Search News


Browse Archives

News

Should Everyone Go to College?

September 18, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

WASHINGTON – Debates over college access, preparation and completion generally begin these days with the unspoken premise that every American should be able to go to college.

It’s a notion President Obama enforced in his February speech to a joint session of Congress, calling on “every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training,” and in initiating efforts to expand access to community colleges.

But the premise is starting to change, as politicians, policymakers and the public wonder if the push for access has gone too far and begin to ask, should everyone go to college?

In a panel discussion yesterday at the Urban Institute here, four policy experts -- Jean Johnson, executive vice president of Public Agenda; Charles Kolb, president of the Committee for Economic Development; Robert Lerman, Urban Institute fellow in labor and social policy and economics professor at American University; and Paul Lingenfelter, president of State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) -- all had pretty much the same answer: yes, if college is redefined to mean postsecondary education and training in academics, a trade, or a set of skills that would make someone employable.

“We tend to think of college now as a place – bricks, mortar, lecture rooms, tenured faculty, college presidents,” Kolb said, “and I think that has to change.”

He proposed more workforce training and the use of for-profit institutions like the University of Phoenix and Kaplan to give Americans the skills they need to work. “Just like we no longer have three network television stations, we have a variety and so we should rethink … the overall investment” the U.S. public and private sectors make in post-secondary education.

Lerman, the economist, suggested that the U.S. government boost its funding for apprenticeships and make other efforts at expanding workforce training. “I don’t certainly want to be on record saying that people shouldn’t be encouraged who are qualified and motivated to go to college,” he said. “I think we need to diversify the routes to rewarding careers and that’s because we have differences in the world and we have differences in the nature of jobs, we have differences in the nature of learning styles and we have differences in the nature of motivation.”

He pointed to data showing that the vast majority of workers never use the advanced math skills they learned in school and that the traits employers value most are non-academic: attitudes, communication skills and work experience. For many students, he added, the key to getting a job is having been trained to do a job. “The academic-only approach imposes a kind of sameness on young people that’s inappropriate.”

Though there was consensus on the panel about the need to expand postsecondary offerings, there are plenty of critics. One is Michael Rizzo, an economics lecturer at the University of Rochester, who in July criticized the president's push to increase the number of Americans who pursue at least some higher education. He questioned whether "whether securing more higher education in particular is the best way (or even a good way) to achieve certain goals" like increased economic output and efficiency.

The focus on academics that dominates high schools and postsecondary educational options shows no signs of fading, especially as parents impart in their children a sense that college is the path most likely to provide for a secure and successful adulthood, said Johnson, who has authored several reports on attitudes toward college, including “Squeeze Play 2009: The Public’s Views on College Costs Today."

Her national survey found that in 2008, 55 percent of Americans said they considered a college education necessary for success. In 2007, 50 percent responded the same way and, in 2000, just 31 percent. The trend is toward more highly valuing college, she said, but the country must ask if “after all of this emphasis on college, whether we have a society that respects people who do different kinds of jobs.”

Even if the emphasis shifts, SHEEO’s Lingenfelter doesn’t want to see Americans lose the basic academic experiences and understandings that are at the core of contemporary education. “The focus on education connected to work is really crucial …. But other things about citizenship, about understanding diversity, about being able to read, communicate, listen and speak are also important.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Should Everyone Go to College?

  • Dual Track
  • Posted by R,F. on September 18, 2009 at 8:30am EDT
  • If what we mean by "everyone should benefit from a higher education" is that everyone should have the oppertunity to pursue the highest level of lifelong learning possible I would agree.

    However, I think that students should, through the end of high school have a dual track which emphasizes an academic college prep curriculum AND a vocational-technical curriculum for each student.

    A plumber who doesn't want to know anything about anything except plumbing is not reaching his or her full potential.

    Similarly, an egghead who can't even pump their own gas is just pathetic.

    What we need are "well rounded" individuals as the "old folks" used to say. We have way too much human and physical capital not being developed to their full ability imho!

