Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
(I work at a community college and this is a discussion that's been going around recently so I thought I would bring it up here. Some background: community colleges are open to anyone, unlike traditional universities, so they normally test new students to see if they're at college or remedial [a.k.a. not yet college] levels for reading, grammar, math, and other areas. The debate is whether we're just not very good at figuring our if students can succeed and are unfairly giving them the message that they're not good enough or not ready by telling them that they're at remedial levels. Anyway.)
Conventional wisdom is that many high school graduates are not prepared for college and so do not perform well when their reading, math, and science abilities are tested. The counterpoint to this is that conventional testing doesn't accurately assess how prepared students really are for college.
Which side of the argument do you fall on, if you do fall to one side?
Do students need to have done well in high school in order to do well in college/university/post-secondary education?
Do students deserve the benefit of the doubt with college? In other words, should students not be restricted in what coursework they want to pursue until they fail instead of asking them to prove they're ready first before we give them a chance?
Anything else that's related that you'd want to discuss about college preparedness.
Do students need to have done well in high school in order to do well in college/university/post-secondary education?
Yes, relatively well. If you had a hard time in high school, generally speaking, post-secondary is going to be like that and then some with more independence, etc etc
Do students deserve the benefit of the doubt with college? In other words, should students not be restricted in what coursework they want to pursue until they fail instead of asking them to prove they're ready first before we give them a chance?
Of course they should be restricted. How can you teach someone about enzyme chemistry if they don't know about basic chemical properties (hydrophilic/hydrophobic, charges, etc)? How do you effectively engage in a in-depth course about international relations without having a basic understanding of the theories of IR, often introduced in polisci 101?
Do students need to have done well in high school in order to do well in college/university/post-secondary education?
Yes, relatively well. If you had a hard time in high school, generally speaking, post-secondary is going to be like that and then some with more independence, etc etc
Do students deserve the benefit of the doubt with college? In other words, should students not be restricted in what coursework they want to pursue until they fail instead of asking them to prove they're ready first before we give them a chance?
Of course they should be restricted. How can you teach someone about enzyme chemistry if they don't know about basic chemical properties (hydrophilic/hydrophobic, charges, etc)? How do you effectively engage in a in-depth course about international relations without having a basic understanding of the theories of IR, often introduced in polisci 101?
These are good points and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but, using myself as an example, I screwed around for part of high school and got some bad grades. Bad enough that going directly to a 4-year school was out of the question. When I went to community college I turned everything around and was a good student. Luckily I was allowed to take college-level courses instead of remedial ones because I did well enough (i.e., got lucky) when they assessed me into math and English classes. So what I'm saying is that, despite not doing well in high school I was still able to do well in college level classes. Obviously that's just one example, but you see where I'm going, I hope.
Our education system is quite different from that of the US in some ways, so apologies if this doesn't really relate very well. Here we have two different paths for tertiary education - either you can study at university or you can study at TAFE (which is more or less the equivalent of community college I guess).
When it comes to the former, students who do badly at high school rarely do particularly well although there are some courses where this is somewhat less the case. This is quite different for TAFE though where courses are geared specifically to certain trades, are not as academically heavy and have a stronger focus on apprenticing and practical work. Many students who don't do well in high school are quite successful at TAFE and many even drop out of high school to pursue a trade through TAFE instead.
Do students deserve the benefit of the doubt with college? In other words, should students not be restricted in what coursework they want to pursue until they fail instead of asking them to prove they're ready first before we give them a chance?
Restrictions are definitely necessary. You cannot study engineering at a university level if you don't have the necessary mathematical skills. You can't study medicine if you don't have prior knowledge of the human body. You can't be a teacher without adequate literacy and numeracy abilities etc etc.
That's why bridging courses are great. You can go from high school or TAFE into a bridging course that will fill the gaps in your education and help get you up to scratch so you can meet the requirements to begin studying in the field you want to get into. Does the US have these?
