5 ms·
Yes, but you could say the same thing about people who went to traditional schools. How many people went through that system and succeeded--and then how many pe
by jdotjdot 14y ago
Yes, but you could say the same thing about people who went to traditional schools. How many people went through that system and succeeded--and then how many people went through that system and didn't?
I agree with you in that I don't know we have the data to argue that apprenticeships are better, but I don't think we have data to argue that they're worse either, and I can't see how having it as an option is bad at all.
- jmduke 14y ago> Yes, but you could say the same thing about people who went to traditional schools. How many people went through that system and succeeded--and then how many people went through that system and didn't? I think the whole point is that, statistically speaking, many many more people go through the system and succeed than otherwise. That's why it's the system. (I'm not saying that's still true.)
- drcube 14y agoYeah, but correlation isn't causation. Maybe unsuccessful people on average will be unsuccessful in school and the successful people on average will be successful in school. While school itself has no actual impact on success. I'm not saying I believe that, but I haven't seen it ruled out yet.
- ams6110 14y agoMore people start an undergraduate education than finish it. If you're only looking at people who got through the system, you've already filtered out a number of those who have low motivation or low ability.
- jdotjdot 14y agoMore people start _anything_ than finish it. Since starting is a prerequisite for finishing, it is always the case that a maximum of 100% will finish, and likely fewer. If your point is that more people start school than finish and somehow that weeds people out, you could also say the same thing about apprenticeships.