Education has absolutely lost its way. See Dorothy Sayers' essay, 'The Lost Tools of Learning'

http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html

Also check some of the ideas of Ivan Illich.

P.s. there exists an egregious paradox which we all see as plain as day. That is that a degree is both very important and very unimportant. It's important to show to the HR person to hire you, but completely useless (with some exceptions) for the actual work you do on the job.

We need to return to classical liberal arts which equips every student with critical tools with which to learn effectively anything they choose to set their mind to.

People have become in some sense shackled ... to the working of the economy. — Posty McPostface

People are not shackled to the working of the economy "in some sense". They are shackled to the economy lock, stock, and barrel (to use an expression the NRA likes). This isn't new. Economies are "totalitarian" in that they pervade the entire society. This has always been so. "Economy" per se isn't the problem.

I feel as though education has become corrupted to the dealings of the economy — Posty McPostface

Indeed it has. Since you are becoming more Marxist, try this on for size. It was provided by one of my Classics Professors at the U of Minnesota. (I am recalling and paraphrasing)

"Schools have always functioned to prepare people to operate in society. The roles that needed filling have changed over time. [jump forward to the mid and late 19th century US] In the late 19th century, early 20th century American schools prepared immigrants to fulfill their roles of workers and consumers. They needed literacy, cultural knowledge, skills, and science/math (not talking about rocket science). Late in the 20th century (this lecture was given in 1985), demographics, work, and consumption had changed significantly. Preparing workers had become less important, because a lot of jobs were being exported, and computerization and automation was simplifying work. The citizens role of consumer had become much more important than the role of producer.

Schools (especially high schools) were no longer the ideal place to teach citizens how to be consumers. Media provided 24/7 access, ocean to ocean coverage, many channels (TV, radio, film, print -- cell phones and the internet weren't here yet), and there was an advertising industry prepared to produce the necessary messages about "how to be an American, how to be a citizen, how to be (in essence) A CONSUMER."

Schools are "old school" for most people. Are there no decent schools? Yes, there are. 20% of youth (max) still need high quality education to fulfill their future managerial, entrepreneurial, technical, and creative roles. There are good schools which provide old fashioned good education for them.

What about the rest of the population? Well, they are free insofar as they obey. If they keep consuming, everything will be fine. That is the task of most people. Buy stuff to keep the economy running. (individual consumption accounts for 2/3 of the US economy, minimum).

Like this cartoon says:

We need to return to classical liberal arts which equips every student with critical tools with which to learn effectively anything they choose — Modern Conviviality

In many ways we do that. That's why the specific college degree isn't very important. A college grad with a liberal arts degree (most university departments are in the Colleges of Liberal Arts, except Tech and Medicine, Agriculture, et al) has proved that he or she has the intelligence to take varied and sundry courses in everything from math to modern art and succeed at least reasonably well. So whether their degree was in Sociology, Math, English, or Studio Arts, they have proved that they are at least somewhat capable and flexible.

Most vocational training is on-the-job. The best jobs I had required I figured out how to do them once I was hired. Was I able? Sure. I have a major in English. We know that English majors can learn to do everything from tutoring college students to designing gritty public health programs to scrubbing floors. I've done all three. Ideal training. Major in English.

I feel that education has been corrupted to the maximization of utility for an individual via devoting one's time to working for the economy. — Posty McPostface

The crisis in education (it costs too much, one has to be practical-goal oriented, etc.) has one big root in the way state colleges are funded. When I was in college (1964-1970) in Minnesota, the State provided the bulk of funding -- maybe 60%-70%. Tuition was low; on-campus and crappy off-campus housing was quite affordable, too.

The states (pretty much across the board) have cut back on their share of college budgets, from 60%-70% down to 25%. Tuition is consequently much higher, as are all sorts of other costs -- like textbooks. The decision to major in English (or music, sociology, French, math, art, biology, library science, geology... whatever) was fairly safe. One would get a good education from a state college, and one would probably be able to leave college with minimal debt. Scholarships were fairly plentiful too -- or very low interest loans.

That's pretty much all over. Ancient History (another good major). Whatever one majors in had better pay off, because one almost certainly will be leaving college with hefty debts.

Finding a good job for which one is well suited is always somewhat difficult; kind of a crap shoot. That part hasn't changed any over the years. Luck still plays a role.

