[DeathArrow]

The know how is hardly a secret. Most countries can build a nuclear weapon provided they want to, they are let to do it and they have the raw materials.

But you are right, innovation is not a monopoly of the West.

During the Soviet times USSR had many technological advances, their population was quite literate in sciences, schools were very good and USSR had many teams winning math and physics Olympics.

Having great schools resulted in a large number of scientists and researchers.

The situation repeats with China. They invested a lot in scientific education and it is starting to pay off. Meanwhile, in the West, higher education means discussing politics and being woke.

[mdp2021]

While the core point holds, that scientific literacy pays off, more discrimination is required about the other side of liberal arts:

-- the full realm of human development should be cultivated, and

-- there is a crisis in some broad instances of higher education.

For example, with reference to the parent: you /should/ discuss politics: only, productively.

You do not want your society to be well trained in engineering but underdeveloped in other human qualities fundamental in civilization.

[DeathArrow]

> For example, with reference to the parent: you /should/ discuss politics: only, productively.

I would argue that the scope of education is to improve and spread knowledge.

Politics might be important for society but it is not within the scope of education. Unless you make education about politics and forget knowledge.

[mdp2021]

The purpose of education is the mental refinement of the individual, it scope is dealing with knowledge to that purpose. You deal with knowledge to provide a form of wisdom. Notion and ability go together through education. (Notion without ability would be a dead encyclopedia.)

Political science (say, the comparative advantages of an organizational, or administrative, or voting system vis-a-vis philosophical principles and quantitative methods etc.) is a discipline. It is surely part of education.

When individuals treat political discussions like "hooligans" could treat "Barcelona vs. Arsenal", that is a fault in mental refinement, hence also in education.

[DeathArrow]

>Political science (say, the comparative advantages of an organizational, or administrative, or voting system vis-a-vis philosophical principles and quantitative methods etc.) is a discipline.

Studying politics doesn't mean doing politics. And studying politics is best done solely as a discipline, not instead of other disciplines.

[mdp2021]

Yes. You wrote «discussing politics»: the expression leaves interpretation of "discussing politics with a skewed bias towards that discipline" - still research, investigation, inquire, study, learning -, it is not necessarily read as "doing politics" ("party taken, now let us be active, or loud, or hooligans").

Now: in theory, if your students spent time being loud instead of studying, that should reflect on the marks, should not it? They finally should not pass if doing politics replaced studying. But it is reported of prestigious Athenaeums in USA, and it is also seen and told in Europe, that the "feedback" from the institutions is being lower and lower: even the worse will get the degree. There are horror stories directly told by professors. So, there is a confirmed crisis in education.

But you want your citizens to be fully developed, not """able to count and unable to read""".

[gattilorenz]

> the scope of education is to improve and spread knowledge. Politics might be important for society but it is not within the scope of education

Why is knowledge of politics not knowledge?

[DeathArrow]

>Why is knowledge of politics not knowledge?

It is. But is not the only knowledge needed by a country. Or the most important knowledge.

[jacquesm]

Just look at the incredible amount of knowledge around working Titanium that came from Russia, even to do things that the West had decided were impossible.