|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 19 2013 02:49 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 02:44 Klondikebar wrote:On July 19 2013 02:40 farvacola wrote:On July 19 2013 01:19 Shiori wrote:
Post-secondary education (be it college, community college, or vocational training) should be just subsidized, wholly or partially, for the same reasons that public education is subsidized. Education is, simply, the cornerstone of a responsible and competent citizenry. There is absolutely no reason not to make it as accessible as possible. Obviously, if this were done, one would have to substantially tighten the restrictions on entrance to various post-secondary institutions, in order to prevent people with no aptitude/ability wasting resources i.e. we don't need people going into English literature if they can't piece together a sentence, and nor do we need someone with poor fine motor skills training to be a surgeon or fine woodworker. I was just talking with Sam!zdat about this very thing. Heavily subsidize higher ed, add a year after high school before entrance, and strengthen admissions standards significantly. This sounds like a good idea to me. You'd have to have price controls on education then. Right now education is heavily subsidized. But education providers simply raise prices to capture the subsidies instead of letting them stay with the students. School costs $1000. The government gives little Suzy $400 to help with school. The school is now charging $1400. I realize a lot of people wouldn't have an issue with price controls on education, but I really really do. Telling a private institution what they're allowed to charge is no bueno. And doing away with all private education is dangerous for the development and spread of non-government approved ideas. Presumably the subsidies would only be for state universities in the first place. Of course, this would probably cause a big shift away from private universities, and require that we build new ones (and probably result in the closure of a bunch of private schools), but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
I think I gave a pretty good reason why we still need private education.
|
On July 19 2013 02:50 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 02:49 HunterX11 wrote:On July 19 2013 02:44 Klondikebar wrote:On July 19 2013 02:40 farvacola wrote:On July 19 2013 01:19 Shiori wrote:
Post-secondary education (be it college, community college, or vocational training) should be just subsidized, wholly or partially, for the same reasons that public education is subsidized. Education is, simply, the cornerstone of a responsible and competent citizenry. There is absolutely no reason not to make it as accessible as possible. Obviously, if this were done, one would have to substantially tighten the restrictions on entrance to various post-secondary institutions, in order to prevent people with no aptitude/ability wasting resources i.e. we don't need people going into English literature if they can't piece together a sentence, and nor do we need someone with poor fine motor skills training to be a surgeon or fine woodworker. I was just talking with Sam!zdat about this very thing. Heavily subsidize higher ed, add a year after high school before entrance, and strengthen admissions standards significantly. This sounds like a good idea to me. You'd have to have price controls on education then. Right now education is heavily subsidized. But education providers simply raise prices to capture the subsidies instead of letting them stay with the students. School costs $1000. The government gives little Suzy $400 to help with school. The school is now charging $1400. I realize a lot of people wouldn't have an issue with price controls on education, but I really really do. Telling a private institution what they're allowed to charge is no bueno. And doing away with all private education is dangerous for the development and spread of non-government approved ideas. Presumably the subsidies would only be for state universities in the first place. Of course, this would probably cause a big shift away from private universities, and require that we build new ones (and probably result in the closure of a bunch of private schools), but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I think I gave a pretty good reason why we still need private education.
Nobody is talking about abolishing private education, but there are plenty of schools out there that serve no purpose other than getting people degrees because people are expected to have degrees, and it wouldn't be a huge loss if they were shuttered because they were no longer needed. Also there are some pretty shady for-profit schools out there that represent a net negative for students.
|
On July 19 2013 02:50 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 02:45 cLutZ wrote:On July 19 2013 01:19 Shiori wrote:
Post-secondary education (be it college, community college, or vocational training) should be just subsidized, wholly or partially, for the same reasons that public education is subsidized. Education is, simply, the cornerstone of a responsible and competent citizenry. There is absolutely no reason not to make it as accessible as possible. Obviously, if this were done, one would have to substantially tighten the restrictions on entrance to various post-secondary institutions, in order to prevent people with no aptitude/ability wasting resources i.e. we don't need people going into English literature if they can't piece together a sentence, and nor do we need someone with poor fine motor skills training to be a surgeon or fine woodworker. Only true because or primary and secondary education systems are so inefficient and dont teach any appreciable skills. The teach obedience, repetition, and response to a bell. Highschool was originally designed with the assumption that you'd go work in a factory.
The one thing I will give highschool: The hours are actually more realistic than University.
