, where people were not required to attend school. They would start in kindergarten or first grade but then leave to take care of other obligations, like the farm. The end result was people several years and grade levels behind and people who didn't even possess basic literacy, but they had a strong work ethic and survived, even thrived, during that time. Allowing that to happen now, though, unless we found another way to measure competency, would slow the progress of the next generation to a crawl, especially since these days technical skills are required to do even basic jobs. I also think that if we go that route, we should at least give the kids a required general education curriculum that lasts maybe five to six years, don't allow them to work for wages until they are fourteen at least, and require them to take an exit course on the true consequences of not continuing their education.
If you are a parent bent on taking your child out of the public education system, though, you do have that option present day; it's called homeschooling. You could just be more creative, if you want. Help your kid start a business, build a fort, teach him or her a trade by studying a textbook and interviewing people who use that trade, etc. It would take a lot of time and dedication on your part, but so would allowing your kids to leave school. They would be at home with you 24/7 and you would have to deal with it. Actually, given the atrocious behavior of some children, it might not be such a bad idea to give your kids a taste of what the real world holds. I'm not suggesting you withdraw them from school and completely emancipate them, but maybe sign them up to feed people at the local homeless shelter, set up interviews with prisoners, and get a real taste of the ills and injustices of society. Man, I wish I had my own kids!
I think it's total baloney that " most students don't belong on the college track", and demeaning to the students to decide for them which "track" they belong in. Are you unfamiliar with late bloomers?
I beg you... BEG YOU... to go into any public HS and teacher a class like chemistry from one semester - just one - and come back and repeat that bolded statement above with a straight face. I would bet my next year's salary you couldn't do it.
You don't see what we see.
You don't experience what we experience.
Your limited experience is mainly in your own kids and that makes up about 0.00023% of the students in public K-12 education.
You are speaking about that which you know little and frankly... well, I'd rather not have this post deleted, so I'll keep that comment to myself.
We the teachers KNOW FOR A FACT that most do not belong on a college track. We know it, because we see it - we grade it - we watch it every day of our working lives. Yes, you are right about the late bloomers, but that is something a well developed Vo-Tech school would take into consideration. Imagine:
You have placed out of the college prep program, because it's been determined (how, I'll mention in a minute) that you are neither emotionally, academically, or mentally mature enough to handle the college prep curriculum. Therefore, based on your assessments you'll be given a wide choice of vocational training in which to attend. The choice is helped along by the assessments described below and can help you make an appropriate decision. After 1-3 years of training, you now have specific skills in which to automatically qualify you for a job. Happy hunting.
Now, 5-7 years down the road, after working and making money - and most importantly, maturing - You decide that you would like to go to college. So, you go back to your Vo-Tech School (for free), which has night classes in college prep, study skills, etc. After one year (or less), you take the ACT in which you make the minimum score for enrollment in your local college (or even better, a much higher score for more prestigious universities). The late bloomer has hit his/her stride and is now where they want/need to be. BUT s/he didn't waste both the school's and their own time back in HS.
Now why in the world could we not have a program such as this - such as, I might add, some European systems?
Now about that tracking...
We the teachers do not decide which track the student takes. I'd never make that decision for them. But I most certainly be in favor of a system that does it.
Actually, it wouldn't be the system, it would be the student that would ultimately decide their track based on how they responded to the multitude of assessments they would take from K thru 9th or 10th grades. Imagine:
At the end of Kindergarten, you take an exam equivalent to the Kindergarten version of the ASVAB (The Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery) - an exam that does an excellent job of helping the Military determine the strengths and weaknesses of their potential recruits. I'm sure Pearson would love to have a hand in this development - along with appropriate experts in child development, et al. The test means nothing at first, but it can give a heads-up to the teachers, students and parents where the student's potential lies.
Then each year - all the way up to the 9th or 10th grade - you take this same exam (but geared for the appropriate level of expected learning). Each year you get a score knowing that - coming soon - that final score is waiting to let you know if you qualify for college- or tech-prep. We the teachers don't decide. We can, of course, conduct our teaching, but also monitor, tutor, encourage, etc. The parents can - and should - do the same. But ultimately, the student has to make the mark that determines the path they take.
I'm going to repeat that last statement... ULTIMATELY, THE STUDENT HAS TO MAKE THEIR MARK THAT DETERMINES THEIR PATH.
There is hardly anything more truthful in education than that statement. We are putting the responsibility of the learning and their path into their hands - where it belongs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
