posted
I was talking to a friend of mine that was born and raised in Germany. We were talking about how I had a hard time deciding what to choose for a career.
It seems every high school in the United States say "Go to college, that's your only way you'll be successful!" I know that not everybody in our education system doesn't think that college is right for everybody, but the schools are work that way. They're all "college prep" schools.
I found that frustrating. I graduated high school and went to community college for a year because my parents wanted me to go to college even though I didn't want to. I ended up dropping out and hearing about a tech school to teach me how to repair cars. I ended up making pretty good money for only being 22 years old. I'm unemployed at the moment due to moving but my job is in demand, I'm not worried.
This is my question: Why does the United States education system seem to be against teaching our children to be automotive technicians, airplane technicians, welder-fabricators, contruction workers or any other trades? They are not less important to society by any means than a college graduate, and despite common knowledge, these professions actually all pay very well.
In Germany, they have programs for what they called university-track students and trade-track students. I would have loved to go to a school like that. I think going to college for the year I did was the biggest waste of money, not because I think education isn't necessary, only because it wasn't for me. I couldn't understand why I found the whole idea loathesome. I rarely ejoyed any of the classes. I always wanted to work with computers or something with my hands.
I just think that high schools shouldn't teach students that college is the only way to be financially successful.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There were no trade classes at my high school. The "Auto Shop" was used for storage. They even put portable classrooms on the tennis courts. Goodbye tennis team. Maybe it's just my district, but this behavior is common at all the schools around me. There were literally no classes available that taught any trades.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you have a pretty skewed sample size there, if you're only going on your anecdotal evidence and what someone from Germany said.
Some high schools are essentially college-prep schools. Some others balance an emphasis on college prep and vo-tech. I live in a semi-rural area and we probably have more kids in our high school in the vo-tech track than the college prep one.
In fact, when she met with the counselor to pick out her high school classes, the counselor actually discouraged my daughter from choosing the college preparatory track - and talked very encouragingly about the opportunities available in the vo-tech program.
Yes, we need mechanics, plumbers, electricians, etc. The great thing about our country is, that if those services are needed and there is no one to provide them, there will be more money to be made in those fields. Then more people with pursue them. Then the prices will drop.
Right now, in my area of the country at least, plumbers, electricians, and finish carpenters are in high demand. Enough so that a talented finish carpenter can almost just name his price. I have a good friend who is a finish carpenter that cherry picks what jobs he wants and works whenever he wants to and hunts and fishes the rest of the time and makes more money than other friends of mine who have college degrees and white collar jobs.
And many teachers know that college isn't for everyone. One of my college professors actually advised a student, in class, to go do something else if he really did hate school. She wasn't mean about it, she just said that this wasn't the right path for everyone and if he truly didn't want to be there, he should move on to what he did want to do. College is not the only way to be successful in this world. There are many, many other opportunities out there and I do think most academic professionals know that.
The issue though, is that every student who WANTS to go to college, needs to receive an education in high school that prepares him/her for it. High school should get the students ready for college, and then leave the choice up to them. What we don't need is schools who think that none of their students need to be prepared for college. In fact, if a kid graduates from a vo-tech program and gets a job as an auto mechanic, then changes his mind several years later and wants to go to college, I want him to be able to. That means that every high school program needs to give kids the foundational knowledge and skills they need to further their education if they choose to.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's a matter of not having certain courses, but having courses with a different focus.
For instance, English courses might focus more on writing in a practical environment: cover letters, professional writing, technical writing, grammar/usage, letters to the editor, etc. And critical reading in a practical environment: professional memos, manuals, newspaper articles, political speeches, etc.
While I definitely see the value in the study of literature and essay/paper writing, I don't feel as though every person needs to have read Romeo and Juliet and written an 8-10 page critique on it in order to live a complete, successful life.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm saying that high schools where I grew up ONLY prepared you for college and nothing else, that's all. I have had this discussion with more than one German by the way.
My high school literally didn't have ANY vocational classes at all.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: While I definitely see the value in the study of literature and essay/paper writing, I don't feel as though every person needs to have read Romeo and Juliet and written an 8-10 page critique on it in order to live a complete, successful life.
What nonsense you speak! or, "Thy folly sets sail from thy mouthy port as a fleet, and can that fleet do ought but offend?"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nick, I don't know how it was for you, but when I was going to school (in Philadelphia, so the size may skew things quite a bit), there were plenty of high schools that provided or focused on vo-tech programs. There were also plenty of schools that had little to no vo-tech and were focused on only college-prep. Is it possible that you went to a college-prep school while there were other options that would have better prepared you for a trade? (edit: It looks like you answered this in the negative. I don't know what to tell you in that case, except that your experience isn't generalizable to mine.)