Other than that, 4 years of history?
|
On July 19 2013 02:45 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 01:19 Shiori wrote:
Post-secondary education (be it college, community college, or vocational training) should be just subsidized, wholly or partially, for the same reasons that public education is subsidized. Education is, simply, the cornerstone of a responsible and competent citizenry. There is absolutely no reason not to make it as accessible as possible. Obviously, if this were done, one would have to substantially tighten the restrictions on entrance to various post-secondary institutions, in order to prevent people with no aptitude/ability wasting resources i.e. we don't need people going into English literature if they can't piece together a sentence, and nor do we need someone with poor fine motor skills training to be a surgeon or fine woodworker. Only true because or primary and secondary education systems are so inefficient and dont teach any appreciable skills.
Some states have pretty good K-12 systems.
|
On July 19 2013 03:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 02:45 cLutZ wrote:On July 19 2013 01:19 Shiori wrote:
Post-secondary education (be it college, community college, or vocational training) should be just subsidized, wholly or partially, for the same reasons that public education is subsidized. Education is, simply, the cornerstone of a responsible and competent citizenry. There is absolutely no reason not to make it as accessible as possible. Obviously, if this were done, one would have to substantially tighten the restrictions on entrance to various post-secondary institutions, in order to prevent people with no aptitude/ability wasting resources i.e. we don't need people going into English literature if they can't piece together a sentence, and nor do we need someone with poor fine motor skills training to be a surgeon or fine woodworker. Only true because or primary and secondary education systems are so inefficient and dont teach any appreciable skills. Some states have pretty good K-12 systems.
That is just not true. Even if they are good at teaching what they teach, they still are consistently teaching irrelevant subject matter.
|
On July 19 2013 03:19 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 03:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 19 2013 02:45 cLutZ wrote:On July 19 2013 01:19 Shiori wrote:
Post-secondary education (be it college, community college, or vocational training) should be just subsidized, wholly or partially, for the same reasons that public education is subsidized. Education is, simply, the cornerstone of a responsible and competent citizenry. There is absolutely no reason not to make it as accessible as possible. Obviously, if this were done, one would have to substantially tighten the restrictions on entrance to various post-secondary institutions, in order to prevent people with no aptitude/ability wasting resources i.e. we don't need people going into English literature if they can't piece together a sentence, and nor do we need someone with poor fine motor skills training to be a surgeon or fine woodworker. Only true because or primary and secondary education systems are so inefficient and dont teach any appreciable skills. Some states have pretty good K-12 systems. That is just not true. Even if they are good at teaching what they teach, they still are consistently teaching irrelevant subject matter.
What should we teach high schooler then ?
|
On July 19 2013 03:07 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 02:50 Klondikebar wrote:On July 19 2013 02:45 cLutZ wrote:On July 19 2013 01:19 Shiori wrote:
Post-secondary education (be it college, community college, or vocational training) should be just subsidized, wholly or partially, for the same reasons that public education is subsidized. Education is, simply, the cornerstone of a responsible and competent citizenry. There is absolutely no reason not to make it as accessible as possible. Obviously, if this were done, one would have to substantially tighten the restrictions on entrance to various post-secondary institutions, in order to prevent people with no aptitude/ability wasting resources i.e. we don't need people going into English literature if they can't piece together a sentence, and nor do we need someone with poor fine motor skills training to be a surgeon or fine woodworker. Only true because or primary and secondary education systems are so inefficient and dont teach any appreciable skills. The teach obedience, repetition, and response to a bell. Highschool was originally designed with the assumption that you'd go work in a factory. The one thing I will give highschool: The hours are actually more realistic than University. Other than that, 4 years of history?
What? The hours are more realistic? What does that even mean?
Good luck passing university when you don't have highschool level writing or mathematics skills. Nevermind that, even with highschool, a substantial portion of graduates have sub-par abilities in these areas and are unprepared for university.
No idea what 4 years of history means, but I hope you're not one of those people who thinks that people should only take/be allowed to take degrees like engineering or medicine or something because those are "important" or somehow better than any other field. People should take whatever they're passionate about/are good at. Not everything in life is about maximizing job prospects or income. Most people want to do something they actually feel good about doing.
|
On July 19 2013 02:40 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 01:19 Shiori wrote:
Post-secondary education (be it college, community college, or vocational training) should be just subsidized, wholly or partially, for the same reasons that public education is subsidized. Education is, simply, the cornerstone of a responsible and competent citizenry. There is absolutely no reason not to make it as accessible as possible. Obviously, if this were done, one would have to substantially tighten the restrictions on entrance to various post-secondary institutions, in order to prevent people with no aptitude/ability wasting resources i.e. we don't need people going into English literature if they can't piece together a sentence, and nor do we need someone with poor fine motor skills training to be a surgeon or fine woodworker. I was just talking with Sam!zdat about this very thing. Heavily subsidize higher ed, add a year after high school before entrance, and strengthen admissions standards significantly. This sounds like a good idea to me.
