In the passage, Phyllis Stein talks about how universities should use the pre-set method, which is where these universities select the most adequate people to study in a certain profession and train them in it

Download 17.43 Kb.
Size17.43 Kb.

In the passage, Phyllis Stein talks about how universities should use the pre-set method, which is where these universities select the most adequate people to study in a certain profession and train them in it. I would actually agree with the statement that Stein is saying, due to my personal experience, reasons, and observations [that last phrase isn’t really necessary – RC].

Throughout many years, students always choose a certain profession that we now know as being an overcrowded profession, or in other words a profession that students pick over and over again. For example, one of my family members is choosing to study criminal justice just because a lot of people are choosing it and because she wants to try and see if it’s for her. I believe that with the preset method then she will have previous training for what she really wants, and once in university she will be focused on that certain topic instead of wasting her time and trying to see if it’s for her or not. Also, with this method the universities will be able to choose who is capable to achieve and succeed in that specific profession and select the amount of students they will need to train for the amount of jobs that require an employee. This will be able to create a balance between all types of professions.

I have recently read an article on how the system in Sweden works with the preset method and it seems to work in Sweden, I don't see why it wouldn't work here in the United States. It states that in Sweden, Gymnasium is a type of school with a focus on academic learning, and it gives some advanced education in some parts and it is actually optional, but they have eighteen programs of three years that they would be able to choose from, 6 of which actually prepare them for higher education such as university and of course the profession of their choice [a clearer statement that Gymnasium is basically equivalent to our high school would be good – RC]. I believe this would greatly help the economy as well due to the fact that the more the training focuses on those people in that specific profession, the better quality they will receive in the job they were working at. For example, if they choose 500 students for engineering then those 500 students will go through that training and then those 500 students will be guaranteed a job in what they trained for and put their skills to the job. [Needs more here about how this solves the problem of unemployed college graduates, graduates flipping burgers, etc. – how big a problem it is, how deciding what you really want to do is better than training 4 years for a job and ending up sweating your ass off in McDonalds trying to keep from spitting in everybody’s food, etc., etc.]

In the news, I saw a special about how there is a difference between our system in the one in Sweden as well. Here the universities will allow students to choose their major and also change their major at a certain time. In Sweden, if there are spots available for a specific profession, that is what you want and they will select you, then that is what you will train for and is what the student will have to get accustomed to. Since the programs in Sweden pre-prepare them for that profession, then they are halfway ready to go and will make their time at university much shorter and their time in the outer world much faster. A lot of people have stated how it would bring competition into universities, but I don't think that is a problem because if the students worked hard to get into their selected spot then they got it for a reason and deserved it. It would be all about working hard for your placement in that profession, if that's what they really want.

In conclusion, I agree with the preset message that Stein states because even if we slightly do have it, it would be helpful to enforce it a little more [Do we already have it, sort of? Explain how – RC] since it would bring a lot more variety of jobs and careers instead of having a huge group of students choosing one career and very few in another. I think certain groups of people working in one profession and an equal amount of people working in another would certainly balance out everything and keep our world well rounded.


According to Phyllis Stein’s argument, public universities should be used as a tool to train people to be ready or for a profession that is needed, rather than be a place where students can take more time to find this out. Though her point is valid, it is not something that is always true. [Good nuance – you don’t want to say your opponent is an idiot, or a horrible person. – RC] For example there are schools that train people for careers. Also students should have more freedom in deciding what they want to be. Lastly this is an idea that would likely have more trouble working in other countries [than Sweden].

Stein’s argument fails to address the fact that there are alternative institutions where students may go if they wish to pursue education for a particular career. Although she makes a valid point about the necessity to fill struggling job fields, this responsibility does not lying in the hands of a public university. A university, public or private, is designed for a student to become learned in a variety of topics, along with the specific field they wish to major in. Rather than using a public university to filter students based on what professions are lacking, there should be alternative forms of schooling, where there are specific professions that are taught to students. An example of such would be a trade school, which teaches someone a specific trade. Implementing institutions like this may possibly help with declining employment in particular professions while maintaining the purpose of the university: to help form a well rounded person and prepare him or her to go into the real world with options what he or she may or may not want to do.
Phyllis Stein’s argument, while bringing an issue of declining employment to light, concurrently presents an option where students have less of a choice in what he or she wants to do with his or her life. If a student is admitted to college based on what profession is needed, then a certain level of freedom is taken from said student. Generally a person is admitted to university based on how acceptable their grades are, extra curricular activities, and recommendations from teachers. Essentially students work very hard in secondary school in order to choose their fields of study, no matter what the career outlook is. Admitting a student otherwise, based on Phyllis Stein’s argument, would likely lead to many people learning about subjects should have no relevance to them, resulting in an overall decrease in quality of workers in those professions. Essentially, while Stein’s argument may answer a call for lack of employment, it fails to guarantee the people are going to be actually interested.
While Phyllis Stein’s proposal make work in a smaller country like Sweden, this does not mean it can work in a country like the United States, for example, with over 330 million people living in it. The reason being is because of the vast amount of people. In a smaller country, it would be much easier to gauge what jobs are lacking in employment. To go along with this there would also likely be fewer cases of unemployment, because of the fact that there are fewer people. In a larger country, there would still be far more people left over who could not feel the unemployment void, no matter how many people could.
Phyllis Stein does indeed bring up a valid point about there not being enough educational avenues for jobs that are desperately lacking. There is a point to be made about the fact that there was a shift taking students away from studying for specific occupations. However, this still does not seem to be the responsibility of a public university, but rather call for the need of more alternative universities to feel lacking job fields. Furthermore, making this a mandate would take away choices for from students. This type of mandate also have a more difficult time working in a bigger country.


