Obama proposes requiring students to stay in high school
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Anyone who has spent time with small children knows how much they love to learn. From the very beginning, they imitate everyone around them. Without this instinct enabling every new generation to pick up the knowledge and the skills of the previous ones, our species would have gone extinct long ago.
It takes alot to beat this natural curiosity out of children. You have to take them away from their families, isolate them in sterile environments with only a few overworked adults, and teach them that learning is a *discipline*. You have to send them to school.
It wasn't until the 19th century that mass education came into its own in Europe. The family, the oldest socializing institution, no longer sufficed to prepare children for their roles in a changing society--especially with working families increasingly fragmented by the industrial revolution. Once limits were put on child labor, kids had to spend the day *somewhere*. Governments saw compulsory schooling as a way to produce a docile population: obedient soldiers for the army, compliant laborers for industry, dutiful clerks and civil servants. Social reformers saw it differently--but it was the governments who got to implement it.
Compulsory education spread alongside industrialization, and eventually education became an industry in its own right. The state-managed incarnation of the industry still functions to keep young people off the streets and program them with standardized curricula. The private incarnation has become a profitable sector of the economy: abstracted out of daily life, education is a commodity to be bought and sold like any other.
In a mechanized world, in which self-checkout at the grocery store and electronic check-in at the airport are replacing the jobs that used to keep citizens integrated into society, what can be done with all the surplus workers? One solution is to postpone their entry into the workforce. Today's aspiring employee spends more time than ever before studying to gain an advantage, a longer list of credentials, another selling point on her resume. This helps send the message that that misfortunes of the unemployed and unsuccessful are their own fault--they should have gotten more education.
When power was chiefly hereditary, only the wealthy and powerful sent their children to school. In the current credit-based economy, in which many workers live beyond their means in hopes of bettering themselves, it's much easier to aspire to wealth and power--for a price. If you want a decent job, you have to pay thousands or tens of thousands for the prerequisite degrees. This traps students in decades of debt, forcing them to sell themselves wherever the market will take them--a sophisticated form of indentured servitude. The more overeducated the workforce, the pickier employers become; and in a volatile economy, workers have to return to school again and again.
Today degrees are openly discussed as investments in capital. A degree is worth a certain amount of potential future income, and some degrees are more valuable than others. Now there's talk of decreasing student loans to students seeking degrees in less profitable fields such as the humanities. This follows the logic of the market, since the ones who receive those degrees are less likely to be able to repay loans--even if those fields of study can improve human life in ways that defy financial calibration. Meanwhile, austerity measures are cutting away the last vestiges of the university as an oasis of learning for its own sake.
Of course, millions of young people have no hope of going to college. Early in life, children are put on one of two education tracks according to social class; these can take the form of private and public schools, suburban and inner city schools, or classes for "advanced" students alongside classes *for everyone else*. For the majority foreordained to fail, the school system is a gigantic holding tank; the ones who rebel are shuttled directly from detention to prison. Many schools now resemble prisons, with police officers, metal detectors, and other mechanisms to normalize authoritarian control from an early age.
Despite the glut of college graduates on the market, some liberals still maintain that the solution to poverty and other problems is more education. But the further up the pyramid you go the fewer positions there are; no amount of public education can change this. At best, graduates from disadvantaged backgrounds might replace those in privileged positions, but for every person who climbs the social ladder someone else has to descend it. Usually, more education just means more debt.
Another liberal precept is the notion of academia as *the marketplace of ideas*. The marketplace metaphor is apt enough: like human beings, ideas have to compete on the uneven terrain of capitalism. Some are backed by chancellors and media moguls, dollars by the million or billion, entire military-industrial complexes; others are literally born in prison. Despite this, the ones that rise to the top are bound to be the best--just as the most successful businessmen must be superior to everyone else. According to this school of thought, capitalism persists because everyone from billionaire to bellboy agrees it is the best *idea*.
But students don't develop their ideas in a vacuum; their conclusions are bound to be influenced by their class interests. The further you advance in the education system, the wealthier the student body is likely to be, especially with tuition rising while government grants decline. Consequently, reactionary ideas tend to accumulate academic prestige. If some conservatives still regard universities as hotbeds of radicalism, this is simply because the class interests of professors are not as reactionary as those of executives.
