Doing something because it provides a higher "return" is exactly the sort of utilitarian thinking this article is arguing against.
You should really try to see this from a non-monetary, non-utilitarian perspective.
You should really try to see this from a non-monetary, non-utilitarian perspective.
For example, if your desired outcome is self discovery, some education based on indoctrination probably isn't going to work very well. That's a silly example, but choosing between methods and selecting the one that best delivers the result you desire isn't real distinguishable from making an economic choice.
I don't know how to make you stop thinking in a utilitarian way. There are other philosophies, you know?
I responded to the juxtoposition here: There is no reason to apply economics to education. "Value" is not only monetary.
I'm not insisting that you view education through the lens of economics, I was pointing out that what you said about value was not an argument against economics (because economics doesn't care about what form value takes).
You keep looking for a word other than value to describe this thing that you think should happen because then I can't point out that you can analyze it economically, but this is not a way to argue that education should not be analyzed economically, it is a misunderstanding of economics (it was really clear when stated as "Value" is not only monetary, but "we should do it just because" is still an imputation of value...).