<p>I wasn’t refering to anyone here. When I said “Going back to what other people have said”, I was refering to some comments on the first pages about how it’s a harmful thing to say. I was agreeing that it can be harmful if it’s suggested with that intent.</p>
<p>I have done community service before, but I’ve never fundraised for a charity or volunteered for an organization. Now I’m planning on starting a citywide service program. Although I’ve done much research on the subject, I don’t know if it’s enough. Should I volunteer for a community organization to acquire some experience? </p>
<p>I attend an online school (distance learning) so I don’t have access to NHS and other CS clubs.</p>
<p>My husband the carpenter reminded me of something that may be effecting # going into the trades…He had worked in carpentry since age 15, BIL did some high school summers with a roofer. Today, this isn’t a “legal” option due to requirements re “ladders” and “power equipment”</p>
<p>Don’t know if it really has an effect, but something to consider.</p>
<p>Jumping ahead before reading the entire thread–I will come back and beg forgiveness after reading more, if required.</p>
<p>I agree that vocational training needs to have greater support and respect. I do not, however, agree that the European model of bifurcation in the mid teens is the way to go; too much maturation and development take place in the interim. I don’t have the answer-just the desire to point out the problems!</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It’s a far more efficient system and something that we should look at in the face of diminished resources. The US has been rich on paper for a long time allowing us a lot of choices and the ability to waste money on those choices.</p>
<p>I believe there must be a different and better way than making life decisions at age 14 or earlier.</p>
<p>A European-style system simply wouldn’t accomplish the goal of making vocational training more respected. If anything, it will make the problem WORSE; people will simply go “gee, those people couldn’t even keep up with a rigorous curriculum past 8th grade”. I agree that there’s a problem here, but having what amounts to a first round of college admissions during 8th grade isn’t going to fix anything.</p>
<p>I didn’t get my college degree until about 30 and did just fine.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Our schools have rigorous curriculum before the 8th grade?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It reduces costs.</p>
<p>Yes. It may reduce cost, but at an additional cost. I think that, in addition to reducing opportunity, it would stifle innovation and creativity (look at the old imperialist systems) and further a class hierarchy.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>It actually provides more opportunity to think outside of the box.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Did Michael Jackson or Prince go to college? Roger Federer is one of the most creative pros on the tour. Did he go to college? A lot of college is about learning what has come before - and isn’t about becoming creative in the area that interests you most.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Our current hierarchy includes a ton of college graduates and those that attended college that didn’t get the degree but got lots of debt. States spend a lot of money
funding higher-ed for the half or more that won’t get degrees. Germany and Singapore
don’t hold the world’s reserve currency and can’t afford to throw money down the toilet
like the US. The way things are going, we won’t be able to either.</p>
<p>
First of all, you are citing a few exceptional individuals to counter an argument about entire segments of society.</p>
<p>Beyond that, though, I am thinking more along the lines of creativity as it relates to science, engineering, economics, medicine, etc. If most of those who are in those fields come only from similar backgrounds of money or a tradition of higher education, we will be the poorer for it.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Look at the entire performance music industry as a whole.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>We’ll toss economics as our creative people in economics have made a royal mess
of our economy.</p>
<p>Do the math. We have a 50% failure rate in college. If we do a better job picking students and get that up to 75% we’ll have far more people able to do the creative stuff. If you are a late bloomer, there is nothing stopping you from self-study or college later on partially funded by the money that you’re earning while others are going to college. It certainly worked for me.</p>
<p>BCEagle, you are also a single individual. The single date point is as uninformative as the Federer data point.</p>
<p>You may toss economics; I choose not to. What we need is better economists and enlightened regulation.</p>
<p>I am assuming that the 50% you quote is “failure to graduate.”
- that does not mean that the individuals who received from 0 to 3.5 years or more of schooling learned nothing.I don’t see the resources there wasted.
- Many universities have much higher graduation rates. If you want graduation rates to be your yardstick (and I do not agree with you), then let’s look at their practices instead of scrapping the system altogether.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Look at the entire class of professional tennis players and tell me how many of them have degrees.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>You said innovation and creativity. We certainly had that.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>A lot of it is.</p>
<p>From the perspective of the student, they paid a lot of money or loaded up on debt
that they will have to work off over decades.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Many have far lower rates.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yes, picking the better students and charging more does result in more success.
But the former could better serve the country if we did the former sooner.</p>
<p>You are arguing simply to argue now. My mistake in not seeing that sooner. </p>
<p>Bye.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Math fail.</p>
<p>This is about the post about nursing school graduates. I don’t know what schools you may know of, but the community colleges around here don’t have an open admission policy. Potential students have to have a minimum gpa in nursing prereqs, which includes a year of anatomy, a semester of micro, chem, plus algebra. When someone get’s an associate’s degree in nursing, it’s often actually 3 years of schooling, not 2, due to the year of prereqs, plus 2 years of nursing clinicals. Plus, students have to pass an admission exam. The CCs here take the highest scoring-students. Also, the schools teach dosage calculations, which includes IV infusion rates and conversions.</p>
<p>Bundle, are you replying to my post ?
I am aware of the pre-reqs, curriculum, gpa reqs, and cert exam. I am telling you what what a typical end product graduate is not able to do.</p>
<p>Know any nurses ? Proffer this simple exercise:
How much 50% dextrose solution should be added to one liter of 10% dextrose solution to end up with a 20% solution ? (Ans: 333 ml). You may recognize this as a simple Algebra I question.</p>
<p>Anyway, the only point I was trying to make was that colleges – with nursing a case in point – have dumbed down ‘vocational’ majors to a HS level and below. We should be angry at the con job, and angry at the cost these nurses are paying when they ‘major’ in Nursing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Random fact, I had a question almost exactly like that on my pharmacist (NAPLEX) licensing exam. It is not that hard to do.</p>
<p>Most of the time, nurses will defer to pharmacy to determine drip rates and the like.</p>
<p>Not that hard ?!It is trivial.
But you are right, nurses defer to pharmacists for algebra I.</p>
<p>I was looking at the bachelor’s in nursing curriculum at U Penn, where “nurses receive an Ivy League education.”
Math proficiency required to enter, and at end of degree: none
Physics proficiency required to enter, and at end of degree: none
Chemistry proficiency required to enter, and at end of degree: one year of HS non-honors, non-AP chemistry.</p>