<p>I haven't read the report but from the summary I read, it basically says what many here have said. Not all students should be steered towards college. While I suspect the point of the report might be to increase funding for vocational programs and community colleges, I do fear that massive "tracking" would result instead.
I do agree that not all students should or need to go to a four year college, but who will be in charge of making that decision? And what if the issue really is a sub par education system and not individual ability?</p>
<p>I liked the educational system in Belgium. Money went with the child so there were lots of choices for schools. With specifically high school level schools, one could choose to go to an academic school with preparation for university admission, to a technical school of some choice with preparation for a career like baking, horticulture, engineering and technical schools, etc. Kids cam out at age 18 or 19 (for the technical schools) and had training in a career or had the necessary preparation for further study at a university. I don’t think there is any harm in having some tracking. In fact, I think it would be much kinder and better than what we do now- educate kids in academic subjects until age 18 and then say bye- go to college or go get a job often without proper preparation for either.</p>
<p>Harvard report should have said “fewer” kids should be taking college prep courses.</p>
<p>lol glido–I had the same thought. . .</p>
<p>I’m sure Harvard did say fewer students. I obviously didn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Theoretically yes, but it is likely that people will complain about how tracking as actually implemented discriminates on the basis of something other than the students’ abilities and interests (e.g. race, gender, religion, …) since the actual people (teachers, counselors, parents, …) involved in making the decisions may have their own prejudices that do not match the students’ abilities and interests. Or that a school in a certain neighborhood fails to offer certain tracks, shutting students out of whatever those tracks lead to. It is not a problem with an easy solution.</p>
<p>Additionally, if tracking were implemented, at what stage would the student have to choose? Earlier may give more time to optimize the curriculum for the chosen track, but also makes it harder to switch tracks if the student finds that s/he is mismatched.</p>
<p>If tracking is harmful … so is the current system. How do measure the impact of horrendous dropout rates in almost all major urban areas? What is the number in Detroit? Above 20 percent graduation? There are no easy solution but clinging to the notion that everyone should stay in a system that fails so many is highly questionable. </p>
<p>Our lack of support of vocational and technical education path is also reflected in the overal shoddy quality of our industrial and commercial output. How well do we train the future generations of technicians and blue-collar workers? The answer is that most training and education is done on the job. Ask yourself what was the training of the last person who serviced your pool, your HVAC system, or your prized automobile after the warranty ran out? How long would it take you to find a competent bricklayer … who is not an immigrant? </p>
<p>Some day we will run out of Walmart/Costco or public positions, which seem to be the apparent career target for the overwhelming majority of our education system. At its pinnacle, our education system is the envy of the world, but we should realize that everything below the very top schools that are so often debated on CC is hardly on the same level. </p>
<p>We find a way to offer the best education to the smartest and the most advantaged. The rest … not so much!</p>
<p>The problems of high numbers of HS dropouts is not related to the college prep courses- those students will not be taking them. Tracking was done in my generation in the elementary/junior high classroom assignments. Fine for clear cut fits, horrible for those late bloomers or those just on the wrong side of the cutoffs who can’t change to getting a diploma which can suffice for a college if the choice is made later. Many HS students do track themselves by their choice of electives. Perhaps more HS students should be encouraged to take courses exposing them to tech fields instead of only “college prep” courses. There is a go to college, meaning a 4 year one, mentality for some students who would be better off going for an associates degree in a more technical/practical field right away.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My thought exactly…one of my pet peeves. I know for certain that the folks who write for the local newscasters don’t know the difference.</p>
<p>Lol vocational schools are packed with people. There just need to be more opened to accommodate the growing number of people who can’t make it in college.</p>
<p>“Less” versus “fewer.” So tedious. Why do we care? Is the sense altered in any fashion? What is your real motivation here? </p>
