<p>American higher education is being oversold, so argues George C. Leef, executive director of the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy in Raleigh, N.C. In the context of the current debates on the end of ED, through-the-roof costs of a college education, and admissions reform, recent stories in the CSM and the WSJ send out a message that, simply put, tells us that "The US Doesn't Need More College Grads" - and especially not four year elite ones.</p>
<p>According to Leef:
Many students who are neither academically strong nor inclined toward serious intellectual work have been lured into colleges and universities, Leef writes. At considerable cost to their families and usually the taxpayer as well, those students sometimes obtain a degree, but often with little if any gain in human capital that will prove beneficial in the labor market or the challenges of life."</p>
<p>"To turn out a more capable crop of young adults, colleges and universities should do their part: Raise academic standards to ensure that only those who want to be in college get there. Also, admissions counselors should remind prospective students that there are good career options for those who don't feel drawn to scholarly work. America is so rich in learning opportunities other than those found in college classrooms that we don't need to raise college graduation statistics for mere numbers' sake.</p>
<p>"Above all, the US should stop worrying about the percentage of its younger citizens who have college degrees vs. the percentage in other countries. The truth is, most of what people need to know in order to be successful in life is not learned in formal educational settings. The job skills that help workers advance in their careers are usually learned on the job.</p>
<p>"A college education should be accessible to anyone who wants one, but people are pretty good at figuring out what investments in knowledge and skill are best for them. They shouldn't feel undue pressure to obtain a four-year degree. We can all rest assured that our position in the world will not be harmed by the choices of our young people to seek the educational and career paths that best suit their wants and needs."</p>
<p>I agree
I have been thinking about some of my friends and what jobs they are currently in.
Landscaper, clerk at sewing store,dental assistant,ESL teacher,office staff at a community college,painter...
All have BAs, some with grad degrees.</p>
<p>While I recognize that some jobs, will not interview applicants without a degree, there are many jobs that a degree is not needed to do the work.
Shouldn't we be able to recognize those workers who are intelligent and able to contribute something, without a piece of paper saying that their parents spent thousands of dollars so they could spend 4 or 5 or 6 more years in school?</p>
<p>( part of the problem IMO is that K-12 education is all over the map, and a high school graduate, can't be guarenteed to know how to read & write, and have math skills through algebra/geometry)</p>
<p>
[quote]
part of the problem IMO is that K-12 education is all over the map, and a high school graduate can't be guaranteed to know how to read & write, and have math skills through algebra/geometry
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In California, at least, the mainstream media make it sound like it's just robbing kids of a fun graduation ceremony to actually require that HS grads pass an exit exam to get their diploma - the one sure way to certify that a diploma means they are actually capable of performing certain tasks that an employer would need to know they can do, for these grads to even be employable.</p>
<p>Public high schools in the U.S. do not encourage divergent thinking. Students are tightly controlled, both socially and academically. Students have little opportunity to make curriculum choices beyond a few electives. In history and political science classes, students are taught mainstream ideas and seldom are encouraged to "question authority." The value of higher education is not superior job training. Its value is in freeing people to read and listen critically, to analyze logically, and to speak and write convincingly. The right-wingers would like to quash liberal thought in institutions of higher education, and one strategy is to loudly debunk the myth that economic success depends on a college diploma. It's clear that people can be successful in business without understanding Kierkegaarde. That's just not the point.</p>
<p>I think NCLB could actually be a good thing
I think we should have(more) standardized teacher certification
I agree with minimum standards that we educate future citizens and taxpayers to.</p>
<p>It is our duty to educate these kids- our graduation rate nationally is a scandal and that is without exit testing in some areas.</p>
<p>I realize that the days of a decent job with only a high school diploma are long gone, my H has engineers coming to him to ask questions all the time, but they recieve almost double the salary he does. We need like many families , two incomes to make a very modest living</p>
<p>But we need to graduate high school students who might not attend college right out of school, but perhaps in 4 years or 8 years.
