This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Astounding Failure of the US Educational System
The below article titled “The Educational System Was
Designed to Keep Us Docile”, by John Taylor Gatto is a fine read as a complement
to my latest article “Inside the Illusory Empire of the Banking Commodities Con
Game.” Who is John Taylor Gatto?
Mr. Gatto was the NYC “Teacher of the Year” three times, and a teacher that
became highly disillusioned with the formal education system due to its
failures to stimulate critical thinking in children.
I find it odd that people that find value in the information
I provide to my clients as well as information that I provide publicly on my
blog often desire to know of me, “Where did you go to school?” I find it even odder
that many people find my attendance of an Ivy League university to be validating
of my knowledge base and thinking skill set, as if attending an expensive
university is responsible for the thought processes that have enabled many of my
big picture, long-term predictions of the global economy to be accurate. I
believe there is absolutely no correlation between the cost of an education and
intelligence or even between formal education and knowledge, although oddly
people believe this relationship to exist. If there is a provable relationship
between formal education and intelligence, it is probably an inverse one. The
more letters you have behind your name (MBA, PhD, JD, MFA, CPA) the greater
level of stupidity one likely possesses, as the attainment of a higher level of
education means that one has been exposed for a far longer time period than the
average citizen to the indoctrination process.
I find oddest of all, the expressions on people’s faces,
when I inform them that I sincerely believe that the knowledge I gained through
formal institutions of academia was detrimental to my understanding of how capital
markets operate. In fact, I explain to those that inquire of my educational
background that I had to rewire my brain and purge it of nearly all of the
false business concepts and stupidity I learned in school because I later found
the great majority of what I had learned in school to be not only downright
deceptive, but also in my opinion, deliberately erroneous. Many people express
genuine shock when I tell them that my formal education was, as was my
education on Wall Street, almost entirely useless to any of the investment
research and analysis I perform today and that my understanding of how capital
markets move is entirely the result of self-education.
"When we look at the information Gatto has uncovered regarding the purpose of the education system as designed by the men that funded and implemented the foundation of the American educational system in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, we discover, in fact, that the US educational system accomplishes exactly what it was designed to do – to dumb down people and suppress the natural inquisitiveness and critical thought processes of children."
In fact, an article I wrote titled “Delaying a College
Education in this Economy is the Right Choice” probably generated some of the
most perplexed responses I have ever witnessed up close and in person when
discussing the content of this article with others. Some of the responses I have
heard are as follows:
But isn’t this the BEST time to send my kid to college? The
economy is terrible now, so after he graduates, the economy will be much
better, right?
You don’t REALLY mean that, do you? Everyone needs a diploma
to fall back on. Who’s going to respect you without a college degree?
How is my child going to get ahead in life without a college
degree?
Even when someone saw eye to eye with my viewpoint and
generally understood the points I was trying to make in that article, in the
end, they still bowed down to societal norms because of the fact that he or she
has been conditioned to believe in the institutional system of education.
Yes, I understand what you’re saying, he or she would tell
me. But I still need to send my child to college. What other choice do I have?
And that’s exactly what the elite want you to believe – that
you have no choice but to indoctrinate your child through a formal institutionalized
process versus providing an alternate path of education and enlightenment for
your child. In the article below, Gatto states, “It’s no secret that the US
educational system doesn’t do a very good job.” But when we look at the
information Gatto has uncovered regarding the purpose of the education system
as designed by the men that funded and implemented the foundation of
the American educational system in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, we discover, in fact,
that the US educational system accomplishes exactly what it was designed to do
– to dumb down people and suppress the natural inquisitiveness and critical
thought processes of children.
Gatto reveals that Eldwood Cubberly, the future Dean of Education
of Stanford University, argued, in his 1905 dissertation for schools that
should be factory-like in production “in which raw products, children, are to
be shaped and formed into finished products…manufactured like nails, and the
specifications for manufacturing will come from government and industry.”
I have pointed out numerous times the banker-funded state of
business academia in America as my rationale for why business degrees are often
useless. I have often told those considering entering business school that I
could sit down and talk to them for three hours and probably grant them
knowledge that will be a thousand times more valuable than anything they will
learn during a two-year MBA program at Harvard Business School. I say this not out of
arrogance. I acknowledge that I still have a long road to travel in my
own educational journey. I say this only because I am 100% convinced that the
business school curricula of all traditional institutions of academia will
never provide the knowledge young adults need to succeed in today’s Empire of
Illusion.
