The Problems of the Modern Education System: A Critical Analysis based on the purpose of Education
Introduction:
It has been emphasised and generally accepted that Education is significantly useful for personal and social change, for the better. Although in the past education was reserved to the patricians and to the noble class (Simon Newman, para 9) [1], with the advent of the Enlightenment era and its ideologies, education has been gradually made accessible to all; regardless of one’s social status. Now, when we have reached a stage where the fruits of education can be appraised, we seem perplexed. This perplexity is because modern society defies the hypothesis that Education is useful for good social and personal change. This is evidenced by the fact that governments are corrupt as ever, crime still perpetuates in the society, terror is a loaming fear, more than half the population in poverty is located in one continent — Africa, the planet is dying because of global warming, etc. (Our World in Data) [2][3]. How are we to reconcile this evidence with the hypothesis? Are we to reconsider our hypothesis? This is one way to reconcile the discrepancy; but such an endeavour entails disregarding or re-evaluating logically convinced notions of education and its benefits. Hence questioning the strength and truity of logical analysis itself; which would be have its own problems. One other way of reconciling this discrepancy is by analysing modern Education and how it has been administered to the public: Is modern education faithful to the reasons why we actually have education in the first place? Or in other words, does modern education aim to fulfil its purpose? And what if so, what is the purpose of education? Social critics usually have a lot to say on the failures of politics and governments, rarely is any attention given to the role that education plays in making a lawyer, politician, doctor, physicist, etc. Education has been generally regarded as a qualification for survival in the real world. This perspective is an impoverished understanding of education and disregards what more education could be. One the other hand, Education has a tool to help us experience life holistically is a deeper understanding of the concept; this is exactly what we will be arguing for in this paper (krishnamurty, page 5). Since we have generally conceived of education as a mere survivability tool, we have consequently made its efficacy myopic. This has led to lot of dissatisfaction and pain in individuals and to the society.
In the present paper, education will be analysed in terms of its purpose and significance to life. A comprehensive understanding of the modern education system and its failures based on true purpose can help us make corrections and reformations in the future. A strict analytic method will be followed to holistically understand Education hence decide its future course.
Body:
So, what is the purpose of education? Is to instill skill? To develop the individual in mind and body? For survival? For the sake of getting a job? To be successful? For the sake of getting a good marriage proposal? To learn the subject? These are some of the answers we often hear from people for the question — purpose of education.
If we are to ascertain the purpose of education through an analytic method, then we must first analyse the term, “purpose of education”.
It can be clearly seen that this is a bad analysis; because it doesn’t satisfy the biconditionality condition — if and only if. To elaborate, in the given case, everything that is good is what I like, but everything I like isn’t good (one might like alcohol). Having established our analytic criteria for analysis, we can now apply it for the general sayings of the people. Success is the purpose of education; one is successful if he/she is educated. Survival is the purpose of education; one can survive if he/she is educated. Clearly, there is no guarantee that education can make one successful. Similarly, there is no guarantee that one will survive with education. In this way, through analysis, we can dismiss all other sayings by people.
Now, we know that an individual is made up of different instincts and impulses. Language, mathematics, physics, art, poetry, etc. are all latently present in an individual. Education only animates these impulses. This is why we propose that the purpose of education is understand life. “For it is within each one of us that the whole existence is gathered” (Krishnamurti 10) [3]. Therefore, comprehending life is the purpose of education, education helps one comprehend life. This analytic statement can only be justified when the latter part of the proposition is fulfilled. This is where we come to understanding the problems of modern education. Does modern education help us understand life, and live life to the fullest? Apparently, it doesn’t. Here are few of the main reasons why modern education has failed in this endeavor.
