[truly]

It helps to first discuss what the purpose of the education system is before trying to reform it.

In my view, the purpose should be: - enable each individual to function independently in society.

For poor individuals, a technical education that helps land you a good job is absolutely great and is an enabling factor for many things to come.

For individuals from richer families with a wide array of opportunities (e.g., middle class in the west), no doubt a traditional liberal arts education is fantastic.

[mellavora]

You forgot to mention: take care of the children during the day so both parents can work the kinds of jobs which you can't do with children running around.

Which is a bit sad, pre-industrial revolution children could work and help with chores, both for sustenance farmers and for tradesmen. They were a net positive from a rather early age, and I'm pretty sure this had a (positive) impact on their psychological development as well.

[bestouff]

A different education system if you're poor or rich ? From a french point of view, that's horrible. A sure good way for keeping a class system.

[zozbot234]

French education is rigidly divided into liberal-arts/prep school ("baccalaureat") and vocational-only ("CFA/CAP") at the secondary level. If anything, the typical U.S. high school is a lot more flexible and "unified", though de-facto quality is of course extremely variable.

[bestouff]

Of course the french system is flawed, but at least its founding principle is to give everyone the same chance. Starting your life with a different education depending on your wealth is shocking.

[clarionbell]

Is it? In practice that's what your education system leads to. It always did.

Not as a matter of politics or culture, but of necessity. People who have wealth to fall back on can take more risks. Get completely "worthless" degrees for example. Those without wealth have to aim for more certain outcomes, or put themselves in danger.

Hence the college debt crisis. If many of the same people went to vocational schools, they could have been dept free and better off. This problem is apparent even in more generous public funded school systems.

My country guarantees free tuition and housing stipend to all college aged for their bachelors and masters. But I have too many acquaintances that are now working in positions they are very much overqualified for.

Literature major working as a low level clerk for example.

[TapWaterBandit]

> But I have too many acquaintances that are now working in positions they are very much overqualified for.

> Literature major working as a low level clerk for example.

What exactly is a literature major qualified to do though? I don't say this to be mean it is just there is this strange perception out there that the very act of getting a degree in something "qualifies" you for some job that will be high-paying etc.

I think of a counter-example where if someone got a degree in scuba-diving would they be "over-qualified" to be a clerk? Well it depends what we mean by "qualified" right? I only think someone is overqualified for their job if their skill set is:

1. In high demand

2. They are unable to practice it

For example, a doctor working unwillingly as a taxi driver is over-qualified because there is huge demand for doctors but for whatever reason this person can't get a job. Or a developer working as a street cleaner etc.

Having a qualification that you don't use isn't enough to be determined "over-qualified". It is only if there is demand for your skills but you can't use them for whatever reason that it makes sense.

[truly]

Giving everyone the same chances is a principle pretty much everyone reasonable agrees with.

What I'm saying is that if you are poor, your best bet is to choose to pursue whatever education brings you the best possible job.

[pbourke]

What do you mean by “function independently?”

Why do you immediately separate eduction by wealth?

I suspect you mean that the purpose of eduction is to ensure that an individual can be gainfully employed and not be a burden on the state. One of your aims would be heading off any poor students pursuing a less lucrative degree (liberal arts).

This seems like a rather sad view of education.

[truly]

I mean to function without being babysat, not (only) from an economic perspective.

I'm not suggesting in any way a class-based education system, which are awful. I'm simply stating that if you are poor, your best bet is to pursue whatever education lands you the best possible job.

[ako]

I think the real value goes beyond a single individual: without proper education a society cannot succeed. Even from a purely economic perspective: you need smart and educated people to start and run companies, you need more smart and educated people for companies to succeed.

[kqr]

This confuses me. Wouldn't it be more important to enable people to work together in society?