President Obama Is Looking To Extend The School Year

Carrie M. said:
To me, the idea that each person in our culture (especially at 18 years of age) could be responsible for their own growth in critical thinking and problem solving skills without a structured plan is laughable.

To me the idea that one couldn't is laughable...and a little scary.

Higher education (which encompasses trade and vocational schools as well as four-year institutions) provides the mechanism for folks to develop cognitively beyond the high school level. It's really that simple. And without that structure, I don't believe the average person would do it.

So without formal learning, growth is not possible? Yikes.

I don't even know how to argue that. Seriously. We're on two so different planes of thought that I can't even find a way to try to make comparisons.

Maybe if I had gone to college, huh? ;)

Jeff said:
I'll use my grandfather as an example. He worked for a machine shop most of his life, drafting on paper various single-purpose devices. Today his job no longer exists. Now there's a guy (who won't get hired without a degree) who uses a computer to prototype the device, run simulations to gauge its limitations and physical characteristics and otherwise has the responsibility to figure out how to make it work before a hunk of metal is ever touched. We call these people mechanical engineers.

Yeah, but are you saying it's not possible to do that job unless you go to college? Obviously it's possible - you spend the time to learn the job - voila!

And that's exactly my point about my frustration with the system.

As long as you have a degree of some kind (any kind, I'm led to believe from the responses here), suddenly you're more qualified to get hired to learn that job. It's one of those logic circles that makes my brain hurt. :)

That, to me, is absurd as not hiring someone because of their dreadlocks was to you in that Carowinds thread from a while back.

But in both cases, it is what it is. Be part of the system or suffer.

And consider that unless I climb the ranks of my new employer for reasons not related to computer science or research (because I'm not sure I'm qualified for that), I probably top out in a mid $100k range management kind of job.

Your new employer - the college dropout. ;)

So the only place to experience roommates, sex, clubs and alcohol is a 4-year accredited college or university? And one must pay in excess of 20K per year for that experience? I'm not convinced that puking into a dormitory toilet makes a person more well-rounded than someone who pukes into their own porcelain altar.

Since Carrie mentioned trade and vocational training in one of her previous posts, I'll say that's the area I've been dwelling on. Building trades, heavy construction, auto maintenance, culinary, land surveying, medical technology-- these are a few examples of fields where a person could make a decent living without the benefit of a traditional 4-year university education. Granted, they require training and some proficiency to practice. But is a 120 credit college education necessary for an electrician or chef? Would you say these people have no concept of efficiency or time management? I'm sure many of them get laid often, and could probably drink most of the people here under the table. I also wouldn't assume that every last one of them had no interest in any cultural or intellectual.

Is a college education important? For certain disciplines, it's absolutely necessary. Must we spend resources to "ensure" that 90 percent of the population obtains a college degree? I say no.

Geez, Gonch... why are you turning conversation into absolutes? That doesn't seem like you.

Gonch said:
To me the idea that one couldn't is laughable...and a little scary.

I never said one couldn't. In fact, the very next sentence that you cut off in your choice of quotes was:

Some may be able to do it. Across the masses, however, it's just not plausible.

So without formal learning, growth is not possible? Yikes.

I don't even know how to argue that. Seriously. We're on two so different planes of thought that I can't even find a way to try to make comparisons.

Maybe if I had gone to college, huh? ;)

Again, I didn't say growth wasn't possible without formal learning. I said the average person would not do it. I didn't say they couldn't. I didn't say everyone. I said the average person.

Most people are average. (or worse)

I think that's a fair assumption.

We're talking the vast majority here when we say "average" - correct?

Yes.

Then let me rephrase:

"To me the idea that most people couldn't is laughable...and a little scary."

and

"So, for a majority people, without formal learning, growth is not possible? Yikes."

---

I really don't feel the traditional college experience* is necessary for people to achieve what needs to be achieved by this country and the world - except for the fact that somehow over time, the system has dictated that it is.

*I use 'traditional college experience' to mean what Jeff talks about. And even if one assumed it is necessary, then that just means anyone who got a degree in a fashion other than that has a degree without the benefits - essentially the golden ticket I keep talking about. Something just isn't adding up for me.

