I think it was only **Airman ** who advocated that. As much as I disagree with his thesis, I think there is a lot to be said about blending work and school more than we do in our current system. I imagine a better system would be one where a person starts to add real-world work to schooling in their teenage years instead of the stark cut-off where you go to school 100% of the time, then suddenly start working 100% of the time.
And no need to end education just because you have “graduated”, at whatever level.
Socially, I think we are at something of a midpoint. We have only recently started generations where it is EXPECTED that a student go K-12, much less college. The old days where school was something nice before you got to working age, I think, will come again in a sense, in that school will be redefined. For example, more schools are integrating computer use as mandatory classes. This can be (and in many cases outright is) considered vocational training for many fields.
Clever. Really clever. So, why did you feel the need to insult me? Is it an itch that you absolutely had to scratch? Anyway, knowing about art and literature hasn’t helped me one bit. The way I see it is first and foremost you find a way to make a living. After that, well, the world’s your oyster. Learn the history of wines. Learn the etymology of the word syzygy. Whatever. But none of that makes a difference if you can’t survive. And the “well-rounded” model of high school doesn’t teach survival.
As I’ve been known to say about defense - what is the point of defense if there is no culture to defend?
I agree that knowing about art and literature does not aid in survival. A Harvard professor dropped in the middle of the woods probably has less chance at survival than an African bushman. However, he would probably write a very nice poem before he died, instead of just eating grubworms.
Just for the record: I would disagree with the statement if it read only function instead of prime function.
School teaches you how to “learn how to learn”. This is important because most people will switch carrers many times, and many important future careers don’t even exist now. The workforce (through capitalism) is perfectly capable of training workers. A good example of this is all of the computer training schools that popped up to fill the void of tech workers during the 90’s. However, you need an educated population that knows how to learn as a foundation for this to work.
Good golly, you’ve actually got a nice background for this discussion. Are you thinking, then, that “vocational schools” are equipping kids to find jobs where normal high schools don’t? Or that trade schools like ITT Tech train guys to find jobs better than your local state college? I agree that these places teach skills that are more direct, but I’m a bit more ambivalent about the other schools not equipping people to work. The ITT graduate would likely not find the same work that a state college graduate would–why should their education be similar?
Yes, a vocational school actually teaches a student the skills that are directly applicable to a given field. It’s much easier to find decent employment when you’ve got marketable skills.
College is a bit different then high school and it might be a bit unfair to compare the two. Most everyone goes to high school but a lot of people never go to college. Those who do go to college have at least some vague idea of what they want to do post graduation and they take courses consistant with that goal. At the very least that little piece of paper you get upon graduation may help you make a bit more money at whatever job you can find. Personally I think a lot of jobs that require college degrees don’t really require them at all. I’ve held positions that required a degree but they didn’t care what the degree was in.
The prime function of school is to educate. Education has multiple functions, including preparation for employment and preparation for being an informed and productive citizen (understanding enough about history, science, critical thought, etc, to make intelligent choices and contributions as members of a society, of a particular culture that is part of a world of cultures transforming each other rapidly).
A narrow focus on a particular vocation may not adquately educate for the employment function - as has been pointed out already, this world is changing so quickly that an individual trained only for a particular niche may find themselves poorly equipped to adapt to new marketplace demands. And it ignores the requirement of education to prepare for the needs of society to have an informed intelligent citizenry able to participate actively in the business of society beyond employment.
Of the two main functions of education, I would posit that producing an informed citizenry is the main business of publically funded schools as it is the greater societal interest. Society has a just interest in making sure that its citizens have enough shared culture and smarts to allow for society to function smoothly. It has an interest in having its citizens be productive in a broad sense for the creative mixing of ideas of all sorts provides the raw material for a society to thrive in a changing world. Society has a lesser interest in assuring that an individual is as gainfullly employed as possible.
I agree that it is directly applicable, but I don’t agree that this means that schools aren’t equipping people for work, either.
Oh, I wasn’t, I was trying to compare post-secondary vocational training (associate degrees or certificates) with “traditional” college training.
