As a public high school student, I believe that in addition to academic enrichment such as Advanced Placement, students should have the opportunity to pursue career-related skills in high school through real-world experience. This training would provide students with a concrete path to employment, which could lead them to graduate from high school and go to college if the job they are interested in requires a degree to gain the specialized knowledge needed to enter the workforce. Many career-related programs help students attend a 2- or 4-year college and provide credit for high school and college, encouraging students to graduate from high school and pursue post-secondary education. Career-related training can be provided through mentoring programs through partnerships between high schools and local institutions that connect students with experts in professional organizations. These opportunities allow students to gain skills related to their area of ​​interest in a more engaging setting outside of the traditional classroom.

While advanced academic opportunities and career advising increase graduation rates and facilitate career development, offering career mentoring will be a more effective way to encourage students to seek employment and give them a more concrete picture of what awaits them after college.

Sanchali Banerjee, Herndon

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

Darnell Epps was right when he described the difference between credentials and education in his June 25 column: “I went to Yale and I went to trade school. Which is more useful?” The difference is wisdom, the commitment to doing things right. A millimeter is a mile in machine tools and in life.

Darnell Epps’s description of his decision to continue his education and pursue a degree in manufacturing and machining technology in addition to his Juris Doctor made a profound impression on me.

I am retired from the Labor Department’s Employment and Training Administration, and have focused for over 30 years on identifying and supporting strategies to identify employment opportunities for those in need of gainful employment. My first job out of college was teaching English to male students at a New York City vocational 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 path from Yale Law School to professional school “confirmed my belief in the untapped potential of the skilled trades. It showed me that the future of American prosperity depends not only on lawyers and executives but also on machinists, welders and all the skilled tradesmen who are the backbone of our economy.”

Bravo, Mr. Epps, for supporting “a new generation of workers who can thrive in the advanced manufacturing renaissance,” and for your personally crafted metal gavel that bridges the gap between your vocational school diploma and your juris doctorate.

Lois A. Engel, Washington

Front-page article in the Post on June 17 titled “Diploma in hand, but no foot in the door” about the lack of jobs for university graduates, an important issue that appeared later in the article was not addressed.

As employment expert Harry Holzer notes toward the end of the article, “It may take six or nine months, but these graduates will find jobs.” And that’s true for one simple reason: They have college degrees. Despite the buzz about skills-based hiring, the evidence shows that having a bachelor’s degree is still the dominant predictor of whether someone will find a good job—one that pays well and offers benefits.

The article points out that “service industry jobs in hair salons, gyms and medical facilities” are growing, but these jobs are disproportionately held by people without a college degree and typically don’t pay enough to support an individual, let alone a family. So while it may be news that recent college graduates are taking a bit longer than they might expect to find their first job after graduation, it’s important for The Post’s readers to understand the long-term reality: A college degree remains a very good investment for anyone looking to make a good living.

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

The troubling backlash against diversity, equity and inclusion programs, described in The Post’s June 27 front-page story, “Conservative lawsuits invalidate diversity programs,” is not only misguided and racist, but also shortsighted.

In addition to being the morally and ethically right thing to do, equity and justice programs help boost local economies.

In particular, programs that train and support returning citizens or people affected by the justice system who are working to secure employment—a disproportionate number of whom are Black men and other people of color—help reduce recidivism and advance economic mobility, creating stronger and safer families and communities. They also help businesses. By strategically targeting and aligning training with industry needs in local markets, such programs provide a well-prepared and certified workforce for positions that are in high demand but that companies may have difficulty filling and retaining. Examples include health care support and office operations, construction and maintenance, and logistics and warehousing.

Companies and industries that partner with Second Chance Workforce Training programs know they are getting highly motivated, fully trained, and certified workers who want to make a difference in their lives and communities. Helping these individuals achieve upward mobility and financial empowerment has a domino effect of long-term positive outcomes and stems the tide of poverty for generations to come.

The author is the communications director at STRIVE, a nonprofit workforce development organization.

In his June 28 column, “Meet Dr. DEI, the New Personification of Old Right-Wing Grievances,” Theodore R. Johnson puts diversity, equity, and inclusion programs on a pedestal and belittles anyone who might question their approach. He seems to think that no honest, good-natured people should question these efforts, only those who feel threatened by diversity and want to maintain power, and are therefore easily manipulated by the sinister forces on the far right who stoke them for political gain.

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

I am a moderate Democrat who accepts the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision to eliminate race as a factor in college admissions. After more than a half-century, I believe it is time to end affirmative action in college admissions. I am also not unhappy that special government programs designed to support minority businesses, designed more than 50 years ago and assuming that minorities were automatically “disadvantaged,” are being reevaluated.

We should also make sure that we are looking for the best solutions when racial disparities are identified. For example, it has become clear that white social workers are failing licensing exams at significantly higher rates than black or Latino social workers. The response from many in the social work community has been that we need to adopt a new licensing standard that does not include licensing exams at all. For example, Illinois has passed legislation to provide an alternative path 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 the opportunity for candidates to demonstrate the knowledge required for competent practice, shouldn’t we be examining how institutions can address the educational challenges of historically marginalized communities, or calling for a thorough review of the licensing exams themselves?

Nothing in our democracy should be off limits. That includes DEI programs.

In a June 19 article in The Post titled “Poll finds most Americans support DEI, despite legal obstacles,” the authors presented the results of a poll in which the question was asked in two different ways.

Half of the respondents were asked, “In recent years, some companies have implemented diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, programs. Do you think it’s a good thing or a bad thing for companies to implement these programs?” Sixty-one percent of respondents said it’s a good thing, while 34 percent said it’s a bad thing.

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

It should come as no surprise that the results vary significantly: 61 percent of all respondents said “DEI programs” are good, while 69 percent supported “programs to hire more workers from underrepresented groups.”

I suspect the differences would be even greater if respondents were asked whether they supported programs that “discriminate in favor of certain groups, with the effect of discriminating against people from other groups, even when some of those people may be better qualified.” This is what the Supreme Court has found unacceptable, and why many people think DEI stands for Didn’t Earn It.