Private school, Home schooling, etc.

[Will_C]

As a public school teacher and coach, I have truly enjoyed reading this discussion. I appreciate the points made by all, and you people could publish this as a primer for parents debating the issue with their own children's educational choices.
Trev, I had to sit in classes with people such as the student you talked about. And yes, they do speak as they write!!!!
Will
P.S. Although I would be thrown out of the teacher's union for saying this, I do realize and understand the benefits of home and private schooling.

 

[DVerbarg]

This is a fascinating discussion to watch unfold and holds particular interest for me as a product of private and home schooling and now as a parent educating our children at home.

<font color=blue>Both Will & Bob make some good additional points. First, yes, there is factual evidence, that on the whole, the more formal education one has, the higher their income. Doesn't mean a HS dropout can't become a millionaire, it just means his chances are substantially reduced. Many companies hire new entry level employees straight out of college and refuse to even consider those without a formal college education (and even go as far as to only hire from specific institutions.) Is this "right?" Maybe - Maybe not. Doesn't matter though - that is the fact, and by excluding a degree from a formal institution (even if you in your heart believe it isn't worth the paper it is written on), the reality is that there will be "doors locked shut" for that person.</font color=blue>

Its a shame that companies use a piece of paper as a major criteria for determining the potential value to an organization. My lack of a college diploma has been a slight detriment, in terms of opening doors, yet I have never let that keep me from pursuing my goals and interests. Could I earn more with a degree? I doubt it as earnings are on par or higher then that of many of my coworkers, who all have masters. At times I wish I understood more and had attended college, yet realize that those topics that would be beneficial to me now are not the same topics/courses I had considered upon completion of high school. Maybe I'll go back to school once my kids are grown or when "retirement" rolls around. Don't want cobwebs to form. /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

 

[RanchMan]

DVerbarg-

I'm glad that folks seem to be "getting something" out of this discussion. (and everyone is remaining civil to boot! /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif)

Again, I just want to reiterate that both Kucklehead & I are "painting in broad strokes" when it comes to our statements. While it is true that a higher education is no guarantee of a bigger salary than one's co-workers (e.g. your situation), on the whole, that is really the exception and not the rule. (Again, the <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.businessknowhow.com/career/edudollar.htm>statistical evidence</A> backs this up.) Additionally as you look at the executive ranks of most companies, very few individuals do not have a university education. Yes, the individual's personal characteristics play a huge role in "how far they go" (i.e. drive, desire, etc.), but without knowledge (all else being equal), these "positive" characteristics can not overcome the lack of education compared to the learned "equivalent" individual.

<font color=blue>Its a shame that companies use a piece of paper as a major criteria for determining the potential value to an organization. </font color=blue>

I understand where you're coming from, and I've never been one to believe that "grades" are the all-important "end all/be all" when making such a determination. But, I do not so readily dismiss a company (or individual for that matter) wanting to hire someone based on their attending an institution of higher learning.

The reason a lot of companies place such an importance on a diploma & collegiate experience is that in order for the individual to obtain the parchment, they must complete certain activities/classes. A lot of these classes do a fair job of mimicking what type of encounters they would have in the "real world job" that the prospective business is soliciting for. It's the old "chicken & the egg" of "How do I get experience without having a job - how do I get a job without having experience?"

For example, say in the computer field (something I see you’re familiar with /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif), a student who has, as part of the required curriculum of the institution, had classes in Sys. Dev. Live Cycle and Implementation. Such classes often include class projects, and therefore the student has had a simulation of what they would encounter working for the typical computer consulting company. (No, this isn't the same as someone with 5 years of experience, but again, we're talking entry level position in this example.)

For a young entry-level person in the computer consulting/programming/development field, while no guarantee that the potential employee will "work out," if the individual has worked in a group on such tasks before (e.g. class projects) and they were successful (again, they have the diploma to prove "success"), then they have established a "track record" of being able to work in such an environment. A "home college" graduate who never had to work with others on this type of task, while they may be successful, has nothing to "back it up" - they’ve proven nothing. It's all a probability equation.

