Some places like Australia and the UK don't have a college system. At 18 after HS you go to university and you can choose to do a generalist degree like arts or science or a vocational degree like engineering or medicine.
Some, like law, commerce, economics and even science with certain majors can also be vocational and lead to a career structure.
Some like education have both undergraduate and graduate options - so you can be a primary school teacher with a B. Ed. or you can be a HS science teacher with a science degree and a Dip. Ed. of 1 year following.
Law and commerce are increasingly both generalist AND vocational. Some law grads will be lawyers, others will go into business or the public/civil service but have a law background. Commerce grads can go into business or government service or become accountants or auditors.
?Is it a pro or a con that you get straight on the path you mean to follow?
Is it a pro or a con that you choose that path at 18? Though you can obviously switch courses at some points and go back and do another course at any point in your life. I actually know lawyers who have gone back and become doctors and vice versa.
I think college is a bit of a waste of time but I know I'm biased since I grew up with no college system. I liked being able to get started on law as soon as I decided that's what I wanted to do. Its not like I came out much younger than your JD students, maybe by a year, no more. I had a 5 year course of combined arts and law plus an honours year. Combined courses are the norm so most grads are 23 or so when they finish and most JDs I know are 24 when they finish. Not much difference.
I like the longer course too, you get more out of it. To me why waste 4 years doing something that doesn't put you on the path you want. Unless you want to delay your decision - which you can always do with a generalist degree here. But I don't think it is good to make everyone dally before taking their final path.
WDYT? I'm sure most will support the college system just like I support the system I grew up with. But I'm interested in why, and if anyone disagrees with their fellow Americans.?
Re: POLL: which would be best - college first or straight into (longer) vocational courses?
My problem with vocational school is that you may not know what you want to "be when you grow up". I sure didn't at 18 and changed my major many times. If I had to decide at 18 what I wanted to be forever I would have been in big trouble. That's just me though.
I just skimmed your post, so sorry if I repeated something you already mentioned.
I remember being extremely frustrated the first two years of college that my classes had nothing to do with my major, so the vocational system appeals to me. That said, I do appreciate the knowledge I have from many of the courses I was "forced" to take (psychology, art history, etc.).
So I guess my ideal system would still require some non-major-related courses to ensure that students receive a well-rounded education, but I would mix it in throughout the four years and allow students to start taking classes related to their major right away. Another benefit to that is if their chosen major isn't a good fit, they can discover and correct it freshman year instead of junior year!
Considering I had 7 different majors throughout my 4 years of college (graduated with three), going straight to a vocational school would have been a bad idea.
Honestly, I think it is rare for a 17 or 18 year old to know exactly what they want to do with their life, just like I think *most* 17 or 18 year olds should not get married at that age (please don't flame me if you got married at that age). The amount of change and emotional growth that happens in your 20s is immense.
A-baybride - yes they all require some diversification. So even if you did STRAIGHT law, which frankly is a generalist course itself really, you must do the equivalent of a minor in another field. It isn't called that but that's the number of credit points you must do outside law even in a straight law course. And as I said, effectively no one does straight law, we all do combined law with commerce, arts, economics, science or something.?
I don't think it is so hard to decide at 18 because the courses are grouped. I don't deny you change in your 20s but if you're switching back and forth between wanting to be a civil engineer and a museum curator you're a bit psychotic. If you're switching back and forth between engineer and economist or accountant you can actually do either : combine the 2 since Econ and commerce are shorter generalist courses OR switch after first or second year and get a lot of credit for all the maths. People do that all the time.
In my experience kids who can't decide whether they want to be Drs or lawyers are just thinking of the money and aren't really cut out to be either (and find that out in the first year and drop back to arts or science).
The movement between courses is maybe higher in a non-college system but I think it is worth it not to force people who can make a choice to wait around. JMO and as I said, I'm biased.?
