|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Friday, 31 March 2006 |
The civil rights movement was a landmark time for the United States. It pushed the country forward in a way that hasn't happened since. It was a volatile time, and since then the country has cooled off. On one hand this is a good thing as the cooling off leads to less violence, but maybe we've cooled off too much. Complacency has set in now, and we're essentially frozen.
Frozen Food for Thought
The big questions now are the same big questions that plagued our society in the 70's. Should people be allowed to smoke marijuana? Should people have the right to abort unwanted children? We've gone nowhere since Roe v. Wade in 1973. Evidence that we've gone nowhere is that now, 33 years after Roe v. Wade hit the US Supreme Court, we're ramping up for another abortion battle in that same court. Roe v. Wade was supposed to settle the argument, but it didn't. We weren't done arguing, and we've been preoccupied about it ever since.
Things are stacking up. New questions such as gay marriage have come up, but we have no capacity to deal with them. If we've not been able to deal with the questions of marijuana and abortion, how are we to be expected to deal with gay marriage in a timely fashion? Is that going to take another 30 years to hit a court somewhere, and then another 30 to be argued over one more time? How many other questions will be raised, and how backlogged will our Supreme Court get?
Thawing Out the Decision-Making Process
It is not that these issues can't be resolved. They just can't be resolved at a national level. There's too many people in this country to make everyone happy all the time. The founders of our country built structures to handle situations like this; states. The reason we live in states, is because there are going to be issues that we won't be able to agree upon nationally. Those issues, should be resolved at the state level. This makes the largest number of people happy, because it doesn't have to fit the whole country. People in different places are able to make different decisions.
Our government has not drastically changed in the last 150 years, but it seems we've forgotten about a few of the basic ideas the United States was built on. States still have rights, but in 2006 they behave like they don't. These rights are there to be exercised. The states that do exercise them are looked at as rebels, or like they're somehow breaking the status quo. California is a good example. They do what they like over on the west coast, and the rest of the country talks about how nutty they are. Whether you agree with the decisions being made, at least they're doing something to make their little piece of the country better according to what people who live in that state seem to want.
Not all states are the same. Most people know this, but they don't really grasp that things could be more different if they had to be. In Michigan, it's okay to make a left on a red. In other states, it's not okay to make a right on red. Do we need to take traffic laws to the Supreme Court? Things are different between states, and we accept it. We move along. Murder, one of the most egregious attacks on an individual's rights, has different penalties depending on the state you're in. The minimum age to marry is different between states. Things can be different, and should be different. We don't need to decide everything at a national level, and then impose that decision on everyone.
Different Strokes fo' Different Folks
This is the link between abortion, and gay marriage. They are state's rights issues. I don't care where you come down on the issues of abortion or gay marriage. It doesn't matter. They do not affect this country as a whole. Our country was designed so that there be freedom of choice and diversity. States can do what they like. It isn't inconceivable that we might not be able to reach a decision, as a country, on these issues. We don't have to. So let's stop arguing about it, and throwing it in the president's lap. It is not his job.
We've lost our sense of independence, and look to the federal government to tell us what to do. Nationalism is powerful, but it isn't the answer to everything. People don't seem to understand the levels between them and what they hear on the news. They understand the homeowner's association in their community. They understand what George Bush is doing as the president. They do not understand how the state they live in affects their life. They don't understand they have choice, or they should have choice.
Using the Right Tool for the Job
Our system is not a bad system, but the way it's being used is kind of ridiculous. Historically there were less people in this country, and yet the structures in place were used to benefit everyone. It's easier to make everyone happy when everyone encompasses a smaller number of people. States used their rights, and understood that not every decision to be made had to affect the whole country. They probably could have argued something out for the whole country, but they didn't. They used the tools available to them to make everything smoother and easier.
Today, we have many times more people spread across a far greater geographical area. Yet we ignore the structures that have been in place since the inception of our government. We argue non-stop, and attempt to find a solution that fits everyone. I suspect that if research is done into decision making among large groups of people we'll find that when a group reaches a certain size it becomes unlikely that any solution can be found at all. We're probably past this point in the United States. Let's realize this, and move forward by dealing with things on a state by state basis.
