Well maybe life wouldn't be so tedious if the education system didn't condition people to accept tedium so readily. — Jake Tarragon

Liberal arts education, no less than factory-like k-12 schools or trade training programs, is a component of "the maintenance and reproduction of society". The kind of society that is being reproduced (in our case, a mature capitalist society) governs what life is going to be like. You or I may not like it, but until society is changed, that's the way it is going to be.

Even if we lived in a perfected society where individuals were free to leisurely pursue all their interests, there would still be tedious activities. Example: memorizing Latin declensions. Even if you greatly desire to learn Latin, and find learning Latin a pleasure, committing all that to memory (especially as an adult) is just plain hard work and, at times, quite tedious.

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 — Jake Tarragon

It works, but I certainly wasn't endorsing college as a means to prepare subservient workers. Besides, learning subservience can't wait until the college level. Subservience gets trained into people in elementary and high school. By the time people are in college, they either have learned how to be subservient, or they probably never will. Those who never will are going to have a lot of friction to deal with. I am one of those people who doesn't like being subservient, and can attest to how much friction one can arouse by resisting.

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. — Jake Tarragon

University can provide a spell of social adventure, true enough, at least for some students. The ones that are working three part time jobs and taking a full load at the same time don't have enough spare time to sleep, let alone having social adventures.

Drones. The drone-role is baked in before one gets to college. Some college freshmen are drones from the first day on, and others are not drones after finishing their PhDs (though not very many -- PhD programs pretty much destroy non-drones). Think back, there were drones in kindergarten.

Have you heard of Summer Hill? A. S. Neill founded it.

Many schools opened based on Summerhill, especially in America in the 1960s. A common challenge was to implement Neill's dictum of "Freedom, not license": "A free school is not a place where you can run roughshod over other people. It's a place that minimises the authoritarian elements and maximises the development of community and really caring about the other people. Doing this is a tricky business."

I really like the idea of Summer Hill -- but I never attended a school that was even remotely like it. Summer Hill is for children and youth, but it would be good if at least some colleges ran with a similar open plan. "Production" needs less emphasis and "experimentation" much more. Experimentation carried too far, of course, would result in too much jumping from thing to thing without enough persistence to actually acquire knowledge--like solid working knowledge of geology, for example.

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. The 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? — XanderTheGrey

President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the US about this in a speech at the end of his administration in 1960. He sounded a very clear alert about the dangers of "the military industrial complex" composed of the armed services, suppliers (like Boeing, General Dynamics, Sikorsky, et al), and the congress that would reliably fund projects benefitting their state or district.

We build new fighter planes, aircraft carriers, hydrogen bombs, better missiles, etc. NOT because they are needed or have any actual utility, but because arms industries are very profitable (capitalists like that), they employ a lot of workers (people like having jobs), and the military likes having the stuff. But, after you have 10,000, 20,000, or 30,000 nuclear bombs, how many more can one really use? Even if you have 100 super carriers, other countries possess the means to destroy them -- one way or another.

Take for example the Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Cole: It had a huge hole blown in it by some Yemenis who tooled over to the side of the ship and blew up a bomb--October, 2000. Yemen? Able to disable a destroyer? Sure.

The nice thing about higher education is that students now have to finance it pretty much on their own. When i started in college (1964--yeah, I know--ancient history), states supported about 75% of the cost of college education. Tuition was low. Books were relatively expensive back then, but nothing like the $150+ textbook of today. Room and board was manageable, or one could live off campus--ratty, probably, but cheap. Today states provide only 25% of the cost of education. Tuition at state colleges is not as high as private schools, but still hefty. So, the cost of college education has become increasingly privatized. If you can't afford it, or can't get scholarships, your kind of shit out of luck.

I think its obvious — XanderTheGrey

Thanks for bringing it up. It can't be said too often (well, maybe it could) that the priorities of the ruling class suck, suck, suck.