  • Redefining College
  • Posted by sjz on September 18, 2009 at 8:30am EDT
  • If we redefine college to be high school, "if college is redefined to mean postsecondary education and training in academics, a trade, or a set of skills that would make someone employable.", then I agree that everyone should go to college. I also see an increasing need for that as more and more of my freshmen are academically and emotionally unprepared for the traditional definition of college. This approach of spreading basic education over 16 years instead of 12 also increases the need for graduate work. This is all good for those in the higher education business. Or is it?

    Personally, I do not see the benefit of this approach and would rather we teach high school material to high school students. This would include a selection of tracks preparing students for trade, business, or college. It would not include short-changing coverage of fundamentals so that more AP courses could be fit in.

  • No, Not Everyone Needs to go to College
  • Posted by Katie Read on September 18, 2009 at 8:30am EDT
  • My response? No, not everyone needs to go to college. I do agree that some sort of postsecondary training is necessary for most occupations. (By the way: No surprise that these particular panelists all shared the same view. Not exactly a diverse set of viewpoints here at this liberal thinktank.)

    I don't think we need to change our definition of college. Note that originally, college meant a group of persons living together - a community, society, or guild with a common set of rules (con=together, leg=law, or lego="I choose"). The definition evolved over time to indicate a degree-granting institution. "Postsecondary offerings" are something completely different from "college." They do not have to mean the same thing.

    Also, The author fails to mention that University of Phoenix currently already enrolls the largest number of students of any American college or university..I believe this year it is currently around the 250,000 mark. Or the fact that we already have over 4,000 college and university choices for Americans.

  • Eliminate the senior year of high school
  • Posted by Kyle on September 18, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • Yes, everyone should go to some form of higher education. This is why we should eliminate the pointless senior year of high school. Instead of taking another year of learning what a verb is (even after students have gone over the same stuff year after year) we should be training students for their future careers. There should be three tracks a student can embark on after their junior year. 1. A one-year apprentice program for people who want to go into skilled trades. This would culminate in some sort of certification. 2. A two-year associate degree program for those who want a little higher education, something that could later be transferred into a four-year program, but their current career outlook only requires a two-year degree. 3. A first-year college track that would be similar to the senior year in high school, but all taken at a local two-year or four-year institution, or taught by those institutions at the high school location. This would eliminate the need for high school seniors to take a senior level math, English, and history, then graduate and go to their first year of college, just to find out that have to take the same classes over again.

    This would be a much more efficient system and would serve different students with different needs much better.

  • University of Lake Woebegone
  • Posted by William Patrick Leonard , Acting Dean at SolBridge International School of Business, Daejeon, Korea on September 18, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • Much of America’s higher education industry is simultaneously encouraged and condemned regarding two interdependent issues—their admission policies and retention/graduation rates. Both mainstream public and private institutions are encouraged to their liberalize admission policies. Their liberal admission policies provide greater access to higher education and pursuit of the American Dream. Greater access is in accord with the nation’s core social values. Unfortunately, that praise is short lived after students are enrolled.
    These same institutions are then criticized by elected officials, celebrity pundits and the press. These critics ask why do so many admitted students drop out or otherwise fail to graduate in the expected timeframe. The prevailing popular expectation is that once admitted, students should persist and graduate in two years from a community colleges and four years from a baccalaureate institution. The same institution that is encouraged on one hand is slapped with the other. Surely, the institution is at fault.
    The critics supply their own simplistic and self-serving answer: Once students are admitted, these errant institutions do not do enough to facilitate student persistence and success. Otherwise, they would progress through their degree programs in the expected and timely manner. The question is what constitutes “enough”.
    Institutional expenditures for developmental education, counseling and related support services document their efforts to provide the “enough” in order facilitate student persistence and success. While dollars spent cannot perfectly correlate with program quality, the commitment is well documented in institutional budgets.
    I am not an elitist. Higher education should be available to all who can benefit. The problem is that our metrics for accurately identifying students with the minimal ability to benefit are grossly inaccurate. In our egalitarian society, open admission institutions have pushed the limits of the left hand tail of the normal distribution in their pursuit accessibility.
    The metrics employed—high school transcript, grades augmented with various standardized, local placement examinations, admission essays and one or more interviews fall short of assessing the applicant’s attitudes and dispositions that influence persistence. Until we have more refined proxies for determining a student’s potential, those on the sidelines should continue their encouragement and refrain from their criticism. We should also remember that everyone has the right to succeed or fail.

