Technical Schools

Excellent idea....

I agree that a technical trade track for students is a great idea. I just don't want to see any track (technical, academic, athletic, etc.) to become a dumping ground.

Without going to trade school,in the school itself, every kid after 8th grade to be given training in making something say,out of clay,wood or metal wires,electric cables,bearings, toy motors etc so that they will apply themselves to manufacture and develop hands-on skills whether they become engineer,doctor,accountant,lawyer,salesperson or storekeeper,clerk etc without going to a technician for even small repairs. Trade school after 8th grade is for those who has extraordinary hands-on skills to become full time technicians/craftsman and become professionals later by following evening or weekend or postal courses.

This is a great move. I am definitely for it and I would like to get involved and contribute. While learning from books is the standard and convenient way to educate, it is not the only way to learn. Practical education was off course the way it was done in the old, old days. Not to say that one must cut ouit books altogether. I would suggest that a different set of text-books should be compiled by people setting up these courses.

Also video demonstrations, help through the internet, links with manufacturing companies, competitions, etc will compliment such an endeavour. In many countries apprenticeships have been reduced. So this can also be a great remedy to the gap created by the lack of apprenticeships.

Such training could also be done as a compliment to traditional schooling. In this case it may provide stimulation whihc is often lacking in the traditional school system.

Are you serious that this is not already existing?

In our civilized world there are three mainstreams in the education as of 12 years old:

* Top level: preparing for master degree education in university.

* Technical level: preparing for professional bachelor or thru a seventh year direct to the job market.

* practical level: learn a skill and work part time as from 16, full time as from age of 18.

This way the top level can be kept top, no need for private schools and preparatory years.

Top students in the technical section still can go to the university if they want and make it up to a masters degree, but these are exceptions.

It makes no sense to keep kids who hardly can read at the age of 12 together with those who are planning for an academic carreer, it only frustrates both.

Each mainstream has several sub divisions, depending on you skills: mathematics, languages or humanitarian based.

It looks a mess from the outside but is great if you have to guide your kids to the best fit education.

I think you partially missed the point, it is to provide an alternative path to professions like engineering. I think it a great idea for engineering. Basically, it offers a trade training route to engineering as an alternative to the academic route.

I like it because I am, as are most of the engineers from the UK in my age group, the product of a similar system. Until the Plate glass universities were built in the sixties the route for engineers and designers was the National Certificate, National Diploma, or City and Guilds route. In my case I finished high school in 1951 and started with an American company designing and building oil refineries. Because of draught commitments, we were in a "Learnership Program"; the company rotated us through several of their disciplines, I started in structural, did some piping and pressure vessels and chose to go back to structural. Another part of the program was that we got one day a week to go to the "tech". At the tech, we learned in in a hands-on manner, we would be shown how to do say, differential equations, but briefly on the probability that we would never use them again. We were given deferments until we were twenty one as long as we passed each year.

Each college set it's own curriculum and exams but there was an "adjudication" in the certification years. The ministry and the appropriate Institute sent the exams to various professors, and engineers to "weight" the levels of difficulty and adjust any results. I went to Westminster Technical College, they were tough, they never had their result downgraded but many were upgraded. The thing is that we were able to immediately put into practice what we learned that week.

The problem will be equating the tech school qualification with the university qualification. Here in PA, I had to document an additional eight years of work to replace a university degree for my Professional Engineer application.

Just forget my mail and look to the etymology of the word engineer: it was the man keeping the engine running, a mechanic.

Nowhere is the plan there was a statement that you would receive a master in engineering after spending some day's sitting next to one.

The plan is to offer an alternative trajectory to those who don't fit in the traditional school system, enabling the rest to go at higher speed to a better education.

You would be surprised how effective education can become if you step away from the idea: everyone the same.

But I don't get the idea that 8 years of professional experience would be equal a 4 or 5 years full blown university trajectory.

You never went that deep in the mathematics and base theory of the wide technical world.

I would rather add the experience years to a theoretical study, or in between bachelor and master you need to go working in an accredited environment for one or two years. just like doctors in medicine and architects have to.

