Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(News Daily)   One-third of high school graduates are not college ready. The rest already know how to do a keg stand   (newsdaily.com) divider line 67
    More: Interesting, high schools, entrance exams, keg stand, Pacific Islanders, information technology, colleges  
•       •       •

1860 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Aug 2013 at 1:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-27 08:07:15 AM  

Emposter: In terms of careers, the report found a chasm between what students want to study and where they might find jobs down the road. ACT compared federal Bureau of Labor Statistics projections with their own questionnaires and found insufficient student interest in the five fastest-growing industries with workers who require some college.

"When informed by researchers, students were astonished to find that 75% of jobs in the United States were not devoted to theater arts, philosophy, history, and recreational frisbee golf.

work sucks!  It isn't any fun, and that's why they have to pay you go do it."

FTFY
 
2013-08-27 08:19:19 AM  
Forbush:  I'm sorry, Mister...?
Brantley: Foster.
Forbush:  I'm sorry, Mr. Foster.  We need someone with experience.
Brantley: But how can I get experience until I get a job that gives me experience?
Forbush:  If we gave you a jobj ust to give you experience, you'd take that experience and get a better job. Then that experience would benefit someone else.
Brantley: But I was trained in college to handle a job like this.  So in a sense, I already have experience.
Forbush:  What you've got is college experience, not the practical, hard-nosed business experience we're looking for.  If you'd joined our training program out of high school, you'd be qualified now.
Brantley: Then why did I go to college?
Forbush: Had fun, didn't you?
 
2013-08-27 08:40:09 AM  
What's the purpose of a high school?  It's certainly not to be a college preparatory experience for every child.  It's to give kids the basics that they'll need to succeed at life.

If the kid has some sort of intelligence and self motivation, then they can choose to find a way to make something of themselves.  This choice may or may not include college.  Measuring the "college ready" percentage of kids as an indicator of a high schools performance is rather irrelevant to a high school's purpose.
 
2013-08-27 09:28:09 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Earning a high school diploma should mean that you'd be capable of handling a college education.


No.

Earning a high school diploma should mean that you demonstrated you were capable of a high school education.

There are plenty of people who do perfectly well in high school who are not smart enough, not learning-oriented enough, not something enough, for college. Would you deny those people the high school diplomas they have earned because they're not college material?

We need three things:

One, first and foremost, we need to regain our respect for skilled trades. And it's not just about how much money someone can make (though if you've ever had to hire a plumber on a weekend, you may wonder why you thought that being a middle manager was a good job!) but respect for their knowledge, their skill, their dedication, and so on. Instead, we treat the skilled trades like they're some sort of shameful alternative for people who can't hack it in the "real world" of college degrees in Nursing Home Administration or Hotel & Restaurant Management. (yes, those are real, and shouldn't be)

Second, colleges should not be giving out degrees in "Hotel & Restaurant Management", etc. Those are vocations, not educations. Those should be the province of vocational schools. This would return colleges to their focus on education, and simultaneously lift the image of vocational schools. Not only does everybody not need to go to college, but a lot of the people who do go to college major in things that shouldn't be taught in college.

Third, we need a multi-faceted post-secondary system to teach the right people the right things. There should be technical institutes for the engineers and programmers, trade schools for the electricians and plumbers, vocational schools for the hotel managers and nursing home administrators, business school for the managers and entrepreneurs, and so on. Colleges should teach the more abstract subjects (history and science, for example) and impart an education not tied to a vocation. Why yes, this would mean that a lot of people with certificates in plumbing or civil engineering or marketing would be more immediately employable than college graduates. Why is this a problem? See "first" above.

And finally, we need to re-establish a respect for education. Today, there is very little. Most people are interested in the most effective way of making money, not in learning for its own sake. The descendants of people who read the few books they owned cover to cover, over and over again until the pages fell out, are immersed in riches of knowledge that they ignore to watch Jersey Shore. A friend of mine, a very intelligent friend, was unhappy about having to take any classes that were not directly related to computer programming in college; this "English" and "history" stuff wouldn't make him any more money, so it was a waste in his eyes. And we see the results in the world around us. People with no knowledge of the past, for example, are making decisions for the future -- decisions which they think are "new" and "innovative" but would, if one looked back in time, be seen to have already been tried. Without education, without understanding, voters are at the mercy of every demagogue who says something that sounds good. The current state of our society, and especially our government, shows hwo badly wrong that can go.