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Some high schools are essentially college-prep schools. Some others balance an emphasis on college prep and vo-tech. I live in a semi-rural area and we probably have more kids in our high school in the vo-tech track than the college prep one.
While some areas of the country have a healthy balance and (gasp) understand that one-size-fits-all education is not the best option, the northeast is very college-prep heavy - especially in more urban environments.
Add in the pressures of No Child Left Behind, and money spent on "nontested" areas such as trade courses, art/music, and physical education can get shifted into improving test scores.
It's sad to me, though, that a student who may have a tremendous talent in a trade (let's use the finish carpentry example) but performs poorly on math/reading tests will be considered "Left Behind" - even though that student may have a far more successful career than many of his/her other classmates.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:While I definitely see the value in the study of literature and essay/paper writing, I don't feel as though every person needs to have read Romeo and Juliet and written an 8-10 page critique on it in order to live a complete, successful life.
Hear, hear. Though I'd probably take it a step further and say I don't really see the value of the study of literature. Least ways not on the high school level. If people wanna study that in college, well more power to them. But honestly, why do I need to have read Great Expectations, or Les Miserables or any of it? I hated those books when we had to read them (and rarely finished them as a result) and having to try and analyze them in some way just made the experience all the more miserable. I'm now studying physics at a small, but good liberal arts college and I can safely say that, thus far, those skills have done jack for me.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't feel as though every person needs to have read Romeo and Juliet and written an 8-10 page critique on it in order to live a complete, successful life.
Of course not. But the skills required to read Romeo and Juliet and write a critical paper on it are skills that translate over into other areas of life. Critical and analytical thinking, clear concise writing, the value of working on a project and seeing it through to completion...all of those things are part of an extended paper assignment in a literature class. All of those things can help develop skills and confidence that carries over into future endeavours.
When I teach secondary students, I don't expect that five years down the road after leaving my class they'll be able to recite Shakespeare and talk about the specifics of that assignment. But I hope they will be able to read something critically, whether it be literature, a contract, or a newspaper article, make decisions about it, and communicate their thoughts effectively. No matter what that student is doing with his life, those skills are going to be needed, and help him live a successful, fulfilling life.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why does the United States education system seem to be against teaching our children to be automotive technicians, airplane technicians, welder-fabricators, contruction workers or any other trades? They are not less important to society by any means than a college graduate, and despite common knowledge, these professions actually all pay very well.
I think that to the U.S. education system, "success" is not equal to having a job that is important to society and pays well. I think educators see themselves as pursuing a loftier goal than simply training their students to get a good job.
I think that is a good thing; education should be more than a means to a well-paying important job. Schools should aim to produce good people who are capable of making intelligent decisions. On the other hand, I also don't think the traditional college path is universally an effective means to achieve that aim.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course not. But the skills required to read Romeo and Juliet and write a critical paper on it are skills that translate over into other areas of life. Critical and analytical thinking, clear concise writing, the value of working on a project and seeing it through to completion...all of those things are part of an extended paper assignment in a literature class. All of those things can help develop skills and confidence that carries over into future endeavours.
When I teach secondary students, I don't expect that five years down the road after leaving my class they'll be able to recite Shakespeare and talk about the specifics of that assignment. But I hope they will be able to read something critically, whether it be literature, a contract, or a newspaper article, make decisions about it, and communicate their thoughts effectively. No matter what that student is doing with his life, those skills are going to be needed, and help him live a successful, fulfilling life.
Yes, but those same skills could be acquired by reading and writing a paper on something far more interesting to the student in question. Or some more like what they will be using those skills on in the future. For example, news paper articles on current events, or recently made political speeches. Our obsession with ancient literature just drives many students who might otherwise enjoy learning and using those skills away (I'm a good anecdotal example, and I know a great number of other people who are similar).
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Schools should aim to produce good people who are capable of making intelligent decisions.
I think that there is a very strong case to be made that the ability to make and/or fix actual things with your hands a la the automotive techs, welders, construction workers, etc. can be a powerful influence towards people making intelligent decisions. I think it is also true that working in an environment with tangible, objective measures of right and wrong can help reign in a lot of fallacious thinking.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alcon, I can agree with what you're saying. When I was a freshman in high school, that was my best year for english class.
Our main book of study: Ender's Game
I loved it. I even convinced my teacher to let me read Speaker for summer reading. That was my first exposure to OSC. That was the most rewarding year in English class in both learning and fun. It helps to like the subject matter.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, but those same skills could be acquired by reading and writing a paper on something far more interesting to the student in question.
Exactly.
