Take3

At least these students have the option of obtaining vocational training.

Conversely, a student who is tracked into vocational classes for the wrong reasons doesn't have a feasible way to obtain the skills they need to prepare for college.

A student who takes a college-prep curriculum can go to college or go into a vocational field. A student who does not has major barriers to ever attending college. As such, by tracking students into a vocational curriculum in which they fail to obtain a college-prep education, these students' future career options are significantly limited.

The fact that some people will fail to pursue education and training which is available to them hardly seems like adequate justification for doing so.

kayf

Take 3, yes they have the option, but only if they want to go to school past HS. The regents program is so time consuming for the average or slightly below average student, it will not allow trade courses. So that student will have to go to school AFTER HS to learn a trade. Why is it OK by you for a student to have to go post HS to learn a trade, but not complete college prep?

BCEagle91

What do you do with kids in high school with only elementary school skills?

kfc555

"but as people grow older and start having families, this becomes more and more difficult. It’s far easier to complete college at a younger age, especially when the knowledge from high school is still fresh."

As a 30 something year old going through college, I really disagree.

There is not much of value a high school kid takes into college, but there is much value an older person can contribute.

High schoolers have little to no experience in anything other than just going to school, most never even had to support themselves. Whiel obtaining my degree in political science, it was humorous to hear the opinions of some of these students about issues, and I really loved their analysis of subjects they never had to experience directly (like medical insurance for family), or their opinions about places they have never been or was just a little kid when an event happened, like the 9/11 attacks.

Maybe I missed something, but it appears this thread seems to be aimed at high schoolers only, has it not occured to people that maybe someone who did not want to go to college after high school may want to go a few years later? The remedial courses would be essential for them to do so, if the college requires some sort of prerequisite for attending college that is.

For example, I recieved my GED years ago, went into the military, then started college. I had to take a placement test for reading a math. I did fine in the reading, but not the math (even though I was an electronic technician for 12 years, I never needed algebra or any other college type math course). So I had to take one remedial math course in order to satisfy the prerequisite for enrolling in a college level course.

Take3

That's actually not my concern. My concern is that it's unclear where someone would go to relearn the material from the college-prep high school coursework which never happened in the first place. It's not as if a 25-year-old who decides to go to college after not having taken college-prep courses can just go enroll in their neighborhood high school. And colleges cannot be expected to offer enough developmental courses to make up for multiple missed years of the college-prep curriculum.

kayf

That's actually not my concern. - yes, but it is mine.

thinker88

I disagree. In my opinion, college should be reserved for those actually able to take their learning to the next level. A score near 500 represents a student who is only capable of high school level work. By excluding these average students we are left with the above average and the exceptional. These are the people who are going to have the most influence on the world after college anyway.

Saying that that excluding the average is wrong is kind of like saying that people with IQs around 100 (the average) are not as intelligent as people with higher IQs (an I know there will be at least one person saying that IQ tests are wildly flawed). It might seem mean, but the truth can sometimes hurt a little.

kfc555

Colleges, at least public ones, should be reserved for anyone who pays taxes. I be damned if my tax money should go towards an institution that I, or anyone else, cannot be a part of.

SOme of you are so hyped up on SAT scores that it is almost scary. SAT scores are in no way a predictor of how well someone does in college, to the point they do not even ask for them after age 21 at many universities. The SAT may be fien for seeing who gets a full ride and who gets into private universities, but a publically funded institution should be in no way setting these false barriers to education for anyone.

I think people on the SAT kick are afraid that by enrolling people who have not taken the SAT or have done poorly at it, will excel in college and make the SAT look even more useless. Lord forbid their "snowflake" sit beside some dirty kid who, gasp! never took the SAT.

How about this, remove all the barriers for college and just let everyone enroll who does. If they pass, then fine, if not, then flunk them out, I think it is really simple.

As far as the college prep classes, I think they are useless. College level classes teach the subject fine, I do not see the need for some special prerequisite classes to take beginning college level classes. The learning curve is quick and the classes, especially math, have little to do with one another.

BCEagle91

"How about this, remove all the barriers for college and just let everyone enroll who does. If they pass, then fine, if not, then flunk them out, I think it is really simple."

Public colleges and universities receive a public subsidy and state funds are limited as we are finding out. The result will be rationing in many states. If one cannot pass college level courses, then there is a waste of time for the student and the waste of public monies.

