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.
The drop-out rate has been the same for the last fifty years, AT LEAST. And that was back in the day when a much smaller percent even went to college. 44 years ago, from the link I posted in post #83, about 37% of 18-19 yr olds were in college. My husband went to Caltech in 1966 and the incoming students were told that 50% of them would drop out. A friend was told the same thing at Penn State in 1965. I've seen stats (not going to look right now) that the rate now at 4 year schools is actually a little higher than 50% of matriculating students graduation.
The drop-out rate has been the same for the last fifty years, AT LEAST. And that was back in the day when a much smaller percent even went to college. 44 years ago, from the link I posted in post #83, about 37% of 18-19 yr olds were in college. My husband went to Caltech in 1966 and the incoming students were told that 50% of them would drop out. A friend was told the same thing at Penn State in 1965. I've seen stats (not going to look right now) that the rate now at 4 year schools is actually a little higher than 50% of matriculating students graduation.
But the cost of college is not the same. Did you take that into consideration ?
Perhaps we should release kids to trade schools earlier. IMO, if you teach with rigor and hold kids accountable, you can teach the fundamentals by 10th grade. If kids are not going to college, they should be in some kind of job training program after that. In urban areas this should not be a problem. Different districts could specialize in different things and there are community colleges as well. I live within reasonable driving distance of 3 community colleges. Rural areas would be where you'd have the most issue. If you don't have the population density to support different programs they couldn't be offered.
We used to. 16 was when you chose academic or vocational.
Actually rural areas have it better. The Ag training is excellent out here.
They get on hands experience. The kids in school get mentoring and OJT at local businesses.
In some ways a small town benefits vocational training because everyone knows everyone else.
Perhaps we should release kids to trade schools earlier. IMO, if you teach with rigor and hold kids accountable, you can teach the fundamentals by 10th grade. If kids are not going to college, they should be in some kind of job training program after that. In urban areas this should not be a problem. Different districts could specialize in different things and there are community colleges as well. I live within reasonable driving distance of 3 community colleges. Rural areas would be where you'd have the most issue. If you don't have the population density to support different programs they couldn't be offered.
How many of the occupy crowd would be electrical contractors, welders or entrepreneurial plumbers pulling down six figures with no debt if vocational schools were still a reality?
We used to. 16 was when you chose academic or vocational.
Actually rural areas have it better. The Ag training is excellent out here.
They get on hands experience. The kids in school get mentoring and OJT at local businesses.
In some ways a small town benefits vocational training because everyone knows everyone else.
Interesting. I thought it would be more difficult. Since it's not, there is no reason to not let kids choose at 16. In my area, several districts have banded together each offering one area for vocational education. While these programs don't result in the kids being job ready at 18, they are ready to do a one year cert at a local community college and then enter the work force or to start an apprenticeship, which can be hard to get when you don't have the right connections. I can see where everyone knowing everyone could be an asset here.
How many of the occupy crowd would be electrical contractors, welders or entrepreneurial plumbers pulling down six figures with no debt if vocational schools were still a reality?
Where does this notion come from that vocational schools are non-existent? No matter how much some people post and post and post again about vocational programs in their districts, in their areas, people post that we need to get vocational ed back in the schools! Just this morning I posted an article from the Denver Post about two such programs in Colorado. It's only 8 posts up! And look at your local community college's offerings. There are many certificate programs in vocations/trades offered.
A big difference today, which I said in my post, is that today's vocational programs, at least in my state, are integrated into the regular schools. For example, in my district, the students go to Vo-Tech part of the day and to their regular school for part of the day. That arrangement has been in effect for several years now, at least 10 years, actually. And, some of these classes carry college credit.
How many of the occupy crowd would be electrical contractors, welders or entrepreneurial plumbers pulling down six figures with no debt if vocational schools were still a reality?
None. That would be _WORK_.
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.