Phyllis Stein stated, “The number of students admitted to each field of study at the public university level should be preset so that no more people or a trained then will be needed to fill the estimated numbers of openings in each profession.” [Paraphrase rather than quoting, UNLESS you’re going to use the specific wording to make one of your points. – RC] Although some might agree with this, I find Phyllis Stein’s statement to be contradictory, unreasonable and inhumane. I disagree with this statement.

Phyllis Stein stated that we should have a preset number of students admitted to match up with an estimated number of openings in each profession. How is it possible to match up a preset number of admitted students to an estimated number of jobs? It's completely illogical and makes no sense. For instance, you might admit 100 students to the engineer program, and in the beginning of the school year, estimate an opening for 100 engineers by the time they graduate. But you find out once they've graduated that the estimated number of openings drop to 80, compared to the previous estimate of 100 job openings. What happens to the remaining 20 engineers? They were promised a job upon finishing their studies, but receive nothing. This contradicts Phyllis Stein’s statement, she stated, “The number of students admitted to each field of study should be preset so that no more people are trained than will be needed to fill the estimated number of openings.” But if the number of openings are estimated and drop, as in the example previously stated, then aren't there more people trained and are needed in the engineering openings? Without promises from both ends, Phyllis Stein’s statement contradicts itself.

Being a freshman in college coming straight out of high school, I know how it feels to not know what I want to do with the rest of my life. Going back to what Phyllis Stein stated, if public universities would follow those guidelines, then how would I know what profession to choose? I like math, but not enough to be an accountant. I love helping people, but not under pressure like a lawyer. Choosing my profession right after high school leaves me no chance to grow and find my true calling. I believe in order to choose your profession, you need to know who you are and what you're good at. And many people at the college freshman level don't know what that is. Pressuring them into a profession might end up badly. For example, at my current job, I work at Forever 21’s headquarters in LA. My supervisor is the Senior Buyer for Latin countries. She explained to me that at the time she graduated from school she wasn't allowed to do or be what she wanted to. She was forced to work there, she had gone to some school, but only took classes to help her get familiarized with her job. She hates it, she tells me that she wishes she could go back to school and get a better job. Being forced to work there right after high school was one of the worst things that happened to her. It's unreasonable to make people choose their profession without trying and exploring other options. It would be like you're forcing them to choose and forcing them to stick with it. It's totally unreasonable.

Phyllis Stein stated that “it is the purpose of public universities...” Why must the system she's proposing be reflected on public universities? Why won’t the private universities be affected? [The possible counterargument, which should be acknowledged here, is that our taxes are paying for at least a good deal of the costs of public universities.] It's inhumane to segregate the public and private university. All universities and their students should be open to exploring their options even at the public university level. Public universities are being deprived from exploring their options because there being because they’re being pushed into a profession, and then being isolated by it. It's inhumane, students should be able and encouraged to explore their options. Studies show that 3 out of 4 students at any university, public or private, change their major (leading to their profession) at least once in their college career. Phyllis Stein’s system might want to help the students, but it'll hurt from rather than help.

As a freshman in college, I'm sure Phyllis Stein didn't know what she wanted to do with the rest of her life, although times have changed, but that's one thing that has remained. Not everyone knows what they want to do for the rest of their life. I'm sure she explored her options, but if we turn our universities into the ones in Sweden, we will be depriving students from exploring their options. That's not giving them the full college experience. Maybe that accountant who never got the chance to explore law could have been the best lawyer in the state. We, as students want to know what's best for us, but we cannot do that unless we try all of our options and find ourselves willingly, rather than being forced into something unwillingly.

Download 17.43 Kb.

Share with your friends:

The database is protected by copyright © 2022
send message

    Main page