New York Times article
St. Petersburg Times Article

This new bill passed by the Florida House of Representatives would require high school students to pick a major by grade ten and pick a career track in middle school.

1. Should high school students be required to choose a major?

2. What role should career tracks or preparation for jobs play in the high school system?

1. Should high school students be required to choose a major?

Things have certainly changed a lot since I was in high school, but I’m torn on this. I’d like to see high school students offered career-specific guidance and training, but I’d hate to see them forced to lock in to any one field. High school is a tumultuous time, and what a person thinks is cool at 16 may not be as desirable when s/he is 21, or even 17 or 18.

The St. Petersberg article brings up an interesting point; high schools are already essentially doing what this “law” wants to enforce. One has to wonder at the motives behind making it a “law”.



2. What role should career tracks or preparation for jobs play in the high school system?

I don’t think it should overwhelm the basic curriculum. After enrolling in core classes, the student should have the option to choose electives based on his/her “major”…but it sounds like that’s what’s already being done. I have to wonder if this is just a way for the politicians to show they’re spending more money on education and manipulate the statistics more favorably.

I’m totally against middle schoolers having to pick a “career track”. Jeez, whatever happened to letting kids be kids?? 6th grade is way too soon to be thinking about one’s “future”. High school is soon enough to have to start thinking about adult responsibilities.

I think this statement sums up my views:


I understand the importance of education, but I also understand the importance of letting kids be kids. Our culture already forces kids into adulthood far too soon.

1. Should high school students be required to choose a major?

2. What role should career tracks or preparation for jobs play in the high school system?

Let me begin by confessing that I still (even after having had it explained to me several times) fully understand the American education system.

Here in Britain, one starts to specialise in the subjects studied at age 13. Usually at this stage it mostly a case of dropping subjects that one doesn't like or isn't any good at, rather than actively moving toward an adult career goal.

And between ages 16 and 18, if one stays in education to try to get into university, typically the list of subjects is narrowed to perhaps five or six at most, usually with a heavy emphasis on subjects that will provide a foundation for the degree course.

From what I understand, these age ranges fall more or less equivalent to US high schools.

And at university/college itself, there is no sense of 'majoring' in anything. If you're studying towards a degree, the only subjects you study are ones that contribute to that degree. It MAY be that the degree itself combines two or more subjects - say, French and history, but then you study them all the way through the course.

Translating this back into the USA, I don't see any problem with 'majoring' in or towards a particular subject area in high school, and in 'only'-ing in a single subject at university.

It works just fine here. Why wouldn't you want to organise your education system this way? (Apart from a variant of it 'always has been like this'.)

1.) No. Forcing our hand to choose something at a time when we're more worried about Homecoming than the real world is quite frankly stupid. I am not inclined to ask any one of my peers what they wish to do with their lives because they are still unsure- I know, but I hardly count myself typical.

I'm not against offering an advanced track for people who think they have a pretty good idea they want to enter the medical field, or the business track, or the world of law. But requiring us to do that will be a waste.

2.) Minimal. That is what college is for, to prepare us for jobs. High school is the waiting room for college- college is the launching point for the work force.

I know what I'm doing with my life, it's what I've wanted to do since I was four years old. I'm not changing my mind and have only even considered changing it once. But to say that high school's must specify likewise is a gross procedure. Some college students have trouble determining what they're going to do (case and point: sister number three). What makes Florida think high schooler's are anymore likely to remain loyal to one field?

1. Should high school students be required to choose a major?

2. What role should career tracks or preparation for jobs play in the high school system?


Yes. Our kids spend entirely too much time doing NOTHING. A good portion of our lives are wasted in what amounts to a holding pen. Most basic education can be finished by the time most kids reach High school and getting an idea of their future would be most appropriate at that stage. Waiting til college to prepare for a career and how one is going to take care of one's SELF wastes a lot of valuable time.

It would also help some kids decide whether college was the right choice for themselves at that time in their life. I didn't have the discipline for it at 18 and gained more from going to work instead and going back to school when I could appreciate its value.
Also college shouldn't be about job training but for those who want to go beyond the ordinary 9 to 5, job training should go to vocational type schooling. I think the overuse of college ruins the experience for those who truly want to learn being subjected to the whiny tantruns of kids there because they are "supposed" to go to college.

Personally i think the "Let kids be kids" has been grossly abused and is used to help parents avoid the hard work of being parents. It also allows far too many to be nothing more than a drain on life.

Time to answer my own question.

I think it would be a better idea if "majors" were available, but optional. Forcing students to commit themselves to a focused area of study will create problems just as, on the other end of the spectrum, the unfocussed high school curriculum in other states creates a problem. Students learn when they are most interested, that is common sense. To restrict the students' area of study, then, is counterproductive. However, I think that many students have at least a general idea of what they'd like to study by high school. Basic knowledge and skills (supposedly) learned in elementary and middle school eventually gives way to superfluous material in high school. I can use an example from personal experience here: I have been accepted into a humanities program for college and I've known I wanted to study humanities-related subjects since I entered high school. However, after I completed basic high school math, I still had to take a year-and-a-half of calculus to meet my school's math requirement. It's a totally useless course that's just a waste -- I have no interest in memorizing math formulas (or, putting them into my calculator, rather ) and manipulating numbers only to completely forget everything once I leave. What's the point?

I do embrace the idea of majors for high school students. I think it would cut down on the bloated "education" system we have (high school diplomas were once good enough, now college degrees are required, will we have to continue or education into our late 20s and 30s in the future?) and the "holding pen" style system that christopher mentions. The result of this system is a lengthening period of dependence. Anyone that is ready to move beyond the limited style of education that the public (and most private) schools offer is forced to wait for the most part. Students are not allowed to take responsibility for their own learning, and it is therefore assumed that they do not have the ability to do so. Thus, they never develop the ability and the cycle repeats.

As for careers and education, I am wary of making job training part of education. It can be used for good or evil. Corporations can basically use schools as a way to sort and recruit students for them, and their hands already extend to lower education where massive ad campaigns are conducted. Woodrow Wilson once said: "We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks." That is how career tracks can be used to basically separate children by class.

On the other hand, I think students who choose to prepare themselves for a career that doesn't require a college education should be free to do so. I have nothing against vocational schools. If a student gains more from learning how to fix pipes than reading Shakespeare, then he should not be prevented from studying plumbing nor made fun of because of it. There is no such thing as a "one size fits all" education.