Education versus Training

 

Education or training is currently a hot issue in the UK. It affects all British people and young Brits particularly.

The debate is whether to train young people for specific jobs, or to give them a broad education. What do you think?

In some countries the 'more intelligent' children are selected because of their higher academic ability to receive education. The less intelligent' children are selected because of their lower academic ability to receive training. The more intelligent' children go to university. The 'less intelligent' children do apprenticeships.

Isn't it very inflexible and limiting to train a teenager for one specific job? With advancing technology, that job may simply cease to exist. Surely teenagers need to be given the knowledge of how to retrain, to adapt existing skills, and to learn new ones? But is it necessary to train fully in one specific job in order to know the process of adapting to one specific set of job requirements?

The idea of 'education', in contrast, is that the educated person has a large body of knowledge learned in later schooling and in university.

That knowledge is for its own sake, it is pure knowledge, interesting in itself, and has helped to expand the potential of that person. Only after university education does that person train in a specific job which may or may not use the knowledge gained in the degree. Would that suit you or not?

In the l970s and l980s in the UK some sort of compromise was attempted. The message was "Yes, go to university, but no, don't study knowledge for its own sake". There was a great expansion in 'practical courses' which trained people for particular professions - mechanical, civil, electrical and electronic engineering, for example.

The polytechnics which had lower status than the universities were raised to the same status and called 'universities' to help attract more academic candidates. Research for pure knowledge had funding cut, and more funds were put into 'applied research' which had a definite end in view.

 

Do you agree with those changes?

 

The counter argument can be expressed in an analogy, you go to the seaside. You want to find specific things on the beach for building your house. You walk along the high-tide line looking only for building materials. You find boxes and branches and drag them to your building site. Yes, your narrow-viewed specific search was rewarded. The house got built. But, being so narrow-viewed you missed the amber which was also washed up on the beach. Had you collected that, you could have sold it to buy materials for building your house, or you could have set up in a new field of carving amber to make necklaces.

In other words if we focus too closely on the utilitarian, we miss the perspective. Which is most useful in a changing world, exploring the known (training) which belongs to the past, or exploring the unknown (education) which belongs to the future? What is your opinion? Has your schooling so far narrowed you or broadened you? Do you feel equipped by your education and training to adapt to the rapidly changing future?

What system of schooling would you create in your country to give the young people of your country the best preparation for the future? What about the elements of the future which you cannot predict? How can your system of training and education prepare for the unknown?

You have thought deep and long about the system of schooling you would create. You could get together with other like-minded people to make your system come into existence. Why not, if it is a valid and useful vision?