This is what's wrong with the study of literature in high schools, I think. We should not be surprised that many students dislike school, if we force them to learn things that they won't really need in life and also aren't interested in. Let them analyze things they care about instead.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nick, The latter. Working with concrete things where you know the reason that they don't work is because you did something wrong often, in my experience, gets rid of a lot of the errors that can accumulate in the thought processes of people who generally operate more in a subjectively assessed, abstract environment.
---
Plus, geez, you should be able to change a tire. For pete's sake, you shouldn't need me to do it for you unless you are physically incapable of doing so.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this same conversation I had with my frind, we were talking about Polish schools too.
All the schools there are paid for by the government on a student count basis. The parent can choose the school the child is to attend, and the school gets a lump sum when the child enrolls. Essentially, the schools have to compete for students, so the better schools win. Would a system like this work in the United States?
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny you mention that Squick, becuase all the things I learned with my hands, basic electrical, woodworking, basic auto mechanics (like changing a tire), I learned from my dad, who learned it in school.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about all of you but in grade school, even at high school level, I was not aware of all that I could potentially enjoy and learn from.
It was a required English class that opened my eyes to Shakespeare, a required biology class that convinced me that Paleontology was not what I really wanted in a carreer. A required American Studies class put me on the road to getting a bachelors in political science. But even if I had not chosen political science, being required to read The Jungle, and some of the Federalist Papers, opened my eyes to how important our government is, and what it means to be a responsible voter.
Its not all peaches and cream. I have to take math courses that scare the hell out of me, and seem so unrelated to political science. But hey, I won't be surprised if I take the classes, and discover that I was wrong.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course not. But the skills required to read Romeo and Juliet and write a critical paper on it are skills that translate over into other areas of life.
Absolutely. However, I disagree that reading the "great works" is the only way of gaining critical reading and writing skills.
I'd like to add that I was an English major and teacher, myself, and benefited greatly from the current system - I just don't feel that it is the best way of effectively teaching "all students".
quote:Critical and analytical thinking, clear concise writing, the value of working on a project and seeing it through to completion...all of those things are part of an extended paper assignment in a literature class.
Absolutely, again. But they can be part of other assignments, too, that have nothing to do with an extended paper assignment.
Being made up of two pairs of parallel lines and having four 90 degree angles are part of being a square... but that doesn't mean a rectangle can't fulfill those same requirements.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It was a required English class that opened my eyes to Shakespeare, a required biology class that convinced me that Paleontology was not what I really wanted in a carreer.
I just want to note that you went into school looking to pursue a field of advanced study that required a college degree, and then changed to a different field of study that also required a degree.
This is different than going into school having no interest at all in college and wishing to join the carpenter's union upon high school graduation, and then deciding to go to school to become a ceramics engineer after taking a chemistry class.
Not that the second scenario is impossible, just far less likley.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh. I go back and forth on the classics question. I think we do students a disservice if they graduate high school without knowing the basics of several heavily-alluded-to works...R&J being one of them. Huck Finn is another, Hamlet, The Scarlet Letter--on the other hand, who really wants to have to actually read Hawthorne? By the way, when I'm talking about the allusions, I mean the ones made in popular culture and news writing.
So then what do we do? Shakespeare is easy: hello, don't read the play, WATCH it.
Dealing with the others requires careful selection and good teaching (not necessarily easy to come by). And maybe it's OK for students not to read every blessed word.
One thing I believe: it's ridiculous to stop teaching something because kids don't like it. It's vital to make it clear to them, though, why what they're learning is important, and why the teacher is expecting them to work so hard.
It's funny that I'm making the pro-classics argument, because as a general rule I think too many of them are taught in high school, when most students aren't yet ready to appreciate, let alone enjoy, them; I also think it's a crying shame (get it? get it?) that we immerse students in the literature of misery for 4 years, and then are surprised when they don't really like to read anymore. I also believe that writing instruction tends to suffer when teachers get too excited about teaching literature.
Now, if only I ran the world.
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the fear people have in America is that providing alternate tracks will further solidify class divisions and hinder the American Dream.
American culture promotes the ideal that any individual can become the fabulously wealthy tycoon with a mansion in Malibu. Which is theoretically true. The problem is that while any individual might potentially have that, not every individual can have it at once, and some have a better shot at it than others. And there is a strong sense of "I have to give my child the best chance!" and "Every child needs to be given every opportunity!" because we know how much competition there is for that goal, and no one wants to be permanently cheated out of "their chance".
When you suggest separating the college track from the vocational track, you run into the problem that the college track is aiming kids directly at the tycoon goal, and the vocational track makes the tycoon goal much less attainable. If there is any sense that some kid is being placed in a track that snuffs his chance at the American dream at a young age, then you're going to face some serious negative reactions.
