Why is there a general anti-college attitude lately?

[twoforjoy]

I have not read through the entire thread yet, but I'll chime in.

 

I have an advanced degree that I am not using (by choice, as I'm choosing to SAH and HS). I am still paying off student loans (although mine are not astronomical, thankfully).

 

My DH has an doctoral degree in the sciences.

 

We both entertain the notion regularly that our children may be better off *financially* choosing a trade. That doesn't mean that I don't think college is worthwhile, or that I won't prepare my children for a rigorous college experience. But from a purely financial standpoint, they may do better in a trade than in many degreed professions.

 

However, with the current climate with respect to unions, even trades may not be as appealing from a financial standpoint in the future. On the up side, many trades can't be easily outsourced.

 

This describes us pretty much exactly.

 

I think part of the issue is that everybody wants their child to have a better, easier life. My DH's parents didn't go to college. They had to deal with my FIL being laid off for about a year after the factory he worked in closed, and my MIL having to take on low-paying retail jobs, and both of them doing work that was pretty physically demanding (and that caused, for my FIL, some physical problems). To them, my DH going to college would mean he never had to struggle like they did.

 

My DH and I are coming from a totally different place. I have an M.A. and he has a doctorate. We're struggling with a horrible job market, particularly for academics, wages that aren't enough to cover our student loans, and having invested a lot of time and money into degrees that don't seem to be providing us with a reasonable pay-off. So, for us, it often seems like having our children take a different route would spare them the struggles we've had.

[LibraryLover]

Then there should also be a presumption that this legal adult's parents are not on the dime to cover college tuition. That if the parents check a box indicating that they are not paying, the colleges will not factor parental income or assets into the student's ability to pay.

 

Yet what's to stop a family from claiming they do not help in any way, and then slipping the kid cash on the side?

[QueenieReighn]

Again, at some of the Ivies, anyone earning under $60,000 has no parental contribution and no loans. They do require work study from the student.

 

I, personally, don't consider a $60,000 income to be dirt poor. Many parents in our area earn less. The average income in our area is a bit less.

 

Those earning between $60,000 and $180,000 pay 10% or less of their income on the education (graduated scale) AND they'll divide the percentage by number of students in college (doesn't have to be theirs). Still no loans.

 

Having seen what I've seen of costs elsewhere, I'd say they are quite generous to those in lower income brackets. And, I'd have never considered $180,000 to BE a lower income bracket if you'd have asked me.

 

The kids I were working with had a parental income of below $30,000. That's what I was calling dirt poor. I never did check for other incomes since I wasn't working with kids with higher incomes. These kids were over the moon about the aid though (and so was I). :-D They really deserved something good in their life for a change.

[QueenieReighn]

I completely agree with this. I think it's wrong that parental income must be considered in giving out financial aid for people over 18. Parents shouldn't have to foot the bill for college if they don't want to, no matter how much money they have.

 

But, I think we should totally overhaul how college is paid for, anyway, and have a system that is much more publicly funded, like they do in much of the world.

 

I had big problems with my university about this. I was married with kids and they still insisted on having my parents information. It's so stupid.

[Rosie_0801]

I'm starting to wonder if it wouldn't be cheaper for some of you to pay international fees elsewhere. Surely not? :confused:

 

Rosie

[FaithManor]

Hi Rosie, you are not THAT far off! If dd changes her mind about med school, she may end attempt to get into the international physician program at Queensland. The tuition and living expenses are slightly less than med school here AND the program is shorter. It does qualify for US student loans because it's a joint program between the US, Britain, and Aussie. The residency is done in Louisiana and we know some people she could live with while there to further reduce her costs.

 

Even if we fly her back and forth to Aus. once per year, it still looks like her debt would be $75,000 - $100,000 less than the traditional U.S. med school program. But, if she doesn't apply and get all of the financial information, we'll never know for sure.

 

Faith

[creekland]

Those "free rides" that poor people supposedly get - are you all aware that taxes must be paid on anything that isn't for tuition and books?? Where is the college student with a family living on the poverty line and an EFC of 0 supposed to get hundreds of dollars to pay the taxes?

 

Taxes on the room and board + any stipend are taxed at the student's rate. Assuming no other income, the first $5700 (I think that's the current number) is untaxed and the rest would be at 10%. If they have $10,000 over the $5700 (not many will have that much over as room and board have always been less than $15700 at places we've looked at), then they got their education for $1000/year. To me, that's a bargain - probably less than the cost of their room and board at home for the same time period. My teens eat around $100/month at least. I'd take the "free ride" if it's at a suitable school for the student.