  • Community colleges, not for-profits
  • Posted by Jennifer Summit on September 18, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • Let's not forget that community colleges were created to serve the very purposes that Kolb gives over to the for-profits like the University of Phoenix--to broaden access to higher education and workforce training. Let's strengthen and support these invaluable institutions first.

  • Posted by Reality Check on September 18, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • A consideration not taken into account in any of these comments so far...

    Many high school students are not developmentally ready to declare a career path and therefore next steps in their study and training.

    And if you think the senior year of high school is a waste - you should take a look at middle school (grades 6-8) curriculum.

  • Posted by Jim on September 18, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • As a former admissions officer and an aid officer, I agree that not everyone should go to college.

    Wanting to go and being able to succeed are two different things. A college education is 'sold' as a dream. Look at the various advertisements for higher education: achieve your dream. But what it does not say it that it takes work. Going to college is just like having a full time job. The old saying is 'you get out of it what you put into it.'

    Far too often students do not understand this and fail. Why? It is ‘academic’ in other words most fail to succeed because they can't achieve/do the academics. So what do we do as a nation: Change the academic requirements?

    No we need to demand more from our students, and probably demand more from their high school educations.

    Once the student gets to college they are an 'adult' and make 'adult' decisions. College's can influence the decision making but they can't make the decision.

    Our retention rates have 'stagnated' and even receded during the last 25 to 30 years. Even with all the emphasis placed on college. Some of these students should not have attended in the first place; they did not want the personal responsibility that comes with obtaining a college education.

    In economic terms, the resources that were spent on these students were wasted, while they were chasing their dreams.

    This retention issue goes across socioeconomic levels. It is true rich kids have more access because they can buy their way in but in the end if they can't do the work they can't succeed.

    On the other hand poorer students who have academically achieved in high school and who are motivated to go to college can and do succeed.

    Not an easy topic.

  • Yes. Open the doors and expand the mind.
  • Posted by Anne , Admissions at Iowa Lakes Community College on September 18, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • After nearly 30 years in admissions at the community college level I am reminded of one student who just wanted to be a DNR -- translation, he thought he wanted to be a game warden. After I saw him at the high school I didn't expect him to make a visit to campus (too far) let alone come (never been away from home). But he did, to our Environmental Studies program. He didn't appear to be academically gifted, uninspired grades, few communication skills, average test skills, only a passion for a career he had only a vague appreciation for and a good kid; He's now a PhD hydrologist making much more than his instructor and I will ever see together.
    Lessons: 1) High school is awfully early for students who haven't excelled (because they haven't been fully engaged?) to make career decisions; 2) High school doesn't prepare very many students to make career decisions -- there's too much new that they (and their teachers) have never heard of; 2) Students expecting themselves to pursue education after high school find a new world and a new definition of education that may be what it takes to engage and inspire them; 3) Taught within the context of fulfilling a dream the same stuff they've had over and over again is different, important and achievable; and 4) If you think a plumber can go out and get a job with a certificate you've never read a manual for installing air conditioning or heating units -- this is generally at least a one-year diploma program at a community college.
    Even our one-year wind energy program requires college-level intermediate algebra as a prerequisite because there is so much math and applied physics necessary to successful completion of the diploma. The ability to successfully understand and use math and other applied sciences is important to many, if not most, of the career and technical education programs that lead to one-year diplomas or two-year degrees.
    Completing these diplomas and two-year degrees can lead to more, especially if the same old stuff (math, communication, critical thinking) continues to be taught and set in a context that is important to students.