Today, revered professors all across the US teach students the
nonsense that bankers want them to learn and that bankers want them to believe
is real, NOT the reality of how currency markets, stock markets and commodity
markets truly operate. Gatto confirms my thesis by pointing out a statement
from the Rockefeller Education Board, a key institution that was a critical
force in shaping modern education in America: “We shall not try to make
[students] into philosophers or men of learning or men of science…The task we
set before ourselves is simple…we will organize children…and teach them to do
in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect
way.”
The Educational System Was Designed to Keep Us Docile (John Taylor Gatto)
About the author: JS Kim, the founder and Managing Director of SmartKnowledgeU,
a fiercely independent investment research & consulting firm, attributes
zero of his success as an entrepreneur to the formalized education process, his
four years of education at an Ivy League institution or the attainment of a
double masters in business administration and public policy. Instead, JS
attributes 100% of any success he has attained in any entrepreneurial endeavor
to critical thinking skills that were fostered from international travel,
exposure to independent media and artists, and self-education.
»
- advertisements -
Dehrow - Sarcasm, right? Point well made.
Depends upon how one defines the "pay off" doesn't it?
If you're happy I'd say you've succeeded.
Precisely.
I would say you could go into real estate, like everyone else without a degree... but, that kinda fell through.
Look on the bright side, at least you didn't rack up a ton of debt getting a worthless degree. Those people making the dough you desire might not actually net/take home anything more than you... don't believe anything you see until you audit them personally.
You will have to become a boss, you are too "stupid" to be an employee. If I am kidding I am kidding on the square.
"When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all".
It starts even earlier.
Deeper ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIe6rXmsUwk
got to school/college...do a job...pay taxes....marry ....give birth....watch TV....buy things...dont ASK any questions
Whooops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO5dcW0P75M&ob=av2e
Ack. Beat me to it.
It's the slaves' attitude. Do more for yourself.
Here's my take on the debt-based monetary system and the Uniform Commercial Code that is keeping us down:
http://www.zerohedge.com/forum/asymmetrical-warfare-mill-wars-based-ucc-practice
If a hundred years ago the mission of education was to prepare children for a life of labor in factories, the mission has certainly changed. If "citizen" is being replaced by "consumer", then our schools need be nothing other than day-care centers where children text, surf the net, shuffle iTunes, and maybe read well enough to vote for the right (read the elites') candidate in the next election.
Some will become cannon fodder for the next resource war, but many will sit in air-conditioned trailers in Nevada and direct bombs toward the enemy, in a sort of terrestrial "Ender's Game"
Finally, an intelligent comment on this blog post, thanks, duo!
While the basis of American education was structured originally by the Rockefeller family, and their General Education Board, today it is being structured further by the Gates Foundation (when they aren't investing in Monsanto and pushing their GMO products).
And what does the Billygoat & Melinda Gates Foundation have in common with David Rockefeller? Why, they both donate to the American Friends of Bilderberg, Inc.
And, of course, there's that latest movie from Guggenheim ("Waiting for Superman"), pushing the further privatization of American education, which is one of the few things left which hasn't been completely privatized.
(Look into G4S, for the strategy and tactics in behind the international privatization of court and police. And look into the connections between their executives and Goldman Sachs' Business Intelligence Group.)
The problem, obviously to anyone who has studied the matter, is that America never actually had a "public" education system; it has always been a capitalist-oriented system, with absolute access limited to the few, and only a limited access to the many.
Now, for a truly meritocratic educational system (or at least something close to it), the school systems throughout America would be economically based on equal access and distribution, not dependent upon local property values and taxes.
But they really have never wanted a meritocratic system, therefore America has always enjoyed an anti-meritocratic system.
public school is a huge cost and undermines a strong economic base. this is centrally planned curriculum. inevitably, central planners make mistakes. in the case of education, they teach the wrong things (like keynesian economics).
consider a world where children are born to working parents and follow those parents into the trade that feeds the family. if the trade is shrinking, than those parents and children on the margin migrate to their neighbor's trade. all of this under the auspices of free markets and in the context of "learning on the job".
of course, this phenomena is largely at work among Americans now, we simply have the major added expense of public schools which are a complete waste of capital resources to our detriment.
whatever happened to "freedom"?
just my two cents!
If "citizen" is being replaced by "consumer", then our schools need be nothing other than day-care centers where children text, surf the net, shuffle iTunes, and maybe read well enough to vote for the right (read the elites') candidate in the next election.
