Doug
Casey on Education
Interviewed
by Louis James, Editor, International
Speculator
Recently:
Doug Casey
on Protecting Your Cash
L:
Doug, in our recent conversation on global
warming, you made some critical remarks
about modern education. I know that wasn’t mere drive-by disparagement
– can you tell us why you’re so hard on teachers today?
Doug:
Sure. Since the school season started recently, it’s probably a
good time to talk about schools and education.
L: School
season? Is there a bag limit on how many schools you can take down?
Doug:
[Laughs] Well, I think that most of the money that’s spent on so-called
education is, if not wasted, definitely misallocated.
There was a
book written a few years ago called something like All
I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. I have
to admit I never read the book, but the title resonated with me
– I think there’s a lot of truth behind the notion. To me it implies
that a person should have absorbed basic ethical values, and an
understanding how to relate to other people and animals, by the
time he’s six years old. Those are the most important things anyone
can learn, and should be the first things one learns. But it doesn’t
seem any institution, and fairly few parents, think to teach them.
But the first
thing to do is to ask: What is education?
L: Okay,
I’ll bite. What is it?
Doug:
Education is the process of learning how to perceive and analyze
reality correctly. That would include subjects like ethics, science,
history, and important literature.
L: What
about logic? You’d have to include logic.
Doug:
Yes, definitely. All things of that nature. The ancients developed
the idea of liberal arts, which had a different meaning to them
than our current usage. The root of "liberal" is "liber,"
meaning free. So the liberal arts were subjects that a free
man – as opposed to a slave, or a menial – was assumed to be acquainted
with. They were divided into the arts and the sciences. The idea
was, these things gave you the tools of thought and the building
blocks of culture. They were distinct from the mechanical arts –
which were means of earning a living. You’d learn the mechanical
arts as an apprentice.
Put it this
way. The quality of a person can be determined by how he relates
to three critical verbs: Be, Do, and Have. The classical liberal
arts show you how to "be" – they help form your essence,
your character, your will. The mechanical arts show you how to "do";
they are important, but really are just acquired skills. As a consequence
of what you are, and what you can do, you "have" – acquire
goods and money and reputation.
But it seems
pretty clear that most people have the sequence totally backward.
They want the "have" part, the material goods, but they
don’t understand it flows as a consequence of being something and
having the ability to do something. Having things is trivial. It’s
why trailer park trash will win a million-dollar lottery and wind
up back on the dole a year later.
I fear that
most of what kids get today, whether in grade school, high school,
college, or post-grad, is not education. It’s training.
Entirely apart
from that, it seems to me that most institutions degrade as time
passes. They naturally and inevitably become constipated, concrete-bound,
and corrupt. That certainly appears to have happened to education
in the U.S., and probably most other countries.
I’m sure you’ve
seen that eighth-grade test from 1895 that’s been floating around
the Internet for some years. Snopes.com has a go at debunking
it, but they don’t claim the test isn’t
real, and it does cover a lot of basic stuff few people today know
anything about. What every educated person should know may change
from age to age, but the basics of thinking, and its application
to language, science, etc. are enduring. And there are certain minimums
of knowledge that everyone should have. The U.S. education system
is not delivering these basics, which are the tools for living.
Training is
different. Training is rote learning with a view towards productive
behavior in the future. It’s what you’d learn on the job, as an
apprentice laborer. This would cover most high school and college
courses, which are not designed to produce educated young people
but useful employees, ready to enter the labor force. But they don’t
even do that well.
I’ll go further.
Most schools today are state schools, or if they are not state schools,
they teach state-approved curricula. There’s an implicit orientation
to train the kids to be good little cogs in the wheel, as in obedient
subjects, and as opposed to independent thinkers and citizens. That’s
probably the most important reason not to send your kids to a state
school.
Homeschooling
is a great alternative, though so many homeschoolers are religious
fanatics, they’ve given the whole idea an unfortunate and undeserved
aura of nuttiness. And in my view, filling your kids’ heads with
all sorts of religious superstition is no better than filling their
heads with statist superstition. What they need is a classical education
in the liberal arts – starting in grade school.
L: Do
you really think homeschooling has such a bad reputation? Aren’t
homeschooled kids burning up the track at the spelling bees, geography
bees, etc.?
