Join the conversation

A couple of days ago, I wrote that I was uneasy with the growing criticism of our push to get many more US students into college. I worry that, without such a push, we'll give in to a system where family income remains the major gatekeeper for higher ed. 

Several people pushed back in the comments section. They shared my unease with our current inequities, but they felt the college for all approach might make things worse for kids of all income levels. I still can't back away from my support for the college push, but thought I should share their very thoughtful and spirited comments. Here are a few excerpts:

First, from Keishla Caesar-Jones:

I don't think the answer is to make education a revolving door. Because we think everyone SHOULD go to college instead of everyone should have the chance to CHOOSE to go to college.

We have created a one-size fits all approach to education that puts everyone on the same track...come hell or high water. I live in Texas, and for the past few decades, all vocational programs were eliminated from public schools. The only ones to remain were mostly automotive in some places and cosmetology. What is wrong with being an auto tech, a plumber, an electrician, a stylist? Many of these people are entrepreneurs, owning their own businesses. My stylist makes more money than I do, and she works 4 days a week and fewer hours. She does honorable work.

...

The reality is that the "college for all" idea is a reflection of the past when low SES and minority students were being pushed into special ed or vocational programs. So for the past few decades, the response was to dismantle those programs. Instead of creating a better filtering process, instead of making sure that the low SES and minority students were encouraged and supported in taking academic tracks, they shoved everyone on an academic track....

...

I am not comfortable necessarily steering them to trade schools, but I am also equally not comfortable having a percentage of kids sit through high schools disengaged, and leave with nothing but a piece of paper.

Here are some comments from "lilactree":

I have many, many family members who went to college because they were told that it's the only way to avoid poverty. Most flunked out or dropped out (a few went back later when they were more mature, mostly to community college where they became nurses, police officers, surveyors, etc). These were, for the most part, working class kids, not privileged ones. The college experience was not only bad for them, they also emerged with big loans to pay off (or default on). Many ended up in occupations that they enjoy, at salaries/wages they can live on. They would have gotten to these occupations sooner if they had not detoured to college.

...

I don't think it's "college or settling for the trades." People who go into the building trades have to have a great deal of talent. Not everyone who doesn't go to college is going to be able to go into the trades. I have a lawyer friend whose plumber Dad told him he would need to go to college because he would never make it as a plumber. Many of the occupations that kids will end up in might not meet with the approval of policy wonks, but as long as they end up somewhere OK, let's quit being such fussbudgets about it.

And finally, a contribution from an anonymous commenter:

Here's an idea--why don't we rethink college? We've become so accustomed to traditional education that we don't consider alternatives. We need to have a wider variety of educational experiences than "college, voc-ed, or nothing."

I worry that, without the push for college, we lose much of the incentive to improve K-12 schools or to make higher ed more affordable for all students. But I think the three readers I quote have made a strong case for trades and vocational programs. Rather than killing vocational programs, should we do more to fuse them more fully with the college prep track? Will that give students the choices they deserve?

(You can read the full comments here).