We need to return to classical liberal arts which equips every student with critical tools with which to learn effectively anything they choose to set their mind to. — Modern Conviviality

College freshmen who lack critical judgement skills are going to have a tough curve to climb, so this really needs to begin in elementary school. (In a good school, it does.) Students should leave high school with a good set of working skills. Unfortunately, a lot of students don't. The school districts, not the colleges, are failing on this score.

But yes, once in college a classical liberal arts program is excellent preparation for a lot of jobs.

If anyone is interested I cross-referenced this thread on another forum. Wonder what members here think about the replies.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/has-the-market-corrupted-the-goal-of-education.929945/

Is there some need for policy in place that would ensure that not only engineers or computer scientists are rewarded for their time and hassle in college? — Posty McPostface

I don't think I'm following here. Why is there a need for a policy? Won't it just naturally happen that, in the absence of centrally-planned intervention, degrees that people find unrewarding - whether financially, emotionally, spiritually, or in some other way - will cease to be offered because too few people sign up for them?

I have a lot of complaints about how higher education is structured - especially about the conflation of teaching with research, and cross-subsidy of the latter by the former. But I couldn't see anything to complain about in the issue raised in the OP.

I don't think I'm following here. Why is there a need for a policy? Won't it just naturally happen that, in the absence of centrally-planned intervention, degrees that people find unrewarding - whether financially, emotionally, spiritually, or in some other way - will cease to be offered because too few people sign up for them? — andrewk

Yeah; but, there's pressure on those people to commit to their major and follow through with it regardless of what they feel about it. That pressure (at least in the US) leads to a skewed distribution of students graduating from STEM-related fields rather than other ones. That's my take at least on the matter.

But I couldn't see anything to complain about in the issue raised in the OP. — andrewk

Well, it's more of a 'hey look what I think, do you agree or not?'. Personally, I think the education system is in shambles due to focusing on fulfilling the needs of the economy. I don't expect things to change anytime soon. The side effect is that you'll just have a lot of people that aren't happy with their jobs. So be it.

the education system is in shambles due to focusing on fulfilling the needs of the economy — Posty McPostface

McPostface, get real.

Like I said above, the economy is everywhere in a society, including the hallowed halls of ivy. Even in the "good old days" when states subsidized the cost of education and places like the University of Wisconsin in Madison were gold plated liberal arts establishments, Milton scholars, for instance, had to think about how they would make a living after they got their PhDs. (generally in teaching at universities).

How could it be otherwise? Only the independently wealthy (inherited the family fortune) can study whatever they please without thinking of employment. Or, only the intentionally poor can afford to do that.

Going to college JUST to become learnéd, without thinking about supporting one's self is not a good idea. I didn't give enough thought to how I would support myself after I graduated. I supposed I would teach -- until I discovered that I was not cut out to be a high school teacher. Had I thought more carefully bout work, I would not have wasted all that time in Education classes.

McPostface, get real. — Bitter Crank

Thanks for keeping it real. I don't think I'll be returning to academia anytime soon. God, but the desire is still there. Perhaps this whole thread is some rationalization to the contrary.

I feel that education has been corrupted to the maximization of utility for an individual via devoting one's time to working for the economy — Posty McPostface

Yes, but that's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that education no longer gives you the tools necessary for independence in the economy. Education just trains you to be an employee.

Knowledge is like a line and the education system shows you discrete points of knowledge based on mostly economic or academic relevance. If you want to see the whole picture and the whys you need to educate yourself, even forget a couple of things taught at university.

God, but the desire is still there. — Posty McPostface

Perhaps this whole thread is some rationalization to the contrary. — Posty McPostface

Perhaps.

It would almost certainly be good for you to return to college and complete a degree. I realize there are practical problems that might make this difficult. One of those practical problems is you. You have to willingly engage in college, as well as willingly incur the cost, and all the inconvenience that might arise from being a student. I believe you when you say the desire is still there. I'm not sure you are willing to engage (just based on what you have said).

If you don't go to college, you will probably become a learnéd autodidact, at which you probably will do a good job.

From the Greek autos (self) + didaskein (teach) = autodidact, self-taught.

In a way, we are all autodidacts. Nobody can learn anything for you. College students just get many more suggestions about what to learn next. They also get a list of courses they took and a degree -- which in this economy is a big deal.

If I was a young man in 2017 with 1 year of college and ambivalent feelings about the whole thing, I really don't know what I would do. I am immensely glad I did go to college, even the run of the mill state college I attended. The experience of being a student and learning all sorts of stuff, helped prepare the village idiot that I was for the wider world. Without college I would have been so totally screwed I hate to think about it.

