This is true, and I don’t know why someone would dv you. There is of course room to question or disagree. As you say- IF one considers education as a societal investment. But… is it..? Certainly it is to some degree. I hear few if any persons who speak anything approaching worth taking seriously about discontinuing compulsory education like public schools through high school.
It gets sticky though, “free” higher education if not compulsory is still not something which raises the fortunes of all. There is still of course favoritism to those in proximity to the best schools and those with the means to support themselves and attend an institution of learning.
When we examine High school education- in the USA it wasn’t until fairly recently that high school education became compulsory- in the last century. By the mid 20th century we could say that most Americans had a high school education. The quality of that education varies dramatically of course, by both the student and their study habits and abilities as well as the place they learned. But- in most regards the high school education elevated society. Most people have basic language skills, basic math skills etc. and that’s rather convenient. The high school diploma became the minimum standard for most things- even jobs that don’t really need the knowledge one learns in HS often require or prefer diplomas to drop outs.
But we have seen the 2 year degree approach a minimum mandatory status as well. Jobs in retail or low level management etc. often require a two year degree- often any. People with masters and 4 year degrees compete for jobs outside their industries for cut rate salaries. As we increase automation, as technology is more and more ubiquitous and we carry around or have machines with built in access to fill in fundamental and even more advanced knowledge and judgment gaps- do we actually need more people getting 2 or 4 year degrees? Does society benefit when your barista majored in mathematics?
The modern way is more towards large monolithic corporate structure where individual operators and managers have less discretion and decisions are programmed into machines or made afar by higher management.
So the benefit primarily seen is a personal benefit- that those with education have potentially better opportunities to carve out a path towards advancement- to present ideas or insights and such that might get them a ticket to a higher position- but it doesn’t effectively change the overall peak of talent, just the curve. Of course that assumed people with functional degrees that apply to making or selling things. Well we can argue a potential social benefit to more psychologists or artists- that’s less tangible. The fact is that we can’t say a college educated society raises the level of wealth or ability in a world where the trends are to automation. It doesn’t matter what you know or what degrees you have if a machine can do the job cheaper or can allow someone with less education to do the job. The shift from individual empowerment sort of negates the effect potentially.
Meaning we need educated people who can build smarter machines or outthink and outdo machines. The bar grows higher to where an education or skilled trade becomes critical, but simply having a degree is starting to not be good enough, and in a world where almost everyone has a degree, it is about as meaningful as a diploma- which is to say it doesn’t get you a lot “more,” it is generally expected and required. So what just having a degree might allow you to do today, in a world where most have degrees, things would probably come back to being distinguished in ability and experience or knowing the right people to get gainful employment.
While there is a romanticism about education, we must remember that most of the politicians and taking heads we see spewing idiocy on the news have education. Education itself can fall under “better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it,” but that alone doesn’t create a better world anymore than carrying an umbrella does. Education requires purpose to benefit anyone asides the philosophers and mental masturbators. A standard and well designed curriculum to add trust and veracity to a certification, and results from the holder of said education. Many a gifted child has gone on to do nothing special or even failed to meet the low average achievements and success of their less “gifted” peers. Being smart is like being strong, if you don’t use it, it doesn’t matter much, and what you use it for matters a bunch.
I generally agree with you, in that society doesn't really benefit financially from a lot of degrees. I would add though that there are values other than BNP. A lot of my friends have degrees they don't use in their profession. My ex is a good example.
Their master is in feminist sociology and they work with researching and analysing the effects of infrastructure. As far as I can understand it is about things like making sure changes don't impact people's physical and mental health to badly and especially the working class, as this would have an impact on productivity.
But their other degree is in art and, apart from a couple paintings and some pottery i love, they've never sold a piece for any meaningful sum. Their paintings don't hang in galleries but in friends homes and they make us happy.
Similarly, mandatory education to read, write and do basic math is probably the most financially beneficial education to society but I doubt if most people use this education only for, it even mostly, for work.
Completely true, I don’t think there can be any reasonable debate that mandatory basic education is a social and personal benefit. It serves a vital function of creating a uniform baseline of skills and language to enable easier and more productive cohabitation. societies can have variance but at some point they don’t work well unless people can look at a duck and agree they see a duck, or agree what a word means etc. the fabric of social interaction is common understanding, and a basic education is designed to create a broad shared understanding of fundamentals.
Communication becomes the problem when we talk about college though. The ex, her knowledge of feminist sociology is specialized. Most people with specialized knowledge are well aware that to the average person, their opinions and reasoning are often incomprehensible. Simply put, unless you too are a specialist, to a degree we “take it on faith” that their education means they know what they are doing.