As a businessman, it is one’s duty to try and get the best, most effective person for the job in question. Do I "roll the dice" on an individual where I have absolutely no understanding of how "strict" the education was, (no “real” verification as to how well the student really did -- i.e. the specter of nepotism starts to come in to play), and the “graduate” has never even simulated the type of work they are being hired for, OR do I go with someone who has proven themselves to a degree by attending a school where I am very familiar with the concepts taught, the standards imposed, the faculty, and a pattern has been established regarding how many individuals from that institution are retained by my company and continue to add value? “Bird in the hand or two in the bush? - and are there really two in that bush....?” /w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif

At a time when everyone seems to be clamoring for CEO's "Heads on a pike" due to shareholder loss (even when GAAP is followed - <not talking about the fraudulent activities that have gone on>), do I, as a steward of the company, increase shareholder risk by hiring the "unknown" home schoolers or help to reduce the risk (i.e. eliminate a portion of the unknowns) by going with the university grads?

If the whole business aspect doesn’t make the point, I’d be curious how many advocating collegiate “home schooling” would choose the home school grad over the university grad in a number of areas. Would they choose the “home schooled” surgeon? What if they were on trial for murder? Forget the law school grad and go for the one who essentially taught themselves? What about if “fluffy” has a medical issue - go with the HS vet?

Again, please understand I’m not saying that someone who is home schooled at the college level can’t ever be “successful” or “happy” or “good.” But, beyond the legal requirement to hold a degree from an accredited university a lot of professions require in order to practice, if one wishes to advance to certain positions, a degree is required. Agree with the methodology or disagree with it, the fact remains that's the way the things work. Yep, some "good folks" are "left out in the cold" - but risks (not to mention the financial requirements of the hiring process) are substantially reduced. After all, the home school college student (just as someone who chooses not to go to college at all) should understand the repercussions of their choice and actions - (personal responsibility any one?)

Funny thing is I kindof see an irony in that I believe a lot of those who would advocate home school at the college level would probably say that “their” kid should get a chance or be “given a break” in order to get their foot in the door to obtain a job, while at the same time, I feel a lot of these folks believe strongly against nepotism, socialistic doctrine, and are in favor of reducing the risk of their retirement investments decreasing in value due to unnecessary risks.

I guess what it all boils down to is that companies don't place value on the "paper" the university grad has, they put value on the experience and track record the individual has proven through their actions. The "paper" is just the proof it was done.

<font color=blue>Maybe I’ll go back to school... </font color=blue>

Hey, Why not? Could be a lot of fun! (I assume you won’t attend TOO many frat parties though! /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif) Personally I always enjoyed learning something new, and despite some of the other views expressed, I believe college is a great place to “expand one’s horizons.”

 

[Chuck52]

Mark,

One thing to consider when thinking about the cost of a college education is the availability of scholarships. I think Ranchman is certainly correct in stating that anyone can afford to go to college these days, if he is selective about the school and takes advantage of scholarships, loans, and work-study programs that are widely available. However, I do wonder if a home-schooled child might be at a disadvantage when it comes to getting the scholarships. My son qualified for free tuition at all the state universities in Missouri because of his class standing and ACT scores. Perhaps there are ways in some states to get around the class standing part for home-schooled kids....it would seem to me that there should be a mechanism. Missouri has a good program of scholarships for in-state students, and is also pretty liberal in giving good out-of-state students support. While looking for an appropriate school for our son, we checked out one of the branch campuses of the University of Wisconsin. Wisconsin seemed much less generous to out-of-staters, and such programs no doubt vary significantly form state to state. As you say, not everyone needs to go to college, but it might be wise to try to determine how home schooling, all the way through high school, can affect access to these resources.

Chuck

 

[knucklehead]

Hi, Chuck! Glad you chimed in about college. I was wondering if you would.

We've been thinking about scholarships, too. We assume there are plenty of scholarships out there - and are setting ourselves up, debtwise, to help (not pay for it all). I certainly enjoyed my experience, and still have warm memories of campus life - once I figured out why I was there. I was stirring the pot a little with that value comment. I notheless have seen a fairly steep price climb - haven't done the "loaf of bread" economic comparision, but it seems a long way from $3200/year to $18000/year in 20 years, for tuition, room, & board at our State University.

I appreciate all of the comments on value. One of the value issues we've thought about includes initial technical training (because we notice electricians, plumbers, etc. are still busy), as noted earlier in this thread. Although I agree with the comments about earning power differences and the tendency of employers to view pedigrees more highly, there are several technical fields where very good wages can be made. Another idea is to be multi technical, or have several "majors". It seems that a diverse (Gawd, I love that word nowadays) education would be more valuable from several perspectives, these days.