Best worldy option? To what ends? — Jake Tarragon

That is indeed the question. To be clear, I think it's a personal matter. For me it looks to be the best path. What is life about as a whole? What is the big or final purpose? For me the point is to live 'heroically' in the dissonance. Death waits at or as the end. Something like style is my religion. It is more beautiful or noble in a primary and ultimately 'irrational' way to live with a certain force or ambition.

In someone else's case, this may have nothing to do with school. I was, however, intensely unwordly and rebellious in my 20s, so the respectable world was still open as a new frontier. A person who has always been respectable and safe may just as heroically charge into the frontier-for-him of the margins, of a certain 'authentic' riskiness. I suppose I'm describing Jungian individuation. We become rounder and richer personalities by marching into whatever the frontier happens to be for us.

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. — Jake Tarragon

You make some great points. That's the dark side, which is there. But let's acknowledge that the highest level drones are no longer drones at all. Or can we think of leading scholars, scientists, and engineers as drones? If I am not already rich, then I can settle for the jobs I already qualify for (themselves likely tedious) or embrace a different tedium that has the potential of opening a less or non-tedious way of making a living.

One could argue that dwelling on the faults of institutions is a way to rationalize settling. I have been the rebellious idealist. But in worldly terms that meant working a menial job and living with extreme frugality so that I didn't have to spend much time on that menial job. A young healthy person can get away perhaps with having no health insurance. But it's not a very sustainable situation. Finally, the tedium of formal education comes with a positive of being forced to prove one's supposed ability. I was an autodidact. I knew lots of things, but (in retrospect) I was a fairly disorganized and untested ball of knowledge, more promise than performance. Even a liberal arts degree at least requires the writing of papers, and that's perhaps what's really important: being forced to present and defend one's thinking.

This was interesting:

I really like the idea of Summer Hill — Bitter Crank

Summerhill gets wheeled out a lot in these sort of discussions, I find. That's probably because it's such a rare institution. But if you delve into it, you will find it is all about delivering a standard curriculum of standard gradeable subjects and exams - it's just the means are more laid back. I am pretty certain that if it abandoned such a commitment then the government, which is always snapping at its heels, would shut it down. The British law is designed to prevent educational routes being offered (except as a live parent) that are different from what the government deems as acceptable. Interestingly, in Bertie Russell's essay "Freedom Versus Authority in Education" he describes how his education was sabotaged by the authorities of the time - his deceased father had stipulated in his will that his son was to receive an education that was free of religious and patriotic indoctrination, but the courts overturned it.

Experimentation carried too far, of course, would result in too much jumping from thing to thing without enough persistence to actually acquire knowledge--like solid working knowledge of geology, for example. — Bitter Crank

For sure. But let no one study geology seriously who is not seriously and happily interested in it.

Even if we lived in a perfected society where individuals were free to leisurely pursue all their interests, there would still be tedious activities. Example: memorizing Latin declensions. Even if you greatly desire to learn Latin, and find learning Latin a pleasure, committing all that to memory (especially as an adult) is just plain hard work and, at times, quite tedious — Bitter Crank

The overarching point is that one should only study something if one is ready, and motivated positively. Seeing as you mention Latin, I feel i can wheel out something else from Russell's essay in the form of a quote

The traditional pedagogue, possessing knowledge not worth imparting [...] imagined that young people have a native horror of instruction, but in this he was misled by a failure to realise his own shortcomings. There is a charming tale of Chekov's about a man who tried to teach a kitten to catch mice. When it wouldn't run after them, he beat it, with the result that even as an adult cat, it cowered with terror in the presence of a mouse. 'This is the man,' Chekov adds, 'who taught me Latin'.

One of the reasons Summer Hill gets mentioned is Neill wrote a book which was popular. There have been some good education programs that didn't benefit from a successful book.

I worked at a Job Corps back in the late 60s, after finishing college. The corpsmen were poor boys, 18-21, from New York City, Puerto Rico, and up-state New York. Almost all of them were functionally illiterate, innumerate, and possessed no work skills. They were very disadvantaged. Half of their day was spent in work -- learning how to "do basic stuff" like using a hammer, saws, measuring, and so on. The other half of the day was spent in school, where we started from wherever they were at.

