So What's an Education For, Anyway?

Okay, this morning I really have my nose out of joint.

I asked a bunch of people what they saw as the purpose or intent of "education". I actually had to mull over this post before I could write it; the answers I got upset me.

"To prepare you for life" was one of the two main answers.

Whatever that means. In my experience people with no education can do okay at "life".

I know people who dropped out of school, mentally, around third grade. They knew they were only in school to obey the demands of the state. School was something intended to keep them from enjoying themselves until they were eighteen, and once they became adults the state would no longer have power over them and they would be free to do as they chose.

They're the ones who don't own a book, don't subscribe to any newspaper or magazine, have never applied for any library card. Most actually have a political view--that their side is the good side, and the other side is full of evil people who should be pushed off a cliff. But that's about as deep as they've ever examined any issues, and they gravitated toward their current political view because of its underlying assumption that if you're a good person, this is the correct side to be on. Well, at least they don't vote.

Their intellectual lives go no farther than getting drunk every Saturday night, plus once or twice a year they'll see a movie. The jobs they go into tend to be meaningless as far as their interests go. Often they just work until the bills are paid and they're fed up with the boredom at the workplace, at which time they'll quit, and after a few months of unemployment they'll look for another job. You'd be inclined to think most of them dull-witted but some are actually fairly intelligent.

The second popular answer was, "So you can get a better job."

Well sure, you need skills if you're going to be a wage slave. Your employers would like to have secretaries who can type a coherent letter, service people who can correctly fill out a purchase order. Even our college grads sometimes can't fill out a time sheet without screwing it up. And as it happens, most employers report that they're having to train the new hires because the schools didn't.

Sure, every school should have a metal shop, a car mechanics shop, a cooking class, an art class with graphics or CAD focus. Get rid of that old literature crud; you can't make a living off that, unless you teach. History is old and past and irrelevant to "your future life". We want the next generation to be prepared to repair our air conditioners and install new flooring.

I guess the concept of "education" as developing a higher mental function is dead and gone, except among a select few.

While we're on the subject of definitions

While we're on the subject of definitions, let me air one of my favorite gripes, the difference between prescriptive and descriptive dictionaries.

English is a language without a ruling Committee (The General Commission, I think). If you attempt to add a word to the French language, you might arouse the ire of The Committee and have your choice of words anathematized. Okay, that's being harsh. They might have issued a statement declaring the word unmutual and suggested a proper substitute that good Frenchmen ought to have used.

We have no such authority. Long ago we brought in words we stole from other languages (usually when they invaded) and then made them our own. Once they were ours, we had our way with them. "Ha! take that, word! you no longer represent a talisman but you are a character quality!"

If you are not acquainted with the OED, you should run, not walk, to their website (http://www.oed.com/) and introduce yourself. It is a huge work that took decades to compile and the publishers (Oxford University Press) are putting out updates all the time. You can subscribe but at twenty huge, hardbound volumes, the subscription is expensive ($295 per year) so you might consider purchasing the thing. Most families can't afford that and don't have the room for the twenty volumes so you might consider purchasing the compact version, two volumes slipcased with a magnifying glass included. At the very least you can look at it in your local public library.

Or you can do the sensible thing and get it on disk for your computer. At about $35 it's a bargain.

Here's what it is: If you look up a word you'll find it defined, and under the definition will be a number of sentences or partial sentences arranged chronologically from earliest to most recent that contain that word. These sentences were pulled from English writings and usually show by context what the writer meant in the use of that word. To me it's fun to see how the word changed spelling and meaning over the centuries since the word first appeared in writing. Some words didn't change, and that's fun too.

So the OED is a descriptive dictionary. It describes how the word is used by a lot of people.

There are dictionaries that do what your grammar school teacher tried to do, tell you that a certain word does and ought to mean. A "bicycle" is not a "dog", and regardless of how many people choose to make the mistake of saying "bicycle" when a furry mammal wags its tail at them and barks for Kibbles and Bits, it will never be "correct". That has a lot to do with the origin of the word, which was coined in 1868 by a fellow who stole two word parts from Greek and felt very scholarly because of it. Greek "bi-" is "two" and then add Greek "kyklos" for "wheel or circle". Dogs do not have two wheels unless a high-priced vet rigs them up in a pair.

Who cares? What's the big deal? Yes, that is the attitude a descriptive dictionary takes: If enough people make the same mistake (and call that furry mammal a "bicycle") then we'll just report it as "that's what it is."

How could you and I ever communicate that way? You'd say you lost your bicycle and ask me to help you look for it, and I would be utterly useless in the search because I'd be looking for something completely different from the thing you had lost.

That's where descriptive dictionaries come in.

The descriptive dictionary will tell you how the word OUGHT to be used, regardless how many people misuse it or substitute some other, similar-sounding word. And the way our society is so badly undereducated, mistaken usages or word confusion will still happen at a high rate. But the true champions of our language, the prescriptive dictionaries, will bear the standard before us and keep our eyes on the proper use of our poor, abused language. Bicycles, at least for a few more years, are not to be suspected of growing fur.

So, What Do We Mean By "Education"?

While I was busy not posting because I of several real-life emergencies and other things, I decided where to narrow my subject down to one approachable topic. Thus I figured a good first step would be to define "Education"-- what do we mean with that word?

Here's the dictionary definition:

1. the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life.
2. the act or process of imparting or acquiring particular knowledge or skills, as for a profession.
3. a degree, level, or kind of schooling: a university education.
4. the result produced by instruction, training, or study: to show one's education.
5. the science or art of teaching; pedagogics.

Going from the bottom up, we have first, the art of teaching. Well, that's the wrong area.

Nes, the result produced by instruction, training, or study. Okay, so some people want to show their education. Still, what's that?

Next, another circular definition in "the kind of schooling" and its result.

Moving right along, the act or process of imparting or acquiring particular knowledge or skills, as for a profession. Okay, this is closer to what I was looking for. We're going to do what, and call it education? Stuff you with knowledge or skills... for a job or profession.

I hate that definition. I can read a training manual and I don't consider myself educated when I get done with it. I may be trained, or I may have all the facts I need to babble erudite phrases in some "discipline" (a loathesome word but some professors think it makes them sound more professional) though I don't necessarily understand my subject or have anything worthy to say about it.

I went from bottom to top so I could argue against definitions 2 through 5. That's because I think definition 1 is the closest to what I would say. Phrase by phrase:

Imparting knowledge: yes, because it seems self-evident that you need some facts and information about things to think about them clearly. How do you know a certain thing is correct if you haven't looked at the opposing things? However, it is NOT self-evident to many people that you need to know ANYTHING. These are the folk who argue that "it's not what you know but knowing where to look it up." I will address this in a future post. I will only say here that I think it's fatuously naive, something that people learn to parrot without actually considering how wise it is.

Developing the powers of reasoning and judgement. Okay, this one is my favorite. My generation went to chic, expensive liberal arts colleges and did drugs. In their drug-inspired state they came up with brilliant things to say, like "Tear down the walls" and "schools should teach students how to think, not what to think." And they promptly demanded their colleges and universities replace the old "how to think" curriculum with "what to think" propaganda. More on this later.

Generally preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life. This itself is such a huge subject I think I'll have to leave it for another day.