[asta]

I'm starting to wonder if it wouldn't be cheaper for some of you to pay international fees elsewhere. Surely not? :confused:

 

Rosie

 

Oh, it is WAY less expensive for our kid to go to school abroad than it is for him to go back in America! And this is with both parents being American citizens to boot.

 

The difficulty isn't the finances, or the entry or anything (they accept SATs instead of A-levels for US students) - the difficulty is in what you WANT out of uni. If, say, you want physics? Fine. But that's all you're getting, babe. Four years of physics, chemistry, and maths.

 

Now, for some people, that is just the cat's meow. But for others, people who want a broader array of coursework during uni (a history class here, a lit class there) - it wouldn't be a good fit. And it isn't like there is time to be studying extra stuff on one's own when in one of these programs.

 

So... there is good and bad.

 

:001_smile:

 

 

a

Edited July 2, 2011 by asta

[Rosie_0801]

The difficulty isn't the finances, or the entry or anything (they accept SATs instead of A-levels for US students) - the difficulty is in what you WANT out of uni. If, say, you want physics? Fine. But that's all you're getting, babe. Four years of physics, chemistry, and maths.

 

Now, for some people, that is just the cat's meow. But for others, people who want a broader array of coursework during uni (a history class here, a lit class there) - it wouldn't be a good fit.

 

An arts degree covers "a history class here, a lit class there" here. Or do you mean people doing science or something wanting to do the history or lit? That is also possible here, during first year, anyway. We have a lot of Asian students who come here; a buddy of mine came to avoid having to spend half her classes in a computers degree studying Vietnamese history.

 

And it isn't like there is time to be studying extra stuff on one's own when in one of these programs.

 

 

I dunno about that. But I don't suppose I'm qualified to say, seeing as though I was one of those lazy arts students. :tongue_smilie:

 

Rosie

[Ester Maria]

If, say, you want physics? Fine. But that's all you're getting, babe. Four years of physics, chemistry, and maths.

But that is the whole POINT. :001_smile: That universities are NOT, and should NOT be, prolonged high schools in which you study a mishmash of unrelated things with some kind of general focus and then leave specialization for (even more overpriced) graduate, if not doctorate levels.

However, even in most such specialized degrees you have a certain number of credits that you can do whatever you wish with them, whether within your field or outside of it - at least theoretically, as often the problem is in prerequisites (or in schedule / place), you cannot take any humanities class as many of them have prerequisites which you normally did not take if you pursued physics. But that is the whole point of university, if you go to study physics, you study physics extremely well, within a larger scientific context, and with the assumption that (i) you received an educational breadth in high school and (ii) you can take your interests outside of the institution at this level of education.

 

Time usually is there. STEM majors are having it a bit more difficult, but I do not know anyone who studied (or studies now) literally 24/7 without any kind of social life, without going to theatre and for a drink with friends every once in a while, and without any additional interest. Maybe they cannot dedicate as much time to it as they did in high school, which is normal because college is by definition a time in which you give up on other things a little to build your professional competence full time, but it is still possible to (reasonably) fit it all in. I do not think that your child will have problems, really - it may seem a bit daunting to people not accustomed to that system, but once you get accustomed, it is still normal and fine.

[asta]

I didn't say anything was wrong with it EM, just that most people not coming from that mindset wouldn't feel comfortable with it.

 

The "American College Experience" is, and pretty much always has been a core of liberal arts surrounded by an intense study of one particular topic. That is what has set it apart from the universities of England et al. It was *not* an "extension of high school" - that is a VERY recent occurrence.

 

The American high school system never has been anything like the lycee or gymnasium system, nor did it portend to be. It was set up under different circumstances, and had different results. There never was a guild system in America - the closest being the labor unions (with their apprenticeships), but even they only represented a small part of the economy as a whole, and did not rise to prominence until relatively "late in the game" so to speak in the economic formation of the nation.

 

Until the 1960s, after the GI bill sent returning WWII vets to college, most of America simply never went to college. The country operated off of high school educations. And they were considered very good, general educations.

 

When uni became more common, it was viewed as an opportunity to look at some of the expanse of what had been crammed into high school in greater depth, as well as to specialize in one particular area. The hard reality being that some subjects simply don't make much sense at 15, but do at 20.

 

It's wasn't a "rehash", and, in schools where everything hasn't gone to h3ll in a handbasket, it STILL isn't a rehash - it is diving deeper.

 

One can't compare US and EU or UK uni or high school systems as "better than" or "worse than" - they were set up along different lines, have progressed within different political and social situations, and serve different purposes and populations.

