Why Eliminating the SAT is bad for students from poor families

[fsufool]

Thought this for two decades. This guy gets it:

Dropping the SAT Requirement Is a Luxury Belief

Disguising self-interest as virtue

robkhenderson.substack.com

 

[GeddyLee09]

One would think that having a objective quantifiable way to judge learning ability would be the best way to weed out preferential treatment by universities. I guess that's not the case.

 

[12Nole]

It wouldn’t allow me to read the article.

Growing up it was always repeated that the SAT benefited wealthy families due to them being able to afford the test prep, tutoring, resources, having the available time to prep, and access to testing centers.

Now not having the SAT is bad for poor students?

I can’t keep up anymore.

 

[GeddyLee09]

It wouldn’t allow me to read the article.

Growing up it was always repeated that the SAT benefited wealthy families due to them being able to afford the test prep, tutoring, resources, having the available time to prep, and access to testing centers.

Now not having the SAT is bad for poor students?

I can’t keep up anymore.

How much good do those prep courses and books really do? A truly gifted student probably doesn't need all the prep courses.

 

[goldmom]

It wouldn’t allow me to read the article.

Growing up it was always repeated that the SAT benefited wealthy families due to them being able to afford the test prep, tutoring, resources, having the available time to prep, and access to testing centers.

Now not having the SAT is bad for poor students?

I can’t keep up anymore.

SAT tutoring or coaching has been offered at no charge by hundreds of school districts for years.
The student just has to have the desire and initiative to spend the time.
Some state universities who want to achieve diversity don’t place as much weight on the SAT - ACT scores as they do on other factors such as class rank.
Texas state schools for example take the top 10% out of a school. This harms kids from affluent districts that tend to be majority white, but it gets UT and aTm to enroll more Hispanic and AA minority kids.
Example would be a high school in South Dallas where the Top 20 kids in a class of 400 to get into UT with a 900 SAT. Yes these are kids who are economically disadvantaged and have had to overcome a ton of obstacles but they’re good kids who want a chance.
In the school where my children went in Far North Dallas, that would send them to community college and put them in the bottom quartile. My kids and about 75% of their classmates had a private tutor as well as a private college consultant from junior year on. They test your child and determine what they need to be tutored on and which of the tests plays to their strengths. We were just lucky that we had the financial means to take advantage of their services.
Some parents were so obsessed with their kids doing well that on top of the tutors and counselors they hired a psychologist who would provide a diagnosis of a learning “difference” so they could take an untimed SAT. One of those ended up graduating Magna Cum Laude from Michigan. Another is now a successful lawyer who graduated with honors from the University of Chicago Law. Neither of those kids had learning differences. They just had affluent parents.

 

[goldmom]

“Opportunity hoarding”?

 

[GeddyLee09]

“Opportunity hoarding”?

"Opportunity hoarding is a sociological concept utilized by Charles Tilly in 1998 that has been used to explain a growing range of phenomena related to social inequality".

Ah yes another sociological concept. I guess this one is saying its rich peoples fault or maybe the middle class too.

 

[GeddyLee09]

There is no easy solution for this situation as the problem is essentially what goldmom described: parents with money will always do whatever they can to give their children an advantage. This type of opportunity hoarding means that poor kids will perpetually get screwed. Most of the elite graduate programs in my field dropped the GRE general and subject tests years ago due to this problem. The SAT and ACT were always next to go. These tests have never been an objective, quantifiable way to judge learning ability. No such test exists, as far as I am aware, at least not one that would be useful in college admissions.

So a test that is the same for everyone isn't objective and quantifiable. Ok.

 

[goldmom]

"Opportunity hoarding is a sociological concept utilized by Charles Tilly in 1998 that has been used to explain a growing range of phenomena related to social inequality".

Ah yes another sociological concept. I guess this one is saying its rich peoples fault or maybe the middle class too.