"As far as the college prep classes, I think they are useless. College level classes teach the subject fine, I do not see the need for some special prerequisite classes to take beginning college level classes. The learning curve is quick and the classes, especially math, have little to do with one another."

I'd suggest taking a look at the rates of kids in engineering and science schools that flunk out or withdraw from weeders.

kayf

Not just engineering, BC. Physchology. At my Ds school, Statatics/Data Base required for PolySi. In additon to general requriements. This idea that everyone can do everything is just not true. We want to defer the date that kids are tracked, but not indefinitely. Otherwise the non-college kids end up with nothing.

kfc555

I agree not everyone can do everything and I think it is ridiculous for society to push everyone in the direction of college.

But to not give anyone any chance again after high school is a bit ridiculous as well, especially to people who have been paying taxes into the system for years and years.

There are many high schools that are just broke, I came from a high school that had a 35% drop rate at the time, now fixed thankfully. But for some reason I am suppose to be held accountable for the rest of my life because one time, when I was young, I did not put the extra effort in?

No, not everyone can do everything, but people can do somethings. While the example of statistics given is fine, that is just one example, someone that excelled in statistics may not be able to write a 12 page essay over Germany's health care system using 15 references, that does not mean that person would not kick ass in engineering.

I happen to be horrible at math, though I made nothing but A's in my required math courses, but anything higher would just have been a downhill slope. I graduated summa cum laude in political science and now am on my way to law school, and yes, I dropped out of high school and got my GED a couple of years later, that does not mean I am stupid or a bad student. I took a remedial math course in college, without the math course, they would not have allowed me to enroll in the needed college level courses. Remove that requirement, then fine, do away with the remedial courses, but until then, there still must be a gateway for people to start college.

Take3

The underlying problem is that some people would like to attend college but are missing pieces of the college-prep foundation they need to succeed there. There are numerous reasons why this might happen:

* Some high schools simply fail to adequately teach the college-prep curriculum to anyone. This is beyond the student's control.

* Some students drop out of high school. This can happen for many reasons, not all of which are entirely within the student's control. I know someone who dropped out partly because she was ostracised by her peers. Her high school was conformist and predominantly upper-middle class, and she wasn't tolerated. I even know someone who dropped out of an inner-city high school because she was beaten up on a daily basis. Someone could also drop out because they need to work full-time to support themselves or their family.

* Some students are tracked into vocational courses, sometimes for the wrong reasons. Someone else I know repeatedly talks about how he only got a ninth grade education because he was tracked into shop courses. Such students may subsequently decide to attend college.

There needs to be a way for these people to learn the parts of the college-prep curriculum that they missed out on. Otherwise, they are far less likely to succeed in college. Developmental classes in colleges are useful in that they can help fill these gaps. Other formats are possible. But there needs to be some program enabling people to learn the college-prep curriculum as adults so that they can succeed in college. Otherwise, large numbers of people will be excluded from college, the intellectual benefits it offers and the careers it enables.

Even if it were possible to improve all high schools nationwide so that all students receive an adequate college-prep education, this doesn't retroactively solve the deficiencies of students who already went through the school system. Thus, some way for adults to learn the college-prep curriculum is likely to be needed for the foreseeable future.

thinker88

I disagree. SATs may not be a perfect predictor of success (i.e. direct correlation) because of other factors such as work ethic, but they are able to determine whether or not a student is ready for college. A 500 on the SAT signifies that a student is not ready. While it may not be his or her fault, it shouldn't be the taxpayers job to re-educate them. And in all honesty, for someone aspiring to get a college degree, getting a 500 average on the SAT should not be that hard. If we let people into the higher education system with any less it lessens the credibility of a college degree.

I know that it might not be hard science, but Malcolm Gladwell did address this issue in his book Outliers. He pointed out that studies showed that poorer students were not doing poorly in school because the school systems that they attended were inadequately preparing them, but instead that they were doing poorly because of what they were not learning outside of school. In other words, the culture surrounding education in poorer families is less conducive to learning and scholastic achievement.

toadstool

In praise of our local community college:

They offer a full slate of high school courses, taught a bit faster, for those who just missed out back in high school. Those courses don't count toward the higher level courses needed for an associate or to transfer to our flagship 4-year college nearby. There is a separate set of real "first two years in college" type classes. This has been a boon to those students got off track for all those reason gracefully described in post #42 above.

thinker88

I can agree with the community college "high school review" courses, but I think that taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill.