The Purpose of Education?

I suppose before we can fix what's wrong with education, we have to decide what it is we want from it.  What is the purpose of education, especially higher education?

Increasingly, I've heard more and more about education being the pathway to jobs.  That is, the purpose of education to prepare one for a job.  Well, OK, I guess.  But I'm not sure I like the take that most people have on that.

Are colleges and universities supposed to be training grounds for jobs, in essence, trade schools?  There's nothing, not a thing, wrong with vocational education.  But I think the purposes of a trade school, of vocational education, runs counter to the more traditional education.

Of course jobs are important.  People need jobs and need the abilities to do those jobs.  Especially for skilled trades, vocational education--in schools or on-the-job--is vital. 

But I've been troubled by the views of some folks.  I listened to a broadcast the other day, on Bill Bennett's radio show.  (Bennett, for my money, has the best nationally-syndicated show, by far!)  I don't know who his guest was, a governor from some state in the South, but they were discussing educational reform.  OK, this immediately sends up my antennas.  Who are these reformers?  I become leery, even frightened, if I discover they are politicians or educationists/school administrators or experts.  I've blogged about both before and, to summarize, think very few of them really know much about quality education and how to implement/achieve it.

Anyway, this guest wanted to emphasize "preparing for jobs" in our schools.  Well, yes and no.  It's as if most people think a traditional liberal arts education is practically worthless, not much good for anything, especially not for getting a job.  I think that's hooey and reflects the mistaken views that "most people" have of liberal arts education. 

A liberal arts education should teach students to question, to think, to problem-solve (yes, I find that term grating, too, but....).  What job wouldn't want someone who could question, think, and (grate, grate) problem-solve?   I think having those attributes would make for a better employee.  Specialized training can come, too, but likely isn't required for most jobs.  Employers, now armed with new hires who can question, think, solve problems, should easily be able to train them.  I think of my college mates who were fine arts majors, but went to med school and on to long, successful careers as doctors.  I think of my college mates who majored in English or Psychology who became successful in business and the law.

By limiting education to job-preparation--or emphasizing that--we diminish the wider benefits of all of those years of schooling.  We make citizens who are less civic-minded, who don't understand or participate in government affairs.  What was it Pericles said? " We do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all."

I was disappointed to hear Bill Bennett's responses to some of this.  Bennett went to Williams, I believe.  I would like to ask him if he knew, if he could identify his good teachers and his not-so-good ones.  Of course he could.  And could he also identify the qualities that made those good ones so easily identifiable?  Of course he could.  Then, why all this hand-wringing about bad teachers, about unions, about schools?  (Now, we need to be honest about this.  We have to differentiate between good teachers and favorite or nice teachers.  They may be mutual, but they may not be, also.)  With his liberal arts education, Bennett should have challenged his guess about the exclusivity of education for jobs.  Usually Bennett is much better than that.

A related news story also piqued my interest.  I guess the Michigan Superintendent of Schools called for "six-figure salaries" for teachers.  Oh, that's $100,000 for science and math teachers.  Again, this is very, very narrow-minded.  Of course we need better science and math teachers.  (I might well argue that the $100,000 salaries likely wouldn't improve science and math teacher, but that's a time for a later blog.)  But once again, ignorant people diminish the importance of the social studies and humanities.  These people ignore the significance of having citizens--employees and otherwise--who can think, who know about their culture, who can express themselves.  I am reminded of the doctors my father had.  Oh, they might well have been good technicians.  (And how I am to know how good they were?  He died.)  But I do know they were pretty lousy at communicating.  How many stories do we hear of rotten bedside manners?  I think of the many businessmen who have few or no ethics, but are loaded up with the MBAs and other business degrees.  (I won't consider today if today's businessmen are more or less ethical than those of the past.  I would suggest, though, that they are just as "greedy" and that there are far more of them, dipping down into what is called "mid-level management.")

It's yet another example of how those involved in education think so little of history, civics, etc.  Perhaps that's a major factor in our current societal malaise, the problems we have--we don't know our history, our government/civics, etc.