  • No Perfect Choice
  • Posted by sjz on September 18, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • I don't accept the premise that students need to make the final, perfect choice for their lifetime career while they are in high school. I have had 5 very distinct careers and have enjoyed every one of them. In high school and even 10 years post-high school I never would have imagined myself as an academic researcher, but here I am. Let's stop adding to the unnecessary stress already placed on kids; let's let them follow their dreams.

  • two tracts in high school is not the answer
  • Posted by Submarine Sailor , Education Research at Penn State on September 18, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • The comment that hhigh school should have two tracts, one for vo-tech and one for 4 year higher education institutions is wrong.
    I was a mechanic in the Navy until I was 25, and then went to college and have earned 4 degrees so far.
    Some times a kid doesn't know what he wants to do for his life at 15 or 16. Why pigeon hole them? It doesn't seem fair that because what you did at age 15 you are going to do all your life.
    I'm on my third career following driving submarines, and managing banks.
    People change... so attend training, classes, earn degrees, certificates, life long learning and pursue your dream occupation.
    Being locked in to an education/training path at such an early age is wrong.

  • Posted by Dr. Pepper , Academic-in-training on September 18, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • I get the distinct impression that people here (or some people) are thinking in absolute terms.  Just because you may choose to go the vocational track does not mean that you are writing off college education indefinitely.

    Personally I think that all kids should do vocational studies and college prep. My early education was abroad, and when I come back to the US for high school I was surprised that there were 4 levels of 'abilities' 

    AP

    level 1 - advanced

    level 2 - 'normal;

    level 3 - in need of help.

    Abroad we never had this. Everyone marched to the same beat, so when my cohorts abroad graduated, they graduated with the same skill set.  Here, my high school classmates graduated with different levels of abilities, which I think is wrong.

    High schools need fixing.  The K-12 system needs nationalizing. Having a city-by-city system does not help us as a country IMHO.  In addition to this, all students should do voc-training.

    I am the only person in my family to go to college (4 Masters degrees, and working myself to a PhD). My parents and siblings all did vocational stuff and I really wish I had the opportunity to at least learn a trade before college, that way I would at least know if I am being taken for a ride when I need plumbing, electrical or automotive help.

    People do change careers, people would like to learn more, to be life long learners. That is great, and we should have opportunities for all of our citizens that want to do that. Having kids do voc-ed in high school does not preclude the possibility of traditional college education later on.

  • College/University Access
  • Posted by Christopher Paris , English Department at University of the Incarnate Word on September 18, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • Hello, friends,

    I have forever been an advocate of equal opportunity and access to higher education, especially given that if it weren't for opportunity afforded to me in the mid-1960s to SUNY, I would probably never have made it out of the old neighborhood.

    On the other hand, an undergraduate education was apparently right for my personal nature. Somehow, I did well enough on all my State Regents examinations; well, not "somehow": my parents also played a big roll in maintaining my inspiration and persistence. And, if it weren't for my mother acquiring a tutor for me in math, I never would have made it through all my high school math courses. I would have just continued to hang out in all the poolrooms in Queens which, I admit, was more gratifying to me. Executing all the angles on the balls was even more gratifying than my Physics class. I would have probably made it, somehow, but with all the wrong guys. I have kept my cue stick, though, after all these years.

    However, in NYC where I grew up and attended its public education system, we had three tracks of study: academic, commercial, and general. Just about all my friends in the academic track attended college, and most persisted to completion; just about all in the commercial track proved to pursue jobs and commercial careers effectively; and those in general study came out of high school prepared and geared to access apprenticeships in trades. In fact, I saw more mentoring going on there than in the academic track; and, earlier than high school. I saw it going on in my shop classes in junior-high school.

    Size of the high school apparently had nothing to do with it. My high school in Queens had a population of six-thousand students with five split-sessions. My graduating class exceeded 1500 students. Graduation was a long long day. Also, NYC had high schools dedicated to particular trades with open access for any New Yorker. All one had to do was apply. NYC was doing something right, back then, apparently.