Or that a family who chooses to spend their after tax income to provide something for their children shouldn’t have that right? Because not every child has that opportunity afforded to them?
Eff Tilly and eff that theory.
I’ll just leave it at that.

 

[GeddyLee09]

Or that a family who chooses to spend their after tax income to provide something for their children shouldn’t have that right? Because not every child has that opportunity afforded to them?
Eff Tilly and eff that theory.
I’ll just leave it at that.

I know a lot of people that paid or worked their way through school in one way or another. I've never heard them complain about opportunity hoarding.

 

[goldmom]

This is why there is no easy solution to this problem. People do not even want to consider the issue. Even the most liberal, progressive of parents stridently hold onto this perspective that they should provide every possible advantage to their children, which will necessarily disadvantage the children who do not have that type of support from their families.

Absolutely. The kid who went to Chicago Law had very affluent parents who were ultra liberal politically but were obsessed with their children’s education and path to success, but most parents with a background of academic achievement want that for their kids as well-regardless of their own political beliefs. It’s a shared value across the spectrum.

 

[GeddyLee09]

You omitted the crucial aspect of my post.

The Princeton Review says: 'The purpose of the SAT is to measure a high school student's readiness for college, and provide colleges with one common data point that can be used to compare all applicants".

If were talking about a test that covers math, reading and writing readiness for college and learning ability are essentially the same thing. In the military they use the ASVAB which is similar. Its a known fact that lower scores have a higher degree of washouts and re training which increases time and costs. Hence the ability to learn reference.

 

[GeddyLee09]

The Selfish Gene is almost too powerful to even try to counterbalance.

People tend to be selfish with their kids. Lets hope that doesn't go away. I don't begrudge those that have it better than me and use that to their advantage and their kids. I would do the same thing.

 

[fsufool]

SAT tutoring or coaching has been offered at no charge by hundreds of school districts for years.
The student just has to have the desire and initiative to spend the time.
Some state universities who want to achieve diversity don’t place as much weight on the SAT - ACT scores as they do on other factors such as class rank.
Texas state schools for example take the top 10% out of a school. This harms kids from affluent districts that tend to be majority white, but it gets UT and aTm to enroll more Hispanic and AA minority kids.
Example would be a high school in South Dallas where the Top 20 kids in a class of 400 to get into UT with a 900 SAT. Yes these are kids who are economically disadvantaged and have had to overcome a ton of obstacles but they’re good kids who want a chance.
In the school where my children went in Far North Dallas, that would send them to community college and put them in the bottom quartile. My kids and about 75% of their classmates had a private tutor as well as a private college consultant from junior year on. They test your child and determine what they need to be tutored on and which of the tests plays to their strengths. We were just lucky that we had the financial means to take advantage of their services.
Some parents were so obsessed with their kids doing well that on top of the tutors and counselors they hired a psychologist who would provide a diagnosis of a learning “difference” so they could take an untimed SAT. One of those ended up graduating Magna Cum Laude from Michigan. Another is now a successful lawyer who graduated with honors from the University of Chicago Law. Neither of those kids had learning differences. They just had affluent parents.

We got a test tutor and paid for her to video conference to him for an hour for 6 weeks (if my memory is correct). Our son decided to take the SAT once and ACT once and was satisfied so blew off taking the SAT again because he was at a corn maze with his friends and came home late the night before. He scored in the top 8%....................Doubt the tutor moved his score. Could have probably increased his score by taking the test a couple of times.........but he had no compunction to apply to the Ivy's so really didn't care. Got into 6 of the 7 schools he applied to and that 7th school probably didn't get admitted because the year before they over-admitted by a few thousand and had to put kids into hotel rooms, so they severely curtailed admittance to out-of-state students his year. (either that or his essay where he admitted not believing in God..........LOL)

But, the thrust of the article for those not able to read it is that kids from poor families have other obligations like working and end up with less sleep, more stress, dealing with adult issues like poverty/violence that might keep them from getting great grades.........but the SAT scores, based somewhat on IQ (I disagree with this part) is a chance for them to provide proof of intelligence to succeed. That is the way the author (after military service) was able to get into college through his solid test scores where he excelled. So getting rid of the one place that he had to prove his potential is detrimental to him.

