Whether it’s at a drunken frat party or protesting chopping down a few trees on campus (I go to Berkeley), you will find that the dumbest students are liberal arts majors.

I’m all for votech and placing more value on careers other than doctor/lawyer. I’m a housewife, and I think it quite a noble pursuit. But the liberal arts degree itself is not meant to deliver job skills so it seems odd to complain that isn’t delivering them.

Of all the blogs I looked through regarding this essay, most were strongly supportive of Murray. And most of those were conservative. Pandagon was against it. And the one I linked to. So I think it is an important issue to discuss, and perhaps moreso among conservatives who seem to feel like education has served liberal purposes for too long. Me divining motivations against, I guess, but it is the sense I get in these discussions.

To debunk it, I think there are two things to focus on. One is a common philosophical starting point, like what education even is. I don’t think we’ll get far there, but clearly arguing the foundation is always a good starting point.

Second would be to note where the schools are ill-equipped to do this, just as they are ill-equipped to satisfy the “socialization” issue if we look at what parents see their children contending with in school. A similar approach applied directly to this school-to-work mentality would be to emphasize the amount of time children have to pursue their interests, including potential career choices. And of course looking at the amount of volunteer work, jobs and apprenticeship type programs homeschoolers are able, by virtue of their flexibility, to pursue.

So I guess the condensed answer for me would be: There is more to education than work, but it is one purpose of education. And homeschooling presents myriad opportunities for developing skills in this area.

“Even homeschoolers sometimes cross over into this “anti-intellectual populism,” it seems. I don’t know why that is.”

I know what you mean, and I don’t like to divine other people’s motives too much, but I think a lot of it has to do with a reaction to the culture.

There is a certain sense of their being an “educated elite” but rather than respond to their arguments directly, many seem to prefer to question “intellectualism” altogether.”

Spot on!

Wrestling with the nature of education and intellectual inquiry is a longstanding practice among educators. (My very first blog post dealt with some of that wrestling!) What are we doing here? and What makes it worthwhile? are perennial questions for all learners. I think homeschooling just highlights the importance of those questions, while connecting them more strongly with Who are “we” who are doing this learning? and Who do we trust?

Those questions are not the sort that are going to go away. So I don’t think we should worry if an off-the-wall voice (like Murray’s) frets in public once in a while. He’s certainly not the whole conversation.

That said, is the “school-for-work-skills” argument something that can be debunked as easily as (for instance) the socialization myth? What can homeschoolers contribute to the public conversation on the nature and purpose of becoming educated?

I know what you mean, and I don’t like to divine other people’s motives too much, but I think a lot of it has to do with a reaction to the culture.

There is a certain sense of their being an “educated elite” but rather than respond to their arguments directly, many seem to prefer to question “intellectualism” altogether.

Shawna, I know how you feel. I don’t get it much in my personal circle, but there is a certain sense that if you are not earning a salary equivalent to the potential others see in you, you have “wasted” something. Even if all the choices were your own and you are content where you are at.

Contentment isn’t a very high aspiration these days, nor is it greatly respected.