Q&A: Los Angeles High School Counselor On What Students Want After Graduation
Once upon a time, college was the dream destination and a guiding goal for high school seniors in Los Angeles and beyond.
But nowadays things are more complicated, said Christina Sanchez, a school and college counselor at Triumph Charter High School in the San Fernando Valley.
Sanchez, who has worked as a counselor for more than two decades, has put in the time in schools to know what students think and feel about their possible future career paths.
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
She said career and technical education is rising in popularity amongst today's high school seniors, and, as far as she can tell, even some universities are feeling the shift.
But from her perch at Triumph Charter High, a high-performing, Title I school, Sanchez also said students should be mindful of the path they choose, whether it be college or the workforce.
'If they are going to college just because somebody told them it's best, that usually doesn't work out,' she said. 'But I also think they should consider the benefits of a college education.'
Read on as Sanchez weighs in on why the CTE is ascendent, what colleges are doing to adjust, and whether this shift is good for students.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
University enrollment has declined over the past decade, and vocational programs are rising in that same timeframe. Have you noticed this trend and what do you attribute this to?
We still have students going to college, but yes it is definitely a declining number.
I would say there's more interest in a quick payout. They see that more in trades. So, students are gravitating toward trade school where they can focus on a career and get out sooner. They feel they can make money quicker, and just as much, if not more, as with a college education.
They're equating education with money more, especially since the pandemic. Yes, there are obvious connections between those. But, it's not the only factor, and it really depends what field you go into.
What are universities doing to avoid a decline in enrollment?
There are still schools like UCLA and UC Berkeley who are very selective. UCLA is not begging anybody to apply.
I've definitely seen private colleges sending marketing emails more to get students to apply, and even waiving application fees. Sometimes they say 'you don't even need to do the extra work, just send us a transcript.' Public universities are extending deadlines often as well.
Community colleges are also increasing and promoting their trade programs more than ever. That's becoming a focus for them because they're trying to compete.
Are there more downsides to a college degree now than in years past, and are students more pessimistic about going to college?
There's definitely a resistance to taking out student loans. It doesn't help that parents will often highlight cautionary tales, like a niece or nephew who went to college and is now working retail.
I haven't noticed any increases in unemployment rates or underemployment rates. Those are specific instances, not really a trend. When we do hear back from our alumni who went to college, they are almost always working on something related to their degree. I rarely have a student come back and say they haven't been able to get a job.
Why are trade careers becoming more interesting to students?
There are always trending careers, but they ebb and flow. Today, social media has more of an impact on what careers students see. Sometimes I talk to students and ask, 'How did you even know about that?' and they say they saw it on social media.
People highlight their career paths, and students see the best of it. They see what the person chooses to show. Just like it is with people's private lives, you may not see the bad days or the bad sides of it. They're not highlighting the negatives. I definitely see that influencing students when it comes to career paths, especially in the last five years.
What advice would you give to a student choosing between a trade school and a university in this current job climate?
I think everybody should do what's right for them. If they are going to college just because somebody told them it's best, that usually doesn't work out. But I also think they should consider the benefits of a college education, other than what type of job you can get. I do find that there are benefits beyond that.
Some are not seeing that job opportunities are wider with a college degree. If you are trained in one industry and you don't enjoy it, you don't have as much flexibility as someone with a college degree. You're 17 years old, how do you know you want to be an electrician?
When they make the decision, they need to be open to everything so that they know for sure it is the right one for them and not just one they made because they didn't work to explore their options.
I think what needs to be done more in schools is career exposure. Students are mostly making decisions based on what they see on the internet, what they read, and random examples. They're not really experiencing the world of work because we have such an academic focus in our schools. Many schools promote college prep, and it almost seems like career things are considered 'anti-college.'
That might be doing students a disservice to students who don't get to see all these careers and what they look like. So I do think schools should do more with career guidance. I'm in support of career education, apprenticeships, and dual enrollment, but it should be done for careers you get with a college degree, not just trade school careers. It does seem like when schools do have career programs, they tend to be in the trades. It should be both.
