>The major problem is that people who need to learn something are by definition the least able to evaluate what they need.
I have to respectfully but firmly disagree with this assertion.
Kids are born to learn. They seek out experiences that involve learning, and they lap it up voluntarily when given the chance.
School, as it's currently designed, does its best to remove all of the natural fun from learning.
Read about Sudbury Schools if you don't believe this can work. [1] They have no curriculum or standardized testing, and yet 85% of the kids who graduate go on to get higher degrees.
>More direct connections between education and employment would help, but the connection is often weaker than one would think from the political rhetoric thrown around, especially considering that education is often a proxy term for "credentials" or "signaling" in public rather than knowledge.
You're referring to the current (i.e., completely profoundly broken) educational system. The current system was designed for the industrial age to create interchangeable cogs in the manufacturing machine. It actively suppresses creativity and individuality. It requires all the various kids to learn in lock-step, which in reality they never do.
So of course what currently passes for "education" is poorly correlated with employment results. But what I want to do is fix education so that it does a good job, not optimize the current IMO broken system.
I was thinking more of adult education, the same principle applies to children. Socrates had the example that if schoolboys could choose their teachers, they would elect the pastry chef.
Just focusing on the adult education market, it is extremely clear that the most well-known educational products are those associated with non-educational marketing factors: institutional prestige (MOOCs), television advertising (Rosetta Stone), famous people (Bill Gates & Khan Academy).
You rarely, rarely, rarely hear about educational startups that are excellent, financially independent and successful. It CAN happen, but if you are planning to build a startup with that in mind, you will have a much harder time than if you raise cash and put education behind marketing, marketing, marketing....
I have to respectfully but firmly disagree with this assertion.
Kids are born to learn. They seek out experiences that involve learning, and they lap it up voluntarily when given the chance.
School, as it's currently designed, does its best to remove all of the natural fun from learning.
Read about Sudbury Schools if you don't believe this can work. [1] They have no curriculum or standardized testing, and yet 85% of the kids who graduate go on to get higher degrees.
>More direct connections between education and employment would help, but the connection is often weaker than one would think from the political rhetoric thrown around, especially considering that education is often a proxy term for "credentials" or "signaling" in public rather than knowledge.
You're referring to the current (i.e., completely profoundly broken) educational system. The current system was designed for the industrial age to create interchangeable cogs in the manufacturing machine. It actively suppresses creativity and individuality. It requires all the various kids to learn in lock-step, which in reality they never do.
So of course what currently passes for "education" is poorly correlated with employment results. But what I want to do is fix education so that it does a good job, not optimize the current IMO broken system.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_school