Why is trade school so bad?

An interesting Op-Ed piece recently in the WSJ proposed that most Americans are not fit for college work. No secret there - the popularity of Fox News should be the proof the the hypothesis. The writer's hypothesis is that an IQ of 100 means that a 12th grade exam would tax these souls.

I'll wade into the non-sense of IQ with this example - try to get a PhD in anything and then do work on a car (successfully) or do elementary plumbing. Both of those are simple physics and logic. The ability to fold shapes in one's head is a great skill supposedly. This is the metric, largely, of the IQ test. Take one of these tests and you will see. I tested high for the IQ and I can only change my oil. I use the car engine (of old - the new engines are a mess) as the example. If you can write a thesis and publish papers, what is so daunting about a Jeep engine (which are still framed on the old engine model)? Or plumbing for that matter. Or electrical work. Or tile work? Or making a deck? Or making pottery?

It is simple. The academic "could" do it - but "chooses" not to. And this is supported by the IQ score - right? I say wrong. Writing a paper is formulaic - much like the engine, plumbing, or electrical work. What is the inherent value of college?

I'd offer that a college education is a bad bargain for most involved. A mechanic may not be able to fold an image in his head - but give him an engine and he can take it apart and put it back together. The academic would sniff that this is merely a learned process - with his or her high IQ score in hand. I would argue that success is a matter of interest. Only the weird would procede to be an academic. I know, I am among the weird and work with them every day.

Trade school would capture the interest of the young into a productive endeavour - sitting in a college class memorizing dry facts is a total disservice and using some score to impose superiority is even worse. The importance of IQ wanes in this context. The military is a wonderful working example - plenty emerge from the military and are productive, sharp, and contributing members of society. College teaches one how to drink and fuck and you might learn some esoterica about Hawthorne or linear algebra.

This writer's point, I think, was that there are an echelon of people who ought to be in college and might make the best of it. That is fine. But this has zippy to do with IQ and everything to do with motivation. My good buddy, Hot Mama, has often said that the stocker in the grocery is far more important than her. She is a PhD but won't get far unless her basic needs are met - i.e. she needs to go to the store and get food in order to follow her esoteric interests.

Trade school is essential to our vitality as a society. And those that go to trade school ought never be measured by IQ, rather they should be measured by their output. Those who are academics often deign to bestow upon us how skilled they are. But when the bomb drops, will the Forier transform help them out. Nope. Darwinian selection at work. The academic is the productive parasite. They offer the higher thoughts that are purchased on the backs of people who are productive. To wit, if all non-academics were to drop dead right now, do you think human society would succeed. The ability to be a botique of knowledge is predicated upon those who can actually do something productive. Watching a PhD try to solve a real problem will take the smugness out of that rarified crowd, but quick.

And keep in mind that fully 40% of the Fortune 400 never got a college degree - and why bother. Solving a problem is not a matter of IQ, it is a matter of drive. And the appropriate outlets to capture that drive is important, not the arbitrary value assigned to the letters after one's name or the three digits assigned by a test.