Thus the entire argument for government education is based on fallacies, or errors, that the author would have recognized if she had read less of the Frankfurt school, and more of the Austrian school.

(As for measures such as GlenC’s “the right amount to maximize human beings' average well being and to minimize its variance? Or the right amount to allow the planet to sustain itself for as long as possible?”, the problem with these is:
• other people aren’t your property for you to decide on their behalf against their will
• these also involve the fallacies of conceptual realism: the personification of society, and the deification of the state. There is no great superhuman called “society” who can know better other people’s behalf.

“To assume that it is reasonable to apply market forces to the provision of education fails to ask the question who is the consumer?”

No it doesn’t. The use of force and threats is illegal in market transactions, so there are no market “forces”. The issue is only whether provision should be by *voluntary* means by those who know and pay for themselves, versus provision by *compulsory * means by those who don’t know for others.

“Is it the prospective employer?”

It is if he wants and is prepared to pay for it. Otherwise, why should others be forced to subsidise his benefit, as now?

“The parent? The student?”

Usually and mostly, and that is as it should be, as they are the ones who receive most benefit from it.

“or Society?”

There’s that mystical Moloch again. You don’t stand for society.

“Given that society pays we need to ask what sort of education will serve the needs of society?”

Who’s “we”?

Since you, and Martha, are not “society”, then you don’t know and can’t say what society wants any more or better than anyone else who comprises it and disagrees with you. Yet the only effect of government intervention is to forcibly override society’s demonstrated preference.

(cont.)

(cont.)

“As far as truck drivers are concerned - at what stage did we know they were to be truck drivers?”

“We” don’t know, that’s the whole point. People can and do decide for themselves. It’s not decided by central planning, and the pretensions of central planners to know better are false.

“Should we have made that assumption when they entered school? Should we assume that truck drivers are not interested in the humanities?”

Who’s “we”?

There’s no need for you to decide what values other people should live by. They have a right to be free of your interference, and it’s no-one’s business but their own so long as they are not aggressing against others’ person or property. What consideration have you given to the possibility that your ultimate human welfare criterion would be better served in this way, than by attempts by government-funded academics to prescribe on others' behalf?

Well stated, Peter Hume, at his point I totally agree with everything you have said.

Martha Naussbuam assumes that those who do not agree with her views aren't thinking outside the square. She is really not thinking outside the square in believing this.

http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/ far from being the solution, humanities education is part of the problem. take note the full web site name is "ACCURACY in academia".

Soviet era proverb. "the present we know, we are doing it, the future we know, we are building it, only the past keeps changing".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpZtX32sKVE&feature=feedu see if you think this one applies in the land of OZ, as well?

"repeat the lie until it becomes the truth" Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ9myHhpS9s&feature=related poor dears, when will they get the joke?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju3h7yk4Hcg&NR=1 there is no need for Breivik's solution here. try the closet communists for sabotaging our education system to produce failure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQgG3AZMj3g&feature=related there are dozens of youtube videos like this one showing graduates who can't get a job with the useless piece of paper they have that says degree on it & have a mountain of HECS/college loans to pay off, before they even start.

I think one of the problems with the humanities is that their study has been perverted by ill-conceived 'critical thinking'. It's alright to think critically as long as you come up with the answers the course coordinator wants you to come up with. They do the 'critical' thinking and you follow in your footsteps.

I have some experience as a student of the humanities. As a postgrad, I was allowed some freedom to think for myself. As an undergrad, however, I had to spout the 'official' line.

When viewing public history, I was expected to note that we erect many more statues of men than women, and to infer from that discovery that our society values men more than women. When studying ethics, I was forced into many farcical 'hypotheticals':

Your son and his friend are drowning in a pond. Who do you save if you can only save one?
a) Your son, as you have an ethic of care and, therefore, are bound to protect him
b) His friend, as you have a responsibility to bring happiness to others rather than yourself; saving your son would bring happiness to you, but sadness to the other kid's parents
c) Which one is more likely to cure cancer?
d) Your son - you have a responsibility to make yourself happy
e) Both, or die trying
f) Neither

In the end, both kids are likely to drown as I assume the foetal position because making a decision is just so hard. In fact, making a decision was rarely acceptable in these assessment tasks: it was more important that I weighed up the pros and cons of each ethical stance without showing bias towards one or the other.

I guess what I'm saying is that critical thinking has its place, but it must be blended with practicality. Learning for the sake of learning is a wonderful thing, but we must remember that the taxpayer is footing the bill and deserves some sort of result.

Skeptic - "The very energy that has made you pen this article, says that you are young enough to shake away the web of academia that impedes your pursuing the real causes of today’s malaise."

Unfortunately, Martha's been in the Academy since 1969 and has published 17 books. She's not new to academia. It's a shame that she can't see that she is part of the problem, and not its solution.