I think it's pretty clear to everyone that teaching basic literacy - reading, writing, practical maths etc - is a huge societal benefit. Nobody is advocating for not doing that.

What is maybe less clear is the benefit of extending formal academic education to 18 and beyond for everyone. If someone is not academically gifted, why make them waste years of their life struggling through an academic education. What's the point?

The relationship between education and achievement for a given person probably follows an S curve. More education has an impact in the steep part of the slope, but eventually the limiting factor is natural ability, and achievement flatlines. The problem with education today is that people looked at that curve when it was in the steep part, thought "more education means better outcomes" and just kept blindly throwing education at people.

Most people would be far better served by vocational learning after a certain point. Effectively every career is a form of vocational learning, we've just delayed it further and further in the name of academic education which has limited benefit.

▲

cogman10 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

> What is maybe less clear is the benefit of extending formal academic education to 18 and beyond for everyone.

For a democratic society, I think there's a pretty big benefit in making the general population fairly well educated beyond just what it takes to make them proficient at a job.

The point would be to make sure they could reasonably reason about the policies and politicians they are voting for or against.

Now, maybe that can all be covered in high school classes. However, I think a lot of humanity and philosophy classes just don't come in until college level classes.

	▲	K0balt 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		Reasoning and rational consideration of things is not easily introduced after about age 7. People brought up in a reactive environment will struggle and rebel against logical analysis, preferring “common sense” or emotion based decision making. Reactive thinking is often pretty accurate, and people used to reactive thought think that their conclusions are “obvious”, so the idea that they need to also stand up to a first principles analysis undermines a fundamental aspect of their worldview. If they haven’t been taught to see themselves and their environment in the third person by the time they are in kindergarten, it’s basically too late. It can be fixed, but it won’t likely be in school.

▲

nuancebydefault 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

I totally agree. I must have misread parent's comment.