<br>
<br>
<p>I imagine some of these private schools didn’t have college grads for all of their
classes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know many such students. Even at the local private (Catholic) high school…every single teacher had a degree. And that high school was notably successful in producing numerous college graduates. Granted, they often times tended to prefer Catholic colleges such as Notre Dame, but hey, it’s still college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In that post, I was talking about those who sent their kids to public school. </p>
<p>But to your point, again, see post #42 about my local Catholic private high school, which, to my knowledge was typical for such schools across the country.</p>
<p>Catholic schools have generally emphasized college in my experiences. Certain other sects; not so much.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I had an interesting story about such a student - and I’m sure there are many - yes, I’d run it. And it would be more likely to get published than a story that only reported that so-and-so got admitted to [pick the four-year college or university].</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, sakky, I’ll concede your point.</p>
<p>If you aspire to be president, you significantly improve your chances by going to a four-year college or university.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ll put it to you this way. I would venture to say that the vast majority of high school students in the country attend either a public high school, or a non-religious private school - all of which whose teaching ranks are populated almost exclusively by college graduates. Only a small percentage of high school students are either home-schooled, or attend a private school that employs mostly non-graduates as teachers.</p>
<p>Would you disagree?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am well aware you are certain of it. And you may be right.</p>
<p>But there are places in the world where that is NOT the prevailing view. Where I live, for example - which, I would humbly submit, I know quite a bit more about than you do.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I suppose that you can modify your parameters to meet any view that you want to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see that you continue to insist on adding more variables. Stop that. The question on the table is, given the choice between running a story on a tech community college-headed guy vs. somebody going to Harvard - with all other variables held constant - which story would you run? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would also say that if you aspire to be a public school teacher, you clearly significantly improve your chances by going to college. In fact, apparently, it is a necessity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not ‘modifying’ anything, I’m simply talking about what is typical. Like I said, the typical high school student is being taught by college graduates. </p>
<p>I doubt that anybody would seriously disagree.</p>
<p>As is fairly obvious, I wasn’t talking about typical. That you’d care to argue your point on this is surprising.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If they were both interesting stories - both of them. If neither was an interesting story - neither of them. </p>
<p>In the community where my other paper is published, there was a kid who went to Harvard last year. I didn’t write a story about him. The fact that a kid got into a high-prestige school does not in itself make for compelling journalism. Had I had an angle, that would have been a different matter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And if you aspire to be a cosmetologist, you clearly significantly improve your chances by going to cosmetology school. In fact, it is a necessity (at least in Illinois).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair enough, so then you’re agreeing that your statements are regarding atypical cases, I think that my arguments hold for the typical cases. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then you’re still precisely proving my point - a kid attending a tech community college, and that’s all he has, will enjoy no media publicity advantage over another kid going to Harvard. </p>
<p>But that sort of publicity advantage is precisely what we would need. Like I said, Harvard has a $32 billion war chest. While obviously not all of that is dedicated towards brand management of the Harvard name, surely a significantly fraction of it is. {Woe betide anybody who violates Harvard’s trademarks and brand, who are then relegated to the tender mercies of the school’s lawyers.} Friday’s Facebook IPO was effectively one emphatic media blitz to promote the Harvard brand. {“If you come to Harvard - even if you don’t graduate - you too might be worth $20 billion and have an Academy-Award winning movie made about you, all before the age of 30.”} Every single Obama or Romney campaign ad that we will have to endure for the next 6 months is an implicit endorsement of Harvard. </p>
<p>And of course that’s just Harvard. An entire media and marketing empire is dedicated to promoting the sanctity of 4-year college education in general, whether at Harvard or elsewhere. Numerous movies regarding the 4-year college experience have been made. Many other movies about high school kids who are largely headed for 4-year colleges have also been made. How many have been made about tech community colleges? </p>
<p>Therefore, if we truly are going to convince the nation’s youth to stop preferring Harvard and other 4-year colleges, then we will need a giant media blitz to counteract the marketing hammer-lock that 4-year colleges have upon society. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a false analogy. Cosmetology schools actually (presumably) mainly teach cosmetology. But, other than BEd programs, most 4-year college programs do not mainly teach teaching. Rather, you have to major in a particular subject, which may or may not be the same topic that you will later teach. I remember sometimes at my old high school science/math classes were taught by people who had not themselves majored in science/math while in college. </p>
<p>So what if I want to teach high school shop? What if I was the greatest auto mechanic in the world and I wanted to teach auto repair at the local public high school? I still need a bachelor’s degree. It wouldn’t matter how adroit my repair skills are, it wouldn’t matter even if I held a technical community college associate’s degree or certificate. I’m still barred from teaching at the local high school because I don’t have a bachelor’s degree, end of story. </p>
<p>What furthers the falsehood of the analogy is that education is compulsory. You only go to cosmetology school if you want to be a cosmetologist. But nobody is compelling anybody to be a cosmetologist. But every kid in the US must be educated up to at least age 14 as a matter of law. For the vast majority of them, that means attending either public schools or a traditional private school for which the vast majority (usually all) teachers will hold bachelor’s degrees. A small minority may be home-schooled, but that curricula must itself follow a set of statutes that were themselves largely designed by (bachelor’s degree holding) education experts. </p>
