I have often thought public schools should concentrate more on life skills like managing finances, skilled trades, and such rather than trying to make every student engineering bound.
I agree. Or have both but have students enter a “track” at a certain point. Academic track or trade track. This is done in Europe but is poo-poo’d here as ‘unfair’.
I don’t understand this. There would be no restriction from a student moving from one track or another as long as they had the aptitude for it. Heck, why can’t someone be in a trade AND an academic if they want? There is no logical reason why one could not do both.
“I have often thought public schools should concentrate more on life skills like managing finances, skilled trades, and such rather than trying to make every student engineering bound.”
Problem is, the skilled trades all require advanced math skills.
Absolutely, I have often pondered the same thought. Kids don't know basics of life unless there is a mentor who tutors them. Making change during exchanges of money. Ten-finger typing. How to grow food. Simple home maintenance such as plastering and painting. Types of tools and how they are utilized. Refurbishing furniture. Hanging items on a wall (sounds simple but many fail at this). Basics of electrical equipment (many don't know what goes on behind a light switch). The list is long, and the schools skip over what is necessary to understand in life. Many take years to learn this stuff, while many never learn, yet a few lessons early on in school can mean so much to so many.
As you say, public schools are overshooting by trying to make every student an engineer, when it's the little things they need as life skills.
We used to have two categories of high school: college prep and trade preparation. But that was determined to be racially discriminatory. My opinion: a student with IQ below 100 has no business in college track. I’m sure I will get some people disagreeing.