Stop Arguing; Start Thinking
Does it really matter if certain states allow gays to marry, and other states don't? Do we really need the same abortion laws in every state? It would be very convenient, but having a national Bureau of Motor Vehicles would be pretty convenient too. It might be a little tougher if we have different things in different states, but I think everyone would be happier. They might actually learn something about the state they live in, and be able to do the things they want to do.
Let's just bypass all this national uproar about these issues. We can undercut the federal government, and that's what has happened in most states already with abortion. We can do the same thing with gay marriage. In states where civil union laws can be passed, we'll pass them. In states where they can't be passed, that's okay too. The state will reflect the wants and needs of its citizens. Once again, this is a case where people are putting the cart before the horse with regards to arguing. None of this needs to go to the federal supreme court, at all. So any national arguments that can be had are pretty worthless no matter which side you take.
|
|
|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Wednesday, 22 March 2006 |
|
I was looking forward to hearing Tony Dungy speak. I love listening to people I know I'm going to disagree with. It gives me ammo. Anyone who knows me knows that the only time I ever really feel alive is when I'm complaining.
I was really looking forward to the disappointment of the crowd when they realized that Mr. Dungy would be speaking about Christianity that night and not football. The fantasy in my head was that hundreds of rabid Colts fans would be disappointed, but have to sit through an hour-long speech concerning religion that they didn't bargain for. It was going to be brilliant. I was going to complain about how much Tony Dungy is into his nonsense, and then follow it up with complaining about the crowd.
Sadly, only part of my wish came true. I was able to complain about Tony Dungy very easily. He was exactly as I thought he'd be. He contradicted himself a few times, talked about football too much, and had a massively overinflated sense of self-importance. The crowd was what threw me for a loop. At the point where Tony Dungy led the crowd in accepting Jesus Christ as their personal savior, I looked around. Having given up Catholicism at an early age, I get really uncomfortable with being thrust back in to hardcore religion. I gazed on the crowd of Emens auditorium and found that not only were some of them praying, but the majority were. I could only spot a few other lone souls in the crowd like myself.
I really didn't think there were that many people religious enough on campus to participate in public prayer with Tony Dungy. I was wrong, and it kind of freaked me out. I imagine it's what the Grinch felt like in the Dr. Seuss Christmas fairty tale. Except, I'm not evil. I think it bothers me that I don't know that people might be religious when I talk to them.
In my mind, it's like finding out that someone is really in to bad Pop Hip-Hop and Country music. You feel like you would know if you met that person. You feel like you would be able to avoid them, but then something happens like this Tony Dungy experience. You realize that they're everywhere, and they will sneak under your radar. It's depressing that so many people would be so into something you're philosophically against, and that you won't be able to spot them at 40 paces.
It was definitely an eye-opening experience despite Tony's speech. I learned things about myself, and about the demographics of Ball State University. I realize that it was a Campus Crusade for Christ event and that would attract religious people. I just didn't quite grasp the part where Tony Dungy had the power to fill an auditorium with people devoted enough to participate in public prayer with him. |
|
|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Sunday, 19 March 2006 |
We live in a fantasy world. People with serious problems appear on shows like Dr. Phil, and they're left usually with what amounts to someone saying, "Stop it." The person feels as if they've gotten some profound insight in to their troubles, but they are left just the same as they were before while Dr. Phil gets his own prime time special. I wish that the problem were limited to him, but it's not. His popularity is only a sign of the ignorance of the public, and the stagnation of the information being given.
The popular philosophy is that of free will. All people have to do about their problems is choose not to have them. Alcoholics can magically stop drinking. Women with eating disorders can start eating properly and rise to a healthy weight. It's simple. It's easy. We've given them their solution. We can move on, and feel like we've done something even though we've done nothing. It's all good, right?
The problem with this philosophy is that it stems from a misconception. If it's all up to choice doesn't that make them bad people? The alcoholic chose to lose their job by coming in drunk? Those people who can not stop a behavior, despite very negative consequences, obviously have problems bigger than whatever the behavior is. Yet, the real problems are ignored by the public.