Doug:
Perhaps it depends on which circles you travel in. You homeschool,
and you’re not religious, so maybe you see things differently. But
my sense is that the media portrayal tends to emphasize the religious
homeschoolers, and perhaps rightly so, since they constitute (I
believe) the majority of homeschoolers.
But I’ll give
you a good reason to favor homeschooling, regardless of who most
homeschoolers are. I had a good enough time in school and I generally
enjoyed the social interaction with the other kids. But it was a
misallocation of my time; there’s little of value you can learn
from other kids. It’s simply a bad idea to put your kids in an environment
where they spend most of the day associating with young yahoos,
many or most of whom have a lot of bad habits. The average school
is full of unrefined young chimpanzees. Sure, kids need to learn
how to work together and socialize, but school is not the only,
and certainly not the best, place to do that.
Another reason
is that every class, like a group traveling together, tends to move
at the pace of the slowest kids in the group. An environment tailored
for the lowest common denominator bores the smart kids to tears
– or trouble. I was perpetually bored and distracted by the "one
size fits all" program of my schools.
It’s the same
in college, which was an even more serious misallocation of four
years of my time – and a bunch of my parents’ money. And it’s much
worse today, in either current or constant dollars.
Like most of
my friends, I’d end up cutting a lot of classes, because I’d stayed
up too late the night before. When I did go to class, I’d fall asleep
half the time. And even fully awake, my mind would wander and I
wouldn’t take good notes, so then I wouldn’t bother reading the
notes. Of course you learn stuff, but I think it’s mostly through
osmosis. Entirely apart from the fact that the profs varied greatly
in quality.
Most people
go to college today because they actually think someone is going
to give them an education, when in fact, an education is
something you have to give yourself.
You absolutely
do not need a college to do that. The old saw about "Those
who can, do, and those who can’t, teach" is all too true. Professors
can’t educate anyone, though a few of the good ones can help motivated
students educate themselves. But the college business is now structured
like a manufacturing business; Aristotle and Seneca wouldn’t know
what to make of it.
L: My
Webster’s dictionary says the word educate has two roots: e-,
"out," and ducere, "lead, draw, or bring."
In other words, to draw out, or bring out what’s in the student’s
ability to grasp and remember – not to cram whatever the teacher
thinks is important into the student’s head.
Doug:
That’s what "education" today fails to do – and why it’s
such a waste of money. There is no point at all in going to a college
today, unless you’re looking to learn a trade. Or, perhaps, because
the people you meet in college might be of some future benefit to
you. In other words, it’s pointless unless it’s Harvard, Princeton,
Yale, or the like. Because of the classes? No. It’s because the
kids that go to such schools are the most intelligent and ambitious
"up and comers" – so the connections you make and the
patina you get at these places can open a lot of doors.
But if you
look closely, the very best and brightest – people like Bill Gates
or Steven Jobs – drop out, or don’t even go.
I would suggest
that a parent thinking of allocating $40,000 to $50,000 per year
for four years of college education instead grubstake their kid
with that same money. You could even make it a fraction of that,
to be put into actually doing something, like starting a business
or trying out different investment strategies, and get a lot more
experience and knowledge for your kid as a result.
You certainly
don’t need a college to gain knowledge. For example, there’s an
outfit called The
Teaching Company
that hires the very best professors in the world in all sorts of
subjects to deliver superb audio courses. I listen to these things
all the time in the car. I watch the ones that have important visual
components on my computer, and I can go back and repeat anything
I don’t understand clearly – when my mind is receptive to it. It’s
much more effective than going to college would be, and it’s
vastly cheaper. Superior in every possible respect.
Another thing
I’d do if I had a college-age kid is plan out a travel schedule.
He’d have to spend at least a month in a dozen countries and report
on what he does there. Travel may be the single best type of education,
at least if done with a method and an objective.
There are many
ways to get an education besides going to college – and going to
a second-rate, third-rate, or community college is a complete waste
of time and money. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever.
