Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Good_Egg]

I think anyone who has gone through secondary education (compulsory in our democracies) is competent to form views about the sort of government they want.

That's the premise of democracy - that the typical adult citizen is competent.

Seems to me that that premise is being undermined in two ways.

First, technological progress in communications and the art of persuasion. Advertising works. And therefore votes can be bought by spending money on political ads.

This has gone along with declining belief in free will. If you don't believe that someone's electoral choices are freely willed, what basis is there for respecting them ?

The second is the complexity of the issues. If the political issues of the day are about your country's relationship with the EU and about what Big Tech may and may not do with personal data, who is really competent ?

Government is failing. Failing on immigration, failing on negotiating a constructive trading relationship of equals with the EU, failing on managing the use & abuse of technology. And we're supposed to believe that asking our neighbours to vote for the same set or a different set of politicians is going to solve anything ?

[Lagayascienza]

For the UN to work, it would need to be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up on democratic principles. That's not going to happen anytime soon, if ever. Therefore, it’s pointless looking to the UN as an example of democracy - it is not and never was democratic.

If we want to talk about democracy we can only compare and contrast our own democracies, and compare and contrast them with non-democratic regimes elsewhere. According to the Economist Group’s Democracy Index, less than 50% of countries are governed by regimens that could be described as democratic (where there is "government of the people, by the people, for the people" whereby every adult is entitled to vote and where every vote counts). Almost 40% of countries are governed by dictators or authoritarian regimes.

The OP asks about “The decline of democracy”. I would like to ask folks who live in democratic countries if they see a decline of their own democracies. Has your country’s democracy declined? In what way? When did the decline start? What has the change meant for the way your country operates? What measures would improve the situation in your country? Would you prefer a system of government other than democracy? Which system? Why?

Democracies are declining in spread, power and influence. Further, more democracies are becoming democracies in name only. I believe Russia calls itself a democracy, which only highlights the extraordinary dishonesty of Putin and his cronies.

Still is democracy the best system? Plato was against democracy because he did not think the votes of masses should carry the same weight as experts. Many people who are allowed to vote could be fairly said not to be competent. This would lead to populists exploiting the masses.

I have always been strongly pro-democracy but Plato had a point. It's clear that our system - be it democracy, capitalism or whatever - is not serving young people well. That is why there's so much unrest. Our generation had a clear path - get educated, get a job, buy a home, have a family. University degrees are ever more expensive and much of the information will be dated by the time the course is done. Rising unemployment and hidden unemployment/underemployment. Buying a home is out of reach for most so it's much harder to provide a stable home for a family.

So, they decide that none of that matter. I suspect the rapid increase in queerness in the young is at least in part driven by the fact that society has made the heterosexual dream almost unattainable. So why not just have fun with whomever? What difference will it make? If it annoys old people, all the better, right?

This generation does not seem to believe in their governing systems because they have not offered them anything, and instead thwarted them at every turn. Politicians have made the grievous error of allowing sizeable groups of people to end up with nothing to lose, so many of them will be provocateurs and saboteurs.

Another significant movement is the trend towards a cashless society with digital currency. That would be the end of privacy and a significant increase in government control. Jefferson is (perhaps falsely) attributed to the quote "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny". In a true democracy, politicians will kiss babies, tell sweet lies to passers-by and generally try to win the people's favour. In a dictatorship, inconvenient people disappear.

Yes, Plato had a point. But in his day only the elite were educated. It's difficult to see how Plato's idea would sit well with enlightenment values of equality and with democracy as we know in Australia, NZ, Canada etc. where everyone has secondary education. Who would decide who is to be classified as competent? I think anyone who has gone through secondary education (compulsory in our democracies) is competent to form views about the sort of government they want. If we narrowed the franchise to tertiary educated experts in various fields and to technocrats, then their interests would probably not coincide with those of the masses beneath them. That would be unfair and cause huge resentment.

I agree that "This generation does not seem to believe in their governing systems because they have not offered them anything". The problem as I see it, in Australia at least, is the sameness of the major parties. There's no real party of the left anymore. The Greens are trying to fill that void but in doing so they have strayed far from their original raison d'etre which was care for the environment. Still, they seem to be maintaining or even slowly increasing their share of the vote. But I think we really do need a true, democratic socialist party in Australia - something like Labor used to be. That might give those on the bottom of the heap some hope.