That reminds me of how we got rid of 5th year in Ontario. It probably would've helped me a lot since I took a few years to finish h.s. but made it on to university eventually.
On July 19 2013 03:22 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 03:07 cLutZ wrote:On July 19 2013 02:50 Klondikebar wrote:On July 19 2013 02:45 cLutZ wrote:On July 19 2013 01:19 Shiori wrote:
Post-secondary education (be it college, community college, or vocational training) should be just subsidized, wholly or partially, for the same reasons that public education is subsidized. Education is, simply, the cornerstone of a responsible and competent citizenry. There is absolutely no reason not to make it as accessible as possible. Obviously, if this were done, one would have to substantially tighten the restrictions on entrance to various post-secondary institutions, in order to prevent people with no aptitude/ability wasting resources i.e. we don't need people going into English literature if they can't piece together a sentence, and nor do we need someone with poor fine motor skills training to be a surgeon or fine woodworker. Only true because or primary and secondary education systems are so inefficient and dont teach any appreciable skills. The teach obedience, repetition, and response to a bell. Highschool was originally designed with the assumption that you'd go work in a factory. The one thing I will give highschool: The hours are actually more realistic than University. Other than that, 4 years of history? What? The hours are more realistic? What does that even mean? No idea what 4 years of history means, but I hope you're not one of those people who thinks that people should only take/be allowed to take degrees like engineering or medicine or something because those are "important" or somehow better than any other field. People should take whatever they're passionate about/are good at. Not everything in life is about maximizing job prospects or income. Most people want to do something they actually feel good about doing.
I think he's referring to how it resembles 9-5, having meetings in different settings across the day, lunch break, socializing, etc.
|
On July 19 2013 03:22 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 02:40 farvacola wrote:On July 19 2013 01:19 Shiori wrote:
Post-secondary education (be it college, community college, or vocational training) should be just subsidized, wholly or partially, for the same reasons that public education is subsidized. Education is, simply, the cornerstone of a responsible and competent citizenry. There is absolutely no reason not to make it as accessible as possible. Obviously, if this were done, one would have to substantially tighten the restrictions on entrance to various post-secondary institutions, in order to prevent people with no aptitude/ability wasting resources i.e. we don't need people going into English literature if they can't piece together a sentence, and nor do we need someone with poor fine motor skills training to be a surgeon or fine woodworker. I was just talking with Sam!zdat about this very thing. Heavily subsidize higher ed, add a year after high school before entrance, and strengthen admissions standards significantly. This sounds like a good idea to me. That reminds me of how we got rid of 5th year in Ontario. It probably would've helped me a lot since I took a few years to finish h.s. but made it on to university eventually.
Oh I'm from Ontario, too! I'm actually in the process of drafting a letter to the Ministry of Education regarding our abysmal high school mathematics curriculum. Seriously, it's embarrassing how bad it is these days (not that any other course is particularly good, but math is by far the worst).
Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 03:22 Shiori wrote:On July 19 2013 03:07 cLutZ wrote:On July 19 2013 02:50 Klondikebar wrote:On July 19 2013 02:45 cLutZ wrote:On July 19 2013 01:19 Shiori wrote:
Post-secondary education (be it college, community college, or vocational training) should be just subsidized, wholly or partially, for the same reasons that public education is subsidized. Education is, simply, the cornerstone of a responsible and competent citizenry. There is absolutely no reason not to make it as accessible as possible. Obviously, if this were done, one would have to substantially tighten the restrictions on entrance to various post-secondary institutions, in order to prevent people with no aptitude/ability wasting resources i.e. we don't need people going into English literature if they can't piece together a sentence, and nor do we need someone with poor fine motor skills training to be a surgeon or fine woodworker. Only true because or primary and secondary education systems are so inefficient and dont teach any appreciable skills. The teach obedience, repetition, and response to a bell. Highschool was originally designed with the assumption that you'd go work in a factory. The one thing I will give highschool: The hours are actually more realistic than University. Other than that, 4 years of history? What? The hours are more realistic? What does that even mean? No idea what 4 years of history means, but I hope you're not one of those people who thinks that people should only take/be allowed to take degrees like engineering or medicine or something because those are "important" or somehow better than any other field. People should take whatever they're passionate about/are good at. Not everything in life is about maximizing job prospects or income. Most people want to do something they actually feel good about doing. I think he's referring to how it resembles 9-5, having meetings in different settings across the day, lunch break, socializing, etc.
