4 ms·

I always felt like linking education to direct use of the knowledge is missing the point. It is irrelevant whether or not you'll need the knowlege you learned i

I always felt like linking education to direct use of the knowledge is missing the point. It is irrelevant whether or not you'll need the knowlege you learned in school or at uni. What matters is your learnability, and that's the muscle you train with education. Learning smth just to use it to get paid for it is the lowest form of learning; the whole point is to acquire ability to learn whatever quickly so that you can become proficient in whatever is needed in the future, which in turn gives you an edge in the talent pool. In that sense the central point of the article is 100% valid - it's all about track record

hnfong 3y ago
You can choose which subjects to study in university, or even whether to spend time to get a degree. So it's optional. And these days, university departments that don't actually do something gets its funding slashed, so in that sense market forces are working well. It's a different story for education up to high school. School is pretty much mandatory these days, and basically everyone has to go through it. It's a worthy question to ask why learn X instead of Y, if X has little real application? Why glorify those who can do maths well, as opposed to those who can best remember the names of Pokemon? Or those who can play LoL the best? Who defines which areas of knowledge counts as "education", and which areas are frivolous trivia? In the case of maths, the mere fact that it has tonnes of applications in many technical subjects is sufficient justification for me, but if you reject that line of reasoning, I'm not sure you can convince me (or anyone with critical thinking) that it's more worthy to pursue knowledge in maths than knowledge in "Pokemon studies".