What is the root of evil? To understand, let's conduct a mental experiment on a virtual model of reality.
In short, everything is precisely as it should be with education. In fact, everything is “wrong” with all of us, with our society. Without understanding this simple fact, all the wailing and moaning is just a waste of time discussing the effect instead of the cause.
But let's not be so cavalier and agree that discussing effects will sooner or later still lead the best minds to the obvious thought - let's talk about how to cure the root of evil. To do this, let's build a model.
Model
So, what is the root of evil? To understand, let's conduct a mental experiment on a virtual model of reality.
We have such a model - we are free to do anything that is not forbidden. And even what is forbidden, but very much we want to do, is quite accessible to some people. Under the word “we” in the model, I assume relatively rationally acting subjects who choose the way to achieve personal goals, focusing on the limitations in the model in the form of explicit prohibitions (well-known legal laws, decrees, etc.) and implicit obstacles in the form of well-known laws of nature (laws of conservation, gravitation and other opposition to our innocent desires). It follows from the above that the model has a habitat shared by the subjects, in which the very implicit obstacles in the form of laws of nature operate.
Having a mass of subjects with their personal desires, we cannot fail to notice the simplest consequence - subjects have to compete for the habitat. Why does this happen? Because the fulfillment of innocent desires requires the consumption of resources, which subjects have nowhere to get except from the common habitat. So, to maximize the satisfaction of desires, it is necessary to move others away from the resources that a particular subject needs. And this is the competition we are used to.
Experiment
Now, I am ready to start our thought experiment. Let's pile a set of absolutely identical subjects into one pile and let them compete until the system reaches some stable state. It will seem to some people that since all subjects are identical, the result will be homogeneous. Still, each subject is in a different position on the map, with a random distribution of resources.
This introduces inequality - one has gold right under his heel, and the other has nothing but someone else's waste. Therefore, those who are in favorable conditions have the opportunity to take advantage of this advantage. Since all subjects are more or less rational thinkers, on average the idea of using an advantageous position will come to most of the heads of our experimental community.
Then, those closer to the advantage will be the first to seize it, and using the obtained advantage will try to prevent others from taking it away. As a result, there will be a situation commonly called “stratification of society”.
The stratification of society is a very stable situation, which is an example of any country in the world that can easily be verified. We reached the criterion of stopping the modeling almost immediately after starting our mental experiment - we have obtained a stable state. Now, we can try to conclude the phenomenon under study.
Education
Let us immediately limit our conclusions to the goal given in the title - let us see how the modeling results affect education. For this purpose, let us note that the amount of knowledge, on average, helps our research subjects to achieve their goals. However, as with resources, the endowment of knowledge will be uneven. The ability to acquire new knowledge will be equally uneven. Note also that, on average, all rational subjects will vote to increase their IQ for the sake of greater satisfaction of their innocent desires. This set of inputs creates a picture completely similar to the resource component of our model. Therefore, we can safely predict the stratification of society by the level of knowledge (and even verify this conclusion with statistics from real life).
The stratification by resource endowment and the necessity to maintain it for the sake of excluding the reduction of personal joys of successful subjects lead us to another simple conclusion:
In an average set of subjects, the idea of the benefit of using knowledge to maintain stability in the satisfaction of their desires by successful subjects is bound to enter the head of almost every such subject.
It follows that lucky subjects will try to concentrate all knowledge in their brains. But, as with everything else, the brain also has limitations - it is not bottomless. Therefore, successful subjects will quickly realize that it is easier to hold power over less successful subjects who have the necessary knowledge. The method will be simple - the knowledge holders will be shared with the resources. Since all of the above is very easy to understand and execute, we will get the effect of knowledge concentration around resource-successful individuals on average for all subjects. In other places, knowledge will also be present, but in a fragmented form, preventing the full realization of such potential. And besides fragmentation, the law of conservation will still be in force, preventing the flow of resources to those who know more, but have not managed to become successful and have not yet learned to extract resources from the air.
The result of the second step of modeling is a strong correlation between the amount of resources at the disposal of an individual and the amount of knowledge available to the same individual for any of his needs.
Interim findings
If there is a surplus of something somewhere, a rationally acting subject obviously will not increase this surplus, wasting resources that could be directed to something more useful. And even if they want to, less successful subjects, including those who are less successful in terms of knowledge, will not be able to allocate enough resources to increase the knowledge resource, which is scarce for them, to compare with successful subjects who concentrate hundreds or even thousands of unsuccessful sellers of knowledge for inexpensive resources.
One can expect objections like “successful subjects need knowledge very much to compete with other successful subjects”. Such an objection is bound to be answered. And the answer is again quite simple - specific knowledge is needed to compete.
For example, if one subject has launched an iPhone on the market and has thus shown the prospects of this market, then another subject does not need knowledge of history, math, physics, literature, etc. to compete. He needs very narrow knowledge such as “how to make the same”. Even more precisely - how much it will cost to make the same one. Do you feel the difference?
Sergey Brin doesn't need math, he needs to know how much he can buy a competitor to Steve Jobs' product (spoiler - the competitor's name is Android and he bought it for $50M, which is less than a ten-thousandth of the capitalization of Google or Apple).
As a result, the set of actors taken as a parameter of the model will generate forces that stabilize the situation and support unevenness in resources and knowledge. But at the same time, these forces will not motivate individuals who have opportunities for the development of the system to squander resources on knowledge, which they already have in abundance (recall the millions willing to sell knowledge for food).