    Then, an irony of the commercial program was that many of my friends enrolled pursued some business college program, anyway, which furthered their successes in business. And, in many instances, my friends in the general track went on in later years to become highly successful in their trades. One friend, for example, became a journeyman plumber, continued, and today has a highly successful plumbing business of his own. He makes a hell of a lot more money than I, and he's perfectly content with his life as a husband, father, successful plumber/business man, and American citizen.

    "Access" to higher education as a viable choice, even if only for the student it is right for, is not the only answer. To afford, stimulate, urge, culturally inspire or even culturally expect or demand access and participation in higher education without proper preparation for it is, quite frankly, unethical and immoral. It sets our students and our children up for failure, frustration, destruction of self-esteem and personal spirit. We need to work on that one. And, academic background for it may not necessarily be enough; students also need to be acculturated to the expectations of formal education, and be trained/mentored in knowing HOW to learn.

    On the other hand, higher education does afford something, I think, that is profoundly important to our culture; that is the general education that our institutions require for graduation. The cultural enlightenment general educations give our students are profoundly important to the health and persistence of our culture. We need to work on that element for all American citizens, as well; but, access and availability to that may also be afforded in alternative venues besides a university or college venue. As a national community of citizens, we probably need to think out of the box on that one.

    Chris Paris
    University of the Incarnate Word
    San Antonio, Texas

  • Everyone in the country should not go to college
  • Posted by millen , partner at millennium education on September 18, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • In 1994 i wrote an essay with this title. The premise used the "old definition" of college as the four-year, traditional experience. I stand by my thesis, everyone does not need the four-year experience. We have choice in America and everyone should select their path (traditional or non-traditional) and be provided the opportunity without bias to do so. America needs electrical engineers, doctors, truck drivers, and hair stylists. Q1 What are the only recession-proof industries? All should be prepared in K-12 and given proper guidance and choices. There are other ways to win (Gray & Herr)! All should seek the education they need and be given the social and financial support to make those decisions. The current President threw out the challenge and those of us in Higher Education Management and those poised to start new schools or careers must accept this challenge and develop the pathways for success (community colleges, private career schools, or traditional four year - online or on ground).
    Everyone should not go to 'college'. Eveyone should explore their options and strive to succeed. (ANS 1 - everyone still needs a hair cut and check out the highways- the trucks still need to move the goods; both good, non-traditional careers).

  • Post Secondary Education
  • Posted by David Cooper , Professor/English at Jefferson Community and Technical College on September 18, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • No, college is not for everyone. Also, we have confused job training with educaton. Preparing one for a career is only part of the purpose of a college educaton. College is designed to prepare one for life;however, not everyone should go to college and not everyone can do college level academic work. Everyone needs post secondary education. For some people this will mean training as an apprentice or in a technical school. However, there are those as DuBois suggested who need to cultivate their brains; these are the students who ought to go to a traditional college.

    We should be cautious about for profit schools like Phoenix and others. Why call them colleges? Just let them charge their exorbiant fees and call it job training.

  • college?
  • Posted by tiny but tough , Lecturer Writing Program at UC Merced on September 18, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • Unduly influenced by Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed, I am prejudiced. We are all entitled to education. But higher education is NOT job training, despite the fact that we all seem to think so. Education prepares us to think critically, a cornerstone in our preparation as citizens in a democracy, including our ability to consider legislation and regarding our economy. Perhaps our current socio-political and economic difficulties are in part due to our lack of education.

  • <--response
  • Posted by millen on September 18, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • Why confuse quality of education with Tax Status? Check the facts. I would put an English course from a technical college in Kentucky up against an English course form UoP (in fact I know professors who teach the exact same course, same text, at both types of institutions).
    I would wager that the taxpayers of Kentucky have benefited from the revenue, jobs, taxes paid, and state funds relieved by the for-profit career schools in Kentucky. The fees paid by students at private career schools cover the costs of delivering the programs. The costs of running a state school or university are carried by all the taxpayers in the state. Accredited career schools meet the same academic rigor and, typically, have higher graduation rates (see article on "Crossing the Finish Line") and more student-focused services to help them in their careers. Along with a quality education, career schools must provide these value added services to deliver on their mission and deliver satisfactory outcomes in graduation and placement.