<p>Language is defined by use. Also, you are inconsistent, in that in comparison of increased amounts, you use the word “more” to refer to both continuous quantity and discrete quantity, but somehow that’s not bothersome.</p>
<p>According to Wikipedia:</p>
<p>The Cambridge Guide to English Usage notes that the “pressure to substitute fewer for less seems to have developed out of all proportion to the ambiguity it may provide in noun phrases like less promising results”. It describes conformance with this pressure as a shibboleth and the choice “between the more formal fewer and the more spontaneous less” as a stylistic choice.</p>
<p>“Language is defined by use”</p>
<p>Could that be the problem? The problem that brought us such wonderful expressions such as “comprised of” and plenty of dewd-speak?</p>
<p>So what is the problem when someone says “I took less classes this semester to go to more parties at the frat” as opposed to “I took fewer classes?” Sooner or later, the usage will erase the difference to the distress of grammar pedants!</p>
<p>Will we be equally “charitable” with the following use: “I took much classes this semester” as opposed to “I took many classes?”</p>
<p>I’m glad I’m not the only person that likes good grammar. “Less” versus “fewer” is a pet peeve. </p>
<p>I read ads that tout ‘less’ calories in some product. Yikes.</p>
<p>Sorry to derail the thread, but most of you should read what the Language Log has to say about these issues:</p>
<p>[Language</a> Log: If it was good enough for King Alfred the Great…](<a href=“http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003775.html]Language”>Language Log: If it was good enough for King Alfred the Great...)</p>
<p>And the linguist Geoff Pullum’s contribution (also on Language Log)</p>
<p>[Language</a> Log Stupid less/fewer automatism at the WSJ](<a href=“Language Log » Stupid less/fewer automatism at the WSJ”>Language Log » Stupid less/fewer automatism at the WSJ)</p>
<p>And, as mentioned in the above Language Log post, for those of you who worry that this is some sort of innovation in the last 50 years, that correlates with other sorts of ‘bad behavior’, ‘declining morals’ and ‘poor school performance’, <em>Merriam Webster Concise Dictionary of English Usage</em> shows something quite different:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is “less” bad in the following sentences? Could someone enlighten?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[SOD:</a> There are less than 1000 deaths resulting from accidental firearm](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Libya</a> & Ghana: 10 000 Ghanaian nationals in Libya, less than 1,000 yet to arrive | Shout-Africa](<a href=“http://www.shout-africa.com/human-rights/libya-ghana-10-000-ghanaian-nationals-in-libya-less-than-1000-yet-to-arrive]Libya”>Libya & Ghana: 10 000 Ghanaian nationals in Libya, less than 1,000 yet to arrive : Shout-Africa)</p>
<p>
[How</a> many deaf people are there in the United States](<a href=“http://research.gallaudet.edu/Demographics/deaf-US.php]How”>http://research.gallaudet.edu/Demographics/deaf-US.php)</p>
<p>10 items or less (at supermarket stands).</p>
<p>10 char or less</p>
<p>“The problems of high numbers of HS dropouts is not related to the college prep courses- those students will not be taking them.”</p>
<p>I don’t necessarily agree with the above statement. I have read (and observed) that often it is very bright students who drop out.</p>
<p>“The problems of high numbers of HS dropouts is not related to the college prep courses- those students will not be taking them.”</p>
<p>I don’t agree with this statement either. In NYS it is DOE policy that 100% of high school students will be graduated at a college/career ready level, which has been defined as graduating with a Regents diploma. When this policy was adopted tens of thousands of students, the majority at the low end of academic achievement, were suddenly required to take and pass college prep courses that they would not have taken previously. Predictably, a percentage of those students were unable to pass the requisite Regents exams and ultimately dropped out of school. Now State Ed officials now are talking about raising the passing grade on Regents exams from 65 to 75 or 80 and requiring an additional year or two of math and science in order to receive a diploma. Will this increase or decrease the drop out rate? </p>
<p>Meanwhile, vocational education continues to fade from the lanscape in NYS.</p>
<p>HudsonValley, I could not agree with you more. I suspect that the DOE understands how someone becomes a teacher, a lawyer, a doctor, but is totally clueless about how someone becomes a plumber or electrician. I dont know either, but I would make it my business to find out. IMHO it is not acceptable to have HS diplomas ONLY for kids going to college. We will end up with kids who can not get through college are are not trained for anything else.</p>
<p>“The result seems to be a fairly large number of people who now believe less used of countables to be wrong, though its standardness is easily demonstrated.”</p>
<p>The use of “less” for countables is not “wrong,” it is “incorrect.” ;)</p>