That's probably because there are so many separate conversations going on at the same time. And people are highlighting what they think is most special about a 4-year education.

But putting all of that aside, do you think that high school graduates have what it takes to achieve what needs to be achieved by our country and the world? I just don't see that.

Because I am saying that higher education as a concept is not just a 4-year college experience. And whatever someone chooses to do, I believe that beyond the exceptions that exist, people need to choose something. Trade/vocations, certifications, associate degrees, whatever. They need to find what fits them and learn how to roll with it.

Let me suggest a benefit of college that isn't often talked about.

One of the things you get by attending colege (though current students will no doubt disagree) is *time*.

If you spend the $22k, you get a place to stay, three squares a day, and about 20 hours per week of formal instruction. During that time you are obligated to spend less time in the classroom than at any other time in your academic career. But you live (even if you commute as I did) in an academic environment. You literally live in an environment where you are expected, challenged, encouraged, and able to spend the majority of your waking hours engaged in intellectual development. It's a chance to learn how to learn, and it's a chance to study anything you want.

How can you possibly have an opportunity to do that if you're working a 60-hour week for pitiful wages? In college, when you pay that ridiculous fee, you're paying for a largely inclusive experience, even subsidized so that you can afford to spend that time *not* working a 60-hour week at minimum wage. If you aren't in school, you don't get the time and you don't get the subsidy. You go to work to survive. On average you don't get that intellectual development, not because you don't want it, not because you don't get the formal classroom experience, but because you simply don't have the time for it.

And in this area, I am certain that Gonch is an exception to the rule.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Carrie M. said:
That's probably because there are so many separate conversations going on at the same time. And people are highlighting what they think is most special about a 4-year education.

Exactly...and we'll be going off in another direction on this, I'm sure. :)

But putting all of that aside, do you think that high school graduates have what it takes to achieve what needs to be achieved by our country and the world? I just don't see that.

Me either, but only because (and here it goes full circle) the basic education system is broken on some level. I believe that a high school graduate could easily have what it takes under different circumstances. (and still can - but it's the exception, not the average)

And college could go back to being an exceptional thing for exceptional people rather than something necessary to make it in the world today. The basic education requirements to be productive and successful used to be 12 years. Now it seems it's 14-16...at least.

Under those rules (success without college is much harder), haven't we just done what this thread started talking about - keeping people in the education system longer. Maybe if the first 12 weren't broken, the other 4 wouldn't be necessary. The idea of the college 4 being necessary seems just as broken to me.

Technically the longer people are being educated, the less time they're being productive, right?

So where are the long term boundaries? Where does it end. Sure you can argue that it's a different world now than it was 100 years ago and that 12 years of education just doesn't cut it anymore, but what happens in another 50 or 100? Suddenly we need 4 more years. And then what happens after that?

Arrrrgh! :)

RideMan said:
Let me suggest a benefit of college that isn't often talked about.

One of the things you get by attending colege (though current students will no doubt disagree) is *time*.

You literally live in an environment where you are expected, challenged, encouraged, and able to spend the majority of your waking hours engaged in intellectual development. It's a chance to learn how to learn, and it's a chance to study anything you want.

This goes back to what I was saying in response to Carrie, but I think the time for those things was the first 18 years of your life.

Well, at least for the first time I am starting to understand your point of view. That's something, right? :)

Would a revamp of the 12 years of public education be enough? I don't know. Could we be thinking a lot differently by making years 13 and 14 (at least) a public (read: free) endeavor? I don't know. But I am starting to see how things might be different than how they are now.

There is still something, though, that I don't think we can "get around." And that's the supply and demand aspect. So long as there are people willing to invest (at any cost it seems) in extending their education to 14 and 16 years, that bar is going to be raised. The more people who do it, the more it becomes the standard. That's just the way it is.

Not unlike Wal-Mart shoppers, eh? Or q-bot users for that matter? ;)

In the past 24 hours, here is a sampling of some things that have been said about college:

What you study in college doesn't matter. College is real world pretend. Having to work to meet deadlines and playing nice with others. Place to grow and make mistakes. Place to learn responsibility, accountability and ability to think critically.

