In the early 1970's it was common to teach critical thinking. It seems that concept was dropped.

It seems that there are two competing ideas - the idea that education should serve to teach people specific skills to be productive in society and conform, and the idea that education should encourage people to come up with new ideas and think independently — Paulm12

What of history, particularly that of democracy? How does our government work? What of the sciences?

I don't see that the two areas you describe are necessarily in conflict. But interesting thread.

Your last paragraph is inaccurate, however, as I am familiar with both kinds of institutions.

In my experience at a small private university, student "comfort" is prioritized (though I had professors, especially in the humanities, really try to teach "critical thinking" recently). This isn't a huge surprise, with the rising costs of tuition and administration, private schools that care about their rankings don't fail as many students, both because it would hurt their rankings and that they think it would be unfair for the students involved. Smaller class sizes mean more personal interaction with faculty, and thus a more personalized experience. My buddies who went on to large state-funded schools (especially the UC system) describe a very different experience than my own. Maybe I'm generalizing this too much, but it really does seem like an entirely different world.

However, I would say there is conflict between teaching students to conform to the status quo and encouraging them to challenge the status quo. For instance, how often do people say "educate yourself" really meaning mean for the person to become indoctrinated into a belief system as opposed to come to their own conclusion. If we take education as a means to enlightenment, then as Kant says the motto of enlightenment is

Have the courage to use your own understanding

The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development describes the purpose of American education as

to provide for the fullest possible development of each learner for living morally, creatively, and productively in a democratic society.

In other words, critical, independent thinking and questioning authority are encouraged only as far as it allows people to live productively in a democratic society. We want innovation and groundbreaking "new" ideas, but only to a certain extent. And perhaps for society to function productively, we need both those who innovate and those who promote the status quo.

Yes, there is a dichotomy between originality vs. conformity and it is entrenched in the education system as well as being part of other systems and even the nature of being human. It's all part of the program set in motion by history, education, culture, economics and the government.

You can: 1. "go to school to learn a trade" or 2. "go to school to learn how to run a trade." In either case education is for skill development, later applied in the economy.

As the economic industry becomes more automated, different jobs arise, causing the need for different education to arise. At the same time, some people come out of school with an idea, that they want to change the production lines with.

Some people bypass school altogether and gain experience or skill at their vocation.

It is important to teach children about education so they can see themselves as a vital part of society. where purpose is definable in "what you do".

We want innovation and groundbreaking "new" ideas, but only to a certain extent. — Paulm12

That's what grad schools are for. Although there are some spectacular examples of this from undergraduates and drop-outs, it doesn't happen that often. But you are talking about "small private" schools and I was thinking of larger private schools, like the U. of Chicago where I went for a postgraduate program long ago.

It seems that there are two competing ideas - the idea that education should serve to teach people specific skills to be productive in society and conform, and the idea that education should encourage people to come up with new ideas and think independently. — Paulm12

And everything in between. But yes, the basic polarity is between instrumentalists, often politicians and business leaders, whose goals focus on efficiency, outcome, and concord, and who see students as little more than pegs to be fitted into socio-economic roles vs holists/liberal humanists/existentialists etc., who are more likely to be educational theorists or practitioners, and who are more interested in individual development, flourishing, and creativity.

My sympathies are more with the latter, but education is a society's repoductive system and the process of reproduction is inevitably dominated by practical rather than more aspirational concerns.

And everything in between. But yes, the basic polarity is between instrumentalists, often politicians and business leaders, whose goals focus on efficiency, outcome, and concord, and who see students as little more than pegs to be fitted into socio-economic roles vs holists/liberal humanists/existentialists etc., who are more likely to be educational theorists or practitioners, and who are more interested in individual development, flourishing, and creativity. — Baden

I think both sides accuse the other of trying to fit students into a mold so that the next generation will be in their image. Everyone claims indoctrination from the other.

I'm interested in having a conversation and hearing perspectives about the purpose of education in society. — Paulm12

I wonder if this is possible without a conversation about the purpose of society.

In the early 1970's it was common to teach critical thinking. It seems that concept was dropped. — Jackson

Wasn't here in the 1970's - it was more of a 1990's idea and continues depending upon the school.

There are two reasons for an education:

1. To gain wisdom, to be a good person, to lead the good life.

2. To make money.

No prizes for guessing what modern education is aimed at! 2 and not 1.

Perhaps 1 is considered the domain of parents &family for reasons such as not wanting to impose or promote any particular religion and its ethics.