 

[TAB]

Mark, if you look at the skilled trades you'll see a pretty good and stable demand. Students I have get basic training from me and then go on to apprenticeship in the real world. I have past students that are plumbers and masons making 50 to 70 K per year and like their job. Most of the carpenters are only in the 50s, but some are more. I have quite a few that decide to go school (college) after a few years in the field and become construction managers. One owens a multi million dollar business. Not bad for a non college bound curriculum, but more physical work.

 

[DVerbarg]

<font color=blue>The reason a lot of companies place such an importance on a diploma & collegiate experience is that in order for the individual to obtain the parchment, they must complete certain activities/classes. A lot of these classes do a fair job of mimicking what type of encounters they would have in the "real world job" that the prospective business is soliciting for. It's the old "chicken & the egg" of "How do I get experience without having a job - how do I get a job without having experience?"</font color=blue>

Good point. If the hiring choice was between two people who just completed a college education, one from an accredited institution and the other using a home-brewed and unknown methodology then I would totally concur. However, if the "uncolleged" individual had actually spent their four years of time by working their way up from the bottom of an organization while doing studies on the side then the comparison would, in my opinion as a past business owner, be a much harder decision as, to your point, there is now simulated experience vs actual experience.

Like you pointed out there are professions where there is a need for individuals to pass exams/certifications in order to provide a level of protection to the public (e.g. - doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc). Totally understand the need for this certification but sometimes think that too much trust is placed on the degree. The apprenticeship model from the crafts/trades I feel would be a great alternative to the typical college path. Yes, certain business areas, such as engineering, already successfully use the "coop" model, just needs more expansion into other areas.

<font color=blue>While it is true that a higher education is no guarantee of a bigger salary than one's co-workers (e.g. your situation), on the whole, that is really the exception and not the rule. (Again, the statistical evidence backs this up.)</font color=blue>

It would be interesting to view the stats with the addition of a ranking of the "individual's drive" factor, broken down by industry classification. I don't doubt the statistics, just challenge the underlying assumption that because this has been the past trend it will be the future trend. If enough people, the majority, believe it to be true then our actions as individuals will continue to be the driving factor behind the continuance of this trend.

Personally I would think that if someone wanted to "home-school" college they would be better off utilizing one of the distance learning courses rather then "brewing" their own for the "unknown" factor you raised.

In my past years of supervising, hiring and firing individuals I would admit that I have had only one person without a college education work for me. (1 out of a dozen or so) I wanted people with drive and most of the "un-college" educated people did not have the drive. Most of the "drive" was found with people who were driven to get an education and their grades indicated that drive. Found one non-college individual who had the drive and our interview, testing and review of their past project work indicated a level of content and concept mastery above typical levels for that age. He home-brewed his education, and appeared to have invested rather significantly and also obtained third-party certifications.

<font color=blue>...do I, as a steward of the company, increase shareholder risk by hiring the "unknown" home schoolers or help to reduce the risk (i.e. eliminate a portion of the unknowns) by going with the university grads?</font color=blue>

Every company that is successful takes risks. Its just a matter of understanding the risks and having a plan to compensate. The insurance industry is fascinating. Scores of underwriters and actuaries studying, analyzing and measuring risks. Knowing the variables well enough to take the calculated gambles. Perhaps as a product of home schooling, having home schooled friends who did well and others not as well, maybe there are less unknown variables for me. Like someone who knows the individual reputations of colleges and their strengths and weaknesses I have found that many home schooling curricula have their own unique strengths and weaknesses.

 

[RanchMan]

It appears we are much closer to thinking on the same "wavelength" than it first appeared. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif Good points - I can't really find to many points of contention!

As you say, track record is key -- someone having X years experience "climbing the ladder" has "proven" their abilities. Of course, they most likely had to start several "rungs" lower on their "climb" than the college grad. The problem lies in the existence of those "pre-entry" level positions - e.g. "Company X" may simply not have any (or have them in volume). Going back to the MIS career model, "Company X" may have "entry level" positions that start at the design/coding skill set and not have something lower to offer a high school grad that would allow them to "work their way up." 'Course our proverbial HS grad could "job bounce," but that too adds some issues (e.g. raises questions about longevity of the employee's "loyalty", etc.)