By the way, in response to an earlier post, no, education should not be "separate but equal" -- it should be separate and unequal. Some kids are going to absorb every bit of information put in front of them and want more. Some are going to struggle to learn the simplest things. Trying to teach them both the same way, at the same time, leads to at least one group getting an inadequate education -- either the better students are left adrift while the focus is on the poorer ones, or the poorer students are left behind while the needs of the better ones are addressed, or both are ignored to focus on the students in the middle.

We don't do that with school sports teams -- there's varsity, junior varsity, etc., for a reason, and that reason is that some kids are better at sports than others. Nobody imagines that all of them would have varsity-level sports skills if they were just coached properly. We recognize that the kid who's a natural-born athlete is going to be better in sports, given equal coaching and desire, than the kid who isn't, and the kid who was born with no legs doesn't have much chance of making the football team. People have different capabilities. Take me, back in high school ... no matter how much you coached me, no matter how much you motivated me, I was never going to be a star athlete. Injuries aside (I'm the only woman I know with an old football injury!) I just don't have the physique for it. I liked running, for instance, but I don't have the fast-twitch muscles to be a sprinter, and my legs are mounted just slightly wrong to be a top long-distance runner. It would be ridiculous to keep trying to make a runner out of me while leaving the kids who could sprint and whose legs were ideal for distance adrift because, y'know, No Athlete Left Behind, everyone has to be equal on the sports field. Equal opportunity does not mandate equal results.

The whole idea of "mainstreaming" is driven by parents who want to pretend their child is just like every other child, even though he manifestly isn't. I suspect that's partly because there is this ideal of what is "right" and everyone wants their child to match it. They say that students in a class that is focused on a less academically capable child will learn compassion. That's not what they're to learn; they're there to learn academic subjects. Disregarding mathematics and history in favor of "compassion" may feel good, especially to the parents of the child in question, but it's hurting 29 kids and doing very little to help the 30th. All the 29 really learn is that some people get special privileges, and they should look for ways to get some of those privileges for themselves -- which is why, for example, you get "standardized" tests which aren't standardized at all, because fully half the students have found ways to be allowed extra time to finish them, etc. That's not good for anyone, either.

We need to separate the concepts of education and vocation. Hotel & Restaurant Management is the latter, not the former. It's like plumbing, though probably less rigorous in terms of knowledge and skill. We need to establish (or convert) more vocational schools to teach such vocations, and we need to grant them the same respect we now, for some incomprehensible reason, do when their certification says "college" but not when it says "vo-tech". And each and every person needs to care about education, which is a different thing entirely than schooling.
 
2013-08-27 09:41:09 AM  

Worldwalker: TuteTibiImperes: Earning a high school diploma should mean that you'd be capable of handling a college education.

No.


After that post, I'd say we're pretty much done here. Turn out the lights.
 
2013-08-27 10:10:26 AM  

red5ish: ReapTheChaos: Sounds about right, not everyone needs to be a rocket scientist, the world needs ditch diggers too.

Um, hate to break this to you, but they have machines that dig ditches now.
[609x457 from http://imageshack.us/a/img203/7514/wxpx.jpg image 609x457]
Better start hitting those books, kids, cause all the great ditch digging jobs are gone.


Not exactly a ditch digger...   Nice try, but its a horizontal drilling machine...   Still need lots of manual labor around when running one of those!
 
2013-08-27 10:25:33 AM  

shtychkn: TuteTibiImperes: shtychkn: TuteTibiImperes: Earning a high school diploma should mean that you'd be capable of handling a college education. That doesn't mean that everyone will, or that everyone should, but everyone should be capable. It also doesn't mean that everyone should be able to go to Harvard or MIT, but that on some range between the Ivy League and Community College every high school graduate should have the necessary skills to continue his or her education at the next level if they choose to do so.

