06-17-2010, 06:50 AM
Hi,
You are right. However, the reason those jobs do require the diploma is because of the worthlessness of that diploma. It has become a cheap filter. Anyone who didn't get a diploma is considered either a quitter (i.e., dropout), criminal, or very stupid. While that isn't universally true, and there are people who didn't get a diploma for other reasons, employers take the easy way out. In a situation where there is a shortage of jobs, it is to the employer's benefit to hire people that are slightly overqualified.
The same thing is happening all over. Teachers once only needed a bachelor's degree. Now, in many places, they need a masters. In many places, they use bachelor level engineer as a technician. Either a masters, or a PE certification (and sometimes both), is needed to actually be allowed to do engineering. And in math and science, the doctorate is your union card -- and it is very much a closed shop.
A person's credentials have to keep getting better as the value of credentials in general keep getting worse.
Oh, wow. That is so muddled. I cannot think of any way of increasing the standards of education without setting higher standards. The two are pretty much synonymous. And I cannot think of any way that those standards could be ensured across more than a school district (and even that might be hard to do) without tests. Now, if you think that the tests being used and the resulting 'teaching to the tests' is wrong, then I agree with you. But it is not the concept of standardized testing that is wrong, it is the implementation.
Finally, if you set the standards higher, you will get a higher failure rate. I suspect that a majority of graduating high school students have never been challenged. If the standards are raised, then some of them will be challenged, and some of them will not be able to meet that challenge. Those that do will show some level of scholastic ability, those that don't will not. The diploma then becomes a meaningful document of a person's abilities in a restricted arena.
I do not believe that it is possible 'to educate' or 'to teach'. I believe that it is only possible 'to learn'. That is the active process. The others are, at best, ways to facilitate learning, and, all too often, no more than a waste of time that could actually have been spent learning. The primary function of a school is not to teach, but to determine and record how much a person has learned.
But that's another book.
--Pete
(06-17-2010, 04:11 AM)Alliera Wrote: I'm reasonably certain there are plenty of jobs which do not actually require the skills necessary to get a high school diploma while still requiring the actual diploma even today (and it would be worse afterwards).
You are right. However, the reason those jobs do require the diploma is because of the worthlessness of that diploma. It has become a cheap filter. Anyone who didn't get a diploma is considered either a quitter (i.e., dropout), criminal, or very stupid. While that isn't universally true, and there are people who didn't get a diploma for other reasons, employers take the easy way out. In a situation where there is a shortage of jobs, it is to the employer's benefit to hire people that are slightly overqualified.
The same thing is happening all over. Teachers once only needed a bachelor's degree. Now, in many places, they need a masters. In many places, they use bachelor level engineer as a technician. Either a masters, or a PE certification (and sometimes both), is needed to actually be allowed to do engineering. And in math and science, the doctorate is your union card -- and it is very much a closed shop.
A person's credentials have to keep getting better as the value of credentials in general keep getting worse.
Quote:I would normally approve of upping the standards of education, but you can't accomplish that simply by setting higher standards and giving out tests. You have to actually educate, or you just end up with a higher failure rate.
Oh, wow. That is so muddled. I cannot think of any way of increasing the standards of education without setting higher standards. The two are pretty much synonymous. And I cannot think of any way that those standards could be ensured across more than a school district (and even that might be hard to do) without tests. Now, if you think that the tests being used and the resulting 'teaching to the tests' is wrong, then I agree with you. But it is not the concept of standardized testing that is wrong, it is the implementation.
Finally, if you set the standards higher, you will get a higher failure rate. I suspect that a majority of graduating high school students have never been challenged. If the standards are raised, then some of them will be challenged, and some of them will not be able to meet that challenge. Those that do will show some level of scholastic ability, those that don't will not. The diploma then becomes a meaningful document of a person's abilities in a restricted arena.
I do not believe that it is possible 'to educate' or 'to teach'. I believe that it is only possible 'to learn'. That is the active process. The others are, at best, ways to facilitate learning, and, all too often, no more than a waste of time that could actually have been spent learning. The primary function of a school is not to teach, but to determine and record how much a person has learned.
But that's another book.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?