Have you ever been to school? That's precisely what they are... I racked up a high school degree, bs, mba, and jd... and I can say definitively that the entire education system is little more than a babysitter... although, "higher" education at least has some degree of plausible deniability.
Think of it this way, k-12 is MANDATORY. I'll say that again, sending your children to school is MANDATORY. If they try and skip, they'll be put in juvie and you will also be in trouble with the law as their parent/guardian. Now, when you add in the fact that bachelor's degrees are little more than high school diplomas at this point given the degree factories we call colleges (need to keep churning people through to keep up payments on the unions and facilities), then what the fuck is the point of k-12? I'm pretty sure a year or two tops of preparation and you can knock out most undergrad classes... certainly the first ~2 years of gen ed. Hell, in many colleges, the first year is remedial classes because the kids didn't learn anything in K-12... it's a damn babysitter...
My great grandfather quit going to school in the second grade. When asked why, he said "I quit going to school when I knew more than the teachers". Very insightful man despite a lack of formal training...
Not if one home schools. But that would put the onus of education back on parents.
Can't have that! Not only from the view of lazy parents, but TPTB fear it.
If one has the guts and education to school one's own children it is a threat.
I thought k-8 was mandatory, the rest optional. I won't quibble. Point is, it is still mandatory, even if you home school. The only thing that has changed is the location (and quality?) of the education. You homeschool because schooling is mandatory and you don't want your child in public schools.
ain't "freedom" grand?
Aside from difficulty/red tape in getting home schooled, you have the practical aspects... when you're in debt up to your eyeballs, how can you afford to not have two wage earners? Or, with so many single parents, how can you afford not to work? I realize home schooling is an option, but practically speaking, it's just not possible.
There is no money and there is no debt. There's only debt-notes and discharge of debt. Educate yourself on the debt-based monetary system and the Uniform Commercial Code. Start managing your own commercial affairs.
Here's my self-education project of late:
http://www.zerohedge.com/forum/asymmetrical-warfare-mill-wars-based-ucc-practice
In the Middle Ages, the cleverest children were sent to churches where they could receive education. At that time, the geocentric model was the orthodoxy and as holy as the Bible. Those clever and educated children developed the geocentric model with their best efforts. But unfortunately the geocentric model is erroneous.
Today, at our best universities, the Keynesian theory is regarded as the Holy Bible. Intelligent people like Bernanke, Krugman, Stiglitz are making their best effort to develop and implement this theory...
Ummmm?
I am not sure the cleverest children were sent to churches.
It does not matter. It is not the point. The point is that getting through church education served them well. By being part of the right gang.
That is where the article fails. Getting a diploma allows people to be part of the right gang. This is the gang mark.
Yes, people are always the most proficient or at least part of the most proficient. So they say. But when you went through quite a lot of hiring process (hirer side), one fact emerges :Candidates to a job are for the vast majority averagely qualified for the job. It is all about standard output.
So how is the difference made? You could hire any of them for a similar standardized output.
The difference is made through the diplomae, especially for first time employees. Very often, it is what matters and matters only.
Can be tested if you dont bother producing a false resume. Just remove the diplomae for one alias and see who gets the interview. The fake you with no diplomae will not get the interview.
Yep, easy to find thousands of graduates who like to think they got the job because they were (much more than averagely)better at the job than the others. Easy to find thousands of graduates who are ready to testify hard as rock that getting a diploma is useless, sure as sure as there were WMDs in Iraq and time to go to war.
It is even easier for them as they already have the diploma, that they are already part of the gang.
Pure duplicity.
Bottom line: getting a diploma is the pass to belonging to the right group.
It is all about the group.
Ah, my dear Rocky. Sorry friend, will have more time to browse your link in detail this evening.
Was not however using it in any technical sense but simply as uncritical acceptance and acquiesence to others considered in authority.
I don't think many "Keynsians" have actually read Keynes in any detail. His thought and what is attributed to his thought are two seperate issues. As I've said before, read Keynes and read Minsky, who at least was thinking.
Challenge the ground. A theologian who challenges the ground becomes either a philosopher or a mystic, and then quite probably a heretic. An interesting logic which if applied speaks wonders about education.
I was replying to AnAnonymous:
the "right group" does not reflect a diverse world, and this group suffers from a feedback loop of confirmation bias at their own peril.
Both "systems" are theologically grounded. It remains a world where the Wizard of Oz is the unseen force behind the curtain.
If anyone actually read Keynes, the world would be a different place. Let alone reading Minsky.
