by This article looks at Bryan Caplan's The Case Against Education critically. Caplan is a professor of economics at George Mason University. The economic school of thought with which he identifies is public choice, e.g, James Buchanan.While I regard Caplan's solutions as questionable if not ridiculous, as does the author of the review, he does make a point. What is contemporary education really for? That does not seem to be clear as Caplan points out. He concludes therefore that education is worthless as it stands and needs revisiting. I agree with that. However, I regard Caplan's error as looking in the wrong direction owing to his ideological presumptions that operate as cognitive-affective bias.The fact that the purpose of education is not clear from examining the current educational
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: Education, liberal education, philosophy of education, traditional education
This could be interesting, too:
Ken Melvin writes A Tale of Two Economies
Bill Haskell writes Student Loan Updates 2024
Joel Eissenberg writes Economic stress in higher education
Angry Bear writes A Brief on the Economics of Water Usage
This article looks at Bryan Caplan's The Case Against Education critically. Caplan is a professor of economics at George Mason University. The economic school of thought with which he identifies is public choice, e.g, James Buchanan.
While I regard Caplan's solutions as questionable if not ridiculous, as does the author of the review, he does make a point. What is contemporary education really for? That does not seem to be clear as Caplan points out. He concludes therefore that education is worthless as it stands and needs revisiting. I agree with that. However, I regard Caplan's error as looking in the wrong direction owing to his ideological presumptions that operate as cognitive-affective bias.
The fact that the purpose of education is not clear from examining the current educational process in the US ( strongly suggests that it needs an overhaul. This is not surprising since the Western classroom model and curriculum now longer seems to fit. I agree with that.
This requires stepping back and revising the question of the purpose of education and the means for realizing that purpose optimally in the lives of learners.
That question is a foundational question in the philosophy of education, as subject that apparently the author of the article is unfamiliar with.
There are basically two types of educational philosophy — traditional and liberal.
The goal of the first is to inculcate a tradition. This type of education ends to be one-sided, as in religious education, or military school, or vocational education.
The goal of liberal education is to develop a well-rounded person capable of both creative and critical thinking, and of citizenship in a liberal society. The goal of liberal education is developing full potential as an individual and a human being in a society in which the fundamental question is what it means to live a good life in a good society, and how to implement this in one's life and one's society. There are many possible answers and liberal education explores them.
Philosophy is the basis of liberal education, in that philosophy is concerned chiefly with critical thinking. The method is understanding of logic and the principles of critical thinking by applying them to the great thinkers of the past that were foundation in shaping history and culture.
Liberalism has now become a tradition in the West, where it emerged in ancient Greece, and over time in some other parts of the world. The challenge, therefore, is to present liberal education as open, innovative, synergetic and adaptable instead of a one-sided tradition.
The author of the article confused education with the subjects taught and their practical application. The etymology, of the term "education, which means to lead from" in Latin, shows that education is about learning and not teaching. A major aspect of this learning is self-discovery, self-creation, and self-actualization. This cannot be put in but must be drawn out.
The criticism offered of the author's analysis and proposals is also off target in presuming that education is about doing and learning to do.
The solution offered at the close, which is not explained or elaborated is, "What is education for? It’s for becoming a person, not a worker." That is correct in my view but it needs explanation.
Education should be chiefly about being, then doing as a result and finally having based on what one has accomplished. However, the end it view is not chiefly about career success or material accumulation. It is about being a person of excellence" as Aristotle observed in Nichomachean Ethics.
First comes personhood. Second comes expression of that personhood in an individually unique way. Third comes receiving the feedback of this expression from the objectification of one's action in world, which concretizes the abstract.
Aristotle argued that all agents act for some end that that end is regarded as some good, a good being that which increases happiness. He then looks at the various proposals based different assumptions and finds them wanting. He argues that happiness is a by-product of living a good life in accordance with excellence (Greek arete).
This requires education based chiefly on being rather than doing or having. That is the goal of liberal education as conceived classically and which has been largely forgotten in the stampede for fame, fortune, power and pleasure.
While may seem non-specific, it is for an important reason. Each individual is unique and should be approached as such. Specificity need to be designed for individuals instead of a one-size-fits-all approach being applied indiscriminately.
There is no problem in combining liberal and traditional in the liberal paradigm in that liberalism is central to the Western intellectual tradition, having been initially explored in ancient Athens, which was a direct democracy of male citizens, at least of sorts. Western liberalism was eclipsed for a long while by traditionalism when the West was dominated by Christendom, although it began to reemerge with the Protestant Revolution.
Liberalism did not really comes of age until the 18th century Enlightenment, however. Eventually, in "modern times" liberalism came to embrace tolerance of different views and different traditions, while becoming a tradition itself, opposed to anything it viewed as single-side traditionalism. This led the paradox of liberalism as a single-sided tradition itself opposing other single-sided traditions.
In spite of some rigidity setting in to liberalism as a tradition, liberal education requires learning about different traditions objectively, which is a necessity in a liberal society, especially a global one, since a key purpose of liberal education is developing a culture in which "we can all get along" despite differences in views and culture.
Current Affairs
What Is Education For?
Sparky Abraham & Nathan J. Robinson