You're absolutely right!
Why should high schools train football/basket ball players for college?
But they do, and why should colleges train football/basket ball players for the
Why should high schools train/teach/prepare anyone to to graduate and go to a
C'mon, what's the purpose of schooling?
To train/teach/guide students from K-12. From College freshman to grads.
From college plus to a higher degree.
But every kid doesn't have the desire to be a book learned person.
Where do you think the service people should be trained? The plumbers,
electricians, auto body, mechanics, etc. get there education from?
we need to allow more such classes it's getting so people can't even tie their
own shoes let alone know how to use a screw driver and you might wonder why we
are not a true super power anymore
Nomen Nescio wrote:
I read that same article. It looks like schools need to upgrade in
order to be able to teach the skills to repair modern day autos. My
high school did not teach auto body repair and painting, but clases
were available at other locations.
I don't know what value metal shop has anymore. Wood shop probably
still has some value for those wishing to go into carpentry or cabinet
making. I am aquainted with some very skilled woodworkers. It's just
unfortunate that the work is not steady.
I think auto repair is way too complicated to teach in the time frame they
have available. Cars are not that easy to work on if you've got an 8th grade
education any more.
I think vocational classes in auto body repair, carpentry, masonry, wiring,
(construction trades), maybe certain kinds of retail, office, and service
work might still be useful. Most of these things would require a real
apprentiship or more training to learn. The high school vocational class is
really there to expose them and let them decide if they're interested.
To be fair, this trend has been going on for 20 years. It can't be blamed on
"no child left behind". More people are going to college, and there are far
fewer manufacturing jobs. High paying jobs now, even if they're for greasing
a gearbox, are going to college graduates.
To me, the bigger issue is whether it does the students more harm or more
good. Teachers kind of tell the students "you can't make it" and shove them
into that mold. At least they did when I was in school. So that's the pits,
and then there's a pretty good chance of falling in with a bad crowd, which
could ruin your life. I'm not sure anybody's ever told me that vocational
school really turned their life around. An apprenticeship with somebody much
more mature, through a high-school coop program, would do kids much more
good than peer socialization with all the school system's designated
"children left behind". In my opinion, if you can learn to think and make
good decisions at 18, you're good for life. It's never too late to learn to
lay bricks or bake cakes. It can be a LOT too late to learn to make good
decisions. It takes one-on-one to teach that.
I'm in no way qualified to go in to deep dialogue about educational trends,
however I am involved with K-12 trends in California to be able to give this
Auto shop and likes are flourishing, and their popularity is booming! You
encounter this new trend in one of two scenarios. Project Based Learning or
otherwise known as evidence based learning, and Career path education
Project Based Learning: I was told by those with Ed. behind their Doctorate
degrees that students retain information presented in 3d better than in
words, so you can use the assembly of an engine to teach history, math,
physics, and such.
Career Path Education: Previously referred to in the politically incorrect
world as Vocational Ed. This program teaches students that would have
flunked out of school a vocational skill, such as medical front office
skills, small engine repairs, auto repair, construction technology, computer
repairs, and various IT related trainings such as programming, and software
All said, the trend is a GREAT thing!
Later Folks, there is a Dodge Magnum RT with a Hemi Engine and full tank of
Gas waiting for me to introduce it to the freeway between here and Las
"The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is
Well, since Maytag is transitioning production to Mexico, it stands to
reason that much of Maytag repair will soon do the same. Many companies
currently ship out components to be repaired or salvaged offshore. I would
argue that the failure of the U.S. public education system to equip our
children with the proper vocational skills is a key factor in Maytag
transitioning jobs out of the USA and into Mexico. There are other factors,
but this is the key factor that is within our power to correct.
Without a proper foundation, your house will fall to ruin. High School
provides a foundation. It doesn't build the whole damn house. If someone is
interested in moving into the service field then they should be able to
begin training in High School. Someone moving into mathematics, or computer
programming, have generally enjoyed the benefit of training from a very
young age. You're saying that the blue collar workers shouldn't have that
same luxury. I think you're wrong.
Well, that is YOUR version of OUR collective responsibility. My version is
that it is the taxpayers' responsibility to build good citizens. It's hard
to be a good citizen if your high school drops art, drops vocational
technology, drops dance, drops music, and so on. All hell would break loose
if a high school dropped football from the program. But vocational
technology? Nah, just cut that. You don't need to understand how that
pigskin is manufactured, or how that pigskin is marketed, you just need to
be able to catch it, right?
That does not follow market patterns. If country or region A follows your
methodology, while country or region B begins training kids in secondary
school, then A will simply not remain competitive.
Honestly, look at sports. The top athletes all began their training at a
very young age. The top musicians did the same. Step outside of sports and
look at the people who are top in their field. Most share one thing in
common. They were able to begin training VERY EARLY. If you wait until
you're 18 to begin your formal vocational training then you're not going to
So, your suggestion is to shift the responsibility to industry? Yeah, great
idea. Shift that responsibility to industry and then watch product prices
grow. You spend less on higher education and more for your damn car, your
house, your groceries. Oh, and in thirty years there are alot fewer blue
collar jobs for our mostly blue collar population, because Mexico and
Canada saw the writing on the wall and invested in their vocational
education while we were busy pumping out jacks of no trades who are masters
I simply have never heard a logical argument that would justify moving
education and training out of the public and higher level education system
and into private industry.
