05-30-2015, 12:53 PM
(05-29-2015, 04:43 PM)kandrathe Wrote: Well, rights are rights.
That's the U.N. charter\declaration though. While it is nice and all, and to be more serious while the UN charter contain some agreeable things. It's probably more practical to discuss the U.S. and the states laws on the matter, when you're discussing education in the USofA.
Quote:Being educated has actually been mandated for k-12 for many years. Adding in four more years of liberal arts is probably not crucial for the national well being, and is probably a large waste of money.
Yeah, kinda agree on that. 4 years for college or uni, depending on the programs can be just a cash grab. It wasn't that long ago when 2-3 years was the average for college. Just informally chatting with some faculties, again this also depends on the program but in general. The ones I've talked to seem to regard 2 years is very do-able for serious students. 3rd year is either for an apprenticeship \ field work, final proving project, or final polishing of skills that are near mastered already. 4th year...really seems to be mostly a way of some schools to extend tuition fees. Unless the vocation you're going for is medical doctor or rocket surgeon, IMO I rarely see a good -academic- reason for a 4th year.
Quote: What might make more sense is to rethink k-12 into a k-10, then add a vocational 11-14 fours years that are Gen Ed if you are on a college track, or technical if you are moving into the trades.
It's ambitious, it does have a good chance to work if the details are fully examined and critiqued. But it's an uphill battle you're facing here. If the technical side is relegated and treated as a low tier option like what I'm seeing in some cases currently, it's doomed to failure. If the college track prep course is treated as just hypotheticals only, with no regards to the practical, or observational and research skills. It's doomed to produce walking Ids who does not understand the difference between a thesaurus, and a dictionary.
Quote:It would probably also burn you to know the government will earn $110 Billion from student loans over the next decade. So, that loan's interest rate hides what amounts to an education tax. The original intent of the Perkins and Stafford loan plans were to make them a zero sum for the government. That is, the interest rate would be enough to sustain the program. No profits.
Hmm, how did that shift happened exactly. I'm curious about the specifics, was it related to the 2007 investigation of U.S. federal student loan practices.