Education and why we have the modern system

pursuitofknowlege

What would I do without an education? I believe that whilst school and university do pass on knowledge to you they are not the only form of an education. As referred to by many notable figures such as Winston Churchill and Albert Einstein, they mention how the only interruption to their education was school itself. Now whilst the connections and friendships that school and university allow are extremely valuable, I'd argue that the current education system focusses more on testing strict memorisation, following instruction and note taking as oppose to teaching creative thinking, problem solving and "life preparation".

The students are the ones being questioned and not vice versa ( to the same extent) and even in creative subjects we are limited to write formulaic responses and are encouraged to remove and hints of your own opinions when writing argumentative essays.

Most adults I know agree that they have forgotten the majority of what they learnt in school (syllabus wise) and whilst some may argue that knowledge for the sake of knowledge is a valid reason for the things that young people are taught, I would argue that what we are being taught has little to no relevance in our futures.

Which goes back to the question, "what is the point in school", is it really to prepare young people for the future. Or, (taking a very critical view),is it to keep society unquestioning and docile, constantly waiting for the next stage in their lives and going through it without thinking philosophically. Because as John D. Rockefeller, who is one of the richest industrialists in history and the man who founded the general board of education said, "I don't want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers." Taking inspiration from Prussian education systems of the time he "revolutionised the model of American education which spread worldwide. This can be seen as a way education could be an institution to create more workers in the furtherance of capitalism and the preservation of his own wealth.

Although this is a very sceptical view, it is not totally invalid with many modern students and teachers not really knowing the true point of modern education systems.
Is it to prepare children for life?, or is it purely to pass exams and go on, perhaps it is a genuine system which truly cares about the students futures, or maybe to strip young people of their individuality, confidence and creativity.

I genuinely am not 100% sure what the point of the education system is or how I would live without school, however I believe that I would further my pursuit of what I find to be real knowledge and life experience and spend my time intentionally with those I love and working towards a greater goal. As Aristotle would have put it, I would still aim to "flourish" into the potential of what I could be whilst enjoying and finding value in all the suffering, hardship and pain It would take to get there.

I am not set in my beliefs and will continue to look into and learn about school and knowledge and value etc as it something that deeply fascinates me, as do other philosophical, psychological and spiritual pursuits. I hope that by questioning things and using the Socratic method to question things that are taken as common sense by most that I will be able to grow as a person and develop my mind to the point where I can help others.

Let me know your thoughts and any additional knowledge and views on the education system and schools.

Vera Mont

I'm not familiar with the current state of education in the US - or anywhere, really; it's a long time since I had any contact with the system.
I can say generally about public schools in North America:
They teach the basic skills necessary for education: literacy, numeracy, a rudimentary understanding of science and history. They don't all do it equally well, but the basics are covered. That's a necessity.
They try to instill some national and human values in the students: good citizenship, ethical behaviour and respect for their peers. This is also necessary.
Beyond that, there are usually classes in hygiene, nutrition, reproduction and money management. These are useful things to learn.
Most importantly, students are introduced to subjects, ideas and areas of interest that they would not be exposed to at home, giving them a far broader view of the world and of the scope of knowledge they might wish to pursue later.

However, I have some reservations about the way in which schools are conducted. The curriculum is tailored to the average, which means that unless they have a particularly gifted and dedicated teacher, the brightest are bored and the dullest are left behind.
I'm not crazy about kids sitting for hours at a desk, either. In some schools (expensive ones) they get to move around and participate in different interesting activities during the day.
I don't think there is much point in trying to teach pubescent humans in a formal school setting. Their bones are growing; their brains are reconfiguring; their endocrine system is in overdrive. They're questioning adult verity and values (Let's face it, we do a lot of lying to children; they're bound to catch on sometime! Usually between 10 and 12, they start questioning, doubting, pulling away. )
In puberty, they're restless and impatient, can't concentrate for long periods or remember complex information. They need to sleep more, have more physical activity and less regimentation. 12-16 is a period when they would get more out of practical learning than academic learning.
Also: school is too easy. We underestimate children and overprotect them. They don't have enough challenges.

