Plan B: Skip CollegeShort of becoming a reality TV star, the answer is rote and, some would argue, rather knee-jerk: Earn a college degree. The idea t

Short of becoming a reality TV star, the answer is rote and, some would argue, rather knee-jerk: Earn a college degree.
The idea that four years of higher education will translate into a better job, higher earnings and a happier life — a refrain sure to be repeated this month at graduation ceremonies across the country — has been pounded into the heads of schoolchildren, parents and educators. But there’s an underside to that conventional wisdom. Perhaps no more than half of those who began a four-year bachelor’s degree program in the fall of 2006 will get that degree within six years, according to the latest projections from the Department of Education. (The figures don’t include transfer students, who aren’t tracked.)
For college students who ranked among the bottom quarter of their high school classes, the numbers are even more stark: 80 percent will probably never get a bachelor’s degree or even a two-year associate’s degree.
That can be a lot of tuition to pay, without a degree to show for it.
A small but influential group of economists and educators is pushing another pathway: for some students, no college at all. It’s time, they say, to develop credible alternatives for students unlikely to be successful pursuing a higher degree, or who may not be ready to do so.
Whether everyone in college needs to be there is not a new question; the subject has been hashed out in books and dissertations for years. But the economic crisis has sharpened that focus, as financially struggling states cut aid to higher education.
Among those calling for such alternatives are the economists Richard K. Vedder of Ohio University and Robert I. Lerman of American University, the political scientist Charles Murray, and James E. Rosenbaum, an education professor at Northwestern. They would steer some students toward intensive, short-term vocational and career training, through expanded high school programs and corporate apprenticeships.
“It is true that we need more nanosurgeons than we did 10 to 15 years ago,” said Professor Vedder, founder of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, a research nonprofit in Washington. “But the numbers are still relatively small compared to the numbers of nurses’ aides we’re going to need. We will need hundreds of thousands of them over the next decade.”
And much of their training, he added, might be feasible outside the college setting.
College degrees are simply not necessary for many jobs. Of the 30 jobs projected to grow at the fastest rate over the next decade in the United States, only seven typically require a bachelor’s degree, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Among the top 10 growing job categories, two require college degrees: accounting (a bachelor’s) and postsecondary teachers (a doctorate). But this growth is expected to be dwarfed by the need for registered nurses, home health aides, customer service representatives and store clerks. None of those jobs require a bachelor’s degree.
Professor Vedder likes to ask why 15 percent of mail carriers have bachelor’s degrees, according to a 1999 federal study.
“Some of them could have bought a house for what they spent on their education,” he said.
Professor Lerman, the American University economist, said some high school graduates would be better served by being taught how to behave and communicate in the workplace.
Such skills are ranked among the most desired — even ahead of educational attainment — in many surveys of employers. In one 2008 survey of more than 2,000 businesses in Washington State, employers said entry-level workers appeared to be most deficient in being able to “solve problems and make decisions,” “resolve conflict and negotiate,” “cooperate with others” and “listen actively.”
Yet despite the need, vocational programs, which might teach such skills, have been one casualty in the push for national education standards, which has been focused on preparing students for college.
While some educators propose a radical renovation of the community college system to teach work readiness, Professor Lerman advocates a significant national investment by government and employers in on-the-job apprenticeship training. He spoke with admiration, for example, about a program in the CVS pharmacy chain in which aspiring pharmacists’ assistants work as apprentices in hundreds of stores, with many going on to study to become full-fledged pharmacists themselves. love
truth of the life
change now
life is a story
code and softwarehttp://forum.dict.pl
http://www.barnamenevis.org/forum
http://www.svet-iger.net
http://www.valenth.com
http://strangersinparadise.org

