THE FLORIDA Legislature is closing in on a law that would require students to declare a major and a minor when they enter high school. Unsurprisingly, a cohort of free thinkers isn't liking this at all. How can we expect kids to be anything but pre-vocational while they are, in many cases, prepubescent? Doesn't this smack of the kind of Soviet-era monomania that plucked especially nimble girls off jungle gyms and sent them away to gymnastics schools, only to reintroduce them into society years later with a couple of gold medals but no idea how to dress for the office?

Although lawmakers are still wrangling over most of these issues, one thing the House and the Senate seem to agree upon is the requirement to choose a major and a minor, meaning that next year's freshmen may need to do some hard thinking about just how committed they are to becoming professional skateboarders.

I'm the product of a big public high school and the kind of liberal arts college where students could proceed directly from organic chemistry to intermediate African dance. As such, you might think I'm against any kind of narrowing of educational options. But now that I'm an adult with a master's degree and about as many marketable skills as an ice dancer, I'm beginning to think Gov. Bush is on to something.

Over the last few decades, high schools and colleges alike have become increasingly enamored of the idea of well-roundedness. As if to define ourselves in opposition to stressed-out math geniuses in Asia, a star pupil by American standards doesn't just get straight A's, he leads the student council and plays football, the trombone and Nathan Detroit in the senior production of "Guys and Dolls." And not out of genuine interest but because his parents and guidance counselors believe this will help him get into college.

When the well-rounded student gets to college, especially a liberal arts college, that roundness can expand into utter ineptitude if he's not careful. A lot of liberal arts grads I know can't fix a sink or change a tire. Even worse, a disturbing number managed to graduate with honors without knowing how to balance a checkbook. But, hey, that's the price of a certain kind of erudition.

I'm not suggesting that there aren't benefits to sampling a wide variety of subjects in college. What I am suggesting is that not every student wants or needs an "elite education." As ham-fisted as Gov. Bush's plan might sound to some, it may be beneficial in helping kids define their interests and abilities and better understand what kind of learners they are. If they discover they're not cut out for a traditional four-year college, at least they might have some clue as to an alternative. Whether it's technical college, music conservatory or beauty college, almost anything is better than spending four years passing out at frat parties while your parents pick up the tab for skipped classes.

According to the National Bureau of Labor Statistics, college enrollment reached a historic high last fall, with 68.6% of high school seniors entering some sort of academic institution of higher education. In 1970, that figure was 31%. While some of this rise is due to increased opportunities for minorities and other underserved students, I suspect that certain aspirational traits of the baby boomers might play a part in the trend as well. If there's anything boomers want more than Restoration Hardware-furnished living rooms, it's kids that go off to college — preferably colleges whose names look good on sweatshirts. But sometimes even the children of professional, educated parents aren't cut out to be educated professionals themselves