<font color=blue>...but sometimes think that too much trust is placed on the degree. </font color=blue>

Absolutely! Again, a diploma is not the end-all/be-all, and just because someone has it, doesn't mean they are necessarily "good." College experience/diploma is simply a piece of the overall evidentiary puzzle used in evaluating if someone would be a good "fit" for a job.

<font color=blue>It would be interesting to view the stats with the addition of a ranking of the "individual's drive" factor, broken down by industry classification</font color=blue>

That would be interesting - There are some standardized "drive factor" models that a lot of HR departments use, but I've yet to see a "definitive" model. Most of them use a combination of personality factors correlated to "success" within the company. Since there is such a variation in companies out there, someone who would show a high "drive factor" at "Company X" may not be successful/show a high "drive factor" at "Company Y." Ahh, the problems associated with standardization when it comes to psychological models! /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

<font color=blue>Yes, certain business areas, such as engineering, already successfully use the "coop" model, just needs more expansion into other areas.</font color=blue>

Funny you mentioned co-op when you did, as I was thinking about it when I was reading earlier in the paragraph. I think the co-op model of education is a fantastic - for lots of reasons. Fortunately cooperative education has continued to grow and there are tons of opportunities way beyond the stereotypical fields of yesteryear. (<A target="_blank" HREF=http://co-opweb.tamu.edu/s_info.html-ssi>Here's </A> a link to my alma mater's co-op program that has info if anyone out there is curious).

<font color=blue>Most of the "drive" was found with people who were driven to get an education and their grades indicated that drive. Found one non-college individual who had the drive and our interview, testing and review of their past project work indicated a level of content and concept mastery above typical levels for that age.</font color=blue>

Yea - I understand. Assuming no legal requirement for a degree, the diploma, as you point out, serves as a "barometer" of traits. Believe me, there are TONS of "new grads" I've interviewed that, while having a diploma, couldn't measure up in other areas - hence they don't work for me. No, a diploma is just a piece of the puzzle (but an important piece.)

<font color=blue>Every company that is successful takes risks. Its just a matter of understanding the risks and having a plan to compensate. </font color=blue>

Very true. My point was really aimed at "risk reduction" instead of "risk elimination" and "cost reduction" vs. "cost elimination." If a company goes to recruit at "University X," they can be far more efficient - see a larger quantity of people and reduce recruitment costs associated with each new employee. A lot of companies even have gone to some pretty in depth psychological analysis to see if the employee is "likely" to "work out" in the long term. The single interview is also becoming a thing of the past - for entry level folks this is often drawn out to 3, 4, or even 5 - all in the name of "risk reduction." (after all if you are going to dump 5-15K in additional training per year per employee, you don't want your "investment" walking out the door to go to your competitor.)

<font color=blue>Like someone who knows the individual reputations of colleges and their strengths and weaknesses I have found that many home schooling curricula have their own unique strengths and weaknesses. </font color=blue>

Certainly makes sense. I just worry about the home schooled folks that believe they will have the same opportunities open to them as someone with a degree from an accredited college. Not saying HS folks can't be "successful," just saying their choices will be more limited and they will have a much more difficult time on the whole because they will have to "buck the system." (It's hard enough to compete with everyone else as it is without having the additional "issues" associated with home school.)

 

[knucklehead]

Great insights, guys

I've been at work for a few days and have not really had enough time to follow this thread and respond intelligently. Or maybe that never happens with me /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

I agree with your closing statements, Ranchman, about barriers - real or imagined - that "alternatively educated" people may face (whether homeschooled, not having a degree, etc.). I am becoming very interested in the HR perspective on "drive". I'm happy to hear that it is a factor in the hiring process, and not just driven by pedigree. Another thing to coinsider is the increase in retrained people reentering the worlkforce - a very large and non traditional group, many without degrees other than those obtained as part of the retraining process.

We assume that other alternatively educated folks from various sources will have preceeded us by enough to positively influence and broaden the perspective of traditionally oriented companies. We've got examples of alternatively educated people in our company who are excelling. Reputation is important. We hope to contribute to the reputation already well understood by more open minded companies that self learners are self starters, creative thinkers, and maintain high standards in the workplace.