<p>The upshot is that the overwhelming majority of our nation’s youths will spend at least a decade of their lives having instruction delivered by bachelor’s-degree-holders, and where non-degree-holders are entirely shut out of the instructional and administrative process. Seems to me that that represents a powerful psychological undercurrent in favor of college. Get 'em while they’re young.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You mean the same military where the enlisted men will be given orders by generals and admirals who, as a matter of law, must hold bachelor’s degrees? Only a small minority (<2%) of commissioned officers do not hold bachelor’s degrees, having been selected from the enlisted ranks, and even they must eventually obtain that degree to be promoted above a certain grade (I believe O-3 or perhaps O-6 for certain limited duty officers). </p>
<p>And that only highlights my point. If people tend to prefer to obtain bachelor’s degrees over manual labor, it is because much of the power structure of society is intertwined with such degrees. Not only Presidents, but also the vast majority of Senators and Congressman - and certainly all Supreme Court Justices - hold bachelor’s degrees. The vast majority of state governors hold degrees, as, likely, do most state legislators and state judges. The bachelor’s degree therefore holds hegemony across all three branches of not only the Federal Government but also most state governments. The President is advised by Generals and Admirals who hold bachelor’s degrees. the faculties of public schools and traditional private schools are almost exclusively staffed by bachelor’s degree holders. Practically every doctor and lawyer in the country holds a bachelor’s degree. And of course the entire university establishment promotes the sanctity of the bachelor’s degree. </p>
<p>To be clear, I’m not necessarily endorsing the current state of affairs. I’m simply pointing out what that state of affairs is. To effect a widespread change of society to downgrade the importance of bachelor’s degrees in favor of something else would require nothing less than a social revolution. We would have to repeal laws that require that all public school teachers hold degrees. Heck, we might even have to repeal compulsory education laws.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your point, to the extent you have one, seems to shift with every post. I’m done trying to discern it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So then let me ask you: is your local HS and/or your local vocational high school considered to be one of the “best” in the country (however defined)? That is to say, does it appear in the most widely published nationwide rankings of the (supposedly) best high schools in the country? No?</p>
<p>Well, Bronx Science is on those lists. So is Dallas’s School for the Talented and Gifted Magnet. So is Dallas’s School of Science and Engineering Magnet. So is BASIS Tucson. So is Stanton College Prep. So is Boston Latin. And yet I’m quite certain that they would boast of a conspicuously high percentage of graduates heading to 4-year colleges. </p>
<p>Annasdad, that’s all part and parcel of the problem. Perhaps we need to reform those rankings to put your high schools, especially the vocational school, on top. They should be outclassing and flat-out embarrassing Bronx Science and the Dallas magnet schools. Either that, or come up with a ranking of your own that becomes wildly distributed and that places your high schools on top. </p>
<p>Otherwise, people are going to continue to read the existing rankings and arrive at the natural conclusion that a “top” high school includes preparing students for 4-year colleges.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, if you were truly done trying to discern it, then why even respond at all? Surely you are aware that you’re free to stop participating in this thread at any time. </p>
<p>But if you are still having difficulties with discernment and would like clarification, pay careful attention to posts #53 and 56. I don’t think you need to read any of my other posts on this thread, because those two summarize my thoughts.</p>
<p>Public high school teacher venturing in here. My school is blue collar, for the most part. About half our kids continue their education after graduation. Some of those go to a tech school and some go to college, with generally 20% of the class opting for our local CC. Believe me, the fact that their teachers have college degrees has very little bearing on the kids’ aspirations - a very small minority want to be US when they grow up. Obviously, parental expectations have a much greater influence. A good chunk of our kids, I’d say 70%, essentially follow in their parents footsteps - they go into skilled labor if that’s what their parents do, go to college or go into the military if that’s what their parents did. </p>
<p>What scares me a bit is that the relative talents of the child are seldom the determining factor. A C/D student is pushed to go to college if the parents did and a straight A student will start off at Walmart if that’s where her parents work. (We teachers may urge a student to consider other options, but we don’t get much of a vote.) And “prestige” (of the college) is even less of a factor; in our high school’s 50 or so year history, we’ve had one kid go to Harvard and one go to Yale - neither made the newspaper, as far as I know. (Penn State acceptances are sought after and admired, though).</p>
<p>So perhaps, to Mr. Reich’s point, my high school’s graduating class will be about as &$@/'ed as their parents.</p>
<p>[Bachelor’s</a> degree or higher, by percentage statistics - States compared - StateMaster](<a href=“http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_bac_deg_or_hig_by_per-bachelor-s-degree-higher-percentage]Bachelor’s”>http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_bac_deg_or_hig_by_per-bachelor-s-degree-higher-percentage)</p>
<p>Well, if you look at this graph, you can see that the majority of Americans do NOT have even bachelor’s degrees. So, I don’t really think you are speaking of typical students Sakky.</p>
<p>There is too much negative news out there, right now. I’m starting to think it is creating its own set of problems. The old quantum theory, and all.</p>
<p>Good luck to all recent graduates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is counter-cultural because being able to do that is effectively a luxury item for much of the US population, for whom even an inexpensive state university that the student commutes to can be a big expense. It is even more true now than it used to be, given the higher cost of post-secondary education now compared to before. The mix of majors at the non-flagship state universities that enroll the bulk of four year college students is heavily weighted toward obviously pre-professional majors for this reason.</p>
<p>Not saying that this is necessarily good, but it is economic reality for most people. Only a few can really afford to be counter-cultural in this way, whether or not they want to.</p>