Heh, this is why, originally, I asked what your basis for comparison was. Part of having a degree is showing that you are able to work independently, be organized, etc., which are skills that broadly apply to work, not specifically (as in vocational schools). Traditionally, “Field Service Engineer” requires a bachelor’s degree, though quite honestly it doesn’t need that at all in the long run. In the short run, though, a person with a bachelor’s degree is much more capable of getting themselves into the work, learning quickly, etc., even though the situations aren’t particularly familiar. Someone above mentioned “learning how to learn”; I think, in general, that is what a traditional college education provides (though I also think that standard is slipping). While they are not pre-trained for any particular job, they would likely excel at a great number of them, given the proper opportunity. You see what I mean?
I don’t know what society you live in, but the two qualities you’ve outlined there are, in my world, pretty closely linked. I cannot quite imagine being a productive member of society without also having a job. This doesn’t mean I think people are defined by their work, of course, in fact I hate the thought of it, but I do believe that in order to be a part of this society, you, well, have to be a part of this society. Excepting lottery winners, or others gifted by windfall, I don’t see a way to seperate the two.
DSeid, I didn’t intend for that to sound biting. I believe it is quite likely we travel in different circles, and so I am genuinely interested in hearing your perspective. (The “we live in different” world comment is too often used as an offhanded way of saying the other person is crazy!)
No offense taken erl. Let me clarify. I am focusing on publically funded education here and what its objective justly is.
Yes, it is a just societal interest that a member not be a drain on its resources. Education to some level of employment is a just societal objective. But that includes any level of employment, from flipping burgers or tightening wingnuts, to top level CEO. Pulling your own weight doesn’t require that much education. Society’s interest in this regard is easily satisfied. How much more you do beyond that is an individual interest more than a public one.
OTOH society has an interest in a culturally literate populus. A society that can fuction with enough cohesion that its component differences can be brought to maximal benefit to the group as a whole. Having individuals who can be active participants in the process is a just public interest. In a diverse and democratic society such as America this cultural literacy and intellectual compentency is even more important. (I have a vested interest in having my fellow citizens informed and intelligent enough that they are unlikely to vote for Bush again, for example :), and I want all of our society’s members to be able to unite under the same flag no matter how different our backgrounds may be.)
Now privately funded education is a different matter. There my own interest in gainful employment and in intellectual/artistic edification/satisfaction are for me to decide upon. I place my money on a broad liberal arts education as preperation for both and am willing to pay for such for my children at the college level and maybe even beyond. I believe that the future belongs to those who are able to handle and trade in ideas of all sorts. VoTech will not give them the skills to be at the top of such a world. But anyone who feels otherwise is entitled to pay for their choice as well.
The purpose of schools are for kids to develop rational thinking skills which will serve them purpose in life in general, not just a job. It’s also about teaching kids how the world in which they live in works. Knowlege is a valuable thing that kids today take for granted- people in the Middle Ages for example, were quite in the dark about a lot of things. Education today tries to prevent this.
School does help equip kids to find jobs, but it is certainly not on the top of the list.
The purpose of school is not only education, but indoctrination into a society. Teaching kids to work with others, accept rules, discipline etc… are all part of what being in school is all about. Well and learning to play kickball, I mean ya gotta learn that somwhere!
I disagree for most of the reasons already stated: that school prepares you for life by teaching you the fundamentals of getting along in our society, how to reason, and how to communicate effectively.
The only thing that kept me from checking “strongly disagree” was that I wasn’t sure what level of schooling was specified, and education does get more vocation focused should you go further up the ladder and puruse advanced degrees. Things like law and medical school had better be job related (though I admit there’s still a lot of on the job training even in those professions).
As for myself, I’m in marketing. In my job, I do use skills I got with my MBA (though mostly the statistical and reasoning type skills–most of the job specific stuff is long outdated). I use some of the specific information I learned in undergrad (economics major), but I have colleagues whose undergraduate degrees are in completely unrelated fields (French lit, biology, etc.). They do just fine.
However, in my life, I really value the art, literature, and history electives I took. They make life so much more enjoyable. I really wish I’d paid a lot more attention in those classes and hadn’t dismissed them as “not valuable to my future career.”
So I would say education through high school should be only minimally job related. College maybe 60%/40% general education/job skills with post high school vocational training available for those who wish to pursue it. Post graduate work would be job related.