L: I’ve
long thought similarly about what we call a "liberal arts education"
today. Paying lots of money to read literature with friends seems
patently silly, and to have someone tell you what some long-dead
artist really meant seems arrogant to boot. But there are also things
like physics, chemistry, and medicine. When I was a physics major
at RPI, I was glad to have all sorts of laboratories and machine
shops at my disposal – stuff I could never have built in my backyard…
Doug:
I totally agree with you on that. Aside from the patina and connections
I’ve been talking about, there are two valid reasons for going to
a university. One is to study a hard science. You can still learn
these on your own, but you’re right; it helps a lot to have the
labs and so forth. That’s worth paying for.
The second
reason is if you need a piece of paper that shows you’ve jumped
through hoops other people recognize. In other words, if you’re
going into a trade, like doctoring, lawyering, or engineering, for
which you need a certificate in order to be able to hang a shingle
without getting arrested, that’s okay because it’s necessary.
Well, maybe
not for lawyering – we have entirely too many lawyers in the world
today. They’ve turned from expert helpers to parasites at considerable
risk of overwhelming the host body.
Another degree
I would strongly advise anyone against getting is an MBA, which
has, regrettably, become a very fashionable degree. In our shop,
if anyone applies for a job, an MBA is an active strike against
them. They’d have to come up with a really good explanation for
why they spent all that money and two years of extra time to get
something that serves no useful purpose whatsoever.
It’s amazing,
when you stop and think about it. The professors who teach MBA courses
are not successful business people out making millions in the economy
– they’re academics! Successful business people with proven track
records wouldn’t work for their wages. These academics have no hands-on
experience and are teaching theories, most of which are based on
completely phony and fallacious economics.
Don’t get conned
into this gross misallocation of time and money. An MBA is worse
than useless. Only a fool would rather have one than the $100,000,
the lost income, and the two years of lost time and experience it
costs.
L: I
guess that explains how I got this job, with no relevant papers.
Doug:
Of course – you’re not a dog or a horse, for cryin’ out loud. We
don’t need pedigree papers to identify talent we can see.
L: Another
example in which training is desirable, and not a corruption of
education, would be the military schools. Generals like rote, conditioned
behaviors.
Doug:
They do indeed. And soldiers need to learn practical skills, deeply
ingrained, that can keep them alive under very difficult circumstances.
Military academies are like advanced trade schools.
I very nearly
went to West Point. The only reason I didn’t is because I went to
a four-year military boarding high school. In those days, military
boarding schools were rather gruesome. I decided that I’d had quite
enough of shining shoes, marching in squares, and saying "Yes,
Sir!" to people I had no respect for.
L: Is
that why you’re an anarchist, Doug – was your response to that training
to go as far in the opposite direction as you could go?
Doug:
[Laughs] Well, let’s not say that I have a problem with authority.
I just have a problem with people telling me what to do.
L: [Laughs]
Okay, well, I get the criticism of higher education, and I see the
broad strokes of your proposed alternative educational strategy,
but what about younger children? You seem to be saying that the
very idea of the classroom is a bad one, public or private.
Doug:
As a matter of fact, when I got out of college in 1968, I needed
a job – and I got one: teaching sixth grade in Hobart, Indiana –
the heart of Blues Brothers country. I only did it for one semester,
but one thing really impressed me deeply: most of my co-workers
were complete morons. They were people Jay Leno would feature on
his J-Walking videos if he’d ever met them. They had so little knowledge
of the world and anything that matters, I was embarrassed to be
called a teacher.
There are exceptional
teachers, of course, but by and large, they are not the best and
the brightest, they’re losers. I wouldn’t want to expose my progeny,
if I had any, to a random collection of people who want to be government
employees imprisoning kids for six hours a day.
L: Does
that apply to private schools as well?
Doug:
As I said, I went to a private military high school. Were my teachers
any better than others? I suspect they were – but can’t prove it.
I’m sure they are at some places, like Exeter Academy in New Hampshire,
that pay more and probably attract a better grade of teacher. But
if anything is worth doing, it’s worth doing well, and in education,
that means doing it yourself. Which means read, read, read.
L: So,
your general view is that homeschooling is the way to go for younger
children?
Doug:
Exactly. Though I’m sure you’ll sympathize with me when I say that
I think toddlers ought to grow up for a couple years with wolves,
so they can toughen up a bit and learn some survival skills. Kids
are way overprotected these days. They are so isolated and insulated
from reality, it’s totally counterproductive. Sadly, it’s hard to
find a good wolf today.