However, all religions can be made part of a school curriculum to avoid bias. Will that compromise the other subjects time-wise and/or overburden children or the educational system?

the idea that education should serve to teach people specific skills to be productive in society and conform, and the idea that education should encourage people to come up with new ideas and think independently. — Paulm12

Too sharp of a dichotomy here. Education can and should teach people how to be productive (i.e. earn a living) while simultaneously keeping their creativity. That's why schools should teach coding. It's both creative and a useful skill.

If educators going to teach philosophy and humanities all day those students better have a trust fund.

Education ought to prepare students for the outside world otherwise they do them a disservice. That skill today is tech. Teach them tech and finance. Include a bit of civics.

Teach them tech and finance. — Moses

And plumbing

... perspectives about the purpose of education in society. It seems that there are two competing ideas — Paulm12

Education is the reproductive system of a culture.

- the idea that education should serve to teach people specific skills to be productive in society and conform, and the idea that education should encourage people to come up with new ideas and think independently. — Paulm12

Train the peasants to conform and obey; educate the leaders to plan and command. That you hear two conflicting ideas an indication that you live in a stratified society -a class system.

Everyone claims indoctrination from the other. — Hanover

As if it was a bad thing. As if there were a society or an education that did not indoctrinate its young with the traditions and mores it inherited. [Sarcasm]Like this forum, for example, which does not encourage folks to read the guidelines or limit themselves to certain topics, and forms of discussion very much at all. [/sarcasm]

I think both sides accuse the other of trying to fit students into a mold so that the next generation will be in their image. Everyone claims indoctrination from the other. — Hanover

I'm not talking about the political indoctrination re content that you may get at, e.g. Liberty University vs Berekley. That comes later and is more or less a separate concern. I'm talking about the philosophical underpinnings of pedagogy that define the process of education from start to finish. That's where the meat of the issue lies.

The purpose of

1. Primary education is to teach you how to read, write, listen and do basic math, prepping you to learn the knowns.

2. Secondary education is to learn the knowns.

3. Tertiary education is to improve on the knowns + probe the unknowns.

I see what you mean. My concern is that (at least in the US), K-12 education isn’t exactly preparing students with the tools to live in a somewhat democratic society. For instance, teaching people to question sources and hopefully ascertain truth. Furthermore, while in the past being productive meant just following along as a factory worker, nowadays with automation, being productive now means and looks different, and therefore education should and likely will adapt to this.


Good take. Although I also think there are other subjects beyond math, reading, and writing that should be taught in school but aren’t. Things like avoiding fallacies, logic, “critical thinking” or whatever buzzword that indicates people aren’t likely to believe false information handed to them with a sinister agenda, etc.

Train the peasants to conform and obey; educate the leaders to plan and command. That you hear two conflicting ideas an indication that you live in a stratified society -a class system.

Sure, and I don’t think this is even a bad thing. Plenty of people are (or claim they are) happier not stepping outside of their own box.

I'm talking about the philosophical underpinnings of pedagogy that define the process of education from start to finish. That's where the meat of the issue lies. — Baden

I do see the difference, but I can also say that my leanings are heavily in favor of learning for learning's sake, which should come as no surprise given the bulk of my formal education was in the humanities, which has limited economic application. So, then the question becomes why are my leanings superior, and that conversation will either devolve into pragmatism (as in which society works better, one which prioritizes the technical skills or the one the holistic person), or it will make a declaration about human worth (as in, human creativity, expression, and understanding are per se valuable, regardless of application).

If we argue our position from pragmatics, it's an empirical question which philosophy will work best that we may lose depending on what data we look at. I therefor take the other approach, which makes me feel very much like an ideologue, which makes me feel like I'm trying to mold society a certain way just because that's my belief.

That is, why prioritize the humanities? Because Hanoverian principles demand such and a Hanoverian society is of highest value.

Good take. Although I also think there are other subjects beyond math, reading, and writing that should be taught in school but aren’t. Things like avoiding fallacies, logic, “critical thinking” or whatever buzzword that indicates people aren’t likely to believe false information handed to them with a sinister agenda, etc. — Paulm12

:up:

Medieval curriculum

Stage 1. Trivium
a) Grammar
b) Logic
c) Rhetoric

Stage 2. Quadrivium
a) Arithmetic
b) Geometry
c) Music
d) Astronomy

Ethics is missing and probably for a good reason which is this is thought to be the domain of parents, family and friends. Of course a little help from schools won't hurt.

The purpose of education is to describe and instill the values of the elders. Young people need a strong, self-conscious sense of what they are rebelling against to effectively innovate. It's not enough to know how to think. You need to know what to think about.

Moreover, you need to learn the scales to be a good improvisor. You know, unless you're Hendrix, or somebody.