Athena

@pursuitofknowlege, I think your question is the most important question that can be asked because at this time, many of us think the US is about to self-destruct. Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended and the US stopped doing that in 1958. We replaced our liberal education with education for technology and left moral training to the Church. Now we are in crisis.

You mentioned Prussian education and I want everyone to understand that education goes with a bureaucratic organization.

"Whatever their efficiency, such great organizations are so impersonal that they bear down on the individual lives of the people like a hydraulic press whose action is completely effective in crushing out individual liberty and power." Tagore poet and seerer of India. Sara H. Fahey, a teacher, quoted him at the 1917 National Education Association Conference. We were preparing for the first world war and she used that quote to define our enemy.

Again as we mobilized for second world war, we used public education to mobilize us for war against Germany. Correct, we did adopt the Prussian model of education when we entered WWI, but very incompletely because our bureaucratic organization and democratic values demanded preparing individuals for a democracy that empowers individuals and prepares them for good moral judgment essential to liberty. Also, we believed it was patriotism that won wars as we had not fully grasped the importance of technology until after WWII and atomic weapons and the ability to deliver them overseas.

Franklin Roosevelt, in response to the Great Depression, saw the government as the solution to the problem of economic swings and increasing economic inequality even mass homelessness and malnutrition of citizens. With the help of Republican Herbert Hoover, Rosevelt, and Hoover adopted the German bureaucratic model to give us The New Deal. Social Security and all things requiring government control today could not exist so without the change in bureaucratic organization that is what we defended our democracy against.

"In the past, personal and political liberty depended to a considerable extent upon government inefficiency. The spirit of tyranny was always more than willing; but its organization and material equipment were generally weak. Progressive science and technology have changed all this completely." Aldous Huxley

We adopted the Prussian model of education much more completely with the passage of the 1958 National Defense Education Act. That was the end of education for democracy, and education for good moral judgment, and we left moral training to the Church. The result is Christian Nationalist and Trump deliving the their message of a blood bath if he and the Christian Nationalist do not win this next election. Hail Hitler We have been on the same path Germany took and now ministers are advancing the Christian Nationalist agenda, while the extreme left is intent on tearing down our social structure as well.

In the meantime education for technology has eroded past barriers and spread the wealth and power. It is as Zeus feared, with the technology of fire we have learned all other technologies and now we rivel the gods. The right and the left are fighting to see who will rule our new technological society with unknown values.

Athena

giving them a far broader view of the world and of the scope of knowledge they might wish to pursue later. — Vera Mont

I think the Evanglical Christians are having a hard time with this. I also see problems with tearing up our social rule book and preparing the young for a technological society with unknown values.

Our cohort makes a difference. In my day, I remember wanting to be accepted by people of color and join their fight for social justice. Today it is thinking "Maybe I want to be a different gender" and taking some serious physically changing steps. I don't think this will turn out well. Our personalities do not stabilize until around age 30 and I think the young need to postpone permanent physical changes. That includes avoiding pregnancy.

I am reminded of what a fellow in prison told me. "You may think shit tastes bad, but you don't know how bad until you eat it." Rushing into life-changing decisions is not wise.

Tom Storm

↪pursuitofknowlege

I think school's greatest contribution is probably socialization and development of 'people skills'. Learning how to deal with differences and to communicate and cooperate. Many of us no longer seem to know how to interact with others. I learned a fair bit at school, much of which I remember, but I also know that I was just as busy cutting class, smoking and getting into trouble. I wish I had paid more attention in math and science, but I found those subjects insufferably dull. I have no idea what is taught at schools today - many of us are not in the USA. Seems to me that history, politics and critical thinking remain important. How to teach those in an environment of tribalism would be challenging.

