 |
I can't speak for your state, but that is already done in our state. It's a high school course required for graduation called, "College and Career Readiness". Our district also has a vocational center that students can attend while in high school and take classes on a number of different vocational tracks.Quote:
And I've said in other threads, beginning in middle school, encourage vocational guidance
I would imagine that is true in most states, but I don't know that for sure.
Start earlier than high school (even as early as preschool) to help students learn to work with their hands -- art, music, mechanics, putting things together, taking things apart, simple cooking and baking.
Students take art and music classes in elementary school in our state, and there are many opportunities for mechanical and cooking classes. In my own case, I learned how to do electrical wiring and welding while in high school. But like I say, I don't know how things stand in other states. I'm not going to say we could not do a better job, but the demands on schools now are enormous and time is at a premium. You'd have to tell me what you want schools to drop in order to add these other classes.
Well, during the mid-'50s, the school I attended did all these things plus we learned to diagram sentences, had handwriting class, learned the times tables, read through Di*k , Jane, and Spot, memorized the names and locations of waterways and landforms throughout the world, and still had time for recess and lunch.
Uhm...we pretty much get all of that done by sixth grade, including recess and lunch. Just sayin.
But again, if you want to add classes, then you have to identify classes to drop. What would they be?
No dropping is necessary. The "added classes" skills to be taught can be incorporated into existing classes.
Oh? And what areas of study are those classes to drop? You only get so many hours a semester. To put hours into one area, they must be taken from another. I've been there and that's simply how it is.
About 65% of high school kids go on to college, but only 60% of those students ever graduate with a degree. I actually agree with you about the need to expand our vocational offerings, but in order to do that, we will have to dial back some academic expectations. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
It'll take more money as well since vocational classes use a lot of equipment and supplies and they don't just give that stuff away.
No dropping of classes. Incorporate cooking/baking/shop/electronics exercises into math classes. Incorporate art/music into geography and history and handwriting classes.
And as I just asked, what do you drop in those math and social studies classes? When you tie up time in math classes to teach cooking/baking, then you are not teaching math. So what math objectives do you want to eliminate? Now you might say that you could use some cooking illustrations to teach measurements. That's fine, but in no way does that teach anyone the true basics of cooking anymore than measuring the length of a welding rod would teach someone how to weld. You have to be realistic with this. You cannot have a Pollyannaish approach. Time is money in school. I cannot teach two things at the same time, so I have to drop one of them. Which objectives do you drop??? Until you can answer that, there is no point in continuing this.
Apparently you've never cooked or baked. Math is an integral part of cooking and baking. And it wouldn't happen during the entire term, but just in occasional math lessons to show how practical and necessary math is in our daily lives. Been there, done that. Works wonderfully well.
One of my teachers in grade school had the class create faux checking accounts and checks and then "go shopping" (at his "store") and pay for items by check, keep track of expenditures, etc. One of the best math experiences I ever had!
Both of those exercises are done routinely in classrooms. They are hardly remarkable. Neither does much of anything to actually expose a student to cooking. Been there and done that about twenty times more often than you. You’re still being pollyannaish. I used to tell teachers frequently that the most valuable and limited asset they had was time. You don’t seem to understand that.
This is a study from the Federal Reserve Bank of NY
sr733.pdf (newyorkfed.org)
It concludes that colleges “more exposed” to changes in federal student aid programs “increased their tuition disproportionately” around these programs. It concluded that loan expansion to students “could have been to their detriment, on net, because of the sizable and off-setting tuition effect.”
US News and World Report spoke of this in 2011 .
The more money the federal government pumps into financial aid, the more money the colleges charge for tuition. Inflation-adjusted tuition and fees have tripled over those same 30 years while aid quadrupled; the aid is going up faster than the tuition. Thanks to the federal government, massive sums of money are available to pay for massive tuitions.
This has nothing to do with costs. According to Neal McCluskey's research at the Cato Institute, it costs roughly $8,000 a year to educate an undergraduate at an average residential college. Yet the average college bill—including room and board—charged at a private four-year university is $37,000, and $16,000 at a public one. For a long time, college tuition has been rising faster than the inflation rate, which certainly has hurt middle-class families. Colleges can raise tuition with impunity because colleges know they'll get paid no matter what.
Why the Government is to Blame for High College Costs (usnews.com)
if anything ,it has gotten worse.
I lay the blame at the feet of the (greedy) colleges and universities.
Once again, the feds spending of borrowed and printed money is a major contributor to inflation.Quote:
The more money the federal government pumps into financial aid, the more money the colleges charge for tuition. Inflation-adjusted tuition and fees have tripled over those same 30 years while aid quadrupled; the aid is going up faster than the tuition. Thanks to the federal government, massive sums of money are available to pay for massive tuitions.
A team effort between the greedy colleges and the dumb federal government.Quote:
I lay the blame at the feet of the (greedy) colleges and universities.
Too true.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Good grief, we have agreed again. What's the world coming to???
The colleges did the logical thing to do. It was not greed . The government increased the value of the space with loans . It was the unintended consequences of good intentions . The number of slots was a given. More loans made for more competition for the slots which increased the value of the slot . Demand inflation exists when there is an excess of demand and supply remains largely static .
The problem is that the value of the degree obtained did not increase . However ;given everything else ;the prospects of the people Clueless is planning on bailing out are better than the ones he will expect to pay for it ..
The value of a degree is, of course, dependent on the degree. Borrow money to get a degree in engineering or medicine and you can pay it back. Borrow money to get a degree in gender studies, women's studies, or any of many other fairly useless area of study and you can get a job waiting tables. It borders on fraud to give out those degrees.
A middle-aged friend is working toward a doctorate in business administration -- so he can start a business.
I would think an MBA would be enough to do that.
Bill Gates, as I remember, never went to college. Hartley Peavey, who built Peavey Electronics from the very beginning, never went to college.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:31 PM. |