5 ms·

Maybe we should bring the baseline in high schools up? Maybe people should leave high school more prepared? Otherwise, you'll just be saying the same thing abo

Maybe we should bring the baseline in high schools up? Maybe people should leave high school more prepared? Otherwise, you'll just be saying the same thing about the same students after college: they're unprepared. No. Time box your time to get prepared, and do it. Also, there is no such thing as free. Every year costs a year of your life, possibly disrupting your chances to have biological children.

willismichael 7y ago
possibly disrupting your chances to have biological children You can have children while attending college. I did it, and I know plenty of other people that did it and it didn't ruin their life.
- jeffdavis 7y ago
  True, but it's not for everyone and not without its own costs and complications. That's why I said "possibly". The main point is that nothing is really free, it's costing time, opportunities, etc.
- sethammons 7y ago
  I had my first kid when I was fifteen. I'm doing alright, but I would not recommend it! Later is better. My former boss had his first kid at 40. He would not recommend it as earlier is better. The sweet spot is probably mid twenties for starting.
bilbo0s 7y ago
>Time box your time to get prepared, and do it. That's kind of asking the impossible. Innovation and advancement don't stand still like that. A middle or high school should not be faulted for not knowing what technologies will be in use in 20 years. Quite literally, they can't teach technologies that have not been invented yet. So, again, they pursue the only practical strategy available to them, they teach a general course of study that gives students the ability to absorb and understand what future trainers will teach them. They can't do job training because they literally have no idea what kind of good jobs will be out there when this kid turns 30. Just make sure the kid is able to absorb the training whatever boss s/he has gives him/her. That's about the best the schools can do. Employers and college really do have to do the rest.
- jeffdavis 7y ago
  I'm not saying people shouldn't learn abstract thinking. I'm just saying "get it over with".
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    And I'm saying you can't just "get it over with" sometimes because you can't really know what "it" is? A kid is in middle school or high school or whatever and then 20 years later they are on an employer's doorstep. The tools and technologies that employer uses were not even invented when that kid was in middle or high school. Well, unless that kid's had some additional training in those intervening years, they're probably not going to know how to use the tools that the employer wants them to use. So it's appropriate for the employer to hire, instead, the kid who has had the training during those intervening years. We currently call most of that training "college". If you want to call it "university", or "post high school", or "adult campus learning", or whatever, then do that if it makes it a bit more palatable. Call it whatever you like, but employers kind of need these kids to have it. And they'll only need them to have it more in the future. That's just the nature of our ever advancing society. That's actually a good thing believe it or not.
    - Amezarak 7y ago
      Alternatively, schools assume responsibility for giving students a broad, general background and teaching them to think abstractly, with higher education involved in teaching students theoretical aspects of their concentration. At the same time, employers will just have to train employees on the specific technologies and tools they need them to use in practice, rather than offloading the burden to society at large. This also ameliorates the 'retraining' problem for older workers.
    - jeffdavis 7y ago
      Your central assumption is that four more years without a job is the only way to learn whatever you need (abstract, practical, whatever). I just disagree. Efficient processes measure outputs/results, like what people actually learn or accomplish after all that time. But many people in this thread are measuring inputs, like, just put in four more years of time and money and that must be good for everyone, right?
aphextim 7y ago
A big thing I see is they keep pushing the idea on the younger generation that if you do not go to college you will fail, work McDonald's your whole life etc. They easily load the kids up with student loans/debt and have courses/advisers readily available to sign them up and get them what they need to get into college. I do not remember in my high school, one class about financial literacy or how the best way to pay back student loans. No one informed us well of the risks of taking out private loans to cover what the federal loans don't cover. No alternative options are promoted heavily, sure there may be an army recruiter or a weekend where they showcase some trades you could get into, but they never explain union/trades. I wish they told me that at 18, I could join a Union (Carpenter, Laborer, Millwright) and enroll in a 4 year apprenticeship where you start at 60% scale your first year (Make $18 right out of high school), work while learning your skill with a 10% increase each year over 4 years so by the end of your 4 year apprenticeship when you receive your journeyman card you are making $28+, I think more people would at least consider that course if they are more hands on and like to fix stuff.
- rmah 7y ago
  I went to HS in the 1980's and we had classes in financial literacy (though I think it was called "business" or "economics" or something like that) as an elective. It covered the basics of interest rates, what loans were and how they worked. What banks and insurance was for. The basics of how business works. Etc. We also had trades training available, everything from carpentry and metalworking to auto repair and media broadast (radio/tv). And this was a rather middling high school in a small town in the midwest. What didn't we have? Well, I didn't know what an AP test was until I got to university and it was too late, so there's that. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

willismichael 7y ago

possibly disrupting your chances to have biological children You can have children while attending college. I did it, and I know plenty of other people that did it and it didn't ruin their life.