This isn't to say that wealthy children are born looking out for number one. It takes at least as much social engineering to produce entitled managers as it does to produce subservient employees. Most of this occurs subtly. For example, the curriculum for honors students includes nothing about how to grow or prepare food, make or mend clothing, or repair engines; the implication is that if these students do well, there will always be poor people to do these things for them. Thus the education that prepares them to hold power simultaneously incapacitates them when it comes to meeting their basic needs outside the economy, making any alternative appear genuinely life-threatening.
Though teachers are on the front lines imposing discipline on the poor and legitimizing the privileges of the rich, they're not really to blame. Lots of teachers are terrific people. Some can be great mentors or friends outside the constraints of school. Many have given up the chance to make more money because they believe teaching is important even though it pays poorly. But by and large the roles they are forced to play in the classroom prevent them from making the most of their gifts and their desire to do right by the next generation. Here, as elsewhere, the system is powered by those who think they can reform it.
It takes alot to beat this natural curiosity out of children. You have to take them away from their families, isolate them in sterile environments with only a few overworked adults, and teach them that learning is a *discipline*. You have to send them to school.
It wasn't until the 19th century that mass education came into its own in Europe. The family, the oldest socializing institution, no longer sufficed to prepare children for their roles in a changing society--especially with working families increasingly fragmented by the industrial revolution. Once limits were put on child labor, kids had to spend the day *somewhere*. Governments saw compulsory schooling as a way to produce a docile population: obedient soldiers for the army, compliant laborers for industry, dutiful clerks and civil servants. Social reformers saw it differently--but it was the governments who got to implement it.
Compulsory education spread alongside industrialization, and eventually education became an industry in its own right. The state-managed incarnation of the industry still functions to keep young people off the streets and program them with standardized curricula. The private incarnation has become a profitable sector of the economy: abstracted out of daily life, education is a commodity to be bought and sold like any other.
In a mechanized world, in which self-checkout at the grocery store and electronic check-in at the airport are replacing the jobs that used to keep citizens integrated into society, what can be done with all the surplus workers? One solution is to postpone their entry into the workforce. Today's aspiring employee spends more time than ever before studying to gain an advantage, a longer list of credentials, another selling point on her resume. This helps send the message that that misfortunes of the unemployed and unsuccessful are their own fault--they should have gotten more education.
When power was chiefly hereditary, only the wealthy and powerful sent their children to school. In the current credit-based economy, in which many workers live beyond their means in hopes of bettering themselves, it's much easier to aspire to wealth and power--for a price. If you want a decent job, you have to pay thousands or tens of thousands for the prerequisite degrees. This traps students in decades of debt, forcing them to sell themselves wherever the market will take them--a sophisticated form of indentured servitude. The more overeducated the workforce, the pickier employers become; and in a volatile economy, workers have to return to school again and again.
Today degrees are openly discussed as investments in capital. A degree is worth a certain amount of potential future income, and some degrees are more valuable than others. Now there's talk of decreasing student loans to students seeking degrees in less profitable fields such as the humanities. This follows the logic of the market, since the ones who receive those degrees are less likely to be able to repay loans--even if those fields of study can improve human life in ways that defy financial calibration. Meanwhile, austerity measures are cutting away the last vestiges of the university as an oasis of learning for its own sake.
Of course, millions of young people have no hope of going to college. Early in life, children are put on one of two education tracks according to social class; these can take the form of private and public schools, suburban and inner city schools, or classes for "advanced" students alongside classes *for everyone else*. For the majority foreordained to fail, the school system is a gigantic holding tank; the ones who rebel are shuttled directly from detention to prison. Many schools now resemble prisons, with police officers, metal detectors, and other mechanisms to normalize authoritarian control from an early age.
Despite the glut of college graduates on the market, some liberals still maintain that the solution to poverty and other problems is more education. But the further up the pyramid you go the fewer positions there are; no amount of public education can change this. At best, graduates from disadvantaged backgrounds might replace those in privileged positions, but for every person who climbs the social ladder someone else has to descend it. Usually, more education just means more debt.
Another liberal precept is the notion of academia as *the marketplace of ideas*. The marketplace metaphor is apt enough: like human beings, ideas have to compete on the uneven terrain of capitalism. Some are backed by chancellors and media moguls, dollars by the million or billion, entire military-industrial complexes; others are literally born in prison. Despite this, the ones that rise to the top are bound to be the best--just as the most successful businessmen must be superior to everyone else. According to this school of thought, capitalism persists because everyone from billionaire to bellboy agrees it is the best *idea*.