I wonder if this is one of those things where people are a product of their environment. We place so much emphasis here on kids going to college and "finding themselves" and we make it so easy to really switch around, that young adults just figure "I'll go to college and buy some time". I'm sure that plenty of people could have chosen their career path at 18 if they had really been "forced" to and conditioned to know that's what was expected.
I'm not saying either way is right or wrong (hell, I changed majors 5 times and now do a job that has nothing to do with what I went to school for), just that maybe its all about the message teenagers get in high school.
My sister is the most wishy-washy person I know and she made a choice at 18 and has really stuck with it and loves it. She's passionate and knows this will be her life's work.
Annelise 3.22.2007 Norah 10.24.2009 Amelia 8.7.2011
JoeBunny not sure what you're saying.
I don't think it makes a jot of difference to foreign students. Hell I have my law degree already, most people from o/s have a degree before they study in the US so whether they start an "undergrad" law degree or a post-grad JD makes no difference to us.
As for quality, that totally varies by field. I would say that in law jurisdiction makes so much difference that even though Harvard and Yale are great institutions, you would NOT want to qualify in law there and then only do a post-grad masters in Australia if you want to practice in Australia. Ditto vice versa. I actually did that- have a law degree here, went to the US and practised (yeah I passed the bar, that was all that was required). Sure I could work in a firm under supervision. But in no way was I ready for partner-track without a primary degree in the country I was practising in.
Since I quit my job I've done a masters and?I would say I know law schools in Australia AND the UK that are at least as good if not better than Harvard and Yale in law.
Part of having 300 million people and not needing to deal with the outside world is it makes Americans think their top universities are unquestionably THE top universities. In some cases in some fields that's true, but it is not automatically true.
Some of the leading scientific work has been done outside the US, some of the leading legal scholoarship has been done outside the US, some of the leading mathematics scholarship and philosophy scholarship has also been done outside the US. The shock, the horror.?
?
Also Joebunny - if the liberal arts education is so important how come so many foreigners come in without it and do well in US grad schools? They mostly come from places with undergraduate vocational courses (at least those who do disproportionately well do which I understand is partly correlated to english-speaking background).
I totally agree some kids at 18 will need to change around. That's quite possible in a non-college system but it has enough penalties in time taken that it discourages TOO many.
Also university is generally cheaper than in the US unless you are going to Oxbridge :-)?
Dh is a professor... he is teaching a general bio for non majors this semester and hates it. It's pointless... they don't care. They are doing okay b/c he's at a good college and is a good teacher. On one hand, I think it's pointless to spend a year taking some random required courses... on the other hand, my husband switched majors a few times before deciding and many 18 y/os don't know what they want to do with themselves. My dh went to grad school at an Ivy and worked with people from all over. The differences in programs are fascinating. For instance, in Brazil... they get their undergrad, teach or work in the science field, then go back for grad school. there's no straight into phd program... but on the other hand, they don't do a post doc... which phd's do here. Is one better than the other? I think it depends on the person.
Yes there are great programs and scientists all over the world... but there are some amazing scientists here. Some of the leading scientific work has been done here as well. communication abroad is important in science. my dh had the privilege to collaborate with scientists abroad. it's not a here vs there question... it's what can you gain from each other?
Totally agree. And in medical research you have a huge advantage for example, having such a large population. I was only specifically responding to JoeBunny' implication that the US was always per se ahead just because you have Harvard and we don't.
For instance, my Mum did a specialist degree in the US (after her dental degree here) and she says you could not train as well anywhere in the world because it would take YEARS to see the variety of cases and diversity of demographic. When you have 300 million people you see thousands of some kinds of cancer that a doctor or dentist here might see 1 of in a lifetime. KWIM? Also the money from drug companies is concentrated in the US. And obviously anything with defence links (like some kinds of engineering) benefits from the fact no one in the world rivals NASA or the Pentagon.
But for some things like biochemistry or chemical engineering there are subfields where I know UK or Australian or European centres are better. And law I think is just not comparable. You can be the world's leading expert in US law and it won't help you much if you want to live in Australia and vice versa.?