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.
There are always going to be lower income people.
Maybe they are actually happier and more honest than all those college educated CEO's and Wall Street guys.
Maybe some people don't want to trade in a peaceful life in order to buy more and more 'stuff' in the great need to impress everyone.
Who is to say which one is REALLY a more productive human being?
I have two debate questions in one post, both related to college.
I don't know where the political debate is on this issue right now because I've simply lost track of it and it doesn't impact me, personally.
Question 1
As of the end of 2007, the percentage of US adults over the age of 25, with a 4 year degree was 15.16%. Over the age of 25 with a 2 year degree was 8.22 percent. If college was made available to anyone who wanted to go, would your Bachelor's Degree become equivalent to a High School Diploma? In other words, if more people had one, would it "cheapen" the diploma's value in the job market?
Question 2
If students require remedial classes when they enter college, should their college acceptance be cancelled and should they be sent back to High School to take the remedial classes there? Should the high schools be monetarily penalized for cranking out sub-standard high school graduates in college prep programs? Right now, their parents pay, as part of their tuition, for these high school level college classes. As far as I know, they don't carry any college credit.
My presumption is that the parents of students in a college prep high school program don't know they have sub-standard skills because they keep getting promoted in high school and then graduate. It's not until they're tested at college, as incoming freshman, that it's determined they can't write, lack reading comprehension skills, can't do basic math.
In answer to the first question, it would not alter anything. There are those people who do not want to go to college, they have no use for it, etc.
In answer to the second question, as it stands now, they have to take courses for which they pay for but do not receive credit. There are also adults that return as students and may not remember much of what they had in high school. So, financially nailing the high schools is not worth it. Standardized tests have not worked well so one more penalty is not going to help.
As of the end of 2007, the percentage of US adults over the age of 25, with a 4 year degree was 15.16%. Over the age of 25 with a 2 year degree was 8.22 percent. If college was made available to anyone who wanted to go, would your Bachelor's Degree become equivalent to a High School Diploma? In other words, if more people had one, would it "cheapen" the diploma's value in the job market?
First, not to be rude...the actual percent with a 4 year degree or higher is 27%...over the age of 25. Secondly, it would not "cheapen" the diploma's valuse. There will never be universal attainment of a bachelor's degree. Many occupations do not require a 4 year degree. They may require vocational training, but not a 4 year degree. Also there will always be those that fall below a high school education.
There are many assumptions in this answer. The main assumption is that blue collar workers will be able to cope with the changing face of manufacturing (becoming green collar, able to compete with foreign competition, etc.) Also this answer assumes that in this educational utopia there will still be some sociological, or personal, factors that do not allow for the completion of a high school diploma.
Question 2
If students require remedial classes when they enter college, should their college acceptance be cancelled and should they be sent back to High School to take the remedial classes there? Should the high schools be monetarily penalized for cranking out sub-standard high school graduates in college prep programs? Right now, their parents pay, as part of their tuition, for these high school level college classes. As far as I know, they don't carry any college credit.
No. Each school has a differing definition of remedial. Some schools consider beginning calculus as remedial (as my school did)...others consider basic algebra. There is no set guideline to what is considered remedial or not. As far as writing and English is concerned, again, there are different definitions of what is considered remedial. As far as the units are concerned, this too depends on the institution.
My presumption is that the parents of students in a college prep high school program don't know they have sub-standard skills because they keep getting promoted in high school and then graduate. It's not until they're tested at college, as incoming freshman, that it's determined they can't write, lack reading comprehension skills, can't do basic math.
We really would need to see the exact classes to determine whether or not they are truly remedial...as well as set a definition of what is remedial.
Less poverty and slums is what I believe would come out of it.
Wow! This is quite the amazing statement.
As far as the people who live in poverty and in slums is concerned, there is a real good reason for that. Most of these people do not have the mental capacity or ability to produce much more than what they need to survive. You think that the only thing these people lack is an education? There is no way in hell that most of these people would be able to graduate from high school never mind college.
Also consider this. As the OP mentions, a relative few of us graduate from college yet most of these folks are doing ok i.e. most of them do not live in poverty or slums. The fact is that if people have the ability to go to college then they have the ability to do fairly well in life even if they did not go to college. Also, there are many people who have the ability to produce enough to keep them out of poverty who do not have the ability to graduate from college. There are a lot of people between those who live in poverty and those with the ability to graduate from college.
I believe it takes an average IQ of at least 90 to graduate and fully understand the high school curriculum. The average IQ in this country is 100 and there are many millions of us with IQs below 90. There is just no way that anyone with an IQ below 90 would be capable of graduating from college.
As of the end of 2007, the percentage of US adults over the age of 25, with a 4 year degree was 15.16%. Over the age of 25 with a 2 year degree was 8.22 percent. If college was made available to anyone who wanted to go, would your Bachelor's Degree become equivalent to a High School Diploma? In other words, if more people had one, would it "cheapen" the diploma's value in the job market?
First, not to be rude...the actual percent with a 4 year degree or higher is 27%...over the age of 25. Secondly, it would not "cheapen" the diploma's valuse. There will never be universal attainment of a bachelor's degree. Many occupations do not require a 4 year degree. They may require vocational training, but not a 4 year degree. Also there will always be those that fall below a high school education.
There are many assumptions in this answer. The main assumption is that blue collar workers will be able to cope with the changing face of manufacturing (becoming green collar, able to compete with foreign competition, etc.) Also this answer assumes that in this educational utopia there will still be some sociological, or personal, factors that do not allow for the completion of a high school diploma.
Sperling's Best Places, data in this category updated October 2007, says the percent of the US population with a 4 year degree over the age of 25 is 15.16 percent, high school diploma or GED over the age of 25 is 79.62 percent. The original question asks if MORE people had a 4 year degree not if ALL people had one or even if MOST people had one. It also does not imply the merits of having 4 year degree other than as it relates to the job market but I should have been more specific in that I meant competition for jobs, not qualification for jobs.
Question 2
If students require remedial classes when they enter college, should their college acceptance be cancelled and should they be sent back to High School to take the remedial classes there? Should the high schools be monetarily penalized for cranking out sub-standard high school graduates in college prep programs? Right now, their parents pay, as part of their tuition, for these high school level college classes. As far as I know, they don't carry any college credit.
No. Each school has a differing definition of remedial. Some schools consider beginning calculus as remedial (as my school did)...others consider basic algebra. There is no set guideline to what is considered remedial or not. As far as writing and English is concerned, again, there are different definitions of what is considered remedial. As far as the units are concerned, this too depends on the institution.
My presumption is that the parents of students in a college prep high school program don't know they have sub-standard skills because they keep getting promoted in high school and then graduate. It's not until they're tested at college, as incoming freshman, that it's determined they can't write, lack reading comprehension skills, can't do basic math.
We really would need to see the exact classes to determine whether or not they are truly remedial...as well as set a definition of what is remedial.
Okay. Way back when I entered college, you had to write an argument for or against an issue chosen from a list of issues (composition test), take a reading comprehension test and a take a math test (believe it was equivalent to high school algebra). I thought they were fairly easy tests and don't know if a little or a lot of entering students needed remedial classes back then. If I remember correctly, the remedial courses were equivalent to 4 credit classes (for payment purposes, but no credit given) so your parents could be soaked for 12 if you performed poorly on all three tests. Plus, if you had to take 3, it probably extended the semesters you spent in college (meaning more cost to your folks). I've recently read that there has been an increase in the number of entering students needing remedial courses. My erroneous assumption was they all tested for things every high school graduate should be able to do. I did not know, for example, that one college might test for calculus and another might test for algebra. I was coming from the perspective that the parents are paying for what the high school education should have accomplished.
Okay. Way back when I entered college, you had to write an argument for or against an issue chosen from a list of issues (composition test), take a reading comprehension test and a take a math test (believe it was equivalent to high school algebra). I thought they were fairly easy tests and don't know if a little or a lot of entering students needed remedial classes back then. If I remember correctly, the remedial courses were equivalent to 4 credit classes (for payment purposes, but no credit given) so your parents could be soaked for 12 if you performed poorly on all three tests. Plus, if you had to take 3, it probably extended the semesters you spent in college (meaning more cost to your folks). I've recently read that there has been an increase in the number of entering students needing remedial courses. My erroneous assumption was they all tested for things every high school graduate should be able to do. I did not know, for example, that one college might test for calculus and another might test for algebra. I was coming from the perspective that the parents are paying for what the high school education should have accomplished.
I'd rather look at the US census than Sterling's Best. According to the US census, in 2007 27.0% of the population aged 25 and up had a bachelor's degree. Moreover, the answer given stands regardless of if MORE people obtained a college education. Since it is impossible, and contradictory, to go into vocational training as well as obtain a bachelors at the same time. It defeats the purpose of vocational training. With 73% of the population aged 25 and up not having a bachelor's degree, I don't think that the prestige of a university education has diminished.
Entering into the UC system you would have to write an essay for English/writing placement. If you did not meet the requirements of college level writing, you were placed in one quarter of remedial writing. You could opt for the calculus exam for placement. If you failed, you took trig/ pre-calc (for advancement into calculus courses). or calculus for life science majors (which I took, since I took stats back in high school).
The Cal State System is different. You have several course offerings of algebra.
Actually I think that we should have an additional two years of schooling after high school...be it vocational or university tracked. More people obtaining a post diploma education will in effect specialize the US. We would have a VERY educated workforce and hence many industries would benefit by being here (specifically those tied to the up and coming green collar, as well as biotech jobs).
If students require remedial classes when they enter college, should their college acceptance be cancelled and should they be sent back to High School to take the remedial classes there?
I don't think that would work out well. There are a lot of older students entering college that need remedial course work, and HS wouldn't be the place for them. Community colleges offer remedial courses and that's where these students should go to be brought back up to speed, imo.
My friend's son has a degree in Computer Science. He said that he actually learned everything he needs to know about his job, ON the job. Very little of what he learned in college has to do with what he actually does in his career. And I think this is true in a lot of cases.
I have a college degree, and I resent that I had to pay for about 3 years of "high school review". Anybody who has gone to college knows that the G.E. and prep classes you're forced to take are just a review of what you were supposed to have learned in high school, and it's a total waste of time.
If I had it to do all over again, I wouldn't have wasted my time and money in college.
I have two debate questions in one post, both related to college.
I don't know where the political debate is on this issue right now because I've simply lost track of it and it doesn't impact me, personally.
Question 1
As of the end of 2007, the percentage of US adults over the age of 25, with a 4 year degree was 15.16%. Over the age of 25 with a 2 year degree was 8.22 percent. If college was made available to anyone who wanted to go, would your Bachelor's Degree become equivalent to a High School Diploma? In other words, if more people had one, would it "cheapen" the diploma's value in the job market?
Question 2
If students require remedial classes when they enter college, should their college acceptance be cancelled and should they be sent back to High School to take the remedial classes there? Should the high schools be monetarily penalized for cranking out sub-standard high school graduates in college prep programs? Right now, their parents pay, as part of their tuition, for these high school level college classes. As far as I know, they don't carry any college credit.
My presumption is that the parents of students in a college prep high school program don't know they have sub-standard skills because they keep getting promoted in high school and then graduate. It's not until they're tested at college, as incoming freshman, that it's determined they can't write, lack reading comprehension skills, can't do basic math.
While I do think that more people with college degrees will "cheapen" a Degree, I tend to think so for a number of reasons. It seems to me that there are becoming two groups of colleges. Ones where (almost) anyone can get a degree for a fair price, or the more expensive schools with greater educations. One can see where this opens a rift of debate in it's own.
But most of the reason that I think a degree will be the new diploma is for simple reasons of supply and demand. The workforce seems to operate by supply and demand. It's just like having a million pounds of peaches. If everyone has a million pounds of peaches, peaches aren't going to be worth much because everyone has as much as they can use. Just the same, if everyone had a degree it wouldn't offer an edge over that many others.
I'm kind of torn by this. On the one hand I think that if the college degree is going to have to be the new standard, that either high school classes need to get real and do some real teaching; they need to actually teach them something they can use in the real world. Or the proper education to a living wage should be paid for. It isn't going to be a good thing when the average Joe needs to go $50,000 in the hole just to get a job with a fair wage.
I could see it eventually being much like the existing school system, where a free education is provided for most people and one gets what they pay for. Or an expensive private school with a great education, but available to few.
The problem I have with all this is that the education is becoming a tool for a better job and I think this is wrong. People should be educated for the sake of being educated. There would be nothing wrong with allowing a population to be educated, so that we could actually have people with productive educations.
I feel that this college attendence trend is simply a bandaid fix in reaction to a failing education early on. There is no reason that our younger students can't get the same quality of education that other countries get. The more we stranglehold the things our students learn, the less we allow them to learn. I feel that this entire issue stemms from this very failure.
By and large I think it reflects our overall tendancy to compensate for our weaknesses instead of overcoming them. This tendancy is clear as day in most of our policies.
My friend's son has a degree in Computer Science. He said that he actually learned everything he needs to know about his job, ON the job. Very little of what he learned in college has to do with what he actually does in his career. And I think this is true in a lot of cases.
I have a college degree, and I resent that I had to pay for about 3 years of "high school review". Anybody who has gone to college knows that the G.E. and prep classes you're forced to take are just a review of what you were supposed to have learned in high school, and it's a total waste of time.
If I had it to do all over again, I wouldn't have wasted my time and money in college.
I think it all depends what you are majoring in. I am in the healthcare field and I majored in Chemistry and my master's is in Microbiology and I learned almost all of my job description in college.
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.