So if you want two tracks, you definitely need those two tracks to be based on individual choice, not on merit or money. There needs to be mobility between the tracks, so that no decision seems like a permanent sentence to a particular future. There needs to be a clear sense that the child of plumbers can become a lawyer and the child of lawyers can become a plumber, in either case, because that is what the child wants to do.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:One thing I believe: it's ridiculous to stop teaching something because kids don't like it. It's vital to make it clear to them, though, why what they're learning is important, and why the teacher is expecting them to work so hard.
Not stop teaching, cause there are always some who do like it. Stop requiring it. That way those who do not enjoy it and do not intend to do anything involving it in the future, do not have to learn it.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:One thing I believe: it's ridiculous to stop teaching something because kids don't like it. It's vital to make it clear to them, though, why what they're learning is important, and why the teacher is expecting them to work so hard.
Why IS it important, though? I'm not sure there is a convincing reason for the normal student. It seems to me the best answer is "because you might learn to like it one day" - which doesn't strike me as a very good reason for learning it, when there are countless other things that people also might learn to like one day. Why not force everyone to take Shop instead because a few of the students might one day really love building things?
The other reason I can think of is "because you will encounter many references to these ancient works" - in which case, I'd argue a class in pop culture would be better, since I encounter many more Seinfeld references in daily life than Macbeth references.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:When you suggest separating the college track from the vocational track, you run into the problem that the college track is aiming kids directly at the tycoon goal, and the vocational track makes the tycoon goal much less attainable.
It's actually a misconception that college-educated people are automatically going to be more successful than those who pursue a vocational/trade track. How many people with college educations work in cubicle farms making half what their plumber, electrician, carpenter, or mechanic makes?
A friend of my father's is a multimillionaire because he went into construction out of high school, was very good at his job, and eventually rose through the ranks. Now he runs five construction companies in different parts of the NY/NJ area.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My high school had the regular public education track, and a vocational agriculture track for those who wanted to work with plants or animals later on. Students came from other parts of the state for our vo-ag program. Also in my town is a vocational technical high school with emphasis placed on a specific carrer, including mechanic, electrician, chef, hairdresser, etc. I think there are around a dozen options. Both of these alternative tracks are available to everyone in the state (though at multiple locations, obviously), though I don't know how well known they were to everyone. It's highly likely that you had a technical option available to you, and didn't know to go looking for it.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, then, it's ridiculous to stop requiring something because kids don't like it. Kids will moan and groan and complain about almost anything. That doesn't mean it's not valuable for them.
Let's take Great Expectations, since I've taught it, I like it, and I've taught it to kids who didn't like it (and some who did). Notice I'm not choosing To Kill a Mockingbird...most kids end up liking, if not loving, that one. A basic rationale I'd give students for why reading Great Ex is important:
1. It will be a challenge for almost all of you, and I'll be here to help you with it and teach you skills you'll need for reading other challenging material in the future when I'm not around (not just hard classic literature, either; hard chemistry textbooks. Hard instruction manuals. Difficult newpaper articles.).
2. You will think about certain human virtues and vices in new lights and new ways. We'll be talking about them and helping you to critique your views as well as the author's and characters' views.
3. You will further develop your critical thinking and writing skills through studying this novel. You may certainly apply these skills to critiquing the novel.
4. There are certain characters who are alluded to in other literature and popular culture. I could just tell you about them, but they're much more memorable when you encounter them in all their creepiness in their original setting.
5. You may not enjoy the plot--you may dislike the characters. But you may like it...and you will enjoy the intellectual challenge of tackling this novel.
6. Pip, believe it or not, is going through a lot of the same things you are. You'll get multiple opportunities to talk about yourself (always fun), but more importantly, to reflect on your life and situation.
I actually would be unlikely to pick Great Ex these days, but if I did, I would make sure to have lots of reasons beyond "It's in the curriculum" or "it's a classic" or "I like it"--and I would be sure to articulate those reasons to the students.
I love the idea of having a class, or a unit in a traditional English class, to evaluate and critique pop culture. I think we need to teach students to evaluate a variety of texts, not just traditional literature. (I wouldn't be teaching pop culture so they could recognize the allusions, though...that more or less takes care of itself. I'd be much more interested in studying the profound effect that Seinfeld has had on the structure of the sitcom.)
And recognizing allusions--or more specifically, being familiar with the texts that have had an impact on writing and thinking in our culture--is never a sufficient reason to use a particular text in the classroom. However, it should be a consideration when choosing which challenging text to use. Much as I love The Woman in White, by Wilkie Collins, a Dickens contemporary, I'd be pretty unlikely to use it in a regular high school classroom. It's great literature, a whomping good story, and a precursor to the modern detective novel/ psychological mystery, but it's not one of those key texts. That's one that could be saved for the "interested" student.