For year activist claim that the tests are biased..........although the testing services went through and stripped out any vestiges of middle class life and reduced math word problems over 30 years ago. Personally I think assuming a certain race isn't able to understand or live in middle class culture is racist itself, but that argument is over. The testing agencies have rescored the tests so that the ranged is condensed radically increasing the amount of 1600 scores and creating test scores that years ago would have been considered top 5-10% that are now top 35%. They also retooled it away from an IQ like test to a what you know type test which defeats what the original design of the test was for (to get rural kids in New England who didn't go to prep schools and went to public schools that were designed around the farming schedule a way into the Ivy's).

 

[BelemNole]

We got a test tutor and paid for her to video conference to him for an hour for 6 weeks (if my memory is correct). Our son decided to take the SAT once and ACT once and was satisfied so blew off taking the SAT again because he was at a corn maze with his friends and came home late the night before. He scored in the top 8%....................Doubt the tutor moved his score. Could have probably increased his score by taking the test a couple of times.........but he had no compunction to apply to the Ivy's so really didn't care. Got into 6 of the 7 schools he applied to and that 7th school probably didn't get admitted because the year before they over-admitted by a few thousand and had to put kids into hotel rooms, so they severely curtailed admittance to out-of-state students his year. (either that or his essay where he admitted not believing in God..........LOL)

But, the thrust of the article for those not able to read it is that kids from poor families have other obligations like working and end up with less sleep, more stress, dealing with adult issues like poverty/violence that might keep them from getting great grades.........but the SAT scores, based somewhat on IQ (I disagree with this part) is a chance for them to provide proof of intelligence to succeed. That is the way the author (after military service) was able to get into college through his solid test scores where he excelled. So getting rid of the one place that he had to prove his potential is detrimental to him.

For year activist claim that the tests are biased..........although the testing services went through and stripped out any vestiges of middle class life and reduced math word problems over 30 years ago. Personally I think assuming a certain race isn't able to understand or live in middle class culture is racist itself, but that argument is over. The testing agencies have rescored the tests so that the ranged is condensed radically increasing the amount of 1600 scores and creating test scores that years ago would have been considered top 5-10% that are now top 35%. They also retooled it away from an IQ like test to a what you know type test which defeats what the original design of the test was for (to get rural kids in New England who didn't go to prep schools and went to public schools that were designed around the farming schedule a way into the Ivy's).

Most schools didn't get rid of standardized testing, they made it optional. So if you think that's your best way to put a good foot forward, you can still take it and submit your scores.
My son didn't take it because Covid removed it as an option. He likely would have been helped by it as he didn't have much of the extra stuff people stuff into their applications.
My daughter didn't take it because she didn't want to. Her applications were stuffed with all the stuff colleges like. We'll see how it turns out for her as colleges will make their decisions this month.

 

[GeddyLee09]

Most schools didn't get rid of standardized testing, they made it optional. So if you think that's your best way to put a good foot forward, you can still take it and submit your scores.
My son didn't take it because Covid removed it as an option. He likely would have been helped by it as he didn't have much of the extra stuff people stuff into their applications.
My daughter didn't take it because she didn't want to. Her applications were stuffed with all the stuff colleges like. We'll see how it turns out for her as colleges will make their decisions this month.

I had two take it and one didn't. They all got into the same level of school so I don't think its a detriment to not take it. I do think though it could be a way in for some that might be on the bubble so to speak.

 

[goldmom]

The Selfish Gene is almost too powerful to even try to counterbalance.

So how in your estimation would that be addressed?

