Opinion | The education and training students need to succeed after high school

As a public high school student, I believe that along with academic enrichment like the Advanced Placement program, students should have opportunities for vocational training to develop career-related skills in high school through real-world experience. This training would give students a concrete path to employment, which can prompt them to complete high school and attend college if the jobs they are interested in require a degree to gain the expertise needed to enter the workforce. Many vocational training programs assist students with attending a 2- or 4-year college and provide high school and college credits, encouraging students to complete high school and pursue postsecondary education. Vocational training can be conducted through mentorship programs via partnerships between high schools and local institutions, which connect students with experts at professional organizations. These opportunities will allow students to learn skills related to their area of interest in a more engaging setting outside the traditional classroom.

While advanced academic opportunities and career counseling increase graduation rates and facilitate career development, offering vocational mentorship as well will be a more effective way to encourage students to seek employment and will give them a more concrete idea of what awaits them after college.

Sanchali Banerjee, Herndon

President John F. Kennedy once quipped upon receiving an honorary degree from Yale that he thereupon lived in the best of all possible worlds: a degree from Yale and an education from Harvard.

Darnell Epps was right to outline the difference between credentials and learning in his June 25 op-ed, “I went to Yale and to trade school. What’s more useful?” The difference lies in wisdom, in a dedication to doing things right. A millimeter is a mile in machine tools and in life.

Darnell Epps’s description of his decision to pursue a diploma in manufacturing technology and machining in addition to his juris doctor degree resonated with me in many ways.

I am a retiree from the Labor Department’s Employment and Training Administration, having focused for over 30 years on identifying and supporting strategies to identify job opportunities for individuals in need of gainful employment. My first job after graduating from college was teaching English to male students at a New York City vocational high school. I am also the mother of a Yale Law School graduate who works for the New York City government.

As Mr. Epps notes, his trajectory from Yale Law School to trade school “reaffirmed my belief in the untapped potential of skilled trades. It has shown me that the future of American prosperity depends not only on lawyers and executives but also on machinists, welders and all skilled tradespeople who are the backbone of our economy.”

Bravo, Mr. Epps, for your support of “a new generation of workers who can thrive in the advanced manufacturing renaissance” as well as your personally machined metal gavel which bridges both your trade school diploma as well as your JD degree.

Lois A. Engel, Washington

The Post’s June 17 front-page article “A diploma in hand, but no foot in the door,” about lack of entry-level jobs for new college grads, didn’t capture an essential point that appeared later in the piece.

As labor expert Harry Holzer states toward the end of the article, “It might take six months or nine months, but these graduates will find jobs.” That is true for one simple reason: They have college degrees. Despite a lot of chatter about skills-based hiring, evidence shows that holding a bachelor’s degree is still the predominant predictor of whether someone will secure a good job — one that pays good wages and offers benefits.

The article points out that “service-sector jobs at hair salons, gyms and medical establishment” are growing, but those jobs are disproportionately held by people without a college degree and usually don’t pay enough to support an individual, let alone a family. So, while it may be news that recent college graduates are taking somewhat longer than they might expect to secure their first post-graduation jobs, it is important that The Post’s readers understand the longer-term reality: A college degree remains a very good investment for anyone who wants to earn a good living.

The writer is the executive director of the Aspen Institute College Excellence Program.

The disturbing backlash against diversity, equity and inclusion programs, as described in The Post’s June 27 front-page article “Conservative lawsuits undo diversity programs,” is not only wrongheaded and racist — it is shortsighted.

Aside from being the right thing to do, both morally and ethically, equity and justice programs help fuel local economies.

In particular, programs that train and support returning citizens or individuals impacted by the justice system who are working to secure employment — a disproportionate percentage of whom are Black men and other people of color — help to reduce recidivism and develop economic mobility, creating stronger and safer families and communities. Further, these programs help companies. By strategically targeting and tailoring the training to meet the needs of industry in local markets, such programs provide a well-prepared and certified workforce for positions that are in high demand yet can be difficult for companies to fill and retain. Examples include health-care support and office operations, construction and maintenance, and logistics and warehousing.

The companies and industries who partner with second-chance workforce-training programs know they are getting highly motivated, fully trained and certified employees who are eager to change their lives and communities for the better. Helping these individuals achieve upward mobility and financial empowerment produces a ripple effect of long-term positive outcomes and stems the tide of poverty for future generations.

The writer is communications director for the workforce development nonprofit STRIVE.

In his June 28 op-ed, “Meet Dr. DEI, a new personification of old right-wing grievances,” Theodore R. Johnson puts diversity, equity and inclusion programs on a pedestal and gives short shrift to anyone who might question this approach. It seems that in his view, no honest, good-hearted people can question these efforts, just those who feel threatened by diversity and want to maintain their power and thus are easily manipulated by malevolent far-right forces who inflame them for political gain.

In some cases, this may be true. In my case, it is not.

I am a moderate Democrat who is fine with the 2023 Supreme Court decision to disallow the consideration of race in college admissions. After more than half a century, I think it is time to end affirmative action in college admissions. I am also not unhappy that special government programs to advance minority businesses developed more than 50 years ago that have presumed minorities are automatically “socially disadvantaged” are being reevaluated.

We should also make sure we are pursuing the best solutions when racial disparities are identified. To take one example, it has become clear that White social workers pass licensing exams at significantly higher rates than do Black or Hispanic social workers. The response in many social work communities has been that we must adopt a new standard of licensing that does not include licensing exams at all. In Illinois, for example, legislation has been passed to provide alternative pathway to licensure that does not include passing an exam. The D.C. city council is proposing similar legislation, as are other states. Rather than eliminating an opportunity for candidates to display the requisite knowledge for competent practice, shouldn’t we be exploring how institutions can address educational challenges of historically marginalized communities, or a call for an in-depth analysis of licensing exams themselves?

Nothing in our democracy should be beyond debate. That includes DEI programs.

In The Post’s June 19 news article “Poll finds most in U.S. approve of DEI, despite legal setbacks,” the authors show poll results from a question asked two different ways.

Half the respondents were asked “In recent years, some companies have adopted diversity, equity and inclusion programs, or ‘DEI programs.’ Do you think it’s a good thing or a bad thing for companies to adopt these programs?” 61 percent of respondents said it was good, and 34 said it was bad.

The other half were asked “In recent years, some companies have adopted programs to hire more employees from groups that are underrepresented in their workforce, such as racial and ethnic minorities and people with disabilities and to promote equity in the workplace. Do you think it’s a good thing or a bad thing for companies to adopt these programs?”

Unsurprisingly there were significant differences in the results: 61 percent of all respondents said “DEI programs” were good, and 69 percent supported “programs to hire more employees from groups that are underrepresented.”

I suspect that there would be even bigger differences if respondents were asked whether they supported programs “to discriminate in favor of certain groups, resulting in discrimination against people in other groups even if some of those individuals might be better qualified.” That is what the Supreme Court found objectionable, and it is why many people think DEI stands for Didn’t Earn It.