But students don't develop their ideas in a vacuum; their conclusions are bound to be influenced by their class interests. The further you advance in the education system, the wealthier the student body is likely to be, especially with tuition rising while government grants decline. Consequently, reactionary ideas tend to accumulate academic prestige. If some conservatives still regard universities as hotbeds of radicalism, this is simply because the class interests of professors are not as reactionary as those of executives.
This isn't to say that wealthy children are born looking out for number one. It takes at least as much social engineering to produce entitled managers as it does to produce subservient employees. Most of this occurs subtly. For example, the curriculum for honors students includes nothing about how to grow or prepare food, make or mend clothing, or repair engines; the implication is that if these students do well, there will always be poor people to do these things for them. Thus the education that prepares them to hold power simultaneously incapacitates them when it comes to meeting their basic needs outside the economy, making any alternative appear genuinely life-threatening.
Though teachers are on the front lines imposing discipline on the poor and legitimizing the privileges of the rich, they're not really to blame. Lots of teachers are terrific people. Some can be great mentors or friends outside the constraints of school. Many have given up the chance to make more money because they believe teaching is important even though it pays poorly. But by and large the roles they are forced to play in the classroom prevent them from making the most of their gifts and their desire to do right by the next generation. Here, as elsewhere, the system is powered by those who think they can reform it.
These days, one needs at least a high school education. And even then, chances are, it ain't getting you too far. I recall seeing a folder in the guidance office in high school that read "Future Prospects for Those Taking Basic Classes" (back in the day, the lowest level classes one could possible take). That folder was mighty thin.
That being said, I am not too sure how much use there is in forcing kids to finish, when they wouldn't have the ability to do so on their own. All that "No Child Left Behind" bulldink has seemed to do is bring everyone down.
Really, forcing people to finish is no good if they aren't getting the basic skills they need to survive and cope in the real world so the focus ought to be "how can we teach relevant skills those who have the hardest time learning". Hell, I did finish on my own steam and I still barely had what it took to make it at university (took me some hard lessons to get it together) and we don't even have "NCLB".
That being said, I am not too sure how much use there is in forcing kids to finish, when they wouldn't have the ability to do so on their own. All that "No Child Left Behind" bulldink has seemed to do is bring everyone down.
Really, forcing people to finish is no good if they aren't getting the basic skills they need to survive and cope in the real world so the focus ought to be "how can we teach relevant skills those who have the hardest time learning". Hell, I did finish on my own steam and I still barely had what it took to make it at university (took me some hard lessons to get it together) and we don't even have "NCLB".
I don't see how forcing someone to read the cliff notes to Catcher in the Rye and listen to music through algebra lessons is going to improve their life. The problem isn't getting them into the room, it's getting the information into their thick skulls.
We have a problem with a society (or rather, sub-societies) which doesn't value education and advancement. You can't fix that with mandates. The only way to fix broken societal elements is to kill them off, or leave them no better option. Since we're not about to execute hundreds of thousands of kids, I think the best option is to make learning and graduating necessary for their survival.
You can get by without a high school education. Make it so they can't, and the problem solves itself one way or another.
We have a problem with a society (or rather, sub-societies) which doesn't value education and advancement. You can't fix that with mandates. The only way to fix broken societal elements is to kill them off, or leave them no better option. Since we're not about to execute hundreds of thousands of kids, I think the best option is to make learning and graduating necessary for their survival.
You can get by without a high school education. Make it so they can't, and the problem solves itself one way or another.
Agreed. The more people we can have educated to even a minor degree, the better. I have experience of this.
My highschool (in Britain) had three years compulsary, but you could leave after that or go on to Sixth Form, which you specialised in a few subjects. SO many people dropped out at that midpoint.
And so many of them soon had to hit up the burger academy. The less people that have this happen to them, the better.
My highschool (in Britain) had three years compulsary, but you could leave after that or go on to Sixth Form, which you specialised in a few subjects. SO many people dropped out at that midpoint.
And so many of them soon had to hit up the burger academy. The less people that have this happen to them, the better.
Rich people won't understand why its bad.
Also I dropped out of secondary school (high school) and the things some people are saying in this thread are very judging and ignorant, but im not gonna point fingers.
Also I dropped out of secondary school (high school) and the things some people are saying in this thread are very judging and ignorant, but im not gonna point fingers.
To be honest I think Obama is just trying to create a talking point to try and convince parents who don't think things through that he cares about the youth.