The tenure system, while it maintains some important functions, like protecting professors from political persecution within the institution, has passed its prime. In the end rather than promoting innovation and critical thought, it promotes group think.
The entire university system was developed by the school men in the middle ages. Time to move on.
I rejected Religion before I knew what the word Atheist meant if youre too stupid to see that something does not fit youre too stupid, .. this was probably my 1st break in life, as I understood that adults would lie to me about such 'fundamental' concept I started questioning Everything
Religion is a tool, much like government, which allows few to control and, more importantly, tax many.
Thus, thorough knowledge of religion is necessary for any sort of geopolitical ambition. I do hope that you're not so stupid that you don't study religion at all . . .
Of course, I'm ignorant of the prevailing German attitude nowadays; I just have a sense that after Hitler (a great man), Germans tend to shy away from nationalism and aggression (both of which are necessary for success).
Azannoth you're obviously an idiot.
Rejecting religion (of all kind) will leave you at a serious disadvantage to those that don't.
As the Greeks figured out, one has to care for the mind, body and soul.
Rejecting religion leaves you naked and denies yourself soul -- personified by your blanket posts spewing utter nonsense. By questioning everything you've missed everything. Good luck going nowhere.
Spare me the "oh but I'm different, I've been rewarded for my ignorance..." bullshit.
Which mountain do we start climbing to reach you, oh wizened one?
Actually, what you want to do is climb down off the mountain.
Widowmaker
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal that, even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Although Pascal formulated his suggestion using on the Judeo-Christian God, this wager can apply to the god of any religion.
Pascal states, however, that some do not have the ability to believe. In this case, he directs them to live as though they had faith, which may lead them to belief. The Wager was set out in note 233 of his Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal in his last years as he worked on a treatise on Christian apologetics.
Historically, Pascal's Wager was groundbreaking as it had charted new territory in probability theory, was one of the first attempts to make use of the concept of infinity, marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated the future philosophies of pragmatism and voluntarism.[1]
apparently, Pascal lacked personal courage.
..."nothing to lose" except the ability to think clearly.
From your link: Richard Carrier is quoted, "Suppose there is a god who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless god wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy."
Good reply, thanks.
... some do not have the ability to believe.
In the world where printing presses are few or non-existant and where most folks are uneducated, one is forced to decide whether to believe what someone has told them is true, rather than being able to figure out what might be true on their own. Unfortunately, that is the state of affairs even in the U.S. today. I don't think Pascal addressed that conundrum in his writings on belief. It would have been useful if he did.
How often, when deciding whether to believe, are people considering the source rather than simply considering what someone has told them that the source says?
Jesus Christ, you are obviously the worst kind of hypocritical idiot!
Here is an example of your 'religious' morality in one of your recent posts:
Great context.
Tell me about rewarded failure and bailouts, and how that isn't stealing someone else's lunch.
Why would you assume that I have religion to sell (calling me a hypocrite). The point is enlightenment, and good luck finding that without religion. Since when is business moral?
You too are a fool trying to twist nuggets of my prior posts for your pleasure.
Your intellectual kung-fu is pathetic and weak, dawg -- doesn't social studies start soon?
Is not enlightenment an individual act? Is not religion collective? How can someone who is different from you, provide a map for your enlightenment?
Enlightenment requires a journey by an individual. The result will be tailored to that individual. Consequently, religion is neither a help nor hindrance, but it can be both. You assume what has been helpful to you will be helpful to all-probably because you require a form of validation. If you are so insecure in your beliefs, has your walk towards enlightenment begun?
good stuff, buddy.
+100
How can a seed get educated and enlightened about sprouting from another seed.
Spiritituality/enlightenment is a personal experience and of no value to others.
What is the standard against which we can measure whether your words are true or not? You cannot possibly know, out all the billions of people that exist, whether one person's experience can end up being of value to another.
Religion equals public education as medieval equals the modern world.
Religion is the sister of politics....more indoctrination...nothing much to do with faith.
I'm gonna take advice from Labor Theory of Value Guy?
Um...No.
"[Religion] is the opium of the people."
The problem isn't religion, it's over-medication.
This is a point of logic - meant to defend logic, not religion: just because Karl wrote it, it's true, or at least worth repeating?? Why are Karl's words worth any more than Widowmaker's on the subject of religion?
What universal standard is there by which we may judge any person's words more or less correct about religion than the next persons words? Methinks there isn't one.
And I think that is the basis for the cliche, in polite company, we don't discuss politics or religion.