Vera Mont

Seems to me that history, politics and critical thinking remain important. How to teach those in an environment of tribalism would be challenging. — Tom Storm

Tribal societies tend to be strong on the teaching of their own history and social values, though they have little need of politics. Critical thinking, however, is essential in a small community where each individual's contribution is vital to the whole, and especially in marginal economies, where resources are scarce. A big, hierarchical society can afford to waste a portion of its human resources in order to keep the population under control; it can waive the benefits of each member reaching his or her potential in favour of a few gaining more power and wealth.

Count Timothy von Icarus

Teacher to student ratios tend to be such that it precludes many types of activities, and this ends up being a bit of a problem.

A focus on "critical thinking," "creativity," and group work is pretty much the norm in ed policy ideas, but I'm not sure how well it cashes out. The problem is that kids are forced to be there and there is a high level of antagonism in a lot of school settings. Classroom control is essential, but then maintaining this given students who haven't "bought in," to the processes is very difficult and requires a stilted atmosphere.

A huge function of schools is to provide childcare for parents who work. And it's this dual function that tends to lead to schedules that are less than ideal (that and transportation costs are huge so you can't have all the kids start at the same time because cycling them is much cheaper).

I went to a very poorly preforming school district where only 20-25% of students graduated, so my view might be biased, but it did not seem good for socialization. You learned to interact with all adults in an authority vs inmate type structure. This is horrible preparation for a university setting where networking is important or a career. A lot of home school kids I know actually seem much better socialized in this respect, knowing how to interact with adults.

And then moral education is completely absent. There is a lot on following rules and consequences, but I recall virtually nothing on "what is truly good."

Vera Mont

↪Count Timothy von Icarus

That points up the overweening role of money in education. Why are there good and bad schools? The resources are allocated not just unevenly, but destructively. The fact that poor children can only go to poorly performing schools, hate it and quit early inhibits aspiration, wastes talent and hinders any attempt at social improvement. Very few young people are able to overcome that imposed handicap.

NOS4A2

↪pursuitofknowlege

The goal of state education is to embed the prevailing ideology, statism, which includes instruction on how to operate and survive in the midsts of their institutions and power—how to find a modicum of satisfaction with our feudal lot in life as it exploits our thought and industry. It is a vested interest. It seeks both to educate the uneducable while hindering the educable, or least keeping everyone within the appropriate boundaries of state ideology.

flannel jesus

↪NOS4A2

So imagine tomorrow you are given the reins to education. You're not allowed to abolish government, or make any changes to any governmental system whatsoever, except for changes to education. What changes do you make that are an improvement over what we have?

NOS4A2

↪flannel jesus

I would simply change the nomenclature from education to something like training or instruction as it better characterizes the institution and its product. Finally, I would make it completely voluntary.

flannel jesus

↪NOS4A2

I would fear that completely voluntary education would have a lot of negative consequences. A lot of people in environments with gangs would drop out even sooner than the do now to join gangs, that kind of thing. Seems like a dangerous game to me.

NOS4A2

↪flannel jesus

But you absolve parents from the responsibility of rearing their own children, institutionalizing them, leading to the very conditions you fear. Not to mention it is immoral to take and raise another’s child without their permission.

flannel jesus

↪NOS4A2

I guess results matter to me. If you have all sorts of abstract reasons why purely voluntary education is "good", but we have all these tangible reasons why involuntary education actually lowers crime rates, increases general happiness and life achievements etc, then I will choose the latter.

NOS4A2

↪flannel jesus

No doubt utilitarianism is superficially convincing and comforting, but when it justifies immoral and unjust behavior I want no part of it

Vera Mont

But you absolve parents from the responsibility of rearing their own children, institutionalizing them, leading to the very conditions you fear. Not to mention it is immoral to take and raise another’s child without their permission. — NOS4A2

Some parents have the leisure to home-school their children - usually in order to indoctrinate them into a religion of fear, prejudice and punishment. But most people have to make a living, and they are not given the choice of working hours, during which the children would be unsupervised. The parents themselves are often uneducated, and don't know how to teach; nor have they the materials and, books and information resources that schools have.
Most people can't afford a nanny or private tutors; those who can send their children to private schools to make the necessary social contacts and the way into 'good' universities.
In some communities, it would be feasible to set up a learning program conducted by whichever adults have specific knowledge and time to devote. There are initiatives in that general direction https://www.crps.ca/about-us/community-education-network

Home-schooled children may be more comfortable in their relationship to adults, but they are isolated from their peers, and grow up with no experience of getting along with people different from themselves. They don't get much opportunity for independent self-expression... and many are routinely abused. Not all parents are good at parenting, and very few are good at educating.