 

[fsufool]

There is no easy solution for this situation as the problem is essentially what goldmom described: parents with money will always do whatever they can to give their children an advantage. This type of opportunity hoarding means that poor kids will perpetually get screwed. Most of the elite graduate programs in my field dropped the GRE general and subject tests years ago due to this problem. The SAT and ACT were always next to go. These tests have never been an objective, quantifiable way to judge learning ability. No such test exists, as far as I am aware, at least not one that would be useful in college admissions.

Hmmmmmmm.............disagree here. Originally the SAT was an IQ like test that did predict college success quite well. It was used by Ivy's to increase enrollment of smart, capable, rural kids who didn't attend prep school and who went to public schools designed around farming.

Several iterations later the tests are more of a what you know test as opposed as a IQ like test. However, it still is very good at predicting who will succeed at college. It is directly correlated to social class though for many of the reasons pointed out. But it is still the only way to compare students from a variety of different schools around the country. It still allows for some kids who for different reasons might not have great grades in HS but are very capable of succeeding at college. In other words it allows for another type of on-ramp to college for an individual.

By taking it away it allows for children of the wealthy that aren't particularly smart (it happens) to not have to be compared to the whole population of students, therefore using their advantages to get into colleges they shouldn't be at.

 

[goldmom]

I had two take it and one didn't. They all got into the same level of school so I don't think its a detriment to not take it. I do think though it could be a way in for some that might be on the bubble so to speak.

Son took the SAT twice and ACT once. He was one of those kids who were identified by SAT in 7th grade to just take it to see how he would perform and then compare it when he was a rising senior. He did well enough (just under 1400) to get into every school he applied to (8) and his ACT was in the low/mid 30’s.
He partied a LOT his first two years so we had to lower the boom on him. He graduated and now has two Masters and is hugely successful.
Daughter only took ACT based on her tutors assessment and also scored low/mid 30’s. Only applied to three schools and got into all three. After two years she decided she hated college and went in another direction. She doesn’t regret it a bit.
Different strokes in life.

 

[goldmom]

Hmmmmmmm.............disagree here. Originally the SAT was an IQ like test that did predict college success quite well. It was used by Ivy's to increase enrollment of smart, capable, rural kids who didn't attend prep school and who went to public schools designed around farming.

Several iterations later the tests are more of a what you know test as opposed as a IQ like test. However, it still is very good at predicting who will succeed at college. It is directly correlated to social class though for many of the reasons pointed out. But it is still the only way to compare students from a variety of different schools around the country. It still allows for some kids who for different reasons might not have great grades in HS but are very capable of succeeding at college. In other words it allows for another type of on-ramp to college for an individual.

By taking it away it allows for children of the wealthy that aren't particularly smart (it happens) to not have to be compared to the whole population of students, therefore using their advantages to get into colleges they shouldn't be at.

There are students at many colleges now who are enrolled in remedial courses in basics like English. Under the standards of years past they’d be at a junior college.

 

[GeddyLee09]

Son took the SAT twice and ACT once. He was one of those kids who were identified by SAT in 7th grade to just take it to see how he would perform and then compare it when he was a rising senior. He did well enough (just under 1400) to get into every school he applied to (8) and his ACT was in the low/mid 30’s.
He partied a LOT his first two years so we had to lower the boom on him. He graduated and now has two Masters and is hugely successful.
Daughter only took ACT based on her tutors assessment and also scored low/mid 30’s. Only applied to three schools and got into all three. After two years she decided she hated college and went in another direction. She doesn’t regret it a bit.
Different strokes in life.

I had one take a break and when I was going to lower the hammer my wife reminded me that I also had a break and to leave him be. He got back on track later as I did. A friends kid didn't do one minute of college and is quite successful at DHL.

 

[fsufool]

I spent years getting trained in psychometrics and neuropsychological/psychoeducational assessment, and I currently work primarily in higher education and specialize in assessment. One of my fundamental conclusions from that experience is that we have essentially no reliable, valid definition of intelligence, and we certainly do not have any reliable, valid tests of intelligence.