 

I would argue that a large part of why people are moving to classical homeschooling methods is to "get back to" the original high school methods of the US; a level of education that could be a terminal degree as far as "knowledge one needs to know to go forth into the world" is concerned. For those people, yes, a uni that is entirely specialized on a subject to the exclusion of all others could fit just fine. For others, it would probably feel right stifling.

 

 

a

Edited July 2, 2011 by asta
typo

[creekland]

When uni became more common, it was viewed as an opportunity to look at some of the expanse of what had been crammed into high school in greater depth, as well as to specialize in one particular area. The hard reality being that some subjects simply don't make much sense at 15, but do at 20.

 

It's wasn't a "rehash", and, in schools where everything hasn't gone to h3ll in a handbasket, it STILL isn't a rehash - it is diving deeper.

 

One can't compare US and EU or UK uni or high school systems as "better than" or "worse than" - they were set up along different lines, have progressed within different political and social situations, and serve different purposes and populations.

 

I would argue that a large part of why people are moving to classical homeschooling methods is to "get back to" the original high school methods of the US; a level of education that could be a terminal degree as far as "knowledge one needs to know to go forth into the world" is concerned. For those people, yes, a uni that is entirely specialized on a subject to the exclusion of all others could fit just fine. For others, it would probably feel right stifling.

 

 

a

 

Great post, Asta! :iagree:

 

For what it's worth, I prefer our broader set of studies to the trade school model, but fully respect everyone's right to choose for themselves. I'm finding myself preferring schools with a more open course requirement - letting students choose what they prefer. I'm perfectly ok with middle son needing a degree (any degree!) before med school. I think being a more highly educated doctor is worth it.

[stripe]

That's not my experience with immigrants, at all. I see virtually no interest in making people feel good about themselves or not learn English, or coming to school 5 days out of 100.

 

I am married to an immigrant who laughs at such nonsense. He's closer to the Tiger Mother view.

 

I see plenty of issues with Americans so I don't need to get into immigrant issues. But maybe that's because in some school districts there are virtually no white non-immigrants.

[twoforjoy]

That's not my experience with immigrants, at all. I see virtually no interest in making people feel good about themselves or not learn English, or coming to school 5 days out of 100..

 

Same here.

 

I'm also not seeing anti-college bias coming from the poor. At all. I work at an inner-city university. If anything, the poor are far more likely to buy into the myth that if you just go to college and work hard you'll get a good job and be set for life more than any other group. My first-generation college students are much, much less cynical about the value of an education than others, and certainly much less cynical than most people in their 20s and 30s I know who have been to college.

 

Nearly everybody I see questioning the value of a college education today is a college-educated person who has experienced first-hand the problems that come along with accruing debt in your late teens and early twenties to pay for an education that does not in any way ensure you'll get any job, much less one with decent pay.

[DarlaS]

The difficulty isn't the finances, or the entry or anything (they accept SATs instead of A-levels for US students) - the difficulty is in what you WANT out of uni. If, say, you want physics? Fine. But that's all you're getting, babe. Four years of physics, chemistry, and maths.

 

Now, for some people, that is just the cat's meow. But for others, people who want a broader array of coursework during uni (a history class here, a lit class there) - it wouldn't be a good fit. And it isn't like there is time to be studying extra stuff on one's own when in one of these programs.

 

 

My son would love that. LOVE it. He might be a bit of an oddball though. :D

 

I've poked and prodded him to get all his core classes out of the way over the last three semesters (He has political science left.) and he is happily looking forward to just taking the math & science classes needed for his math degree. Happily! (Woo hoo! Math! :w00t:)

 

Where did he come from? :lol:

[twoforjoy]

What I wonder is, what are students getting out of these core classes they don't want to be taking? Not much, in my experience as both a student and a teacher.

 

I retained nothing from the stats and science courses I took in college. I learned just enough to get a good grade, and promptly forgot it.

 

I teach writing classes, which for most college students are their least favorite class. And, I'm not sure how much my students who do not want to be there or do any writing are getting out of it. They take as many short cuts as possible. Some plagiarize. Would they be better off not being required to take a writing course, but instead, when they get into a situation in which the quality of their writing matters--a course in their field of interest that is writing-intensive, a job that requires writing--they could work on their writing because they were motivated to do so? I don't know, but I'm not sure they'd be any worse off.

[unsinkable]

This is tangential to the thread but reading the independant/dependant regs reminded me.

 

I had to provide copies of my parents' death certificates every.single.semester. I was in college. Because, you know, they might suddenly be UN-dead or something. And the college couldn't be repsonsible for keeping copies of that type of paperwork. :001_huh:

 

It was awful. :crying:

[DarlaS]

What I wonder is, what are students getting out of these core classes they don't want to be taking? Not much, in my experience as both a student and a teacher.