School Districts have immense pressure from parents/society to graduate students.  Many districts are currently looking that the "unfairness" of the Zero.  Going to a system where the lowest grade you can receive is a 50%.  Practically making graduating/passing near impossible to not do.

Part of that is also NCLB, which is also part of why a bachelor's degree is now considered the standard level of education for employment whereas a high school diploma used to be - the HS diploma has just been watered down to such a degree that in many cases it doesn't mean much on its own.

One thing NCLB gets flack for, but is actually attempting to make a HS diploma worth something is the requirement to pass a standardized test to receive your diploma.  Doesn't matter how easy parents/schools make it to get a "d" in the class.  If you can't pass a basic test you cant get a diploma.

The new parcc test will set national standards for what you need to know.  Will mean students will actually have to learn to pass.  Will be interesting.


Who cares?

We need to stop worrying about whether or not the worst students are passing.  We definitely need to stop this teacher witch hunt that's behind all the attempts to defund "bad" schools and fire "bad" teachers.

Somehow, a bunch of America has been tricked into thinking the solution to education is to remove or punish bad elements, which is really just a way for us to feel better about ourselves, because we're not the "bad" ones.

What we need to do is to put time, money, and effort into making education better.  Smaller classes, more funding for school supplies, better teacher training, etc.

We need a teacher positive and education positive approach, not one that just has everyone frothing to punish the bad guys.
 
2013-08-27 11:03:53 AM  
TFA actually says only 1 in 4 high school graduates are college ready:

Just a quarter of this year's high school graduates cleared the bar in all four subjects

The headline is referencing the proportion of students who were not ready for college coursework in any subject.
 
2013-08-27 11:58:40 AM  

Mr. Ekshun: I find it more disturbing that the same is true of the vast majority of people who graduate from college.

/Your
//You're
///That third one

////All Y'all's?
 
2013-08-27 12:23:40 PM  
This is a problem how? This means the 2/3 of them are "college ready", which means that colleges face a glut of students, meaning adding more into the glut of people with degrees who will find no actual use for them, perpetuating the current horribly broken situation.

The LAST thing I need is to have some self-satisfied twit with a degree in "Gender Identities of French Neoclassical Authors" thinking he's too good to change my oil at WalMart, even though that's the best-paying job he's ever had.
 
2013-08-27 12:25:22 PM  

thurstonxhowell: TFA actually says only 1 in 4 high school graduates are college ready:

Just a quarter of this year's high school graduates cleared the bar in all four subjects

The headline is referencing the proportion of students who were not ready for college coursework in any subject.


Again, how is that a bad thin? Do we need more than 25% of the population with degrees in the first place?
 
2013-08-27 01:19:57 PM  
If that's college-ready, then college is far, far too easy - both to get in to, and to graduate.
 
2013-08-27 05:38:34 PM  

Worldwalker: this "English" and "history" stuff wouldn't make him any more money, so it was a waste in his eyes.


It is a waste.

CS degree here. I was required to take "Poetry" and "Spy Fiction" as part of my major and they were a waste of time. Don't get me wrong, they were also easy A's (although you wouldn't know that with all the English majors getting nothing higher than a C), but essentially a waste of time.

In the *real world*, you know, outside of Starbucks... I really could have used a technical writing class, and my school offered it as an option... just not to my major.

What schools *need* are classes appropriate to your major... a technical writing class *should* be required for a CS degree... history? sure... But why aren't there classes required for CS majors in history which go into the history of software and hardware? That would solve *tons* of problems with older programmers and technicians interacting with younger hires.

And it would cut the "learning curve" out of hiring a recent CS or IS graduate.

But in the meantime, I know a lot of "Poetry" and can point you to some good "Spy Fiction" novels.
 
2013-08-27 05:40:35 PM  

Dafatone: Who cares?

We need to stop worrying about whether or not the worst students are passing. We definitely need to stop this teacher witch hunt that's behind all the attempts to defund "bad" schools and fire "bad" teachers.

Somehow, a bunch of America has been tricked into thinking the solution to education is to remove or punish bad elements, which is really just a way for us to feel better about ourselves, because we're not the "bad" ones.