This article is part of a collaboration between The 74 and the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Q&A: Los Angeles High School Counselor On What Students Want After Graduation
Once upon a time, college was the dream destination and a guiding goal for high school seniors in Los Angeles and beyond. But nowadays things are more complicated, said Christina Sanchez, a school and college counselor at Triumph Charter High School in the San Fernando Valley. Sanchez, who has worked as a counselor for more than two decades, has put in the time in schools to know what students think and feel about their possible future career paths. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter She said career and technical education is rising in popularity amongst today's high school seniors, and, as far as she can tell, even some universities are feeling the shift. But from her perch at Triumph Charter High, a high-performing, Title I school, Sanchez also said students should be mindful of the path they choose, whether it be college or the workforce. 'If they are going to college just because somebody told them it's best, that usually doesn't work out,' she said. 'But I also think they should consider the benefits of a college education.' Read on as Sanchez weighs in on why the CTE is ascendent, what colleges are doing to adjust, and whether this shift is good for students. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. University enrollment has declined over the past decade, and vocational programs are rising in that same timeframe. Have you noticed this trend and what do you attribute this to? We still have students going to college, but yes it is definitely a declining number. I would say there's more interest in a quick payout. They see that more in trades. So, students are gravitating toward trade school where they can focus on a career and get out sooner. They feel they can make money quicker, and just as much, if not more, as with a college education. They're equating education with money more, especially since the pandemic. Yes, there are obvious connections between those. But, it's not the only factor, and it really depends what field you go into. What are universities doing to avoid a decline in enrollment? There are still schools like UCLA and UC Berkeley who are very selective. UCLA is not begging anybody to apply. I've definitely seen private colleges sending marketing emails more to get students to apply, and even waiving application fees. Sometimes they say 'you don't even need to do the extra work, just send us a transcript.' Public universities are extending deadlines often as well. Community colleges are also increasing and promoting their trade programs more than ever. That's becoming a focus for them because they're trying to compete. Are there more downsides to a college degree now than in years past, and are students more pessimistic about going to college? There's definitely a resistance to taking out student loans. It doesn't help that parents will often highlight cautionary tales, like a niece or nephew who went to college and is now working retail. I haven't noticed any increases in unemployment rates or underemployment rates. Those are specific instances, not really a trend. When we do hear back from our alumni who went to college, they are almost always working on something related to their degree. I rarely have a student come back and say they haven't been able to get a job. Why are trade careers becoming more interesting to students? There are always trending careers, but they ebb and flow. Today, social media has more of an impact on what careers students see. Sometimes I talk to students and ask, 'How did you even know about that?' and they say they saw it on social media. People highlight their career paths, and students see the best of it. They see what the person chooses to show. Just like it is with people's private lives, you may not see the bad days or the bad sides of it. They're not highlighting the negatives. I definitely see that influencing students when it comes to career paths, especially in the last five years. What advice would you give to a student choosing between a trade school and a university in this current job climate? I think everybody should do what's right for them. If they are going to college just because somebody told them it's best, that usually doesn't work out. But I also think they should consider the benefits of a college education, other than what type of job you can get. I do find that there are benefits beyond that. Some are not seeing that job opportunities are wider with a college degree. If you are trained in one industry and you don't enjoy it, you don't have as much flexibility as someone with a college degree. You're 17 years old, how do you know you want to be an electrician? When they make the decision, they need to be open to everything so that they know for sure it is the right one for them and not just one they made because they didn't work to explore their options. I think what needs to be done more in schools is career exposure. Students are mostly making decisions based on what they see on the internet, what they read, and random examples. They're not really experiencing the world of work because we have such an academic focus in our schools. Many schools promote college prep, and it almost seems like career things are considered 'anti-college.' That might be doing students a disservice to students who don't get to see all these careers and what they look like. So I do think schools should do more with career guidance. I'm in support of career education, apprenticeships, and dual enrollment, but it should be done for careers you get with a college degree, not just trade school careers. It does seem like when schools do have career programs, they tend to be in the trades. It should be both. This article is part of a collaboration between The 74 and the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Smaller water districts were hit hardest by L.A. firestorms, UCLA report finds
