Firstly, as I’m coming into this conversation late, I’d be remised if I didn’t thank Berkshire for posting that video. It was incredibly stimulating and thought-provoking. I think I’ve missed the boat on the discussion about the content of the lecture but I’ll leave you with this comic.
[image
]
Defining Terms
Now onto the topic at hand. It appears that the only people that are using “trade school” in any form of a derogatory sense are those that feel they are being “accused” of going to a “trade school”. I feel, and correct me if I’m wrong, Sparweb is merely using the term “trade school” to refer to institutions that focus solely on specialized technical knowledge/understanding and differentiating from institutions that require/encourage classes outside the specialized area. This can be further distilled down to “teaching how to do a job” and “teaching how to think”; I’ll use these terms from here on out, rather than the other loaded terms. Neither is inherently “better” than the other, as both aim to do two different things.
More Technical Education = Better Technical Understanding
It could be argued that “teaching how to do a job” creates better engineers (or whatever specialization you are going for) than “teaching how to think” does. Your classes are solely focused on your specialization and as such you have a heightened knowledge/understanding on the specific technical elements. Although I don’t necessarily agree with this (ex. I took an aerospace option but once entering the field, I ended up working in an unrelated area. My aerospace classes are about as useful to me in my day-to-day job as “basket-weaving” would have been), I don’t need to argue this to illustrate my point (and build off of Sparwebs). So let’s assume (incorrectly but nevertheless unimportantly) that I agree with the notion that institutions that “teach how to do a job” create better technical experts than institutions that “teach how to think” upon graduation. (the last caveat is important)
Some Additional Education in the Humanities = More Well-Rounded
Conversely, it could be argued that “teaching how to think” creates more well-rounded citizens than “teaching how to do a job” does (again, upon graduation). Immediately, this statement reeks of elitism as an extension of it can be interpreted as “people that go to institutions that “teach how to do” are worse citizens than people that go to institutions that “teach how to think””. However, this is no more elitist than to say “people that go to institutions that “teach how to think” are worse engineers than people that go to institutions that “teach how to do””. Furthermore, both these statements work off the same core assumption –
the more formalized education one has in a subject, the better they will understand it. Either this statement applies to both arguments or it applies to neither. If we toss out this assumption then we must also toss out the conclusion that “more technical education one has, the better engineer they will become”. To apply it to one but not the other would be contradictory and rather hypocritical.
But I’ll go one further and address the argument “how does a class in art history (or music or “basket-weaving” etc.) make me a better citizen?”. A good citizen is one who is able to understand and appreciate the wants and needs of all members in a society, not just those that share common interests. To have a brief education in fine art allows one to understand and appreciate why it is important (and in some cases quintessential) to some people, even if they don’t share that mentality. This is important to reduces ignorance and prejudice, which is really the goal of any citizenry. Other classes, such as philosophy, ethics, anthropology, sociology, etc. have a more direct and obvious impact on being a more informed, more rational, more accepting citizen.
It should be noted that I would absolutely support and push for a scientific element being included in arts/business education. To quote Carl Sagan, “We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster”. Frankly, I believe that an understanding of cosmology feeds a sense of connectivity that forces people to be more accepting of one another.
General vs. Anecdotal Arguments
Before I get any anecdotal arguments that “I went to an institution that “taught how to do a job” and I consider myself an informed, rational, accepting citizen”, we need to understand that, again, that argument can cut both ways. X went to an institution that “taught how to think” and X consider herself/himself a strong, technical proficient engineer. Again, for one side to talk in generalities as the bases for their argument but then use anecdotes to attack the generalities of the other side is inconsistent. Either we agree to BOTH discuss in general terms or we must simply swap anecdotes until we are blue in the face.
The reason for these anecdotal “exceptions” to the rule is that in reality, we don’t study and live in vacuums where are only exposure to knowledge and experience. We are influenced by our culture, our family, our friends, our boss, our co-workers, our employer. Neither an engineer’s nor a citizen’s developing stops when they graduate. So part of the debate needs to be focused on
when and where is the appropriate time to get this development. I will discuss this in more depth below.
What’s More Desirable: Better Technical Understanding or More Well-Rounded Citizen
This is the crux of the debate and the crux of the issue surrounding the purpose of education: is educated there to create pre-trained, ready-to-work employees or is education there to create a more well-rounded, informed, rational, accepting citizenry.
