12316323 (X) May 4, 2017:

Oh, no bowing, please. You're right, though-- it is largely instinct.

There are vocational high schools and programs in high schools in the US, and my impression is that it's actually a growing (or reviving) trend in certain regions.

You've made me realize that "high school diploma (non-vocational track)" might be that much clearer!

Charles Davis May 4, 2017:

OK, if you say so. I accept that "academic" seems redundant in the US scheme of things because, as I understand it, there is no non-academic track in American High Schools; trade schools come after HS. But by that reasoning, "non-vocational high school diploma" is a tautology; all HS diplomas are non-vocational, in American terms. I would have thought "academic track" was no more difficult or ambiguous, and that just about anyone would understand that if it is specified at all it means that a non-academic track exists. However, I don't want to press the point, and I bow to your native instincts!

12316323 (X) May 4, 2017:

That is interesting, Charles. My assumption was wrong. If the two terms for the track options were appearing together in a text, ideally repeatedly, I would agree with you and use vocational and academic. The meaning of each would be perfectly clear, though almost certainly explained anyway. But if "científico" appears all by itself as it seems to do here and with no further explanation, I still prefer non-vocational. To see or be told that someone received an academic HS diploma or, even, did the academic track in HS would be confusing to me... as opposed to what? Isn't that what K-12 is all about, academics? It would either dawn on me after some thought, or I'd need it to be pointed out, that an academic track was followed and not a vocational one. It's simply my cultural reference point, and one I'd use for any translation for a US audience. If it were for a UK or international audience, I'd probably ask a few colleagues first to see if those assumptions held for them as well. "HS diploma (academic)" seems potentially ambiguous to me if not given greater context or explanation.

Charles Davis May 4, 2017:

@Kathryn It's true that in Paraguay there are many more types of bachillerato técnico (twenty-four, if I've counted correctly) than of bachillerato científico (three "énfasis", the same three as in Spain and France, for example). But far more students do the latter. In 2005, it was 77.44% científico (162,678 students) to 21.84% (45,884) técnico, with the remaining 0.72% (1,508) in formación profesional (which, by the way, raises the question of what to call técnico, but that's for another day). Figures from here (p. 9):
http://portal.mec.gov.br/setec/arquivos/pdf/conferencia_para...

So científico is the rule rather than the exception, and that being so I personally would still prefer to use a positive term like "academic".