On the surface, making kids finish school seems like a fine idea. Upon broader consideration it raises questions about personal freedom, and also doesn't consider the kind of students who drop out. Those who drop out of school usually do so because they either have to (ie to get a job) or because they are opposed to the whole process for whatever reason and are probably a disruptive influance to begin with due to their resistance. In most cases your drop out is one of those trouble makers you don't want in school anyway.
I suspect Obama took this track because he wants to seem like he takes education seriously, but doesn't want to actually seem to commit to anything that would imply he plans to increase the quality of the school system, because to be honest the goverment is already strapped for cash and he probably can't do it.
Typical political move, I think it's calculated to make it seem like he wants to do something on the issue, without him actually committing to do something. In practice if he does remove the abillity to drop out at 16, it will probably included so many exceptions that it might as well not have ever happened.
To be honest while it wouldn't go over well, I'd have more respect for Obama if he had talked about giving schools the abillity to boot students more easily. One of the problems is that people don't take education seriously in the US because it's an entitlement. Kids here don't see it the same way as others around the world might because they take it for granted, and honestly with it being such an institution they see it as something being in the way of what they otherwise want to do in their safe, first world country. Take the kids who don't want to be there, lob them out the door, making it less of an entitlement, and then in a generation or two people will take it more seriously.
Of course I'm pretty cold hearted, on a differant but related track I've also argued in favor of admission guidelines. Right now I think one thing that is hurting our school system is trying to provide a uniform education for everyone, and taking the now infamous "no child left behind" attitude. This leads to resources that could be used to improve education for the majority of students being used to produce the same low level of education in say 20 differant languages for those who can't speak english, or let some kid who will still be eating paste at 40 due to inherant disabillities attend. I have no problem with simply denying education to certain so called "special neeeds" students, or requiring proficiency with english before admission.
On the surface, making kids finish school seems like a fine idea. Upon broader consideration it raises questions about personal freedom, and also doesn't consider the kind of students who drop out. Those who drop out of school usually do so because they either have to (ie to get a job) or because they are opposed to the whole process for whatever reason and are probably a disruptive influance to begin with due to their resistance. In most cases your drop out is one of those trouble makers you don't want in school anyway.
I suspect Obama took this track because he wants to seem like he takes education seriously, but doesn't want to actually seem to commit to anything that would imply he plans to increase the quality of the school system, because to be honest the goverment is already strapped for cash and he probably can't do it.
Typical political move, I think it's calculated to make it seem like he wants to do something on the issue, without him actually committing to do something. In practice if he does remove the abillity to drop out at 16, it will probably included so many exceptions that it might as well not have ever happened.
To be honest while it wouldn't go over well, I'd have more respect for Obama if he had talked about giving schools the abillity to boot students more easily. One of the problems is that people don't take education seriously in the US because it's an entitlement. Kids here don't see it the same way as others around the world might because they take it for granted, and honestly with it being such an institution they see it as something being in the way of what they otherwise want to do in their safe, first world country. Take the kids who don't want to be there, lob them out the door, making it less of an entitlement, and then in a generation or two people will take it more seriously.
Of course I'm pretty cold hearted, on a differant but related track I've also argued in favor of admission guidelines. Right now I think one thing that is hurting our school system is trying to provide a uniform education for everyone, and taking the now infamous "no child left behind" attitude. This leads to resources that could be used to improve education for the majority of students being used to produce the same low level of education in say 20 differant languages for those who can't speak english, or let some kid who will still be eating paste at 40 due to inherant disabillities attend. I have no problem with simply denying education to certain so called "special neeeds" students, or requiring proficiency with english before admission.
I can't really make judgments about this, IMO, because I don't really consider myself to be an average American citizen(not that I'm judging them, but I just don't feel that connected to the majority of people I'm aware of).
I personally think almost every teacher I had, in whatever branch of schooling, sucked at teaching. So often I dealt with people who have no thoughts of their own so they just mimic what everybody else does and then they consider their job well done. So often I dealt with teachers who won't accept an argument or any thoughts contrary to their own so we 'thoughtless children' need to fall in line and accept order, regardless of however flawed it may be...
I'm all for education, I think everyone should embrace knowledge and learn new things daily, it's one of the finest things any human can do. Do I believe forcing kids to stay in school regardless of how well they're doing or how useless their teachers are? That could be a different story.
I personally think almost every teacher I had, in whatever branch of schooling, sucked at teaching. So often I dealt with people who have no thoughts of their own so they just mimic what everybody else does and then they consider their job well done. So often I dealt with teachers who won't accept an argument or any thoughts contrary to their own so we 'thoughtless children' need to fall in line and accept order, regardless of however flawed it may be...