The January firestorms that swept through Altadena and Pacific Palisades destroyed not only thousands of homes but also portions of the water and sewer systems that served them. Smaller water systems were hit the hardest, according to a study by UCLA researchers released Thursday. In Altadena, for example, the burned areas covered 79% of Rubio Cañon Land & Water Assn.'s service area and 88% of Las Flores Water Co.'s territory. By comparison, less than 5% of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's service area suffered damage. The DWP serves about 4 million people; Las Flores supplies fewer than 5,000. 'These fires tested the physical and financial limits of our water infrastructure,' said Gregory Pierce, co-director of UCLA's Luskin Center for Innovation. 'We need to think not just about fixing pipes, but about redesigning systems and supporting populations that are more integrated, more equitable, and resilient to the next crisis.' Researchers at the Luskin Center for Innovation analyzed how the fires affected water systems together with researchers from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and the consulting firm Stantec. They examined the effects the Palisades and Eaton fires had on 11 community water systems, two sewer systems, and thousands of private wells and septic systems in L.A. County. There are about 200 community water systems in L.A. County, and a large share of them serve fewer than 1,000 customers. "Small, but sometimes medium-sized systems generally have financial capacity challenges," Pierce said. "And those are compounded when they're having to rebuild a substantial part of their system and aren't getting revenue in the meantime." He noted that three of the smaller systems — Las Flores, Rubio Cañon and Lincoln Avenue Water Co. — have recently banded together in their announcements about post-fire efforts. 'Recovery is ongoing, and the fires have sparked critical conversations about drinking water and wastewater system resiliency,' the researchers wrote in the report. 'Sustained local, state, and federal support is essential to ensure future systems are adaptable and financially sustainable.' Read more: Water now safe to drink from all fire-affected utilities in L.A. area, state says The researchers also assessed the demographics of the communities that were affected. The areas where water systems were damaged predominantly have higher incomes than the L.A. County average, with a higher percentage of home owners and a lower percentage of renters than the county average. Most of the systems serve largely white populations, but several water systems affected by the Eaton fire serve areas with significantly larger proportions of Black residents than the county average of 8%, including Las Flores (37%), Lincoln Avenue (30%), and Rubio Cañon (11%). The report notes that smaller water suppliers such as Las Flores and Lincoln Avenue have limited access to funds to help rebuild their systems. 'While federal and state funds may fill some emergency and recovery gaps, local and regional systems will likely remain partly — if not entirely — financially self-dependent to pay for repairs,' the researchers said in the report. 'Meanwhile, some of these same systems are recovering much less revenue than typical, given the dislocation of their customer base.' The affected systems already had fairly high water rates before the fires based on their costs of providing service, Pierce said. 'The only direction for those rates to go in the future is up with the rebuild,' Pierce said. 'So I'm not quite sure what we're going to be saying about affordability standards for water in these areas, or whether we're just simply going to have to accept the rates are going to be significantly higher, and that's the cost of service." This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Fast Company
4 days ago
- Fast Company
L.A. has 24,000 tiny vacant lots across the city—these designs show creative ways to use them for housing
It's incredibly hard to find a starter home in Los Angeles, where the median house price is now around $1.2 million. But in a new project, the city is working with architects and developers to build prototypes of more affordable homes that make use of small vacant lots scattered throughout the city. L.A. has around 24,000 privately owned residential lots that are a quarter-acre or less and haven't yet been developed. The city also owns this type of small vacant lot, and now plans to use up to a dozen of them to demonstrate new models for housing. Instead of single-family homes, each development will include multiple small units that make better use of a lot, while leaving room for outdoor space and ample light. 