I, too, worry about our fast movement towards cashlessness. I no longer even have 1$ or 2$ coins to drop into a cup. All my financial transactions are stored who knows where for some cyber-crim or some government agency to snoop into if they could show cause. I have no idea what the answer to that problem would be. And cashlessness and online banking are just so damned convenient! I remember a time when if you didn't get to the bank before 3:00pm on a Friday you would have to survive the weekend with no money. I'm glad those days are over - we can just swipe a card and make a small online donation to our favorite political party.

I don't care about having a left or right wing party in, just rational governance that takes both current and potential future situations into account, and not tailored to the electoral cycle (the latter being another problem with democracy). Maybe AI can be put to thorny problems of governance to at least find out what ideas it has?

As for who to vote, I would say it would be a matter of elimination. If a person does not know what different levels of government do, or even that there are different levels of government, then they are not competent to vote. They don't have to know each portfolio in detail, but have general gist that fed look after the national economy, the military and God's waiting rooms, that local councils collect waste and care for local fields, and state governments do the bulk of roads, education and health.

It goes far beyond that. Have you seen those videos where people on the street are asked simple general knowledge questions? Can you name one country in the UK? Italy. Who fought in the American Civil War? Donald Trump and Joe Biden. True answers from American pedestrians.

I only use cash, aside from online. As they say, use it or lose it. At some stage I will use it AND lose it, but I hope to help postpone that time.

Yes, I don't much care either whether Labor or the Libs (Conservatives) are in because there is hardly any difference between them these days. What I care most about is that we have a good range of parties and policies to choose from. And I care about rational governance that looks after the battlers whilst not stifling initiative and business. I believe both are doable with the right mix of social policies and fair taxation. But neither of the major parties seems to want to fix blatant rorts like negative gearing which distorts the housing market in favor of the already wealthy so that it's become nearly impossible for young people to get into the market or even find affordable rental accommodation at a time when immigration has never been higher. This is all bad policy and not good governance. However, it's good that labor has recently announced deep cuts to immigration.

I think kids in secondary school should have compulsory classes in politics so that when they leave school and start to vote they have some idea of what it's all about. I agree with our compulsory voting law but it's of limited use if people don't understand how our system of government works and how to evaluate policies that parties put forward at elections.

So yes, democracy it's an imperfect system but it's less imperfect than all the rest. At least we get a chance every few years vote the b*stards out if we don't like what they're doing. We should cherish our right to vote. It's a privilege and a duty. I'd like the young ones to see it that way.

[Sy Borg]

Democracies are declining in spread, power and influence. Further, more democracies are becoming democracies in name only. I believe Russia calls itself a democracy, which only highlights the extraordinary dishonesty of Putin and his cronies.

Still is democracy the best system? Plato was against democracy because he did not think the votes of masses should carry the same weight as experts. Many people who are allowed to vote could be fairly said not to be competent. This would lead to populists exploiting the masses.

I have always been strongly pro-democracy but Plato had a point. It's clear that our system - be it democracy, capitalism or whatever - is not serving young people well. That is why there's so much unrest. Our generation had a clear path - get educated, get a job, buy a home, have a family. University degrees are ever more expensive and much of the information will be dated by the time the course is done. Rising unemployment and hidden unemployment/underemployment. Buying a home is out of reach for most so it's much harder to provide a stable home for a family.

So, they decide that none of that matter. I suspect the rapid increase in queerness in the young is at least in part driven by the fact that society has made the heterosexual dream almost unattainable. So why not just have fun with whomever? What difference will it make? If it annoys old people, all the better, right? :)

This generation does not seem to believe in their governing systems because they have not offered them anything, and instead thwarted them at every turn. Politicians have made the grievous error of allowing sizeable groups of people to end up with nothing to lose, so many of them will be provocateurs and saboteurs.

Another significant movement is the trend towards a cashless society with digital currency. That would be the end of privacy and a significant increase in government control. Jefferson is (perhaps falsely) attributed to the quote "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny". In a true democracy, politicians will kiss babies, tell sweet lies to passers-by and generally try to win the people's favour. In a dictatorship, inconvenient people disappear.

