The function of education

[RobertJ]

I have seen in my brief time on these forums some posts regarding schooling and education in this country. I, myself and others seem to be of the sentiment that our educational institutions are lacking in helping us develop a true personal intelligence and merely pumping out drones to help operate this well oiled modern industrial machine.
I never was fulfilled by the time I spent in school. I remember only feelings of alienation and anxiety and feeling institutionalized and indoctrinated into absolute acquiescence of what I was being told. I never felt good about my education. As a matter of fact, I had a massive build-up of anxiety and rebellious spirits I literally broke down and dropped out my Sophomore year.
That being said, I love to learn, I read constantly and I feel most alive when I'm exploring new theories and concepts and learning about the subtleties of the world around me.
I guess what I am interested in finding out is what all of you believe is the function of education? What purpose do our current educational institutions serve? What should be different?
I have found a compelling discourse about the function of education by Jiddu Krishnamurti, don't know if any of you have heard of him, but I think anyone who is interested should read it:
http://www.brahmasmiart.com/educationandsignificanceoflife.pdf

 

[polarmonk]

+1

Sometimes I think that the government just wants you to have an education to keep the economy balanced. (or at least try). They want you to get good grades so the school gets recognised.

What really disheartens me is when I find out that I am studying a topic in science that interests me, such as nanotechnology, and then find out that we will be studying an incredibly 'dumbed-down' version of it just because the teachers are scared of us getting confused. (even if it's a top set science class) If anyone asks a question that's outside the curriculum, the teacher will say 'I don't know' or 'It'll confuse you.'

This is in the UK. I imagine things are not any better in America either.

 

[Concojones]

I was pretty interested in school. It's mostly in hindsight that I've come to realize we're pumping out robots rather than stimulating independent thought.

@polarmonk: in a sufficiently small class, I would insist until the teacher gave in. They even seemed to like that (for obvious reasons).

 

[mikal]

going to read this krishna guy now. first paragraph got me interested..
I wrote long post, pressed something and deleted all. damn it!
but shortly: elementary, high school- general knowledge, facts; college- can be base for own critical research.
important to read a lot, think about it, analyze and discuss with someone.

 

[Da Blob]

Here's another perspective
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy_of_the_Oppressed
Translated into several languages, most editions of Pedagogy of the Oppressed contain at least one introduction/foreword, a preface, and four chapters.
The first chapter explores how oppression has been justified and how it is overcome through a mutual process between the "oppressor" and the "oppressed". Examining how the balance of power between the colonizer and the colonized remains relatively stable, Freire admits that the powerless in society can be frightened of freedom. He writes, "Freedom is acquired by conquest, not by gift. It must be pursued constantly and responsibly. Freedom is not an ideal located outside of man; nor is it an idea which becomes myth. It is rather the indispensable condition for the quest for human completion." (47) According to Freire, freedom will be the result of praxis--informed action--when a balance between theory and practice is achieved.
The second chapter examines the "banking" approach to education -- a metaphor used by Freire that suggests students are considered empty bank accounts that should remain open to deposits made by the teacher. Freire rejects the "banking" approach, claiming it results in the dehumanization of both the students and the teachers. In addition, he argues the banking approach stimulates oppressive attitudes and practices in society. Instead, Freire advocates for a more world-mediated, mutual approach to education that considers people incomplete. According to Freire, this "authentic" approach to education must allow people to be aware of their incompleteness and strive to be more fully human. This attempt to use education as a means of consciously shaping the person and the society is called conscientization, a term first coined by Freire in this book... (From wiki)

 

[RobertJ]

According to Freire, this "authentic" approach to education must allow people to be aware of their incompleteness and strive to be more fully human. This attempt to use education as a means of consciously shaping the person and the society is called conscientization, a term first coined by Freire in this book... (From wiki)

This reminds me of the guru, or the master approach. That there is a standard to be learned from an arbiter of truth. In this case the master would be a "world-mediated" consensus, which I am quite wary of. I don't like the person-shaped-by-society protocol. Though I do understand that we are in some part shaped BY our society as people, I think that what needs to be encouraged is less conditioning and ideology in order that we may be individually intelligent.