Symptoms vs Illnesses
Oftentimes the symptoms are confused with the illness. Throwing up, is a symptom. The flu is an illness. The problem is not that I'm throwing up, it's that I have the flu. If I force myself to stop throwing up the flu will not disappear. There are things driving people's problems just like the flu is driving my vomiting. Alcoholics can't will themselves to stop their behavior anymore than I can will away my vomiting. The cause of both problems lies deeper than only the things we see on the outside. This needs to be taken in to account if anything is ever to be done.
People blame societal pressures on women for eating disorders; i.e. "the media." They believe that if the women just felt good about themselves that they would stop needing to so rigidly control their weight through destructive means. It's very logically sound that someone who is restricting their nutritional intake must be doing so to control weight and image. However, it's still wrong. This thinking comes about by thinking that the symptom, binging/purging, is the problem. Any extrapolated reason for the problem must also be faulty by extension.
What works.
Alcoholics drink. They do so because they are unable to manage feelings. They seek out destructive behaviors like drinking to help them regulate. The behavior makes them feel better, and can even work for a time. Why would a person ever choose to start destructive behaviors, in the first place, if they didn't work? It's so difficult to stop because it works so well at the onset.
It doesn't work in 20 years but it works now, and that's all they care about because they're in pain. It has very negative consequences down the road, even fatal ones, but it works for right now. This is the same reason people cut on themselves, and this is the very same reason that girls with eating disorders binge or purge. It is all a bid for control and regulation of feelings. Consequently, 12-Step programs, however you feel about them, work very well for treating this whole spectrum of disorders.
Acceptance Through Denial
Society is increasingly more accepting of these disorders, but only at face value. Reality is too painful to face. It's easier for people who do not have these disorders to cope with those that do by denying the depth of their problem. We make their problem simple so that we can more easily deal with it. There's no easy answers for a person who doesn't have the ability to regulate their emotions from moment to moment. There are easy answers for someone who drinks too much or starves themselves.
Unfortunately, these ignorant positive attitudes are hurting more than they're helping. It used to be that there was a stigma attached to having a problem, and so many did not seek treatment. The stigma about problems is no longer prevalent, but people are still not seeking treatment. The same denial that those without problems use to make themselves feel better harms the people who actually have problems. The people who really do have to cope with these problems get told by everyone around them that what they have is really simple and easy to fix. They're told it's all about choosing to stop. They end up not seeking any treatment, because of their own denial and the denial being imposed upon them.
Ignorance as a Destructive Behavior
Simply stopping the behavior really isn't a solution. It doesn't fix the thing that made them do whatever they do in the first place. The behavior doesn't exist in a vacuum; on it's own apart from anything else. The spouse of any addict in treatment will tell you that their partner wasn't fixed after they stopped drinking. They still have a lot of work to do after they do quit. Quitting is only the beginning of a long process. The person has to build emotional systems, in treatment, that they can use to regulate in daily life.
The process is even harder if the behavior has left a lasting impact on the person. Ecstasy, most recently, has been shown to cause severe depression in the long-term. Typically, more than 20 hits is where doctors start seeing problems. Ecstasy users start not wanting to go out, having panic attacks, and then eventually they spiral in to profound depression and agoraphobia. Brain damage has to be dealt with through medication, first, before any other treatment can be done. It also isn't limited to ecstasy. There's long term brain impairment associated with marijuana, mushrooms, methamphetamine, etc. There is no free lunch.
Looking Deeper
I wouldn't be surprised if anyone reading this article found something in it that they didn't know. These are answers I had to search for, and only found through diligence. Hopefully, I've educated a few of you. Take this information, and use it to filter the things that are being thrown at you. This is only beginning. Many in the media typically don't go further than skin deep on most issues; even ones where they purport to be doing in-depth reporting. Look deeper for yourself, so that you really know what's going on.
