This is simply untrue. It might have been the case a century ago, but is certainly not the case anymore.
This is simply untrue. It might have been the case a century ago, but is certainly not the case anymore.
someone who can work 80 hours a week can do that in 10 months or less. especially if you're already an engineer and you're good, it's a breeze.
undergrad is dead simple, it's literally built for teenagers, it's not hard to get back on track.
I don't think it's necessarily bad that the education system tries to identify students which have low odds of making it in higher education, and offer them an alternative route that results in them having an in-demand skill and some work experience when they graduate at 18 years old.
I'm not at all convinced that an approach where students of all levels are kept in the same classroom is better for the weakest students. I imagine the experience of struggling (and often failing) to keep up every day must be exhausting and demotivating (and perhaps even humiliating). I also have never seem any evidence that such an arrangement is better for weak students in any metric (but I'm happy to change my mind of this if such evidence is provided).