  • Misguided Egalitarianism
  • Posted by David , Professor on September 18, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • Forty years ago I took a night train from Berlin to Paris. A woman teaching in--at that time--the Soviet Union kept me up all night lauding the educational system of the Soviet Union. Students in high school took calculus--not 'pre-calculus'--and even the train engineer had read the entirety of Chekhov's works. "How many blue collar Americans have read all of Hemingway?" she criticized.

    I am of the opinion that there is a great deal of time spent by students in K-12 in the US with little expectation they set aside the consumerism of the "American Way of Life" which elevates designer jeans, entertainment and sports figures, and text messaging way beyond its value to either society or the individual. Serious mastery of much of anything doesn't seem to be expected; "formal education" is increasingly watered down to make it palatable to students with short attention spans spawned by that very Way of Life, as well as to make teachers acceptable to parents and school boards. And now, universities also must cater to the ill-prepared in hoards.

    Were "standards" (however hackneyed the phrase with little meaning theseadays) higher earlier on, students would better understand the stakes and high calling of a university education and would similarly be better prepared for a dual pathway culminating either in (1) technical education, or (2) university education. Being better prepared for either, there would be little reason to suggest that tracking everyone through the university system was a necessity. Similar is the idea that everyone needs to go for a post-doctoral appointment to "further their education" when the fact is that post-doctoral positions in many disciplines are more often than not merely a "holding tank" in times when no quality jobs are available to new graduates. Will more students in the university somehow result in more jobs for graduating students? That is far from a given.

    Someone needs only check what percentage of Europeans attended universities since the 1900s to understand how America is far out of whack with history. Defending ideas of equal access has become conflated with the fact that the university best serves those who most want and deserve to distinguish themselves and serve society in a very specific manner. Diluting the intellectual mandate that distinguishes universities from other organizations in society is perhaps best understood as a form of societal self-destruction by mediocritization.

    But rather than tell us the universities are a place of and for the intellect we instead are being told that the university has to condescend to functions for which there is little evidence it either cares about or can adequately serve. Is it really so that since other sectors of the economy are falling apart the university has to pick up the pieces and absorb the mess?

    The excesses inherent to the American Way of Life have told us there is one way only to be successful--more education and more everything. Take everything you can get; be everything to everybody. The excesses increasingly inform us that the function of a university is job training. While major universities yet have enough wind in their sails to resist or at least balance these prevalent and popular notions as foolish as they are, medium and smaller universities increasingly cave to them. In the meantime the best possible education is watered down when universities serve a role better served by technical institutes. That every high school graduate wants that, needs that, or desires that is indicative of culture that is no longer competitive internationally and that is settling for anything it can grasp at, forcing the best of universities to condescend to functions for which they were never meant.

  • Should everyone go to college?
  • Posted by JRD , Technology at Cochise College on September 18, 2009 at 6:45pm EDT
  • I will echo the sentiments made by a previous individual. Why Kaplan or University of Phoenix, for heaven's sake? Our community colleges were created to give students an option of either completing vocational training or continuing on to pursue higher levels of education. In the future, many jobs will require technical, hands-on types of skills that we presently are not training people for. Additionally, with so many students going to college now, the BA has become what a high school diploma used to mean in terms of access to job opportunities, and those college graduates often leave school only to find minimum wage jobs.

    Vocational training and community colleges need to be supported.

  • Access
  • Posted by DFS on September 18, 2009 at 6:45pm EDT
  • There's plenty of access to college. If you can cobble together the financial wherewithall, you can go to college, provided that you academically can make the cut.

