libertarians and anti-modern education

[garegin]

ive seen many libertarians especially american ones like rothbard opposing modern educational ideas that de-emphasize RRR and emphasize class discussion and free work. is non-traditional education inherently statist or collectivism. althrough i must admit that most educationists are shameless collectivists.

[hayekianxyz]

I believe Rothbard was being critical of the emphasis being on feelings rather than notion.

[garegin]

he clearly states that “progressive education” is gravely deficient in training children’s minds. rose wilder also clearly comes out against modern education.

[nhaag]

Rothbard does not say that “progressive eduaction” is wrong or that “Montesori education” is right. What he says is that education is something one should choose as a means to ones goals, and has to decide for himself what and how much education one wants.

The issue with education is not in the curriculae but in the coercion of public education.

And for sure, libertarians may more often choose an educational system based on the values of liberty rather than based on collectivist thinking. Yet the whole point is that education is a means and therefor must be open to be choosen by an individual acording to his very own goals.

[hayekianxyz]

@nhaag

Rothbard does not say that “progressive eduaction” is wrong or that “Montesori education” is right. What he says is that education is something one should choose as a means to ones goals, and has to decide for himself what and how much education one wants.

The issue with education is not in the curriculae but in the coercion of public education.

And for sure, libertarians may more often choose an educational system based on the values of liberty rather than based on collectivist thinking. Yet the whole point is that education is a means and therefor must be open to be choosen by an individual acording to his very own goals.

It is the intense egalitarian drive of the New Left that accounts, furthermore, for its curious theory of education — a theory that has made such an enormous impact on the contemporary student movement in American universities in recent years. The theory holds that, in contrast to “old-fashioned” concepts of education, the teacher knows no more than any of his students. All, then, are “equal” in condition; one is no better in any sense than any other. Since only an imbecile would actually proclaim that the student knows as much about the content of any given discipline as his professor, this claim of equality is sustained by arguing for the abolition of content in the classroom. This content, asserts the New Left, is “irrelevant” to the student and hence not a proper part of the educational process. The only proper subject for the classroom is not a body of truths, not assigned readings or topics, but open-ended, free-floating participatory discussion of the student’s feelings, since only his feelings are truly “relevant” to the student. And since the lecture method implies, of course, that the lecturing professor knows more than the students to whom he imparts knowledge, the lecture too must go. Such is the caricature of “education” propounded by the New Left.

[nhaag]

@GilesStratton

It is the intense egalitarian drive of the New Left that accounts, furthermore, for its curious theory of education — a theory that has made such an enormous impact on the contemporary student movement in American universities in recent years. The theory holds that, in contrast to “old-fashioned” concepts of education, the teacher knows no more than any of his students. All, then, are “equal” in condition; one is no better in any sense than any other. Since only an imbecile would actually proclaim that the student knows as much about the content of any given discipline as his professor, this claim of equality is sustained by arguing for the abolition of content in the classroom. This content, asserts the New Left, is “irrelevant” to the student and hence not a proper part of the educational process. The only proper subject for the classroom is not a body of truths, not assigned readings or topics, but open-ended, free-floating participatory discussion of the student’s feelings, since only his feelings are truly “relevant” to the student. And since the lecture method implies, of course, that the lecturing professor knows more than the students to whom he imparts knowledge, the lecture too must go. Such is the caricature of “education” propounded by the New Left.

I agree that this is a strange scheme. However, in a free society this would not block them from offering such an educational sysem at all. So I do not care if a system is hogwash or not as long as I am not forced to have my kids attend such a nonsense. If the state does force kids into such a system than it effectivly robs the enslaved of their time as they will have to seek useful education after they left.

[hayekianxyz]

I was merely pointing out Rothbard’s view, not my own.

[garegin]

bad education and coersive education is two different points. there are private colleges that employ these methods too. my hunch is that rothbard is saying that mdern education is seriously hostile to individualism and free development of a child.

[Andrew]

A.J. Nock has an interesting view in The Theory Of Education in The U.S.

[Solid_Choke]

David Friedman has written about how he has educated his children on his blog. He uses a method called “unschooling”.