Can you back this up? It's a big statement. Even if it's commonplace, I don't think it's well thought through. Education is for far more than jobs: People have to be citizens, community members, parents, individuals, and more - they need to be able to understand and reason critically about the world.
I'll note that the world's major problems now are not a lack of software and science, it's a lack of critical thinking about the (mis)information they read, and lack of understanding of politics and public affairs. For example, we know about climate change; the science isn't the obstacle. We've developed Facebook; more technology isn't the need.
The problem with that, however, is that there's a large proportion of the population that quite simply isn't capable of doing that (or who are located where those skills are irrelevant). They're just usually hidden from the sight of people that are, in the exact same ways and for the exact same reasons that people of different political leanings self-segregate.
The American upper class needs to find a way to make the American lower class objectively useful again. Let-them-eat-cake "just get An Education and it'll magically make things better" is not helping the people who plain aren't smart enough to get a good job any more. An objective-focused education that trains an individual to be useful at doing a certain class of tasks (like fixing automated machines as they break), however, does.
20th century American history (as well as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs) demonstrates that society cannot advance until _everyone_ has a sense of purpose and food on the table. Since the balance of political power in the US skews rural (lower class dominant), those in urban areas (upper class dominant) need to work harder to keep things equal.
And when everyone's happy, progress happens fast (though it tends to lag about a decade behind). Civil rights in the 60s, sexual revolution in the 70s, objective gender equality movements in the 70s, EPA in the 70s (and sufficient political goodwill to get the Montreal Protocol implemented), technological revolution in the 80s (read: automation that anyone could afford to invest in).
Progress has slowed down after that. Modern education has obviously failed to provide the educated with the critical thinking skills necessary for them to understand why, but that's a topic for another day.
> "just get An Education and it'll magically make things better" is not helping the people who plain aren't smart enough to get a good job any more.
Do you have any evidence that it's an issue of smarts or natural ability? In fact, the best predictor of educational level is parental wealth. I believe almost anyone can achieve if they work hard, and that the goal of society is to give opportunity to all, including college.
The big and evil presumption here is that economic class is fixed. There's nothing about children of the wealthy that makes them any better than children of the working class. The latter have every talent and deserve every opportunity. Let people achieve whatever they can; that is freedom and the American Dream; telling them at birth that they aren't worthy of college is just lazy oppression.
Social mobility used to be much higher in the U.S., and it remains higher in other developed countries. One reason is that college tuition was lower.
The point about climate change shows why more education isn’t what we need: https://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/Fig10_Compar.... Countries like Germany are willing to pay twice as much for electricity to fight climate change despite far fewer people having a college degree. The fact is, even most people in the US who have been brow beaten enough by liberal academia,[1] to accept climate change aren’t willing to make any lifestyle compromises as a result. What you want is a change in peoples’ values, not their education.
[1] I of course accept climate change is happening. But despite having a STEM degree, I don’t really understand it in any way I couldn’t have with a 12th grade education. I’ve simply been inculcated with values, as a result of my upbringing, that cause me to defer to academic experts on points that I haven’t personally researched.
What basis is there for this statement? Why can't they learn far more in college? What is magical about 12th grade that makes it the perfect end to education? Why wouldn't we want everyone to learn far more?
I went to a good high school, but I learned much more in college that has been extremely valuable to my life.
A major point of college is not to personally perform climate change science, but to develop the skills to understand complex information (not something reasonably possible in 12th grade), to learn complex skills, and to be able to think critically about and evaluate information, such as what the experts, politicians and people on HN say about climate change. I spent years in college studying the best thinkers in history; IME it's given me a huge advantage over people who spent that time in vocational school or working.
I'll add that it's mostly the wealthy and college educated who say college isn't needed, and yet their kids always go to college. What they mean is, 'college isn't for the other kids, the poor ones'. And today, the biggest predictor of college education is parental wealth.
It is incredibly condescending and shortsighted of you to say that those of us who did not attend college are not capable of participating in, or even excelling at those roles in society.
Still it seems that we haven't beaten it into nearly enough peoples' heads that we all live on the same planet, that resources are finite, and that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. What, if not education – of the liberal arts kind – to fix that, and quick?
I was just there to contribute financially to the system, be herded from one lecture hall to another, and just generally stay quiet. Only when I showed interest in graduate school did I get any attention.
I had to teach myself nearly everything, and were it not for the motivation that comes from attending classes, labs and exams with my peers, I could have easily done the whole things independently and remotely.
More to your point about job training, I studied math, which I thoroughly enjoyed, but I use little of it from day to day as a software engineer, and I've forgotten most of it.
That's fair, but it doesn't really lead to "less education is a good thing" as a conclusion.
We may need to replace college with something more practical, but that doesn't mean it's fine to have less of it without having more of something in its place.
That will be obsolete in ten years? The whole job, I mean.
This wasn't a bad line, but today it did lose its luster.