BC

At 77, it's been a long time since I was in school, but I've been professionally interested in education. Schools have several functions: teaching basic skills, imparting a minimum body of knowledge, basic vocational preparation, citizen training, crowd control, consumer education, etc. The emphasis varies from school to school.

Children of the upper middle class who will fill managerial and professional roles receive excellent education. Their parents locate themselves in communities where good schools are well financed. Children of the poor get the least in quality and quantity of education. The middle may or may not receive fairly good education, depending on where they live, community standards, etc.

About a third of the population completes a bachelor's degree, which by itself is no longer a ticket to economic success.

I was an unlikely and unpromising college student back in the 1960s. I had not done well in high school and I had no great expectations of a career. Thanks to an intervention, I attended a state college. It was tremendously valuable in terms of acquiring some social skills and general knowledge (I majored in English). The degree itself was still very useful in 1968.

Maybe the most important thing I learned in college was what an education is supposed to be -- and I have continued to pursue it since graduation, sometimes by attending class, mostly through experience and reading.

NOS4A2

↪Vera Mont

Some parents have the leisure to home-school their children - usually in order to indoctrinate them into a religion of fear, prejudice and punishment. But most people have to make a living, and they are not given the choice of working hours, during which the children would be unsupervised. Most people can't afford a nanny or private tutors; those who can send their children to private schools to make the necessary social contacts and the way into 'good' universities.

In some communities, it would be feasible to set up a learning program conducted by whichever adults have specific knowledge and time to devote. There are initiatives in that general direction

Very true. It’s a vicious cycle many cannot escape from. It’s why most people will absolve themselves of the responsibility of rearing their own children, leave it to the agents of the state, and continue to provide the state with a vector of exploitation, handing over the wealth and means to maintain their level of serfdom at the expense of their own family and livelihood.

All power to them. What concerns me is what type of individual do these conditions create?

Vera Mont

All power to them. — NOS4A2

That's the point: they have no power! They do not "absolve themselves"; most low-income people do the best they can in their limited circumstances. In the states with the largest proportion of poor people, they also have less access to family planning and a lot more suppression of their votes.

BC

Let me know your thoughts and any additional knowledge and views on the education system and schools. — pursuitofknowlege

Question: Does education enable children to exceed their parents' economic performance?

Answer: Yes, IF the parents' economic performance has been very good.

Successful, affluent, socially connected parents give their children the means to success through education, social experiences, and connections. Working class parents usually do not themselves achieve economic affluence and extensive connections among the managerial and professional class. Consequently, many working class children match or fail to match their parents economic achievement.

This is especially true given the decline of real wages over the last 50+ years. The post-WWII economic boom which enabled a lot of upward mobility was dead in the water by 1970. After 1970, economic success has become increasingly more difficult.

Question: Is economic success equivalent to Aristotle's "flourishing", achieving the potential of what I could be whilst enjoying and finding value in all the suffering, hardship and pain It would take to get there?

Answer: No, it is not, but a certain level of economic security is necessary to have the leisure to flourish. Wealth isn't necessary, but a balance between income and expenses is. One can choose to live frugally so that one can spend the time needed to flourish intellectually and emotionally. Working 60 hours a week plus commuting time to cover the mortgage, car payment, credit card bills, student loan, plus all the expenses of a family will not leave much time for Aristotelian flourishing,

Wealthy people don't have to balance a small budget. Educated but poor people have to find a way. It is possible, but (especially material) sacrifices have to be made.

