In the current system, if a course is considered vocational-as opposed to "theoretical"-by Amherst, we cannot take it for credit. For instance, if a student were to take Hotel, Restaurant, and Travel Administration at UMass it would not count for Amherst credit, and he or she would have to take five courses in a single semester to make up for that fact. Obviously, this system is a hindrance to those of us at the College who may want to learn a particular skill because it supplements our education, simply interests us or is esoteric.
A skill such as hotel, restaurant and travel administration, for instance, can be quite practical and difficult to master. Though I would probably not take the course myself, my father, a former bartender turned waiter, has expressed to me the challenges of management in the fast-growing hospitality industry. It is an industry in which interpersonal skills are very important. These skills can be transferred to other spheres, including the corporate world, where networking and connections are ever important. In fact, Cornell University, a (gasp) Ivy League University, devotes an entire school to such classes: the School of Hotel Administration. I don't doubt that they view some courses taught there as theoretical.
Amherst's bias towards certain vocations echoes its upper-class reputation. Despite not accepting vocational courses for credit, the College prides itself on its training of pre-med students and its record of getting students into top medical schools. Medicine is a vocation. Just because it requires more education than other professions does not prove it more noble or theoretical. To me, a doctor is just a television repairman for humans; he diagnoses a problem and attempts to fix it.
In the same vein, why then does Amherst have a Law, Jurisprudence and Social Thought department, yet no pre-engineering program? Once again the bias here is evident. I have little doubt that most LJST majors will take the LSAT, enter law school and become excellent attorneys some day; however, in my own humble way, I do not think a lawyer is any better than an engineer. I know a couple of students at this College who would like to become engineers some day but will need more schooling after college because Amherst has no semblance of an engineering program. Williams College does have a pre-engineering program and I think it's about time we join our rival.
The one thing that most bothers me about our school's "vocational" policy is the consequent lack of an Amherst College teaching credential. I personally think teaching is the noblest profession; it is nothing short of heroism to inspire and educate our nation's youth and to help shape the future of our country. In the current system, which was organized only two years ago, potential teachers have to take courses at Mount Holyoke College and receive their teaching credential through them.
One of the requirements in the program is a teaching internship in a secondary school. Judging from how tough my schedule is right now, I cannot begin to comprehend how potential teachers can, in addition to their three courses at Amherst and traveling to South Hadley for a fourth class, also teach and grade high school students' papers during their senior year internship. The College needs to show more respect to future teachers and encourage students to pursue teaching. I can only see two ways to encourage this: Amherst can offer the teaching credential on campus to reduce travel time or students should be allowed to take only two courses plus the teaching internship in the senior year. It boggles my mind that a school, an element of the education industry, would not want to train teachers.
As the son of two diligent vocational workers, I understand their jobs are not easy. Being a doctor, a lawyer or, especially, a teacher is also not easy. Growing up I never thought doctors or lawyers were in any way better than my parents. I'm disappointed that the College, though their implicit scorn for vocational enterprise implies that my parents aren't up to par.