Well, I guess that's mildly useful, but it's not that big of a deal for a couple of reasons:
1) Not all jobs are 9-5.
2) Most university programs tend to have most classes in the 9-5 period.
3) Being able to pick your timetable/manage your own courses and degree encourages planning and creativity, and requires students to take responsibility for the way they allocate their time.
|
Its not that I object to taking history classes, I object to the fact that our current high school system basically concedes that upon graduation you have almost no qualifications. You might have, (ASSUMING they have done their job) is the skills to be a secretary who balances a checkbook.
Now granted, this is me, who also found the majority of college courses, even taking an engineering degree, to be useless and redundant, but high schools teaching basically nothing creates the upward ripple effect.
|
On July 19 2013 03:38 cLutZ wrote:
Its not that I object to taking history classes, I object to the fact that our current high school system basically concedes that upon graduation you have almost no qualifications. You might have, (ASSUMING they have done their job) is the skills to be a secretary who balances a checkbook.
Now granted, this is me, who also found the majority of college courses, even taking an engineering degree, to be useless and redundant, but high schools teaching basically nothing creates the upward ripple effect.
Also, our priorities are heinously out of date. Memorization is so obsolete now. We have google and ubiquitous internet. Stop educating for the eventuality that the kid is gonna be stuck on a desert island. Educate them for the real world. Instead of making them memorize dates in history class, teach them how the world and it's ideas actually developed. It doesn't matter if they have memorized the date of the French Revolution, it matters that they understand why the French revolted.
Calculus is a really specialized math. Probably moreso than should be taught in highschool. Maybe instead teach them good finance. Like budgets, saving, how credit works, and maybe even touch on smart investment strategies. If they want to specialize in a math field they can learn advanced math in college.
|
On July 19 2013 03:38 cLutZ wrote:
Its not that I object to taking history classes, I object to the fact that our current high school system basically concedes that upon graduation you have almost no qualifications. You might have, (ASSUMING they have done their job) is the skills to be a secretary who balances a checkbook.
Now granted, this is me, who also found the majority of college courses, even taking an engineering degree, to be useless and redundant, but high schools teaching basically nothing creates the upward ripple effect.
Well, the problem is that you don't really have any knowledge coming into high school, and that the point of highschool is to give you enough groundwork so that you can specialize after it. There aren't very many 18 year olds in any country who are particularly qualified for anything. Why would they be?
I would totally be in favour of making more specialization options available during high school (more AP classes, even more difficult versions of AP classes for talented/motivated kids) but the problem is that there's really no way for high schools to provide specialized education in every different specialization, because they receive so many students and only have them for four years. There's a reason that universities tend to be sprawling institutions rather than a single building or two like a high school.
Redundant classes should absolutely be eliminated classes. "Useless" classes are another matter, because they depend greatly on how one defines the word "useless." Is philosophy useless? English? Fine art? Music? History? Linguistics? Classics? Pure mathematics?
The short answer is that no department which exists in varying incarnations at dozens of major universities worldwide is useless. It might be specialized, esoteric, or a niche field, but that doesn't make it useless. None of the fields I mentioned above are useless. Even the dreaded "Gender Studies" and "Film Studies" degrees are not useless. Are there students who take these programs because they believe they'll be easy? Yes. Are they easy? Sometimes, and sometimes they aren't. Is it hard to get a job in these fields? Absolutely. But that has nothing to do with use. It's important to remember that while most people who take certain programs against which there exists general prejudice may not find a job in that field, there are a lot of important people who actually do find a job in that field, and depriving people in general of the ability to learn about something because it's "unlikely" that they'll be successful doesn't respect one's ability to determine one's own future.
Also, our priorities are heinously out of date. Memorization is so obsolete now. We have google and ubiquitous internet. Stop educating for the eventuality that the kid is gonna be stuck on a desert island. Educate them for the real world. Instead of making them memorize dates in history class, teach them how the world and it's ideas actually developed. It doesn't matter if they have memorized the date of the French Revolution, it matters that they understand why the French revolted.