We need to bring up graduation requirements, then we need to support them with dollars.</p>
<p>Instead of our state only requiring two years of math, without specifying what that math should cover- I think they should require either 4 years of math, or through intermediate algebra with a B.
If students can't read- ( as some students at my daughters high school can't- but most are recent immigrants)- then programs need to be in place to support them.</p>
<p>I know the states have problems with the testing- but frankly, they could have raised their benchmarks long ago, without waiting for the federal govt to do it.</p>
<p>But once someone has a high school diploma that means something, they don't have to go to college to have a worthwhile and enjoyable life, and they shouldn't have to go into debt attending college, to make enough money to feed their family and to buy a home.</p>
<p>Problem with those benchmarks, EK, is that every student is required to pass in order to graduate, and that includes children with autism, Down Syndrome, other disabilities, etc. Learning how to count change and read subway signs would make more sense than an expectation of doing geometric proofs or reading and answering questions from long passages.</p>
<p>I'm all for standards, sure, but the upshot from NCLB has been whittling away at the curriculum, too much time devoted to test taking, and enormous anxiety.</p>
<p>Oops, sorry to get off track, but my feeling is that NCLB has made kids more cynical about education, not less, and in no way MORE prepared for college.</p>
<p>I realize that
but right now- students with IEPs( where it is appropriate) can stay in the system till 21
There also should be some type of meaningful certificate that students with disabilties can recieve- the district needs to show that they haven't just spent their time in the classroom coloring.</p>
<p>I do agree that it is unfair to hold districts accountable to helping ESL students and disabled students pass the same tests that students without disablities are required to do.
But they do have the leeway to make other standards
For example, one student, who is in Seattle ( not my daughter) only is required to pass the 7th gd math portion of the washington exam, to get her diploma, because of her math disabilty.
My daughter also has a math disability, but we are going to wait and see what her SAT scores are, to see if that can be used as a substitute for her WASL score.
I think by not having anything, may get some districts off the hook, and they may not even make an attempt at educating their students with special needs.
Some students with autism and even downs can be very bright- we have one local community college who even has programs for students with high needs.
<a href="http://www.bcc.ctc.edu/venture/%5B/url%5D">http://www.bcc.ctc.edu/venture/</a>
I know a fair amount of students who are in contained classrooms, and they need an education too- and they need teachers who are trained to recognize their abilties, not just assume that because they are not adept with small motor skills or have difficulties in speech, that they can't benefit from instruction.</p>
<p>I also recognize that some students are going to need continual care- and not be able to be trained to work , but those aren't the bulk of students with IEPs</p>
<p>Celloguy, Excellent points. Unfortunately, most entering college students are ill-prepared to take on a college curriculum that requires critical thinking, and in today's climate most college cave in rather than upholding an untenable standard. As a result, we are turning out some graduates who gained little of the skills your alluded to. Perhaps reforms should be aimed at the secondary school level to make a college experience really meaningful for our children.</p>
<p>Huh? I can't think of anything more important. And if they could abolish all AP classes and with the savings send the kids to Africa, Asia, or Latin America, it would be well worth it. (And I put my money where my mouth is, and have done just that.)</p>
<p>higher education is great - critical thinking skils are important above all else. But we have an entire generation of kids we have spoiled - and by and large they don't see the need to build marketplace skills independent of getting a degree. They stay tied to their parents way longer than most of us in the 60's and 70's did - and that lack of independence does them no favors in the job market or in life.</p>
<p>"Its value is in freeing people to read and listen critically, to analyze logically, and to speak and write convincingly."</p>
<p>While I agree with this, I don't think that it neccesarily takes 4 years, 30 hours of credit in one field and $160,000 to do this. I think we should have different levels of 2 year colleges, just like we have different level of 4 year colleges. You could have 2 year colleges that were more technical, more remedial, liberal arts basics and "top tier" liberal arts like Oxford College at Emory. I know people refer to this as a community college that feeds into Emory but it really isn't. From the outcomes of it's students once on the Emory campus, it definately does in two years what celloguy advocates. There could be residential and commuter two years, public and private. Just like in High School, you could skip a grade or a semester if you tested out of the two year material. </p>
<p>After you finished two years learning to speak, read and write critically, you could then go design computer programs, become a hairdresser, go on to concentrate in one field in an "upper" university, etc. Of course, the downside is you wouldn't have the opportunity to date a grad student as a college Freshman. Guess no system is perfect.</p>
[quote]
Problem with those benchmarks, EK, is that every student is required to pass in order to graduate, and that includes children with autism, Down Syndrome, other disabilities, etc.