 

 

 

You mean like anything else we need to learn to do as adults? People do learn quite well on their own when the need or desire to do so arises. (It's kind of like unschooling. ;))

 

My dh received his degree in the mail yesterday. One of the last classes he had to take was a higher level English class with LOTS of writing (ethics & philosophy). All while working 12 hr days. He did get an A in the course, but that prof. was really demanding! He did this for a BS in Industrial Technology and Management.

 

If people cannot write well by the end of high school, they do not want to learn, and their job will not require it, what's the point?

 

Of course, this is from the perspective of a college/work "widow" of many years. Take it for what it's worth. :tongue_smilie:

[asta]

This is tangential to the thread but reading the independant/dependant regs reminded me.

 

I had to provide copies of my parents' death certificates every.single.semester. I was in college. Because, you know, they might suddenly be UN-dead or something. And the college couldn't be repsonsible for keeping copies of that type of paperwork. :001_huh:

 

It was awful. :crying:

 

Yeah. That happened with all of my sisters. (dad)

 

The only reason I escaped it was because I was emancipated since I had been in the military.

 

I still have to put all of the data for him (and his dead ex-wife!) on certain government forms. It's just... blech.

 

 

a

[Ester Maria]

I don't follow. I can't see a person getting a job that requires writing if they don't already know how to write adequately. One reason they go to college is to develop this skill...perhaps these students are in college for the wrong reasons?

Writing well (in terms of general coherence and adherence to grammatical norms) is a middle school level skill, definitely not something to learn in college.

Writing rather well (on topics of higher complexity, research, different formats of writing) is a high school level skill.

 

The only type of writing that should be present in college, IMO, is writing your professional theses and research - definitely not "general" writing. Just like I do not get foreign language requirements (professional jargon foreign language YES - as in scientific French for science students, French of scientific publications, etc. - but general foreign language requirements are, again, middle and high school level thing) or other random general education requirements.

[Ester Maria]

The "American College Experience" is, and pretty much always has been a core of liberal arts surrounded by an intense study of one particular topic. That is what has set it apart from the universities of England et al. It was *not* an "extension of high school" - that is a VERY recent occurrence.

How recent?

 

Twenty something years ago, there were already rumors in Europe (and not only in my country) that American education is "worth it", depending on one's field, on master and doctorate levels - and not before. Being that I considered only letters and art history, i.e. things which more closely tied to my surroundings linguistically or geographically, I never seriously toyed with the idea of studying abroad, at least not in the US, but I remember vividly that in the circles which had the financial means to be able to choose, geographically, where they want to study, those rumors already existed back then. Nowadays, the only people I know who are considering having their children switch to the US system of LACs at that level (undergraduate) of education are either those whose kids are a bit emotionally and/or intellectually immature, so they need a sort of "extension" of high school rather than the focus now, either those who wish to school kids for "political" or "networking" reasons in the US system more than academics themselves.

 

Even if I put aside my pedagogical distaste for the US system (with full understanding that it can, and does, produce educated people as well, only fleshing out things differently than what I would personally prefer), my financial concerns remain: while I am normally not a stingy person when it comes to education, even under the assumption I can, I just cannot fathom paying for that "adventure" (LACs) for its own sake (if for the sake of something else - as a stepping stone to some other institutions - then maybe yes). In some other times, yes. But the colleges no longer own education, in terms of owning resources: with internet alone, all the digitalized books and projects such as Academic Earth, you can self-educate to extents undreamed of a few generations ago, in whatever direction you want, going as broad as you wish. The problem? Going deep. That is what still remains, largely, the monopoly of institutions, due to technological resources, networking, people they cooperate with, newest scholarship, individual consulting, etc. So, it makes sense in my mind to send a kid to a college for the sake of depth - but for the sake of breadth? That is something they really can do in their free time today. I just see no reason in paying tens thousands of dollars, definitely not a symbolic sum, for "finding yourself" and exploration. And really, I would not wish this to come across the wrong way - I am neither exceptionally poor nor exceptionally stingy - it really blows my mind how many people are willing to do just that.

 

I can imagine a degree in a non-employable field, such as Art History. But IF I am already following a passion, I want to follow it in the most intense, passionate mode possible - by focusing on it really, really intensely. And then see if I am the material for staying in those small circles who actually deal with it, or I have to seek other opportunities to go on with my life after the degree. But what I see in the LAC tradition is that kids basically get cheated on as they do not get that depth of art history which they studied following their interests and it saddens me because they wasted so much time and energy on fulfilling general education requirements (thus my calling it "prolonged high school"), non-degree classes, "finding themselves", partying, and in the midst of all of that, losing out on what they actually wanted to do - art history.

