[bragh]

It is probably less strict than a century ago, but it is still the case that if you never started or fell off the academic track somewhere, it is very hard or almost impossible to get from the technical track back to the academic track.

[ookdatnog]

This is true in many European countries. But for a kid from a poor family where no one has an academic background and chances of success in higher education are low, a good technical education can still provide significant upward social mobility. If you train to be a competent mechanic, welder, carpenter, mason, electrician, plumber, ... you're set up for a pretty comfortable middle class life. You can even get quite wealthy if you start a business.

I don't think it's necessarily bad that the education system tries to identify students which have low odds of making it in higher education, and offer them an alternative route that results in them having an in-demand skill and some work experience when they graduate at 18 years old.

I'm not at all convinced that an approach where students of all levels are kept in the same classroom is better for the weakest students. I imagine the experience of struggling (and often failing) to keep up every day must be exhausting and demotivating (and perhaps even humiliating). I also have never seem any evidence that such an arrangement is better for weak students in any metric (but I'm happy to change my mind of this if such evidence is provided).

[abigail95]

where are you getting that from? i didn't even finish high school and say i wanted to do a masters of computer science at cambridge, all i need is to rush through a 4 year undegrad degree from just about anywhere with an 80% average.

someone who can work 80 hours a week can do that in 10 months or less. especially if you're already an engineer and you're good, it's a breeze.

undergrad is dead simple, it's literally built for teenagers, it's not hard to get back on track.