I think the key is to set and maintain high standards of performance, and we are trying to cultivate that in our boys, along with a balanced approach to life, meaning "it ain't all work". One of the reasons we decided to "hitch horses" with <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.narsonline.com>NARS</A> was to obtain objective counsel in acedemic things, and to also produce an objective record of their last few years of education. It ocurred to us that there could be prejudice on our parts, and far more on the parts of admission staff as well as potential employers, if the acedemic records presented were created and maintained solely by us as parents.

Regarding drive, and education, we see that in my area of work regularly. There appear to be more (non-degreed people with a lot of drive) here than in other areas, but our department is kind of the place where some with drive can advance into from field work, so we may see more than the normal population contains. Again, however, it all comes down to individual performance; personal responsibility is always where a multitude of issues settle, it seems.

I also believe that there may be a long term trend (a generation or two) toward a workforce that includes more multi-talented individuals, as companies continue to go through the labor pains of finding a balance between the industrial age and the information age. It is my belief that our type of education will be more like the future norm, in some form. In fact, we may even see the ultimate demise of the centralized university, as it appears today (we are seeing this already, IMHO). I think, at the risk of slipping into the rant mode again, that the educational institutions may be gradually falling behind, and find that they need to adapt and change more quickly to meet the need of the individual student, and properly respond to the changes in business.

Which gets us into yet another philisophical area: since when did academia become the slave of business? Being practical minded, I understand the value of a "career shaped" education. But I thought education was for the enrichment and broadening of the student, not to produce fuel and fodder for the machine of industry. As I hope my earlier posts would indicate, it is the individual that concerns me; my problems with any institution, whether the public school, the workplace, or the local church, always are with the response to and care of individuals. My understanding of my responsibility as a parent is to shepherd my kids by discovering and nurturing their natural abilities, and making sure they are equipped to function as responsible members of creation & society. My understanding of the way we should run our society, and therefore the workplace, is the same. I do not think the balanced recognition of the worth of the individual in the workplace is counterproductive; in fact I believe it is a vast untapped source of creativity and wealth, both monetary and social. As a small aside, I believe most of our problems stem from the rejection of Godly truth, which is where my perspective originates. In more secular terms, I tend to disagree with the increased emphasis in education toward fitting people into jobs - I have always disagreed with the intrusion of business into public school. I see it as the antisthesis of creative thinking, and ultimately a "drive killer", as individual talents get compressed and molded into filling the "quotas" required in the workforce.

Sounds a little "Commie" on the face of it, don't it? Although it was and is the practice of Communist societies to disregard the individual completely. /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif

I strongly believe it is the creativity of the individual that advances business (and society), and not mere effort. I can't help but think of some of the great names of industry, education, and theology as I write. They were not followers. Are we increasingly breeding followers in the name of expediency?

 

[RanchMan]

Yea Knucklehead, sometimes threads seem to advance pretty quickly (I have to play catch up too sometimes!) /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif Unfortunately I think this is probably my longest reply yet, so please bear with me..../w3tcompact/icons/sad.gif

<font color=blue>I'm happy to hear that it is a factor in the hiring process, and not just driven by pedigree.</font color=blue>

Yea, this has been a trend in the last decade or so. A large portion of the major corporations out there have come to the realization that grades/diploma aren't the only things to consider and an "straight 'A' student" may not be successful in their particular business environment, hence all the customized psychological hiring process they've developed to help them pick the "right" employees. Of course, grades & classes do matter, just have their relative importance (don't know too many engineering firms that regularly hire kids (to be engineers) who failed calculus repeatedly and wound up getting a liberal arts diploma instead of an engineering degree.) Not sure I'd want to fly on a plane, drive a car, cross a bridge, etc. where the engineers on the project couldn't do the required math correctly - call me "intolerant" I suppose. /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

<font color=blue>Another thing to coinsider is the increase in retrained people reentering the worlkforce...many without degrees other than those obtained as part of the retraining process.</font color=blue>

I don't disagree that people can certainly be retrained and become valued, contributing members of a company. If one is wishing to advance within the same career path though, any one having to be "retrained" will be "behind the curve" regarding advancement up the ladder. Yes, you can "teach an old dog new tricks," but if one is trying to advance in the shortest possible time (along with advance their salary more quickly), having to stop, redirect, and "start at square 1" will definitely slow them down.