We had a fairly large group of elderly volunteers who worked with the corpsmen on a one-to-one basis, for an hour or two a day in the education program, if they wanted or needed it. (We had about 50 students in the morning and another 50 in the afternoon.) All of the instruction was "programmed" that is, used workbooks. Within the 12 to 18 months that a corpsmen could be there, we raised most of their reading levels from zero to between 6th and 8th grade--a few higher, taught them rudimentary writing skills, basic arithmetic (a few went beyond basic arithmetic). The corpsmen were also provided with health care, clothing, on-site housing (this job corps was in the middle of nowhere), and 21 very good meals a week.

The program was very structured, and firm discipline maintained in work, school, and dormitory. The really good thing about the staff was that they were uniformly committed to helping these guys progress from "boys to men", and while I can't say we were uniformly successful, a lot of the corpsmen got the first decent treatment they had had in their lives, and they flourished.

President Nixon closed most of the Job Corps in 1969 when he took office.

The program taught me that with good methods, positive inter-personal assistance, and good support at least 75% of these not-very-promising guys could be given a much improved chance to succeed. Of course it was expensive -- around $8,000 per corpsmen. That would be $52,344 in today's dollars. That's more expensive than a year in prison, but also more effective.

President Nixon closed most of the Job Corps in 1969 when he took office. — Bitter Crank

Let's hope trickle down will eventually work to raise all floundering boats. Here's me hoping.

Brilliant insight and explanation. But, one has to understand that it wouldn't be an issue if tuition was so high. So, how does one lower tuition is the next logical question if there is at all any answer?

However, the job market has evolved over time to increase the required skills a person needs to be able to get a "living wage". So, there's that issue of inflating the importance of college.

So, how does one lower tuition is the next logical question if there is at all any answer? — Posty McPostface

Tuition will be lowered by reversing the policy and process that raised tuition, starting in the early 1980s. At that time legislatures started reducing the state's share of state college and university budgets. Support fell from about 75% down to it's current level of 25%. Colleges made up the difference by raising tuition and seeking more contract work in research departments (like engineering, medicine, agriculture...). Students made up the difference by going deeper into debt, or working more during their college years to pay for tuition.

Low tuition, and affordable accessibility for state residents was based on policy, and so is high tuition and limited access for state residents.

In the politics of the last 37 years since the election of Ronald Reagan, "privatization of public resources" has been the leitmotiv. Neocons don't care whether the average citizen goes into debt to go to a public school. Debt is a profitable business, so fuck 'em. Rich people have always been able to afford the much higher costs of private college, so, no problem. Those who have get more, and those who have little get screwed out of their pittance. It's scriptural.

However, the job market has evolved over time to increase the required skills a person needs to be able to get a "living wage". So, there's that issue of inflating the importance of college. — Posty McPostface

From some perspectives, there are way too many people getting college education. It's good for people to get education, but it isn't necessarily correlated with getting a suitable job for an individual. Mechanics, building trade workers, machinists, and so on are in demand and college doesn't prepare people to do this work. The wages are often quite good, and for many people material work (rather than symbolic work) is preferable. But there is that drum beat of "go to college, got to go to college..."

Brilliant insight and explanation. But, one has to understand that it wouldn't be an issue if tuition was so high. So, how does one lower tuition is the next logical question if there is at all any answer? — Posty McPostface

One problem is the parasite class of University professors, many of whom have given themselves very high salaries. And even more so University management, which has even more ridiculous salaries. Some of these people can earn up to $3m/year. Uni of Chicago President earns around that >:O . Why does he earn that much? Because:



The problem isn't just the Uni fees, it's that the quality of the education doesn't deserve that much. If you went on to earn $150K/year after college, sure, but that's not the case. Many people go to college with the expectation that it will help them be big boys and girls who get to have a say in what happens in the world, and who can have an easier life after. But that's not the case. Rich people who go to university - I met some amongst the non-EU students in the UK when I attended university (they have much higher fees, something like 3 times higher, so they pay like £25,000-27,000 per year just in tuition fees) - seem to go to University precisely as an insurance policy... most of them go to work for their family business anyway, and the uni degree is useless except as an insurance policy in case their family business goes completely belly up and they need to find a way to survive. For them, it's pennies anyway.