'We thought that there might be a way to unlock the lots the city owns, but also use that to actually spur private development on the many similar lots that are across the city,' says Emmanuel Proussaloglou, codirector of CityLab-UCLA, a think tank based in UCLA's architecture department. The group partnered with the city on a design competition called Small Lots, Big Impacts, focused on rethinking homeownership on urban 'infill' lots. Twenty-one winning designs were announced today, along with another 20 projects that received special recognition. Architects looked at new ways to divide small lots. Shared Steps, a design from the California-based firms Word and s_sk, is an example of what CityLab calls stealth density. From the front, it looks like it could be a single-family home. But it's actually nine units: three main buildings that each have a larger unit plus an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and a junior accessory dwelling unit. The ADUs could be used as rentals for the larger units, help a family expand when they need more space, or be sold as homes of their own. The front yard, meanwhile connects to a pocket park for the neighborhood. A project called 4x4x4, from the Brooklyn-based firm Light and Air, uses a single 50-by-150-foot lot for four two-story houses. Each home has a ground-floor accessory dwelling unit. The homes, which are each around 1,600 square feet, fit together like Tetris blocks. 'The L-shaped plan has the ability to frame outdoor space, and also provide views in multiple directions,' says Shane Neufeld, who leads Light and Air. There are courtyards on the ground floor. On the second floor, residents can walk out sliding doors to a balcony on the roof of each ADU. From the street, again, it looks like it might be a single-family home. California and local laws allow housing development 'by right,' without the need for discretionary approval, as long as buildings meet certain zoning and design criteria and include some affordable housing. That means that neighbors shouldn't be able to block the projects. Still, the buildings were designed to fit into existing neighborhoods, and appease neighbors as much as possible. Physically building some of the new designs could help create more support. 'The whole point of what we're doing here is to try to build a couple so that you can go and actually look at them and say, 'That doesn't look as scary as I thought it might,'' says Proussaloglou. 'That's the hope, at least.' A design called Lotful, from Long Beach-based Studio One Eleven, proposes six individually owned buildings that each have owner-occupied units and two ground-level ADUs. The rental income can help owners qualify for a mortgage. The design is also modular, using a standard size that can make it faster and potentially less expensive to build. It's also easier to replicate. 'If we create these modules, these could be used on different sites in different areas, so you actually could get economies of scale,' says Alan Pullman, a partner at Studio One Eleven. A design called Ladderblock, from L.A.-based West of West, proposes creating a community land trust to lower the cost of each home. One- and two-bedroom units are designed with flexibility, so owners can change their homes over time, if needed. By adding a partition wall, the spaces can be split further to create a rental or another unit to sell. A 41-unit design from the New York-based firm Only If is one example of building with future density in mind. (Buildings on larger streets near transit can be taller and include more units.) The terraced floors create outdoor space on several levels. On the ground floor, a potential parking lot is 'reversible,' meaning that it could later be used to build another seven units. In the past, small lots might have been used for single-family homes, or sometimes stayed vacant because development didn't seem like it would pencil out. The competition aims to help clearly illustrate what else is possible. The need to build more is acute: Under state law, the city is required to build more than 450,000 homes by 2029 to deal with the housing shortage, and it isn't on track, with only around 17,000 new homes permitted last year. The devastating fires in Pacific Palisades and Altadena earlier this year, which destroyed thousands of homes, added even more to the challenge. In the next stage of the project, the Los Angeles Housing Department will choose development teams, including architects, contractors, and financial institutions, to build on specific city-owned lots in different neighborhoods. The city will be selling the lots, but will use the proceeds to help provide down-payment assistance for low-income buyers to live in the new developments. (The developments, which will be privately financed by the development teams, will target residents at various income levels.) The winning designs from the first stage won't necessarily be built, though each team will have an opportunity to apply again with the designs they've created. UCLA also plans to share all of the submissions online, including proposals that didn't win. 'There are only going to be a handful of sites available in the next stage, so not all 356 ideas are going to get built,' says Proussaloglou. 'But we're hoping that people with private lots look to the database of architectural ingenuity from the Small Lots competition, and say, 'okay, I love that submission. I want to work with that architect.'' The ideas could also be useful beyond L.A. 'So many cities are struggling with a housing crisis of affordability and a lack of the kind of units that families want,' says Studio One Eleven's Pullman. 'I'm hoping that we can show, through this demonstration project, the ability to really think beyond the standard ways that we've been building cities, either single-family or large multifamily, into what everyone's talking about—this missing middle. The ability to build family housing, but in a way that isn't just the single-family house.'
