> No. It should help a person develop into a free, thoughtful, well-rounded human being.

That was the goal maybe in the past when only rich people could afford an education.

I actually had this very same discussion/argument with my mother on Mother’s Day regarding my young child. I want a well rounded, full childhood of experiences of all sorts, exposing them to a vast variety of things in an attempt to establish a broad understanding while allowing their interests to flourish broadly rather than singularly focusing their “Primary” talents with a narrower focus.

Her argument is to capitalize on their primary gift(s) while I, while recognizing those particular gifts, want to expose them to a vast variety of experiences and challenges in a broad way. The world changes fast and most recently I have found that the broader experiences and different challenges I have faced in my life give me a distinct advantage over others in my ability to think critically.

Now, there is a bit of truth to pushing a student sometimes, and a parent/guardian will need to understand when those instances are called for, but I see too many parent pushing certain academics or the obvious one - sports - to the point that life is not experienced to a detriment

> No. It should help a person develop into a free, thoughtful, well-rounded human being.

This is the goal of a primary education.

But society need us to hand down collective knowledge. Economic output is one way to measure that. But more generally, if everyone only consumed education for their personal edification, we'd lose the ability to financially support education in the first place.

I mean this is a nice sentiment but it's both not only unrealistic for the vast majority of people, it's something that only a privilege few can actually achieve.

People go to school because they want a better life, the only path to a truly better life in the USA is money. It's really hard to blame students when they've been brought up in a society that has been extremely rotten for their entire lives.

Sounds nice but resources are limited for many people. Getting an employment focused education using their limited resources is the more likely way to put them in stable orbit so that maybe theyll be able to broaden with less employment focused education later.

> a free, thoughtful, well-rounded human being

What do these words even mean, and why should taxpayers pay for that? Is there any institution today that teaches you to be a “well-rounded human being?” Do students graduate being able to hunt for food, grow crops, or build a house?

There might be great value in whatever type of “education” you’re talking about. But “education” as a public, taxpayer supported activity is about the economy.

>No. It should help a person develop into a free, thoughtful, well-rounded human being.

That's been the refrain for longer than either of us have been alive. But free, thoughtful, well-rounded humans tend to starve when they can't find gainful employment and start paying rent. If your first concern isn't practical, no one should even listen to you.

>But rather: Should economic value be the highest or only value of education?

Allow me to translate: I'm rich enough that I don't personally have to be concerned with earning a living, so why don't you enroll in advanced underwater basket-weaving with me at $3400/credit-hour? You can get a student loan for it, and since you'll pay it back it doesn't really matter that it's not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Sorry, but that’s some ivory tower wishful thinking.