I agree with your example. I don't know if I agree that memorization is obsolete, because that depends on the context. Is memorizing the quadratic formula important? Yes. Is understanding the quadratic formula more important than memorizing it? Yes. But if you have to google it every time you want to find the roots of a parabola (ubiquitous to any science, sooner or later) you're going to waste a lot of time, especially when most problem solving is about ideas; getting stuck on the method of a calculation clouds one's ability to think conceptually about things.
But I agree that there is way too much trivial memorization in high school. That said, you should still know important dates (like when the French Revolution actually was) because some dates actually do matter in the context of historical chronology and so that you can understand when different events influence each other.
Calculus is a really specialized math. Probably moreso than should be taught in highschool. Maybe instead teach them good finance. Like budgets, saving, how credit works, and maybe even touch on smart investment strategies. If they want to specialize in a math field they can learn advanced math in college.
I could not disagree more. Calculus, as taught in high school, is easy as hell. In fact, it's too easy for anyone seriously wishing to pursue a science related degree in university (since almost every science degree requires some university calculus). High school calculus is, to my knowledge, not compulsory. Neither is it specialized, at least as taught to high school students. I'm not intimately familiar with the American curriculum, but I've read the SAT and I know lots of people who took AP Calc all the way through. It's not a horribly simplistic introduction to calculus, but it's not "really specialized" in any sense at all. There is little emphasis on mathematical proof and lots of emphasis on different ways of computing various things.
That's not a bad thing, by any means, but the point is that no, students cannot and should not have to learn calculus in university, because calculus is so basic to so much math/physics/statistics/whatever that it would be a catastrophic waste of time to spend months familiarizing students with the idea of it in university. The entire point of high school calculus is really just so that when students go to university (and have to actually learn a new concept every lecture) they're able to try to grasp the concepts being taught rather than being mystified by the very nature of the question. Calculus is very beautiful and intuitive, but the first time you encounter it can seem very surreal, because the idea of a limit or derivative or integral is so different than the operations you're used to like multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction, that it takes awhile to actually comprehend it.
Teaching finance math to students is not a bad idea at all, and as far as I'm aware (or at least here in Canada) a lot of math courses have one unit or two about basic financial formulas like mortgages and stuff. But honestly, if we get right down to it, teaching "good finance" isn't about teaching math. It's about teaching sustainable habits. Making budgets is literally just addition and subtraction. Saving is just...not spending. Investment strategies are completely and utterly useless to the vast majority of students because "investment strategies" are either so simple that you just need to read the options your bank offers you or so complicated that interest in them should direct you to an investment banking or commerce degree.
If you're saying we should have a general "life skills" class, then sure, I'd have no problems with that, but it would be hard to determine the curriculum without politicizing it (i.e. endorsing some particular economic ideology) or advocating some particular moral stance (how do you teach someone to be a "good" parent or a "good" romantic partner without somehow quantifying things that everyone basically disagrees on to varying degrees?). But it should absolutely not be at the expense of mathematics or English, and it shouldn't replace anything so much as complement it.
|
I'm going to be honest. I feel like you are terribly underestimating 18 year olds.
|
On July 19 2013 03:38 cLutZ wrote:
Its not that I object to taking history classes, I object to the fact that our current high school system basically concedes that upon graduation you have almost no qualifications. You might have, (ASSUMING they have done their job) is the skills to be a secretary who balances a checkbook.
Now granted, this is me, who also found the majority of college courses, even taking an engineering degree, to be useless and redundant, but high schools teaching basically nothing creates the upward ripple effect.
I don't know what state you live in, but some states actually teach their students respectable writing, math, and even critical thinking skills.
|
On July 19 2013 03:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 03:38 cLutZ wrote:
Its not that I object to taking history classes, I object to the fact that our current high school system basically concedes that upon graduation you have almost no qualifications. You might have, (ASSUMING they have done their job) is the skills to be a secretary who balances a checkbook.
Now granted, this is me, who also found the majority of college courses, even taking an engineering degree, to be useless and redundant, but high schools teaching basically nothing creates the upward ripple effect. I don't know what state you live in, but some states actually teach their students respectable writing, math, and even critical thinking skills.
I think the critical thinking skills are severely lacking for the bottom 90% of any high school class in most schools in Illinois.
But, moreover, high schools have (worthless) college counselors, but they really don't have any (admittedly probably worthless) placement people. And basically, what I'm saying is that they have basically abdicated on that front, even though there are plenty of jobs out there that could be done by high school graduates, particularly if they spent Sr. Year looking into that field, that it takes 1-2 years of community college and then a year of unemployment for these kids to figure out. Then another year actually getting into the field.
|
On July 19 2013 03:53 cLutZ wrote:
I'm going to be honest. I feel like you are terribly underestimating 18 year olds.
