A quick survey of seniors in one of my classes shows that they all have pretty concrete plans post-graduation. A few going into the military, one has a job lined up at a bank, a couple going to work for a brother/uncle's company, quite a few planning on working and taking classes at a community college for a couple of years, some of them hoping to transfer to a four-year college after that. One planning on training to become a pilot. Only two going directly into a four-year college in September. The point is that they all have an idea where they are going, and feel prepared to get there.
“the kids” vs “your kids”. One makes broad claims about kids in general. The other refers only to yours.
Whatever it IS. Look, I know you're just trying to be a pain in the ass because you're bored, but you're still wrong.
It is interesting that so many of my students at a (very) inner city school have more concrete and realistic plans for their future than so many students at uber-rich suburban schools where nearly every kid is just assumed to transition to a four-year college right out of high school. The Starbucks barista with $200,000 in student loan debts won't be any of my students.
Have you ever noticed the surnames "with connections" in D.C. all studied "Art History" or something else that has no chance of a being a real career since there are only a handful of museum curators?
What I noticed was that the home environment makes the biggest difference overall. I taught in one of those "nose high" schools where many parents had the big jobs and lived in those big homes and were part of that executive class in a big city. Those students did quite well in school. They saw something more to education than simply passing the course. And they did not limit themselves to only subject areas that were job related. The school had resources that were above the normal, and opened students up to a broader view of life than just the STEM stuff. But they also had way more resources and opportunities to use that STEM stuff in ways that created interest rather than promoted binge and purge learning. Even the more Vocational kinds of courses offered something more than just a check mark on a qualifications list. I also worked in a very working class district that tended to look at education as a necessary evil. They seemed to feel the money and time spent to generate interests in areas was wasteful. Most parents wanted their kids to do well. But their own experiences seemed to limit the kinds of doors education would open. They were not the kind of parents, as a whole, who thought schools should allow time for students to turn a leaf blower into a hoover craft (they did stuff like that in the other school). In one case, we had a community that saw few limits. Education was something that the students had at least some interest in. It was a way for them to see opportunities, think about what interested them, and that life was more than getting a job. In the other, education was quite limited, and the results reflected those attitudes. Education was mostly all about going into the local labor force. That may help to explain those Art History kind of classes. And yes, IMO, the kids are fine. So long as schools offer choices and an environment that expands education beyond something you have to do until it's time to get a job. Boredom seemed to be the real issue.
The latest generation are, on average, less violent and more charitable than any other we have records for. They aren't perfect, goodness knows, but they're doing pretty well.
I had concrete plans, at that age. It all fell apart. Things often don't go according to plan. You can't always judge the future (or even the present) by plans. Also don't forget that the situation can be very different in one region than another.
