#9 Counter argument

My argument is that Vocational and technical education is a good career option and that having a large number of people going into these fields is important for the economy and the individual's future. There is not a lot of articulate have been published directly criticizing this but there are lots of articles focusing on the why college is necessary but will never address the alternatives, speaking only of people with high school degrees.   Other articles will discuss the problems with the labor market in general.  These provide the most interesting counter argument.  "We heard stunning stories at the depths of the great recession in 2009 and 2010. There were welder shortages around the country. Welding isn't necessarily rocket science. There were thousands of unemployed welders, but they didn't have exactly the skill set often sought by particular employers at that time" (United States 45).  This shows one side that even people who go into trades for better chances of employment get the short end of the stick and wind up unemployed with specialized skills. This is a real issue that cannot be argued away, however, it is  not a reason to say that people should not go into specialized labor.   This does show the merit of changing the way job training works to produce graduates with more widely applicable skills.  This could be similar to the systems put in place in Europe already which combine theoretic education and job training.  For those already in the workforce or going into it, this can be avoided by receiving more than one certificate, perhaps in different types of welding, or taking large ranges of classes and internships to better qualify for more jobs.  Most other counter arguments lie in the american system of vocational education.  Another would be that of the California Community College career training program.  "The considerable inconsistency across similar programs - in name, credit length, course requirements, expectations for basic skills competency - creates unnecessary confusion that prevents good understanding among students and employers about the meaning of particular credentials… Most unfortunately, this variability can dilute the value of credentials that students earn because employers are uncertain of the skills, knowledge, and competencies that a credential represents" (Shulock  8).  This is another real issue because even with great programs producing great employees, if there is no standardization then employers will never know if they are getting one of these workers or a lesser worker and will so be cautious.  I would consed both these points but argue that the key to both is improving the programs currently in place and standardize the new programs.  These arguments are focusing on a different aspect of the education debate as they do not attack the merit or necessity of  more people going to trade schools.  There arguments must, and can only, be remedied with the promise of greatly needed education reforms.