As a related point. I found that my biggest trouble going into University (well that wasn't brought on by asshole lecturers/admin staff) was that there's a very sudden change in what you're work is expected to be like. Referencing becomes more specific and structures, certain courses/lecturers have very specific ways they want things done and any independent/creative/exploratory thought is heavily discouraged. You don't get good results by thinking in depth and deconstructing things, you get results by regurgitating exactly what your lecturer's own PoV is onto the page - at least that's what I got from my experiences and I know others who ran into the same issue or similar. I don't think that high school prepares you well for such restrictive learning nor do I think it produces the best professionals for whatever career.
Our education system is quite different from that of the US in some ways, so apologies if this doesn't really relate very well. Here we have two different paths for tertiary education - either you can study at university or you can study at TAFE (which is more or less the equivalent of community college I guess).
When it comes to the former, students who do badly at high school rarely do particularly well although there are some courses where this is somewhat less the case. This is quite different for TAFE though where courses are geared specifically to certain trades, are not as academically heavy and have a stronger focus on apprenticing and practical work. Many students who don't do well in high school are quite successful at TAFE and many even drop out of high school to pursue a trade through TAFE instead.
From what I understand the US is fairly rare in its community college system and that many other countries don't have a "second chance" for entering university if you don't go directly from high school. Maybe it's because we don't have free higher education. I dunno.
But if I'm understanding you, there are students who do poorly in high school who still go on to a university? Typically here you have minimum requirements to be accepted into college/university and most poor performing students don't have the grades to get accepted (though I guess this depends on what we consider "poor" academic performance) which is one of the reasons people opt for a community college.
Restrictions are definitely necessary. You cannot study engineering at a university level if you don't have the necessary mathematical skills. You can't study medicine if you don't have prior knowledge of the human body. You can't be a teacher without adequate literacy and numeracy abilities etc etc.
That's why bridging courses are great. You can go from high school or TAFE into a bridging course that will fill the gaps in your education and help get you up to scratch so you can meet the requirements to begin studying in the field you want to get into. Does the US have these?
There are vocational schools in the US, but they're mostly private (as in not state or federally run and funded). Community colleges do have lots of vocational/certificate programs for things like automotive repair, nursing, court reporting, EMT training, and things like that, but AFAIK there isn't much in the way of vocational training and/or bridging at a high school level. I'm not all that well versed in this area, but the idea in most standard public high schools is to have you go on to college or at least community college. It's often the alternative high schools which have any attention placed on vocational training.
From what I understand the US is fairly rare in its community college system and that many other countries don't have a "second chance" for entering university if you don't go directly from high school. Maybe it's because we don't have free higher education. I dunno.
But if I'm understanding you, there are students who do poorly in high school who still go on to a university? Typically here you have minimum requirements to be accepted into college/university and most poor performing students don't have the grades to get accepted (though I guess this depends on what we consider "poor" academic performance) which is one of the reasons people opt for a community college.
Not exactly. We have exams that give you a score and universities may or may not accept you into certain courses depending on your score in whatever areas. But you can also get into university based on a portfolio or by having completed a relevant TAFE course etc. So it's less a one way track to get in. That's part of why we have quite a few older people studying here compared to other places.
In Canada you can enter university from college as well. A lot of people do this - it's a recognized institution, such that certain college credits can be carried over.
These days I'm more worried about the Universities and colleges themselves. When Universities can be bullied into demands (Look at UCLAs "5.0' standard and you'll see) and the standards of education have dropped within the past few years. I don't know. I seem to think that even if you come back with a degree these days the 'uneducated' grease monkey down the street will still know more about engineering than you do. I feel like our system is 'dumbing down' and it's an unfortunate thing to see.
These days I'm more worried about the Universities and colleges themselves. When Universities can be bullied into demands (Look at UCLAs "5.0' standard and you'll see) and the standards of education have dropped within the past few years. I don't know. I seem to think that even if you come back with a degree these days the 'uneducated' grease monkey down the street will still know more about engineering than you do. I feel like our system is 'dumbing down' and it's an unfortunate thing to see.