For a long period of time, the vast majority of people learned to do all of those things without going to college. So again, what has changed? And what does the internet, fuel injectors or robot assembled consumer projects have to do with it? Life is different now than it was 50-100 years ago. In some ways its easier and in others its more difficult. On balance, I think its easier now than it was back then. But the fact that there are differences doesn't itself explain the change with respect to college.

It may be the case that our K-12 education needs a lot of work. Though in an article linked several pages back, 80% of parents believed that their own kids schools were either excellent or good. Maybe they just have low expectations. And in the end, I think parents are in many ways a big part of the problem. My parents taught me the importance of deadlines, the importance of knowing how to play nice with others and to think critically and independently, accountability and responsibility before I left home for college. I hadn't truly grown up at that point so I didn't always follow through with those things though. In reality, I didn't truly grow up until I had kids but that was almost 10 years after I graduated college.

And going back to what I said many pages back, I think there is a lot of value in post-secondary education. But at this point, I think we are selling 4 year college to too many kids who would be better served with other options like vocational training or community colleges.

Carrie M. said:
There is still something, though, that I don't think we can "get around." And that's the supply and demand aspect. So long as there are people willing to invest (at any cost it seems) in extending their education to 14 and 16 years, that bar is going to be raised.

Indeed.

But another part of it for me is that I'm not sure you're extending your education in a useful or meaningful (not really finding the right word here) way.

I mean that in the sense of how Jeff (and others) view it as more of a 'life training' thing and that it's not about which degree you got, but rather that you had the experience in the first place.

I'm not sure I buy that. In fact, I'm kind of sure I don't. :)

Say there's a job availbale for X (it doesn't matter what X is - it's an available position at MegaCorp), and three applicants show up:

1. Has a 4 year degree for Y (not X)
2. Spent four years in the military with no X experience
3. Has a high school diploma and fours years of work experience, but not doing X

Three very different life paths. How is one choice better than the others based solely on education? It's still going to take a certain amount of time to get any of those people working in that position as X.

And I don't believe the degree is even close to a valid indicator - if anything I see it as a hinderance. You spent 4 year playing grown up and studying something entirely unreleated. At least the other two applicants already have grown up experience.

Just my twisted view, of course. :)

Now if you add a fourth applicant who went to school (college, vocational school, whatever) and achieved a degree and/or formal training in X - then sure it makes perfect sense.

Hell, even if you had someone who dropped out of high school and has 6 years experience working with X - then sure that makes more sense to me than picking the person with the degree in Y just because it's a degree.

I guess I feel that if you aren't studying and then later practicing a certain thing (like X) - how are you more valuable as an asset than someone who did something else with that time to a person who is looking to fill a position as X?

I get the idea of bettering yourself as a person and all of that, but in the end, it still doesn't guarantee you to be a better fit for X.

Is that making sense in some capacity? It's one of those times I feel like I'm unable to convey my thoughts correctly. I feel like I need to say more, but I also feel like I need someone to say something here in order to expound any further.

LG -- I agree with much of what you are saying. College diploma itself doesn't mean that much in terms of sucess but as noted, its required often to get in the door. To the extent its viewed as some type of benchmark of ability to understand/learn even if not in the particular field/skill needed for the job. But in many cases employers pick the degreed candidate simply because they can. One of the things that I have seen over the past 5 years or so is more and more college grads who come without many of the life skills supposedly learned in college (ie, that a deadline isn't an estimate). And overall, there is less willingness to work hard. Maybe just a sign of the generation.

Lord Gonchar said:
Yeah, but are you saying it's not possible to do that job unless you go to college? Obviously it's possible - you spend the time to learn the job - voila!

What employer is going to spend the time and money to teach you ~40 credit-hours of instruction (approximate in-major course load), plus give you the time for the studying (which likely exceeds the instruction by at least a factor of two)? And that's me making the assumption that undergrad is enough for the job. The mechanical engineers I know also went on to get a masters.

Lord Gonchar said:
So without formal learning,growth is not possible? Yikes.

Did you learn that fire burns because you got burned or because someone told you?

RatherGoodBear said:
So the only place to experience roommates, sex, clubs and alcohol is a 4-year accredited college or university? And one must pay in excess of 20K per year for that experience? I'm not convinced that puking into a dormitory toilet makes a person more well-rounded than someone who pukes into their own porcelain altar.

