In recent years education reforms have been a major concern in American society. The article, Study: Students Need More Paths to Career Success discusses offering career-driven alternatives to a four year college degree (Armario, 2011). In examining this article I will answer the following questions: 1.
Is the title of the news article a positive or normative economics? 2.
Does this article apply to macroeconomics or microeconomics, and why? 3.
Which of the five key economic principles apply to this article? 4.
Identify at least two economic concepts to this article.
The basis of this article was finding an alternative to the traditional four year college and providing students with a broader range of options for their futures. It argues that “...The U.S education system is providing a one size fits all approach, and it should take a cue from its European counterparts by offering greater emphasis on occupational instruction.” The article goes on to discuss some of these alternatives. One alternative offered was providing students with career-counseling and work-based opportunities, such as internships, early on. The article also includes counter arguments and concerns with this new approach. Some argued that this approach will steer students away from the four year college and leave them with few options and room to change their mind in the future. They also fear that “disadvantaged students at failing schools would be pushed into technical careers and away from the highly selective colleges where their numbers are already very slim.” The title of this article, Study: Students Need More Paths to Career Success represents a normative economics. Normative economics responds to the question “What ought to be?”, and the title of this article says that more paths to career success is what ought to be in this scenario. If the title said students have more paths to career success, then it would be a positive economics because it would answer the question of...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document