Men and Women: Is too much "book learning" really such a good thing?

Question

The current political trend is to cram as many boys and girls as is possible into universities or polytechnics. But, all in all, is too much "book learning" - formal education - really such a good thing? Does it twist youngsters' minds? Is it too much too soon?

It seems that the greater the level of "education", the more the world moves toward war and conflict so is there a correlation? Or is such education as is provided of the wrong kind? Have the politicos and intellectuals got it wrong or did they perhaps deliberately set out to create chaos and social alienation in this way for purposes of their own?

Furthermore, much research strongly indicates that the human mind is not sufficiently developed until around age 30 so is formal education wasted on the very young?

[Object] Interesting post but why do you seem to assume that I deprecate the working class. I don't, in my book the working class are the salt of the earth.

Answer 1

As to your last point, it should be noted that the capacity to learn languages fluently peaks at quite an early age and the ability to learn higher mathematics peaks fairly early in life.

One might question what is being taught, what is given focus, but I hardly think it makes sense to speak of "too much" when it comes to "book learning".

As for education and conflict, I would question even the correlation (though education has gone hand in hand with the fearsomeness of weapons) and certainly question even the suggestion that there's causation.

There may well be some who have deliberately sought to encourage alienation, but I see more the ubiquity of technology in our lives combined with the specialization of knowledge such that few understand the science behind it producing unrealistic views of science and encourage a naive, unexamined Scientism - in attitude, if not in thought. And with that, a diminution in the value we assign to our humanity and to our cultural heritage. Here, I see much more the roots of alienation.

Answer 2

Men and Women: Is too much "book learning" really such a good thing?

A: You can never learn too much. Maybe you are suggesting that only certain social classes should be allowed to enjoy this 'good thing'. Perhaps it is wasted on the working class, is that it?

The current political trend is to cram as many boys and girls as is possible into universities or polytechnics.

A: Unionized, highly paid blue collar jobs gone. It's the "Information Age'. People without an education will be left flipping burgers for minimum wage. Those are the choices.

But, all in all, is too much "book learning" - formal education - really such a good thing? Does it twist youngsters' minds? Is it too much too soon?

A: The reverse is true. Young minds are more supple: example, children under the age of 12 learn languages with ease. Beyond that age, it becomes much more difficult.

It seems that the greater the level of "education", the more the world moves toward war and conflict so is there a correlation?

A: No, you are suffering from a bout of delusional thinking. Take a degree in history - as I did - and that will cure it. There is no correlation - it's because you have no book learning on the subject matter that you don't know what you are talking about.

Or is such education as is provided of the wrong kind? Have the politicos and intellectuals got it wrong or did they perhaps deliberately set out to create chaos and social alienation in this way for purposes of their own?

A: A conspiracy theorist! Paranoid thinking! Is it that higher education is inapropriate for the working class, d'ya think? The middle class takes their easy access to higher education for granted - and always has. Get some education under your belt and you will learn critical thinking skills and become much less suggestible.

Furthermore, much research strongly indicates that the human mind is not sufficiently developed until around age 30 so is formal education wasted on the very young?

A: Again, you have confused yourself totally (see my reference above to children learning languages). The brain 'prunes' pathways first in toddlerhood, and once again in adolescence. If the kids learn nothing in the intervening period they are likely to remain hoplessly thick as adults.

Answer 3

Nah, that's purely a lesbian pipe dream. the greater severe it gets for men, the greater men will insurrection and finally say, "we are putting a provide as much as this now! the two restoration issues or we can overthrow you!" you comprehend this would not be without precedent. the rationalization greater women folk are graduating and going to college is via feminist interloping, and the b*tch-boy politicians who do their bidding. So the greater severe men get it, the greater men will consolidate their balloting capability and venal politicians will would desire to pay attention. The gov't fears not something better than armed men in super communities. except they be waiting to repeal the 2d modification, militia communities would be on the upward thrust lower back, men will march on Washington, and that they're going to call for replace. So merely who will combat in the militia then? women folk, who make piss adverse floor forces, who will would desire to combat against heterosexual international locations with male squaddies who do not even care in the event that they die. men at the instant are not wilting lilies; seem how undesirable you could cope with men and that merely makes them harder and combat greater stable, e.g., the Palestinians or any midsection jap u . s .. women folk have not got any experience working the rustic, making the guidelines, or lots of the rest, so as that they are going to screw issues up royally and we can be overrun. each and all of the lads and boys would be murdered and the Feminazis would be raped and killed, on an analogous time as others are merely raped and introduced as concubines. Then it extremely is the tip for the West-- the West will nevertheless be here however the individuals would be from non-lesbianized cultures. This has got here approximately many cases throughout the time of history.

Answer 4

Great question.

I don't think book learning (as compared to any other) is good or bad.

What matters, and what is messed up - is that the education system we have creates a path of least resistance through coercion.

Kids, whether they like it or not, from the age of 5 are processed through (public) education like sausages on a factory production line, and indoctrinated to the belief that a successful career means going to uni or college, so off they dutifully go.

It's a path of least resistance.

I would rather see an education system that encouraged inquiry, where pursuit of interests (book learning and otherwise) remain perpetually open to all ages. Lifelong learning.

I also believe that putting 40% of the population (uk) into rebranded polytechnics to graduate "degrees" in dumbed down courses serves nobodys best interests. Standards at the top universities have been maintained, but what the heck is the point of putting someone through a poly in an academic subject if all it results in is a qualification that is of no value to employers, and saddles them with debt in the process.

We need an education system which fosters curiosity and opens opportunities to pursue that curiosity. The current system has some value but it also fails most of the people who go through it. Fostering a desire to learn and rewarding that desire with opportunity irrespective of age is where we need to go. If that means book learning, then thats great. If it doesn't, thats great too.

Answer 5

Life experiences are a valuable source for learning, but people tend to over-generalize: they see the world in the context of their own experiences, thus leaving much room for biases. Book learning opens up our world view...we see things from points of view other than our own. We get to experience someone else's experiences, and we gain valuable knowledge by comparing our own experiences with theirs. Book learning and life experience together form the best sort of education.

There are some subjects that the human brain absorbs and learns much easier at younger ages. Foreign languages, math, musical instruments, spatial-skill related tasks such as sports, are all easier learned at a younger age. However, some subjects such as social sciences (psychology, sociology)- I think are easier learned at an older age, because we then have life experiences that come with age, that help us understand the importance of the material being learned, and we have a context to put it in. We have experiences to draw upon so we can relate to the material more easily than when we are very young.

Just my opinion.

Answer 6

I hope not, I like books. But anyway, I don't plan to go to collage or university. I'm going to an intern project through my church, and then I plan on being an author (and most collages and universities don't have 'Author majors' and they only help you write short stories. I also plan to get married, and again, last I checked their wasn't a 'wife and mother major' area in collages and universities either.

Answer 7

Don't be silly, it's what's taught and how it's taught and what we learn from our parents and peers that has more influence than the amount of learning.

The public education system in the US has some serious flaws and most attempts to 'fix' the problems have simply created more problems.

What research? Give me a link?