I'm all for education, I think everyone should embrace knowledge and learn new things daily, it's one of the finest things any human can do. Do I believe forcing kids to stay in school regardless of how well they're doing or how useless their teachers are? That could be a different story.
Kids that don't want to be in school, don't want to be in it for reasons usually related to a crappy upbringing. It's not that the kid wouldn't benefit, it's that he hasn't been taught to benefit from his family. The concept of what he can get out of school are usually wrong and these people usually don't really know what's necessary(for doing well, as odd as that sounds) because it wasn't a part of their life.
As part of an upgrade to the school system, this is fine. The at 16 thing was made at a different point in time and now its time for that to be changed. It won't fix all the problems with the school system and it won't fix the family of the person and it won't fix the neighborhood people live in that instill apathy for school. But it will help reinforce the message that they have to deal with this and they shouldn't ignore it.
Who knows, I have seen people turn around and become way more studious later on towards high school or in college(and become a doctor!).
As part of an upgrade to the school system, this is fine. The at 16 thing was made at a different point in time and now its time for that to be changed. It won't fix all the problems with the school system and it won't fix the family of the person and it won't fix the neighborhood people live in that instill apathy for school. But it will help reinforce the message that they have to deal with this and they shouldn't ignore it.
Who knows, I have seen people turn around and become way more studious later on towards high school or in college(and become a doctor!).
Not necessarily.tehpiemaker said:
VERY few people remember what they learned in High school and just by forcing someone to to be there doesn't mean they will be smart OR educated.
i think im more in the stay in school till year 12 or drop out if you have an actual proper job/apprenticeship to go into.
dropping out to work in fast food or any other similiar job just seems stupid.
the world, your country needs you to be as smart as possible. like my country we import so many skilled labourers/professional. should be training our people up to fill the void.
dropping out to work in fast food or any other similiar job just seems stupid.
the world, your country needs you to be as smart as possible. like my country we import so many skilled labourers/professional. should be training our people up to fill the void.
I support this, dropping out of highschool is pretty much one of the worst things you can do if you want to be able to get anywhere in life.
He also mentioned education reform that focuses more on learning rather than just getting kids to pass tests, which is another thing this country needs, mostly because No Child Left Behind pretty much forced schools to teach kids how to do tests and little else.
He also mentioned education reform that focuses more on learning rather than just getting kids to pass tests, which is another thing this country needs, mostly because No Child Left Behind pretty much forced schools to teach kids how to do tests and little else.
This is a very good point - if kids don't like school by the age of 15 or 16 (or whenever they drop out, it's usually in the mid to late teens), forcing them to stay in school for another 2 years isn't going to magically make them like school. It will increase their job prospects if they have a High-school completion certificate or a G.E.D, but not by that much. Plus, if they already have a desire to go into a pathway that doesn't require a G.E.D, like athletics or Cooking, then they can drop out and go apply to a vocational school or take on a job as an apprentice. In Australia, we have such a system - kids who hate school but love to work with their hands can either leave school for an accredited apprenticeship, or split time between school and an apprenticeship.Lilani said:
Look, I'm a big proponent of "Knowledge for Knowledge's sake" - I study mathematics and history in my spare time, and I am undertaking a medical degree. I love learning, I love reading, I enjoyed school.... but not everyone does. That does NOT mean they are stupid - it means they have different desires, different goals, different lifestyles. Some people just.... don't like science or mathematics or history or sociology. They just don't, and we can't make them when they have reached a certain age of maturity. If you don't like science by the time you are 15, chances are you'll never like science. Some kids don't like school, and will not apply themselves no matter how many carrots and sticks you wave in their face. If they don't apply, they won't pass. If you force them to take the test again and again until they do, you'll get some who leave school until their 20's or until they just quit - and then they are stuck with a crappy high-school record, crappy grades, no knowledge and out of luck. Graduating with a crappy high school record is no different than not graduating at all. But if you let them leave early, provided they have a known direction and goal in life, then they can earn much needed work experience that might help them in their chosen career.
However, we should only let the child leave school if they have a sensible plan for what they will do afterwards. This can be anything from apprentice work, to starting a home business (they have to provide plans for how they will go about doing this), to entering a religious institution and becoming a monk. So long as the child has an idea of what he or she wants to do, we should let them leave early if extra schooling really won't help and if they really don't like it.
