Post Secondary Education - Revisited

I was washing some wool the other day when, almost out of the blue, it struck me that the whole argument about the relevancy of post secondary education was, at the very least, based on the wrong question.

We seem to go through spurts of enthusiasm for reviewing the value of our education system. Almost invariably the conclusion seems to be that we are teaching young adults the wrong information. The argument is that  if we could only give them access to the right information, they would be so much more successful and so much more useful to the business world. We make the assumption that people don't use the information/theories they are taught because those facts and theories are not relevant in the 21st century.

 But what if the question was - why don't people use the information that we give them?  Before we assume that the information is not useful - perhaps should wonder if there is some other reason why it is not being used. Let me give two examples of information that every student who takes first year sociology and psychology course is exposed to: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Durkheim's theory of suicide.

The first argues that before an individual can maximize their potential they need to have their basic needs meet. That is, before an individual can have meaningful relationships, experiment with their creativity or be engaged in an exploration of their world in a meaningful way - they need to have, amongst other things - a secure supply of food and a safe place to live.  If our governmental and corporate policies reflected this theory; if we focused on ensuring that basic needs were met - everyone could potentially be a full and meaningful participant within our society.  

The second theory suggests, in part, that people who feel disconnected from their society, who have been forced to relocate away from their roots (either physical or emotional), who no longer feel as if their society can provide to them the needed moral values or guidelines, are far more likely to commit suicide ( or engage in anti- society acts) - Durkheim referred to it as anomie - than those who have maintained close ties to a society that has retained its value. We have known for over a century what causes despair amongst dislocated peoples. Yet we continue to create policies that facilitate such dislocation.

Both of these theories (there are many more)  are well known and accepted within the academic world.  Both have been tested and explored by more than a few generations of students and social researchers. The question is not whether or not the information is valid or useful - it is why, in spite of some excitement on the part of students when they learn them, do we not use the information when we leave school? Why, as soon as we leave university or college - do we never think about them again? How are our perceptions of the world shaped/manipulated so that we ignore what we have paid good money to learn.

I am not a great believer in conspiracy type theories but one has to wonder if there is an explanation other than the theory is not valid. Using Maslow as an example - do the capitalist elite really want individuals to be self actualized? Does it want a population of workers and consumers who have the capacity to think creatively and critically?  Is it possible that society gets "fed" the question about our post secondary education not being of value because some don't  want the real question to be answered?

It is so often true that we waste time and money solving problems that don't exist because we don't take the time to ensure that we are asking the right questions.

p.s. Actually the above thoughts did not appear totally out of the blue - my daughter's questioning what kids learn in high school and a friend mentioning how rare it was to see people quote academic writers outside of university in all likelihood laid the seeds of the thought .