Universal Education

There are those who imagine that the traditional liberal education is fine for the wealthy (if they want it) but that the common man and woman benefits from a different kind of education, which despite its theoretical claims amounts to vocational education. This offends me on grounds both egalitarian and meritocratic. As an egalitarian I am offended by the notion that some students cannot profit from knowledge about the natural world and the social world as reflected in math, science, history, and literature. That they should be content with the life of a tradesman. This is especially curious in a world in which mechanization has eliminated so many jobs. Mechanization, as well as self-service and globalization constantly threaten the simple tradesman. Less so the engineer. Indeed the engineer may profit from all of these trends. As a meritocrat I am offended by the notion that the children of tradesmen are themselves best suited for trades and that the professionals of tomorrow will inevitably spring from the children of professionals. This denies the very real possibility that some of tomorrow's professionals will spring from the children of tradesmen if only they are given educational opportunities, rather than guided into vocational instruction. My own parents, professionals with four masters degrees between them, were the children of a janitor and an envelope cutter. This I think is the American experience.