The differences between tests of aptitude, ability, and achievement are both important and amorphous. In order to get a test that is not fundamentally biased against people from marginalized and disadvantaged communities, then you have to distill the test to basic cognitive abilities like reaction time and short-term memory that have no predictive value for future academic achievement.

I'll take your word for it, but would love for you to point me to all those neuro-surgeons, physicists and highly published scientist that have a 90 IQ.

Certainly there are successful people with average IQs and Gardner et al have delineated different types of IQ, but to say there are no reliable, valid tests is probably a "throwing out the baby with the bathwater situation." Since academia is constantly morphing itself in what it is trying to accomplish and what constitutes success, then yes it would be tough to design a single test to be predictive.

As an aside, when I was teaching undergraduate social theory at USF, I used some original texts. These texts were used regularly in the 1960s-1970s for undergraduates without issues. My students told me that it took them forever to read because they had to keep looking up words and they had a really hard time understanding the text. It dawned on me that since I had moved from teaching at Boston area elite colleges to USF I was dealing with students that were of a whole different level both from their average SAT scores and from a newer generation. Ask any college professor that's older than 50 and you get similar stories, even those teaching at elite colleges.

I had to totally revamp the course and take out the original text, add in more visual oriented material, and offer alternative projects (like photographic projects) to help students understand the material. So, again, a moving target, but there is a difference in the ability of students with a 1380 on the SAT and a 1000.

 

[goldmom]

My general manifesto:
Public schools need a massive increase in funding, generally, and that funding should not be linked to the property taxes of the surrounding neighborhoods. The funding of a public school should not be linked to the wealth of the families who attend it. We need to pursue equity in access and quality of schooling for all children.

I literally have no way to respond to this at the moment so I will just pass.

 

[fsufool]

Here is a recent report from my institution on the SAT/ACT as predictors of college performance.
Relationship of the SAT/ACT to College Performance at the University of California
Generally, these tests are not strong predictors of college success, especially after controlling for demographic differences. Also, what the SAT/ACT mostly predict are the GPA at the end of the first academic year and the likelihood of returning for the second year. High school GPA is a stronger predictor, generally, and is less conflated with demographic variables.

Nothing will stop the children of the wealthy getting into college, as the recent Varsity Blues scandal shows us.

Thanks for the report:

The literature surrounding the predictive validity of standardized test scores on student success is mixed. Many studies found a statistically significant association between SAT/ACT scores and college outcomes including first-year college GPA, first-year retention, four-year graduation, and graduation GPA. On the other hand, research also shows that demographic predictors weakened the ability of SAT/ACT scores to be effective predictors of college success.

SAT/ACT scores and HSGPA are both moderate predictors of student college GPAs, and weak to moderate predictors of student retention and graduation.

HSGPA and SAT scores are associated with course performance. They are independently important explanatory factors for first-year students’ course performance relative to their peers in similar courses.......

This is an executive summary of one study. The intro introduces the idea that various studies have found different outcomes and that demographics does weaken the relationship. This is, of course, well known. But it doesn't look at the other end of the equation, the universities. They are constantly changing. Talk to someone that hires newly college educated folks and they will, almost universally, say the quality of these hires has gone down. So success at college is not preparing students for a variety of work situations as well as it use too. What have colleges done to create this situation? That goes beyond the scope of this thread, but is a complex issue that is not complimentary of colleges. There are always two sides of each equation.

 

[GeddyLee09]

That is definitely a different and also important conversation. Personally, I do not think that colleges have ever been intended or structured to prepare students for work or specific jobs. That is simply not the purpose of college from my perspective. I do not think that colleges have done anything to create this situation other than to exist as they always have as institutions of higher, more specialized education. In the role that they were founded and structured to perform: general and specialized academic education, I think that colleges have typically performed quite well.

The problem as I see it is that culturally and societally, we have confused the role of colleges with that of professional training and development.

In all of the universities in which I have worked, a clear distinction has always been made between academic education and professional training. Even within my field, there are fundamentally different schools and degrees that distinguish academic psychologists from professional psychologists. An academic psychologist is not prepared or trained to for the role of a professional psychologist, and a professional psychologist not trained or prepared for the role of an academic psychologist.