NOS4A2

↪Vera Mont

In my mind their vote only justifies such an imbalance, and each time they do so they give away their power, delegate those responsibilities, signing on the dotted line. Their dutiful participation in the scheme is what absolves them of their duties to their children, and all of us to each other. But, like you said, doing otherwise is nearly impossible by now. In most places state instruction and training is compulsory. If it wasn't, I wager the imbalance of power might change.

Tom Storm

And then moral education is completely absent. There is a lot on following rules and consequences, but I recall virtually nothing on "what is truly good." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I kind of agree, but how would you teach 'the good' in a world where there is no agreement on what the good is or if it is anything more than perspectival. Education would seem to be lot easier in a culture where pluralism and diversity don't exist.

Vera Mont

I kind of agree, but how would you teach 'the good' in a world where there is no agreement on what the good is or if it is anything more than perspectival. — Tom Storm

Conscientious teachers do try - if informally, as part of the normal classroom procedure - to instill a sense of fairness and tolerance. In a diverse society, these are the most important values. And this is exactly what privileged education does not do.

Education would seem to be lot easier in a culture where pluralism and diversity don't exist. — Tom Storm

There are not many such societies anymore. Perhaps none.

Vera Mont

↪NOS4A2

So, the answer is to knock down the system and start over? That will probably happen on its own pretty soon.

NOS4A2

↪Vera Mont

In my opinion we just need to recognize our lot in life, stop thinking in their terms, like we did with the crown and the church, and everything will slowly change in a more or less painless way.

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪Tom Storm

I kind of agree, but how would you teach 'the good' in a world where there is no agreement on what the good is or if it is anything more than perspectival.

Is there truly "no agreement?" People seem to agree on a lot of the basics. For example, no one seems to think that being ruled over by instinct, circumstance, and desire, with no rational reflection on one's impulses is a good thing. There seems to be a fairly wide agreement on epistemic virtues as well. The good learner doesn't jump to conclusions and then refuse to relinquish them. They listen to other people and take their words in. They are patient. They desire to know the truth, rather than being wholly motivated by some other end, etc. But if the Good isn't obvious, then the good person needs to be a good learner.

Plato's being ruled over by the rational part of the soul seems like a virtue that could have wide support. I don't see much of Aristotle's virtues raising too many hackles either. But you tend to only get these in pre-school, even though their application in the real world is quite complex.

Of course, not everyone will agree, but that hardly seems like a problem. Not everyone agrees that the Earth isn't flat, or that vaccines work, yet that is rightly not a determinant factor in what gets taught.

I do agree that ethics is a particularly thorny issue, but it's also a particularly important one. It doesn't need to be a particularly thorny issue. But sadly, moral nihilism and the idea that reason stops at the boundaries of morality has become an unfortunately common opinion. And yet no society can relinquish its morals and survive, and so what we get instead is a sort of schizophrenic blend of punishment without confidence in justice.

Tom Storm

↪Count Timothy von Icarus

I admire your old school confidence. I can only imagine it stems from your presuppositions which seem to privilege notions of transcendence and civilized discourse. As a reluctant nihilist and someone with little confidence in reason's traction, I am less sanguine.

I do agree that ethics is a particularly thorny issue, but it's also a particularly important one. It doesn't need to be a particularly thorny issue. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, I guess we could equally say that nothing needs to be a thorny issue, whether it be health care or fire arms policy. But it is.

Of course, not everyone will agree, but that hardly seems like a problem. Not everyone agrees that the Earth isn't flat, or that vaccines work, yet that is rightly not a determinant factor in what gets taught. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not sure how you can say it is hardly a problem. We fail to agree over the fundamental building blocks of civilization itself, forget the flat Earth or vaccine debates - they are symptoms of a bigger issue, aren't they? In increasingly diverse and polarized societies, if there is no shared mainstream narrative, chaos or internecine tribalism would seem to be a consequence. Is it any wonder that some people are calling for a return to religion or Christian values as a kind of nostalgia project, harking back to a perceived golden era?

