Drop out nation: Has the GED done more harm than good?(economist.com)
economist.com
Drop out nation: Has the GED done more harm than good?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/07/labour
9 comments
You are very different from the bulk of GED takers, and thus your experience isn't really helpful as a basis of comparison.
On the other hand... anecdote != data.
That you were allowed to take APs early in your high school career is rare. That you were allowed to take higher level math/science is rare. That a university accepted a 16(?) year old student is also rare.
The argument isn't that it has no benefits. The argument is that it fails the people it was designed to help. Considering the trend is that most drop outs come from disadvantaged backgrounds and tend to have less beneficially involved parents, it seems your case is irrelevant entirely.
Also, I believe that education should mirror yours in more ways, where intelligent students can progress forward at rates that reflect their changing status rather than an inflexible system.
That you were allowed to take APs early in your high school career is rare. That you were allowed to take higher level math/science is rare. That a university accepted a 16(?) year old student is also rare.
The argument isn't that it has no benefits. The argument is that it fails the people it was designed to help. Considering the trend is that most drop outs come from disadvantaged backgrounds and tend to have less beneficially involved parents, it seems your case is irrelevant entirely.
Also, I believe that education should mirror yours in more ways, where intelligent students can progress forward at rates that reflect their changing status rather than an inflexible system.
As someone who did something similar, graduating after 11th grade with all high school credits and upper-tier university requirements achieved, I believe I had a better education than the GED-to-college crowd. You're the first actual GED success story I've heard of.
All in all, there's nothing like a four-year university experience. Especially if you're spending all your time grinding away with huge course loads. You're cheating yourself by rushing through college or being a junior transfer.
All in all, there's nothing like a four-year university experience. Especially if you're spending all your time grinding away with huge course loads. You're cheating yourself by rushing through college or being a junior transfer.
> I believe I had a better education than the GED-to-college crowd.
Of course you believe that. Most people tend to any ascribe success to the efficacy of their earlier life choices and hardships -- to believe you didn't select the best path would make you uncomfortable.
Nobody wants to think that their suffering through a particular choice was unnecessary to achieve their current standing.
> You're the first actual GED success story I've heard of.
When you've got government-run schools railroading every student into college, and few real options outside of that path except for the unusually non-conformant, then you're just not going to hear about many GED success stories.
> All in all, there's nothing like a four-year university experience.
That's what a lot of people who just concluded a 4-year university experience say. They very right, but they're hardly unbiased about just how valuable that unique experience is.
To admit that it may not have been necessary would be uncomfortable, especially if they're sitting on student loan debt to pay for it.
> You're cheating yourself by rushing through college or being a junior transfer.
I could also just easily say you're cheating yourself by waiting until you're 21-24 to get your career and life started.
Of course you believe that. Most people tend to any ascribe success to the efficacy of their earlier life choices and hardships -- to believe you didn't select the best path would make you uncomfortable.
Nobody wants to think that their suffering through a particular choice was unnecessary to achieve their current standing.
> You're the first actual GED success story I've heard of.
When you've got government-run schools railroading every student into college, and few real options outside of that path except for the unusually non-conformant, then you're just not going to hear about many GED success stories.
> All in all, there's nothing like a four-year university experience.
That's what a lot of people who just concluded a 4-year university experience say. They very right, but they're hardly unbiased about just how valuable that unique experience is.
To admit that it may not have been necessary would be uncomfortable, especially if they're sitting on student loan debt to pay for it.
> You're cheating yourself by rushing through college or being a junior transfer.
I could also just easily say you're cheating yourself by waiting until you're 21-24 to get your career and life started.
I'm sure the GED did some good for some people and that it has some purpose (the author addresses this as well by saying that passing the GED helps self esteem in inmates).
While I understand that you are simply stating your case, I don't understand how your case is relevant to the article. I'm obviously missing something, so it'd be great if you pointed out what I was missing.
While I understand that you are simply stating your case, I don't understand how your case is relevant to the article. I'm obviously missing something, so it'd be great if you pointed out what I was missing.
Wrong question.
Better question: how is it that it now takes 12 years to educate someone to a minimally acceptable standard, when in the days of the one room schoolhouse it only took 8?
Better question: how is it that it now takes 12 years to educate someone to a minimally acceptable standard, when in the days of the one room schoolhouse it only took 8?
