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.
I'd like to point out that the more people there are who graduate, the less valuable a diploma is. Why should an employer be impressed by someone's diploma if it would have been illegal for them not to have gotten that diploma?
The days of a high school diploma being "enough " to get a job are long gone.
Today that HS graduate is going to need at least a community college trade course, or better, to be competitive . Not a University degree, as many think it needs to be. Somebody is still going to need to be able to FIX things. Somebody with a Master's in IT, probably can't diagnose the problem with their central air conditioner.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,466,576 times
Reputation: 12187
If a HS diploma actually meant something beyond a 4 year attendance certificate then the bottom 25% of students wouldn't be capable of getting one. I think we were better off when people who were bad at school could leave and pursue work. My grandpa dropped out in 8th grade and made a great living as a coal miner and farmer. All of the gimmicks to force 100% of people to graduate has done nothing to reduce poverty and probably hurts the school environment for more serious students. There is nothing shameful about someone who works hard and provides for themselves in a low skill job. The only shameful thing is someone who can work but chooses not to.
If a HS diploma actually meant something beyond a 4 year attendance certificate then the bottom 25% of students wouldn't be capable of getting one. I think we were better off when people who were bad at school could leave and pursue work. My grandpa dropped out in 8th grade and made a great living as a coal miner and farmer. All of the gimmicks to force 100% of people to graduate has done nothing to reduce poverty and probably hurts the school environment for more serious students. There is nothing shameful about someone who works hard and provides for themselves in a low skill job. The only shameful thing is someone who can work but chooses not to.
A high school diploma does mean something. Those without have a MUCH more difficulty getting more than totally menial employment. I had a sister and a nephew who learned that very well.
26 - That's age when the government says you finally have to buy your own insurance. Let's be consistent about children. No booze, no dope, no cigarettes, no rentals, no military, no marriage, no voting, no bank loans, no driving and you have to sit in a child's car seat, go to Juvenile Court if you are a criminal and can't drop out of school until you are 26.
I would be amenable to moving you to a GED class between 18 and 26 years old.
The legal age for dropping out of school ranges from 16-19 throughout the 50 states (Texas being the state where it's 19). In some countries in Europe, it's 14. What are your thoughts on the matter?
It should be 13. Why do we let adults who have very little education get away with not going back to school, but we don't give young people with the same amount of education the same right? How is that not a double standard?
It should be 13. Why do we let adults who have very little education get away with not going back to school, but we don't give young people with the same amount of education the same right? How is that not a double standard?
There's nothing wrong with different standards for different groups of people.
There's nothing wrong with different standards for different groups of people.
If they are justified, sure. But throughout human history we see over and over the tendency of people to become unconsciously prejudiced. I am not necessarily saying that supporters of 16 or 18 as a school-leaving age are prejudiced, but I do think we need to protect against prejudice by placing the burden of proof on those that advocate unequal treatment, not on those who advocate equal treatment. It is not an unconditional, of course, but we cannot legitimately claim to be a society of equality or democracy if the burden of proof is on those advocating equality, rather than being on those advocating inequality. By placing the burden of proof on the advocate of equality, you open up the hazardous possibility of unjustly discriminating against some group (e.g. Hispanics, Catholics, etc.) for no reason other than "Because I said so, and if you don't agree it must mean you don't understand the reasons". Sorry, that isn't good enough.
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.