<font color=blue>Reputation is important. We hope to contribute to the reputation already well understood by more open minded companies that self learners are self starters, creative thinkers, and maintain high standards in the workplace.</font color=blue>

I understand where you're coming from, and some companies will "flirt" with hiring home school individuals until a positive pattern is proven. Again, I think a big assumption is sneaking in -- that every home school parent invokes strict/quality education. Just because a parent loves/cares for their child doesn't mean they are willing to be a strict disciplinarian or strict educator. I see a LOT of children who, though I KNOW their parents "love them to death," refuse to invoke even minor amounts of discipline and/or the parent buys them every toy under the sun because "Johnny wants it and I love him."

Again, I'm not saying every (or even the majority) of HS parents/teachers are this way, but due to the natural bias associated with parent & their kids, the chances of some type of subterfuge exists. (EVERY parent think's their child is "better/sweeter/kinder/more intelligent/etc." than other kids.) I personally believe the "typical" HS parent/teacher is more likely to "let things slide" due to this "biological" connection. Again, not everyone, just a view based on observations.

Another aspect is that your statement implies (intended or not) a mutual exclusivity - that "self learners, self starters, creative thinkers" are characteristics unique in home school kids and not the typical college grad. I'd argue the typical college grad has these very characteristics - after all it takes work to get a diploma - it isn't just "given" to anyone who wants it. Does the diploma guarantee these characteristics are at the level a particular employer is seeking? Nope - but that’s where the psychological interviewing discussed earlier helps further determine the "level" of these characteristics.

<font color=blue>I think the key is to set and maintain high standards of performance, </font color=blue>

Yep. For the "typical" company seeking recruits, it is far easier to understand which universities are maintaining "high standards" vs. those or who do not or spend time "researching" each individual home school "teacher" to see if they do/do not meet their standards of education. Again, when we are talking job placement and corporate efficiencies, it simply is more efficient to go to the campus.

<font color=blue>...a balanced approach to life, meaning "it ain't all work".</font color=blue>

I completely agree - work should be a "part of life" not someone’s "entire life." But just because one is successful in their "work life" doesn't mean they are excluded from being "successful" in their family life or spiritual life.

<font color=blue>...if the acedemic records presented were created and maintained solely by us as parents. </font color=blue>

I think this is a wise move, but again, speaking at the college level, I seriously doubt the vast majority of companies will put the same "stock" in such home school correspondence based education at they would a regular accredited university. Again, depends on the goal/reason for attending college.

<font color=blue>...since when did academia become the slave of business? </font color=blue>

/w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif I admit I kindof find your statement confusing because it seemed initially you had, in your very first message on this thread, advocated <font color=blue>"formal vocational (aka technical) training" </font color=blue>. Going on, you basically implied (albeit tongue-in-cheek) you see very little value in learning things beyond the items necessary to competently do one’s job with the whole “<font color=blue>I tell others that they can then freely pursue the college training of their dreams, and become electricians, cooks or carpenters with a superior ability to discuss pre-cambrian archaeology or medival art. /w3tcompact/icons/eyes.gif </font color=blue>

So, based on your earlier post it would seem that the whole "mold the person to fit a job" aspect you would get with a degree (be it from a university of from a technical school) would, in your book be a "good thing." However, here, the implication is that focusing on aspects that "business" values, gearing an education toward "job placement" and not just for "education's sake" is bad.

For as long as I can remember, one of the main reasons someone went to college was to "get a better job." Where you see "slavery" with business being the "master," I see a collaboration where businesses help schools understand what skills are valued within the various industries to help individuals be more efficient/effective in their work. This "teamwork" helps universities prepare their students for the "real world expectations" while it helps businesses obtain a more educated worker for the fields they are seeking.

That being said, remember that even with this "collaboration," colleges still require a variety of classes to help individuals become a "more rounded person." (not referring to the "freshman 15" /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif) Even the engineer, chemist, biologist, etc. still have to take things that they would theoretically never use (world history, psychology, art, etc.) in the workplace.

I guess I’m saying I’m confused on your position. “Well rounded” or “Business based learning”? Well, regardless, I see a college as offering both.

<font color=blue>my problems with any institution, whether the public school, the workplace, or the local church, always are with the response to and care of individuals</font color=blue>

An idealist view, for sure! Now before anyone labels me a me, I'm NOT advocating that businesses drive their employees to the point of "breaking them", pay poor wages, not give "benefits," etc.