Part of it is that back then if a child was acting up, they would get disciplined at school and then disciplined ten-fold at home.
It is a lot easier to teach a room filled with children who are willing to put in the work or at least not screw it up for the other children. It is a lot easier for a teacher when he/she can kick a child out of class for misbehavior and the teacher is protected rather than chastised.
It is a lot easier to teach a room filled with children who are willing to put in the work or at least not screw it up for the other children. It is a lot easier for a teacher when he/she can kick a child out of class for misbehavior and the teacher is protected rather than chastised.
Because back then the only math you needed was enough to count the animals on your farm and the size of your harvest?
These days, high school is much more focused on being a generalized preparation for a college education, giving students a wide variety of knowledge in hopes that something of that lot interests them enough that they know what career they would like to further pursue.
These days, high school is much more focused on being a generalized preparation for a college education, giving students a wide variety of knowledge in hopes that something of that lot interests them enough that they know what career they would like to further pursue.
> Because back then the only math you needed was enough to count the animals on your farm and the size of your harvest?
I can't think of any complex topic -- on par with school maths and science -- that took one hour a day for 180 days to learn, outside of the time I spent in school.
> These days, high school is much more focused on being a generalized preparation for a college education, giving students a wide variety of knowledge in hopes that something of that lot interests them enough that they know what career they would like to further pursue.
Translation: High school focuses entirely on college preparation to the detriment of encouraging useful, immediate work that demonstrates the basic cause and effect of applying real work output to produce genuine value. It strongly discourages interested teenagers from focusing on a specific area of real-world economic exchange, and perpetuates their state of child-like helplessness well into their 20s.
I can't think of any complex topic -- on par with school maths and science -- that took one hour a day for 180 days to learn, outside of the time I spent in school.
> These days, high school is much more focused on being a generalized preparation for a college education, giving students a wide variety of knowledge in hopes that something of that lot interests them enough that they know what career they would like to further pursue.
Translation: High school focuses entirely on college preparation to the detriment of encouraging useful, immediate work that demonstrates the basic cause and effect of applying real work output to produce genuine value. It strongly discourages interested teenagers from focusing on a specific area of real-world economic exchange, and perpetuates their state of child-like helplessness well into their 20s.
Have you ever looked at what was required of an 8th-grade education "back in the day"? It was much more than counting bushels and goats.
Assuming this is accurate: http://people.moreheadstate.edu/fs/w.willis/eighthgrade.html ... you can see that this has algebra, volume calculations, weights and measures, etc. I know many high school graduates that would have difficulty with both the math and other portions of the test.
And, before you say that this is not representative, let me tell you that I have known many old farmers with only an 8th grade education who were in fact, able to operate at the above test's level.
I recall in particular one couple that built a series of multi-million dollar nursing homes, learning to read and interpret blueprints and handle an architect's rule, on just such an 8th grade education.
Assuming this is accurate: http://people.moreheadstate.edu/fs/w.willis/eighthgrade.html ... you can see that this has algebra, volume calculations, weights and measures, etc. I know many high school graduates that would have difficulty with both the math and other portions of the test.
And, before you say that this is not representative, let me tell you that I have known many old farmers with only an 8th grade education who were in fact, able to operate at the above test's level.
I recall in particular one couple that built a series of multi-million dollar nursing homes, learning to read and interpret blueprints and handle an architect's rule, on just such an 8th grade education.
The problem with this approach is that it immensely devalues non-knowledge-based jobs, which still very much serve as the backbone of our infrastructure.
How do you suggest we remedy this?
The other commenter makes a good point, but I also think we simply acknowledge that there are some jobs that do not require a full college-preparatory education. There are some trade schools available, but these are generally viewed as being for people who couldn't cut it, rather than people who have decided that the university route probably isn't for them.
I would imagine bringing back "shop class" would be a good start. Or allowing students to take electrician, plumbing, etc classes at another school for credit would be a good start.
I much rather would have taken Electrician 101 than Introduction to Percussion in high school.
I much rather would have taken Electrician 101 than Introduction to Percussion in high school.
It is probably personal bias, but I find this article lacking. I tutor once a week in a GED class and find there is definitely value for the students outside of the GED itself. My main responsibility is to help the students develop their math literacy. Sure, they might not use the Pythagorean theorem once they get out of class, but you can be sure that they will use the knowledge they gain about percentages the next time they buy something on sale. There are literally hundreds of examples where, IF the student takes the time to learn a concept, they will be able to apply it in their life regardless of whether or not they actually get the GED or not.
