Vocational Training in High School

My opponent seems to have completely ignored my R2 arguments, but I will clarify nonetheless. 1. Budget Cuts: My opponent implies that I have not addressed the issue in full. I did address the issue. I pointed out that my opponent brought up an issue that does not affect vocational programs the way he implied because many are sponsored by the industries they promote, charge tuition, etc. I presented sources supporting this argument, but my opponent has presented no sources citing these hypothetical budget cuts. The other part of his statement applies to new vocational programs in high schools that do not currently have them. I first stated that I have not argued for NEW programs where there are none, rather enhancements to programs already in place. BUT I also pointed out that vocational programs may offer financial relief to schools in distress because of the sponsoring and tuition options. 2. Alteration of the positions of schools: My opponent presents a false dilemma. He says that if interested industries offer to cover the expense of enhancing a program to reflect the field it will be a greater expense on the High School. That is untrue, and I have already shown how the opposite is true- besides the logical conclusion that time with industry professionals at the expense of a sponsoring company would mean time away from teachers and school resources, resulting in LESS expense for the school. My opponent presents an obvious option as an alternative, but it is not an alternative- merely an option that would enhance the goal of the industry (regarding advertising). Furthermore, you can't just "go after" unemployed individuals who aren't qualified for the positions. Presenting the field to young minds ensures a supply of young techs better prepared to cover the growing technology and demand within this field (biomedical) and others. My opponent, again, presents the "regional issue", but does not elaborate. I have not presented any regional options, rather options presented by US News as top jobs for 2009, Yahoo's "Recession Proof jobs list", jobs with advancing technologies, and careers that reflect our changing economy (like alternative/renewable energy). The "regional issue" is another false dilemma, a logical fallacy, because it is non-existent in the options I present, and he has not elaborated on this hypothetical regional issue. On the B. point- yes, I pointed out some companies and fields that would be regional, BUT they overlap. I was merely emphasizing strengths and advantages that a region would have- an issue that would remain unresolved WITHOUT enhancing vocational programs. Because a region has a strength, this does not mean those strengths are the only options for students. Again, that is a causal fallacy. In nearly every region I mentioned healthcare, some kind of alternative energy, agriculture, and one or two regional strengths. My opponent has yet to identify any regional fields that any students in any region would be limited to under an enhanced vocational program, and how that would be detrimental to a student wishing to pursue that field. 3. High School can be premature: My opponent's rarity argument does not negate my "early choices" argument, and it does not reinforce his "premature" argument. He contends that giving up the sport supports his statement, but it does not. Those who give up the sport in college sometimes get to college on a scholarship for the sport, and end up pursuing the major they chose to educate themselves in. It was this early choice, however, that got them there. My opponent's contention of High School prematurity is full of variations that cannot allow this contention to stand as a logical argument. I know three year olds who are master percussionists, and old men who don't have any skills. Prematurity is relative, and this argument does not stand. Note that EVERY student who reaches the age of 18 (in the US) is legally an adult, regardless of maturity. My opponent has presented redundancy in Round 3. He did not understand certain points I made, did not accept others based on assumptions, and presented false dilemmas. He has presented no arguments against enhancing established vocational programs- only arguments against establishing new ones, which may not even be valid. Vocational programs have been proven to improve retention due to enhanced interest in completing training specifically chose by the student. Students are exposed to trusted, reliable information about the characteristics and actions that are necessary to be successful in the labor market. Work-based programs mostly benefit students at risk of dropping out, or students disenchanted with the educational system. It has been argued that dropout rates adversely affect the economy, and that vocational programs are a strong remedy because they lower dropout rates AND prepare students for the workforce, as well as improve college attendance and retention. (http://www.ericdigests.org...) (http://www.allacademic.com...) Vocational programs have been proven through research to help people avoid unemployment and unskilled work (Arum and Shavit 1995). Given our changing economy, this is invaluable to students who cannot afford college. These programs can prepare students for positions in which the company will pay for continuing education through tuition reimbursement, and offer incentives for promotion. I urge the readers (and my opponent) to read the following article regarding the effects of vocational training, industry grants, student retention and preparedness for a changing workforce, etc. http://www.houstonpress.com... Thank you.