Has education lost its way or am I just become more Marxist as the years pass by? — Posty McPostface

It's actually funny that the Marxism-friendly professors sit cozily with tenure while not giving a damn about the condition of graduate students, adjuncts, and teaching (except on paper). They're all for revolution, so long as somebody else does the revolutionizing. Meanwhile, they'll continue propping up the very thing they're supposedly against: corporate-bureaucratic models of education that suck obscene amounts of money out of students to pay for their hefty salaries.

It would almost certainly be good for you to return to college and complete a degree. I realize there are practical problems that might make this difficult. One of those practical problems is you. You have to willingly engage in college, as well as willingly incur the cost, and all the inconvenience that might arise from being a student. I believe you when you say the desire is still there. I'm not sure you are willing to engage (just based on what you have said).

If you don't go to college, you will probably become a learnéd autodidact, at which you probably will do a good job.

From the Greek autos (self) + didaskein (teach) = autodidact, self-taught. — Bitter Crank

Everyone knows I am critical of current-day educational institutions, however, despite that, I pretty much agree with this advice. I am grateful for having been fortunate enough to attend University, I too learned a lot there that you can't really learn on a job, or at least not that fast. It takes quite a long time until you're ever given real responsibility working on a job.

For me, college wasn't very helpful directly. There was pretty much nothing that I learned studying civil engineering that helped me either in engineering or in working for myself in any major way.

But there were a few important lessons that I learned indirectly because of the experience:

• I took a programming course while in University, which was helpful to what I do working today, but what was most helpful was the Professor. He didn't teach us anything. He just said, it is now time for you to teach yourself programming. Here's the language we'll use, and here's the basics. Design your own project and execute it. Look for whatever you don't know and you need on forums, tutorials etc. You're on your own. That experience, encountering the anxiety of it, being unable to escape it, etc. etc. and facing up to it and figuring things out for myself, that has been absolutely life-changing. It taught me that I can figure things out for myself, and I don't need anyone else to teach me. Probably by far one of the most important things I've learned that helped me the most. It's been key to learning programming, learning business, and working for myself today.

• Being a civil engineer we sometimes had projects collaborating with architects in University. I remember that one time I worked really hard and pretty much set up the whole project and all the ideas behind it, even though I wasn't an architect. At mid-time project evaluation, the evaluators said our project was by far one of the best and they were really impressed by the ideas/philosophy behind it. At that point, the architects and everyone else in the group pretty much isolated me, took over the project, changed everything I had setup and made it utter crap until the end. It ended up being one of the worst by the end. The evaluators said they were disappointed. But it did teach me that if you work within a power-structure where you are equal with others, there is no way to enforce yourself, even if you have better ideas - it reinforced in my mind that if I ever want to do something real, I shouldn't work for a long time for anyone else. It also showed me how utterly greedy people are, and how willing they are to do whatever it takes to take over something successful and even destroy it. I also learned that the weak have strength through numbers, and will unite against the strong to rule over him/her.

• I had a Professor who would tell us the truth - that people and other engineers in the industry will try to make us feel inferior, and will use often rely on complicated words, obfuscations, theories, etc. instead of thinking straight. He encouraged us to be Randbots ( >:) ) and think for ourselves, rely on ourselves, and trust our own thinking. He emphasised that learning to think from first principles, and not being tricked by "professional magic" is the key to success. I love that professor and have taken it to heart to this day.

• More than anything else, the very big projects involved steps and things to do that I had no idea how to do, and no one to teach me. So I had to figure things out for myself, and go through all the emotions that entailed. This was very important in teaching me that I don't need others to learn, that I can teach myself. It taught me to trust myself, and not rely on other's judgement. It also taught me that running away from the work doesn't do anything - it still won't get done unless you start doing something. The essay ain't gonna write itself as one of my colleagues said.

• It was also really great to learn how research works, so while I worked for the University doing research it was really interesting. It was great to see how you can work by yourself on a problem, figure new things out, publish papers, etc. I no longer feel intimidated by professional scientists - they're people just like myself, no better. It was overall a fantastic life experience.

If you are a very ambitious person like myself, I don't think you'll find Uni helpful directly, and if you already know those lessons above, then perhaps you could skip it. However, if you lack ambition, just want to have a job, etc. and you have the good fortune to be able to go to University, then I think you should. You've got nothing to lose at least.

Amen.

