Originally Posted by redforever
1. Why are you assuming they are necessary? Is it that they are necessary or is it because parents have deemed that by choosing alternate arrangements for their children, their children will have a better chance of succeeding? So if my child is fluent in another language, if my child has his sporting or artistic aptitudes addressed, if my child is given a more religious focus while being schooled, then they will be better educated and better able to meet the needs of the future?
I personally don't think they are necessary... but somewhere along the line it was determined that the kid who went to school, got straight As, played piano, spoke three languages, went to special classes, and played hockey must be a superior candidate to someone with similar grades, maybe a sport/hobby or two, and a childhood. In Canada, you can kiss most scholarships goodbye if you're not bilingual. As well, universities all ask what people do, aside from school, and logically critique it.
2. And I stock that up to the fact that 20 years ago, even up to 40 years ago, parents did not feel that "trade" schools, or "college" educations were up to snuff. So they pushed the university is the only option for my child approach and they pushed the option that if my child is exposed to "x" number of things before they reach university entrance age, then my child will have a better chance of actually getting into university. And so now you have the supply and demand scenario. There is more demand for spaces in a university setting than there is supply. The next question then to be asked is, should we just simply create more spaces in the universities? Where does it end?
Simply put, yes. Supply and Demand is the single greatest issue right now. When I applied to University, the required average for a BA/BSc program was 73 with a few exceptions (for popular programs). Now its about 80. Are the kids who got in with 73-79% averages suddenly unqualified idiots? Absolutely not. Essentially, the majority of people with decent grades, aptitudes to certain professions, and a desire to succeed can do these degrees. The guy with a 3.9 and a 55th percentile aptitude test mark is not a better candidate than the guy with the 3.3 and the 80th percentile aptitude test mark... both can probably succeed, but many schools would dismiss one or both of them. Governments and Universities are simply getting lazy. Calgary has doubled in population, therefore the amount of professionals needed should have doubled, not to mention the amount of baby boomers ready to retire in the next 15 years. Do we have three times as many seats in Law, Medicine, Nursing, Education and Engineering that we used to? Not even close.
I think it ends when rejection rates for these programs are reduced to people who are actually not qualified (under C average GPA, failed aptitude test, etc), rather than qualified applicants that there simply are no room for.
I will agree however, that since there has been such a focus on getting a university degree, a BA now pretty well equates to what a Grade 12 high school diploma used to.
At one time, it was deemed teachers were qualified to educate and teach students with a 2 year "normal" school program. Now they require a 4 year Bachelor of Education program. Do you think the quality of teaching has gone up substantially? Perhaps teachers now are better able to understand the psyche of their students more, but does requiring more years in a university setting actually make that person a better teacher?
Isn't it six years to be a teacher now? I thought one needed an undergraduate degree, and then could transfer into a 2 year bachelor of education. Maybe there's some shortcuts through. I highly doubt they are better teachers...
At one time, nurses could actually nurse with 2 years of education in their field too. Now nurses as well require at least 4 years. Again, does that make the person a better nurse? Well maybe if you want those nurses to start assuming some of the doctors' duties so that it frees up time for the doctors to do other things. Or perhaps to dispense more medications.
My girlfriend is finishing her 3rd year of a BN, and the first year was total BS fluff. Women's Studies, English, Stats... come on. LPNs are still 2 years, and NAs are 6 months. But now, BNs make more than typical RNs. They plan to phase out the non Bachelor of Nursing RNs apparently. Nurse Practitioners are essentially resident doctors, but that requires a two year master's degree after the initial 4 year BN. So, its essentially 7 years + training for a doctor, or 6 years for a NP to relieve them somewhat. What is wrong with this picture? I don't think they are better nurses (though my gf might argue with me), I think they just get their hands held a lot more, and get a lot of useless fluff.
All I am asking is, at what point do we admit we are overloading our kids?
Good rhetorical question. Some studies are starting to come out that students in general are more stressed out than ever before, yeah, there's those who live the good life as students, but circumstances have become ridiculous.
3. Are children being forced to abandon their childhoods to obtain an education or are parents assuming this is the way for their children to achieve success?
I think its a bit of both. Sad thing is, they're abandoning their childhoods accruing all this fluff (much of it being superficial)before getting tossed onto the roulette board of admissions to do schooling for 4-10 years, and still aren't done their "elite" education until they are pushing 30.
|