[EpicEng]

A brief glance at history would seem to say otherwise. Uneducated masses are easy to control. It 'doesn't want to die' because it shouldn't. It's a vast improvement over how people loved their lives for the majority of our existence.

[rexgallorum2]

Education doesn't make the masses any more difficult to control. And it isn't an improvement over anything at all. That is just dogma.

I knew my comment would get downvoted though. :P

[EpicEng]

Care to explain your reasoning? What you're saying doesn't make any sense on its face.

[rexgallorum2]

I know it sounds strange, as it runs contrary to perceived wisdom on the subject. That is precisely why I question it.

I would place the origin of this thinking in the crusading social reform movements of the 19th and 20th centuries, or perhaps more broadly in Protestantism, and later, in emerging nationalist projects (with a few outliers of course).

I think it is important to examine the origins of our ideas on compulsory education, and the crucial questions of what purpose an education system actually serves, what purpose it should serve, and how its purpose has changed over time.

I would advocate a paradigm shift in how we think about education and its place in modern society. I am of course not the only person who advocates this, but I disagree with those who would carry on the tradition of imbuing education with a social and moral mission. I would not argue against the benefits of a broad humanistic education, or the necessity of technical and vocational education in an advanced economy, but rather point out that we collectively allocate a vast amount of resources to education, and place an almost religious faith in its value. The latter points are worthy of debate.

I could write a book on the subject, and I've read quite a bit in the area over the years. I'd really love to continue with the historical side of things, as well as my own suggestions and reflections, but it's too much to properly explain here.