Why Must It Be College
Russ
be seen. So I apologize if there are two identical posts that
eventually show up.
Why Must It Be College?
In another post, Mary wrote: "Is it a good thing to view high school
mainly as preparation for university? What would be wrong with high
school leading to trade schools, or high school being an end unto
itself?" Like Mary, I do not think we should consider university
preparation to be the telos of secondary education nor neither need it
be the primary purpose.
Many students are better served by not attending university, at least a
traditional 4-year program. We read about multiple intelligences and
are expected to integrate multiple intelligence considerations into our
lesson planning. And, yet, there is a tendency to chastise or dismiss
discussions questioning the emphasis of university preparation in
secondary education. Why do I find this a quandary? Traditional
university programs designed with kinetic learners in mind. They were
designed for those capable of self education because they were good
readers and/or good at taking notes from lectures; lectures, the very
stuff we educators are taught to avoid because they serve such a narrow
audience. What does a university education offer for these types?
Sure, it can be rationalized that the bachelor's degree opens up
management opportunities in the future, but how many teenagers are
capable of making that connection unless they are already predisposed
to that mindset. Certainly it is feasible that those who eventually
decide to expand their options will come to realize the importance of
getting a 4-year degree and will work towards that end while still
possessing skills that satisfy their own goals and provide a decent
living.
This is one reason why there has been such an explosion of students at
2-year institutions. They can secure skills that are in demand and
provide a decent living while still tending to the strengths of those
not ready for prime time post-secondary education. It is also why many
teenagers join the military, to get those in demand skills while
earning money for school. Many of these students do not want or need a
university degree, but still provide important contributions to our
economy. This may also account for the high percentage of those who do
not complete their university studies.
In this respect, I like the standard European model where students
prepare for university, technical university (professional training),
some type of vocational preparation, or apprenticeships. It is
practical from so many perspectives: students, career prep, training,
educators, and potential employers. Problems in this system do exist,
most notably tracking students into appropriate curriculum that can
become self-fulfilling prophecies. I think such an approach would
actually put emphasis on secondary education to provide a solid
well-rounded curriculum with real depth: math, science, literature,
rhetoric, language, history, art, etc.
Trapti makes a wonderful observation about the new demands of the
emerging the 21st century. Will these demands really require the type
of preparation found in a traditional university education? Or, will
the increasingly high tech world reward more practical skills and
applications that can be provided in professional, technological or
vocational training? The world is rapidly changing and with the
increasing integration brought by globalization why do we think that
our traditional modes of education will be satisfactory without, at
least, considering the possibility of significant changes? For
instance, it is becoming more and more important to integrate foreign
language into the primary curriculum.
Maybe it is time to consider these emerging demands in an evaluation of
our curriculums at the primary and secondary levels. Maybe our demands
need to be increased in the general sense while preparing our kids for
more specific and directed training after their secondary education is
completed.
Russ