Once again: I LOVE education. I enjoyed my science classes and got a lot out of them (I went to a well-funded school). I've spent 5 years in university getting a bachelor's and a Master's degree, and I'm spending 4~6 more years there becoming a doctor. I can't get enough education. I am aware that learning science and mathematics has expanded my world view 1000x fold, and I know that a world of wonder and awe awaits those who learn science. There is nothing more stunning than looking at a picture of the Hubble Deep Field, and realizing that each of those points of light represents a galaxy.
But there's that old saying: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink, even if the horse really should. You can put a kid in school, but you can't make him learn and you can't make his parents make him learn. I've seen really good teachers fail at making a kid learn, because the kid does not want to. Some kids... they just don't want to learn facts and theories, but they don't mind using their hands and doing practical work. So let them.
Besides, we need manual labourers. We need people to tile roofs and pick vegetables and cook fries in McDonalds (until we invent robots to do those jobs). We depend on them and they do good, important work. Sure, it's not glamorous, but that roof isn't going to tile itself, those vegetables won't pick themselves and the fries can't cook themselves. There's no shame in manual or blue-collar jobs - many people take these jobs as a means of making ends meet and there should be no shame or stigma attached to them.
I would have to disagree. If someone really wanted to drop out but was restricted until they were 18 they would just skip. All this does is tie up manpower and resources on a cause that cannot be solved, at least not the way they're trying to anyway.
I'm not sure this is the answer. Kids that are horribly disruptive to others' ability to learn do a lot of damage. Is it right to try to save a kid who has decided they don't want to be in school at the expense of those that do? I think kids should be able to drop out or be dropped out at 16. If all of their friends are in school they are going to be begging to get back in. Then they will come with the right attitude.
If you drop out, you should be required to not bear children until/unless you have a job that pays at least above the national average salary.
We have far too many poor fucks having 5+ children and then sticking the burden on everyone else. I feel so bad for the children that grow up thinking that this is a tolerable thing, or worse, having to drop out to help feed their other siblings.
I should know, I dated a girl with an irresponsible mother like this before. The oldest of 5 siblings, with a mother without a full-time job, needing tons of government assistance, the kids having 3 different fathers, one of which is an ex-con...And this girl can't afford college and is stuck in her cashiering job because she spends a good 2/3 of her money to help pay for things her other siblings need or want, and she was only 19 years old at the time...
It really gave me a lot of respect for the children in this situation, that's for damn sure. These kids don't choose to have shitty parents that can't keep it in their pants when they can hardly feed themselves.
As far Obama's proposal, I feel that it wouldn't solve the real issues here, which is shitty parenting and having kids outside ones' means. As my story above implies, many kids don't drop out because they don't want to learn or because they don't want a better job than a dead-end one. Many kids drop out because they *need* to to help their fellow siblings (or parents/guardians, even).
Edit: I just want to clarify, my first line is hyperbole. I wish that people that can't afford children (or don't have the emotional/mental drive to raise children) wouldn't have children, not necessarily that our laws should reflect that. That's a topic for a different day.
We have far too many poor fucks having 5+ children and then sticking the burden on everyone else. I feel so bad for the children that grow up thinking that this is a tolerable thing, or worse, having to drop out to help feed their other siblings.
I should know, I dated a girl with an irresponsible mother like this before. The oldest of 5 siblings, with a mother without a full-time job, needing tons of government assistance, the kids having 3 different fathers, one of which is an ex-con...And this girl can't afford college and is stuck in her cashiering job because she spends a good 2/3 of her money to help pay for things her other siblings need or want, and she was only 19 years old at the time...
It really gave me a lot of respect for the children in this situation, that's for damn sure. These kids don't choose to have shitty parents that can't keep it in their pants when they can hardly feed themselves.
As far Obama's proposal, I feel that it wouldn't solve the real issues here, which is shitty parenting and having kids outside ones' means. As my story above implies, many kids don't drop out because they don't want to learn or because they don't want a better job than a dead-end one. Many kids drop out because they *need* to to help their fellow siblings (or parents/guardians, even).
Edit: I just want to clarify, my first line is hyperbole. I wish that people that can't afford children (or don't have the emotional/mental drive to raise children) wouldn't have children, not necessarily that our laws should reflect that. That's a topic for a different day.
I don't think it'd help a ton. Kids that don't want to be there simply don't show up, a law is not going to hamper them. Arguments can be made that superstars, even entrepreneurs, have dropped out and still cosmetically 'succeeded'.
hey, im game...though we'd have to be careful about that, some people drop out for other reasons than just giving up.