That's why the specific college degree isn't very important. A college grad with a liberal arts degree (most university departments are in the Colleges of Liberal Arts, except Tech and Medicine, Agriculture, et al) has proved that he or she has the intelligence to take varied and sundry courses in everything from math to modern art and succeed at least reasonably well. — Bitter Crank

Then surely intelligence and aptitude tests would serve the same function? Chuck in an extended essay task to be sure, if you like. Job done - in a day.

If you want to test the ability to soak up info, then that could take a bit longer, I admit. Call it a week,and rank everyone at the end. I doubt you would get much different rankings than what a university takes years to do.

I took a programming course while in University, which was helpful to what I do working today, but what was most helpful was the Professor. He didn't teach us anything. He just said, it is now time for you to teach yourself programming. — Agustino

You were fortunate in that you had the aptitude to program. Spare a thought for the teeming thousands of entrants to computer science degrees who only found out that they didn't have this aptitude until they had already enrolled. It is one of the scandals of higher education of recent years. Your professor was laughing all the way to the bank.

You speak of corruption. I will certainly agree that school has not been ideal from my perspective (I'm in grad school now). I can imagine a better way, or at least a better-for-me way. But that kind of imagination has haunted my entire life. For instance, the way that time is structured in formal education disturbs me. Instead of being given a series of tasks to complete, one has a long sequence of homework deadlines and test days. Why not a battery of tests that can be taken as the individual feels ready? Why not a fixed set of papers to be written ? Then passing those tests, completing those papers satisfactorily could result in the degree. Maybe one hardly needs lectures, prefers to learn from books. Maybe one would like to focus on English first, pass all of those tests, and then move on to the next subject. Instead one is forced to distribute one's self over lots of subjects at once, show up at certain times, deal with idiosyncratic and constantly changing standards. One learns to show up on no sleep, deal with this eccentricity and that eccentricity. One "reads" the professor, adapts to an initially ambiguous "manager" who will formally judge one's performance. One carefully constructs a semester's schedule for hard and easy classes. Maybe half or even more of one's energy is spent not on the message (the stuff to be learned) but the medium (figuring out the criterion, and the "inauthentic" or counter-intuitive lifestyle that makes satisfying this criterion possible).

Returning to the "hardiness" points, that "waste" of energy is not completely a waste. It filters out those who "want it less." If this is an accidental byproduct, it still serves as a sorting mechanism. Arguably the "market" needs this psychological hardiness. Does the world suck? Is the world corrupt? Give me superpowers and I'll change the shape of it. But otherwise it's the world you and I have to adapt to. The sufficiently heroic soul may be able to succeed without this frustrating compromise, but that only means meeting the market directly, right? Selling oneself without credentials. It can and has been done, and it's impressive. But not every career choice is possible without credentials. One can also just accept a less glamorous job and practice one's passion in one's free time. I did that before I decided to return to school. But getting older changed the appeal of that. It's annoying to be well-read and interested in intellectual things and work a relatively unskilled job. I personally think it's worth the hassle to earn those credentials.


But I haven't got that good job yet (still in school). So maybe I'm wrong? Job or not, I have in my own view become far more worldly and mature by wrestling with the "medium." It's painful but illuminating to see just how many smart, disciplined people are out there. I think I see the world far more accurately now. I've also had the experience of living an entirely intellectual life for more than 5 years now. My "job" is learning and (just as importantly) proving that I have learned. Enduring being up against other people's standards like that is itself quite an experience. It takes nerve and it proves nerve. Lucky for me, I've done well. So the scooby snacks I've been tossed in the form of grades have only encouraged or substantiated my otherwise untested faith that I could hack it like the others. If I meet others who did well as undergrads, I therefore know quite a bit about them. I know what they've successfully wrestled with. I can assume important social skills and a general reliability.

The sufficiently heroic soul may be able to succeed without this frustrating compromise, but that only means meeting the market directly, right? — t0m

I think this is the gist of what separates the greatly endowed from the rest of the population. Knowing some deep and undiscovered truth about 'the market' over someone else in the classroom can jump-leap one's career in academia regardless of one's grades and the whole schtick with dealing with the system as you've mentioned. This has been my motivating muse for the desire to go (back) to college. I honestly, can not stand the mundane process of learning something over and over again over a generation if nothing of use can be produced out of it. But, that's the college life for you.

Being in college is daunting and there's little inspiration to be had in it nowadays unless you are gifted in some domain where your understanding of a subject can be applied. However, as you and I know, college has become a monkey see monkey do a type of interaction. I could not stand that, it was soul-crushing for me to not be able to examine the implications of questions (read, reason through) and instead just recite the answer to them as a parrot does.