What we need to do is to put time, money, and effort into making education better. Smaller classes, more funding for school supplies, better teacher training, etc.

We need a teacher positive and education positive approach, not one that just has everyone frothing to punish the bad guys.


No one likes to accept that not everyone is college material.  Half of the population has an IQ below 100.  Have of the population takes longer to learn, and thus must put forth more effort to learn.  A percent of people who need to try harder, don't want to.  The focus today is geared towards meeting their needs to "help" them, without requiring them to "care more".


But no one is going to get behind anything doesn't bring us up to 100% passing.  Why?  Cause we can't accept that we call can't/won't do it.
 
2013-08-27 06:06:21 PM  

Dafatone: What we need to do is to put time, money, and effort into making education better. Smaller classes, more funding for school supplies, better teacher training, etc.


Class size has no measurable impact on achievement as long a the class size is between 20 and 35.  Which is to say, if you hire 50% more teachers to reduce classes from 30 to 20, you are raising costs 50% without accomplishing anything.  Classes of 10 to 15 are measurably better and classes above 35 are measurably worse, but there's a huge flat area in the middle.

Another common waste of educational money is early childhood education.  Preschool for 3 and 4 year old children is wasted money.  Measurements show that they catch up by the time they finish first grade if they don't have preschool.  Money spent on enrichment for 2 year olds however can offer improvements down the line.  If you provide the right kind of stimulation that early you can have major improvements in language, mathematics and socialization skills for the rest of their life.  Much of this early wiring of the brain is done by the time the child is 30 months old though so if it has lived in a box up until then it's always going to be a problem.

School supplies are another threshold item.  Once you have enough adding more doesn't accomplish anything.
 
2013-08-27 06:06:33 PM  

Gabrielmot: What schools *need* are classes appropriate to your major... a technical writing class *should* be required for a CS degree... history? sure... But why aren't there classes required for CS majors in history which go into the history of software and hardware? That would solve *tons* of problems with older programmers and technicians interacting with younger hires


I will assume you are talking about the required general ed/core history class that all students are required to take with this response.

one, the curriculum would need to be designed and approved by various factions (so who would do this history or CS faculty or both).  Are there materials to support the class. ie. textbooks.

beyond that some states/systems have requirements that every student learn about US history or something deemed necessary by the higher ups.  So this history for CS course would need to address that.

lastly and most importantly, do you have enough students to offer the course?  if not do you have enough to offer it at least once a year, once every two years? would this course be required or just an choice along with the other well scheduled, frequently offered history courses (which will cut into the students who would take the CS history).  Which department would teach it, History or CS?  some accreditations require qualified faculty only teach certain topics. Can't have english folks with no graduate work teaching calculus and vice-versa. Would you want a history ph.d teaching the course?

those are some reasons why just off the top of my head.
 
2013-08-27 06:15:34 PM  

Gabrielmot: Worldwalker: this "English" and "history" stuff wouldn't make him any more money, so it was a waste in his eyes.

It is a waste.

CS degree here. I was required to take "Poetry" and "Spy Fiction" as part of my major and they were a waste of time. Don't get me wrong, they were also easy A's (although you wouldn't know that with all the English majors getting nothing higher than a C), but essentially a waste of time.

In the *real world*, you know, outside of Starbucks... I really could have used a technical writing class, and my school offered it as an option... just not to my major.

What schools *need* are classes appropriate to your major... a technical writing class *should* be required for a CS degree... history? sure... But why aren't there classes required for CS majors in history which go into the history of software and hardware? That would solve *tons* of problems with older programmers and technicians interacting with younger hires.

And it would cut the "learning curve" out of hiring a recent CS or IS graduate.

But in the meantime, I know a lot of "Poetry" and can point you to some good "Spy Fiction" novels.


There's no way you were REQUIRED to take "Spy Fiction."  You may have been required to take a course like "Spy Fiction."  But it's not like "Spy Fiction" and "Spy Fiction" alone was part of the CS curriculum.

Sorry you didn't like a course that you had to take to broaden your horizons.  You're not everyone.
 
Displayed 17 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report