I agree strongly that the USA has not served itself well by emphasizing or implying that college is for everyone and is needed for success. Part of it is that the American business community either does not play ball in a public policy sense or has been led to believe that the taxpayers should cover all costs of training. In other countries, young people who are interested in learning skills and trades can apprentice with a company or small business. Investing this time is in the interests of companies who are growing, need additional talent, and/or simply need to replace workers who leave through attrition or retirement. For some reason American companies have taken the stance that "the government" should pay for such programs. Originally in the Higher Education Act, trade school loans were separate from the guaranteed student loan program for students at institutions of higher education (IHEs). Within five years they had successfully lobbied to eliminate the distinction and be in the same loan program. Those who are not in the student loan world typically argue that trade school grants and loans should be handled through the U.S. Dept. of Labor. For some reason, the trade schools have resisted this, maybe because they know that DoL is perceived as not as much of a weak agency as DoE. In addition, DoE ever since inception has had an office of vocational education. It is not clear why trade school grants and loans could not be in that office. If people are tired of "one size fits all" and the arrogance of one group versus another group, then why continue to try to put a square peg in a round hole? Vocational education has a long legacy of achievement and excellence. It will continue to be key as we move into the future. The issue isn't whether it is better or worse than higher ed. The issue is whether, given the constant conflicts, it is actually poorly served by continuing to shoe-horn it into the Higher Ed Act.
Not the place
I agree strongly that the USA has not served itself well by emphasizing or implying that college is for everyone and is needed for success. Part of it is that the American business community either does not play ball in a public policy sense or has been led to believe that the taxpayers should cover all costs of training. In other countries, young people who are interested in learning skills and trades can apprentice with a company or small business. Investing this time is in the interests of companies who are growing, need additional talent, and/or simply need to replace workers who leave through attrition or retirement. For some reason American companies have taken the stance that "the government" should pay for such programs. Originally in the Higher Education Act, trade school loans were separate from the guaranteed student loan program for students at institutions of higher education (IHEs). Within five years they had successfully lobbied to eliminate the distinction and be in the same loan program. Those who are not in the student loan world typically argue that trade school grants and loans should be handled through the U.S. Dept. of Labor. For some reason, the trade schools have resisted this, maybe because they know that DoL is perceived as not as much of a weak agency as DoE. In addition, DoE ever since inception has had an office of vocational education. It is not clear why trade school grants and loans could not be in that office. If people are tired of "one size fits all" and the arrogance of one group versus another group, then why continue to try to put a square peg in a round hole? Vocational education has a long legacy of achievement and excellence. It will continue to be key as we move into the future. The issue isn't whether it is better or worse than higher ed. The issue is whether, given the constant conflicts, it is actually poorly served by continuing to shoe-horn it into the Higher Ed Act.