But, and call this a philosophical difference if you like, but business DO NOT exist simply to provide people a place to go during the day and make everyone "feel good." No, a business, in the most basic description, exists to provide a product or service where there is a demand for one - not to serve as our "friend", "parent", or "guardian." Yes, they can treat employees "well" and be a good "corporate citizen," but realize that the vast majority of businesses do this because it directly benefits them (most of the time - I'll bring up an 'exception' later).

E.g. if employees are "happy" (good wages, good benefits, good hours, challenged, appreciated, whatever), they are more inclined to be more productive & efficient. That, in turn, drives down the operating cost which makes for a better profit margin - yes, the axiom of "it costs money to make money" is true! From the "corporate citizen" standpoint, the benefits are similar, just outwardly facing vs. inward (e.g. potential customer base.)

<font color=blue>My understanding of the way we should run our society, and therefore the workplace, is the same.</font color=blue>

Well, I'm not advocating deceit or other "evil" aspects, but quite frankly, if every business was a "nice guy" on everything, no businesses wouldn't exist. Always cutting everybody a “break” because you feel “sorry” for them? Er - uh - no. You, as a business, would be broke before you could say “Jack Robinson.” Even businesses that DO take a position on things that could potentially “hurt” them (hard to prove based on my earlier paragraph) for moral/ethical/spiritual reasons still charge for their product. (e.g. Chick-fil-A has a very religious current going through it and even if they aren’t open on Sunday because of religious convictions, no money, no food.)

<font color=blue> more secular terms, I tend to disagree with the increased emphasis in education toward fitting people into jobs</font color=blue>

Again, that seems to disagree with your previous statement of advocating <font color=blue>”formal vocational (aka technical) training”</font color=blue>

<font color=blue>I have always disagreed with the intrusion of business into public school.</font color=blue>

Yes, I agree if they are showing commercials and pedaling their wares, but if they are (at the college level) helping the institutions focus their learning for the purposes I previously described, I see that as a positive.

<font color=blue> I see it as the antisthesis of creative thinking, and ultimately a "drive killer", as individual talents get compressed and molded into filling the "quotas" required in the workforce</font color=blue>

Just because companies come in and say “we are moving away from COBOL and moving toward languages such as C, you should probably start teaching classes in that” doesn’t “stifle” creativity. How does that “kill drive?” I think the real “drive killer” would be to graduate a student (university or home school) with a whole set of skills that they have little to no likelihood of using to obtain work when that’s what their goal was in the first place. (E.g. should we still teach the skills as a prerequisite for graduation associated with the manufacture “buggy whips”? Sure if someone wants to learn it for “fun” or simply just because they have an interest, fine - but to delude them in to thinking it is a highly valued and marketable skill set? Er, uh - no.) If you have 0 feedback from the business community, how will you know when the subjects you are teaching are outdated and obsolete?

<font color=blue>Sounds a little "Commie" on the face of it, don't it? It was and is the practice of Communist societies to disregard the individual completely </font color=blue>

Yes, but as you point out, that is not really an accurate description. Sounds like you are more aligned with the model of Utopian Socialism, where the concern for “fair” treatment of each individual within a society was the main focus. It appears you have more in common with Owen & Mill than Lenin & Marx.

<font color=blue>I strongly believe it is the creativity of the individual that advances business (and society), and not mere effort.</font color=blue>

Yes, some of the biggest inventions and richest people were/are those who didn’t have a formal education. I’d argue though that these are the “exceptions” and the VAST majority of individuals in this world will never meet with the same success levels regardless of education background. Creativity is critical, but, based on your statements, it comes across that every home schooled college student is somehow “creative” where your typical university grad is incapable of creative thought. I don’t concur - and, again, getting back to some of the classes one must take in college, creativity is required. No, effort is not the only requirement - but it can be difficult to come up with ideas for a solution when you don’t know the basic facts required to create the solution.

<font color=blue>....Are we increasingly breeding followers in the name of expediency?</font color=blue>

Again, I’m a bit confused. On the one hand, you have said that formal vocational training is “good” and college “wastes a lot of time”, yet here, you seem to complain that “we” as a society are trying to get specialized individuals in too short of a time period because we are desperate. Seems contradictory to me. Additionally, I take issue with college grads being called “followers” - implying they are incapable of independent thought/creativity. There are plenty of “independent thinkers” that have a diploma on their wall.

Hopefully this gives some more perspective on how I "see the world." Hope you didn't get too blurry eyed reading such a long response! /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif