4 ms·

The idea that necessary education is 12 years goes back a century, AFAIK. Perhaps it's time that we extend that to 16 years (I'm not the first to say it) and st

The idea that necessary education is 12 years goes back a century, AFAIK. Perhaps it's time that we extend that to 16 years (I'm not the first to say it) and stop making it an issue of ability to pay. Certainly the job market values college degrees much more than high school diplomas; an economy full of more productive workers will make the tide rise for all the boats - people selling to those workers, hiring them, those workers' kids, etc etc. That doesn't solve the abysmal K-12 education so many people receive, of course.

paulddraper 10y ago
> The idea that necessary education is 12 years goes back a century So previously it was 6 years, and you want to make it 16? IMO, the opposite should happen. Germany got this pretty right. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/German_School_system.svg/500px-German_School_system.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Ge... There are far more varied education routes, it means not everyone takes $100ks of loans when they really just need a couple years of trade school.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > not everyone takes $100ks of loans To clarify, I'm saying that college should be available to all either for free or at an affordable price. More generally, I don't agree with the premises that some people deserve a better education than others, that we can determine people's worthiness at a young age, and that the only value (or even the primary value) of education is making money. Regarding our ability to determine the worthiness of young students, note that parents' wealth and/or income are the leading factors (AFAIK) in determining how much education a student receives. > previously it was 6 years, and you want to make it 16? I think many ideas for limiting education imply an abandonment of progress, that we should plan for the economy and society we had over the last 50 years instead of looking to the future and building a more educated and productive one. The society and economy of the last 50 years was built by forward thinking people before that, including those who thought education should be expanded. Perhaps if people were better educated, they would be less vulnerable to absurd political, economic, and scientific ideas. (To be clear: I'm not calling the parent's idea absurd; I'm referring to many others out there and sometimes here on HN.)
- lumberjack 10y ago
  >Germany got this pretty right Pretty much all of Europe has technical schools, not just Germany. Germany has a heavily industrialised economy with a lot of such skill work that doesn't necessitate a university degree. What Germany also got right is worker rights for those in such jobs. It's one thing to be a welder in a factory, knowing that you will probably keep working there for all your life and another thing entirely to be a welder in a factory knowing that you will get fired the moment the economy slows down.
- neuland 10y ago
  I like Germany's system of education, granted I went to a Gymnasium for a year, which seems like it's a better deal insofar as it sets you up for higher wage jobs. But to push back a bit, the sorting process in 4th grade is incredibly unfair, especially to students with uneven learning (ie. are "behind" in 4th grade and thus are destined to be a low wage worker for their whole lives) or are immigrants. And what's worse, well-off families can work around the system by pushing back if their child is "sorted" into Realschule or Hauptschule. Or, they can just opt to send them to private school instead. So, it's not all roses. But outside tracking (which will never be a perfectly efficient), I think it is fundamentally a better than the U.S.'s education system. Some people don't need to and shouldn't go to college. And, it's great if they can get an education that's tailored to them.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > Some people don't need to and shouldn't go to college. Who are these people? Who decides? Have you asked them? What if they want to go to college? Is college only valuable for work skills? What about understanding the world? I wonder if people said the same about high school, and basic literacy. EDIT: I'll add to people reading this: Did you go to college? Do you expect your kids to? What about Senators, CEOs, etc - will their kids go to college? Much of this is the elite telling everyone else that their families don't need to go to college.
tmnvix 10y ago
If I recall correctly, this was how universal secondary education came about (at least in Australia). Initially secondary education was available only through private schools (including religious). As demand for skilled workers rose, free public education was extended from primary to secondary education to meet the demand from employers. The same justification could easily be applied today with regard to tertiary education. Maybe this could be implemented by giving all people a three year 'credit' for tertiary education that can be used as and when they please. Note that I am not suggesting that tertiary education should be compulsory.
vacri 10y ago
People at 12 years education today are less capable than people at 12 years a few decades ago. Long-time university lecturers dismay at having to teach first-years in basic skills they used to arrive with. I can't find it now (at work), but on youtube Brady Haran interviews some lecturers on this topic - one pulls out an A-levels engineering exam from the early 80s, and the questions are dense paragraphs expecting you to apply learned knowledge. Then he pulls out the A-level paper for that year (2013, I think) and the first question is "pick the correct picture that is hydropower", with four pictures of different power generation mechanisms. Easily answerable by anyone who didn't do the course. "The questions get harder, though?" > "Yes, but not substantially".

