Comment by Telemakhos
18 days ago
I think this debate about utility misses some of the functions of education that the Romans (like Aulus Gellius and Macrobius) discuss: they talk about education having three parts, namely utility, pleasure, and "cultitavtion" or "culture" (for lack of a better English word). Yes, some education does have direct practical application (utility) in life, but that alone is not sufficient. And, education must include pleasure and teach one how to take pleasure in things, or else it becomes an oppressive training in servility. But the third element, "cultivation," is the one that people today most often overlook. It's the Roman word for tilling soil, which you do not because it makes plants grow (that's sowing seeds) but because it prepares the ground for plants to grow when you do sow them. There are some educational activities that do not have direct and immediate utility but do open up new capabilities that can lead to future utility. Learning geometric constructions, for example, may not have immediate practical utility, but it may prepare the mind for trigonometry. Grade school art class never made anyone a Michelangelo or Monet, but learning to hold a brush or sculpt clay does promote fine motor skills that will enable one hold a pen later in education or maybe, with more practice, a scalpel in medical school.
Financial literacy for those who do not yet have wealth to manage, even if it doesn't seem practical in the moment, still opens up new capabilities to enable future growth.
>I think this debate about utility misses some of the functions of education that the Romans (like Aulus Gellius and Macrobius) discuss: they talk about education having three parts, ...
Sure, but I was making that point in the context of a discussion that accepted the premise that we do want kids to be good at a practical skill (personal finance) and we want to know how to best adapt schools to achieve that.
> But the third element, "cultivation," is the one that people today most often overlook. It's the Roman word for tilling soil, which you do not because it makes plants grow (that's sowing seeds) but because it prepares the ground for plants to grow when you do sow them. There are some educational activities that do not have direct and immediate utility but do open up new capabilities that can lead to future utility. Learning geometric constructions, for example, may not have immediate practical utility, but it may prepare the mind for trigonometry.
It seems like you're agreeing with my point there, about the need to ground the knowledge in what it will be used for, and thus some meaningful criteria for whether you're doing it right, that you can reason able. See my paragraph about "When are we ever going to use this stuff?": yes, it would tremendously help to teach tilling soil with an eye for "which tillings will actually make the soil receptive for seeds?" because then it would make a ton more sense why they're telling you to do it one way vs another!
>Grade school art class never made anyone a Michelangelo or Monet, but learning to hold a brush or sculpt clay does promote fine motor skills that will enable one hold a pen later in education or maybe, with more practice, a scalpel in medical school.
And again, you're agreeing about the need for practical application of a skill (actually using the brush).
>Financial literacy for those who do not yet have wealth to manage, even if it doesn't seem practical in the moment, still opens up new capabilities to enable future growth.
No, the issue is that it won't -- unless it hooks into some meaningful understanding that prevents it from folding into "useless esoterica where you have to guess the correct answer and then forget about over time", that most education falls into the trap of.