If high school was better, would we need college?
dealbook.nytimes.com
dealbook.nytimes.com
The mandatory college experience has to be stopped or I fear the race to the bottom of higher education much like what has happened in the K-12 education.
Of course employers are using college as a filter now, "everybody" has a college education, which has driven the cost of labor low enough that they can afford to hire college graduates to answer phones.
Meanwhile, people leave school and, regardless of profession, find themselves doing largely the same thing: sitting in front of a computer in an office. The productivity of virtually every job in the country depends in part on the employee's ability to use a computer. But unless they picked computing as a class (and, hell, even then), they'll have absolutely no clue how to really use a computer to your advantage, ie. to program it.
My suggestion: teach maths (which is already a mandatory subject) using computers and scripting languages. Let students practice abstraction to make computation/calculation easier; and then get them to model tougher problems and tackle them. Pick these problems from the realm of economics and finance, thereby building knowledge of another domain simultaneously (the only reason I understand what 'hire purchase' is is because my textbooks used it for exercises).
By the time they leave school, these kids will be no strangers to writing macros. In their further education and in their desk jobs, this will prove enormously convenient. Single handedly it could boost the GDP by a % or two (ok, I just made that figure up, but having worked in offices you all must have seen how inefficient the workflows are, and how one whizkid can make a big difference). It would even be useful in totally different disciplines. For instance in the study of literature, textual analysis by computer can prove very useful - finding all the references to a certain thing or instances of a certain word often shows deep patterns in the text. On my literature course only one professor/lecturer was doing this (he said it was particularly useful for Dickens), but he was definitely one of best in the department.
But if it were, and voters and taxpayers actually entered adult life with a sound knowledge of economics, they would demand that the school system be radically restructured, which is why I don't think that this will happen.
"The education system is a formalised, bureaucratic organisational structure and, like any bureaucratic organisational structure, it strives for maximum autonomy from external pressures as its cardinal principle of survival. While ostensibly devoted to the education of children, teachers, school administrators and local education officers must nevertheless regard parents acting on behalf of children as a force to be kept at bay because parental pressures in effect threaten the autonomy of the educational system. . . . I would hold that the stupefying conservatism of the educational system and its utter disdain of non-professional opinion is such that nothing less than a radical shake-up of the financing mechanism will do much to promote parental power." -- Mark Blaug, "Education Vouchers--It All Depends on What You Mean," in Economics of Privatization, J. Le Grand & R. Robinson, ed. (1985)
After edit: Mark Blaug is quoted here in large part because years ago a public schoolteacher suggested that I read his writings on the economics of education. I discovered the quotation above back then. Blaug is one of the leading economists of education in the world, one of the founders of human capital theory, and an interesting example of an economist who has changed his ideological position over time as he gained more life experience and did more research.
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2009/05/07/the-remarkable-career-of...
Don't you think that's somewhat of an overstatement?
So, I'd say it's most certainly an overstatement. I'm not willing to exclude the large sections of the American workforce who still work in industrial production.
This is a huge problem too, the idea that college is needed.
Are you as good with code as you are in catering for thousands?
It's impossible to be an expert in multiple fields. Specialized further education is essential―otherwise, we'd all be have the same small, limited, "high school" set of skills.
When you develop a pill that can give every human all discovered knowledge, then there will be no need for further education.
I also disagree that you can't be an expert in multiple fields. People that love learning can advance to that status in several fields in a lifetime if they wish. Expertise is also somewhat relative and often quite limited.
I think a highly specialized society has great benefits for economies of scale and intense utilization of comparative advantage, but I also think a lot of people would be happier if they slowed down and had greater breadth. Physical work and tangible achievement through self reliance is phenomenally rewarding. Much freedom is gained in breadth of experience.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." --Robert A. Heinlein
however, college/university does typically take 4+ years, costs anywhere from USD$20-100k, and there's a lot involved other than actual learning. there are many ways in which we can improve upon it.
Every person is different.
Perhaps we still need college?
Deleted comment
It doesn't matter. Get over it.
I also downvoted you for contributing nothing to the discussion.
"Highschool" implies a lot more than just "that place you went to for the last 4 years of a 12 year education"; or perhaps more accurately: "college" implies a lot more than just "that place you went to after highschool".
I regret not doing this. I have talked to a couple people who have done it by taking community college classes part-time and transferring into state full-time.
I think the rest of the world's model is better than what we do. Separate those that will learn to work with their hands and those that will work with their mind and train them respectively in high-school.
Highly recommended in situations where it is at all possible, and it makes a ton of sense, since there is often so much overlap between the last two years of the one and the first year of so of the other.
The point is that the world really needs essentially everyone to have a baseline education, the ability to contribute to their communities, and the skills to be gainfully employed or self-employed.
The world has a much smaller need in the grand scheme of things for advancement in theoretical astrophysics. As hackers, engineers, etc. I think we should take a lesson for ourselves and optimize education for the common case.
"Success in These M.&A. Deals Appears on a Report Card"
The entire US education system, 1-12 through 4yr, is fucked.
Schooling is not designed to educate, it's designed to prepare people for factory work, military service, and obedience to authority via nationalism. Just like startups the whole system works much better when fueled by productivity and bootstrapping (working through school) rather than large capital injections (loans, parents, etc). If you go to school with a mind to be educated you can learn a lot, if you go to school with a mind to graduate you've mostly already lost.
However, I see no reason why we need 12 grades of school. In the European countries, they only have 10 and they seem to do alright. Add in two-years of some type of advanced English, Psychology and classes for a concentration of choice and students can be well-educated by age 18 to go into the workforce. It will require them to gain knowledge through searching and an auto-didactic method rather than being spoonfed, but if they don't learn that skill now, then when?
And then there's the need to make these programs all come out to exactly 2 or 4 years in length. I suspect there's a lot of padding going on.
Presumably "better colleges" would include, among other things, better and cheaper state schools.
Some people are ready for college level at 12, some won't be ready until they're 25.
[EDIT] To clarify, the sound bites I hear from politicians and university administrators are that our colleges and universities are the best in the world.
Personally, I do not agree. I could have written that better.
University reputations are built more around research than undergraduate or graduate education. The notion that the USA has the most reputable universities says more about the quality of research than education.
http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/12/amazing-truth-abou...
http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-well-do-above-...
It's ridiculously overpriced, but the value added is very good.
The first phrase makes the second less likely to be true.
On the basis of international comparisons, including comparisons with a country outside the United States I have lived in for two three-year stays, I don't think K-12 schooling in the United States offers good value added or good value for the price paid by taxpayers.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/48/37864432.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/12/46643496.pdf
After edit:
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG10-19_Hanushe...
Many of the comparisons of United States population subgroups to populations of other countries ignore the serious issue of underperformance of United States schools in serving students from the most advantaged subgroups. The least advantaged subgroups of United States students can't be used as an excuse for lousy performance of the whole national non-system when that non-system also underperforms for the children of college graduates and for children of "white" families and children in the wealthiest neighborhoods.
This makes no sense.
As for your links, they provide the same data my links provide, but with less granularity. Why do you feel it is proper to ignore the ethnicity data? Simply because this gives you a conclusion you want?
Value added = quality of students after education - quality of students before education.
The amount of money put in does not affect this.
Value for money = value added / money spent.
Performance metrics should always be stated/calculated to reflect efficiency.