> Jensen Hang had one of the best educations available to anyone in the United States. But he tells the rest of us that our children should become carpenters or electricians or plumbers. Are his children going to be carpenters, electricians, and plumbers? Or is it always always going to be other people's children who will be the servant class for him? ~~ Michael Gove
Again: societies must boost the latent talent in its individuals. There cannot be a framework of pre-selected non-elite "elite". We have seen societies in which selction of the best were sought: the good results show.
And if facilitators to the boost of the latent talent exist, the pool of the selectable for the "elite" is maximized.
> Michael Gove, Thangam Debbonaire, and Daniel Susskind discuss the end of the educated elite. // Does education still prepare us for the future? // Influenced by Plato's philosopher-kings and the Enlightenment's faith in reason, education has for centuries been regarded as the surest path to individual flourishing and collective progress. But today, the consensus is fracturing. Degree premiums are collapsing, and graduate unemployment is rising. Meanwhile, graduate debt is soaring, in the US surpassing $1.8 trillion. For many courses, the salary bounce is now less than the debt level. Moreover, AI threatens to automate the cognitive skills education is supposed to unlock. Nvidia's Jensen Huang calls for skills-based learning: “if you’re an electrician, a plumber, a carpenter — we’re going to need hundreds of thousands". Moreover, critics argue that in a Wikipedia age, with knowledge available instantly to all, it is not the facts that matter, but the judgment and wisdom to choose[...]
The obvious first point must remain that educational systems have largely failed in large parts of the world and that the concern must be a priority - sadly something that if fixed, will take two generations to return proper yields.
It's hard to comment on the lunacy of this. Elite is important, but whether it is educated or not is about whether or not they still see it as beneficial, whether it is still regarded as valuable among the elite society, and more importantly, on whether the universities still let them in (because intellectually they are on average of course, average, especially when elites mostly marry their peers). But the elite still remains the elite - that does not depend on degrees, but on wealth and social standing. Society should strive to keep them educated in the next generation and banning of legacy admissions is a step in wrong direction: it results in uneducated elite, which definitely makes everyone worse off.
"Elite" means "the best" ("the selected") - not the ironical take you have assumed. Here, the point is whether those who take the slots that should be reserved to an elite proper actually are elite proper. While many get said slots from "wealth and social standing", others get them from non-exportable (non-indicative in administrative jobs) success in business and political communication (the ability to get elected does not indicate a best candidate for administration).
The poll of those who will take them slots is larger than those of the "wealth and social standing". So, the strategy to get some "educated elite" is larger. And the concern includes both the quality of education and its distribution.
> universities
We have to act already before the primary school level, as the societies I know show.
I believe that elites are just that: elites. You don't really become an elite until the particular reasons and ways in which your ancestors first became one, are lost in history or at least become irrelevant.
You have used a tautology. And you have assumed that those who climb to some position are strongly enabled by ancestors in the family - which is false.
Since rise to any power in general can be too easy, the attempt must be made to make everyone as little dangerous as possible - they all may rise.
> Jensen Hang had one of the best educations available to anyone in the United States. But he tells the rest of us that our children should become carpenters or electricians or plumbers. Are his children going to be carpenters, electricians, and plumbers? Or is it always always going to be other people's children who will be the servant class for him? ~~ Michael Gove
Again: societies must boost the latent talent in its individuals. There cannot be a framework of pre-selected non-elite "elite". We have seen societies in which selction of the best were sought: the good results show.
And if facilitators to the boost of the latent talent exist, the pool of the selectable for the "elite" is maximized.
> Michael Gove, Thangam Debbonaire, and Daniel Susskind discuss the end of the educated elite. // Does education still prepare us for the future? // Influenced by Plato's philosopher-kings and the Enlightenment's faith in reason, education has for centuries been regarded as the surest path to individual flourishing and collective progress. But today, the consensus is fracturing. Degree premiums are collapsing, and graduate unemployment is rising. Meanwhile, graduate debt is soaring, in the US surpassing $1.8 trillion. For many courses, the salary bounce is now less than the debt level. Moreover, AI threatens to automate the cognitive skills education is supposed to unlock. Nvidia's Jensen Huang calls for skills-based learning: “if you’re an electrician, a plumber, a carpenter — we’re going to need hundreds of thousands". Moreover, critics argue that in a Wikipedia age, with knowledge available instantly to all, it is not the facts that matter, but the judgment and wisdom to choose[...]
The obvious first point must remain that educational systems have largely failed in large parts of the world and that the concern must be a priority - sadly something that if fixed, will take two generations to return proper yields.
--
Transcript at: https://iai.tv/video/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-educated-elite
It's hard to comment on the lunacy of this. Elite is important, but whether it is educated or not is about whether or not they still see it as beneficial, whether it is still regarded as valuable among the elite society, and more importantly, on whether the universities still let them in (because intellectually they are on average of course, average, especially when elites mostly marry their peers). But the elite still remains the elite - that does not depend on degrees, but on wealth and social standing. Society should strive to keep them educated in the next generation and banning of legacy admissions is a step in wrong direction: it results in uneducated elite, which definitely makes everyone worse off.
"Elite" means "the best" ("the selected") - not the ironical take you have assumed. Here, the point is whether those who take the slots that should be reserved to an elite proper actually are elite proper. While many get said slots from "wealth and social standing", others get them from non-exportable (non-indicative in administrative jobs) success in business and political communication (the ability to get elected does not indicate a best candidate for administration).
The poll of those who will take them slots is larger than those of the "wealth and social standing". So, the strategy to get some "educated elite" is larger. And the concern includes both the quality of education and its distribution.
> universities
We have to act already before the primary school level, as the societies I know show.
I believe that elites are just that: elites. You don't really become an elite until the particular reasons and ways in which your ancestors first became one, are lost in history or at least become irrelevant.
You have used a tautology. And you have assumed that those who climb to some position are strongly enabled by ancestors in the family - which is false.
Since rise to any power in general can be too easy, the attempt must be made to make everyone as little dangerous as possible - they all may rise.
Those who rise do not; but elites are not rising anywhere, they just sit there.