 

So now think about it: unless you are RICH and can do whatever you wish anyway and the only thing you can regret is time (I would even exclude upper middle class or "lower upper class" from this, as the costs are becoming enormous), is it really worth the money? *Education* is always worth it, but it is no longer monopolized by institutions, so basically one can pursue it on one's own. That is what bugs me.

 

It is not, or at least not only, my prejudices. I talked to people, visited places, compared syllabi and sequences, and I really saw, Asta, I pains me how much of it I saw, how cheated those kids get compared to what is (or at least used to be, as things are going downhill in Europe to) available elsewhere, for less money in total. For more effort, maybe, but professionally, it does (or at least used to, until the shift of generations happens) pay off.

 

But I rant again. Nevermind. The bottomline is: I get what you are saying, but I am still skeptical of the financial aspect (the whole thing being "worth it"), even if I put aside educational skepticism.

 

ETA: This is a hot topic for me since some changes introduced to some European school systems comparatively recently are heading into that direction LOL.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Ester Maria

[trish h]

because it is so stinkin' expensive. Who can afford to send their kids to a private college these days putting themselves and the student in huge debt. Most fields don't start out at a level where that can be recovered very easily.

[july19]

Speaking as someone who went to college and is married to a man who is completing his Master's and (was) planning on his Ph.D., I can understand why some may not lean towards college.

 

We are immensely in debt. I mean, it's past our ears. It's past the ozone layer by this point and we aren't even finished yet. And for what? My husband works 12 hour days and goes to college at night. He isn't in a job that even resembles what his Bachelor's degree is for. He's one semester away from his Master's in Education and at this point, he's terrified. Our public schools are in such a sad state, he's worried about making a living as a teacher.

 

Please insert irony that he has a degree in Education and we homeschool...

 

He was absolutely dead set on achieving his Ph.D. in Education, and now? He's unsure. Do we go deeper in debt in a field that is being shafted constantly by cut backs and layoffs because of the love he has for children and the need/want to help them? Does he sacrifice his own family to help other families? Our goal was for me to stay home with our son and future children. But if he does continue with an education degree and become a teacher wherever we move to, can he provide for us with just that one job? Probably not. I would either have to get a job or he'd need a second job, thus being away from his family more.

 

And as we sit here and look at our VERY well over $100,000+ in debt with student loans (and that is the only debt we have - no car loans, no credit cards, no nothin' except student loans), we just watched his younger brother skip out of college after 1 year and land a job at a company for $19/hour with benefits. That's $5 more an hour than my husband with a Bachelor's! :(

 

All of that being said, I think college is important. I will be urging my children to attend when it's time. I don't regret attending, I guess....even though I do not use my degree and probably never will. I learned a lot of book smarts and real life smarts while there. I learned a lot about myself.

 

Basically, I can see both sides extremely clearly. And that is both helpful and hurtful.

[WishboneDawn]

All of that being said, I think college is important. I will be urging my children to attend when it's time. I don't regret attending, I guess....even though I do not use my degree and probably never will. I learned a lot of book smarts and real life smarts while there. I learned a lot about myself.

 

I hear that a lot as a reason for going to college. I didn't. I spent my "college" years working and volunteering in a political party. I learned a lot about myself doing that.

 

I just wonder if learning a lot about yourself isn't just something you do while you're in that 18 to 20-something age range.

[stripe]

Writing well (in terms of general coherence and adherence to grammatical norms) is a middle school level skill, definitely not something to learn in college.

Writing rather well (on topics of higher complexity, research, different formats of writing) is a high school level skill.

I watched a report about Philadelphia on TV about 6 months ago, and the reporter made some comment about high illiteracy rates and connected that to HS drop out rates. I am still mad about that. Someone should be able to read way before high school. In fact I have elderly family members who did not finish high school, and they are definitely literate!

 

I just wonder if learning a lot about yourself isn't just something you do while you're in that 18 to 20-something age range.

And, see, that was the question I posed way earlier in this thread. Instead of racking up tens of thousands in debt just to get to know yourself and party, why not backpack through Europe or whatever?

 

College has to be something more than a way to move out of the house.

[cathmom]

This is tangential to the thread but reading the independant/dependant regs reminded me.

 

I had to provide copies of my parents' death certificates every.single.semester. I was in college. Because, you know, they might suddenly be UN-dead or something. And the college couldn't be repsonsible for keeping copies of that type of paperwork. :001_huh:

 

It was awful. :crying:

 

That is horrible! I am so sorry! :grouphug:

 

I prefer the European system of education for college, where you really get intensely into your subject. I could have done a lot more Spanish and a lot more German if I didn't have to waste my time taking things like "Indoctrination to Political Correctness."