Yes, Plato had a point. But in his day only the elite were educated. It's difficult to see how Plato's idea would sit well with enlightenment values of equality and with democracy as we know in Australia, NZ, Canada etc. where everyone has secondary education. Who would decide who is to be classified as competent? I think anyone who has gone through secondary education (compulsory in our democracies) is competent to form views about the sort of government they want. If we narrowed the franchise to tertiary educated experts in various fields and to technocrats, then their interests would probably not coincide with those of the masses beneath them. That would be unfair and cause huge resentment.

I agree that "This generation does not seem to believe in their governing systems because they have not offered them anything". The problem as I see it, in Australia at least, is the sameness of the major parties. There's no real party of the left anymore. The Greens are trying to fill that void but in doing so they have strayed far from their original raison d'etre which was care for the environment. Still, they seem to be maintaining or even slowly increasing their share of the vote. But I think we really do need a true, democratic socialist party in Australia - something like Labor used to be. That might give those on the bottom of the heap some hope.

I, too, worry about our fast movement towards cashlessness. I no longer even have 1$ or 2$ coins to drop into a cup. All my financial transactions are stored who knows where for some cyber-crim or some government agency to snoop into if they could show cause. I have no idea what the answer to that problem would be. And cashlessness and online banking are just so damned convenient! I remember a time when if you didn't get to the bank before 3:00pm on a Friday you would have to survive the weekend with no money. I'm glad those days are over - we can just swipe a card and make a small online donation to our favorite political party.

I don't care about having a left or right wing party in, just rational governance that takes both current and potential future situations into account, and not tailored to the electoral cycle (the latter being another problem with democracy). Maybe AI can be put to thorny problems of governance to at least find out what ideas it has?

As for who to vote, I would say it would be a matter of elimination. If a person does not know what different levels of government do, or even that there are different levels of government, then they are not competent to vote. They don't have to know each portfolio in detail, but have general gist that fed look after the national economy, the military and God's waiting rooms, that local councils collect waste and care for local fields, and state governments do the bulk of roads, education and health.

It goes far beyond that. Have you seen those videos where people on the street are asked simple general knowledge questions? Can you name one country in the UK? Italy. Who fought in the American Civil War? Donald Trump and Joe Biden. True answers from American pedestrians.

I only use cash, aside from online. As they say, use it or lose it. At some stage I will use it AND lose it, but I hope to help postpone that time.

A democracy needs its electorate to be educated . Governments that don't provide for the best education,for all classes, paid for out of taxes ,tend to harm democracy and to favour populism.
For instance the British so -called public schools that charge enormous fees are a major part of a system of education that perpetuates division by social class. Our comprehensive schools have initiated a better education system but as long as fee paying schools are permitted education will never be as good as it should be.
The US have a class system at least as divisive as the class divisions in the UK with resultant striking divisions between education levels.

Ideally, private schools would be fully private so that more money is available for government schools. However, governments needed private schools because it would cost more to educate everyone, so it made sense to fund them enough to make sure they were viable. However, as these things go, gradually what was fairly logical and fair became skewed to favour the best lobbyists. The result is that a proportion of wealthy private schools are funded much more than they are needed, at the expense of funding needier schools.

Just one more SNAFU to add to society's list. As a result, there is a growing societal underbelly whom the powers-that-be deem to be uneconomic to educate, and even parts of the middle-class have very limited knowledge and curiosity about the world.

Some people are IMO simply unfit to vote. Take my mother, for instance. She voted on whether she liked the leader or not, full stop. Either that or she would would simply obey Dad. She had zero knowledge or interest in policies. It was not lack of intelligence or education because Mum was like a living dictionary and thesaurus. It was competence in understanding political issues.

Some people can't do math. Some can't spell. Some can't do logic. Some can't understand politics. Ideally, the latter's vote would not count as much as those who are politically competent, but at the moment it does.

[Stoppelmann]

Ideally, private schools would be fully private so that more money is available for government schools. However, governments needed private schools because it would cost more to educate everyone, so it made sense to fund them enough to make sure they were viable. However, as these things go, gradually what was fairly logical and fair became skewed to favour the best lobbyists. The result is that a proportion of wealthy private schools are funded much more than they are needed, at the expense of funding needier schools.

Just one more SNAFU to add to society's list. As a result, there is a growing societal underbelly whom the powers-that-be deem to be uneconomic to educate, and even parts of the middle-class have very limited knowledge and curiosity about the world.

Some people are IMO simply unfit to vote. Take my mother, for instance. She voted on whether she liked the leader or not, full stop. Either that or she would would simply obey Dad. She had zero knowledge or interest in policies. It was not lack of intelligence or education because Mum was like a living dictionary and thesaurus. It was competence in understanding political issues.

Some people can't do math. Some can't spell. Some can't do logic. Some can't understand politics. Ideally, the latter's vote would not count as much as those who are politically competent, but at the moment it does.

I would agree with you, but in the UK at least, private schools are a sign of the class difference. Lobbyists are just the means by which the richer class makes money. SNAFU applies to this group of educated idiots whose feeling of entitlement is oppressive and bigoted.

Education in the Western world concentrates on everything but the children and later students, or even the teachers for that matter. It is all about fulfilling targets and less about educating. My brother and I are perfect examples of people who left school thinking we were idiots. He went on as an adult to pass his Masters in Economics and was a managing director in a large company, and I made a career in a foreign country, where I reached a similar status.

We were fortunate but had to go down paths that first took us away from our later goals. My interest in current affairs was actually criticised in the army, in which I was told I had to "know my place!" My parents had learnt this from childhood, and it was only by breaking out that I overcame that attitude.

[Lagayascienza]

In Australia the funding of wealthy private schools is unfair. From 2012 to 2021, per student funding to non-government schools rose by up to 34%, while funding to public schools increased by just 17%, according to parliamentary library data.

Recent data from the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority shows that 98% of private schools are funded above the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS) recommended by the Gonski report (2011) and more than 98% of government schools are funded below it.

A Unicef report in 2018 ranked Australia 30th out of 38 OECD countries in providing equitable access to secondary education. Things have not improved since 2018.

Clearly, something is wrong with the current funding model. I have nothing against rich parents sending their kids to wealthy private schools. However, these schools do not need and should not be receiving government funding and they should certainly not be funded to the extent that students in these wealthy schools get a higher level of government funding than students in poor government schools. But that is what is happening. On a per capita basis, students in wealthy non-government schools receive more funding by the government than students in poor government schools. This is wrong. This is government policy entrenching inequality.

A compulsory part of all secondary school curricula should be politics. My own parents were uneducated and completely ignorant about politics and so their votes were wasted and actually went against their own interests. They were poor people who voted for conservatives because they didn’t understand the meaning of the terms “conservative” and “progressive” or right-wing” and “left-wing”. I left school at 15 years old and had to work and only later managed to get myself educated so that I could go on to practice law. Other poor kids I knew couldn’t manage the transition and they are still on the bottom of the social and economic heap. For the non-wealthy, education is the most important requirement for success in life. It must be funded fairly.

[Sy Borg]

In Australia the funding of wealthy private schools is unfair. From 2012 to 2021, per student funding to non-government schools rose by up to 34%, while funding to public schools increased by just 17%, according to parliamentary library data.

Recent data from the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority shows that 98% of private schools are funded above the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS) recommended by the Gonski report (2011) and more than 98% of government schools are funded below it.

A Unicef report in 2018 ranked Australia 30th out of 38 OECD countries in providing equitable access to secondary education. Things have not improved since 2018.

Clearly, something is wrong with the current funding model. I have nothing against rich parents sending their kids to wealthy private schools. However, these schools do not need and should not be receiving government funding and they should certainly not be funded to the extent that students in these wealthy schools get a higher level of government funding than students in poor government schools.

All good points.

But that is what is happening. On a per capita basis, students in wealthy non-government schools receive more funding by the government than students in poor government schools. This is wrong. This is government policy entrenching inequality.

A compulsory part of all secondary school curricula should be politics. My own parents were uneducated and completely ignorant about politics and so their votes were wasted and actually went against their own interests.

The politics lessons would need to be structured carefully and not have the word "politics" anywhere near them. Still, the current situation where there are a considerable number of people who are incompetent to vote is problematic for exactly the reasons Plato described.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, it could be called "Civics" or "Governance Studies" or something like that. "Politics" is too emotive a term and would immediately invite partisanship among students - probably based on their parent's political views and voting patterns. In would need to be presented in a party neutral way. It would teach how our system of democratic government works, its Constitution, its division of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, the relationship between the states and Commonwealth... And perhaps contrast our system with non-democratic systems. This would probably be enough for secondary students. It would give them the grounding they need to understand the system and help them make informed choices when they reach voting age and it would provide a basis for tertiary studies in politics.