paulddraper 10y ago

> The idea that necessary education is 12 years goes back a century So previously it was 6 years, and you want to make it 16? IMO, the opposite should happen. Germany got this pretty right. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/German_School_system.svg/500px-German_School_system.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Ge... There are far more varied education routes, it means not everyone takes $100ks of loans when they really just need a couple years of trade school.

hackuser 10y ago
> not everyone takes $100ks of loans To clarify, I'm saying that college should be available to all either for free or at an affordable price. More generally, I don't agree with the premises that some people deserve a better education than others, that we can determine people's worthiness at a young age, and that the only value (or even the primary value) of education is making money. Regarding our ability to determine the worthiness of young students, note that parents' wealth and/or income are the leading factors (AFAIK) in determining how much education a student receives. > previously it was 6 years, and you want to make it 16? I think many ideas for limiting education imply an abandonment of progress, that we should plan for the economy and society we had over the last 50 years instead of looking to the future and building a more educated and productive one. The society and economy of the last 50 years was built by forward thinking people before that, including those who thought education should be expanded. Perhaps if people were better educated, they would be less vulnerable to absurd political, economic, and scientific ideas. (To be clear: I'm not calling the parent's idea absurd; I'm referring to many others out there and sometimes here on HN.)
lumberjack 10y ago
>Germany got this pretty right Pretty much all of Europe has technical schools, not just Germany. Germany has a heavily industrialised economy with a lot of such skill work that doesn't necessitate a university degree. What Germany also got right is worker rights for those in such jobs. It's one thing to be a welder in a factory, knowing that you will probably keep working there for all your life and another thing entirely to be a welder in a factory knowing that you will get fired the moment the economy slows down.
neuland 10y ago
I like Germany's system of education, granted I went to a Gymnasium for a year, which seems like it's a better deal insofar as it sets you up for higher wage jobs. But to push back a bit, the sorting process in 4th grade is incredibly unfair, especially to students with uneven learning (ie. are "behind" in 4th grade and thus are destined to be a low wage worker for their whole lives) or are immigrants. And what's worse, well-off families can work around the system by pushing back if their child is "sorted" into Realschule or Hauptschule. Or, they can just opt to send them to private school instead. So, it's not all roses. But outside tracking (which will never be a perfectly efficient), I think it is fundamentally a better than the U.S.'s education system. Some people don't need to and shouldn't go to college. And, it's great if they can get an education that's tailored to them.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > Some people don't need to and shouldn't go to college. Who are these people? Who decides? Have you asked them? What if they want to go to college? Is college only valuable for work skills? What about understanding the world? I wonder if people said the same about high school, and basic literacy. EDIT: I'll add to people reading this: Did you go to college? Do you expect your kids to? What about Senators, CEOs, etc - will their kids go to college? Much of this is the elite telling everyone else that their families don't need to go to college.

tmnvix 10y ago

If I recall correctly, this was how universal secondary education came about (at least in Australia). Initially secondary education was available only through private schools (including religious). As demand for skilled workers rose, free public education was extended from primary to secondary education to meet the demand from employers. The same justification could easily be applied today with regard to tertiary education. Maybe this could be implemented by giving all people a three year 'credit' for tertiary education that can be used as and when they please. Note that I am not suggesting that tertiary education should be compulsory.

vacri 10y ago

People at 12 years education today are less capable than people at 12 years a few decades ago. Long-time university lecturers dismay at having to teach first-years in basic skills they used to arrive with. I can't find it now (at work), but on youtube Brady Haran interviews some lecturers on this topic - one pulls out an A-levels engineering exam from the early 80s, and the questions are dense paragraphs expecting you to apply learned knowledge. Then he pulls out the A-level paper for that year (2013, I think) and the first question is "pick the correct picture that is hydropower", with four pictures of different power generation mechanisms. Easily answerable by anyone who didn't do the course. "The questions get harder, though?" > "Yes, but not substantially".