4 ms·

> No. It should help a person develop into a free, thoughtful, well-rounded human being. That was the goal maybe in the past when only rich people could afford

by visarga 5mo ago

> No. It should help a person develop into a free, thoughtful, well-rounded human being. That was the goal maybe in the past when only rich people could afford an education.

pj_mukh 5mo ago
I think the March of Capitalism has been (at least in part) to make the luxuries of yore become commodified middle-class must-haves. 150 years ago, only the lords could afford a wash-up man, a laundry man, a cook, a tailor, a night out at the theater. Now we have airfryers, instant pots, fast fashion, washing machines, dishwashers and Netflix. What does that look like for a Humboldtian education?
- kiba 5mo ago
  Labor became too expensive to afford than technology obsoleting household labor. They can find better opportunities. Currently labor is too cheap due to the housing crisis and poor urban planning. Paradoxically labor will become more expensive once structural issues are fixed.
  - red-iron-pine 5mo ago
    how many people are going to have to suffer greatly, and for how long, before those structural issues are fixed?
jasonlotito 5mo ago
Do not confuse the purpose of higher education with trade schools, and do not assume that trade schools are merely for blue-collar jobs.
SpaceNoodled 5mo ago
Don't worry, we're fast approaching that again.
Gud 5mo ago
Why should that not be the goal for everyone, rich and poor? And why are so few rich and so many poor?
- simonsarris 5mo ago
  Because how you spend your time is different when you need to work for a living and when you do not. If that's not transparent, this can't really be discussed. Spending 4 years and $300,000 is "fine" if you have a trust fund and "extremely stupid without a return-on-investment" if you don't.
  - Gud 5mo ago
    Uhm, why does the individual pay $300,000, sounds extremely backwards? That’s not a fact everywhere.
- Anvoker 5mo ago
  Because the poor will suffer tremendously if they are ill equipped for the job market. If we want to have education have a strong humanistic focus then we should start by changing society in other places. Or we'll get unemployed and suffering well rounded human beings. Regardless, at the moment education does not seem to be doing great on either the humanistic or "pragmatic" axis.
1vuio0pswjnm7 5mo ago
Whats the goal now

by visarga 5mo ago

> No. It should help a person develop into a free, thoughtful, well-rounded human being. That was the goal maybe in the past when only rich people could afford an education.

pj_mukh 5mo ago

I think the March of Capitalism has been (at least in part) to make the luxuries of yore become commodified middle-class must-haves. 150 years ago, only the lords could afford a wash-up man, a laundry man, a cook, a tailor, a night out at the theater. Now we have airfryers, instant pots, fast fashion, washing machines, dishwashers and Netflix. What does that look like for a Humboldtian education?

kiba 5mo ago
Labor became too expensive to afford than technology obsoleting household labor. They can find better opportunities. Currently labor is too cheap due to the housing crisis and poor urban planning. Paradoxically labor will become more expensive once structural issues are fixed.
- red-iron-pine 5mo ago
  how many people are going to have to suffer greatly, and for how long, before those structural issues are fixed?

jasonlotito 5mo ago

Do not confuse the purpose of higher education with trade schools, and do not assume that trade schools are merely for blue-collar jobs.

SpaceNoodled 5mo ago

Don't worry, we're fast approaching that again.

Gud 5mo ago

Why should that not be the goal for everyone, rich and poor? And why are so few rich and so many poor?

simonsarris 5mo ago
Because how you spend your time is different when you need to work for a living and when you do not. If that's not transparent, this can't really be discussed. Spending 4 years and $300,000 is "fine" if you have a trust fund and "extremely stupid without a return-on-investment" if you don't.
- Gud 5mo ago
  Uhm, why does the individual pay $300,000, sounds extremely backwards? That’s not a fact everywhere.
Anvoker 5mo ago
Because the poor will suffer tremendously if they are ill equipped for the job market. If we want to have education have a strong humanistic focus then we should start by changing society in other places. Or we'll get unemployed and suffering well rounded human beings. Regardless, at the moment education does not seem to be doing great on either the humanistic or "pragmatic" axis.

1vuio0pswjnm7 5mo ago

Whats the goal now