Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trade school, not 4-year college, is a better bet to solve the US income gap

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 297 posts

Re: Trade school, not 4-year college, is a better bet to solve the US income gap

#281

Post by Double_a_92 »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #242
wahern wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because clients are rarely capable of judging competency. You can crack pipes with a snake. Furthermore, certifications typically come with a registration requirement, meaning clients have a mechanism for formally filing complaints. Similarly, there are often bond requirements, meaning you know that if the technician screws up a job you'll have a decent chance at recovering damages. Getting a bond without securing th…

ALL certification requirements are intended to limit entrants into the market. Whether or not that's worthwhile is subjective. If a client is uncertain of their ability to judge risk, then they can hire from a trusted industry provider/union and pay a premium. I'd still like the ability to legally hire a poor person who may not have received a good enough public education to fulfill all of the state requirements for…

You fail to see 2 things:

1. You could still hire anyone you want. Certificated or not...

2. The certificate is not just some random piece of paper. It does (or at least should) actually prove that you had some training in that field and are skilled.

If some people are unable to get such a training and a certificate, then the problem lies somewhere else (i.e. the reasons why they can't...).

Re: Trade school, not 4-year college, is a better bet to solve the US income gap

#282

Post by Double_a_92 »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #260
wahern wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UL certification requirements are often incorporated by reference into law. Which is one reason why there's not a proliferation of private standards in that space, with the concomitant race to the bottom. _You_ might not need the nanny state to protect yourself from yourself, but many people do. In fact, pretty much everybody does, at some point in their lives, in some circumstances. (You just don't know when or wher…

If anyone wants protection from a nanny, state or otherwise, they can pay for it. Offer all the certifications at the state level you want, just don't interfere with my ability to do business with anyone I please whether they're certified or not. >society has an interest in providing minimum safeguards. Requiring you to work at below market rates for YEARS is not in the best interest of society. Harming the poor or i…

> Requiring you to work at below market rates for YEARS is not in the best interest of society.

But you are still in training. It's intended as something to do after middle school. Why should unskilled kids earn a full salary? They probably end up costing the company money during that time...

And also that's exactly where you need the regulation from the state! So it can ensure that you are actually properly training those people and not just using them as "human robots" to just do boring / unskilled manual labor.

Re: Trade school, not 4-year college, is a better bet to solve the US income gap

#283

Post by mantas »

distances wrote: post #279
mantas wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No less stupid than rating schools by acceptance to universities. Gap-year and trade schools should be encourage whenever they make sense. But the rating does not incentivise looking out for kids interests. Another fun fact - one of the points to certify a school as "gymnasium" is attendance. My school was certifying for that status during my last year. One of the vice-principals was nicknamed "12th graders attendanc…

In my high school/gymnasium students needed to bring a signed excuse from parents if they missed a class -- even if they were already 18! -- and too many absences would automatically disqualify the course even if you had a good reason, such as being sick. No overseer really needed for persuading students to attend class.

We had to bring in the excuses too. But the harshest penalty was calling in parents once you reach certain threshold. Which may or may not work, depending on your parents attitude. But as long as you skip a class or two a month, there was next to no consequences. Aside from explaining absent marks in your papers to your parents, of course. Which may or may not be easy to remove. Although forging parents' signature may be even easier.

No amount of absence would invalidate the course. But you if miss a test/quiz/project/etc, you automatically get 1 (out of 10). If you bring in a good excuse - of course you can re-do it at later date. If annual average drops bellow 3.5, school jury decides wether you can transfer to next year or not. In final year, < 3.5 would prevent you from taking that specific exam (which may give bonus points at your chosen university). If that exam is mandatory, then you have to repeat the course next year or drop out...

Re: Trade school, not 4-year college, is a better bet to solve the US income gap

#284

Post by Consultant32452 »

Double_a_92 wrote: post #282
Consultant32452 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anyone wants protection from a nanny, state or otherwise, they can pay for it. Offer all the certifications at the state level you want, just don't interfere with my ability to do business with anyone I please whether they're certified or not. >society has an interest in providing minimum safeguards. Requiring you to work at below market rates for YEARS is not in the best interest of society. Harming the poor or i…

> Requiring you to work at below market rates for YEARS is not in the best interest of society. But you are still in training. It's intended as something to do after middle school. Why should unskilled kids earn a full salary? They probably end up costing the company money during that time... And also that's exactly where you need the regulation from the state! So it can ensure that you are actually properly training…

You're still requiring a poor person to get the permission of a wealthy person to perform work they know how to do on the open market. Why would you cripple the poor in such a way?

Re: Trade school, not 4-year college, is a better bet to solve the US income gap

#285

Post by Consultant32452 »

Double_a_92 wrote: post #280
Consultant32452 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That shouldn't stop the companies from hiring untrained people to just work from them. Why does a wealthy incumbent need to be protected by having the state outlaw anyone from working without the wealthy incumbent's permission?

