It's crazy how people just make shit up and say it so confidently. Most education prior to the industrial revolution was considered a luxury for the wealthy, and its value was not considered in terms of producing economic value directly
> Most education prior to the industrial revolution was considered a luxury for the wealthy,
In fact this is still the case in many ways. There are loads of kids studying things that are not directly economically useful, mainly for their own enjoyment and as a luxury status symbol.
This narrative is very heavily purported by right-wing propaganda outlets. I wonder what you mean by "things... as a luxury." Do you mean MBAs, or history majors? And, what do you mean by "loads?" Do you have any data to back this up?
I think they mean the general study and refinement of culture and knowledge for its own sake--the kids who go to college/university for language arts, fine art, music, theatre, history, philosophy... these classes are widely attended, but have a reputation for not being useful for gainful employment. (Plenty of famous writers, poets, artists, actors, musicians, and journalists have such an education, but the rest of their classmates probably did not end up employed in the same sector.)
Side note: it's not just the far-right that disparages higher academia as effete elitism. The far-left has done so as well, notably during China's Cultural Revolution, and within Soviet Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, etc. Being an academic at the wrong time in history means you have a good chance of ending up in a gulag or concentration camp.
Yes, I have studied a bit of China's Cultural Revolution, and discussed it with several (strongly biased, of course) Chinese expats. They violently opposed the subjects that many Americans are privileged to receive via our "liberal arts" educations. I can't argue with that. All I can say is that I view China as a deeply conservative, even fascist nation. From my (limited) perspective, it is deeply racist and misogynistic in ways to which only the most conservative, right-wing Americans compare. So it is hard for me to trace today's China's lineage "leftward".
I also didn't mention the less "artsy" academic disciplines that might get you in trouble with the Party: mathematics, physics, astronomy, economics, biology, sociology, psychology... These can be seen as possible heresy and/or profligate navel-gazing that weakens the Glorious Nation. But it depends on the ideology and how useful the Party thinks your discipline is (for example, if expertise in your field is required to build nukes or launch rockets...)
Well, what degrees are actually necessary for the work? As in, if you don't have the degree, you cannot be allowed to do the work?
Medicine, law?
Pretty much all other degrees are a thing that you do because it's interesting, and you want to signal your interest in some area. People are trained on the job for the most part. I'm fairly sure I could have jumped into my career from high school, were it not for the social convention that smart kids have to go to university, and thus only graduates can be hired.
The sibling comment is right, btw, it's narrow to think of it as a right-wing talking point. Historically the left thought the same way.
It's a fact, money doesn't come from nowhere and for nothing. You can see it for yourself if you do the work. It doesn't matter how things were eons ago - it matters how it is now.
Yes. It matters how they are now. It matters what problems there are with that state and what we can do to change them. It matters what's worked before and why and in what context, because it's a source of information we can use to inform our decisions. If you're going to talk to me like you think I'm a baby, I ask you to at least say something vaguely useful, instead of prattling about "realism" that makes no substantive claims except that every facet of our current reality is inevitable. As someone who makes money by doing work in the current world, I would like for fewer decisions to be made by people who hold capital instead of doing work, and think there are concrete steps we could take to rescue the important human endeavor of research from the influence of such people, not the least of which being restructuring how governments fund such institutions, prioritizing their independence rather than their hijacked function as yet another ill-conceived social mobility hack (actual social mobility comes from removing obstacles, not creating new ones and then conditionally subsidizing them)
