I’m not sure but I think you agree that the purpose of education is to provide you a good income?

Maybe you’re right, maybe we need to provide the skills to succeed in the “new economic system”.

The education requirement for a license to practice law is nothing more than a restriction of entry into the trade, which is why the “scum” make so much.

It is complex. There’s an answer somewhere. Not sure exactly what it is.

Oh. Never mind.

The liberal arts (Latin: artes liberales) are those subjects or skills that in classical antiquity were considered essential for a free person (Latin: liberalis, “worthy of a free person”) to know in order to take an active part in civic life, something that (for Ancient Greece) included participating in public debate, defending oneself in court, serving on juries, and most importantly, military service. Grammar, logic, and rhetoric were the core liberal arts, while arithmetic, geometry, the theory of music, and astronomy also played a (somewhat lesser) part in education.

-Wikipedia

Where I went to school, there was a College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, which included the sciences and humanities, as opposed to Engineering and Business Administration which had their own Colleges. Yes, Astronomy was a Liberal Art, presumably because it is really difficult to participate rationally in civic life without some knowledge of man and earth’s place in the universe.

Those are two great tastes that don’t go together on the liberal palate. Or singularly, for that matter.

Along with “science”.

How about “arithmetic with words” to give the thinking disciplines a grounding in conservative practicality and utility?

If the Conservatives get their way, your children and grandchildren won’t get that opportunity and that benefit. If they’re lucky, they might get a spot in some dead-end service job…if they’re lucky to have a job at all. The best way to keep salaries down and profits high is to make sure lots of people are out of work, are desperate for any job at any salary, and will remain docile and meek rather than risk losing whatever trickles down to them from their betters above.

Without that well-rounded, liberal education, I might not have been able to figure that out on my own; or if I had, I might be too scared to admit it to myself, much less do everything I can to communicate it to everyone I possibly can.

I guess I feel, like I owe it…to someone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVsbqVJLFow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XWmwvT8bCw

There’s not one statement in that paragraph that’s true any more. The unskilled jobs have all been sent to cheaper workers overseas, or have been automated out of existence. Republicans have all but succeeded in killing unions in America, destroying labor laws, and holding the minimum wage to 1970s levels. The barriers to entry for getting any kind of job are much higher now than they were when we were young.

When I first started working, the conventional wisdom was that if you wanted a new job, you’d just turn in a different driveway in the morning. That seems like a dream now, and nobody can coast on a high school diploma any more.

So Rob, by your logic–society’s educational subsidy reflects the level of education you need to get by–society is now obligated to provide a free college education. Or at least, as the Great Compromiser Barack Obama offered, two years of community college. Because that’s what people need.

What? “Would you still have us pay for law school?”? Is that because lawyers are scum? I’m not sure why you’re singling out law school.

You might not know that what Shakespeare meant by that line that conservatives love so much, “kill all the lawyers”, is pretty much the opposite of what you think it means. In context, conspirators are observing that if they want to get away with breaking the law, they first have to remove lawyers as their primary obstacle, as the ones who’d blow the whistle and fight them in court. The good guys, in Shakespeare’s telling.

Surprise, two sides to yet another story! Will the world never cease this vexing complexity?

I don’t agree with ER. If you desire to become a more well-rounded person, do it on your own dime. Invest in yourself.

Kudos to the people that “want” to be doctors. The same for scientists. Pursuing a passion in spite of potential income is admirable. But someone still has to pay for it.

Would you still have us pay for law school?

There are three constant categories of investment in the Federal budget: Education, infrastructure and R&D. All are historically underfunded at current levels, but they more than pay for themselves over the long run. And the long run IS the kind of investments government should do since private capital is more focused on near term returns. It’s a no brainer for any thinking person to get that a highly educated population will produce more wealth over time, and thus produce higher tax revenues. IT’S CALLED AN INVESTMENT. Governments can and SHOULD do it too.

Would that be a public high school, by any chance? (The chance being more than 9 in 10.)

By “public”, in America we mean “free”.

How is that fair?