[e_tm_]

I agree that 'education' is critically important.

But it is important to clarify: education in what is important.

I think there is massive difficulty in forming any sort of consensus approach to define a proper baseline of 'education' that works for everyone. Our school systems are frankly not designed for it, and it seems a utopian ideal that they may be 'corrected' to do so. Considering the diversity of motivators and systems/tactics used for schooling across cities/counties/states and the content that is covered/ignored, is it realistic to attempt to measure a 'baseline of education'?

To me it comes down to structuring a better formal definition of 'education' at a societal level. Economic utility is the obvious motivator in today's society, which pumps up many fields of 'education', but hinders the perceived importance of other fields. Some forms or fields of education that are not covered in our modern schooling systems may actually improve the education baseline, and vice versa with some content currently covered.

[always_good]

I generally disagree with your clarification.

University was mostly a core of classes that everybody needed to take, free electives that let me take whichever classes I wanted, and then degree courses which were a subset of my classes.

We over-fixate on the major in these discussions because we look at the crazy American education prices and then think in $/major. But otherwise I'd say university does a decent job of making people credentialize in generally important concepts. And this process helps you in life, like being able to think and speak intelligently on any topic.

I think it's the gross expense of uni that causes us to push people into majors like STEM that can be directly transmuted into dollars. But I don't think that's best for society. And it's an unhealthy approach to education.

For example, if I could redo university, I would've majored in philosophy. It's just obnoxious that I had to make that decision somewhere within age 17-20.

[e_tm_]

I see where you are coming from. Perhaps my original wording didn't do justice to my thought process.

I agree with your take about STEM majors being pushed due to both ROI potential and/or market demand for skills. I also agree that this is an unhealthy approach to education. However, I don't see this changing. I see it as the fundamental motivator of education for many people. Likely, the people to which I am referring are not readers of this site, who are of the highest skills in their respective fields (most likely technical).

I am interested in your opinion that "university does a decent job of making people credentialize in generally important concepts" but then following with your personal interest (later realized) in an education based on (and in) philosophy.

I think this actually reinforces my point, because the motivator is the credential, or some creditable skillset. This is the economic utility motivator I was referring to, rather than a more abstract education in philosophy or other arts. The skills gained from these more abstract educations are not as highly valued by their economic potential, however they could actually be more beneficial to both the person and society as a whole.