Incidentally, what "labor pool" are we sustaining that is trained by colleges these days, outside of science and engineering positions?

 

Peter Lynch's guiding investment principle was that the money is to be made in the areas that people won't touch anymore. For 30 years, we've told kids they need to go to college for their lives to be meaningful, and 3 generations of mediocre college students have stuffed the middle-management jobs nationwide and sit in their cubicles and struggle to be heard over the din, because ditch-digging is beneath them. You know where the money is now? Ever try to hire a back-hoe operator and pay cash? Have you looked to see what trash collectors for private firms in California are being paid by your tax dollars? Trash collecting is big-money jobs.

 

You think that skilled manual labor is beneath you, talk to the family-owned folks at the Asplundh Tree Company and ask their field laborers if they're satisifed with their pay. I did, last week, as I was writing a check to them with 5 numbers in it.

We are clearly NOT superior at educating, at least not through high school. We are literally being blown away.

 

We have the ability to. We are being blown away because we water it down so the lowest common denominator can pass through.

 

Trades can run the gamut of occupations that do not require formal college training, and to be competetive we need to be doing them in other countries, too. Kazakstahn, for instance, has a enormous need for trained laborers who know how to operate super-heavy machinery and vehicles. There will be nucelar power plants all over the world that will need skilled maintenance technicians. You can get trained in nucelar maintenance without needing to know college physics. Field nursing is in constant and well-paid demand world-wide, and some cultures refuse to even allow their people to engage in such work. It requires vocational training but little in the way of formal college education.

 

We need to broaden our horizons as to what really constitutes vocational training, away from just the plumber and electrician scope we see now.

 

Perhaps. But, sending kids down these paths prior to high school doesn't work for me, at least.

Incidentally, what "labor pool" are we sustaining that is trained by colleges these days, outside of science and engineering positions?

 

Peter Lynch's guiding investment principle was that the money is to be made in the areas that people won't touch anymore. For 30 years, we've told kids they need to go to college for their lives to be meaningful, and 3 generations of mediocre college students have stuffed the middle-management jobs nationwide and sit in their cubicles and struggle to be heard over the din, because ditch-digging is beneath them. You know where the money is now? Ever try to hire a back-hoe operator and pay cash? Have you looked to see what trash collectors for private firms in California are being paid by your tax dollars? Trash collecting is big-money jobs.

 

You think that skilled manual labor is beneath you, talk to the family-owned folks at the Asplundh Tree Company and ask their field laborers if they're satisifed with their pay. I did, last week, as I was writing a check to them with 5 numbers in it.

 

Being a bit presumptuous, aren't you?

Being a bit presumptuous, aren't you?

 

If you refer to the Asplundh conversation, it went something like this:

 

Tree-Cutter: That will be (a lot) dollars.

Me: To clear ___ acres of downed trees?

Tree-Cutter: Yes. Cash, or check if you prefer.

Me: Is this covered by insurance?

Tree-Cutter: No. And Asplundh is spelled with an "H" at the end.

Me: Do you have any Vaseline?

Tree-Cutter: I have some lip balm in the truck. The company provides that for free.

Me: You must enjoy your job.

Tree-Cutter: Its fantastic. I worked for the family summers during college because the money was so good. Eventually, I was losing money to student loans and time waiting to find an insurance job, so I dropped out of school and have made more in two years than I would have in 5 years examining claims. Here's your receipt, thank you for your confidence in Asplundh, Mr. Hearsay, have a nice day.

I was referring to the "you think that skilled manual labor is beneath you" remark.

We are clearly NOT superior at educating, at least not through high school. We are literally being blown away.

 

Trades can run the gamut of occupations that do not require formal college training, and to be competetive we need to be doing them in other countries, too. Kazakstahn, for instance, has a enormous need for trained laborers who know how to operate super-heavy machinery and vehicles. There will be nucelar power plants all over the world that will need skilled maintenance technicians. You can get trained in nucelar maintenance without needing to know college physics. Field nursing is in constant and well-paid demand world-wide, and some cultures refuse to even allow their people to engage in such work. It requires vocational training but little in the way of formal college education.

 

We need to broaden our horizons as to what really constitutes vocational training, away from just the plumber and electrician scope we see now.

 

You made the point much better than me. Thanks.

We have the ability to. We are being blown away because we water it down so the lowest common denominator can pass through.

 

 

 

Perhaps. But, sending kids down these paths prior to high school doesn't work for me, at least.

 

You need to know in some of those countries that are blowing us away in high school, they don't educate everyone at the same level or test everyone for those impressive test scores.

