Since the 1870's mass compulsory education has existed in most of the English speaking world. It's stated purpose has always been to uplift all of society. To provide people with benefits that they otherwise wouldn't have. To give an example, the Wars of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars lasted 23 years(1792-1815). Nearly everything written about the experiences of the war was written by officers. In WWI (1914-18), a century later written experiences of the war came from many different people. That all came from mass compulsory education.
Today, another century on, nearly everyone is overeducated. There are three reasons why we are now overeducated. 1. Increased education hide youth unemployment figures 2. It helped educated middle class people to have jobs and 3. It became a de facto IQ test. In the past both government and the private sector had tests to recruit people. With the passage of anti-discrimination laws those fell out of favour and were dropped. Now that is falling out of favour and more and more and other things are needed as well, criminal record checks, licenses and other forms of pre-testing.
If the education that people were receiving was needed then these things would not be. Employers would be snapping people up as fast as they could be educated. But today the barista with a university degree is a stereotype.
Further at every level of education it has been dumbed down and ideology is now baked in. The dumbing down of education has been going on since the 1960's. It makes things easier for teachers, it makes people ignorant, which is supposed to be the opposite of education and it allows more nonsense to be introduced into education. I can't help but think that much of this happens because they have to fill 6 hours a day, 5 days a week for 13 years. That time adds up, you could really achieve something in that time.
In the past before mass compulsory education, people were still educated. Not all people of course. But people were educated in private homes, in public schools (which is why in England private schools are called public schools.) and in apprenticeships. Only a tiny section of society were taught things that were not practical. Today it is rare for someone to study something practical until after they have left secondary education. Why is that?
Couldn't people today in secondary school be taught practical skills?
Of course they could!
Just to give one example, why couldn't nursing be taught in upper secondary school?
Nursing comes in different levels, basic nursing, first aid, child health are all good things to know, particular for girls. Practical skills that would help in becoming a nurse or a mother.
But maybe I cannot break away from the past or the present. With the amount of ideology that is being pushed in schools and universities, I do wonder if they have outlived their purpose. Would a Traditionalist society allow this to continue?
I think not, the problem is many fold, but at a basic level can we trust teachers as a profession, in schools or Universities?
I'm not convinced that we can.
Are these institutions so debased and corrupted from their objectives that they could continue?
I think that they are.
Instead of education money going towards schools it should go to parents so that they can have more choice in where their children are educated. Then parents could decide whether they want to home school or join a community school?
A community school being a small school of between say 30-100 or so students.
How many University courses couldn't be done as apprenticeships?
Certainly every practical profession could be.
How many academic subjects need to survive?
I'm not sure all of them do.
Do we need education, yes.
Do we need it as it is currently done, no!
To Help Support My Work
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future
Another Article You Might Like?