1.) What is socioeconomics? Socioeconomics is defined as the social science that studies how economic activity affects and is shaped by social processes. In the reading, socioeconomics is used to describe the process of manipulating academic curriculum to include skills that are profitable for the business industry. The author uses socioeconomics to describe how education has not been used as a means to bring equality among the working class, but as a way to keep the flow of business profitable.
2.) I do agree that socioeconomics has manipulated the educational experience. Schooling is believed to, and should bring freedom to an individual by allowing them to explore. In reality, school curriculum is mostly mandatory, leaving little wiggle room for students and teachers. There is a board or committee that votes and decides what it is students should be taught. Because of this, one has to consider the fact that curriculum is biased towards the ones who control it. I have experienced this myself. In grade school there would be things we would hear about and ask our teachers about, and even though the would answer our questions, we couldn't learn about it because it was not a part of the curriculum. Students should be able to be involved in academics. Letting students have choice in what they want to learn would be beneficial because it would make students excited about the subject matter. Students might also feel like they have a voice and are not just getting ruled over by the big wigs. Instead, curriculum is built to compliment capitalism as opposed to the students. Students are evaluated by how well they follow directions, causing differences between the students. And these differences go through the college level as well. The author describes how college graduates often times end up on government assistance and unemployment for not going to the "right" college. Universities follow a hierarchy, with ivy league schools being the peak. So where education is supposed to promote freedom and opportunity, often times that only applies to the privileged. Workers and students eventually take on the role of machines and commodities because the goal for these individuals, whether they are aware or not, is to produce surplus product that is conducive to society.
3.) Is training students to have skills specifically related to demands of big business theoretically helping or harming our students? Does training students with vocational skills limit the individuality and imaginative spirit of the student? Are we as teachers contributing to the division of class that results from enforcing students to be well behaved? Are we sending the message to our students that being submissive is expected and rewarded? The author summed up the main idea of these questions by stating "Moreover, despite the important contribution of
education to an individual's economic chances, the substantial equalization of
educational attainments over the years has not led measurably to an equalization in
income among individuals". If curriculum serves its purpose correctly why is there still major divisions between classes?
Very interesting. You've expressed some of the most important points in the article. I think you're right to point out that student choice and flexibility is limited within a curriculum oriented towards employee preparation, and to ask whether the development of skills is beneficial for the human person. These are the questions Bowles and Gintis want to provoke.
ReplyDelete