> "We should also understand that just as some kids at 16 are ready for a college education, just as many kids at that age are ready to take their places in the working world. Most of us today would have a hard time articulately justifying why people must spend four years taking about 40 courses in this and that before becoming executives, administrators or fund-raisers."
I was someone who went right into the manufacturing workforce at the age of 17 instead of going to college, in California. I worked for a injection plastic mold shop for a year, then worked for a computer cable manufacturer for a year, and then in a Silicon Valley laser welding/cutting shop (by far the best paid and most interesting job). I certainly needed no college education for that work, but let's be honest, that kind of work gets boring fast and I couldn't imagine spending decades at it (like some of my co-workers had). However, I was pretty well-off at the time relative to other people my age and was entirely independent of my family. So, yes, it could be an option... although many of those manufacturing jobs have since been sent overseas.
What I did notice at those jobs, particularly the last one, was that the people up in the R&D labs had far more interesting jobs. So I thought, how do I get that kind of job? It turns out, you do absolutely need a four-year college education, heavy on the math and science, and some graduate school work as well, MS or PhD. I saved a ton of money by finishing up general ed requirements at a community college then transferred to a research-centered four-year school to get a BS, then spent about four years in various graduate programs (which soured me entirely on academic research and the associated departmental politics, incidentally). What I did get was a lot of experience in cutting edge research technology - but not because of the coursework, really, but because I spent about half the time working in various labs (and my assembly line experience was actually very valuable there).
What I also realized at the time was that a huge number of my fellow students had no idea why they were in college, and no idea what they wanted. For many it was a four-year social networking party, which seems to be the norm at a lot of elite liberal arts colleges - and to answer the question posed by the author, that was their route into 'executive, administrator and fund-raiser' jobs. Like some posh British Empire school of a century before, they were there simply to get connected with the wealthy and influential, while doing as little work as possible.
Point being if we don't want the USA to turn into some kind of technological backwater while China runs ahead in every sector, yes, we better encourage more students to dive into science and math. If we want to be competitive with Germany, Japan and others, that's going to require supporting four years plus of intense work post high school for a lot of students.
I was someone who went right into the manufacturing workforce at the age of 17 instead of going to college, in California. I worked for a injection plastic mold shop for a year, then worked for a computer cable manufacturer for a year, and then in a Silicon Valley laser welding/cutting shop (by far the best paid and most interesting job). I certainly needed no college education for that work, but let's be honest, that kind of work gets boring fast and I couldn't imagine spending decades at it (like some of my co-workers had). However, I was pretty well-off at the time relative to other people my age and was entirely independent of my family. So, yes, it could be an option... although many of those manufacturing jobs have since been sent overseas.
What I did notice at those jobs, particularly the last one, was that the people up in the R&D labs had far more interesting jobs. So I thought, how do I get that kind of job? It turns out, you do absolutely need a four-year college education, heavy on the math and science, and some graduate school work as well, MS or PhD. I saved a ton of money by finishing up general ed requirements at a community college then transferred to a research-centered four-year school to get a BS, then spent about four years in various graduate programs (which soured me entirely on academic research and the associated departmental politics, incidentally). What I did get was a lot of experience in cutting edge research technology - but not because of the coursework, really, but because I spent about half the time working in various labs (and my assembly line experience was actually very valuable there).
What I also realized at the time was that a huge number of my fellow students had no idea why they were in college, and no idea what they wanted. For many it was a four-year social networking party, which seems to be the norm at a lot of elite liberal arts colleges - and to answer the question posed by the author, that was their route into 'executive, administrator and fund-raiser' jobs. Like some posh British Empire school of a century before, they were there simply to get connected with the wealthy and influential, while doing as little work as possible.
Point being if we don't want the USA to turn into some kind of technological backwater while China runs ahead in every sector, yes, we better encourage more students to dive into science and math. If we want to be competitive with Germany, Japan and others, that's going to require supporting four years plus of intense work post high school for a lot of students.