EDUCATION DESIGNED AGAINST THE WORKING AND ORDINARY MIDDLE CLASS

Is the education system built the way it is to keep the working class and ordinary middle class out? It does seem that the education system is perhaps lengthier and more expensive than it need be. University has bachelor, master and phd degrees, are these all really necessary when there are still; although not many: professors with a masters degree. Is the system long and expensive on purpose simply to keep the children of those poor or less well off out of the system and give themselves and their children and advantage? I would say even when children of the working or ordinary middle class get a Phd they still have very little chance of getting hired in a university. This means there are 2 kinds limiting forces: that which stops them getting a degree and a well aid job , and that which stops them becoming a professor and controlling the system even if they do get a degree.

reply to post by s12345


I have always felt as though the education system was becoming more and more of a vending machine type industry and not a true academic industry.

Its getting to the point where people are going to be getting "college educations" on their ipads in their PJs as I am sure they are doing as type this.

Problem is that doesn't create a person, making someone get the answers right and teaching someone are two completely different things.

IMHO, schools these days are nothing but day cares. A place for kids to go while their parents have to work to put food on the table. No child left behind is nothing but a joke.

Well...I don't know about that. The length of time and the number courses is to build a solid mental library and the knowledge of how to use the information in your head and how to find what you don't have stored in your head. As Einstein said "Never try to remember what you can write down"

I do agree that there are perhaps some fields that could be brought out sooner, there are some fields that probably do not require advanced literature or artisitic study... but the idea is to build a more well rounded person...aka...kinda like "the renaissance man" idea...erm..."renaissance person" I mean...sorry...Well rounded and familiar with art, history, culture AND the skills they chose to focus on.

I understand why some people get frustrated with it, but it's the way it is for reasons of personal ability building...not elitism...consider this article since a Liberal Arts degree is usually the one a lot of people poke fun at...but listen to what is is saying in general.

www.virtualsalt.com...

It seems the length is there simply to create a barrier to entry; especially to academia. Imagine if it were like it was in the 19th to early 20TH century where a bachelor or masters degree was enough to become a professor practically anywhere.There would be no way to guarantee respect based upon a degree. There would be more choice of who could be an academic and so they would be a bigger problem in choosing staff. You would think more choice would be good, but really it would mean more effort in choice: but the dr could not claim a title and so no increased respect. I suppose then a masters degree would bestow the title master as it does in some countries.

How about this all degree course levels studied in 4 to 5 years: in victorian (19th century) England there was just a bachelor degree 3 years, masters degrees were honorary. Later on early 20th century the masters degree could be studied. The phd was a degree awarded after a lifetime of research. So in the english system ba 3 years ma 1 year or usa system ba 4 years ma 1 year: sounds good to me.

I think that the reference is about college/university tuition rates being elevated and higher than many can afford on their own.

I think that there was a study or something that seemed to link the rising cost of tuition as being inadvertantly linked to the increase in government grants. At least, that's what is suggested by a recent Wall Street Journal article:

www.smartmoney.com...

The increasing tuition was found more in institutions accepting federal financial aid.

I'm thinking that the institutions may have realized that if the government will pay for full tuition for a student who can't otherwise pay for it, then why not increase the tuition so the institution will get more money from the government?

I live in the uk I think rising tuition fees is probably a trend shared by many countries. But does it actually need to be that expansive or that long. It does seem that the creation of the phd as a degree was a strange thing to do: originally it was an award for a lifetime of research.