Reading a passage from the book Education for Profit, Education for Democracy by Martha Nussbaum. Going to school for a good part of your early life is basically need. The average rate of people going from high school into college and actually finishing is not at the highest averages, in relative terms it is actually getting smaller. If you want the country to grow or have a “economic growth” is how Nussbaum explain in Education for Profit, Education for Democracy; the priorities really should land in were basic math, English, computer skills and so on, History and Arts and Humanities are not on the high side for an economic growth.
I’m speaking of these type of courses to be on a rather simpler side and basically everyone will be able to …show more content…
Due to the old model not paying much attention to “distributional inequalities”, “brutal apartheid regime” and lacking “health and educational deficiencies “. But according to Nussbaum, some people like the old model and the she mentions that the U.S. has adapted parts of the old model as well. As she says “Proponents of the old model sometimes like to claim that the pursuit of economic growth will by itself deliver the other good things “ But as she puts it the old model did not “deliver the goods as claimed”. Due to some of the problem listed above. Now another reason why Nussbaum compared the U.S. and India was that they both have equal rights through education. As Nussbaum explains “In general, we are entitled to conclude that both the United States and India have rejected the notion that the right way for a nation to proceed is simply to strive to maximize economic growth. It is, then, all the odder that major figures concerned with education, in both nations, continue to behave as if the goal of education were economic growth alone”. Last but not least the United States has a very different kind of a “model of education”. It is called “pure growth-directed”. It is very different compared to every other nation. It’s based on a liberal arts model in which when kids go to college we take multiple courses or classes and the purpose of this is to influence “secondary
I’m speaking of these type of courses to be on a rather simpler side and basically everyone will be able to …show more content…
Due to the old model not paying much attention to “distributional inequalities”, “brutal apartheid regime” and lacking “health and educational deficiencies “. But according to Nussbaum, some people like the old model and the she mentions that the U.S. has adapted parts of the old model as well. As she says “Proponents of the old model sometimes like to claim that the pursuit of economic growth will by itself deliver the other good things “ But as she puts it the old model did not “deliver the goods as claimed”. Due to some of the problem listed above. Now another reason why Nussbaum compared the U.S. and India was that they both have equal rights through education. As Nussbaum explains “In general, we are entitled to conclude that both the United States and India have rejected the notion that the right way for a nation to proceed is simply to strive to maximize economic growth. It is, then, all the odder that major figures concerned with education, in both nations, continue to behave as if the goal of education were economic growth alone”. Last but not least the United States has a very different kind of a “model of education”. It is called “pure growth-directed”. It is very different compared to every other nation. It’s based on a liberal arts model in which when kids go to college we take multiple courses or classes and the purpose of this is to influence “secondary