Plato's being ruled over by the rational part of the soul seems like a virtue that could have wide support. I don't see much of Aristotle's virtues raising too many hackles either. But you tend to only get these in pre-school, even though their application in the real world is quite complex. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, you're right - it is their application in the real world where the trouble begins - what books can we read? What is the role of women in society? Is taxation a builder of civilization or theft? Is race a problem for Western culture? Should trans rights be supported? Whose books should we read? And on it goes as the culture war drags on.

jgill

At 77, it's been a long time since I was in school — BC

Me too. 87 here.

Thanks to an intervention, I attended a state college. It was tremendously valuable in terms of acquiring some social skills and general knowledge (I majored in English). The degree itself was still very useful in 1968 — BC

I taught at a state university for thirty years. These institutions are undervalued in an era in which media focuses on Harvard and other elite schools. Many an undergraduate education is a real bargain in these reasonably priced universities. As a math professor I have seen a number of our graduates (in math and/or physics) go on to obtain doctorates and have successful careers.

I will make one observation on formal education versus autodidact learning: the absence of studied criticism in the latter.

Athena

A big, hierarchical society can afford to waste a portion of its human resources in order to keep the population under control; it can waive the benefits of each member reaching his or her potential in favour of a few gaining more power and wealth. — Vera Mont

I want to argue your point about being able to waste a portion of our human resources. The idea that we can waste human potentially is totally opposed to the reason for having a democracy. Our wars are about defending democratic principles and everyone's human dignity. I think we are dealing with a little social unrest that may be as explosive as Trump says it is.

As we prepared for WWI and WWII the defined purpose of education was mobilizing for war and raising patriotism that touched everyone in a great united effort to defend our democratic ideals.

The US went from a very technologically backward country to a technological leader in a very short time when education for technology was added to education.. Had Industry not realized the need for this focus on technology, the US may have closed its schools. Industry had argued for closing our schools, claiming the war caused a labor and they were not getting their money's worth because they had to train new workers. Teachers argued it was our nation's best who understood our democracy and why it must be defended, who were the first to sign up for military service. They argued if we did not maintain education for the young, when we won the war, we would not be able to replace all those killed in war. Education for technology became part of the US education in 1917.

However, until the technology of WWII education for citizenship remained our priority. This was changed
by the National Defense Education Act, and since then the federal government has played a much larger role in education. This increased federal control of education is arguably against the US Constitution. And we have a serious culture war threatening our future. We have had a shift in power and authority. Our liberty is being taken away as we try to rule by government policy controlling every aspect of our lives, law, and authority over the people, instead of educating for good moral judgment and a moral culture in a country that gives everyone equal opportunity to give our nation his/her best. Our experience of life has been radically changed and we have fought every war for nothing.

Athena

Is there truly "no agreement?" People seem to agree on a lot of the basics. For example, no one seems to think that being ruled over by instinct, circumstance, and desire, with no rational reflection on one's impulses is a good thing. There seems to be a fairly wide agreement on epistemic virtues as well. The good learner doesn't jump to conclusions and then refuse to relinquish them. They listen to other people and take their words in. They are patient. They desire to know the truth, rather than being wholly motivated by some other end, etc. But if the Good isn't obvious, then the good person needs to be a good learner. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Woo, how does anyone become a good person? Why would anyone just naturally want to be a good listener? Teachers would be ecstatic if students were eager to learn. I think a whole lot of environmental factors are missing in what you have said about good people.

Athena

Not sure how you can say it is hardly a problem. We fail to agree over the fundamental building blocks of civilization itself, forget the flat Earth or vaccine debates - they are symptoms of a bigger issue, aren't they? In increasingly diverse and polarized societies, if there is no shared mainstream narrative, chaos or internecine tribalism would seem to be a consequence. Is it any wonder that some people are calling for a return to religion or Christian values as a kind of nostalgia project, harking back to a perceived golden era? — Tom Storm

Very wise comment.

In the US we used literature to teach good moral judgment. That liberal education was replaced with education for technology and we left moral training to the church as Germany did. Today I don't think anyone understands what good moral judgment has to do with liberty and justice, or what the enlightenment has to do with our accomplishments.

Education and why we have the modern system

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions