Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[BW23]

Yeah, but college is affordable more from an aid standpoint for those from broken homes than for those living with parents in the 'burbs. There's much, much more aid (in terms of grants) for those. And student loans are available to all.

Now, those in higher socio-economic situations have more scholarships, but in terms of grants, those middle class kids really get very little if any.

I grew up in a middle class home and was able to attend a private school for seven years and received two degrees without any assistance from my parents.

As far as lower income families are concerned, I don't know if they're aware of the aid that is available to them. And as far as loans are concerned, the family or mother that is behind in all of her payments and dodging phone calls (if one is even hooked up) from debt collectors etc, probably doesn't think her child or children would stand much of a chance getting into any school. And it her fault. Tough situation. But a new plan like this which makes it seem viable and is pretty straight forward (go to CC, get an AD and work 100 hours) might help some of these unfortunate families and kids out.

It could help. I'm just a bit skeptical. (And, again, this isn't about Obama at all. I deal a lot with financial aid, or at least have in the past.)

It's much harder for middle class students to get aid. Those from one-parent, low income families qualify for the max almost all the time with grants. I think some schools, at least in my area, are doing a better job of reaching out to these students. I think Missouri on a whole is doing better actually, at least over the last four years.

[Hudler]

The last time I saw some statistics, only about 32% of jobs that are available require a four-year degree. Now, I'm not knocking four-year schools. I have enough degrees from them. But, the focus in our country (and I really don't know where it should start) should be on getting students the technical training that's needed to get kids (and adults) into the higher tech fields where there's a shortage of workers. Whether it's JUCO, private technical schools or the career and technical schools (vo-techs), more students need to take advantage of these. It's cheaper than four-year schools for sure, in most cases. And it would greatly help the economy as it gets students into high-paying, high-tech jobs in 2 years or less.

I don't think it's been discussed much on this thread but I'd love to see the entire education system revamped so that kids could begin to specialize, or at least lean in a certain direction, at an earlier age than they currently do. Thirteen straight years, some of their most formative years, of very little responsibility and the same few subjects year after year after year. And I think there's enough proof that the current system is not working.

How much specialization do they really need though? I knew I was heading down a engineering/science track by the beginning of high school, and I structured the classes I took around that. The only classes you could have deemed frivilous would be some history courses, foreign language, PE, health, and band. I think you still need literature and grammar courses (definately grammar). I don't think history is a bad idea. I don't think health is a bad idea. In the current global climate, I don't think foreign language is a bad idea. PE seems frivilous if you're already in sports. Band was a personal choice for me (really, an extra study hall that I got a grade for).

I guess there could be more specialization within my math courses, and maybe more of a technical writing emphasis with my english courses. I took the science courses that I knew would help more for engineering (i.e., I avoided biology).

Schools need to return to some of the vo-tech classes that have been slowly disappearing over the years. Classes like metal shop and welding are really great for the kids that have no desire to go to a 4 year school but would attend a tech school. One HS I attended had a building trades class that was very popular but the district dropped because it didn't fit with thier plan of getting kids ready for college.

[BW23]

The problem, or part of it, IMO, is that high schools remained focused on getting all kids prepared for "college". In this case, college is only thought of as four-year universities. There's very little room for preparing for a career with increased graduation rates, whether that's imposed on them by the school or the state. And it's a shame that schools are set up that way when in reality less than half, if not less than 2/3, will actually go on to a four-year school.

Perhaps they should divide up courses for those on a college track vs. those who are not. I think it's a good idea that everyone knows algebra, for example, whether they are going to college or not. But for those going to collge, it's a building block for calculus, etc. so it should be more technical. For those not going to college, it should be more about solving more real-life problems.

I'm not discounting the importance of postsecondary education. I do think that all students could benefit from some type of additional education. But some of that, at least for the majority of students, should be centered around a career...one that, obviously, doesn't require a four-year degree. At least not immediately.

For example, I talked to someone at St. Louis Community College. They have articulation agreements in place with many area career centers (high school vo-techs). Students that are in the more traditional block programs at the "vo-tech" can receive an associate's degree in just one year (by taking mostly general education courses). In the last five or six years, over 30,000 articulation agreements have been signed from high school students. Only about 700 students have actually taken advantage of them. And that's sad.

I know at the beginning of the decade, there was a shortage of workers in the state for high-tech, high-paying jobs that was somewhere around 55,000. Yet, there were many four-year graduates that couldn't find jobs.

I don't know how to fix it. At least not easily. I think it would take major school reform.

[Richie Allen]

The problem, or part of it, IMO, is that high schools remained focused on getting all kids prepared for "college". In this case, college is only thought of as four-year universities. There's very little room for preparing for a career with increased graduation rates, whether that's imposed on them by the school or the state. And it's a shame that schools are set up that way when in reality less than half, if not less than 2/3, will actually go on to a four-year school.

And it's funny, I grew up in a somewhat wealthy small town that was made up of a lot of well-off families as well as a lot of family-run businesses that dealt in the trades. Bricklayers, electricians, carpenters, plumbers, pipe-fitters and even farmers. The kids from these families, however, were kind of considered by many of us, to be on the lower of the economic scale in our town. The were in 4-H and FFA and had little interest in ever attending a college class. Their parents taught them how to work and many were already working before they got out of high school. And continued to work while we were deciding if we should join a frat or not.

Now they're taking over for their parents and building bigger houses than our parents lives in and are living very comfortable lives. Raising kids and preparing them to take their place eventually. Meanwhile, we're wondering what the fop we're doing working in an office with a bunch of people we can't stand, answering to a boss that has no idea what he/she's doing. And we're not as well off as our parents were.

[Popeye_Card]

I would wager you were the rare student that was entering high school with an idea of what you wanted to study/be. I hadn't even heard of Engineering at that age. I thought they drove trains.

On the other hand, if my prior education discussed real life options and careers instead of nothing but math, science, language arts, social studies and history for 8 hours a day, I might have been more knowledgeable of what was out there. We all, as human beings, want to be something. As early as we can speak we talk about what we want to be when we grow up but the schools I went to never discussed anything about real life career options.

I was indeed lucky in that regard. Youngest of 4 kids--all technically inclined and educated, as were both of my parents.

I don't know exactly how much you want to steer kids towards certain career paths so early though. On one hand, it's useful. On another hand, you could be steering them and typecasting them down a path they'll never enjoy. I mean, look how many college students change majors (I switched once). Furthermore, how many people have jobs in fields they were not educated in, because they didn't enjoy what their degree taught them to do. I think high school level education should be more well-rounded. I do think there's a educational value for dividing up the future white-collars from the blue-collars, but I think there's a huge social hurdle you would run into with that. Furthermore, some career paths (like engineering) it's helpful to have some hands-on education with. Again, I was lucky in that regard because I grew up around fixing and building stuff with my father. But I know engineers I graduated with who couldn't tell a straight screwdriver from a phillips.

[BW23]

The problem, or part of it, IMO, is that high schools remained focused on getting all kids prepared for "college". In this case, college is only thought of as four-year universities. There's very little room for preparing for a career with increased graduation rates, whether that's imposed on them by the school or the state. And it's a shame that schools are set up that way when in reality less than half, if not less than 2/3, will actually go on to a four-year school.

And it's funny, I grew up in a somewhat wealthy small town that was made up of a lot of well-off families as well as a lot of family-run businesses that dealt in the trades. Bricklayers, electricians, carpenters, plumbers, pipe-fitters and even farmers. The kids from these families, however, were kind of considered by many of us, to be on the lower of the economic scale in our town. The were in 4-H and FFA and had little interest in ever attending a college class. Their parents taught them how to work and many were already working before they got out of high school. And continued to work while we were deciding if we should join a frat or not.

Now they're taking over for their parents and building bigger houses than our parents lives in and are living very comfortable lives. Raising kids and preparing them to take their place eventually. Meanwhile, we're wondering what the fop we're doing working in an office with a bunch of people we can't stand, answering to a boss that has no idea what he/she's doing. And we're not as well off as our parents were.

So it's not just where I live, huh?

[BW23]

Some of you may have seen this, but this helps point out some of the problems in education.

[/youtube]

There's many versions of this, but this may be the original. They're all pretty good.

[Richie Allen]

I don't know exactly how much you want to steer kids towards certain career paths so early though. On one hand, it's useful. On another hand, you could be steering them and typecasting them down a path they'll never enjoy. I mean, look how many college students change majors (I switched once). Furthermore, how many people have jobs in fields they were not educated in, because they didn't enjoy what their degree taught them to do. I think high school level education should be more well-rounded. I do think there's a educational value for dividing up the future white-collars from the blue-collars, but I think there's a huge social hurdle you would run into with that. Furthermore, some career paths (like engineering) it's helpful to have some hands-on education with. Again, I was lucky in that regard because I grew up around fixing and building stuff with my father. But I know engineers I graduated with who couldn't tell a straight screwdriver from a phillips.

I don't think kids should be steered as much as they should be given more of a foundation of what careers are available. Schools have, what, one career day where parents come in and do a show and tell about what they do? My Guidance Counselor in high school spoke to me once a year to iron out my class schedule and I only met with my college counselor once in all the time I attended school. Everything I know about different careers I had to find out on my own. Twenty years of school provided next to nothing.

[ghostrunner]

Gentlemen,

If you can't stay on topic and post something inflammatory about one of the candidates or each other, I suggest you start a new thread.

Thanks.

[Radbird]

I don't think it's been discussed much on this thread but I'd love to see the entire education system revamped so that kids could begin to specialize, or at least lean in a certain direction, at an earlier age than they currently do. Thirteen straight years, some of their most formative years, of very little responsibility and the same few subjects year after year after year. And I think there's enough proof that the current system is not working.

Isn't this similar to what most European countries do? I've heard pros and cons, and you can probably overdo the "specialization" process and end up typecasting kids, but it's certainly worth exploring. And definitely agree, with a daughter who is entering her senior year in college (so I've almost been through the entire 17-year process), that the current system is not working, from either an education or expense standpoint.