In my experience, it is the parents and grandparents of school age children
who fight for the proper level of support for their communities.... And it
is the stingy folks without kids who bitch about every budget increase
because they don't see how it benefits them now or in the future. It seems
they forget that our youth today will be running the show in twenty years.
So we better make damn sure they are given everything they need to learn
and succeed or we'll be paying a hefty price in our golden years for our
President and Mad Scientist
Digital Spinner, Inc.
Well, the other issue is that I happen to have a Maytag washer and dryer -
and both have lasted well past the warranty period. So if they do fail, and
I did need to bring in a repairman, it would be a repairman from the local
appliance repair place, which isn't specifically a Maytag-owned shop.
And the likelyhood is that the parts that he would use to repair it are
aftermarket parts, not Maytag-manufactured parts. So I don't think Maytag
is particularly a good example here - I doubt that Maytag makes much
revenue at all from repairs, I think the vast majority of it comes from the
initial sales of the appliances.
From a fairness standpoint I agree with you. It isn't fair to try to
everyone into college. And there's a lot of educators today that are saying
that with the demise of the vocational track that we are getting more high
But from a societal point of view, we have a serious shortage of
people in the country. Not, of course, right at this moment - the economy
is in a slump and job creation is low in all fields - but overall, we need
scientists than we need blue collar workers. As a result - the schools are
trying to get kids to go on to college, not go the vocational track. I
agree that they are doing it right or that they even can do it - but they
This is a gross simplification of the real problem. What the real issue is,
that schools have been so focused on providing 'basic universal education'
that they have interpreted this mandate to mean 'reading, writing,
because historically these subjects have been the core subjects.
What however is forgotten is that the reason these subjects were core is
because this grew out of the early farming communities. You needed ONLY
these subjects because you were raising farmers who needed to be able to
buy and sell simple items for the farm. You didn't need to teach anything
fancy because the machines that the farmers used were simple and hadn't
changed for over 2000 years, and the morals/religion/philosophy education
part of the upbringing was handled by the local minister.
Post-industrial revolution, the core curriculum clearly needed to be changed
to include science, and not simply pure science, but applied science.
what happened is that the schools ended up introducing biology as the
mainly because there was demand for it due to new farming methods and
animal husbandry as well, then kind of stopped there. After WWI they
pushing chemistry and after WWII they pushed physics, and all 3 of them
primariarly theoretical, not practical. Applied science has never been
So now we have the cores defined as reading, writing, arithmetic, biology,
physics, chemistry, and history. All of them heavy in the theory and light
on the applied part of it. And all there because of historical reasons that
most people have long forgotten. And there's no interest in throwing out
whole curriculum and starting over from scratch, which is what really should
Yes, this is true. Unless of course, you raise immigration barriers.
This is greatly dependent on the field.
For performance musicians this is true because music performance is so
incredibly competitive in the US that only the very top cream of the crop
ever make it. And it is competitive because there are so very few spaces
for performance musicians.
The same is true for athletes because of the same thing - there are so very
few pro football spots every year that only the best of the best ever make
Football and music, though, don't change much over 12 years.
But this isn't true for fields like computer science - because if you start
training at age 6, by the time you reach age 18, most of what you would have
learned would be completely obsolete.
No, prices won't rise that much because the industry will just pay the
to expand the green card programs, and bring in all the workers from Mexico
who -are- trained already.
Check out what has happened to countries like Saudi Arabia. The native
there mostly don't know how to fix a broken shoelace or shit for themselves
the government has paid all the natives out of the oil revenues. So just
everyone in that country that does actual work is an imported worker.
is an extreme example, but do we want that happening here?
Not true. Many of the people bitching about budget increases are the very
same parents and grandparents who see wasted money.
Look at my city - Portland OR. The water bureau last year was totally hot
cap the resivors here. The city council after years of farting around on
finally voted it down as a giant boondoggle. However the water bureau had
you gessed it, dropped a half-million dollars already into plastic sheeting
the resivours. That's money down the toilet that could have gone into the
Budgeting is always a complex problem. One thing that I have learned though
that you don't blindly throw money at problems, you just end up with a lot
Take teacher salaries. English teachers are a dime a dozen because the
colleges seem stuck on turning them out hand over fist. By contrast math
are a hard commodity because industry sucks them up as well as the schools.
So what would benefit the schools the most here would be to lower salaries
English teachers, and raise them for Math teachers. That would cause some
English teachers who are good at math to take some courses and certify in
Math. It would keep some Math teachers from leaving. And the lower
salaries for English teachers would help to deter the teachers colleges from
churning out so many - as a result the supply of English teachers would
dropping and eventually they could command a higher salary.
But, the Teachers unions of course fight this during collective bargaining.
a result we lose Math teachers and are wasting money on English teacher
salaries. And a lot of would-be English teachers who are told they are
assured of a job during college, end up graduating college and finding out
that there are no jobs for them.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.