“Education can be a desperate, smothering embrace, an embrace that denies the needs of the other. But education can also be an encouraging, communal embrace – at its best an invitation, an opening.” (Rose 107)
The value of education is unquestionable. It provides openings and paths leading to the achievement of one’s goals. At the same time it can be used as a controlling tool to achieve the goals of someone else; at the expense of the pupil. What is it that the pupil needs? What is it that they should be taught? Is it right to teach them what is commonly accepted as things they should know or should they be taught only what is necessary to achieve their own goals? A liberal education or a functional education? The question has been wrestled with many times: scholars, professional educators, parents, and students themselves all have discussed what it means to have a ‘good’ education.
This paper will examine both forms, defining what they mean and which one is preferable. For the idea of a functional education think of the definition of the word function: “a special purpose”. This means that there is an easily seen point of education; a clear cut path to goals. Also, functional education is exclusive to that special purpose. A functional education would be facilitated by a technical school, or a vocational school where one could learn their skill ‘on the job’. Typically, this type of schooling is cheaper and quicker than a liberal education. Defining liberal as “not stingy, narrow, or conservative”, it is clearly seen that a liberal education encompasses many subjects. While having a viable goal, there are classes and procedures that do not seem to achieve that goal. It spans across many disciplines of knowledge and is usually mandated by society as something one must learn to truly become a productive member.
At first it is easy to see what the benefits of a functional education are: the cost is more economical and you can complete the educational program faster. However, these benefits can also be seen as weaknesses of a functional education. Some would argue that because this type of education is cheap it makes it unworthy. Hart would beg to differ. He criticizes the benefit of an education that, in most basic terms, must be good because it cost more. Hart ridicules students who had been told that prestige and money meant that they knew more than the common man who went to a public or a ‘lesser’ school. From his point of view, these students still did not know common ideologies despite their ‘higher’ education. Hart makes it apparent in his composition that an expensive education does not always produce a better education. By the same logic one can assume that a cheaper one does not produce a bad education.
Next is the criticism of the amount of time spent learning in a functional school. Late night ads frequently say you can earn your degree in as little as two years. How can you possibly be well-rounded person of society in only two years? The answer is that you cannot with a functional degree. The type of jobs being offered are not exactly jobs with high prestige: dental assistant, assistant manager, minor accountant, clerical jobs in the medical field and the typical ‘so much more!’.
By examining these jobs and the type of status and money they provide, these are not jobs that require an extensive education. There is a problem with offering degrees just for the sake of getting a job. If the goal was to educate people purely for functional purposes, then a human being would become no better than a tool. A hammer is purely functional in its ability to build houses. The architect building the house should know more than architecture, or he is no better than the hammer.
That does not mean that someone with a functional degreed is not worthy of their position. That person could understand their job better than their peers who possess a liberal degree. Truly, job performance depends on that particular person’s work ethic. Going to school does not guarantee a job, nor does it solidify one’s position in that job. It is up to the person to use their education to their benefit. Therefore, the argument that more knowledge leads to better job performance is invalid and should not be used as a value of education.
Determining what should be taught and what should not be taught is a difficult task. There are arguments that a liberal education is the only way to educate everyone to truly be a productive member of society:
“But a University training is the great ordinary means to a great but ordinary end’ it aims at raising the intellectual tone of society, at cultivating the public mind, at purifying that national taste, at supplying the principles to popular enthusiasm and fixed aims to popular aspiration, at giving enlargement and sobriety to the ideas of the age, at facilitating he exercise of political power, and refining the intercourse of private life.” (Newman49)
Thus begins the arguments for a liberal education. Liberal is not narrow, has no special purpose, no specific tangible function. Learning about one’s own society on top of every detail of the subject matter may seem pointless to the average pupil but it provides unbelievable advantages. One who is broadly educated in the truest sense of the word has more advantages because they have more experiences to draw on and more ideas to implement. This value is inherent in our culture:
“There is a strong impulse in American education – curious in a country with such an ornery streak of antitraditionalism – to define achievement and excellence in terms of the acquisition of a historically validated body of knowledge, an authoritative list of books and allusions, and a canon.” (Rose 113)
Rose explains the reason why we value a broader background is because it satisfies a need to certify our intellect; a way to gauge a person’s IQ is to see what they know. A liberal education helps provide a true understanding of one’s culture. Only after people understand themselves will they understand others’ motives and desires. In a job market where money is made by making the customer happy it is important to understand others: the customer. The people who can satisfy the customer by doing their job well are the people businesses want to employ regardless of the type of education they may have received.
These points bring up the question: Which is better? What should every person be taught? The answer is not as simple as the question. Rose best puts it in his paper ‘Lives on the Boundary’. In it, he describes poor immigrants and the lesser educated struggling to survive. Should they, if pursuing an education, be forced to be taught things that will not directly help them succeed? Is one cheating the common man out of a great knowledge base when one recommends a functional education for those who are poor, who posses a language barrier or who simply do not have enough time to learn it all? And if they choose to pursue a functional degree it is easy enough to answer whether or not they are actually less intelligent than their peers with a liberal degree.
No.
Job performance all depends on a person’s work ethic and drive. The answer to the question as to whether or not a liberal or functional education is better: it differs from person to person. Some would thrive on the knowledge of their ancestors, the past, and what society deems is its great works; for others, this would seem needless in knowing how to perform in their job. As Hart pointed out, an education that is thought of as ‘better’ is not necessarily better. It is the person who makes their education, the person who decides how to use that knowledge, and the person who decides what knowledge they need that makes their learning experience better.
To put an end to this debate, it is concluded that there is no ‘better’ education. An education with a specific purpose does not trump over a broader education or vice versa. It is commonly proven that education, while it may help, does not make a person. Only that person’s decisions in what they choose to know and implement makes that person functional in their careers. While education can open doors and paths, it is up to the person to take the journey.
Works Citied:
Lunsford, Andrea. Ruskiewicz, John. The Presence of Others. Moller, Marilyn. 3rd Edition. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2000.