This really is ironic, by the way. I am pretty much anti-whole-class-plodding-through-the-same-novel-at-the-same-time. But I do think there are times--and texts--when a shared literary experience is necessary and valuable.
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I certainly think literature classes at the middle and high school levels need to balance classics with more contemporary works that kids are actually reading and enjoying right now.
But I don't think we should abandon the classics because they're not interesting to kids...part of the point of studying great literary works is to study them in the context of the time they were written, they also have value because of what they can teach us about history.
Having kids write papers on Harry Potter isn't going to teach them anything about history or society as much as, say writing a paper on The Diary of Anne Frank.
And Liz, you sound like such a great teacher. I want to be you when I grow up and get a job in a couple years.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:OK, then, it's ridiculous to stop requiring something because kids don't like it. Kids will moan and groan and complain about almost anything. That doesn't mean it's not valuable for them.
No, but in this case, I believe it isn't.
I'll do for you what you have done for me. I'll respond to these as I would have (and frequently did back when) were I still a student in high school.
quote:1. It will be a challenge for almost all of you, and I'll be here to help you with it and teach you skills you'll need for reading other challenging material in the future when I'm not around (not just hard classic literature, either; hard chemistry textbooks. Hard instruction manuals. Difficult newpaper articles.).
A challenge is only worth it if it's one I wish to take on. If the goal of having over come that challenge is some how worth it to me. And the prize of a good grade does not make the challenge of reading Great Expectations worth it to me. I'm willing to read challenging material, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna learn those skills on a book I want nothing to do with. I'll learn these skills reading something I wish to read, thank you very much, like that Chemistry text book you mentioned...
quote:2. You will think about certain human virtues and vices in new lights and new ways. We'll be talking about them and helping you to critique your views as well as the author's and characters' views.
I say again, I can do this with material I would find far more interesting and would far more wish to read. Sorry, but I don't give a frack about Dicken's views and have no wish to discuss or critique them. Many of the views of his characters by and large lost their relevance a good hundred years ago. The ones that didn't I can just as easily ponder in another, more modern piece of work that will give me infinitely more enjoyment. Now if you wish to discuss the views of the author of that recent political essay, I'm all ears.
quote:3. You will further develop your critical thinking and writing skills through studying this novel. You may certainly apply these skills to critiquing the novel.
Again, I can do that with other material which I would enjoy infinitely more.
quote:4. There are certain characters who are alluded to in other literature and popular culture. I could just tell you about them, but they're much more memorable when you encounter them in all their creepiness in their original setting.
I can get the allusions from context or by reading the spark notes. I don't need to slog through a book I hate (and believe me, I read enough of it to develop a deep hatred for it) just to get those allusions. There are plenty of allusions in popular culture to the shlock on MTV too, but I'm not gonna go watch that just to get them!
quote:5. You may not enjoy the plot--you may dislike the characters. But you may like it...and you will enjoy the intellectual challenge of tackling this novel.
I most certainly did not enjoy the intellectual challenge of tackling it. I hated the plot and the characters with enough vehemence that even when I'm trying to stay neutral in this intellectual exercise I'm sure you can feel it.
quote:6. Pip, believe it or not, is going through a lot of the same things you are. You'll get multiple opportunities to talk about yourself (always fun), but more importantly, to reflect on your life and situation.
Again, I can do that with material I will enjoy much, much more and is certainly infinitely more relevant to the present day and things I care about.
Sorry, that got a bit more emotional than it should have, but I don't think I could make it less so. Suffice to say I very much hated having to read the "classics" in high school English. Even when I only read and skimmed enough so I could BS my way to an A I developed an acute hatred for many of the works we were forced to endure. I did try and read them and only moved to BSing when I discovered just how much I hated the works. They were depressing, boring, their styles dragged, their characters were utterly uninteresting to me, I could never get into their plots or stories and I didn't give a good frack what greater meaning their authors were trying to espouse.
And it wasn't the teachers or their methods. I dearly loved many of my high school English teachers and when they were teaching something I enjoyed or cared about I was all ears and an excellent student.
I don't believe it is even remotely necessary to teach "the classics". The skills gained by reading them could be gained by reading other things. And that they are alluded to, well so are plenty of other things that aren't worth my time or effort. Survivor for instance, American Idol, these are alluded to all the time but that doesn't mean you should force people to watch them. I'm not saying that people don't like these books or that they aren't good books. But they are entertainment. And entertainment of a by gone era at that. Maybe they have a greater political point, but those lost their relevance hundreds of years ago. Maybe they have a great philosophical point, but if it's still relevant there are sure to be other, more modern works with the same point that are infinitely more enjoyable to read.
