> High schools are designed to provide a bare floor of knowledge a citizen should achieve.

I agree with your general point, but I don't know about high school per se.

I quit school at age 14, got my GED, and this was one of the best decisions I had ever made. I feel like there should be more options for people to leave the system early, once they've attained that bare floor of knowledge. (Which, for a sufficiently motivated child, could in all seriousness be at age 11 or 12. The GED test was laughably easy, and it still amazes me that people sit through four years of school for that.)

FWIW, the military frowned upon GEDs, often requiring a waiver, but allowed GED holders to enlist.

> High schools are designed to provide a bare floor of knowledge a citizen should achieve.

That's a bold claim. Can you back it up?

On the flip side, an actual path to citizenship is military service.

https://www.uscis.gov/military/naturalization-through-milita...

>That's a bold claim. Can you back it up?

It's more of a spiritual gesture than some hard law. They aren't called "standardized tests" because they test for the exceptional.

I'm sure we can put the relevant education board in a room and have them argue over what should/shouldn't be on such tests, but the current result is a compromise after years of deliberation, being tweaked a little each year.

I'll be a bit more specific and say "high school testing is designed to provide a floor of knowledge a government feels its citizens should achieve" if that helps.

I think you shouldn't equate "didn't graduate" with "can't graduate" - I feel that a large part, perhaps most, high school dropouts didn't drop out because of various social issues, and for a young person without a high-school diploma, very likely lack of money and potential jobs, and very likely a lack of a supportive home environment, the army can provide a stable employment and a community that has its issues but is likely less abusive than whatever home environment prevented them from graduating high school.

Correct, and a drill master has a lot more authority for discipline than a school teacher.

I feel my "that student has environmental issues" agrees with your sentiment. I do agree that very few students who did not graduate truly can't pass the curriculum. And lower socioeconomic standing is a huge (if not biggest) reason.

>the army can provide a stable employment and a community that has its issues but is likely less abusive than whatever home environment prevented them from graduating high school.

For such a student I feel it's out of the frying pan and into the fire. Now they are bound to the government for X years for everything, from a meager pay to living quarters (you also needed to look the way they told you to look, but I think they are relaxing those hair/tattoo codes a bit). You go where they tell you to go and do what they tell you to do. And "leaving your job" if it's not for you means you can be put at trial.

It's an awful lot of a gamble being taken here for someone who likely hasn't addressed their core traumas to begin with.

I'm just saying that there isn't a safety net that provides a better alternative, such a high-school dropout without a supporting family becoming homeless does even less for their core traumas than being told what to do in the army; whatever the drawbacks are, for many this is legitimately the least worst option that's available to them.

Perhaps. That's what brought my main point of the feeling being "entrapment" (i don't know the exact term for this sort of phenomenon).

Hey, did our system utterly fail you? Submit yourself to us and we'll fix the problem we continue to propogate! You don't even need to complete the educational system we outlined anymore, just be a warm body to throw at future battles for oil.

There's less incentive to provide proper housing when you can instead put your citizens in barracks.