At the heart of this issue is ignorance at every level. The systems in place to provide us the information are failing. The people we count on to know what they're talking about are paying lip service, and telling us things we already know instead of informing us. Everyone takes a health class that covers eating disorders and addiction. How many television specials do we have to sit through where we are condescendingly given the definition? Diabolically simple things we've all heard before are not profound insights. |
|
|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Tuesday, 28 February 2006 |
I am a professional smart person. This is completely and utterly worthless unless you know the definition of smart. You might look it up in the dictionary, but that doesn't really give the complete description. It misses the flavor of the word, and plus, there are so many definitions of smart based on usage that the technical definition doesn't really matter. My definition of smart is more encompassing.
Traditionally, IQ, or intelligence quotient, is a convenient way of scoring and categorizing the human intellect. It works pretty well, and is designed to be constant across age and racial barriers. Many people don't seem to know that part. It only tests the brain's ability to reason and figure. It doesn't test any other facet. It's not a bad test. It's just really hard to test those other facets, and so they focused on what they could measure at the time that it was developed. This just means that we should not be so quick to categorize people according to IQ. A high IQ really just means that a person can think through things quickly and accurately.
IQ also doesn't take in to account knowledge. It's not that type of test, but nonetheless there's a lot of confusion as to what IQ means. There's a difference between having knowledge and applying knowledge. Doctors learn everything they need to learn in the first 2 years of medical school. They then spend the rest of their school career, and their actual career learning how to apply that knowledge. It's called wisdom. It tends to get mistakenly used interchangeably with intelligence. Wisdom tends to be downplayed. People argue with physicians all the time about their care; thinking they know better because they've spent a few hours online reading. They overlook the part where their physician has probably seen their condition hundreds of times and knows what tends to work best for people depending on the circumstances.
Wisdom
A lot of the very intelligent questions we ponder as humans can be solved with wisdom. Wisdom and knowledge usually go hand in hand, but not always. There are savants who might be able to best you every time at a game of Trivial Pursuit, but they can't really get their lives on track or use that knowledge for anything. Wisdom should be valued more than intelligence in almost every regard. Though, there's no shortcut to wisdom. Very very simply, it is learning from not only your own mistakes, but everyone else's mistakes too. Most people don't focus on that last part so much. Wisdom tends to comes from experience for most of the population. An illiterate person who also has the lowest IQ score possible can be a smart person as long as they can recognize smart people and then listen to them. So much of wisdom gets ignored because people have trouble applying things in other people's lives to their own lives.
My definition of smart relies heavily on wisdom, but also heavily on the results. How people react to adverse conditions is what defines them. Anyone can thrive in a perfect environment with perfect circumstances, but this perfect environment can never exist. It's only theoretical. Everyone has problems. Some are worse than others, but people can overcome if they're smart. With wisdom, and intelligence, anyone can overcome any set of negative conditions. The only variables are how determined a person is to succeed and how smart they are.
Thriving versus Surviving
It's funny how people are drawn to stories of overcoming adversity, but are very quick to pipe up with excuses about how they can not overcome their own adverse conditions. You would think that we would be better at dealing with things after seeing so many situations that worked out despite horrible conditions. There are stories of people that overcoming personal, political, and geographical struggles throughout history. These inspiring stories should not be ignored. They usually contain timeless wisdom that everyone is able to benefit from.
There are an infinite number of reasons not to do anything. I shouldn't be writing this right now. I should be taking a shower. I should be studying for my Japanese quiz tomorrow. I don't have time to sit down and write. Being smart, I can think through all of these and minimize the negative consequences. I know how long writing this article should take me. I know how hard my Japanese quiz is tomorrow. I know that I can shower in 10 minutes right before I go to bed. I've reasoned through it, and applied my knowledge of situations like this from the past and ones I've heard about. I know I can do this, and so I do. You can find a reason against doing anything; even winning a million dollars. Taxes are a bitch. The trick is to realize what is worthwhile, and most beneficial, then go for it.