The long and short of it is, I didn't want to read them and there is no good reason I should have been forced to. And I don't see why we should continue to force students in today's classrooms to read them when the time would be better spent reading other things they will enjoy more, and therefor get more out of.
Sorry, old, old, old pet peeve that got quite a few rants from me in high school. If I'm still this frustrated by the subject... you can imagine what my poor beloved high school teachers got Anyway, I'll leave this topic be now and not further derail this thread.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It seems every high school in the United States say "Go to college, that's your only way you'll be successful!" I know that not everybody in our education system doesn't think that college is right for everybody, but the schools are work that way. They're all "college prep" schools.
In Finland it's exactly the other way around. And that kind of worries me.
To explain, the Finnish system goes like this: first there's elementary school (six grades, ages 7-12) and junior high school (three grades, ages 13-15). During these nine years of basic education students are taught in stuff from both aisles of the axis ranging from maths, history, biology, Finnish, Swedish and English to home economics, cooking, sewing, woodwork, sports and all that. (And there actually is a possibility for parents to also home school their children. Just clearing that up because I think that in a previous thread I said it's not possible in Finland.)
After you graduate from the 9th grade you have five options: 1) Go to high school. This is the only option for those who want to go to the university (college). High school is centered more on the "reading" subjects such as maths or history or literature or languages. 2) Go to trade school. Trade school is for the other subjects, the place where you get to look inside a car and do your own clothes or your own furniture. In trade school you obviously specialize at this level; your own choice features more than in high school. 3) Do both simultaneously. It is possible to get a degree from both high school and trade school, though it requires a lot of work. The high school degree is actually two degrees for those who're just going to high school - the degree from your own high school with the grades your teachers have given you, and the matriculation exam degree from the national exams in different subjects taken at the last year of high school. For those who do both they can choose whether they want to do only the matriculation exam degree or both the degrees. (Both obviously requires way more work again.) 4) Not go to school, but go to work and get an apprenticeship. Getting rarer these days but still happens. 5) Self-destruct. Do nothing. Become a bum. Regret later.
Trade school usually lasts three years and so does high school, though it's also possible to do high school in two or four years. (Or in 2.5 and 3.5 if we're nitpicking.) After trade school/high school there are four main options. 1) Go to university. Very difficult if you haven't been to high school. 2) Go to a polytechnic school ("grade school university"). This is what most of the people from trade school background do, and sadly also what most people with high school background do. 3) Go to work or get an apprenticeship. (People who go to trade school to train as barbers, for example, usually don't want any more education, and start their own businesses at this point.) 4) Self-destruct. (See above.)
Anyway, these are of course all my own opinions and not the universal truth, but in general I'm worried about people in Finland placing more value on trade school education than on university education. Now, to some extent this varies from in different places - usually people in small villages value trade schools with people in cities valuing higher education. I come from a village background, so when I was in junior high school people bullied me for wanting to go to university: "why is a normal job not enough for you?"
Not that I'm saying trade school jobs are somehow more worthless. It's just that the reality does in my view value higher education. Because despite the fact that statistics show how Finns value trade education over higher literal education, other statistics show that people from university backgrounds are much less likely to become unemployed, much more likely to get jobs, and extremely more likely to get well-paying jobs. So the public perceptions are not on the level of reality, I feel. I mean, after you graduate from university you have the means become anything on a wide variety of different areas! After you graduate from the barber line of a high school you have the means to become a barber. So what are you going to do if there's no need for barbers at the moment?
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I completely agree American schools have gotten farther away from teaching vocational tracks. I also think there should be opportunities for people who will be happier doing those kinds of jobs for a living. Everyone is definitely not meant to college.
That being said, I also firmly believe everyone needs a well rounded base education. When we start picking only the most important, or practical subjects to teach lots of very good things get left out. What's first to go, classic lit.? What’s next, art, music... It would be a sad place to live if the next generation had no background in the arts.
I went to school for and became a graphic designer, but over time I have ended up a product manager. I use many skills and basic knowledge I learned in high school everyday to do my job: math to figure out pricing, sales, ect.; physics to understand our engineers; and all the culture I have been exposed to help me to deal with our factories in China.
I bring this up, because you never know what you're going to end up doing later in life. Even if you start out as a carpenter you could end up running your own business one day and all that stuff you don’t think you will need will come in handy. Even if you can remember most of it at least you have some basic knowledge so when people explain it to you, you will understand them.
I remember saying in 1989 “why the hell do I need Spanish, I’m never going some place where they speak it”. Almost 20 years later I really wish I had paid better attention. By the way the first place I visited outside of the U.S. was Spain.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you [EDIT: I mean the generic "you", not anyone in particular] think the affect of the decline of American Industry/Manufacturing has had on vo-tech opportunities?