    Now, if we want to prepare more young students to be able to make that cut, then actually make them do something in high school other than punching the continually dumbed-down ticket presently offered.

    I did not have a clue what direction I wanted to take in life when I was in high school. Community college is the answer for this predicament; as we mature, we focus.

  • Bravo, Professor David!
  • Posted by Beth on September 18, 2009 at 6:45pm EDT
  • Nothing remains for me to say. You have said it all...

  • Posted by jim on September 18, 2009 at 10:15pm EDT
  • To comment on JRD's comment "Why Kaplan or Univ. of Phoenix...";
    There is a great attraction for a school that lets me learn and earn a degree without requiring me to struggle with job and family schedules. Universities, colleges, community colleges all require the student to be in a certain room at a certain time and that time is often (usually?) during the day - time when the student's job needs a body on-site as well. A student with a family often needs a full-time job and you can guess which is first priority.
    As for me, I don't ever want to teach on-line because I believe in the value of face-to-face class time as a means of making a "connection" with the students. But I certainly do see the value of the "other side".

  • Agreement?
  • Posted by Dr. Anonymous on September 19, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • I agree 100% with Christopher Paris. I also had the experience of the three tracks, and I was overjoyed to witness, at class reunions, the success of fellow-classmates who had taken the commercial or general track. One brief caveat to Mr. Lingenfelder's last quote. Yes, the need to be good citizens and to read, listen, and speak. Why not also to write? But to understand diversity? That smells of left-wing ideological indoctrination. The only diversity that ought to interest a college or university is intellectual diversity.

  • Posted by Mike on September 19, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • "Similarly, an egghead who can't even pump their own gas is just pathetic."
    ___

    Well, I know how to pump my own gas because once upon a time I grew up in the limited world of Americadom; but having moved away from the USA to a better place I find it "pathetic" (your word, not mine) that a person assumes that having a car is the normal state of affairs. In more civilized countries, it's simply not necessary to have a car; and if one doesn't have a car, then how is it "pathetic" not to know how to pump gas? Pump gas into what, my lunchbox?

  • Mike
  • Posted by DFS on September 22, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • I for one thank God you found a "better place" than the USA.

  • Diversify
  • Posted by Fred Cosgrove , Grad student at MTSU on September 23, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • Great comments -(except Mike, who appears dense and missed the metaphor)
    I would like to have seen more professional diversity on the panel - more representative of professionals from a greater diversity of employment and educational experiences.

    I'm approaching my 25th high school reunion and have connected with class mates on Facebook. My experiences demonstrate to me that, most people (and society) benefit with some form of post high school education or at least vocational preparation. I don't think we should do away with the senior year of high school - but we should consider restructuring the course or track offerings and expanding cooperative opportunities in geographical areas to better meet the expanding needs of young adults. Anyone can step down to unskilled work in a pinch - but few folks can step up after years in unskilled work without tremendous effort or some public assistance.

    Most school districts, by themselves, are already financially strapped. If we could coop existing vocational, technical, apprenticeship, community college, and university programs in collaboration with high schools - we would provide greater benefit to students in whatever track they choose to pursue. I think we all can agree that spending more money is not an option for government or households. Reconfiguring use of available assets makes sense. How many people can realistically survive in our economy without some form or post high school training? We know that many kids aren't ready or capable of making career determinations at 18 or even 20, but they follow predispostions or pursue areas where they have interests or abilities. Restructuring the final 2 years of high school to channel kids into those pursuits will benefit them and society.

    While encouraging development of private enterprise educational sources - (Kaplan, Univ of Phoenix), technical schools (auto- diesel schools, trucking schools, cosmetology) makes sense, we shouldn't abandon the potential for collaboration with established programs like community colleges, vo-tech programs, or universities. These institutions can benefit equally in developing experiential programs to work with high school populations - without spending additional money and coming up with new expenses. Another option is engaging local unions, employers, and any organization benefitting from government or tax payer subsidy and requiring their engagement in extending apprentice, co-op, and internship opportunities to enrolled young adults.