<p>I'm all for an exit exam but I think the testing level should be bumped up. Most kids can pass the California exit exam in the 10th grade with many of them able to pass it earlier. A HS diploma in this country has become a joke in many places since students who can barely read and who can't perform eighth grade level math are able to obtain a diploma. Very few kids are ever failed in HS as long as they show up. There's also a large disparity between the high schools in quality of their grads. The exit exam is attempting to provide a basic threshold, which is needed, and is also trying to identify schools that have major issues in the level of education they're providing. I don't think it's trying to have the schools churn out automatons or to switch to a pure 'teach-to-test' methodology since it's really only trying to measure some very basic capabilities.</p>
<p>There's a pesky problem here, which is that towns/cities can allow only 1% of their students (even if they have 15% of students with learning disabilities,n ot cognitive impairments) to be alternatively tested. The rest fall under normal guidelines, unless a special waiver is granted, which requires more paperwork, and is never guarenteed.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the majority of kids on IEPs have learning disabilities, not severe cognitive impairments, and for these kids, there will be no changes in the proficiency requirements of NCLB.</p>
<p>And if you don't think schools are not teaching to the test and churning out automatons, you haven't visited a public school lately.</p>
<p>I'm very familiar with the public school system in California and I'm no fan or defender of it. The majority of kids easily pass the exit exam the first time it's administered in 10th grade. Ater that they're done with it. If you're referring to AP classes teaching to AP tests, then I agree with you but then, the whole point is to ensure the individual meets some standardized level of understanding in a subject. What other way could it be done? Would you suggest no tests should be given in public school or college? What other methods would you use to ensure the student understands a particular threshold of the material?</p>
<p>I haven't seen the 1% disabilities limitation anywhere - can you point me somewhere so I can educate myself on it? I agree that it doesn't make sense to have an artificial limitation like this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And if you don't think schools are not teaching to the test and churning out automatons, you haven't visited a public school lately.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please don't mistake me for a public school booster, and I fundamentally agree with allmusic, but it's also true that by 10th grade most good students have already passed the exit exam, so their teachers in upper-level honors classes are letting it go. By then, they're teaching to the AP test.</p>
<p>ucdad -- oops, did you just hear an echo? I went off to get cookies in the oven and when I came back didn't refresh my screen; I was a little embarrassed when I saw I'd just repeated your comment :[</p>
<p>The argument for higher education is the same argument for public education. Offering both to the wider public is a good and right social virtue. Besides, the US invests in higher education at a rate nearly three times the of the EU which some say is the direct cause of the difference in the two economies. There is material result--even if you don't see in in your neighbor's boy or girl.</p>
<p>Every kid with half a brain should get a shot at unversity life, strictly on the chance that his brain might awaken with that last bit of cognizance and make the ascent into becoming a full intellectual human being with new contributions to make to the world. Nevermind $160k, that's worth $1M in my opinion.</p>
<p>And not everyone is paying 160K for college. I think most are paying substantially less due to attending CC, state schools, and getting scholarships at the expensive privates. A colleage of mine just bought a car that approximates the cost of a 4 year education at a highly selective world-class University - SL500 versus UCSD/UCLA. Which has more value? What's $50K-160K over a lifetime? I do agree many can do fine without college but given a choice, I'd pick attending one over not attending one.</p>