Apparently, we have reached a point in a our societal evolution at which we need a new, clearly delineated professional training and development institution that is focused on training job skills, essentially a massive expansion of the trade school and vocational training institutions.

On this we agree. Trades and vocational schools and training really need attention.

 

[MagNoleA]

I literally have no way to respond to this at the moment so I will just pass.

What exactly are you going to pass.....? Just don't leave us hanging....

 

[goldmom]

I've always thoroughly enjoyed all the female smokin' hot on hands tutors. Most were impressed once they saw my ruler. For breaks we would play poker and I often won with a royal blush.

🙄

 

[MagNoleA]

There are students at many colleges now who are enrolled in remedial courses in basics like English. Under the standards of years past they’d be at a junior college.

I took the SAT test in 1924 and it took me a few attempts (357) before I could qualify to enter FSU back in 1947 under an assumed name and trenchcoat. And 14 years later, was able to gradgeeate Come some Laudy!

 

[MagNoleA]

Son took the SAT twice and ACT once. He was one of those kids who were identified by SAT in 7th grade to just take it to see how he would perform and then compare it when he was a rising senior. He did well enough (just under 1400) to get into every school he applied to (8) and his ACT was in the low/mid 30’s.
He partied a LOT his first two years so we had to lower the boom on him. He graduated and now has two Masters and is hugely successful.
Daughter only took ACT based on her tutors assessment and also scored low/mid 30’s. Only applied to three schools and got into all three. After two years she decided she hated college and went in another direction. She doesn’t regret it a bit.
Different strokes in life.

FACTOID: Actor James Woods scored a perfect 1600 on his SAT. The little twerp.... This is well before he got into "The Onion Fields." I was often a rising senior in Big Daddy's, assorted Sorority Houses (one had an anchor that served various late night purposes, and studying adult films in Randy's Campus Theatre. Also, was a finalist of 63,324,986 people for Richard Roundtree's movie SHAFT.

 

[MagNoleA]

So how in your estimation would that be addressed?

This has been a very exhilirating and robust thread for me. All this talk of pursuing of scholastic excellence just has me stirred and wound up.

 

[MagNoleA]

Absolutely. The kid who went to Chicago Law had very affluent parents who were ultra liberal politically but were obsessed with their children’s education and path to success, but most parents with a background of academic achievement want that for their kids as well-regardless of their own political beliefs. It’s a shared value across the spectrum.

I really like the word spectrum. Never mind.....

 

[MagNoleA]

SAT tutoring or coaching has been offered at no charge by hundreds of school districts for years.
The student just has to have the desire and initiative to spend the time.
Some state universities who want to achieve diversity don’t place as much weight on the SAT - ACT scores as they do on other factors such as class rank.
Texas state schools for example take the top 10% out of a school. This harms kids from affluent districts that tend to be majority white, but it gets UT and aTm to enroll more Hispanic and AA minority kids.
Example would be a high school in South Dallas where the Top 20 kids in a class of 400 to get into UT with a 900 SAT. Yes these are kids who are economically disadvantaged and have had to overcome a ton of obstacles but they’re good kids who want a chance.
In the school where my children went in Far North Dallas, that would send them to community college and put them in the bottom quartile. My kids and about 75% of their classmates had a private tutor as well as a private college consultant from junior year on. They test your child and determine what they need to be tutored on and which of the tests plays to their strengths. We were just lucky that we had the financial means to take advantage of their services.
Some parents were so obsessed with their kids doing well that on top of the tutors and counselors they hired a psychologist who would provide a diagnosis of a learning “difference” so they could take an untimed SAT. One of those ended up graduating Magna Cum Laude from Michigan. Another is now a successful lawyer who graduated with honors from the University of Chicago Law. Neither of those kids had learning differences. They just had affluent parents.

This is deeply gripping and enlightening news.