So it’s homeschool,
then college only for technical trades and for the advantages of
an Ivy League pedigree. For most people, just reading books and
then going out into the real world and doing stuff is way smarter,
cheaper, and more productive. The difference between a properly
educated kid, and one subjected to conventional training, is the
difference between the Arnold Schwarzenegger character and the Danny
DeVito character in the movie Twins.
And for God’s
sake, don’t send your kids to business school. Better they should
try some real businesses instead. Whether they succeed or fail,
they’ll learn much more.
L: But
this would unemploy hundreds of thousands of people in the education
business, who, according to you, are ill equipped for productive
work. It doesn’t sound like a politically viable reform plan, Doug.
Doug:
The ones who are any good would rise to the occasion and do something
better with their time. And those who are not… well, we need people
to clean toilets and sweep streets. At least they’d be away from
our kids.
And all this
dead weight is expensive. I understand that the per-pupil cost of
public schooling in the U.S. is running $10,000 to $12,000 per year.
And college is $40,000 to $50,000 per year. There’s no reason, no
excuse, for it to cost so much.
Teachers who
are any good could do as they did in ancient Greece and Rome, and
solicit students. They could teach in their houses, or in rented
facilities, and compete with each other. They’d have every incentive
to strive for the lowest-cost and highest-quality service – and
they’d make more money, because most of the money spent on so-called
education these days goes to administration and overhead. Not towards
getting superstar teachers.
L: I
can imagine a future in which the best teachers are celebrities,
rich superstars. People would compete for spots in their classes.
What would someone with a real passion for astrophysics pay to be
able to study with Stephen Hawking?
Doug:
That’s exactly what I mean. And instead of having reason to conform,
as teachers do now, being members of unions, they’d have reason
to excel. Unions have a well-established interest in making sure
no one stands above the average, so they foment a culture that guarantees
mediocrity. The whole educational system in the U.S. needs to be
flushed.
Unfortunately,
just the opposite is happening. The Obama people want to give everyone
a college education, probably including really useful mandatory
courses in Gender Studies, Global Warming, and Marxist Economic
Theory. Why stop there? Everyone ought to have a post-grad education
as well.
L: Like
Luna, in Woody Allen’s Sleeper, who has a Ph.D. in oral sex?
Doug:
Yes. It’s insane. It’s another sign that the whole system in the
U.S., not just education, is upside down and overdue for collapse.
L: There’s
no reforming such an entrenched system, supported by such powerful
unions and a population that believes it can and should be fixed.
On the other hand, the education system in the U.S. is such a dismal
failure, people are opting out their kids in droves. So, with reality-reality
vs. political reality, it could actually collapse. Maybe there is
hope for a future in which there’s real education, simply because
the old system implodes and disappears.
Doug:
It could happen. The U.S. Department of Education should be abolished.
The National Education Association building in Washington DC should
be boarded up or dynamited. No, better yet, cleaned out and sold
on the market, so some entrepreneur can put it to some useful business
purpose.
L: It
could be turned into a brothel. It would be more honest.
Doug:
It would – you’d actually get value for your money.
L: Investment
implications?
Doug:
I expect I’ll expand on this theme in this month’s Casey
Report, with an examination of publicly traded online universities.
They represent an interesting trend. And our newest letter, Casey’s
Extraordinary Technology, is written by Alex Daley, who is something
of a polymath. He has deep expertise in all areas of technology,
as well as lots of practical experience in venture capital. I think
he’s got a lot to say about the implications of the continuing –
and accelerating – computer revolution on education. But we truly
try to make all our publications educational. We don’t just tout
investments. We think it’s critical our readers understand why we
think something – not just take our word for it.
L: And
when you can understand why something is happening, and pick out
predictable trends, there are opportunities to profit. Understood.
Okay, well, thanks for another interesting talk.
Doug:
My pleasure.
October
23, 2009
Doug
Casey (send him mail)
is
a best-selling author and chairman of Casey
Research, LLC., publishers of Casey’s
International Speculator.
Copyright
© 2009 Casey and Associates
The
Best of Doug Casey
|