Don't you think you're taking that a little out of context? That's one part of it, the academic part is the other. What makes these experiences particularly intense is that it's 24/7. At no time in my post-college life have I been in the thick of things at that level. And as I mentioned before, the risk of failure is a lot lower too. In college, you do some community service when your RA catches you. In the real world, you go to jail for underage consumption.

RatherGoodBear said:
Building trades, heavy construction, auto maintenance, culinary, land surveying, medical technology-- these are a few examples of fields where a person could make a decent living without the benefit of a traditional 4-year university education. Granted, they require training and some proficiency to practice. But is a 120 credit college education necessary for an electrician or chef? Would you say these people have no concept of efficiency or time management?

As Brian mentioned earlier, those various trades are shrinking fields. Any electrician or chef, if they desire to run their own business at some point, sure would benefit from a BS in business administration, and I know of one chef at least that has an MBA.

Lord Gonchar said:
I really don't feel the traditional college experience* is necessary for people to achieve what needs to be achieved by this country and the world - except for the fact that somehow over time, the system has dictated that it is.

I don't want to pull this card, but I don't see how I can't.You'd feel differently if you did it. I certainly can't predict an alternate universe where I didn't go, but so much of who and what I am today was shaped by those four years, in and outside of the classroom. Given the major life changes I'm going through right now, I've been ridiculously reflective about this, and I feel more strongly about it than ever. I would not have had the opportunities or skills to make this leap today were it not for school, and I doubt I'm some fringe case in that respect.

GoBucks89 said:
For a long period of time, the vast majority of people learned to do all of those things without going to college. So again, what has changed? And what does the internet, fuel injectors or robot assembled consumer projects have to do with it? Life is different now than it was 50-100 years ago. In some ways its easier and in others its more difficult. On balance, I think its easier now than it was back then. But the fact that there are differences doesn't itself explain the change with respect to college.

Is there an echo in here? You half answered your own question, then reverted back to mystery. A caveman can operate a wheel (and apparently get auto insurance from Geico), but he sure as hell can't write software, grow a business, invent complex new things or cure cancer. Sure, you get the occasional genius caveman, but they're rare. The different world requires a hell of a lot more education to contribute in.

I guess in some ways you've shown an ability to be trained in a variety of areas (general ed) and an ability to specialize in an area (upper-class concentration/major). Given that a high-school diploma means little more than being able to get a ride to school everyday (responsibility on the part of your parents?), I think there is some validity to the idea of having a degree if the position requires some level of thought more involved than that shown by the experience of 4 years' worth of assembling widgets. Then again, if the job opening you have is for a widget-assembler, then there ya go... ;)

Jeff said:
What employer is going to spend the time and money to teach you ~40 credit-hours of instruction (approximate in-major course load), plus give you the time for the studying (which likely exceeds the instruction by at least a factor of two)? And that's me making the assumption that undergrad is enough for the job. The mechanical engineers I know also went on to get a masters.

I dunno. But if you have an unrelated degree (which you keep saying most people do - and that's fine) then they're going to have to anyway.

I mean that less specifically and more in general - more in the context that the conversation I pulled that bit from was going. The idea that study in general (not specific study on a particular subject) is the benefit of college.

Unless you went to college specifically to be a mechanical engineer (in this case) then you're learning on the job. And if you did go for that then it flies in the face of everything you've been saying and college is indeed a vocational pursuit.

Did you learn that fire burns because you got burned or because someone told you?

Both.

But actually getting burned stuck with me in a much better way.

I don't want to pull this card, but I don't see how I can't.You'd feel differently if you did it.

Heh. I was trying to avoid pulling it myself. But, hey, you started it...

You'd feel differently if you didn't. :)

Oddly enough, I feel those four years were among some of the most formative of my life as well and pretty much everything you think it did for you, I feel getting out in the 'real world' did for me.

Perhaps it's not that you do something specific with that time, it's just that time itself that's important in life?

Gonch said:

Oddlyenough, I feel those four years were among some of the most formativeof my life as well and pretty much everything you think it did for you,I feel getting out in the 'real world' did for me.

