On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:22:54 -0800 (PST), Neil Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Get me a skill, so I can get a job, so I can make a lot of > money, so I can retire and play golf all day.
I don't see anything wrong with that. My biggest beef is that it's not confined to vocational schools. I think it's because government has a history of supporting "higher education", but not so much vocational schools. But vocational training is what a lot of people want. So, naturally, those people gravitate to the state-funded option, it being cheaper out of pocket, and being that they're already paying for it anyway. So the institutions of "higher learning" have more people interested in vocational skills, and have to evolve to meet the demand. The problem being that schools have spent hundreds of years, at least, fine tuning their processes to support knowledge based education. Now they're being asked to support skills based education and they're having trouble integrating the two. Eliminating the state's role in post-secondary education would go a long way towards fixing the situation. Not every one needs a college education. Not every one can benefit from what universities provide. Some people, I think, would be better off going straight from high school to a job. Some people would do well at a vocational school. Not every role in life requires the same education format. Computer jobs have done well with the certification format. Auto mechanics do well with a set number of weeks of general purpose training. I got an *excellent* education in a two year program that taught me how to run a nuclear reactor, with periodic training updates after that. And it didn't require philosophy, or math beyond basic calculus. I'd like to see more options available (which requires eliminating the bias the government produces) and I'd like to see less emphasis on full-on four year "education" degrees. -todd -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