[twoforjoy]

I don't follow. I can't see a person getting a job that requires writing if they don't already know how to write adequately. One reason they go to college is to develop this skill...perhaps these students are in college for the wrong reasons?

 

If they can't write well enough to get a job, then that's a good genuine motivator to improve their writing.

 

The problem is that many incoming first year students--the students who usually end up taking the general courses--don't see that. To them, it's a waste of time. And, I think it's always more effective to learn something because you feel a real desire to or need to, than because somebody else says you have to learn it, especially when we're talking about adults, which college students generally are.

 

My mom tried to show me how to do the laundry a few times when I was living at home. But, she continued to do all the laundry, so I had no interest, didn't really pay attention, and left home not knowing how to do laundry. The first time I had to do my own laundry at college, I asked somebody how, paid attention, and learned. Easy.

 

Now, obviously writing is more difficult. But, that's part of the problem. If a student is coming into college unable to compose in standard written English, they are in for a long, hard road if they do want to be able to do so. By the time they're college-age, it's incredibly difficult to remediate poor writing skills. It requires a lot of effort and motivation, and very few students taking writing classes to fulfill a requirement have that. They leave class, in most cases, writing just as poorly as they did before, happy to have passed with a C or C-. I do think, though, that if they had a lot of self-motivation, and were willing to put in the work, they absolutely could improve their writing significantly.

[YLVD]

I didn't say anything was wrong with it EM, just that most people not coming from that mindset wouldn't feel comfortable with it.

 

The "American College Experience" is, and pretty much always has been a core of liberal arts surrounded by an intense study of one particular topic. That is what has set it apart from the universities of England et al. It was *not* an "extension of high school" - that is a VERY recent occurrence.

 

The American high school system never has been anything like the lycee or gymnasium system, nor did it portend to be. It was set up under different circumstances, and had different results. There never was a guild system in America - the closest being the labor unions (with their apprenticeships), but even they only represented a small part of the economy as a whole, and did not rise to prominence until relatively "late in the game" so to speak in the economic formation of the nation.

 

Until the 1960s, after the GI bill sent returning WWII vets to college, most of America simply never went to college. The country operated off of high school educations. And they were considered very good, general educations.

 

When uni became more common, it was viewed as an opportunity to look at some of the expanse of what had been crammed into high school in greater depth, as well as to specialize in one particular area. The hard reality being that some subjects simply don't make much sense at 15, but do at 20.

 

It's wasn't a "rehash", and, in schools where everything hasn't gone to h3ll in a handbasket, it STILL isn't a rehash - it is diving deeper.

 

One can't compare US and EU or UK uni or high school systems as "better than" or "worse than" - they were set up along different lines, have progressed within different political and social situations, and serve different purposes and populations.

 

I would argue that a large part of why people are moving to classical homeschooling methods is to "get back to" the original high school methods of the US; a level of education that could be a terminal degree as far as "knowledge one needs to know to go forth into the world" is concerned. For those people, yes, a uni that is entirely specialized on a subject to the exclusion of all others could fit just fine. For others, it would probably feel right stifling.

 

 

a

 

:iagree: Well said

[YLVD]

I hear that a lot as a reason for going to college. I didn't. I spent my "college" years working and volunteering in a political party. I learned a lot about myself doing that.

 

I just wonder if learning a lot about yourself isn't just something you do while you're in that 18 to 20-something age range.

 

I didn't start college until I was about 23, so a bit older than most. I worked full time, volunteered, the whole thing, until college. I also had a child before starting college.

 

I learned a lot about myself and about the world in college. It was a transformative experience in my life.

[creekland]

Rather than demanding a high standard of education from K-12, anti-elitists demand a low standard - one that all children in the included classroom can access,despite their command of English, their neurological issues, and inability to come to school 95% or greater of the days school is in session.

 

Before we started homeschooling for academic reasons, hubby and I went in to talk with the middle school principal asking him what opportunities there were for our higher testing boys (standardized tests given in ps). He flat out told us:

 

"Public school isn't here to educate the talented student. Those students will succeed no matter where they go or what they do. They don't need anything special. Public school is here to educate the average child and around here the average child goes to work at ______ (factory), joins the military, or goes to cc. Those are the students we base our education on and the rest goes to help the remedial students get up there. The state requires us to do that."

 

Working in our high school and having seen many academically talented students get shortchanged due to not having an academic foundation suitable for their talents - thus - not succeeding as well as college (or as easily as they could have), I disagree with him as much as is possible. We do have some higher named classes, but the content in them is dismal in most cases. Many of our students test into remedial classes when they go to 4 year schools - even students who make our top 10 and have had their A in these top classes.