I also went through the technical route as from 14y, but to become a Master in engineering I had to go to the industrial high school (comparable, but still a wide stretch, with a Dutch Technical University, in the near future they will be merged with the universities as the EU wants to limit the master degree to universities) and learn all those theories the traditional way.

I have no idea what you mean by "You never went that deep in the mathematics and base theory of the wide technical world." We learned enough that I had an enjoyable and successful career. I learned enough, and more, to design sophisticated structures before the computer came along. If I had to take on a new engineering designer, I would much rather have a degree and several years of experience than someone coming in straight from school with a masters.

I see no point in going on with education beyond need unless you enjoy it for it's own sake.

To often the teaching of the child is hendered by the rebelious individual because he has no understanding of his 'need to know'. Not being from a home of a working parent does not understand that knowledge of the trades leads to the things he desires, no matter whether he is headed to the best college or a building maintinance project or engineering. He or she simply does not see the need to know. a work apprentice program is swell but not for an opt-out student but should be incorporated into the education system starting in grade one and let the student make his choices. I've seen to many with Dr.'s degrees mowing grass because it was fun and the money was better. As an educator,I know for sure you cannot unlearn a child. The child may be quite intellegent and can do the Math, write the books and mix the drinks, but if he does not know how to put the screwdriver in the slot, 'he or she is not going anywhere.

I think 14 or 16 is kind of young to be putting kids in a particular slot/vocation. They probably don't know what they would like or what proclivity they have in focused skills. The idea of training people is good as long as it is like Jim Collins said in Good to Great, "are the right people on the bus and in the right seat?"

Skillful, quality education has more to do with how to think rather than what to think about a host of things. Copied below is great food for thought since we're talking about education.

Social Leader Daily by Oliver DeMille

Courage to Try "I was afraid to step out of my own little tribe, my own little narrow circle. I was afraid to take the risk of stepping into anything unknown. And most importantly, I was afraid that I just couldn't make any difference anyway." -Joseph Jaworski I think this quote just about sums up modern citizenship. I've felt this way. Everyone I've discussed it with feels this way. Our educational lives are all about specialization, and so are our social and career lives. We just aren't raised or educated to be broadly-thinking, actively-involved, deeply-impactful citizens. What to do? The answer is to start. To try. To begin. To make mistakes, fix them, and keep going. Modern education tells us such a course is crazy. But what other option do we have? If we do nothing, our freedoms will be lost. If we act, we'll make mistakes and maybe get ridiculed for our naivete or stupidity. But if we keep trying, we'll eventually make a difference. These are our choices. Meekly do nothing and avoid criticism. Or try. Goethe said: "Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it." Joseph Campbell added: "I say, follow your bliss and don't be afraid, and doors will open where you didn't know they were going to be."

Nowadays a student of about 14years do not know anything about jobs available in the country as well as the complications in each job because ignorant teachers and uneducated parents do not tell them what are the kinds of jobs one can do,the qualification,knowledge & skills required for each job, earnings as well as different divisions/ branches in each job,for example, doctors are classified as dentist,vet, eye,kidney, heart,orthopaedic, surgeon,physician etc,engineers classified as civil, structural,high way,tunnel,electrical power, HV.LV, mechanical,production, automobile,construction, maintenance,design, estimating,testing etc etc. If school authorities and parents get together and select/classify students as suitable for a)higher studies(professional degree), b)techers etc c)supervisory work(diploma), d)normal work(clerk,storekeeper etc),e)skilled hands(technicians etc),f)soldiers and so on we can save valuable time and money spent on general education up to 10th grade which is of no benefit for most of the students. If they study science they should know applied science not theory only.

This does look good, it would expose young folk to an alternative career path that otherwise may be elusive, however it may also result in dunderheads being funneled into technical fields and lead to a workforce of diluted capacity. Make sense??

Instead of technology biased training being directed on an opt out basis I believe that it should be directed to all students just as humanity biased training is currently being imposed as it were.

With techno exposure there may well be less who will want to or need to opt out in the first instance.

Education needs to be relevant.

Finding teachers may be an obstacle to either course of action.

That's my 2 bobs worth.