But, the realization of the above leaves you with few options. Either, continue your regurgitation of information as well as you can and hope to land in some institution like the IAS, or go into the market with this 'truth' about it and derive the benefits from it. I don't know, some people just have better neural nets than I do or a more hardened psyche to endure the triviality of reciting information, that is often forgotten very fast (have a picture of the forgetting curve when I say this).

I hope I'm not ranting; but, school has become a soul-crushing experience in my opinion. I have no idea how one can change that in any way. I'm wary of returning back to school having a cat-like mind along with an above normal intellect.

I guess the issue boils down as to whether one prefers understanding or knowing something. I'm of the former, not so great with the later.

I hope I'm not ranting; but, school has become a soul-crushing experience in my opinion. I have no idea how one can change that in any way. I'm wary of returning back to school having a cat-like mind along with an above normal intellect. — Posty McPostface

To be fair to school, I must emphasize that I learned my specialized subject (math) in a way that I wouldn't have otherwise. First and foremost it was learning a skill. Calculus is something I can do. (That's an entry level skill for a math major.) Similarly programming and statistics classes were just pure value. No real filler to speak of. So my only complaint about these content-rich skill-based classes is the time-stretch.

So the regurgitation metaphor has its limits. But I do think it applies (or did apply) to lots of my humanities classes. So I'd advise the ambivalent consumer of school to get better value and learn skills (major in something skill-like) from those who can also certify those skills. Then do philosophy-literature in one's free time, completely free to think and write what one thinks and feels.

the way that time is structured in formal education disturbs me. — t0m

Yes,it's crazy pedagogically. The only explanation is that the institutions of education, their traditions, their vested interest groups, are all that matters to the education system. The emperor not only has no clothes, he has stinking BO. And many have become "nose blind"!

Maybe, but employers what to know whether you can stick with tedium and difficulty for many months, maybe even for several years, while remaining productive--until they are ready to get rid of you. The best test of tolerance is to put people in a college box for four yeas -- better yet, at their own expense.

Well OK, but are you saying that a traditional "liberal arts" degree is tedious? I thought you were singing its praises....

Good points, BC. I feel like a wolf in a cage after 6 years. Soon I'll be able to more or less choose what I study. But six years is a long time to wait.

We live in strange times. What does it all mean? We are atomized rats. I keep myself open to the massive cognitive dissonance, seduced by the heroic image of the philosopher. So maybe it's harder for me (and you perhaps). Men are perhaps more likely to be disagreeable, rebellious, questioning. Or philosophers (as a personality type) tend to be that way. There's a little part of me that says "ah f*ck it, let's go be a poor artist-writer-musician again," but I don't think that voice is going to win out. Another voice reminds me that a certain amount of money will buy me peace and quiet, relative security.

In short, I can see that the structure is 50% bullsh*t. But I can also see that it's still arguably the best actual worldly option. Of course life remains ambiguous. I don't know which path is best. I am forced to act on an always evolving image of the ways of things. If that's not difficult enough, I for one am still figuring out what I want in a worldly sense (beyond the obvious advantage of more money). So not even motive is stable.

I sing its praises, but it is also the case that college entails a fair amount of tedium, sort of like life itself.

I can see that the structure is 50% bullsh*t. But I can also see that it's still arguably the best actual worldly option. — t0m

Best worldy option? To what ends?

I sing its praises, but it is also the case that college entails a fair amount of tedium, sort of like life itself. — Bitter Crank

Well maybe life wouldn't be so tedious if the education system didn't condition people to accept tedium so readily. I suggest that any inclusion, acceptance and validation of tedium on a liberal arts degree flies in the face of what the course is purportedly trying to achieve. No such course or institution running it would dare say that tedium is on the curriculum, even indirectly.

But I guess you are right to say that the tediousness of education works. Employers gain a subservience filter, albeit of a higher functioning sort at higher education level They also have a similar lower status one for all younger school attenders of course. And universities gain easy business, while students gain a spell of social adventure and an opportunity to be a higher paid drone. Social adventure at the higher drone level apart, it ain't pretty that's for sure.

I think its obvious; maybe I'm not offering any new prespective here, but what else do you call it when you are forced to buy new books, uniforms, meal plans, dorm rooms, ect. Each year in order to be accepted for learning at a university or collage?

There is not a single nation on earth beside the U.S. that has a super carrier, yet we are about to build 10 more, ontop of the 10 we already have. They cost 4-6 billion a piece. Why are taxes spent on this shit? The 'market' has corrupted everything; education, war, medical care, and food. Is that not obvious?