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.
Is there something wrong with a track? We used to have it back in the 30's in NYC public schools. There was the college track, the business track, and the trade track. Each track left the individuals with tools they needed to succeed. The business track taught, shorthand, typing, accounting (ledger). The trade track taught electrical, and mechanical work.
Is this a bad thing? Not everyone is academic material. We only require a college education to get work... for what purpose really? I think a change in mindset for the task at hand is warranted.
It is a bad thing when the kids are selected for these tracks at ages 10-13, and don't get to choose for themselves. One of my daughters would certainly NOT have been selected for college prep at 10, and maybe not at 13. She is now an honor student in college and hopes to go to medical school. Some post high school education is necessary for practically every job these days. I think all kids should get a basic education in hs, then go on for secretarial school, etc. I also have a problem with kids choosing occupations at too young an age.
There is more to accounting these days than arithmetic. One can major in accounting in college. Those with the college ed have more opportunity for advancement. That's simply a fact of business life, like it or not.
In some European countries, kids not in college prep are out of school at 16. In Sweden, only 1/8 of the kids get to do CP. Here, we let the student set the limits. One can even go to community college w/o having taken CP classes (though one may require much remedial work).
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 01-02-2008 at 11:07 AM..
Reason: Paragraphing
It is a bad thing when the kids are selected for these tracks at ages 10-13, and don't get to choose for themselves. One of my daughters would certainly NOT have been selected for college prep at 10, and maybe not at 13. She is now an honor student in college and hopes to go to medical school. Some post high school education is necessary for practically every job these days. I think all kids should get a basic education in hs, then go on for secretarial school, etc. I also have a problem with kids choosing occupations at too young an age.
An easy fix for a track system, is to have methods to "switch", much like switching a major. Perhaps exams showing proficiency.
And the problem you cite can easily been transferable to college. How many 18 year olds really know what they want to do at 18? How many adults you know have switched careers or wished they had not gotten involved in their present career?
Quote:
There is more to accounting these days than arithmetic. One can major in accounting in college. Those with the college ed have more opportunity for advancement. That's simply a fact of business life, like it or not.
I was only citing the course-work in the past.
Quote:
Here, we let the student set the limits.
Is it appropriate? I have met many a student that didn't deserve to be in college. They didn't earn it while in HS, and continued to squander their opportunity while in it. (And usually on some sort of need based scholarship.)
As long as there are provisions to change one's track, I don't think tracking kids is a bad thing. We really need to spend some resources providing training for those who aren't academically minded. They have a right to make a living just as anyone else. And all too often, the good jobs, say, an electrician, is obtained by having an uncle already in the union.
An easy fix for a track system, is to have methods to "switch", much like switching a major. Perhaps exams showing proficiency.
Perhaps, but I do like the general education idea, with requirements for science, math, humanities, etc for everyone and electives like practical arts, etc. for everyone. It helps you find out what you're good at and what you like. As an aside, my bro-in-law went to a vo-tech high school (which most school districts still have, BTW) years ago in Omaha, NE. It's focus was electronics. He wasn't planning to go to college, but found out he liked it and was good at it, so went to college with the intention of getting a 2 yr. degree. He did well, and got a BS in electrical engineering. So sometimes those systems work in ways that are not intended, but for the benefit of the student. Even at vo-tech, one still must take the gen ed courses.
And the problem you cite can easily been transferable to college. How many 18 year olds really know what they want to do at 18?
Very few. A lot go to college intending to learn to "do" one thing, only to change their major later on. That's why I don't think kids of 16 should be making career choices such as Nurses' Aid, hairdresser, etc.
How many adults you know have switched careers or wished they had not gotten involved in their present career?
Again, lots. Ditto the above. The longer you wait, the better, I think. (To a point!)
Is it appropriate? I have met many a student that didn't deserve to be in college. They didn't earn it while in HS, and continued to squander their opportunity while in it. (And usually on some sort of need based scholarship.)
Are you a college prof? I only know about my kids and their friends. I think it's often appropriate. Another family example, my niece did so badly in HS that she couldn't get into the U of Oklahoma as an in-state student, even with a 1200 SAT score (old system). She started out at a college that accepts 98% of its applicants (per US News college guide), transferred to OU after two years of excellent grades and got a BS in linguistics. A lot of kids here start out at the CC and transfer after they've gotten good grades. So it works both ways. The only fin. aid my niece got was from my mother.
As long as there are provisions to change one's track, I don't think tracking kids is a bad thing. We really need to spend some resources providing training for those who aren't academically minded. They have a right to make a living just as anyone else. And all too often, the good jobs, say, an electrician, is obtained by having an uncle already in the union.
I agree with your general premise, but I still disagree about doing it so young (10-13). If you get put into a vocational track at 10, it could be hard to switch at 16 to college prep. The last two yrs of HS, like the current Vo-Tech school programs is fine with me.
I agree with your general premise, but I still disagree about doing it so young (10-13). If you get put into a vocational track at 10, it could be hard to switch at 16 to college prep. The last two yrs of HS, like the current Vo-Tech school programs is fine with me.
Those are semantics. I don't have an issue about when it is done. I think, however, there should be vocational education of some sort for all that are willing.
Is there something wrong with a track? We used to have it back in the 30's in NYC public schools. There was the college track, the business track, and the trade track. Each track left the individuals with tools they needed to succeed. The business track taught, shorthand, typing, accounting (ledger). The trade track taught electrical, and mechanical work.
Is this a bad thing? Not everyone is academic material. We only require a college education to get work... for what purpose really? I think a change in mindset for the task at hand is warranted.
this is a point i think about sometimes - it seems the "degree as license to work for liveable wages" can be a bit silly, since many people get a degree while goofing off yet there are others that don't have the degree and are far more "alert" and "educated" and, perhaps, capable. and i, too, wonder whether european kids schooling under such a "track" have no choice, or are more encouraged to think about "their futures" earlier on (versus, for example, their Wii or more TV things?), so find a little more out about their abilities and talents earlier on, while possibly having the option to switch "tracks". i.e., not encouraged to remain kid-ish for as long. to an extent, i can see pittnurse's point concerning getting TOO locked in, though.
as for socialistic versus whatever else, i am personally just curious about some of the correlation between these countries with higher standards of living (though perhaps fewer material resources, for example), what can be learned from it, and whether there is a candidate that might best promote a "higher standard of living" as defined by the most people. ron paul, for example, would DEsocialize most everything, apparently, abolish the income tax (or taxes in general is what it sounds like), and so essentially strip the federal government to bare bones and let individuals fend more for themselves. gravel seems to agree to the extent that he sounds like he believes in more of an individual/direct versus representative "democracy" or oligarchy(i.e., for people to propose legislation almost like state ballots versus electing electors that then elect representatives that then supposedly legislate for their constituents),and would like to see something more like a "fairtax". clinton pushes for more socialized (or centralized) health care, while seeming somewhat hawkish militarily (which may just be because that was what her consituents were feeling and so she was representing that). etc.. so, i wonder what people know and recommend in terms of these alternatives, while noticing what seems to work for other democratic societies.
i agree that some more general exposure can be good, while it seems worth promoting taking that more seriously, somehow, as opposed to just going through the motions with not so much accountability and finding ourselves with a more "unaware" society. it's easy to be unaware when you're on top, some times, because you can be insulated (even if you do have to go to school), while i think it might be easy to fall when unaware.
Those are semantics. I don't have an issue about when it is done. I think, however, there should be vocational education of some sort for all that are willing.
Well, all the high schools I am familiar with have it, so maybe we're in agreement. I do think our ed system is preferable. The Europeans, OTOH, seem to have a better handle on health care.
as for socialistic versus whatever else, i am personally just curious about some of the correlation between these countries with higher standards of living (though perhaps fewer material resources, for example), what can be learned from it, and whether there is a candidate that might best promote a "higher standard of living" as defined by the most people.
Europe may have less material things not because they can't have them, but because they value other things more.
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.