Vocation, Vocation, Vocation

I honed in pretty quickly on the chapter “the Role of Government in Education.”

Disclaimer: I spent all last fall on an education themed study abroad program in Chile and Argentina. Consequently, I’m recovering from a bit of academic whiplash. To put it nicely, let’s just say my Chilean and Argentine education Profs would be aghast.

I disagreed with a couple of Friedman’s points on vocational education. 

I think Friedman holds a very conflicted view of vocational schools and who attends them.  His approach is nearly bipolar.  In one passage, he treats vocational schools as “a form of investment in human capital precisely analogous to investment in machinery, buildings or other forms of non-human capital” (101).  This seems to compare man to machine.  However, a few pages later, he laments vocational schools as a bourgeois institutions that “tend to restrict [enrollment]…to individuals whose parents or benefactors can finance the training required” (107).  This view seems to be a bit paradoxical.  Which are they – programs reserved for the middle-to-upper class or basic training centers that invest in humans as though they are machines?  

My impression was that trade schools are thought to lack the prestige of those who can afford a private education. I think my disagreements with Friedman may be partially attributable to our generational gap. 

Two years ago, the Economist published this piece addressing this negative view of vocational education.  It notes that, in 1982, 1/3rd of high school students completed a vocational degree.  That proportion dropped to 1/5th by 2005.  The sub headline of the article was “America’s misplaced disdain for vocational education.”  Interestingly, America’s disdain seems remarkably different than Friedman’s disdain.  The piece called vocational training “arguably America's most sneered-at high-school programme.” It is not that vocational education is reserved for only those who can afford it; twenty-first century vocational training is generally reserved for those who don’t have the luxury to pursue other options. 

But the cost isn't the only reason Friedman believes that vocational education should not be subsidized. Friedman bemoans that “[s]ubsidizing the training of veterinarians, beauticians, dentists, and a host of other specialists…cannot be justified on the same grounds as subsidizing elementary schools or, at a higher level, liberal arts colleges” (88).  His complaint is that vocational training “increases the economic productivity of the student but does not train him for either citizenship or leadership” (88). I find this argument almost laughable. Good citizenship is obviously a vital component of education curriculum, but Friedman himself admits that there is a "neighborhood cost" component that also helps justify educating the population.  It is illogical to say that a society as a whole is better off if its citizens have good, maybe even liberal-arts college level, "leadership" training (my sincerest apologizes to whoever coined "Leaders in the Making"). Wouldn't it seem more beneficial -- and more in sync with Friedman's argument --  to give a citizen the tools to "vote" with his wallet?  

 

Friedman should consider the possibility that in the absence of vocational programs, especially today, students of lower socioeconomic classes may find themselves lacking the technical ability to hold employment. The “neighborhood costs” of unemployment are similar to those of poverty. To keep students gainfully employed is an important end in itself to combat the creation of an idle, discouraged youth population -- the kind that might instead turn to crime.

I visited several vocational high schools abroad and found that them to be great resources for students in troubled living situations.  Government-funded vocational schools gave them the training they needed to stay off the streets.  Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds appreciated the more pragmatic focus -- it makes opportunity cost much more worthwhile.  With this education came the opportunity to build a career that they may not have had otherwise.  And with that career, came the freedom to vote on tie colors. 

If Friedman is going promote a voucher system, and I won't get into the flaws of that system, he should allow government subsidies to be used for vocational schools as well. They too curb "neighborhood costs."

---------------------------------------
This data from the U.S. Dept of Education = super interesting.  They were unable to prove a correlation between hours worked or salary and # of occupational credits earned in high school, but it seems like graduates with vocational training are also employed, slightly more than the average person without any occupational credits! (Source: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008035.pdf)