Here is a quote from Krishnamurti's article for those who don't want to read all of it, this is the general idea:

"Unfortunately, the present system of education is making us subservient, mechanical and deeply thoughtless; though it awakens us intellectually, inwardly it leaves us incomplete, stultified and uncreative. Without an integrated understanding of life, our individual and collective problems will only deepen and extend. The purpose of education is not to produce mere scholars, technicians and job hunters, but integrated men and women who are free of fear; for only between such human beings can there be enduring peace. It is in the understanding of ourselves that fear comes to an end. If the individual is to grapple with life from moment to moment, if he is to face its intricacies, its miseries and sudden demands, he must be infinitely pliable and therefore free of theories and particular patterns of thought."

 

[mikal]

rise above ideology. that's what coberst was talking about.
thanks for bringing out krishnamurti..

 

[Ermine]

Sadly, education isn't about education. It's about keeping things running smoothly, economically, like others mentioned, and socially. Keeping the masses content with the current situation. I would even go as far as saying the current education system is the new opiate for the masses. From what I've seen, education makes people feel content with what they know rather than discontent with what they don't know. The education system doesn't encourage questioning or exploring the unknown.

However, I still liked school in that not all the teachers adhered to the education in every way and tried to truly teach their students, and all my teachers made me aware of subjects so I could study them further. They were good resources.

 

[RobertJ]

From what I've seen, education makes people feel content with what they know rather than discontent with what they don't know.

I agree, also makes people feel content with what they can earn with what they know. That seems to be the standard for education anymore.

 

[Jesin]

the teacher will say 'I don't know' or 'It'll confuse you.'

I used to have a quote in my sig that said "Confusion is the first step to understanding." Next time a teacher says "It'll confuse you", consider using that quote.

 

[Concojones]

regarding schooling and education in this country.

You guys really think you're the center of the world, don't you!

 

[RobertJ]

*laughs*

 

[Thaklaar]

I agree, also makes people feel content with what they can earn with what they know. That seems to be the standard for education anymore.

That's the standard because that's what most people want. Most see the acquisition of knowledge as a means to an end. We're the weirdies for seeing it as an end to itself. The educational system is just conforming to the desires of the majority. Most just want to get a bit of sheepskin to get a good job.

 

[Fluffdaddy]

High school bores me, they dumb down everything that im interested in. Mythology, for example, to truly understand it you must study it for years, but they tried to teach everyone in a couple of weeks. I would of just preferred they didn't teach it at all. But whats sad is that you can't make a living of just learning. If the government really wanted us to learn they would offer different learning experiences as part time jobs, or volunteer work or something. They just want us to learn what we need to be considered "Smart" in this generation so we can maintain a balance in the economy or other things people mentioned. they just assume that there's no one out there that wants to learn and learn and just keep learning. Wow i have a lot of run on sentences....
There is no such thing as learning for fun anymore, and the closest you can get to making a living off learning is teaching, and I don't do good with others

 

[Thaklaar]

Of course you can learn for fun. Still got public libraries. Still got the internet. I've probably acquired more knowledge in the eight years since leaving university than I acquired at school.

 

[Fluffdaddy]

Of course you can learn for fun. Still got public libraries. Still got the internet. I've probably acquired more knowledge in the eight years since leaving university than I acquired at school.

Sorry i meant for a living, i learn for fun everyday.

 

[Thaklaar]

Meh. Gave up on that dream about the time I gave up on the dream of getting paid to play videogames and eat cookies.

 

[RobertJ]

I used to have a quote in my sig that said "Confusion is the first step to understanding." Next time a teacher says "It'll confuse you", consider using that quote.

"A Discordian should be confused by his enlightenment and enlightened by his confusion."

 

[Beat Mango]

I share the same qualms about the education system, and get a fair bit of internal dissonance from the fact that I am training to become a high school teacher. I agree with Thaklaar that it a lot of people want to use school as a means to get ahead, but I'm not sure they're the majority: less intelligent people (no offence intended) don't want to learn anything, and the really intelligent people feel like there are much more important things to be learnt. Most people involved in the process don't want to be there - the students or the teachers.

Something interesting I learnt was that high schools were made widespread here in Sydney as a response to youth unemployment. I actually rue the old days where you were groomed to do what your parents did, to go into the family business, from a fairly young age.

 

[Seducer of the Homeless]

there are Three types of people in High School.....

The Retarded
The 'Educated'
The Intelligent

retards need special help.
the 'educated' aren't intelligent, no quest for knowledge or depth. just thinking what are told to think
the intelligent are the ones who actually think. unfortunately to get better grades you must conform and not question. basically, the dumber you are the 'cleverer' the grade. just absorbing facts and accepting others word without consideration.

the 'educated' are around 75-80%

 

[Thaklaar]

The purpose behind modern universal, state-sponsored education is not the production of a population of wise Philosopher-Kings out of Plato's Republic. It's to help guarantee full employment of the workforce to support the growth of industry and the economy. Full stop. Obviously, we all have divergent ideas about what it ought to provide. But the original intent was to turn America's wealth of immigrant children into a high-class workforce for the Henry Fords and John Rockefellers of the world, not to actually educate anyone.

 

[zephryi]

there are Three types of people in High School.....
The Retarded
The 'Educated'
The Intelligent
[...]
the 'educated' are around 75-80%

I find it rather funny that your scale could simply be the IQ bell curve in hiding. ; D

But anyways, people have said that the majority simply educate themselves for their future life- be it whatever career, or being a stay-at-home mom/dad, ect. And I think that is true- education clearly caters to those who want to simply take their notes, study a bit, get a 'B' on the test, then go socialize.

However, I think that, purely theoretically at least, it holds up a functioning society. Those that need help are helped, more or less, to shuffle into a societal niche, while "normal people," that 75-80%, to know what they need for their career, and can go fill the managerial positions, workers, etc. However, I think that those who are beyond simply wanting to know the curriculum and want to explore a topic further are forced to do so if they really want to know, creating the specialists that occupy the thinking jobs at... I don't want to say the "higher" jobs in society, but are obviously important but not as plentiful. Otherwise, if they don't, frustration may knock them into a more "normal" path. But it's that push, that drive that separates the simply curious from those who truly want to think about the subject and creates the smaller percentage of "thinkers."

This sets up the more pyramid structure of society, with the wide, plentiful base of physical laborers, then more managerial positions, etc, then the thinking jobs with the smallest number which insures that there are enough people to take care of each segment of labor and that society doesn't become top heavy with thinkers- who would take care of garbage collection, ect, if everyone was busy pursuing... I don't know, evidence for the string theory?

...anyways, sorry for the rambling- I just got up- but hopefully it gets across the idea. ^^

 

[Ghost1986]

one of my political science professors stated education was all about serving the state. the lower education (preuniversity) was sappous to socialize you, babysit you and give you a basic education. dont know about the rest of you but only the baby sitting pertained to me and they did not do that very well. i did not learn to much and my social skills are shit. as for higher education, a nother professor stated the same things but with out the baby sitting.

as for my personal opinion, education is all about making you a good little drone. i personaly have no problkem with that, i just wish it did the job better.

education=propaganda.

 

[merzbau]

it's divide-and-conquer for the industrial age.
modern society cannot function efficiently if people are free to express themselves however they see fit, especially if those expressions are against the ruling authority. rather than making every student their "personal best", compulsory modern schooling is intended to:

- instill/demarcate/ossify the child's place in the societal order (hierarchy); to "sort the wheat from the chaff".
- allow limited, barely adequate information in a compartmentalised and minimal way for the child to utilise in various low-level tasks which will enable them to both exist in later life and provide stimulus for the economy, without upsetting the hierarchy.
- defuse potential for future dissent by frowning on originality, ostracising troublemakers and accentuating false competition to keep them from participating, unless they subjugate their own thoughts/desires to the herd.
- encourage dependence upon appointed official specialists, experts and authorities for ascertaining truth and to increase confusion and frustrate innate curiosity by providing answers (in a purposely fragmented and meaningless way) before questions can even be asked; in other words - to arrest mental development to keep them in a state of perpetual childishness.

john taylor gatto:
"But what shocks is that we should so eagerly have adopted ... an educational system deliberately designed to produce mediocre intellects, to hamstring the inner life, to deny students appreciable leadership skills, and to ensure docile and incomplete citizens in order to render the populace "manageable.""
"compulsory schooling on this continent was intended to be just what it had been for Prussia in the 1820s: a fifth column into the burgeoning democratic movement that threatened to give the peasants and the proletarians a voice at the bargaining table."
"Men like George Peabody, who funded the cause of mandatory schooling throughout the South, surely understood that the Prussian system was useful in creating not only a harmless electorate and a servile labor force but also a virtual herd of mindless consumers."
"We don't need Karl Marx's conception of a grand warfare between the classes to see that it is in the interest of complex management, economic or political, to dumb people down, to demoralize them, to divide them from one another, and to discard them if they don't conform."

read up on the history of public schooling. it's quite an eye-opener:
http://www.rense.com/general42/how.htm
http://johntaylorgatto.com/underground