This kid i know were arguing the other day about what the point of education is and whether or not it should instill morality or truth or what? He majored in photo journalism (i think) and i am majoring in economics . Here are the arguments:
This Kid: The purpose of going to college was to prove that you could be educated. College merely serves as a stamp of approval to the labor market that you can be educated. Even if, (and he said this) in reality the information that is taught is wrong and knowingly and verifyably false. Truth doesn’t matter. Morality doesn’t matter.
[His logic ->] The coporation that hires you will teach you their specific methods and because every one is different it would be illadvised for colleges to educate to specifically in one direction.
[One of his arguments] There are always wars around the world. People can’t stop them so they just live with it.
Me: The purpose of going to college is to specialize and maximize your understanding of the subjects pertaining to your major. That encompasses all points of view and is as objective as possible. “Teaching” false or misleading information, and knowingly doing so, is the opposite of education.
[My logic ->] Being educated serves to further the understanding or progress of the field choosen by providing that market with people with higher levels of knowldge that they are going to be contributing with.
[Part of my drunken refutation] It is building false realities to form worldviews through. It functions for the purpose of making corrupt business, political, economic, sociological ideologies either, unknown or unrecoginzed to allowed unhampered and, in some cases, help. And that it even goes as far as to disguise illegal activities through color of law by instilling specific principles in people who are not paying close attention. (Why be alona? Try another Soma!)
The argument got started because I said something about how the school indoctrinates people to not understand the full implications of some of the ideas it “teaches.” I gave the example of banking and derivatives. They (derivatives) are abused en masse by agreed to fraudulent contracts in their name and the school pretends this is not the issue in the economy. They say that disclosure agreements, when both parties consent to knowing that it is fraud but still transact anyway, make them okay. I explained the implications of leverage on retirement funds, and other things, and how in economics it is relevant, but it is downplayed because we read books authored by FED governors.
He said “if that’s what they teach, and that is the law, then that is what they want to learn.” Which is kind of sidestepping the issue. I gave him the example that “If I made weed brownies and sold them to people who know they are going to get high, that the school will still tell people that that is wrong, even though it is the same element of agreed fraud or illegal activity that guides both transactions” (only the weed brownie can’t destroy pension funds and bond markets).
What do you think? Does a college degree just represent your mind’s mallebility? Or should we/could we be making more of a difference by actually being taught things rather than inculcated with corporate doctrines?
EDIT: for clarification.