Maybe thats where im stuck then.. Mostly because Jeff is saying the exact same thing. So really what is this debatable about? We established both methods work. The "college team" (CBU--- YAY TEAM!) in this thread never said not going is impractical, however your debate is college is/can be.

Also, why isnt going to college considered the 'real world'. You make it sound like a trip to Disney for 5 years. Was far from Disney for me.

I had to learn to manage time, avoid temptations that could have been detrimental, be here at x time, then haul across the quad and be there at y time, and of course the most difficult one, know when I had to bunker down and study and not chase college Carrie's ;) All this and study something that I applied to an amazing career.

Also I keep seeing this perception that all jobs request you go to college. I mentioned a page before (that perhaps I wasnt clear enough and got glazed over), that if you look at some jobs nowadays, especially in the tech industry which is one of the higher paid industries, you will see options of Degree vs Experience in field.

I just recently got promoted in my organization, and had the ability to sit in an interview to get my feet wet for one of my future responsibilities. We actually had both sides of the spectrum and guess what? The real world won in this case. He will now be among a few others with college degrees (all in the field they studied). So there is my personal proof its possible you can do it with or without the degree. Just depends on how you spent your time.

You can have a college kid who skated through his years but come off like a loser in an interview and be passed up. Or you can have someone after high school, who didnt try to intern or work in a field he/she desired for the experience and just sat home watching pro wrestling, and also be passed up.

I dont think this invalidates either path. Its the person who determines the best path and how they are going to apply it.

Now as far as the different degree vs actual job. I wouldnt mind seeing some raw statistics on that. In my industry, for those who do carry degrees, all those I interact with (which is in the hundreds), all have degrees which are parallel to their career. Lets be honest. Have you flipped through a undergrad catalog recently? The degrees out there are hard to match exactly with all industries. You sometimes have to search for something that close and helpful.

My wife didnt major in Amusement park environmental and safety, it just wasnt in her college catalog. Shes chose to be an environmental engineer major. But using that and her experience she can do that for amusement parks.

I guess I am having a hard time understanding this section of the thread and what is being pointed out. Is the problem:

College vs No College; is one more useful than the other? My answer is depends on both sides. Ive seen both work. Ive seen both waste someones time.

Like I said earlier.. I think the only debatable part is cost and how its become difficult to afford for some. But that doesnt invalidate the practicality by any means.

Jeff said:

GoBucks89 said:
For a long period of time, the vast majority of people learned to do all of those things without going to college. So again, what has changed? And what does the internet, fuel injectors or robot assembled consumer projects have to do with it? Life is different now than it was 50-100 years ago. In some ways its easier and in others its more difficult. On balance, I think its easier now than it was back then. But the fact that there are differences doesn't itself explain the change with respect to college.

Is there an echo in here? You half answered your own question, then reverted back to mystery. A caveman can operate a wheel (and apparently get auto insurance from Geico), but he sure as hell can't write software, grow a business, invent complex new things or cure cancer. Sure, you get the occasional genius caveman, but they're rare. The different world requires a hell of a lot more education to contribute in.

I didn't answer my own question halfway or otherwise. But neither have you. No explanation for why folks today need to go to college to learn accountability, responsibility, how to think, the importance of deadlines and how to get along with other people. And people have been growing businesses and inventing complex new things for hundreds of years (and continue to do so today) without ever stepping one foot on a college campus. And writing software points toward the vocational aspect of college which you insist isn't there. And no one has cured cancer yet. And I am pretty sure that there are not but a very small handful of folks posting here (myself not included in that small list) who are doing anything even approaching the importance/complexity of curing cancer.

No, the explanation is something I gave you twice, and I suppose you're just unwilling to hear it.

Lord Gonchar said:
I dunno. But if you have anunrelated degree (which you keep saying most people do - and that'sfine) then they're going to have to anyway.

Perhaps we need to make a distinction then. There are some fields that you need to specifically study. Engineering would be one of them. Then again, my business card will say "software engineer" (which I admit seems a little pretentious, as I wouldn't consider what I do even a little close to the same level as what mechanical engineers do). That I didn't study computer science doesn't matter. That I learned how to study and think critically does, and that's something you get out of a good liberal arts education. And also going back to my experience, it's something that the self-taught non-graduates I've worked with aren't good at.