[Sy Borg]

Black hat, extending to peripheral issues:

1) most students would forget the material by the time they were old enough to put their learning into practice

2) successive governments (and schools) would not be able to resist "tinkering".

3) maybe the entire schooling system - suitable for an industrialising 19th century Britain - needs to be reconsidered? Elon Musk thinks there needs to be less pedagogy and more group project work where students must research information to solve problems, which theoretically makes sense.

4) general motivation issues due to lack of prospects.

[Belindi]

Ideally, private schools would be fully private so that more money is available for government schools. However, governments needed private schools because it would cost more to educate everyone, so it made sense to fund them enough to make sure they were viable. However, as these things go, gradually what was fairly logical and fair became skewed to favour the best lobbyists. The result is that a proportion of wealthy private schools are funded much more than they are needed, at the expense of funding needier schools.

Just one more SNAFU to add to society's list. As a result, there is a growing societal underbelly whom the powers-that-be deem to be uneconomic to educate, and even parts of the middle-class have very limited knowledge and curiosity about the world.

Some people are IMO simply unfit to vote. Take my mother, for instance. She voted on whether she liked the leader or not, full stop. Either that or she would would simply obey Dad. She had zero knowledge or interest in policies. It was not lack of intelligence or education because Mum was like a living dictionary and thesaurus. It was competence in understanding political issues.

Some people can't do math. Some can't spell. Some can't do logic. Some can't understand politics. Ideally, the latter's vote would not count as much as those who are politically competent, but at the moment it does.

I would agree with you, but in the UK at least, private schools are a sign of the class difference. Lobbyists are just the means by which the richer class makes money. SNAFU applies to this group of educated idiots whose feeling of entitlement is oppressive and bigoted.

Education in the Western world concentrates on everything but the children and later students, or even the teachers for that matter. It is all about fulfilling targets and less about educating. My brother and I are perfect examples of people who left school thinking we were idiots. He went on as an adult to pass his Masters in Economics and was a managing director in a large company, and I made a career in a foreign country, where I reached a similar status.

We were fortunate but had to go down paths that first took us away from our later goals. My interest in current affairs was actually criticised in the army, in which I was told I had to "know my place!" My parents had learnt this from childhood, and it was only by breaking out that I overcame that attitude.

Expensive private education is more than sign of class difference. Expensive private education perpetuates class difference by providing an empowering education for the children only of rich people (apart from bursaries which cream off more talented poorer children).

I also need to know if your parents were rich enough to pay expensive private fees for you; or if you got bursaries to expensive schools ; or if you and your brother succeeded despite poor teaching of of two boys with a lot of native intelligence.

I guess you were a misfit in the army where men and even officers are expected to obey their superiors. Army personnel are part of the political Establishment by definition.

With reference to Sy Borg's point about fitness to vote. I agree there should be some level of knowledge. The sort and level of knowledge needed is best decided by professional educationists, I guess.

[Lagayascienza]

The most important question people need to be able to ask themselves is, Why should I vote for this or that candidate? But to answer that question properly, they need to know why they think conservatism or progressivism (or something else) is the answer to a country's and their own individual needs. We can teach politics at school, which is useful for kids, but they really need to search their own hearts as adults to decide what choice, conservative or progressive (or something else), would be right at any particular election. I think that ability only comes with experience and some knowledge of modern history. And an ability to see through the political advertising. If an ad appeals to patriotism, for example, we know a politician or party is scraping the dirty bottom of the political barrel - "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel".

This is a problem with democracy, but at least with democracy there is some hope of peaceful change for the better. Under dictatorship or authoritarianism there is no such hope.

[Stoppelmann]

Expensive private education is more than sign of class difference. Expensive private education perpetuates class difference by providing an empowering education for the children only of rich people (apart from bursaries which cream off more talented poorer children).

I also need to know if your parents were rich enough to pay expensive private fees for you; or if you got bursaries to expensive schools ; or if you and your brother succeeded despite poor teaching of of two boys with a lot of native intelligence.

I guess you were a misfit in the army where men and even officers are expected to obey their superiors. Army personnel are part of the political Establishment by definition.

With reference to Sy Borg's point about fitness to vote. I agree there should be some level of knowledge. The sort and level of knowledge needed is best decided by professional educationists, I guess.

