Posted on 06/14/2005 2:06:29 AM PDT by Mo1
A new study shows Philadelphia has an untapped resource -- in college dropouts.
It is called the "Graduate Philadelphia" Study, and it was compiled by the Pennsylvania Economy League and the Workforce Investment Board.
The Economy League's executive director is David Thornburgh:
"In Philadelphia, there are 80,000 people between the ages of 25 and 45 who have at least one year of college but no diploma."
Thornburgh says the city ranks 92nd in a survey of 100 large cities in terms of college-educated residents:
"In fact, only one in seven Philadelphians, which is about 14 percent, has an associate's or bachelor's degree."
Thornburgh says the study is a wake-up call for the community to reach out and help those who didn't finish. That, he says, should stimulate the city's economy, attract and keep business, and enrich the incomes of those who complete their degrees.
Could this be that they were accepted to college without academic credentials?
I have known a lot of people like this. They have no grades, can't write or read at a college level, no drive, but they get accepted to college because they are minorities. Then one or two years into the program, they drop out because it is too hard or they are on academic probation for poor grades.
The age range and the city makes me think this is a minority problem. Not trying to be racist...just what I've seen. Many, many times.
A few years back, the Philly school system was temporarily taken over by the State because it was so bad
Okay, but clearly, you have people getting into college with no academic credentials who can't hack the program.
Is this not a college admissions issue? And why else would a college admissions person accept people who aren't academically capable? Could it be because they have a minority slot to fill?
Trust me. I worked in an admissions office at a college. This stuff happens. A lot.
Might want to teach high schoolers to read as a start.
A good way to do that is to kick out the "students" who don't want to be there anyway.
And maybe starting a bit earlier than high school.
Vouchers, anyone?
But the day will come when colleges target esteem instead of excellence, as in our pubic school system.
BUMP
Oh I agree with you on that
I was just trying to point out that there are many reasons why these kids can't hack it
There probably are a number of reasons. It's just that this particular one really gets to me.
I know for a fact that several great recruits were turned down or waitlisted so that we could offer a scholarship to a minority with low academic skills. It made me sick...so sick, in fact, that I transferred to a different university. It was a work/study for me at this college. I was really involved in the recruitment process.
Sure. Principally, the schools fail because they don't have parental support. And they don't have parental support because the parents themselves are only ten or twenty years out of school that they hated. And so the school is contemptuous of the parents in return. It's a vicious cycle.Like all institutions the government school likes competition for its suppliers but hates competition for its customers. The government school accordingly runs a continuous program of "improvement" to avoid the real change of having to face competition on a level playing field.
Institute vouchers and the schools will have to respect the parents because the parents can decide not to let them have their children as pupils and as justifications for their budget. Give the parents that respect, and the parents will no longer have the excuse that education is only the school's job. By sheer inertia if for no other reason, most will still continue going to the local government school, but they will have decided to not change schools and therefore will be more invested in them.
Socialized education seperates authority (education dollars) from true responsibility (the lifelong effect of educational success or failure on the lives of the students and the parents of the students).
Let's add another reason. Many jobs in Philly (and elsewhere) don't require a college degree. Should everyone have a $ 30,000 college degree to be, for example, a bus driver, a shop floor supervisor etc etc ?
Even the US Dept of Labor estimates that only 20% of all jobs actually require the higher-level skills of a bachelor's degree.
Of course, you'd then need to assume that a high school degree means you can read with comprehension, write a legible and coherent paragraph or page, and do arithmetic. In Philly, that's not usually the case with public school-educated kids, so then the "experts" want everyone to have a college degree, thinking that maybe with another 4 years these basic skills might be acquired...somehow...
Read between the lines. They don't so much care about the dropouts as the institutions that could be collecting tuition money on their behalf.
Over the last 10 years the bedrock of Philly's economy has become dependent upon three sources: colleges, hospitals and museums.
This is such a lame excuse that just a wee bit of research into the data would prove otherwise. The NEA and school establishment love you for this answer; it lets them off the hook for poor performance.
Sure, it helps if the parents are supportive but golly gee, kids learn all kinds of things with or without their parents help, even...gasp!... reading.
What does it take for kids to learn at least the basics of academics ? About 100 hours of good teaching. If they can't get that in 12 years of schooling, is that the sole fault of the parents, or can we just maybe wonder about the teachers and the curriculum too ?
Read this, and then tell us it's the parents fault: http://www.asbj.com/achievement/ci/ci6.html
Agreed.
Here in Florida the state colleges are jam packed, and because of it tuition is rediculous. YET, at the same time, the schools admit that 30% of applicants require remedial math and/or reading in order to meet MINIMUM entrance requirements.
You can imagine what the attrition rate is for such students.
Also, the state lottery is financing the cost of subsidizing a lot of marginal students that are not capable, and probably wouldn't be there to start with otherwise. A large portion of these do not last past the first year. Which does them and no one else any good whatsoever.
I beg to differ. Schools do not assume an attitude of contempt for parents (unless the parents come into the school with their own contemptuous attitude. And, even then, I have witnessed great restraint on the part of the educators.) Your assumption is an insult to (most) professional educators and administrators.
I admire your optimism and certainly respect your right to the opinion that vouchers would change the attitude of parents. But, I have to disagree. Vouchers will be viewed as another form of "free" handout. It will not miraculously improve the parenting skills of parents who are ten or twenty years out of school that they hated.
Don't forget one important thing.
Many of the students I have taught go on to college and are in for a rather rude awakening.
Professors don't care about your self esteem, the fact you were homecoming queen and served on the school's glee club.
Your handwriting is not legible? Type that paper. You don't (gasp) have a computer? Pay someone to do it.
Many quit because of the sheer pressure to be accountable for themselves and not dependent on mamma and daddy to get onto the mean old teacher who expected them to do better.
Bingo Bingo We have a winner.
And Michael Jordan can still play NBA basketball at his age.
The question is not what can be done but what will be done in a given management structure. I'm saying that in the socialist management structure the people with the authority don't really bear the responsibility. So what can be done does not, in fact, get done.
I'm talking about the "soft bigotry of low expectations" and I'm talking about parents coming into school with a chip on their shoulder. The two together make a vicious circle. And it's hard to break as long as you think inside the box that says that schools can educate students who aren't raised to think it's important to learn in school.If the parent has vouchers and decides to move the child to a different school, s/he is saying that it makes a difference that the child is educated, and that message to the child makes a difference even if in fact the new school is not objectively superior to the old one. And even in the case where the parent does not change schools s/he has a little different and less fatalistic attitude because s/he knows s/he can.
Does that mean that in a voucher situation all children will grow up to be Condeleza Rice? Of course not. But it would mean that parents who were trying to raise a Condeleza Rice would have a better shot at succeeding. And those who weren't trying, might put in some effort.
Every child born in Philadephia should be given a PhD along with a Social Security number. It's the fair thing to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.