Robert Smol. (Courtesy the author) Robert Smol holds degrees from McGill and Queen's universities and the Royal Military College. For most of the last 15 years, he has been teaching elementary and high school students in the Greater Toronto Area.

---

It is by far the most common question at parent-teacher interviews: "Does my child have what it takes to go to university?"

This is a question I hate answering because so many parents today seem to equate success with making the transition to university, regardless of whether or not university is the appropriate choice for their child.

But what if my answer is "No, your child is not university material." Does that mean the student is stupid and is doomed to work in dead-end, minimum wage jobs for the rest of his or her life?

Certainly not. When I say that a student is not suited for university I am more often than not saying that their intellectual strengths lie on a different path than those who might be inclined to, for example, throw themselves on the writings of St Thomas Aquinas or the anthropological impact of globalization.

Regardless, many parents today remain almost pathologically obsessed with seeing their children proceed to university. Increasingly, the university degree is looked upon as an affirmation of social stature and pride not necessarily reflective of the student's actual academic ability.

As a result, many students who, by all reasonable measure, are not suited for university are being prodded and pushed along that route by their parents throughout their high school years and are, in effect, living a lie.

Why such a premium?

University education should be accessible to all who qualify but the reality is, and always will be, that only a minority among us will develop the intellectual ability to succeed along this path.

As an educator, I keep asking myself: why do we, as teachers, put such a premium on university as the key to success?

If our job is to provide the tools that young people will need to succeed in life, then there has to be a more positive focus in the home and in the schools on practical career paths that do not require a university education.

(CBC)

And by practical career paths, I am referring primarily to the skilled trades. If we know that a majority of students are not university material, should we not be actively educating and encouraging them to pursue these options?

A question of perception

At the government level there has been a renaissance in initiatives aimed at educating young people in the trades.

But the challenge, nonetheless, remains one of perception.

Anyone who has hired a plumber or who has had their car serviced knows that someone is being paid handsomely to provide these services. Yet the attitude still remains in too many households that those who actively pursue these jobs as a career option have in some way or another "failed."

Frankly, we educators are partly to blame for this attitude. Time and time again I see the skilled-trade option looked upon as a dumping ground for students with severe behavioural issues or for those with significant learning disabilities.

The logic here, if there is any, appears to be that exposure to a band saw or a welder's torch will suddenly jar the non-achieving student or the one with severe attention deficit hyperactivity disorder into a kind of road-to-Damascus conversion that will suddenly make them more focused and disciplined.

But take a good look at the actual curriculum requirements, not to mention the regulatory parameters that an electrician, plumber or carpenter apprentice has to follow and you will see a work environment where most at-risk students will quickly crash and burn.

Who for the trades?

So, who then should we be directing towards the skilled trades?

Why not the university-bound student, or the one who is trying hard but is only "getting by?" In short, why not everyone other than those who we currently seem to direct to that stream?

If the bully, the drug dealer and the ADHD student are being directed towards a career path where they could, if successful, make more money than their teacher, why not promote the same option for the not-particularly-academic, university-bound student as well?

Frankly, I know of few students who are intent on pursuing a particular subject at university simply for the sake of pure intellectual fulfillment. Instead, most students look at university as a stepping stone to some well paying career that, for the most part, they can only very loosely define.

What should I be when I grow up? (CBC)

I have also heard the argument that university graduates acquire indirect skills that help them adapt to workforce changes over the longer term.

But are four expensive years of university the only way in which these skills can be attained? And is the potential payoff from these indirect skills worth the initial investment?

As things now stand, demand for qualified trades people remains high and though we can assume that this demand may be tempered somewhat by the current economy, it would be premature to think that those who qualify in the trades will, in any great measure, be joining the ranks of the unemployed any time soon.

However, I cannot say the same for today's university graduates and the parents who are now taking on a crushing debt to ensure that their child studies politics, sociology or fine arts at university. One day, they are bound to stand in awe at the "dummy" down the street who chose the skilled trade path.