Smart is not necessarily intelligent. There's intelligent people all over the place, but smart is really an attitude. It's a state of being. Intelligence goes back to the IQ test, and being good at figuring. Smart is a personality trait. Smart people challenge themselves. Life is difficult, but it never stops people from doing all the things they really want to do. Delaying gratification is essential. Doing what is best, is frequently the most difficult course of action. It takes faith in yourself that things will work out if the effort is put in. For the most part, life is a series of things you don't want to do. You have to go to work to get a paycheck in order to apply that money to the things you really want. Doing work can never be escaped entirely. Why not take the high road, and get the better reward.
Concise Portrait of a Smart Person
Smart people never stop learning. Most people turn their ability to learn on and off at will. Being smart is being able to take disparate pieces of information and put them together in to a cohesive picture. They have a drive to do this. It's impossible to avoid doing it for people who are smart. I find that a lot of people around me and in my classes tend not to grab on to things as easily. It takes a little more work for things to stick. Learning is difficult, but smart people enjoy challenge. Learning is just another one of those things.
Being smart is about diversity and flexibility. The person who reads at a high reading level, but only reads Shakespeare, isn't smart. They're intelligent, but not smart. They will know very little outside of Shakespeare. The smart thing to do is to be familiar with a great many authors, and have read a few things from each. It's being well-rounded that makes all the difference. Reaching outside of your main interests is the only way to learn and grow.
Smart is not an elitist thing that only people with genius IQ's can possess. It has to do with wisdom, competency, and curiosity. Everyone has the capacity for smart, but the majority of the population never exercise it. Smart is seen as this intangible thing that some guy they heard about once had. They get bogged down with grades and other social ideas of what smart is. They don't realize that they can be smart too as long as they're willing to put in a little bit more work and delay gratification.
Happy, Content, and Fulfilled
If a person is happy and they have felt that they've succeeded, then there is no arguing with them. They've done exactly what they need to do to be where they are. That is its own type of smart that gets overlooked. Being smart doesn't necessarily mean doing everything all the time. Efficiency is important. Being happy and fulfilled is the ultimate goal. There is a difference between the two. Most people settle for being happy only in fleeting moments. Being fulfilled means happiness for the long term. |
|
|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Friday, 24 February 2006 |
When I was younger I used to say that the Bible was a great work of fiction. I thought it was particularly clever and inflammatory at the time. It's kind of an interesting statement, but it doesn't say much. I was angry with religious people for foisting their nonsense on me, and this was my little way of striking back at their particular establishment. It was an insult, and nothing more.
The problem with that statement is that there's no way to argue with it. The historical validity can be debated, but the supernatural component is where the argument really goes to pieces. Both parties leave very angry with the other side for being so stubborn and taking cheap shots. It's a stupid argument. Whether or not the Bible is accurate at all levels is not important. Religious people will agree with me on this, but they believe that the accuracy doesn't matter because the whole thing is a matter of faith anyway.
Teaching Fiction
The requirement of faith is not my argument. I don't care whether or not people believe the things written in the Bible. My argument is that the accuracy of the Bible is not important because it does not affect the overall message. Used properly, the Bible can lead to personal enlightenment. It's possible that it will make you a better person than you used to be by following the overall beats. There's a great deal of unworkable ideas in the Bible, but there's quite a few that get ignored because people believe that it's all or nothing.
We educate our children primarily with stories that are fiction. Not only are they fiction, but they are usually not possible within the framework of our world; anthropomorphic wolves torturing the homes of anthropomorphic pigs. There are lessons that can we teach our children from these nursery stories. It doesn't matter that the they're not possible, or that they never happened.
Faith is not a requirement in teaching our children these stories. Consumer culture makes us teach our kids early on about what is real and what is not. Children know these stories aren't possible. Yet every child heeds the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. There are universal truths buried in the myths and stories of every culture. The stories are fiction and ephemeral, but the lessons are timeless and unchanging.
Greek and Roman mythology was a part of Greek and Roman religion. People believed that stuff back then. The Bible is just what people currently believe in. They are the same thing, but they're treated so differently.