(Note: I tutor at a community center and not in a prison, so this probably changes the demographic a bit.)
(Note: I tutor at a community center and not in a prison, so this probably changes the demographic a bit.)
You could write the same article about almost any plan we've tried to end some social ill. America's social problems run deep and would require a massive reorganization of society and existing institutions along with widespread cooperation and participation for them to be fixed. I think our only hope is to take the long view and try to institute policies that will change people's attitudes and behaviors over time.
Mine (1990) has done me neither harm nor good. I'm considering framing it and hanging it in my office, just to piss off people with fancy book learnin' and enormous loans.
Do it! Be proud of the path.
"Drop out nation:..." I dropped out of high school to pursue a business venture, I had started, that was taking off at the time. Initially, I had every intention of either getting a GED, finishing online or going back at some later point if things didn't work out. That was 6 years, and a few million dollars in the bank, ago. Personally, I think those who wish to follow in others footsteps should stay in school and eventually find an empty square, that someone else has created, for their square mind to settle. For those who wish to be the first to leave the footprints in the sand ( both in business and on a real beach in the middle of nowhere ) then school may offer the right environment to get you to a point in life where you have that sort of opportunity. However, do not let the 'politically correct' society we live in keep you from taking chances early on, believing in yourself or from finding a way to do things differently even when 'they' say 'there is no other way'. There is ALWAYS another way.
It's like summer school. You can cut all year and go to summer school for 3 months and get the credit for the class. It's a band aid. You will be 10x times smarter if you finish 4 years of high school as opposed to dropping out in 10th grade and taking a test. That being said it's better than nothing. Everyone deserves a chance to go to college.
The question is then, if education isn't about learning stuff (which is what the GED should test), then what is it about?
Demonstrating the ability to go four years without getting kicked out of school for discipline problems and/or getting incarcerated. The GED is sold heavily to inmates as a way to get back on their feet after they're released, so the people who end up taking the GED are preselected to have severe self-control issues. Learning HS material doesn't correct this: the reason nobody wants to hire them is because they were in jail, not because they don't know trigonometry.
Education is about learning to follow the rules of an society: coming to school or work in time, sitting still and quiet while being bored for several hours. You know, the important skills you need to be a good little worker bee.
Being on time, and attendance, these seemed to get emphasized more than actual performance when I was in high school. This reflects how some of my worst jobs were, too.
Far be it for me to defend US high schools, but being on time is very much a skill that people lack - and it so annoying, not to mention a sign disrespect for the other peoples time, to be later for appointments.
I would say a number of things, but one big one is to simply show that you're the kind of person willing to jump through various hoops to get where you want to be.
Actually, I think at the undergraduate level it's even worse (you still learn a lot of generally useful things in GED/high school). I would guess that what most people actually learn at the undergraduate level is completely unnecessary for their eventual careers. There are certainly exceptions, but it's a good rule (consider this: why do you need a bachelor's degree before entering med school? We invented a "fake" major for this requirement--premed--but objectively, it's completely unnecessary)
Actually, I think at the undergraduate level it's even worse (you still learn a lot of generally useful things in GED/high school). I would guess that what most people actually learn at the undergraduate level is completely unnecessary for their eventual careers. There are certainly exceptions, but it's a good rule (consider this: why do you need a bachelor's degree before entering med school? We invented a "fake" major for this requirement--premed--but objectively, it's completely unnecessary)
I've never heard of or seen a premed major. I've heard of premed students getting degrees in bio/chem/eng. Just like there is no prelaw degree. Just phil/polisci/engl degrees with courses suited for taking the entry exams.
It's pretty common. For example:
http://www.science.psu.edu/premed/premedicinemajor.html
I took the GED since it was the easiest way of demonstrating to a state university that I had a high-school level of education. (I was homeschooled.)
I wasn't too concerned about the test, since I'd scored in the 99th percentile for the ACT. But I found the GED dramatically harder. Anyone else have this experience?
I wasn't too concerned about the test, since I'd scored in the 99th percentile for the ACT. But I found the GED dramatically harder. Anyone else have this experience?
Thank you, GED.