What? How is it stopping anyone from working or hiring?

Why do I need to go through your state approved apprenticeship program, which is going to be managed by wealthy incumbents, for the privilege of being able to perform work I already know how to perform on the open market? You're requiring the poor to get permission from the wealthy in order to work. Why?

Re: Trade school, not 4-year college, is a better bet to solve the US income gap

#286

Post by Double_a_92 »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #284
Double_a_92 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Requiring you to work at below market rates for YEARS is not in the best interest of society. But you are still in training. It's intended as something to do after middle school. Why should unskilled kids earn a full salary? They probably end up costing the company money during that time... And also that's exactly where you need the regulation from the state! So it can ensure that you are actually properly training…

You're still requiring a poor person to get the permission of a wealthy person to perform work they know how to do on the open market. Why would you cripple the poor in such a way?

How I'm I requering something from workers? A company can hire whoever they want. Where do you see that limited, by offering a special training for highschool kids?

Re: Trade school, not 4-year college, is a better bet to solve the US income gap

#287

Post by austenallred »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #250
austenallred wrote: post #48

It should be pretty obvious to anyone who has ever been to college that the model there isn't exactly one of "efficiency." My first two years were a good time, but if you're a 45-year-old man trying to get skilled as quickly as possible to put food on the table, taking three credits of Shakespeare just seems silly (and I absolutely adore Shakespeare). Not to mention the fact that the notion that you should decide wha…

Well, the 4 year degree at 18 may give you a framework to hang the rest of your learning on - the learning that you're going to have to continue to do throughout your career. The problem is, as you say, that it's too inefficient (and therefore expensive). Something like Lambda schools may well be the answer - if you can scale it. (You say you can only cover a tiny portion of the market. What scaling problems do you f…

We can scale really well, but education is an enormous market. 5m people begin college each year.

Re: Trade school, not 4-year college, is a better bet to solve the US income gap

#288

Post by bsder »

roseburg wrote: post #82
bsder wrote: post #70

Um, where are the statistics showing that wages in the trades are rising? Everything I have seen indicates that wages in the trades are stagnant which implies that they don't need any more people. Dumping a whole bunch of people into a system already at close to optimum employment will not benefit workers .

They are rising all across the country because there is a big shortage, and it's only going to get worse. Boomers are retiring faster than they are being replaced. Optimum employment? When someone wants to get a project built in Portland Oregon the wait time this past year was about 3 months until you were lucky enough to land a contractor. Contractors can't find enough skilled help so everything takes longer.

> Contractors can't find enough skilled help so everything takes longer.

No, contractors can't find enough CHEAP skilled help.

If there is an actual shortage, wages will rise sufficiently to pull people into the field or cause people to move around to fill the holes.

The fact that these slots are not being filled says that they aren't paying enough NOT that there is a shortage.

Re: Trade school, not 4-year college, is a better bet to solve the US income gap

#289

Post by johnnyanmac »

Noos wrote: post #269
bbarn wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sat down with my daughter and very clearly explained why college for her was a bad idea. Her grades and ACT scores weren't good enough to get into lucrative fields, so I suggested she join the military with a specialization that opened skilled trade jobs. We discussed the benefit vs cost of the student loans, and she admitted that this would be a much smarter path and she is looking at very little career opportunit…

Women in general wash out of the military at much higher rates than men, mostly due to the fact their bodies are less able to deal with the serious physical stress of training. Women also really aren't going to have as many long term openings in the skilled trades for the same reason, mostly because it's hard, breaking-down physical labor. There's little guarantee she can even do what you intend; she may very well go…

And yet there is almost zero cost to trying out the option at first (well, outside of the harassment I hear about in the military, but that is sadly a universal concern). In the best case, she has an option that lets her join the workforce with zero debt, in the very worst, she drops out and starts CC a year or two late (which is negligible in the large scheme of things). If her scores really aren't making her viable for college admissions, then I see nothing wrong with considering less risky alternatives.

Re: Trade school, not 4-year college, is a better bet to solve the US income gap

#290

Post by johnnyanmac »

berbec wrote: post #51
GhostVII wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is a degree requirement racist?

"The 6-year national college graduation rate is 59% for White students, 51% for Hispanic students, 46% for Black females, and 35% for Black males."[1] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_achievement_gap_in_the_...

I agree to some extent as to how education is a barrier some minorites can't pierce, but those statistics seem pretty reasonable. roughly half of all students (though there seems to be a slightly lower-than-average retention in black males) in general drop out fro various reasons. Maybe the breakdown of reasons reveal some racism, but that isn't something you see at face value.

I think the larger problem causing the social divide is getting in to begin with, as opposed to retention.

Post reply on HN