Education has become overly about specialization:
Even if the origin of the development of the education sector cannot be exactly demarcated, from what we see in our environment, we can infer that Universities and Companies are focusing more on specializations. Specialization maybe on a specific discipline, like physics, math, philosophy, English, economics, etc., or under a specific discipline. Like consider the Medical profession; it has a set of numerous specializations: There are Immunologists, Cardiologists, Endocrinologist, Gynaecologist, Neurologist, Radiologist, Urologist, and many more. One troubling issue with specialization is not the knowledge learnt, but the specificity of the knowledge learnt (Thomas J. Siller and Gearold R. Johnson 214–221) [4]. If Education has to help us to live life completely, then specialization deters this purpose and leads to much dissatisfaction and pain. A person who has a specialization, say in sociology, will have no knowledge of biology, physics and chemistry and this leads to a lack of awareness on the workings of medicines and vaccines. Therefore, such a person might vehemently oppose Vaccination, which will inevitably lead to much suffering in their life and those of others who have been influenced by this person (ICT, para 1) [5] (WHO) [6]. This is exactly what we see is happening. A person in the field of science has no knowledge of the concepts and ideas in humanities. Therefore, any specialized knowledge in science and technology cannot help a person understand society, politics, economics and ethics. On the other hand, every discipline complements each other and helps in further development of the respective disciplines (Britt Jakobson et Per-Olof Wickman, 59) [7]. Such kind of specialization leads to the development of groups and classes. This further leads to the self-identity of an individual as that of the group identity; which leads to social and political isolation and finally hatred and anger of other classes and groups. Specialization in education is at least one of main causes for such social divide. Since education has become overly about specialization, it precludes our self-understanding and understanding of humanity itself. It is statistically shown that there is a correlation between fertility rate and literacy rate. This is pointed here because population explosion is one the major problems of any country. Lack of education is also one of the reasons why people refuse to believe in global warming, are intolerant, etc. All these are problems because of specialised form of education.
One draws conclusion from what is available at one’s disposal. Specialised knowledge gravely restricts drawing better conclusion. This is not to say that the conclusions drawn are illogical and false. They are correct in so far as they aren’t superseded by some other equally logical fact; or as we have currently begun to call it, ‘alternate facts.’ There has been some shift towards a synthesis of different fields. We do see a conception of disciplines like Bio-physics, Neuro-psychology, etc. This is a testament towards the growing need to understand human life. We could say that we are now beginning to understand the draw backs of specialisation. If the purpose of education, as we have analysed is to have a wholistic self-understanding, then any form of specialisation will hinder the cause; say specialisation in the form of adhering to a certain ideology. Ideologies thrive a vision of realising a utopia. Education must help us understand now — that what is (Krishnamurty, page 14, para 2) [13]. As Jiddu Krishnamurthy writes, “Ideals and blueprints for a perfect Utopia will never bring about the radical change of heart which is essential if there is to be an end to war and universal destruction”.
Education has become solely the development of technique:
The construction of a certain type of examination has led to the emphasis on the development of technique, which has nothing to do with the concepts, but everything to do with getting the answer. Techniques are taught to students on how to get the answer and the concept or the theory itself which governs the problem isn’t explored. This leads to a mere superficial understanding of the subject and renders the person helpless in similar cases where the theory or the concept has to be applied (Krishnamurthy, page 11, para 3) [8]. To facilitate technique, factual knowledge gains importance; which necessities the memorisation of formulas, dates, poems, names, etc. Bookish-knowledge gains importance; which deters self-reflection, critical thinking, disagreement and questioning. All that matters is that one gets the right answer; nothing more. Emphasis on technique has led to poor pedagogy. Real learning happens only through self-reflection; since each person I different, and has their own way of approaching a topic and understanding it.
There are negative effect of teaching solely based on the development of technique. Firstly, it reduces all the diverse and manifold impulses contained in an individual into just a mere few, and works on the development of only those few. This is in its right sense, intellectual retardation. Secondly, it changes the outlook on the student by educators into a set of reactions. Ironically, this outlook on the student is negatively atavistic; in the sense, the child was similarly reduced in the middle ages to a set of impulses as well. In the Middle Ages the child was regarded as only a simple plaything, as a simple animal, or a miniature adult who dressed, played and was supposed to act like his elders…Their ages were unimportant and therefore seldom known. Their education was undifferentiated, either by age, ability or intended occupation. (Axtell 1968: 63–4) [10]. This problem was addressed by the philosopher John Locke in Enlightenment period. Locke argued in treating children or students as human beings in whom the gradual development of rationality needed to be fostered by parents. Locke urged parents to spend time with their children and tailor their education to their character and idiosyncrasies, to develop both a sound body and character, and to make play the chief strategy for learning rather than rote learning or punishment (Locke, para 6) [11]. We see a revival of this middle age outlook on the student in a different form with the emphasis that is given to technique. This outlook as further consequences on the conduct and attitude of the student. The student is always perceived as a separate category; one that is different from the mature and wise adult. Hence considered incapable of taking good decisions for himself/herself. This leads to absence of participation; which tends to produce lack of interest and concern on part of those shut out. This results in corresponding lack of responsibility. As John Dewy remarks,
“Automatically and unconsciously, if not consciously, the feeling develops, ‘this is none of our affair; it the business of those at the top” (John Dewy, para 12) [12].