jeffdavis 7y ago
True, but it's not for everyone and not without its own costs and complications. That's why I said "possibly". The main point is that nothing is really free, it's costing time, opportunities, etc.
sethammons 7y ago
I had my first kid when I was fifteen. I'm doing alright, but I would not recommend it! Later is better. My former boss had his first kid at 40. He would not recommend it as earlier is better. The sweet spot is probably mid twenties for starting.

bilbo0s 7y ago

>Time box your time to get prepared, and do it. That's kind of asking the impossible. Innovation and advancement don't stand still like that. A middle or high school should not be faulted for not knowing what technologies will be in use in 20 years. Quite literally, they can't teach technologies that have not been invented yet. So, again, they pursue the only practical strategy available to them, they teach a general course of study that gives students the ability to absorb and understand what future trainers will teach them. They can't do job training because they literally have no idea what kind of good jobs will be out there when this kid turns 30. Just make sure the kid is able to absorb the training whatever boss s/he has gives him/her. That's about the best the schools can do. Employers and college really do have to do the rest.

jeffdavis 7y ago
I'm not saying people shouldn't learn abstract thinking. I'm just saying "get it over with".
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  And I'm saying you can't just "get it over with" sometimes because you can't really know what "it" is? A kid is in middle school or high school or whatever and then 20 years later they are on an employer's doorstep. The tools and technologies that employer uses were not even invented when that kid was in middle or high school. Well, unless that kid's had some additional training in those intervening years, they're probably not going to know how to use the tools that the employer wants them to use. So it's appropriate for the employer to hire, instead, the kid who has had the training during those intervening years. We currently call most of that training "college". If you want to call it "university", or "post high school", or "adult campus learning", or whatever, then do that if it makes it a bit more palatable. Call it whatever you like, but employers kind of need these kids to have it. And they'll only need them to have it more in the future. That's just the nature of our ever advancing society. That's actually a good thing believe it or not.
  - Amezarak 7y ago
    Alternatively, schools assume responsibility for giving students a broad, general background and teaching them to think abstractly, with higher education involved in teaching students theoretical aspects of their concentration. At the same time, employers will just have to train employees on the specific technologies and tools they need them to use in practice, rather than offloading the burden to society at large. This also ameliorates the 'retraining' problem for older workers.
  - jeffdavis 7y ago
    Your central assumption is that four more years without a job is the only way to learn whatever you need (abstract, practical, whatever). I just disagree. Efficient processes measure outputs/results, like what people actually learn or accomplish after all that time. But many people in this thread are measuring inputs, like, just put in four more years of time and money and that must be good for everyone, right?

aphextim 7y ago

A big thing I see is they keep pushing the idea on the younger generation that if you do not go to college you will fail, work McDonald's your whole life etc. They easily load the kids up with student loans/debt and have courses/advisers readily available to sign them up and get them what they need to get into college. I do not remember in my high school, one class about financial literacy or how the best way to pay back student loans. No one informed us well of the risks of taking out private loans to cover what the federal loans don't cover. No alternative options are promoted heavily, sure there may be an army recruiter or a weekend where they showcase some trades you could get into, but they never explain union/trades. I wish they told me that at 18, I could join a Union (Carpenter, Laborer, Millwright) and enroll in a 4 year apprenticeship where you start at 60% scale your first year (Make $18 right out of high school), work while learning your skill with a 10% increase each year over 4 years so by the end of your 4 year apprenticeship when you receive your journeyman card you are making $28+, I think more people would at least consider that course if they are more hands on and like to fix stuff.

rmah 7y ago
I went to HS in the 1980's and we had classes in financial literacy (though I think it was called "business" or "economics" or something like that) as an elective. It covered the basics of interest rates, what loans were and how they worked. What banks and insurance was for. The basics of how business works. Etc. We also had trades training available, everything from carpentry and metalworking to auto repair and media broadast (radio/tv). And this was a rather middling high school in a small town in the midwest. What didn't we have? Well, I didn't know what an AP test was until I got to university and it was too late, so there's that. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.