I can't find this "UCLA 5.0 Standard" via any search terms I can come up for it. All that comes up is that the average high school GPA of incoming students at UCLA is a whopping 4.29 or thereabouts. You're going to need to cite a source on that if you're going to bring it up.
FThere are vocational schools in the US, but they're mostly private (as in not state or federally run and funded). Community colleges do have lots of vocational/certificate programs for things like automotive repair, nursing, court reporting, EMT training, and things like that, but AFAIK there isn't much in the way of vocational training and/or bridging at a high school level. I'm not all that well versed in this area, but the idea in most standard public high schools is to have you go on to college or at least community college. It's often the alternative high schools which have any attention placed on vocational training.
Dunno how it is out there in California, but most of our vocational schools here in Minnesota are run directly out of the public technical colleges and community colleges.
As for the high school level, vocational training in the US varies widely depending on the school district. My school had a handful of vocational training courses it offered in its shop classes, and partnered with surrounding districts to offer vocational training and college credit courses at a co-op school all the districts shared that was both for the extremely academically gifted and for the special needs. Larger suburban school districts nearby ran their own programs, while the urban districts have had difficulty keeping these programs district-wide due to NCLB's rules regarding access to federal funding being based off of results on standardized testing.
There are vocational schools in the US, but they're mostly private (as in not state or federally run and funded). Community colleges do have lots of vocational/certificate programs for things like automotive repair, nursing, court reporting, EMT training, and things like that, but AFAIK there isn't much in the way of vocational training and/or bridging at a high school level. I'm not all that well versed in this area, but the idea in most standard public high schools is to have you go on to college or at least community college. It's often the alternative high schools which have any attention placed on vocational training.
To my knowledge the idea of "you must go onto university after high school to succeed" is a relatively recent thing. In the older generations, especially Baby Boomer, you could live a comfortable life (read: own property and have an income that gives you standard quality of life) with a high school diploma because there was more demand for vocational professions and that according to my grandparents, universities back then were REALLY REALLY difficult and so few people used to get in.
But now many public schools seem to have vocational programs axed from them - not once in any public school I went to in California did I find a steel-shop or woodshop class, despite how important steelworking and carpentry are to infrastructure. Combined that with the increasing push to go to university by many parents in late-Baby Boomer and Gen-X and it seems like we've got a generation that is highly educated, but there aren't enough appropriate jobs to go around, resulting in massive amounts of unemployment or under-employment.
It's been one year since I graduated with a Biology degree......and I'm working temp jobs for local offices. No bio career going forward, to the point where I'm thinking of taking something in the local community college just so I can have the excuse of being a "student" to land a paid-internship or something.
Or go even more into debt to get a Master's....which even then I'm not sure is even going to guarantee me anything.
Which side of the argument do you fall on, if you do fall to one side?
i think conventional testing to get people into college is fucking dumb bc not everyone does well with tests, esp if they have test anxiety
Do students need to have done well in high school in order to do well in college/university/post-secondary education?
i mean, yeah. i do think they do. they don't need to do like...all A's but A's or B's maybe some C's could work.
Do students deserve the benefit of the doubt with college? In other words, should students not be restricted in what coursework they want to pursue until they fail instead of asking them to prove they're ready first before we give them a chance?
i definitely agree with this, i think people should take what they want and stuff and not be restricted to classes and stuff. idk
Just like most things in life, I believe that a lower barrier of entry is always the better choice. No, I don't support having more pre-requisites, but a previous one-off testing is fine for me - it doesn't reveal all abilities, but it does show some that the student can achieve some sort of bare minimum.
I have been shoved multiple times into classes or courses with a lower entry requirement, but contrary to conventional wisdom, I find that there is no great difference in the intelligence of students compared to those admited into "elite" pathways. Bonus points because these "lesser qualified" are actually friendlier!
I can't find this "UCLA 5.0 Standard" via any search terms I can come up for it. All that comes up is that the average high school GPA of incoming students at UCLA is a whopping 4.29 or thereabouts. You're going to need to cite a source on that if you're going to bring it up.
I'll put it this way instead. I don't have a pamphlet with me, so you'll have to pardon my candor.
It's really rather all convoluted and rather difficult to explain. UCLA grades on a curve of 5.0, and until recently, everyone was graded on a curve of 4.0. Why? Well, besides attempting to hide the fact that most of their kids are dolts? It sounds better on paper. It's not something that is widely trumpeted and I don't know why. I can hazard a guess, but you're going to have to just take it on a little bit of faith, you even did half the work yourself already anyways. How would the average of students being accepted have above a 4.0 if the grade scale was not curved to 5.0? Hey, wanna see something really cringe worthy?
The following examples are of California's educational system at the public level. All are 7th Grade English Language Arts students, marked as having English being their primary language and form of communication. I selected one each from different races, although I won't tell you which one is which. The assignment? To write a short narrative essay on either their best day ever or their worst day ever. Time given? Two weeks. The results are . . . less than stellar.
Spoiler:
The worst day ever is when we went to a baseball because I was sick and the air is cold and my team is losing and we were in the third ining and were are losing 3-4 we had secends on the clock tell it is the fourth ining and down by a point. It is the fourth ining if my team dose not pull it together or we will lose this game for sure and the last ining and the scoar was 5-5 but the hit the ball and the other team hit a homerun and the scoar was 6-5 and we lost but we had fun and when we headed back and I fell down
The best day i ever was on my b day.i had just whent to school and People were saying happy b day and my teacher gave me a prize from the prize box. It was a mexican candy.i went to luch and made a lot of shots it was amazing.i even won a rafie to.best time at school.
Later when i came home i was playing outside with my friends and i found five dollars on the floor.
Then i went with my friend to his house and he got me a toy nerf gun.i was happy to see it then had to stay with my friend will my mom and his mom went to my house.and me and my friend
Played call of duty.
The worst thing I have ever was the dumbest thing I have ever done in my life so far and I would really not want that to happen again because I had faced some very big consequences that I would really not want to pay again because I had called the police when I was in 5th grade because I had gone into peer by my ?friend?
If this doesn't explain why I don't place much faith in the UCLA I don't know what does. It's because I know for a fact that the high school level is about a dime throw better, but not by much. The system is belching out kids through the system that aren't prepped to handle high school, much less college life. The idea that there is a 4.29 grade point average is laughable, as it really equates to a 3.29 and if we're being realistic here it's probably more within the range of 2.9. These kids are far from bright. There was even an essay where the kid bragged about 'vaping' with e-cigarettes! It wasn't Pulitzer prize material, to say the least.
Before you call me the cherry picker, it pains me to say it, but I actually didn't have to even spend the time to find the worst of all the essays. These were perhaps the best example of how basic their skills truly are. The Best essays that were received weren't much better. They rather equated to "speaking on this topic. I like dogs because they're cute. Speaking on second topic" and not much else. There's no substance and the lack of returns received on the assignment shows either a) lack of interest, b) lack of intelligence, c) laziness or d) all of the above. Out of a pool of 30, less than 1/3 of the students even turned in an assignment. There are 6 Periods of students, and all of them produced trash like this, if they bothered at all!
I understand that we're speaking on colleges and universities but you don't get to go to college if you don't have a basic grasp of literacy. Literacy is what separates the successful and the unsuccessful. It isn't going to be a huge secret that if you don't understand what you're reading, you won't get very far in nearly any class you take. History, foreign language courses, sciences, biology, photography, and even film and math courses require you to be able to absorb and comprehend the material.
I understand, grades may or may not be reflective upon the student but when I need to halt my speech to explain to them what the word 'adequate' means, we have a big problem. These kids are about a year away (plus a few months) from entering the high school level and they can't cut it. Time and again, all the faculty and teachers are aghast at what's been transpiring within the Californian school system. It's funny, really. The majority of educators seem to have been hired from out of state. Not all of them, but enough to actually note that something is askew in the laboratory.
For students in California, I say forget college and focus on learning the basics, because without them you'll never make it very far. California ranks somewhere between 48th or 49th place in education out of all the states in the US. Yikes.