I am, rather obviously, in the latter camp. I feel that the desire to create pre-trained, ready-to-work employees is the result of the excessive influence corporations have on our government (through lobby groups/campaign contributions), culture (through advertising and the continued rise of a consumption-centric zeitgeist) and education (through threats of “employability”). Companies have developed a way to convince us all that they should not need to train their employees, that they should come pre-trained. Whether it’s asking for 4-years experience for entry level wages, demand for more H1B visas (where brilliant people can work for a fraction of what they should be making and become indentured servants as their legal status is tied to their employment) or the demolishing of internal training programs, this becomes more and more obvious. However, as obvious as these tactics are, we continually blame the education system for not producing grads that can do the job of a 5+ year veteran. We eat up the argument that it’s because “our education system has become diluted with “basket-weaving” classes”. We rely on the ubiquitous anecdotal arguments “back in my day, when I graduated, I already knew all this stuff!” to support this viewpoint. Each and every generation has said that the next generation is going to be the death of society. Each and every generation has been dead wrong on that front.
Beyond that, how could one possibly expect universities to pre-train students for their career path when the students cannot know where that career path will take them? Many careers that exist today did not exist 5-10 years ago. In addition, although company X and company Y produce the exact same widget, they produce them in completely different ways. The basic skills are transferable but the specifics are endlessly diverse. So, are people arguing that institutions that focus on “teaching how to think” do so many “basket-weaving” classes that students don’t learn the fundamentals? Are they seriously saying that any accredited school has, for example, a mechanical engineering degree that doesn’t teach heat transfer? If so, that is an issue with the accreditation program, not with the more general teaching philosophy of the school.
I argue that expecting the result of education to be to create pre-trained, ready-to-work employees is not just wrong but impossible. It’s wrong because the onus to train employees should sit with the employer, not the school (the onus is on the school to make train
able employees). It’s impossible because the school cannot possibly predict or know what specific skills each student will require in their career.
On the other hand, expecting the result of education to be to create a well-rounded, informed, rational, accepting citizenry is both more appropriate and more reasonable. It’s more appropriate because a formalized education is the only place where, as a society, we can expose students to a variety of different viewpoints and opinions that can counter the prejudices that can be developed through culture, family, friends and work. Sometimes these areas will be great at minimizing prejudices but in many cases, they are the source. Institutions that “teach you how to think” tend to be much more progressive and much more critical of the current establishment and dominate culture than any other institution. For example, academic law is largely centered around the criticism of practical law and exposing it’s prejudices and biases. This is essential for people to understand, especially when they grow-up in a privileged reference frame that is not exposed to or affected by the prejudices and biases in law, culture, business or government that adversely affect those in disenfranchised positions.
It’s more reasonable because the timing is ideal for students to understand these concepts. When a student enters post-secondary school, they are the optimal balance between quite mature but still open-minded (and the change in environment and expectation that comes with post-secondary education also aids in this). Any earlier and they might not have the ability to process the concepts and any later and they might be already too influenced by their surroundings.
A very valid argument is “why should we leave these concepts to be taught in post-secondary school, which not everyone will attend; shouldn’t they be taught in grade school instead?”. I agree with this in part although it’s important to realize this is not at all an argument for more technical specialization in university. I feel that grade school should do a much better job at teaching things like critical thinking, moral philosophy and how law impacts society, rather than rote memorization of facts (again, building on the concept of “teaching how to think” not “teaching how to do”). These are important concepts that help make a person a well-rounded citizen and shouldn’t be reserved only for those that go to post-secondary school. However, I feel these should be introductory as they are quite heavy for the average grade school student. Post-secondary school should build off these concepts in more depth, even if they are not central to the specialization. I should also add that I feel that there should be fewer financial (tuition costs) and cultural (biased testing) barriers for people entering post-secondary schools.
TL;DR
- Neither “teaching how to do” nor “teaching how to think” is inherently better than the other – both have their strengths
- It could be argued that “teaching how to do” produces better technical experts. But, by extension of that logic, it would also have to be argued that “teaching how to think” produces more well-rounded citizens. It’s both or neither.
- The question then becomes “do we want more technical proficient engineers upon graduation or more well-rounded citizens upon graduation?”
- I argue that as long as engineers have been adequately trained on the fundamentals, they can (and should) acquire the more specialized knowledge on the job. It’s impossible for schools to predict or know what specialized knowledge each student will need for their career.
- Students entering post-secondary institutions are prime candidates for developing a greater understanding of how to be a more well-rounded, informed, rational and accepting member of their society and post-secondary institutions are the prime institution to teach those lessons.
- Therefore, I feel that it is more important to focus on producing more well-rounded citizens upon graduation.
