Dems Rebuild

[RedDenver]

Right now, way too many of our HS kids are just putting in their time because they have to be there.  If you offer free college to them, that attitude just goes on for 4 more years.

That's one narrative, but I don't think it's any more accurate than saying that most these kids love school and would excel in college. It's a mixed bag, and I support over-educating rather than under-educating the next generation of Americans.

 

[BigRedBuster]

That's one narrative, but I don't think it's any more accurate than saying that most these kids love school and would excel in college. It's a mixed bag, and I support over-educating rather than under-educating the next generation of Americans.

I'm seeing something in your posts that I should have responded to earlier.  This post along with:

but what is wrong with trying to over educate the population?

I have said nothing about being against educating the public.  I think it's a vital part of growing our country and our economy to benefit everyone.

There's a wide range between where we are at now with college costing way too much and throwing free college education at everyone.

 

[RedDenver]

I'm seeing something in your posts that I should have responded to earlier.  This post along with:

I have said nothing about being against educating the public.  I think it's a vital part of growing our country and our economy to benefit everyone.

There's a wide range between where we are at now with college costing way too much and throwing free college education at everyone.

I agree. I just way on the side of preferring to spend too much and get more education than spending not enough and getting less education. Where we draw that line (reducing costs vs spending more vs education quality) is open to debate. To put it another way, I'd rather be "throwing free college education at everyone" than what we're doing now. I'm not opposed to reducing costs depending on how that affects the quality of the education. And I'm also open to @TGHusker's suggestion of education that goes beyond a high school diploma but isn't necessarily "college" as we think of it today.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I agree. I just way on the side of preferring to spend too much and get more education than spending not enough and getting less education. Where we draw that line (reducing costs vs spending more vs education quality) is open to debate. To put it another way, I'd rather be "throwing free college education at everyone" than what we're doing now. I'm not opposed to reducing costs depending on how that affects the quality of the education. And I'm also open to @TGHusker's suggestion of education that goes beyond a high school diploma but isn't necessarily "college" as we think of it today.

Going in a different direction.  If I were King and ruled the land, I would actually fund HS education better.  I would want a decent portion of the money to go to trade type education.  I saw a show on TV not too long ago about a HS that is geared towards teaching kids the trades.  They had everything from machinist training, welding, carpentry, plumbing, electrical, fine wood working....etc.  In my perfect world, a kid would graduate from HS with actual training in something that put him right into the workforce. They could graduate with maybe a CDL.  Make it then so that these kids could go into an apprenticeship somewhere right out of HS and start a career.  This would also get them experience in these trades so that maybe they get motivated to further their education at a trade school.  These HSs would still teach all the basics in Math, English...etc.  But, it would focus them into something that they could actually use.

These wouldn't be for everyone.  Some kids would want to go on to a 4 year school and they would stay probably in a traditional school preparing them for that.  AND...hopefully we could greatly reduce the cost of that 4 year public University too.

 

[Whistlebritches]

How is teaching teenagers a trade at a tax payer funded high school any different than teaching them those same trades at a tax payer funded trade school? I guess they enter the workforce 12-24 months earlier but it's still 'free' education.

 

[BigRedBuster]

How is teaching teenagers a trade at a tax payer funded high school any different than teaching them those same trades at a tax payer funded trade school? I guess they enter the workforce 12-24 months earlier but it's still 'free' education.

Good question.

I would have to say we are already forking out education for these kids in HS and it's not preparing many of them to be successful in something when done.  Let's refocus those funds to be more effective for more kids.

The free college would be more spending on top of what already is being done or should be being done.

And...There is an element in my attitude of the fact that we already have paid for these kids to be educated for 18 years.  They are now adults.  If you choose a direction to go after HS, you should have some skin in the game to make it worth you being there.

I am also in favor developing more financial aid to help on an as need basis that would be tied to commitment and performance.  If you come from a poor family, if you commit to further education and maintain a certain level of performance, I see benefit in helping financially.

For the record, most kids that grow up poor can pretty much get a free education already.

 

[TGHusker]

I think BRB and I are on the same track.  The amount of $$s we put into public education - we should have a product that is totally ready for college (even have an associates degree - thus reducing the cost of college overall) or have some skill that is immediately marketable.   

Tulsa and the state of Oklahoma, for all of its woes in education, has a very good VoTech system that has been a model for many.  Many HS students will spend part of their day at Votech and part at their HS.  We also have a very good 2 year community college in Tulsa county (TCC) and some students are near completion or have completed an associates degree by the time they graduate. 

 

[Mierin]

What I wish would happen but I have no idea at a way to make it happen, is those jobs where you don't need a degree would stop forcing you to need a degree. The ones that will only hire someone with a degree because they can. Way too many people were and are pushed into going to college, especially to four year universities. There are many jobs you should be able to learn as you go. And there are many degrees people should not be spending money on, but the whole philosophy for years has been to "follow your dreams." That's a bad philosophy, especially if you go get a degree in it and it's a low-paying or low-job openings field. It's great for the few that are able to do it, but not for the ones that go broke and drown in loans. Basically, following your dreams, if your dreams are high risk, is like buying lottery tickets and not working. There are many dreams you can follow while working at a steady job, and maybe one day quit that job and do the dream job.