A sociologist or engineer or such may present viewpoints that contradict intuitive logic or experience. If you lack the “keys” to understand you are either going to believe what someone tells you based on their degree, or believe your own experience and logic. Most people believe their own selves when others contradict them unless they conceptualize another person as an “expert,” but an education or credentials aren’t enough to gain that relationship. The world is full of people who distrust the ability of professionals because professionals aren’t perfect and I’ve known aerospace engineers who could f program a VCR or thought that not having a cell phone would save them from the brain cancer cell phone owners would get.
Most people have similar experiences wether they can recall them or realize them. So there is not only no inherent trust to a degree necessarily, but a degree should not imply trust. While various elements of one’s field may have “halo” effect, outside a specialists area they are generally no more capable than anyone else. Personally I do believe that a world where everyone has higher education probably is a net positive- the devil is in the details. I don’t think it is enough to simply offer the opportunity or even require it legally, and then sit back and wait for a “better society.” There are tons of things to consider and account for.
In simple terms- a concept of “trickledown education” is the liberal/progressive version of “trickledown economics” in my mind. Both are in theory sound, but fundamentally flawed because they rely on an idealized concept of human nature and an assumption of a specific set of behaviors or personalities. Higher degrees are almost universally speciality degrees, the higher the degree, the more specialized. It’s great when people make art and poetry and intangible other benefits- but people do those things without higher education too. AI may soon reach a point where one doesn’t need an artist to make art to enjoy for example, or where the artist is basically a data entry specialist. If society doesn’t support artists and thinkers, if we don’t enable adult students to be able to take advantage of “free” education, we still just have a system where education is the purview of privilege and the bar is just higher for bare minimum.
I know a few guys like your brother but seriously.- how may of them are there and how many of those will actually get anything done except for cracking a cold ones and loading up their bongs? How real is the "communist threat" in the west, compared to the very existing power grab of billionaires and corporations?
While I do largely agree the more tangible issue in the west is probably issues relating to unethical and unchecked capitalism, there is good argument that disruption is a larger threat in developed nations than established wrong. Disruption impacts the ability of people to live their lives, this is in large part why revolutions are often difficult to start and why they are seldom universally fought or supported even by those they might benefit most. A majority of people just want to live their lives. There is happiness and unhappiness with “average” life in Europe just as in China. Most people care less about the philosophy of their government than they do about having food and a home and things they want and need. If some hypothetical magic despot existed whom could and would run a nation so that everyone, or most, were happy and prosperous, most people wouldn’t care they didn’t have a voice because they’d have what they wanted and needed.
A democratic capitalist society is a mirror of the people. The world we live in is a reflection that if most people were in a position of power, they’d basically do exactly the same thing these companies are.
A communist economy doesn’t reflect the people because communism itself is contrary to our nature. Capitalism essentially requires most people to just do what comes fairly naturally and then you have a functioning system. Communism requires you to force people into doing what is required.
So the corruption in the west largely comes from our inability or unwillingness to live in a “better” world at a cost to our material success. People are “baited” into being complicit in graft and wrong by self interest, but intelligence and strength of character can fix that easily. In communism, you are forced to do what is best for those in charge regardless of your character. It really is as simple as if we thought Amazon was bad we could stop buying from them. In communism you can’t.
-psst, hey kid! want some accessible healthcare and a free education?
It gets sticky though, “free” higher education if not compulsory is still not something which raises the fortunes of all. There is still of course favoritism to those in proximity to the best schools and those with the means to support themselves and attend an institution of learning.
The modern way is more towards large monolithic corporate structure where individual operators and managers have less discretion and decisions are programmed into machines or made afar by higher management.
Their master is in feminist sociology and they work with researching and analysing the effects of infrastructure. As far as I can understand it is about things like making sure changes don't impact people's physical and mental health to badly and especially the working class, as this would have an impact on productivity.
But their other degree is in art and, apart from a couple paintings and some pottery i love, they've never sold a piece for any meaningful sum. Their paintings don't hang in galleries but in friends homes and they make us happy.
Communication becomes the problem when we talk about college though. The ex, her knowledge of feminist sociology is specialized. Most people with specialized knowledge are well aware that to the average person, their opinions and reasoning are often incomprehensible. Simply put, unless you too are a specialist, to a degree we “take it on faith” that their education means they know what they are doing.
A communist economy doesn’t reflect the people because communism itself is contrary to our nature. Capitalism essentially requires most people to just do what comes fairly naturally and then you have a functioning system. Communism requires you to force people into doing what is required.
So the corruption in the west largely comes from our inability or unwillingness to live in a “better” world at a cost to our material success. People are “baited” into being complicit in graft and wrong by self interest, but intelligence and strength of character can fix that easily. In communism, you are forced to do what is best for those in charge regardless of your character. It really is as simple as if we thought Amazon was bad we could stop buying from them. In communism you can’t.