Fail.
Posted on 01/28/2005 10:12:42 PM PST by neverdem
Fail.
FReepmail me if you want on or off my New York ping list.
If a "work ready" labor force became an objective of public education we would have more productivity and less hard core unemployables.
WHAT ????? ...........WHAT........?????
Employers Insisting & Demanding Kid's fresh out of High School should be able to just "step into a minimum wage job" ?
How DARE they Impune the Largest & Longest Running, Social Entitlement Program Ever, as if WE have EVEN begun to pour in Near Enough money to educate our kid's up to the 39th competing level, in the WORLD.
WHY it's common knowledge the Best & Brightest come straight from the New York Public School System !
Why the Nerve of a Capitalistic Economy asking for such nonsense !
(sarcasm/ off)
I have been on FR for 6 years and I have never posted the following because I hate it when other do it but,
MINORITIES AND WOMEN TO BE MOST AFFECTED BY THIS.
If the current NY State Regents exams are of the same quality as the exams NY had in the late 1960's, additional testing to assure readiness for work is BS. The fund of knowledge of those who graduated high school with a NY State Regents Diploma equals that of most recent college graduates, IMHO.
That can actually be EXTREMELY demanding. It requires one to show up early, probably stand on one's feet most of the day, work up a sweat, develop deformities, constantly stock shelves or reply to customer's orders, and with something of a smile on one's face, day after day after month after year, without let-up or much of a break for the 10-15 minutes, and with no chance of promotion or advancement, in most cases (by definition), and to a salary if one does that might seem too embarrassingly small to reveal to friends and family. That is tiring, taxing, demanding.
Contrast that with a 'real' job, that pays five to six times minimum wage. You slide in by contacts, or perhaps some political connection. Perhaps the employer's school appears on the resume. Preferential hire. Who knows? You show up roughly when you want, work the hours you like, leave when you're ready, and take two hour lunches that nobody minds. You have all the time to run personal errands that the minimum wage employee simply cannot. You can make all your appointments. You have little pressure, and few expectations. You sit most of the time, in a comfortable chair, in a climate controlled room, or else you lounge around in the yards, or on the streets or lots, shooting the breeze. And so on. You are a city worker. The former is an employee of likely some large chain, where only those in HQ get any kind of decent salary. And again the latter is a government employee, or someone at various firms waiting to 'go public' or lost in some private sector bureaucracy on the trailing edge before hostile takeover or collapse(which I think is becoming less of a problem in the private sector, perhaps).
A real job, in fact, suggests to me one involving not necessarily a general level of skill found in a generalized skills test. It suggests a tunnel vision, single-minded competency in some field working oftentimes by job or contract, coming infrequently, on projects which only a few really excite you. The hours are long, virtually 24/7 in 'crunch time', the more 'creative' the endeavor, the more the crunch. The salary is more than adequate, but you still feel as if you're doing it for the project, unless you also got a piece of the action in some way. Your time is your own to run errands, but you might feel reluctant to take it for fear of what others would think of your commitment to the project. And so on. It's hurry up and wait. It's knowing one or two things so well that you can produce and still meet entirely unreasonable deadlines. It's burning out, and then starting all over again on the next project.
Admittedly, that contract-based approach does NOT describe every job. But to the extent it might seem among the more fulfilling and creative, I don't know how you'd test one's competence by a standardized test. Indeed, even reputation is unreliable, as those with skill sometimes fail to perform, and sometimes those with limited track records perform beyond all expectation, depending.
"The test would cover so-called soft skills in 10 broad areas, including the ability to communicate, follow directions, negotiate and make basic decisions. It will be tried out in pilot programs this spring and could be ready as early as the fall, officials said. The test, given by computer, would include one section on speaking skills, with oral answers to be recorded and then analyzed by examiners."
how about reading, science, math, etc ?
those do still fit in SOMEWHERE in schools today, right ?
how much you want to bet this test includes lots of pictures ?
(..LOL.)
Well, it just may boil down to this. If a student is not able to pass such a Excruciating Exit Exam, there is still an option........
He'll be Hired as a FEDERAL EMPLOYEE. No problem.
Maybe we ought to entertain an idea to have business "sponsor" a school.
Turn some H.S.'s back into Technical Schools, with the funding coming from the sponsoring business.
Others may disagree, but I think the surly kids from the outer boroughs that dominate much of New York retail do a better job than Sirajul, Kim, and Parvati when it comes to customer service. This whole idea of yet another test is just stupid.
I swear, that woman looks like the love child of Florence Henderson and Ann B. Davis.
Reminds me of when my grandfather used to complain about how so many check out clerks couldn't even make change. What did he expect for $3 an hour, financial wizards!
LOL!!!
Amen to that.
And the New York Times testing its employees wouldn't be a bad idea either.
I know, I know, wishful thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.