 

[goldmom]

This has been a very exhilirating and robust thread for me. All this talk of pursuing of scholastic excellence just has me stirred and wound up.

I can see that. In fact we can ALL see that.
😳

 

[goldmom]

Shading with condescension, are we?

Who me? Never. 😎

 

[F4Gary]

On this we agree. Trades and vocational schools and training really need attention.

This is why I support Mike Rowe.

 

[FisherWilcoxTaggart Survivor]

This is all part of the growing trend of irresponsibility and non-accountability. If someone can’t pass the test, just make it easier. If existing tests reveal weaknesses/failures in the school system, or with kids themselves, just do away with the tests altogether. Can’t make anyone feel bad.

Everyone is a winner. Everyone gets a trophy. If someone is a failure, it’s not his fault. He just needs more support. Someone or something else caused the problem.

Sounds swell, but that’s not (yet) the way the real world operates.

 

[GeddyLee09]

That is definitely a different and also important conversation. Personally, I do not think that colleges have ever been intended or structured to prepare students for work or specific jobs. That is simply not the purpose of college from my perspective. I do not think that colleges have done anything to create this situation other than to exist as they always have as institutions of higher, more specialized education. In the role that they were founded and structured to perform: general and specialized academic education, I think that colleges have typically performed quite well.

The problem as I see it is that culturally and societally, we have confused the role of colleges with that of professional training and development.

In all of the universities in which I have worked, a clear distinction has always been made between academic education and professional training. Even within my field, there are fundamentally different schools and degrees that distinguish academic psychologists from professional psychologists. An academic psychologist is not prepared or trained to for the role of a professional psychologist, and a professional psychologist not trained or prepared for the role of an academic psychologist.

Apparently, we have reached a point in a our societal evolution at which we need a new, clearly delineated professional training and development institution that is focused on training job skills, essentially a massive expansion of the trade school and vocational training institutions.

Trade and vocational schools could be part of the educational system. Today plumbers, carpenters, pipe fitters and other trades require certain education before learning their trades. Many trades require extensive STEM type courses, these could be the first year or two of a program before learning the hands on part of the craft.

 

[rtpnole]

On this we agree. Trades and vocational schools and training really need attention.

Two things. First, my former neighbor who is an electrician once told me that plumbers were the kings of tradesman. All of them can make a great living.
Second, I’ll hand it to my parents. I got an M.S. at FSU and spent my entire career as a scientist in agriculture. My younger brother is a certified auto mechanic AND carpenter. His main job is a construction superintendent. My parents never pressured us in any direction. We always appreciated that.

 

[FisherWilcoxTaggart Survivor]

Two things. First, my former neighbor who is an electrician once told me that plumbers were the kings of tradesman. All of them can make a great living.
Second, I’ll hand it to my parents. I got an M.S. at FSU and spent my entire career as a scientist in agriculture. My younger brother is a certified auto mechanic AND carpenter. His main job is a construction superintendent. My parents never pressured us in any direction. We always appreciated that.

Do whatever makes you happy. About 90% of the kids graduating from college today cannot change a tire or jump start a dead battery. Pretty pathetic, but the softness of modern America is very real.

 

[DFSNOLE]

Two things. First, my former neighbor who is an electrician once told me that plumbers were the kings of tradesman. All of them can make a great living.
Second, I’ll hand it to my parents. I got an M.S. at FSU and spent my entire career as a scientist in agriculture. My younger brother is a certified auto mechanic AND carpenter. His main job is a construction superintendent. My parents never pressured us in any direction. We always appreciated that.

My nephew makes six figures as some kind of manager for Ben Franklin Plumbing.
I got out of FSU with a degree in accounting and got a divorce all in about a year. I had a bad attitude towards life for a while and ended up working for a construction company that I played ball for. My physician father wasn't very happy with that. He softened on his stance when I started my first company and was suddenly proud when I got my CGC license. Having a company with 50+ employees was alright.
He was kind of a snob.