 

[BigRedBuster]

What I wish would happen but I have no idea at a way to make it happen, is those jobs where you don't need a degree would stop forcing you to need a degree. The ones that will only hire someone with a degree because they can. Way too many people were and are pushed into going to college, especially to four year universities. There are many jobs you should be able to learn as you go. And there are many degrees people should not be spending money on, but the whole philosophy for years has been to "follow your dreams." That's a bad philosophy, especially if you go get a degree in it and it's a low-paying or low-job openings field. It's great for the few that are able to do it, but not for the ones that go broke and drown in loans. Basically, following your dreams, if your dreams are high risk, is like buying lottery tickets and not working. There are many dreams you can follow while working at a steady job, and maybe one day quit that job and do the dream job.

Kind of like I'm a firm believer that someone should be able to go get a 2 year degree and become a teacher.  They force kids to go get an expensive 4 year degree and then teachers don't make much money.

Get them started teaching after two years and then if they want to get their bachelors degree, they can do it over the summers like teachers do now to get their masters.

As for a lot of jobs you are talking about, many times in industries, if you go to a smaller company and work your way up, you can end up at the same point eventually where the 4 year degree person is that started in a big company.

Example:  I just hired a guy who will head up our entire production in a couple years.  The same type of person in a large public company would need a degree.  But, this guy started out on the production floor of a smaller company and worked his way up to where he's ready for this job (hopefully).

 

[Mierin]

Kind of like I'm a firm believer that someone should be able to go get a 2 year degree and become a teacher.  They force kids to go get an expensive 4 year degree and then teachers don't make much money.

Get them started teaching after two years and then if they want to get their bachelors degree, they can do it over the summers like teachers do now to get their masters.

One of the (many) degrees I was going toward was High School Math before changing my mind, and I ended up getting a minor in Education. I agree completely with you. I believe I took around 7 classes and they were all so easy a 12 year old could pass them. There was no need for all of them. None of them were challenging. It would be a lot better if a) teachers were paid better and b) you had to be smart to be a teacher. This doesn't mean I think all teachers are dumb. It just means you don't have to be smart to be one. I'm guessing the shortage in teachers (in at least some subjects) is because of the pay, and so the schools can't really make it a challenge to graduate.

Also, I've taken lots of classes at community college and they were perfectly fine for preparing me for classes at UNL. I started one at a community college and dropped it, then later took it at UNL. The version at the community college was much more challenging, I assume because they have to make sure they keep their transfer equivalency to keep the value of their classes high.

 

[BigRedBuster]

One of the (many) degrees I was going toward was High School Math before changing my mind, and I ended up getting a minor in Education. I agree completely with you. I believe I took around 7 classes and they were all so easy a 12 year old could pass them. There was no need for all of them. None of them were challenging. It would be a lot better if a) teachers were paid better and b) you had to be smart to be a teacher. This doesn't mean I think all teachers are dumb. It just means you don't have to be smart to be one. I'm guessing the shortage in teachers (in at least some subjects) is because of the pay, and so the schools can't really make it a challenge to graduate.

I have two daughters in college.  Both of them have friends that are education majors.  Even the friends joke about what a joke their classes are.  They laugh about it, but, they are paying the same amount per credit hour and number of hours as other people.

 

[Mierin]

I have two daughters in college.  Both of them have friends that are education majors.  Even the friends joke about what a joke their classes are.  They laugh about it, but, they are paying the same amount per credit hour and number of hours as other people.

I had one class where we showed up, and then at the end we did group writing about what the class was about and turned it in for a completion grade. That was literally it. I actually learned a lot in that class but it didn't require me to be smart and people teaching kids should be smart.

 

[funhusker]

My oversimplified solution: require kids to go through 10th grade. Then They can the either be done, go to trade school for free, or enter into a 2 year university prep school for free.

This would allow a lot of kids the chance to enter workforce earlier. And also make 11th and 12th grade much more rigorous allowing the universities to teach more.  My sister is a stats professor in MN. She is continually amazed at simple concepts she had to teach college students.

 

[BigRedBuster]

[No message]

 

[TGHusker]

What I wish would happen but I have no idea at a way to make it happen, is those jobs where you don't need a degree would stop forcing you to need a degree. The ones that will only hire someone with a degree because they can. Way too many people were and are pushed into going to college, especially to four year universities. There are many jobs you should be able to learn as you go. And there are many degrees people should not be spending money on, but the whole philosophy for years has been to "follow your dreams." That's a bad philosophy, especially if you go get a degree in it and it's a low-paying or low-job openings field. It's great for the few that are able to do it, but not for the ones that go broke and drown in loans. Basically, following your dreams, if your dreams are high risk, is like buying lottery tickets and not working. There are many dreams you can follow while working at a steady job, and maybe one day quit that job and do the dream job.

I agree.  Almost 20 years ago the company I left as a GM needed to hire my replacement. I had recommended my assistant. She however did not have a degree.  They hired someone else and going through 2 guys in 5 years, they finally hired her for the role.  She's been there ever since.  Many people learn the requirements of the job while they work their way up to it.  I think 'mentor-ship'  gets the short end of the stick but actually is one of the best ways to prepare someone for an important role.  Text books get thrown away, but knowledge from the "SCHOOL OF HARD KNOCKS' lasts a lifetime.