Humanity or Jobs? by Connor

Humanity or Jobs? by Connor - April 2015 Scholarship Essay

The question of the purpose of education comes up often, and in most cases, two main answers are offered. One side claims that the purpose of education is to prepare students for the job market, that the primary goal of any societal institution should be to prepare its members for the reality of the situation they are facing, rather than to mold them to an unrealistic ideal. This side encourages the study of useful subjects like engineering, medicine, science, technology, and posits that peripheral subjects like literature, philosophy, history, and language should be relegated to electives, and useful day-to-day skills, such as basic finance, cooking, cleaning, and first aid be required learning.

The other side states that the purpose of education is to achieve a better ideal of humanity, and that the study of the so-called useless subjects is integral to a student's development as an independent, thoughtful person. Supporters of this argument say that the primary benefit of an education is teaching people how to think, and that traditional curriculum is vital for this. They say that the practical knowledge is important, but also easily obtained through other methods, and that the duty of a formalized school system is to impart knowledge which won't be obtained otherwise.

My own opinion is somewhat between these two sides. On one hand, pragmatic skill sets are not always given to people outside of their formal education. The burden on parents, or employers is often not fulfilled, leaving many people further disenfranchised from the system, increasing inequality. Many people are genuinely uninterested in the finer aspects of literature or fine arts. On the other hand, I believe that without forcing people to undertake those classes, the people who would end up enjoying and excelling at the finer arts, and becoming more thoughtful, influential, and compassionate human beings would never even start. Is it better to equip the masses with a utilitarian toolkit, or to equip the extraordinary with a humanitarian one?

Perhaps in the face of modern sentiment, I feel that hedging your bets with the mob is less fruitful than the opportunities offered by the truly gifted, and so I will say that the purpose and consequently the policy of an education should be to find those who possess extraordinary talent and potential, and to elevate them for the betterment of our species. However, that is not to say the current system accomplishes this task, or indeed any other task in particular. The education system does not have a mission statement, and often the sections that do fail to uphold it.

The purpose of an education, and anything else in a society, for that matter, should be to promote the welfare of humanity in the most efficient way possible. My own opinion is that improvements in welfare come from an extraordinary minority leading a willing majority, and that it is a fatal mistake to make a general rule to sacrifice the mobility of the pack-leaders so that the herd can catch up.