Now, let's remember what the waste of resources on knowledge is called in our society. That's right - it's called the “education system”. And it makes no sense to spend their money on this system for those who already receive knowledge on a platter for a penny.
Education is just fine
It seems to me that the bottom line proves quite unambiguously - the current education system in society is completely adequate to the current state of society. That is, it is correct. Everything is “right” with it. There can be no other system under the given conditions. Well, there are arguments about the improvement of that, for which the money will never pay anyway. Yes, they're not illegal under current law. But nothing more reassuring can be said on this topic.
But I want a lot of gold knowledge!
Here, everything is simple - become a billionaire, and voila - there is a queue with trays of gold of knowledge near you. And if you don't succeed? Then let's try to think what you could do.
The choice is simple - with a probability equal to [number of billionaires] / [population of the earth] = [about 1 / 2 000 000] to become a billionaire after all. Or look for other ways. There are hundreds of thousands of books about “how to become a billionaire” and I will not compete with them. But about the second option, you can say something.
On the second way, the essence is simple - you belong to the majority. And the majority is power. Although it is clear that as long as the force is not organized, it is more correctly called a herd. But nevertheless, the potential is obvious.
Having potential, one can think about its realization. But right after the potential, many people see a set of unpleasant problems, such as a dictator ruling, everyone being slaves, getting nothing, and then a long list in the same vein. Yes, history shows us examples when dictators really rule, and the rest of us are slaves. This is the danger of the second way. But, on the other hand, fear the wolf and don't go into the forest. That is, if you forbid yourself to think about the second way, then there is only a very shaky hope for your future billionairehood.
But there is one more non-ideal moment. Let's say we have avoided dictatorship, slavery, “I won't get it” and all the rest of the long list. But even in such a pleasant case, there is a limitation - we have to share with others. And therein lies the existential divide between the habits of different people imbibed from childhood. Some people find it really hard to share. They are usually called greedy, but they call themselves rational, calculating, frugal, etc. We are not going to argue with them. Evolutionarily, society has developed a division into those who will forever remain selfish and those who are capable of generosity, kindness, and justice. This is an objective given, a legacy of our past. There is no escape from this inheritance. And from here grows the legs of our non-ideal moment.
There will always be a large percentage of people in society who fear losing the “bird in the hand” in the process of catching the “crane in the sky,” especially not for themselves but for everyone. That is why objections to the second way of life from the series “There Will Be a Dictator, There Will be slaves” quickly find ardent supporters among those who live well under the current conditions. They simply do not want change and, therefore, grasp any excuse for inaction. The only way to refute their objections is to place them in the world of the “second way”, where they will have better conditions than they have now. But here, the chicken and egg problem arises - to get the world of the “second way” requires the efforts of the specified part of society, and without these efforts, the second way is doomed. That is, no effort - no proof. And this is also a given that we have to live with.
Back to education
Let us try to answer the question, “What is wrong with education from the point of view of the second-way society?”. The answer will depend on the goals of such a society, so in many respects, it will be speculative. We can think about the goal literally - to provide quality education. But even in this case, everything will be “not glorious” because the question “What is quality?” will immediately arise. The definition of quality will again bring us back to the problem of understanding what the new society will be like because quality cannibals, for example, would be somewhat ambiguously perceived in some societies, just as quality fighters against cannibalism in the society of cannibals.
We can go one further. The majority perceives education in the modern world as a “road to a good life”, but what is a “good life” in the new society, and what road will lead there? These questions again cannot be answered without understanding the goals of the new society and its structure because someone's qualitative life is cannibalism, and someone does not want to get on the table to such a nice creature.
Uncertainty in the initial data makes it difficult to get some useful answers. But there is a second side to this coin. It is very simple - if some society needs anything, sooner or later, this need will be closed at a more or less decent level. Hence, the conclusion is that education must be needed in the new society. And if it exists there, then resources can be directed to its satisfaction. The priority of education will determine the amount of directed resources in the list of society's goals.
In the example of modern society, we see that the priority of education, in terms of the allocation of resources by successful individuals, is somewhere far at the end of the general list of objectives. However, in terms of funds most parents allocate for their children's education, the importance of education rises to the highest priority, somewhere not far from the cost of an apartment, well, or a car. So, we can assume that in the new society, the priority of education will be raised following the demand from a significant part of society. Then, in the end, we will inevitably come to reforming the existing education system and its noticeable improvement. But for this to happen, a request from decision-makers is indispensable. Today, decisions are made by presidents and other figures who do not belong to the part of society that has an increased demand for education. If, in the new society, all those who are concerned about the quality of education today understand the conclusions below, the result, as it seems to me, does not need to be described for a long time because it is obvious.
General conclusion
Everything is decided by those who set the goals. They determine the shape of the whole society. Education is only a small part of this image, and of course, this part is also completely determined by those who set the goals. That is why I would like to bring the article's conclusions to everyone who has read it this far. Otherwise, long debates about the fate of education can continue indefinitely.
Now, a bit of repetition. One question will always be primary - what kind of society do we want to see? Everything else depends on the answer to it. Education, medicine, housing issues, and even the level of immorality in the communication of small citizens in the sandbox of their kindergarten. This means that we should discuss not education but our goals. What are they? Let's start with a list. Then priorities. And only then do we bring up obstacles. Because, again, the goal is primary. It is the root of evil (or good, depending on where you look from). And we will somehow get around the obstacles.