My siblings and I were clearly working-class kids and my brother and I broke out via the army (in the lower ranks), and through hard work, we overcame the stigma that had been attached to us. We did get a lot of support from people better off, but they were exceptions to the rule. In my case, I actually fled the UK because I saw no perspective and met many ex-pats abroad who had done the same. In fact, after catching up with some classmates, we seem to have been a generation who emigrated in large numbers, with many of my past school friends in Australia.

I don't know whether you have heard of Ken Robinson, but I feel that we need to take his approach to schooling, looking for the "element" in which children thrive and thereby keep the learning curve going up. Those who thrive are more likely to be better informed and grasp the diversity of society better. I did this for my son, and he has thrived, has his own business and is politically well-informed.

[Stoppelmann]

The most important question people need to be able to ask themselves is, Why should I vote for this or that candidate? But to answer that question properly, they need to know why they think conservatism or progressivism (or something else) is the answer to a country's and their own individual needs. We can teach politics at school, which is useful for kids, but they really need to search their own hearts as adults to decide what choice, conservative or progressive (or something else), would be right at any particular election. I think that ability only comes with experience and some knowledge of modern history. And an ability to see through the political advertising. If an ad appeals to patriotism, for example, we know a politician or party is scraping the dirty bottom of the political barrel - "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel".

This is a problem with democracy, but at least with democracy there is some hope of peaceful change for the better. Under dictatorship or authoritarianism there is no such hope.

I think the most important question is who pays and influences a candidate. Are they addressing valid issues, and do they have the well-being of the whole population in their view? Are they committed to promoting a well-informed democracy, or do they assess democratic institutions critically?

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, the influence on candidates by various powerful interests is another potential problem with democracy - the ability of the rich and powerful to lobby or buy politicians, or to buy their own way into political office. Voters need to be alert to these problems.

[Belindi]

Expensive private education is more than sign of class difference. Expensive private education perpetuates class difference by providing an empowering education for the children only of rich people (apart from bursaries which cream off more talented poorer children).

I also need to know if your parents were rich enough to pay expensive private fees for you; or if you got bursaries to expensive schools ; or if you and your brother succeeded despite poor teaching of of two boys with a lot of native intelligence.

I guess you were a misfit in the army where men and even officers are expected to obey their superiors. Army personnel are part of the political Establishment by definition.

With reference to Sy Borg's point about fitness to vote. I agree there should be some level of knowledge. The sort and level of knowledge needed is best decided by professional educationists, I guess.

My siblings and I were clearly working-class kids and my brother and I broke out via the army (in the lower ranks), and through hard work, we overcame the stigma that had been attached to us. We did get a lot of support from people better off, but they were exceptions to the rule. In my case, I actually fled the UK because I saw no perspective and met many ex-pats abroad who had done the same. In fact, after catching up with some classmates, we seem to have been a generation who emigrated in large numbers, with many of my past school friends in Australia.

I don't know whether you have heard of Ken Robinson, but I feel that we need to take his approach to schooling, looking for the "element" in which children thrive and thereby keep the learning curve going up. Those who thrive are more likely to be better informed and grasp the diversity of society better. I did this for my son, and he has thrived, has his own business and is politically well-informed.

As I said, your story points to the fact that you and your brother had native intelligence which was perhaps I'd guess probably enhanced by parents or family culture that had real conversations and books in the house. Not all working class share the same defeatist attitudes. And of course some working class kids rise above defeatist working class attitudes.
You two siblings got your ambitions and intelligence from somewhere and what one wants to find out is how much of that personality is nature and how much nurture. Finally ,remember social mobility can go down as well as up.

[Pattern-chaser]

Black hat, extending to peripheral issues:

1) most students would forget the material by the time they were old enough to put their learning into practice

2) successive governments (and schools) would not be able to resist "tinkering".

3) maybe the entire schooling system - suitable for an industrialising 19th century Britain - needs to be reconsidered? Elon Musk thinks there needs to be less pedagogy and more group project work where students must research information to solve problems, which theoretically makes sense.

4) general motivation issues due to lack of prospects.

Yes, our education systems aim solely at teaching students to pass examinations. If any actual learning should occur, it's almost a coincidence. We should teach what our children need to know to live in our crazy world. But that's idealism, and it isn't obvious (to me, at least) how this might be achieved.