Could the lack of vo-tech schools/schooling options just be a reflection of the market environment?
posted
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, Alcon. I think the two essential points of disagreement are that the only challenges worth taking on are those one wants to tackle, and that the allusions aren't worth knowing because things other than the classics are also alluded to. But your point is well-taken: if a teacher is planning to use a work that has little appeal to adolescents, her or she had better have darn good instructional reasons for it.
And thanks, Belle. From the thoughtfulness of your posts, I'm sure you're going to be wonderful!
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Canada has Highschool and then a CEGEP where for like 100$ a semester you can go on a University track or a trade track, if you do a trade usually a 3 year program once your done you have instant access to job market.
IP: Logged |
quote:I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, Alcon.
I think I can do that. And I'll second what Belle said, it sounds like you are a very good teacher. One I'd have enjoyed having in high school, even if I disagreed with you Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alcon, a couple points in response to your comments so far (from my poit of view).
1) It seems like you (and others) are working on the assumption that highschoolers generally have a very firm grasp on what they're interested in doing for the rest of their lives. From my experience this is far from true. I certainly didn't know for certain that I wanted to by an aerospace engineer even when I was graduating with my degree in it. Hell, the summer after graduation from college I was considering opportunities in construction. Not only did I not have much idea of what I wanted to do as a career, but neither did I have a firm grasp on what I was interested in otherwise (i.e. what alternate books etc I would have chosen in place of what we had to read).
2) I think you discount the fact that a lot of why certain books/curricula are chosen in highschool are not so much that everyone needs to know Great Expectations, but to expose everyone to knowledge/works that are widely respected (and that they otherwise wouldn't be exposed to).
Example: required reading for my Junior year theology class was A Canticle for Leibowitz. I had never heard of the book, and wasn't interested in it to start with. But by the time I finished it I loved the book and am eternally greatful that Fr. Joel made us read it. At the same time I'm sure there were a bunch of students that hated it. At the same time, I didn't get much out of 1984 when we had to read it (though looking back on it it was valuable) but when our sister-school read Brave New World I was really glad I chose to read along...
You certainly have a point that we should also be making an effort to incorporate modern/pop culture into the curriculum as well as the classics (in my junior english class we all got subscriptions of Time and chose articles every week to do verbal/written presentations on).
3) much as modern stuff is also valuable to work to, it's a lot harder to work curriculum around. a) If everyone's not reading the same material it is going to drastically change the nature of the class. b) The teacher is going to have to have read and assessed the value of the material before working out study material, tests etc... so things aren't going to be extremely current. c) The students generally can't be relied on to come up with their own material because either they'll try to cop out by choosing something easy (most students aren't motivated enough to challenge themselves on something like literature when they can choose something easy and get away with it) or won't have enough background/experience to make a good decision (largely what we're trying to remedy by way of exposing students to classics).
4) I agree that a lot of what teaching "classics" does can be done through other means, but I also think that this is a good way to do that (reading comprehension etc as already mentioned) and that even if you don't like them at the time it is very valuable to have that kind of background. If nothing else, the point about reinforcing a class differentiation is a good one. If generations of people choose the vocational route and this route causes them to no longer be exposed to literature, then you're likely to start enabling (more than now) pockets of society that lose out on different aspects of culture etc...
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me make something clear that I don't think I have thus far. I'm not arguing for their complete removal, I'm arguing that we shouldn't center the curriculum on them as it now is.
I think they shouldn't be central to the curriculum, but rather one option of many equivalent. That way if students discover, as I did, that they vehemently hate these books then they can get away from them to books that serve the same purpose but that they will enjoy much more.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's actually a misconception that college-educated people are automatically going to be more successful than those who pursue a vocational/trade track. How many people with college educations work in cubicle farms making half what their plumber, electrician, carpenter, or mechanic makes?
THANK YOU! An experience mechanic can make over $30 dollars an hour by the time they're 30 years old, and make over six figures if they become an ASE master tech if they acquire a high position. ex: Shop Foreman
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let me make something clear that I don't think I have thus far. I'm not arguing for their complete removal, I'm arguing that we shouldn't center the curriculum on them as it now is.
Now we can agree to agree.
(And I always value students who can clearly articulate why they hate something and shouldn't have to read it...even when I make the decision to overrule.)
Another point: As TheGrimace said above, if everyone's reading different stuff, it's going to drastically change the nature of the class. True, and in my opinion, desirable. Again, a shared literary experience is valuable sometimes; equally valuable is the opportunity for students to branch off in different directions based on their interests. That makes it all the more important to CAREFULLY select the whole-class texts. And, as students are given more choice and instruction in making good choices, they become better and better at selecting texts that both interest and challenge them.
