Is it really ironic that college students go to vocational colleges after graduation? Is it really "starting from scratch" and its true meaning is determined as "returning to the furnace"? We always advocate "never too old to learn" and pay attention to "skill is more important than weight". Even now, we are calling for "building a learning society". In this context, after graduation, a college student tries to broaden his "caliber" for the long-term career planning and his favorite post, and master one more skill with the help of vocational colleges. Is it surprising that there is such a mystery? It is necessary to discuss the subtext behind "tempering" here. Generally speaking, studying for graduate school, PhD and mba after graduation can be understood as increasing one's knowledge reserve. How can "going to vocational colleges" become "returning to the furnace" instead of further study? In fact, there is no difference between skills training and undergraduate education in vocational colleges, but they should complement each other. For example, in the popular 3v animation production industry, the main practitioners are vocational college graduates, and their expression modules and street view imagination are not much different from those of undergraduate college graduates in technical performance. Moreover, because of their academic years, they can get internship opportunities earlier, understand the market demand while internship in the company, and receive mature training from new technology companies, so they are more sought after in the talent market. From this perspective, studying in a vocational technical school after graduation is obviously a kind of self-improvement and transformation. How can there be a "return to the furnace"?
On the other hand, it is imprudent to attack the "degradation" of higher education because of college graduation and vocational colleges. After all, college education and job skills do not deliberately pursue absolute docking, which is neither possible nor necessary. Moreover, the pursuit of "completely keeping up with the market demand for talents" is also a kind of harm to universities and may not be a good thing for personal growth. In essence, university education focuses on the cultivation of personality and basic skills, which is the "port" for talent growth, rather than manufacturing terminal talents. Universities should provide more possibilities and choices for personal growth and employment, rather than customizing "standard" labor for a specific department position.
Furthermore, with the development of society and the gradual changes in the workplace, what a person learns after graduation is related to the reset of career planning. This is not to say that learning is useless, but to transform yourself. Therefore, there is no need to stigmatize higher education because of the diversity and uncertainty of personal career choices. That kind of "useless university education" is more likely to be a false deduction. Moreover, with the infinite refinement and extension of social division of labor, emerging occupations will cross and split, and learning and further study will become a normal state. There is no need to make a fuss, let alone pretend to be sad and lament higher education. This statement is too old-fashioned and misleading.
Of course, there are still many unsatisfactory places in both undergraduate education and vocational education, but this does not constitute a universal explanation that can explain all phenomena. Since attending a technical school may be a kind of advanced behavior in life, rather than a helpless start, it is ok to talk about things, so why stick to colleges and universities?