Thus, indifference is bread in education systems. This attitude on the part of individuals effects social and the political realm.
Education system has created Alienation among students.
Much as it has been ignored and even overlooked, the Marxist concept of alienation can be noticed in the classrooms of the modern education system. Marx identifies alienation of three kinds, with respect to the workers in a capitalist: one is alienation from the product of labour (Marx, 72) [14]; another is alienation from the activity of labour and alienation from one’s own specific humanity; which is called Gattungswesen or species-essence; and a third is alienation from others, from society. The first one, that one is alienated from the product of labour means that the product of labour is inevitably sold to someone else; hence produce for the sake of someone else. This transfers the modes of production to the consumer; hence the consumer decided what and how the product must be. The second type of alienation strips the labourer of the stake on the product that was produced. The third type of alienation pins one labourer against another (Asher Horowitz) [15]. Something surprisingly analogous can be noticed in the modern education system in a classroom of an education institute.
Firstly, the students are alienated from their liberty: As soon as one joins an educational institute, one alienates an exhaustive list of liberties. One is told what to wear — a uniform; one is told how to wear it; one is told how to look and what style to fashion. Apart from appearance, an educational institute has strict rules of engagement with any higher authority: one is supposed to stand-up when a faculty member enters the class, and stay standing till dictated to do otherwise; the teachers or lecturers are to be addressed as sir/ma’am. Even the standing, sitting, walking postures are all dictated by the institute. The institute also dictates the curriculum and the structure of the course. In worse cases, the student council has been dissolved or diluted to a point of it being rather symbolic. These are some of the features of an educational institute.
Almost all of this is justified by saying that the students aren’t wise enough to make decisions for themselves and that they agree to all these rules and regulations when they join the institute. Such justifications are nothing but shallow; since any students do have a mind of their own, and any kid at least from high-school onwards is perfectly capable of knowing what is good for him/her. Secondly, agreement should be subject to debate and revision, in which the students must be involved.
Now, the reason why this is analogues to Marx’s first type of alienation, that is, alienation of the products of labour, is because in Marxist alienation, since the product is made for a consumer, the consumer owns the means of production; in the case of the modern education system, the institute takes control of the liberty of the students; hence one is alienated from oneself, that is one’s own self-identity. By the time one grows up they are nothing but what the institute wants them to be. This may create a crisis in the individual or it may just lead to acceptance of the prevailing order. The crisis may turn into a reactionary form of rebellion (Krisnamurthy), or it may lead to conformity. Both don’t encourage critical thinking, introspection and creativity.
There is one there type of alienation that haunts the intellectual growth of students; its Marxist equivalent being, alienation from others. The grading system, the competitive nature of job market — of course because the third type of Marxist alienation — induces alienation between students in an educational institute. There is a constant need to better the other; this leads to a subtle form of animosity between students which can pervade through the course of time, complicating the relationship between students, and finally precipitating in bad classroom politics. This type of atmosphere is not conducive for good learning.