What do you want an 18 year old to be able to do? The fact is that it's actually a good thing that 18 year olds largely can't jump headfirst into some extremely complicated and stressful job, because 18 year olds, aside from their usual lack of knowledge, have pretty massive holes in their experience with respect to just about everything. We do not want 18 year old air traffic controllers. We do not want 18 year old lawyers. We do not want 18 year old professors, or teachers, or doctors. Occasionally, someone might be so exceptional that they can do one of these things, but it's not just a matter of talent; it's a matter of maturity and perspective. An 18 year old doctor would understand virtually nothing in any real sense about tonnes of issues that people could have as a result of sickness or causing sickness. They might know the medical cause, but they don't really understand how, say, a 35-year old woman operates with regard to her family versus her job. In that respect, they'll be limited in their ability to provide advice on lifestyle adjustments to relieve stress, aid sleep, or anything else. Same goes for 18 year old psychiatrists, 18 year old surgeons, 18 year old philosophers (actually nevermind they're all employed by forums already; so this one counts as a point for you) and any other specialized 18 year old.
What can an 18 year old actually be taught to be an expert in? What do they need to give up to do this? How early do they need to decide on it? These are the kinds of questions I'd like you to answer, because I'd be very interested if we found a way for 18 year olds to be suddenly turned into mega-qualified people.
But, moreover, high schools have (worthless) college counselors, but they really don't have any (admittedly probably worthless) placement people. And basically, what I'm saying is that they have basically abdicated on that front, even though there are plenty of jobs out there that could be done by high school graduates, particularly if they spent Sr. Year looking into that field, that it takes 1-2 years of community college and then a year of unemployment for these kids to figure out. Then another year actually getting into the field.
Many of such jobs are last resorts. It's not that students need 2 years of CC + a year of unemployment before they discover these amazing jobs. They already know about those jobs, for the most part. They go to CC and spend a year looking for jobs because they'd rather not work at those jobs. If you ask them in senior year, I doubt any of them would know what they want to do, and even fewer would be able to predict what they'll actually end up doing. We can't make the decision for them.
|
The false assumption there, is these people belong in non-last resort jobs. OR that taking one of those jobs, for someone with actual potential, cannot be a stepping stone.
|
On July 19 2013 04:17 cLutZ wrote:
The false assumption there, is these people belong in non-last resort jobs. OR that taking one of those jobs, for someone with actual potential, cannot be a stepping stone.
There's no way to know where someone belongs, because 18 year olds are notoriously uncertain about their own identity and future. Hell, most 25 year olds don't even know what they wanna do forever, and because belonging somewhere is a personal choice, not the school's decision.
No one's denying that these jobs can function as stepping stones, but they can also not function as stepping stones.
|
The City of Detroit is in final preparations to file for federal bankruptcy as early as Friday morning, several sources told the Free Press today.
The filing would begin a 30- to 90-day period that will determine whether the city is eligible for Chapter 9 protection and define how many claimants might compete for the limited settlement resources that Detroit has to offer. The bankruptcy petition would seek protection from creditors and unions who are renegotiating $18.5 billion in debt and other liabilities.
Detroit emergency manager Kevyn Orr, who in June released a plan to restructure the city's debt and obligations that would leave many creditors with much less than they are owed, has warned consistently that if negotiations hit an impasse, he would move quickly to seek bankruptcy protection.
Source
|
On July 19 2013 04:26 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 04:17 cLutZ wrote:
The false assumption there, is these people belong in non-last resort jobs. OR that taking one of those jobs, for someone with actual potential, cannot be a stepping stone. There's no way to know where someone belongs, because 18 year olds are notoriously uncertain about their own identity and future. Hell, most 25 year olds don't even know what they wanna do forever, and because belonging somewhere is a personal choice, not the school's decision. No one's denying that these jobs can function as stepping stones, but they can also not function as stepping stones.
Well thats the thing though isn't it? That is the huge issue with student loans AND the price of college. There are a huge number of fringe students, typically in the middle of their high school class, that go to college at 18. I would argue this is because of the failure of high schools to inform students about any other option.
And also the cost of these loans is obviously being slowly exposed, but traditionally has been hidden from these mid-information students, who have been fed the half-truth that a college degree results in vastly increased earnings over a person's lifetime. The reality, is that most of that statistic is attributable to the fact that both high income and college graduation stem from the same character traits such as intelligence, work ethic, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
