Hard school- any disadvantage?

bluedevilmike
Sat, 03 Nov 2007 20:35:24 +0000

1.) First, you seem to be arguing that our high schools need to get their act together. Fine, whatever. I don’t think anybody supports worse high schools.

2.) Given that we have the HS system we have, though, it’s a little irrelevant to argue this.

3.) There’s still an age question. Even given the same background education, “tracking” an eighteen year old – as opposed to a 22 year old – might still cause a lot of difficulties when they end up in a path they don’t like. We have an eighteen year old in our medical school class, and I’m not sure how reliable I would find her in crunch time. Remember, 17 year olds are still living at home with their parents. You really want to track them straight out of home?

As painful as the deadweight losses are from premeds who can’t get into medical school, medical education is expensive. It’s a LOT worse when you have a medical student who drops out.

(Or when one takes 12 years to finish it.)

4.) Once again, you completely misunderstand what I mean. I **specifically **pointed out that it’s easier to jump tracks as a twenty-year old here in the States. You walk over to your registrar’s office, change your major from economics to computer science.

Obviously post-track jumps are always going to be difficult – like dropping out of medical school to try to become an engineer. But a system which tracks kids at an older age has the advantage of giving them a couple of halfway-independent years to explore and experiment.

Too, how does the non-science track work? If I wanted to drop out of medical school today and go to law school instead, there’s no extra coursework I need, because I graduated with a broad arts and sciences college education* and have all the foundation law schools ask for. I could similarly apply for a job on Wall Street, which – again – I could get, since I have the foundation they need.

5.) Congratulations on four posts in a row. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before.

And it’s presumptuous to post your own arguments and label them “a fair view” for “everyone.”

6.) Look, I readily concede that a broader system has dead-weight losses. Easily. And sakky’s certainly right that more open information would reduce this, and I’m all for that – not least because I think admissions processes in general need to be more transparent.

But you’re coming on here and arguing that the American system has zero advantage to it. That’s just not a reasonable position to take. In the sports world, you’d be referred to as a “homer”. It’s not a nice term.

(PS: Nothing is free. The only question is, who pays?)