The solution is to stop accepting individuals who aren't up to the standards.
exactly what I wrote, they don't meet the standards for university, so you direct them to a program so they can gain the standards before they're accepted into university. It might take them a year, but it means if they go on to university, they won't be behind before the first day.
So people who will spend a year after high school to learn enough about a subject to legitimately meet the requirements to enter university shouldn't be allowed to go to university? There are community college courses that are entirely for that purpose. Their entire purpose is to make students meet university prerequisites. Some universities (MIT) even teach these courses online or during summer break, when regular courses (that require the prerequisites) are not in session.
Not everyone has a good library. Not everyone has a high school that teaches the subject they want to specialize in, and some subjects heavily benefit from having a person who knows it helping. I'd much rather people who are sure they want to learn a subject and will spend the time than someone who takes a university course because they want a degree, without caring about the subject or intending to do it professionally.
You're hitting on a different, but related, problem. That high school is dramatically insufficient to prepare most people for higher education. And this is the case because, again, we have this stupid policy of not "leaving behind" the chronically inadequate.
Public school, and having public-ized the college system, is an invalid paradigm.
No, I've been talking about the same thing this entire time. Some people don't meet the requirements for a university course for whatever reason. As long as they spend the time and effort to legitimately meet the requirements, they should be accepted. I'm not talking about accepting them when they don't meet the standards. I'm talking about accepting them after they've proved they meet the standards.
They're rejected > they take a year to meet the standards > they're accepted the next year after meeting the standards
Don't enroll them if they don't meet the standards. If they do meet the requirements, even if they take a program somewhere else to do it, why the fuck shouldn't they?
I think you're overestimating the number of people who would benefit from such a program. I'm not saying the opportunity you suggest shouldn't exist, but the reality is that college isn't for everyone and there needs to be a way to filter those people out so they can spend their time and money on more productive pursuits like vocational school. Immigration should be cut off to give them a fighting chance as well. Any college program that's rigorous enough to make someone employable requires a certain level of intelligence that not everyone has. Some people will never get it no matter how much effort they put in. For example algebra will never be comprehensible to the bottom 70% of the IQ distribution. We'd be able to make education work for everyone if we were able to face some unpleasant truths.
I was mainly ranting on university qualification and diversity bullshit. I wouldn't recommend anyone go to university now, unless they really needed to, like to be a doctor, but even that's a sketchy career path in current year's politics.
Degrees need to die, as universities have consistently proven they're worthless as guarantees of competency. Degrees also require teachers to have teaching degrees, which prevents people who work in the industry from teaching, even if they're the ones who actually have relevant skills, and know what is in demand.
I've had enough experience with graduates that don't have basic competency in the field they graduated, and others who can't get over the idea that they can learn things outside of a course, even when a competent person is right there to teach them.
exactly what I wrote, they don't meet the standards for university, so you direct them to a program so they can gain the standards before they're accepted into university. It might take them a year, but it means if they go on to university, they won't be behind before the first day.
Library cards?
I don't think you really understand my point here. College should not be for everyone.
The people who deserve to be in higher education are the people who give enough of a fuck to be ready for it.
So people who will spend a year after high school to learn enough about a subject to legitimately meet the requirements to enter university shouldn't be allowed to go to university? There are community college courses that are entirely for that purpose. Their entire purpose is to make students meet university prerequisites. Some universities (MIT) even teach these courses online or during summer break, when regular courses (that require the prerequisites) are not in session.
Not everyone has a good library. Not everyone has a high school that teaches the subject they want to specialize in, and some subjects heavily benefit from having a person who knows it helping. I'd much rather people who are sure they want to learn a subject and will spend the time than someone who takes a university course because they want a degree, without caring about the subject or intending to do it professionally.
You're hitting on a different, but related, problem. That high school is dramatically insufficient to prepare most people for higher education. And this is the case because, again, we have this stupid policy of not "leaving behind" the chronically inadequate.
Public school, and having public-ized the college system, is an invalid paradigm.
No, I've been talking about the same thing this entire time. Some people don't meet the requirements for a university course for whatever reason. As long as they spend the time and effort to legitimately meet the requirements, they should be accepted. I'm not talking about accepting them when they don't meet the standards. I'm talking about accepting them after they've proved they meet the standards.
They're rejected > they take a year to meet the standards > they're accepted the next year after meeting the standards
Don't enroll them if they don't meet the standards. If they do meet the requirements, even if they take a program somewhere else to do it, why the fuck shouldn't they?
I think you're overestimating the number of people who would benefit from such a program. I'm not saying the opportunity you suggest shouldn't exist, but the reality is that college isn't for everyone and there needs to be a way to filter those people out so they can spend their time and money on more productive pursuits like vocational school. Immigration should be cut off to give them a fighting chance as well. Any college program that's rigorous enough to make someone employable requires a certain level of intelligence that not everyone has. Some people will never get it no matter how much effort they put in. For example algebra will never be comprehensible to the bottom 70% of the IQ distribution. We'd be able to make education work for everyone if we were able to face some unpleasant truths.
I was mainly ranting on university qualification and diversity bullshit. I wouldn't recommend anyone go to university now, unless they really needed to, like to be a doctor, but even that's a sketchy career path in current year's politics.
Degrees need to die, as universities have consistently proven they're worthless as guarantees of competency. Degrees also require teachers to have teaching degrees, which prevents people who work in the industry from teaching, even if they're the ones who actually have relevant skills, and know what is in demand.
I've had enough experience with graduates that don't have basic competency in the field they graduated, and others who can't get over the idea that they can learn things outside of a course, even when a competent person is right there to teach them.