Value of Education

I have high blood pressure; my diastolic pressure is usually above 90. After a lot of diagnostic tests the doctors say it is due to a kidney condition. But I have my doubts. I think my pressure shoots up when I hear the following two arguments and let me tell you why.

1. Asha has a lofty goal of ‘catalyzing socio-economic change through education’. I repeatedly keep hearing from several volunteers, some of whom who have been in this racket for almost a decade, that even after ‘n’ years of running a school things have not changed. I think they are forgetting elementary logic. Education is a necessary condition for development but not sufficient. Do I need to explain more? I am actually not able to!
2. The second peeve I have is the narrow focus on only the instrumental value of education. There are educated who are un-employed, so why do we need education? This argument completely ignores or does not even recognize the existence of the intrinsic value for education. I take, some would think an extreme, position that basic education is an end in itself; it is not a means to an end. When I make this statement I will have to qualify what I think ‘basic education’ is. So let me jot it down as succinctly as possible:
1. Ability to read, write, comprehend
2. A good foundation in basic computational skills (arithmetic) and ability to form abstractions out of concrete situations (mathematics helps a lot in forming abstractions)
3. A good foundation in science as a tool for critical thinking. The aspect of science through inquiry and questioning in a systematic fashion and the acceptance of ‘truths’ through experimentation, which is repeatable and transparent (not because somebody or something said so or because that is what is being done before). The ability to questions ‘why’ and ‘how’ for almost everything and acquiring means to either comprehend answers that have already been found or acquiring ability to systematically approach those answers.
4. The applied part of the previous section in terms of problem solving techniques. ‘What is thinking’, ‘Is there a systematic way to think’, ‘Is there a common pattern in problem solving in general’.
5. Logic
6. A good grounding in social sciences. Understanding human history and questioning past events and their relevance to today’s life. Economics and the various social systems, their philosophies and how they affect societies.

The ultimate aim of ‘basic education’ is to create an autonomous thinking individual who can critically analyze problems and have some basic techniques of problem solving. (I might have missed out several things since I am writing this when my blood pressure is high. But in general I feel basic education should include things that affects the individual’s life in a day-to-day situation).

I am borrowing thoughts from a wise man (I need to introduce him in a better way later) here. What defines and refines humans is appreciation of beauty. Beauty when felt is pleasure, beauty when acted out is kindness and beauty when understood is realization. He opined, and I concur, that the best training for appreciating beauty that is available to all is literature. How can literature be absorbed without literacy? How can we put an instrumental value to this?

A lot of folks have unrealistic expectation out of education from a different angle. They expect it to answer the question ‘How to be a good human being’ or ‘How to be happy’. I think they are trying to play god here (even though some of them are avowed atheists!). Is there really a sure shot formula for that? I guess only the rabidly religious folks claim that there is an answer. May be on the other hand I believe, in true advaitic tradition, that god is within everyone. The individual best addresses the fundamental problems and there is no external formula for that solution.

While I am complaining about annoyances, I will state another high BP argument. When questioned about spending habits of the poor for e.g. wedding expenses there is an argument that why we are questioning only them and not the rich who spend on extravagant weddings too. If the arguer has some grounding in economics and understands the concept of diminishing marginal utility they would not be making this argument. For a person with a crore of money 1 lakh may not be of great value but for a person with only 1 lakh it is everything. Usually the poor don’t even have that, they borrow to spend which does not make economic sense at all! But then usually arguers hide behind cultural apologies (because it is how it was done before), without questioning why. Lot of well meaning and liberal folks do probably a lot more damage by apologizing for situations, which do not warranty them.

Ok, I am calming down now….