 

That said, our ps educates the "average child" quite well as per his goals for their lives post high school.

 

It is a mindset - and it doesn't necessarily come from immigrants as he certainly wasn't one.

[twoforjoy]

Surely they are preparing for careers after college that require communication in writing if the college is including these classes in their course requirements? And not only that, offering remedial before the req'd classes? Seems like a lot of effort for the college to go to if the course is not needed for the degree.

 

At every school I've attended or taught at, all students, regardless of major, were expected to take an introductory composition course and an upper-level writing course (which could be either a writing-intensive course in their field or an intermediate comp course). If they weren't found to be prepared for the introductory comp course, they needed to take one and sometimes two remedial courses to become prepared. I think that's pretty standard policy.

 

When I've taught intermediate comp, I'd say that for 95% of the students in my class, they assume it's the last time they'll ever have to write a paper, and they are VERY glad about it.

[FaithManor]

Before we started homeschooling for academic reasons, hubby and I went in to talk with the middle school principal asking him what opportunities there were for our higher testing boys (standardized tests given in ps). He flat out told us:

 

"Public school isn't here to educate the talented student. Those students will succeed no matter where they go or what they do. They don't need anything special. Public school is here to educate the average child and around here the average child goes to work at ______ (factory), joins the military, or goes to cc. Those are the students we base our education on and the rest goes to help the remedial students get up there. The state requires us to do that."

 

.

 

Creekland, I swear you and I are living parallel lives in parallel universes or at least parallel school districts.

 

Local high school principal quote: "Our job is to teach to the middle. I'd not bother with the bottom 1/3 if the state didn't mandate that resources had to be spent on remediation. The top 1/3 is not my problem either. They'll figure it out nor matter what so why spend resources on them? The middle 1/3... That's my 1/3...they'll be getting jobs down the road and I prepare them for the average amount of knowledge their employer needs them to have for non-skilled labor. My job is not to create rocket scientists!" (Oh, and by the way, when my dad's older sister was attending that high school way back in the 50's, it did produce a "rocket scientist" who is now a retired astronaut and the town sports a nice sign commemorating their decorated citizen. I'd tell you his name but then you'd be able to google him and probably Wikipedia will tell you where he grew up and then you'll know exactly what podunk little hamelt in Michigan I live near! :D

 

This was in response to questioning me about why I don't send my children to his school. This school is eliminating funding for all honors, AP, and independent study courses. Yep, with an agenda like that he really expects me to send my rising 6th grader whose begging to take algebra 1 this year! :glare: When I explained some of the things that dd accomplished during her homeschool career, his response was, "Well, yeah. I don't have anything to offer your kids. But, you should send them anyway because you are taking away funding from the other kids."

 

My response, "Sir, I will not destroy my own children's well being and educational opportunities so that you can squander it. My job is not to raise the neighbor's kids; my job is to raise MY kids. You will never get anywhere with the homeschool community and that pathetic argument."

 

Did I mention that he and I don't see eye to eye on much? :lol:

 

But, I do feel really sorry, truly, deeply, profoundly sorry for the children that have to attend my local high school. They are, by in large, all being "thrown to the wolves" because the remedial classes are a joke and are NOT bringing kids up to the average (whatever average is supposed to be because I think that is a ridiculous term), many of the kids being labeled "average" are capable of soooooo much more and their world could be so amazingly different, their opportunities far more vast, and the kids that are really, really capable of "moving and shaking" are stuck in neutral. :001_huh:

 

Faith

[JudyJudyJudy]

Taxes on the room and board + any stipend are taxed at the student's rate. Assuming no other income, the first $5700 (I think that's the current number) is untaxed and the rest would be at 10%. If they have $10,000 over the $5700 (not many will have that much over as room and board have always been less than $15700 at places we've looked at), then they got their education for $1000/year. To me, that's a bargain - probably less than the cost of their room and board at home for the same time period. My teens eat around $100/month at least. I'd take the "free ride" if it's at a suitable school for the student.

Then by all means, do so. It would be easy enough for you to make changes in your life so that you could become poor enough to qualify for such aid. It's not so easy for a poor person to rise above being on the level to qualify.

[BlsdMama]

It's not just a "College isn't for everyone, you decide" attitude, but a truly anti-college, anti-higher education attitude.

 

My personal belief is this: If the field you want to go into requires a degree, go to college. If you want a liberal arts education and can afford it, go to college. If you want the college experience and can afford it, go to college. If you want to self-educate, don't go to college. If you want to be an entrepreneur and feel you don't need college, don't go. In other words, do what works best for you.