Any system without accountability to perform (in some form) on the student is a waste of effort, resources, and time.

You need to know in some of those countries that are blowing us away in high school, they don't educate everyone at the same level or test everyone for those impressive test scores.

 

Re-read my second sentence and tell me how I am disagreeing with you.

Re-read my second sentence and tell me how I am disagreeing with you.

Sorta.

I don't think you would say that we don't need to be educating those kids that are not college material. Are you?

I was referring to the "you think that skilled manual labor is beneath you" remark.

 

I was using the universal "you," not the personal "you." Perhaps "one" would have been a better pronoun.

Sorta.

I don't think you would say that we don't need to be educating those kids that are not college material. Are you?

 

No, I think they should be educated. But, we have to realize that some students are going to be smarter or have more natural ambition and can thus be pushed at a higher level. As such, we should accommodate them. That isn't to say we shouldn't educate those who don't fall into those categories.

 

Realistically, for me, it isn't about throwing more money at the system and expecting better results. A lot of beneficial reform can come through restructuring and reorganizing the way we educate, especially in light of the ample resources we have to do so. I also don't think this equates to lowering the standards. We should demand higher standards and demand more kids achieve them. We have to also recognize some kids aren't going to quite meet them. But, hopefully in their effort to get there they are bettered, rather than the easy step they have over the bar now.

Almost all kids should come out of high school ready for college. That is a bare minimum. If you had asked me in the seventh our eighth grade I would likely have said that I wanted to either work on a horse farm or join my Father's construction union. I was very fortunate in that I had teachers that looked at students and demanded that they take the most rigorous classes they could handle. It opened my eyes to a much bigger world. I want to weep when I read professional educators that think it is okay to teach kids to balance a check book and call them educated. I understand that some kids don't even achieve that level. The solution is not to bring down our expectations. The solution is to do whaterver it takes to teach kids. Longer days? Okay. Year round school? Sounds good. Smaller classes? Yep.

 

I used to agree with you. Experience has made me re-evalutate where I stand on that.

 

All students should be educated and experience a wide variety of basic educational background. However, by at least the junior year, kids need to be in some type of post secondary path. A non-collegiate path is not necessarily an easy one. I have a class of Physical Science juniors that attend our vocational school in the morning. The higher level science that the future electricians, automechanics, industrial maintenance and chemical technology students have to learn is truly advanced, just taught in a different format and to a different focus than what my college bound Chemistry I juniors need. All paths don't need the SAME high level content, but all content can be high level.

 

As to the bolded, please don't go there. No one in this thread (I feel that I can speak for myself, LBBC and Hearsay in this) is recommending that or even believes that. However, it seems that you are making those that choose a path other than college to be less important or educated. I hope that I am wrong.

 

My father is one of the smartest men that I know. He doesn't know how to balance a chemical reaction (not that I couldn't teach him - he'd learn easily), but he can do any plumbing, electrical or mechanical work that you need him to do. I actually confer with him often on conceptual problems in the physics and physical science classes that I teach.

The intent to do good may have been there when it passed back in 1990, but it was a flawed system from the beginnning. What it became over the years had little in common to what it was in the beginning.

There was no incentive for the students to buy in, as there was no reward for doing a good job on the test and no penalty for blowing it off, as many did, even good students. In the end it was never about education, just getting a score. Some wanted it to be about education, but it was just about getting a higher score. It was not about education. And yes there is difference in actually educating someone and teaching them how to jump through a few hoops to get a better score.

 

Very well stated, and how do you think the students feel this year that have their portfolios done and know find out they spent all of this time (2-3 years) working on this project and now they are worthless and not going to be counted!!!! If I were the students or the English teacher or any other teacher that spent hours in their classroom allowing students to develop these writings, I would be angry. After this, I don't know if I would want to buy into anything the wonderful elected officials came up with. I'm sure they know all about educating children. :ohbrother:

Very well stated, and how do you think the students feel this year that have their portfolios done and know find out they spent all of this time (2-3 years) working on this project and now they are worthless and not going to be counted!!!! If I were the students or the English teacher or any other teacher that spent hours in their classroom allowing students to develop these writings, I would be angry. After this, I don't know if I would want to buy into anything the wonderful elected officials came up with. I'm sure they know all about educating children. :ohbrother:

 

This is a valid concern. Our seniors have their portfolios nearly finished. They are currently a graduation requirement for our students. We are still going to score them as a faculty and reward them as we have always done. We will not do so for next year.

 

I, too, felt that it was a slap in the face of this year's seniors that have worked hard. The change should be for next year, not halt this year a month or so before they are due.