Capitalism has taken over the Education sector
Since the past decade or two, the education sectors have primarily become profit making departments. For primary schools to Universities, the only thing that institutions keep in mind is their reputation. This is so that that reputation can be advertised and more students can be admitted to the institution, and hence can generate more revenue. Also, because of this emphasis on the reputation of the educational institution, students are screened before admission (Stephen Gibbons, Stephen Machin, C77–C92) [8]. The institution will admit only those that suit a very standard of criteria that the institution expects the student to have. This again has to do with the reputation and profits of the institution. Secondly, companies have started to dictate the syllabus of educational institutions. Students are only taught those things that companies want. As beneficial as this may seem, the issue with such regulation is that it retards the creativity, and promotes only the development of certain knowledge — the kind of knowledge the companies want the students to have. Imagine, an engineer studied only about gears and nothing about aviation; can he/her she makes any innovations in the engineering sector then? Creativity is an act of establishing relation between two dissimilar concepts, which in actuality have a similarity, and thus creating something new (Wikipedia, 1) [9]. Therefore, regulation of the syllabus is insidious to education; it will lead to only reproduction of the same knowledge, and no innovation. We are facing this issue as of now; but if regulation continues, the problem will worsen.
Conclusion:
Throughout the ages many thinkers and philosophers have written about how education should be imparted. The first and a significant piece can be traced back to Plato’s Republic. Ever since then, the overall development of an individual was emphasised. Aristotle defined humans as rational animals (Animal Cognition, Foundational issues, para 2) [1]. Even now, it is true that knowledge is one of the things that defines us and distinguishes us from the other species on this planet; and education is the primary source of knowledge for the most of us. All the above points have been methodically laid out so that the problems that the modern education system faces can elucidated. But all these have been focused on education per say. In the practical world, education is linked to jobs or the means by which one survives and thrives in the modern society. If there has be to any significant change then in no possible way can this change be brought forth without changing the system of hiring students for jobs, the job requirement, the economic system of the country, etc. But undoubtedly, once the education system is changed, so will the job sector, the society, the economy, etc. The above four problems are those that have a significant impact on the education sector. These should not be regarded as the only problems; surely there are more. But whenever knowledge is restricted to specifics fields, suffering grows. Wars, poverty, evil, etc. are a result of lack knowledge. A it is written, “my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. “Because you have rejected knowledge” (Hosea Chap 4) [2]. Hopefully, there will come a time when education will transform, keeping in mind its true purpose.
Introduction References:
1. Simon Newman. Education in the Middle Ages. Para 9, line 1
2. Our World Data. Corruption. https://ourworldindata.org/corruption
3. Our World Data. Poverty. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/poverty-gap-index-at-190-int--per-day
4. Krishnamurti Jiddu. Education and significance of life. Bengal, India, 2000. (page 5, para 3).
Body References:
1. Daly, Chris. An Introduction to Philosophical Methods. New York, USA, 2010.
2. Gensler. J Harry. Ethics A Contemporary introduction. New York, USA, 2011.
3. Krishnamurti Jiddu. Education and significance of life. Bengal, India, 2000.
4. Thomas J. Siller and Gearold R. Johnson. Specialization: A Detriment to Problem Conception. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 30(3) 214–221
DOI: 10.1177/0270467610372111
5. 45 Percent of Surveyed American Adults Doubt Vaccine Safety. https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/vaccines-vaccination/45-percent-surveyed-american-adults-doubt-vaccine-safety
6. Six common misconceptions about immunization. https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/detection/immunization_misconceptions/en/
7. Britt Jakobson et Per-Olof Wickman. p. 141–157. Art in science class vs science in art class: a Study in Elementary School. https://journals.openedition.org/educationdidactique/396
8. Stephen Gibbons and Stephen Machin. Paying for Primary Schools: Admission Constraints, School Popularity or Congestion? The Economic Journal, 116 (March), C77–C92
9. Creativity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity
10. Stanford University: Locke’s Major works on education.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/#LockMajoWorkEduc
11.Stanford University: Locke’s Major works on education. Paragraph 6
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/#LockMajoWorkEduc
12. Max O. Hallman. “Traversing Philosophical boundaries”. Paragraph 12
13. Krishnamurti Jiddu. Education and significance of life. Bengal, India, 2000. page 14, para 2.
14. Marx, Karl (1844). Economic And Philosophic Manuscripts (Martin Milligan). New York: Prometheus Books. (page 74)
15. Asher Horowitz
http://www.yorku.ca/horowitz/courses/lectures/35_marx_alienation.html
Conclusion
1. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Animal Cognition. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognition-animal/
2. The Bible (New International Version). Hosea, Chapter 4, Verse 6