 

 

It's a knee jerk reaction to the past twenty year mindset that anyone MUST go to college to be of any use in society at all. :glare: The entire goal of my generation was to go to college and "be something." Never mind whether you'd actually graduate, whether or not the money was well spent, whether or not you were college material... Just GO!

 

It was ridiculous and a huge waste of time & money for the masses. We are beginning to realize there are many jobs out there for which a liberal arts education is a waste of time vs. the "old" way of training and apprenticeship. One doesn't need a course in Advanced Lit and Shakespeare to do every job.

 

Many of us are deeply resentful of drinking the kool-aid to the tune of tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars which we are now re-paying. We'd like to see our children avoid the same pitfalls.

 

I agree with you in that if there is a profession that truly requires it, and you are "cut out" for it, then please do go to college. It will be worthwhile for you! However, there is a bit of ridiculousness going on right now in that many places require a random B.S. or B.A. to get your foot in the door. I know my husband's company has requirements for certain jobs... Just recently he would have liked to have promoted a young, competent homeschooling grad for a specific job. He couldn't. The job title had a bachelor's requirement... The young man was fully capable of the role but because of the requirement could not have the promotion. Ridiculous.

 

 

 

If you want a liberal arts education and can afford it, go to college. If you want the college experience and can afford it, go to college.

 

 

I think this is the other reason people are resentful. So many bought into the concept that it was a grand idea to get student loans because, equipped with our shiny new degree in hand, we'd be pulling down the big bucks. So many were surprised to find that the promised gold ring wasn't going to fall into their laps and they now need an advanced degree.

 

Plus, as the economy and job market being what it currently is, very few people can actually AFFORD a college degree... We aren't speaking of affording their college loan payment plan but actually being able to pay for college each year as they attend. There are many people now advocating college tuition responsibility and speaking out against college loans and for good reason.

[july19]

 

I just wonder if learning a lot about yourself isn't just something you do while you're in that 18 to 20-something age range.

 

Very good question!! Never thought about it like that! :)

[creekland]

It's very similar here and the Genuis Denied report also covers the situation. What I have said publicly in response is the if the district is saying that ALL children are included, then stanine 8 and 9 children should be included also at their instructional level. Otherwise, their parents vote with their feet, as there are other districts with different compositions of voters that elect school boards that think differently. What I've found in practice is that making some noise will get a child who needs more an independent study course at the correct level.. and the supervising teacher in high school will be happy to have him b/c they get a stipend for doing the paperwork and proctoring tests.

 

 

 

I'm making noise now that my youngest insists on going to this school. He's in the top level 10th grade English class and summer reading includes the book, Spud.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Spud-John-van-Ruit/dp/B002N2XI6Q/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1309654979&sr=1-3

 

While I've no doubt this book is highly loved among teenaged males, it's hardly on any college prep list that I've seen (and I've been looking). We have the book. It's big into sex in a teenaged boy way and I'd best leave it at that. We have no other option for a top level class. I'm insisting they make one (independent study, seminar, whatever). They'll just have to consider me a nut that I don't want a teacher in a top level English class teaching the students all about porn and sex contests in the guise of boarding school fun. Mind you, I'm not against sex in books, but I want something redeeming about the book. I have not read this book - just thumbed through it - but I didn't see anything redeeming. The kids are into lust and the adults are drunk or incompetent. Out of 100 books on collegeboard's "read these for college list," wasn't there anything more suitable for all TOP LEVEL 10th graders at our school? I think I know the reason we don't get top performing kids, and it isn't lack of talent among the students.

 

 

Creekland, I swear you and I are living parallel lives in parallel universes or at least parallel school districts.

 

But, I do feel really sorry, truly, deeply, profoundly sorry for the children that have to attend my local high school. They are, by in large, all being "thrown to the wolves" because the remedial classes are a joke and are NOT bringing kids up to the average (whatever average is supposed to be because I think that is a ridiculous term), many of the kids being labeled "average" are capable of soooooo much more and their world could be so amazingly different, their opportunities far more vast, and the kids that are really, really capable of "moving and shaking" are stuck in neutral. :001_huh:

 

Faith

 

I think we do live in parallel school districts, and since ours is more or less average, there are many out there like ours. Like you, I feel for the kids who are being shortchanged. There are many of them.

 

Then by all means, do so. It would be easy enough for you to make changes in your life so that you could become poor enough to qualify for such aid. It's not so easy for a poor person to rise above being on the level to qualify.

 

We don't need to make changes. We're already there and have been for a few years now due to the economy. I'm VERY thankful there are colleges out there with great need based aid for academically talented kids so mine can continue with their future at nice schools. I plan to support each of their schools with donations when (and if) our personal economy improves to pay something for someone down the line.