So the problem is that the worth of education is highly inflated. College professors have you believe that you'll be a big boy after you attend their institutions, but this is false. Colleges are pretty much in the business of producing wage slaves today. From the people I've been with in school, and the people I've been with in University, I'm the only one being self-employed (or starting a business). Everyone else either has a job (most of them), or as I said before, they work for a family business. So most of them are wage slaves. Uni didn't give us the skills not to be wage slaves. I had to learn them myself in my case, and it was very stressful and 24/7 work for like the first 1-2 months - it also helped to start work as self-employed in a developing economy, less competition.

The wages are often quite good, and for many people material work (rather than symbolic work) is preferable. — Bitter Crank

Sometimes I miss physical work, but I've been indoctrinated by my culture that physical work should be avoided if possible. I worked in construction as a labourer for an NGO, but only when I was super young, like 16-18, can't remember the exact age. You worked a lot, but at night you fell asleep so peacefully, and I remember you'd be so tired, even food tasted better when you finally had dinner. Nowadays I only do mental work - web development and marketing. It's easier physically, but more taxing psychically - I think we were designed to find happiness in some degree of physical work.

If you're 18 and working your ass off making a small salary, you can sleep peacefully. If you're 48 and doing the same, you can't. Making rent and having a little beer money left over isn't enough at a certain point. Sounds like you're reminiscing about having little responsibility, not about having the chance to physically labor. If you do find physical labor therapeutic, you can work in your garden. I suppose that's why people do that.

If you're 18 and working your ass off making a small salary, you can sleep peacefully. If you're 48 and doing the same, you can't. Making rent and having a little beer money left over isn't enough at a certain point. — Hanover

Well in certain cases yes, due to medical costs or family. But it really depends on the individual person and the country/social system under which they live.

Sounds like you're reminiscing about having little responsibility, not about having the chance to physically labor. If you do find physical labor therapeutic, you can work in your garden. I suppose that's why people do that. — Hanover

I don't think so, even today, I have often thought about doing a business that involves something physical, not services / IT (but I probably won't because I don't feel as confident in my abilities there). It's something that I guess you understand once you work in something like this. It gets psychologically tiring working with computers all the time. Though the problems you do solve are interesting, and sometimes you even get to learn something different in the process too.

I've always loved responsibility so long as I could handle it. Quite the contrary from what you seem to suggest, I've always looked to take on more and more responsibility - even in construction back then, the supervising engineer said I was the most productive of the workers. And both in school and university I took all the additional social (& academic) positions that one could take.

But a lot of this depends on your environment. I'm a very ambitious person by nature, so if my environment allows for it, and there are opportunities, then I grow. For example, while at university, there was an opportunity for me to work in research, so I did it - I always loved taking additional responsibility. But if there are no opportunities, then, well, there are no opportunities. Conserve strength, and wait for the right time.

But at the same time, I am keenly aware that loss hurts more than victory, so I always try to minimise loss first. This basically means that I fight a lot fewer battles than I could fight, but I also lose very little, if ever. I hate losing more than I love winning as strange as that may sound.

I think your anecdote illustrates how "education" can be transformative when it has an agenda fully aimed at taking individuals as they are, and "improving" them in some aspects. Normally, the education system takes in cohorts, frowns at how unsuitable they are for learning the curriculum, but teaches it to them anyway, before spitting half of them out as failures

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. — Jake Tarragon

I think such a thing literarily doesn't exist. I haven't found a thing that I can't do if I put in the time. Really, and that includes things I'm naturally clumsy and incapable at. It's all in the mind. If you have the right mindset, and are determined never to give up no matter what, then you'll find a way. Most people give up too soon.

Your professor is still lazy!