The Baby and the Bathwater
The going trend is to discount the Bible based on its accuracy, and then never look at it again. This is foolish. Everyone has a rudimentary understanding of Greek and Roman mythology. It's very popular source material for middle school english classes. I don't think we should, but if we tried to teach the Bible in the exact same way at the exact same time there would be protests from both sides. The religious side would say we're treating them unfairly by grouping it with mythology. The other side would say that teachers are trying to indoctrinate children. There is no winning.
Whether or not the bible is fiction or non-fiction doesn't matter. The message is what matters, and it can be taught no matter if you have faith or not. I'm an atheist, but I find the story of Jesus of Nazareth to be truly inspiring. He's the ultimate superhero. I was raised Catholic, but I never believed in any of the stuff that was talked about in church. I can remember, even back to first grade, feeling a huge nothing in the department of belief in Catholicism.
The Extremely Long Fortune Cookie
The Bible is source material. It can be used however you like. People have used it for evil. There were a great many religious people that used things written in the Bible to reason around slavery, and then later to combat the civil rights movement. This doesn't make the Bible bad or any less valid of a source. It makes the people who used it for such purposes bad people, but it says nothing about the Bible.
Let's separate the Bible from the religions that use it. Let's appreciate the content and the wisdom contained within its pages. We can take back a piece of good literature from the fanatical people who abuse it. Spirituality is a personal decision. Jesus was all about giving power back to the individuals. Let's exercise that.
Flip open the Bible sometime. It's a pretty compelling read. You may learn something and grow a little bit. You don't have to believe in heaven to want to become a better person. Becoming a better person is its own reward. Treat the Bible like a fortune cookie, and heed its advice if it seems reasonable to you. We can learn a lot from the people who came before us. |
|
|
Written by John Rozewicki
|
|
Tuesday, 21 February 2006 |
The most common complaint that I hear from incoming university freshman is that they don't understand how the things they're doing in their classes are useful. Because they can't immediately apply it to their daily lives they think it must be worthless.
It's not. In fact, it's the most important part of education and even though they don't realize, it can be applied at every level of their lives.
If they wanted job training then they should have gone to a 2-year technical school or gotten an apprenticeship. University does not directly prepare you for the future. It may give you a few specific skills that you can use later, but for the most part it isn't like becoming a mechanic or plumber who goes through an apprenticeship program.
Flexible Workers
The simple reason that people with a degree have more options is that they are better-rounded candidates. Employers won't have to spend time training them. They will be able to learn things on their own, and won't be a burden on the company. They also won't be useless if there is a major shift in how the actual business is done. They tend to be more reliable in the long term, and thus, tend to get paid more in the end.
You do not need a degree to be a factory worker. When steel mills go out of business, the people who used to work there have a very tough time entering other fields. One of the biggest problems with people working in factories is that they are not as adaptable.
This is not to say that factory workers can't be intelligent, or that they can't learn new things. They can, and they should. But we all know what kinds of holy hell are raised when people get laid off from very rote jobs like factories. University graduates tend not to have as much trouble with being laid off from a job and getting a new one, because they have been trained in learning. This is the role of universities.
Training for the Future
Undergraduate work is designed to teach you how to think. The process is what's important. The information is a part of it, but you will remember very little. Doing all of this work, with the information you later won't remember, will prepare you for every job you will ever have. It will prepare you for life.
It's all an exercise. The first part is gathering the information and learning how to evaluate it. The second part is applying it and making new concepts. Math problems are this way. Do you remember every math problem you've ever done? Do you complain about not ever needing to know the answer to 23 plus 64? No. You understand that it's a process.
You understand that knowing how to add the two numbers is much more powerful than memorizing the answers will ever be. But knowing it's about the process does not make it any easier. It still takes practice and training.
Graduate school or college is really where people are trained for specific fields. Completing an undergraduate degree means that you have developed the skills to learn what you really need to learn. Graduate schools, in this regard, have a lot in common with 2-year training programs. However, graduate schools usually cater to more mentally demanding jobs.
Many jobs can be trained for in 2 years. I give a lot of credit to people who go through those programs. 2 years is an incredibly short amount of time, and they come out of it with useful skills that can give them a sufficient living. Academics is not for everyone, and grades are not everything.