And, since I promised myself I'd comment on the actual thread topic: In the US, I think we overestimate the necessity of a college education. As Nick (and others) pointed out above, there are skilled trades that result in excellent salaries...the point is that they're skilled. Trade school/ vo-tech needs to be a viable option in every district...but I also agree with someone up there (sorry, couldn't find it...I think it was Belle) who said that someone who goes to vo-tech in high school should still get the kind of education that allows for attending a 4-year-college later.
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course I agree that all students that want to pursue a trade should still be prepared for college, but my point is that it's wrong to not even make a vocation progam available at all.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's actually a misconception that college-educated people are automatically going to be more successful than those who pursue a vocational/trade track. How many people with college educations work in cubicle farms making half what their plumber, electrician, carpenter, or mechanic makes?
THANK YOU! An experience mechanic can make over $30 dollars an hour by the time they're 30 years old, and make over six figures if they become an ASE master tech if they acquire a high position. ex: Shop Foreman
Hmmm. My BA positioned me to make a wee bit over $25 an hour with really good benefits . . . but I am definitely stuck in a cubicle farm , and when I'm not, I'm on the road and away from what I consider my first and most important job -- mommy.
Maybe I need to go back to trade school. *ponders*
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's not paint too rosy of a picture of the trades, however. Realistically, you have to add in other factors, and a higher percentage of white collar positions are going to have health, dental, and retirement benefits than trade positions. My husband has never worked in a job as a plumber that offered health insurance, benefits are the main reason he took the firefighting job.
Trades also tend to be more physically demanding than white collar jobs and require a lot of physical work and work outside in the elements. They are also usually hourly jobs, not salaried which can be problematic. I have a friend who is a mechanic, makes good money but when the shop has no work scheduled for the day he gets sent home. Sure, it's nice to make $30 an hour, but what if you don't average a full time work week? And have to buy benefits on your own? Suddenly, the $30 an hour isn't so attractive.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I can't speak for other trades too well, but I've never seen a dealership that doesn't provide good benefits. Dealerships are the way to go. I've always had good benefits. I always had a full 40 hour week schedule. So maybe it's not the same with plumbers, but auto technicians are treated pretty well, at least in dealerships.
Speaking of which, I never realized how much my previous employer paid for my health care until I left the company. COBRA bill came in today. Ouch! $315.00!
[ May 08, 2007, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are very fortunate, then Nick - my cousin's husband works for a dealership and has to pay more than $600 a month for his family medical coverage (my husband gets far better coverage for our family for less than half that) and he has had his hours cut many times, particularly at bad times - around holidays, etc.
I'm quite certain that dealerships vary widely as to what they provide and how the hours work out. There may be regional variances too.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I totally agree, which is why you have to shop around when it comes to dealerships, if possible. Sometimes it's not. I would have to pay close the same amount as your cousin's husband if I wasn't single. I used to pay $140 for myself, but family rates are about $600, that's pretty common. I'm in between jobs at the moment, but if I get the job I interviewed for, I'll get comparable benefits. My old job was in Santa Cruz, CA. I'm now in Sacramento, CA. Pretty far apart, yet the dealership benefits and hours are pretty much the same.
I think it's best to find the busiest dealers anyway, that way hours are plentiful, that's what I'm hoping for. I just hope that VW dealer calls me back...
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not trying to say that trades are better than a college education, I just think that schools shouldn't view them as a far less viable occupation path. I'm lucky that I got to choose one. I wouldn't have picked the industry I'm in if it weren't for my love of all things mechanical/electrical.
I almost went into network administration with computers, but when I saw how much that education cost was, that was almost enough to turn me away from it. Then I sort of "apprenticed" to a network administrator, I found out just how much I hated, abhorred and detested computers when they wouldn't work right.
Then I tried cars. Loved it. I'm lucky yes. Lucky that what I love pays well.
Shan, don't think that you did wrong by getting your BA. It takes a lot of hard work to earn your ASE(automotive service excellence) certifications and learn enough to rise to the position of mast tech or shop foreman. I'm still learning more every day, my education never stops. I have to because new cars come out continuously. Besides, most people acquire that position are 50+ years old. $25 is pretty good right out of college. My sister just graduated from San Diego State last year and she doesn't make that much yet.
[ May 08, 2007, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
or, "Thy folly sets sail from thy mouthy port as a fleet, and can that fleet do ought but offend?"
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
By the way, when I'm talking about the allusions, I mean the ones made in popular culture and news writing.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Anyway, I'll leave this topic be now and not further derail this thread.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
From the thoughtfulness of your posts, I'm sure you're going to be wonderful!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
, and when I'm not, I'm on the road and away from what I consider my first and most important job -- mommy. 