Cell Phones and Cancer: a Study's Muddled Findings

It has become one of the most controversial questions in cancer medicine: can using a cell phone cause brain tumors? The federal government and the mobile industry have maintained there is no conclusive data to support a link between cell-phone radiation and cancer, but a growing band of scientists are skeptical, suggesting that the evidence that does exist is enough to raise a warning for consumers — before mass harm is done.
What scientists and regulators need is truly conclusive scientific evidence. Enter Interphone, a $24 million long-term study that matched rates of brain cancer with cell-phone use among more than 12,000 participants (including 7,400 who developed tumors) in 13 countries. The long-awaited report — whose findings were finally released Monday after years of delay — is by the far the most comprehensive look at the issue to date, and was designed to provide the final word on the debate. (See a photographic history of the cell phone.)
Unfortunately, however, the results turned out to be anything but clear. The study, which will be published this week in the International Journal of Epidemiology, found that, overall, there was no clear connection between cell-phone use and brain cancer. "An increased risk of brain cancer is not established from the data from Interphone," said Dr. Christopher Wild, the director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which helped coordinate the study.
But upon closer inspection the results were checkered: the 10% of people who used their phones most often and for the longest period of time — 30 minutes a day or more on average for at least 10 years — had a substantially higher risk of developing some forms of brain cancer than those who didn't use a mobile at all. Meanwhile, people who used their cell phones infrequently had a lower risk of developing some brain tumors than those who exclusively used corded telephones — as if mobile phones in small doses might offer some protection from brain cancer. (See TIME's special: America's Health Checkup.)
The mobile-phone industry was quick to trumpet Interphone's most basic results. The overall finding "is in accordance with the large body of existing research and many expert reviews that consistently conclude there is no established health risk from radio signals that comply with international safety recommendations," said Jack Rowley, director of research and sustainability for the GSM Association, which represents hundreds of mobile phone makers and operators, in a statement.
But consumer advocates, who have in the past raised concerns about the safety of mobile phones, countered that the study did find cancer risks for heavy users. More troubling than that, they say, are the apparent methodological problems in the study itself. The fact that all but the heaviest users of cell phones actually had a smaller risk of developing a brain tumor than those who never used mobile phones at all almost certainly demonstrates a flaw in the study design. If there had been a true zero risk from mobile-phone use, a well-designed study would have shown no difference in brain-cancer rates between cell-phone users and nonusers. "Bias stands as the most likely explanation of the observed results," wrote epidemiologists Rodolfo Saracci and Jonathan Samet in an editorial accompanying the study. (Read a TIME piece on how cancer threats are present in many not-so-hidden places.)
Further, if cell-phone use posed no increased risk of brain cancer, it doesn't logically follow that heavy users would have a 40% higher incidence of glioma (a certain form of brain tumor) than the control group, as the study found. It's worth keeping in mind also that "heavy" users as defined by the Interphone study — 30 minutes of cell-phone use a day — are not what we might consider heavy today: average use now is 21 minutes per day. (Interphone's heavy user would require 900 cell-phone minutes a month — the mid-level usage category for AT&T wireless plans.)
Importantly, Interphone — the results of which are now five-and-a-half years old — does not take into account the impact of mobile phone use in children, whose skulls are thinner than adults, and who may be more sensitive to cell phone radiation. Nor does it include any data on U.S. users.
Of course, the study doesn't make a conclusive argument that cell phones cause brain cancer either. Indeed, there's no scientific agreement on how cell-phone radiation might even biologically cause a tumor. (Mobile-phone radiation is non-ionizing, unlike carcinogenic X-rays.) Instead of offering clear answers, Interphone just raises more questions. "Further investigation of mobile-phone use and brain-cancer risk is merited," said Dr. Christopher Wild, the director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which helped coordinate the study. That's one thing the mobile-phone industry and its opponents can agree on.never give up
where? when? who?
discover
empty heart
my code and projecthttp://forums.permaculture.org.au
http://forum.wakarusa.com
http://forum.netjukebox.nl
http://aatraffic.com.sg/forum
http://taxhelp.ru/new/forum

If I'm a rose

Although I'm devoid of so many things,chi dazzlechi dazzleI'm still sure of myself, because English is always with me. English always gives me confidence. While speaking English, my power is bursting out.If I'm a gold,never give upralph lauren polo shirtsralph lauren polo shirts
I will shine brightly, because English is my splender.Lacoste Polo If I'm a rose,Lacoste Polo I will come out beautifully, because English is my blossom. Nowadays I can speak English at any occasion.
http://ameisenforum.de
http://www.prawojazdy.com.pl/forum
http://www.kaffee-netz.de
http://www.kretaforum.net
http://www.pseudome.net/phpBB2

I usually play basketball

I major in applied English in Wuhan Science and Technology Vocational College。I passed CET-6 in the second year of my college life.cheap ralph lauren polo shirts In spare time ,I usually play basketball.hair straighteners I can complete the task in time.cheap ralph lauren polo shirts My most attractive advantage is that I am very ambitious and I will do my best to make every thing perfect.chi hair straighteners chi hair straighteners I worked in a family as a governor in the Summer holidayhair straighteners,it made be more determined to devote myself in the love of my life,English.Just gine me a chance,I am the optimum applier you a
http://lacina.info.pl/forum
http://www.baubranchen-forum.ch
http://forum.arjlover.net
http://www.wijntoerist.nl/phpBB3
http://www.saysomethinginwelsh.com/lessons