People who get low grades in high school aren't doomed when it comes to employment. They can enter a 2-year program, and carve themselves a pretty nice life doing essential jobs that will never stop being needed. I consider that to be a smart, informed decision. The smartest person is the person who realizes exactly how much, and what they need to do to be happy, and then does it. Why don't we value and appreciate that?
The Push for Higher Education
In our culture we value going to university after high school. As such, a bunch of high schools masquerading as higher education have popped up. Usually called junior colleges or community colleges, they take in the segment of the population that didn't do very well in high school. They convince people that academics are the way to go even for the people who aren't really good at it.
If academics was their thing then they would have gotten better grades, and gone to a decent university. There are always exceptions, but for the most part this is what goes on. University is not a requirement for making a lot of money. The people going to junior colleges are missing the point of such an education by a long shot.
People hide behind the money issue in defense of junior colleges. They say they can't get scholarships, or that they don't want to put themselves in debt. University is an investment. You're asking people to invest in your future, and you are investing in yourself. If they are using money as an excuse then they have very very low self confidence.
It stems from not thinking they'll be able to get a job after they get their degree. So when they say they don't want go in to debt, what they're really saying is that they don't think they're good enough. There isn't any better reason to go in to debt. If they don't think they'll be able to get a job after getting a decent education at a university then what makes them think they'll get any job after getting a sub-par education at a junior college?
Junior college is a safe bet. It's less work than university because the education is not as good. They don't have the budget to pay teachers an adequate wage. You get what you pay for. We understand it in every other arena except education.
Junior college is a safe bet because you spend less money and still get to buy a few years of doing nothing by saying you're going to school. If you did that badly in high school then you should get your ass to a training program or focused college to learn a skill.
The Role of High School
Not enough is taught in high school about choosing a path that's right on a per-person basis. Even as a university student I can understand that academics is not the right way to go for a lot of people. The people getting the bad grades need to be pulled aside and put on a better, more realistic, path.
They need to be shown that there are a lot of other options out there besides going to college. There are industries that need people all the time. Hell, join the military if you're just out of high school and have zero direction. One of the best things you can do is join the military. It's free. No, wait, they pay you!
We need to start respecting the people doing something with their lives, and stop acting like university is the answer to everything. I feel sorry for all those people sitting in the junior colleges who think they are getting the same shot as the people going to university. It's unfair to them to try and give them something that is nearly impossible to deliver.
It's preying on the poor. They say they have no money, and so they go to junior college. Most people just drop out and never finish. The very few who go on to do something transfer to a university. These junior colleges convince people they're as good as a university for less money. Then they take money from people who say they already have money problems in exchange for something they can't deliver. It's disingenuous
High schools should be preparing people for the real world. Instead they're preparing everyone, whether they like it or not, for universities. The percentage that doesn't go gets lost for almost the entirety of their twenties because they have no idea of the options that are realistically available to them. This is why junior colleges have flourished.
We're taught very early that we must go to college if we want to be successful in life. That simply isn't true, and is heavily dependent on your idea of success. Monetarily, most people can be just fine not going to college. We're pushed in this college direction, and then the group that can't hack it with academics goes to the warehouse that is junior college. They get lost for a few years, and finally give up.
High schools are so focused on colleges and universities that they do not teach Real Life 101. They don't teach you about how to manage your finances. They don't teach you what interest rates are, and which ones are realistic. People come out of high school knowing very little about how the world works and what they need to be doing. There's a career planning course in every high school. It should be a required course for everyone, and proper weight should be given to it. Career planning in most high schools is a compulsory do-nothing class for people who want to take it easy.
Expect More
Nobody seems to be focused on actually educating and preparing for the world. It's talked about non-stop at the high school level. It's hard to find something that we talk about more, that also, isn't being done. Parents need to be expecting more from their child's high school, and not just accept the lip service that's given. Guidance counselors need to step up, and teachers need to also.
Students interact with their teachers every single day. That is an opportunity to teach something that I think is being missed. Those high school students who complain that they will not use what they're being taught are right in a certain sense. The university students are very very wrong, but the high schoolers are right. |
|
|
