English grandma (;-)

Yes, absent been here before. The Oldie thread is usually slightly behind us...And possibly a little out of date. Sorry, but it's true.

Now I am lost. Since a human being's primary instinct is to survive and the ability to survive depends, for most individuals, upon being able to earn one's living, why is it sub-Marxist to see a direct correlation between education and employability?

Primary aim and correlation are not the same thing.

What made homo sapiens the sole survivor of the humanoid species was our ability to adapt to varying conditions and to make the right choices - do I go out and wrestle that buffalo or do I find a suitable stone and make a spear? Nowadays education confers skills and trains the brain to adapt to whatever conditions and challenges one meets in life. A major factor is choosing an occupation/career but this is not the only challenge in life. If schools and universities were all about finding and keeping work, they'd be terribly dull places.

Quote Absent "the rest is up to parents mudskipper – or have I misunderstood your post? I do hope so.
I find the assumption that parents are ineffective rather odd. Is that all parents?"

I said "many", not "all". My choice of qualifier is based on the youthful activity I see through my window, particularly during school hours.

No, I do not think that school has no function other than to train for work, any more than that all parents should teach is housework. But if school does not teach the skills required for work then where will they be learned?

Since as you say, education confers skills, annodomini is it unreasonable to propose that just one of those skills could be the ability to write an interesting, succinct and effective letter to someone who could possibly help one achieve an aim? And could not 'training the brain to adapt to life's challenges' even be applied to the challenge of finding employment, the rewards of which might pay for food and a roof over one's head? I'm sure signing on the dole could equally be described as 'terribly dull'.

mudskipper First of all an apology. I read your post too quickly and missed the "many", although I would still query even that. My query all along was the suggestion that education's priority should be obtaining a job, but I have never suggested that this is an unimportant or minor aspect. So actually, I think we are having a violent agreement.

re "violent agreement"
It often happens but is rarely recognised.

I don't dispute that a good education should enable its beneficiaries to apply for and get a job. I remember that we were taught to write letters of application at school but we also had a 'broad and balanced' education. As a school governor I read some semi-literate letters of application for teaching jobs which immediately ruled the writers out of the short list. I believe that the national curriculum does tackle some of these deficiencies but hope that it doesn't become too narrowly focused on employability.

I can rightly be accused of focussing my criticism of the national curriculum somewhat narrowly on employability, but I was citing my personal experience as a potential employer in a field where communication skills were a prequisite of any employee's brief.
Our generation was fortunate indeed to have had the opportunity to receive a rounded education where letter writing and similar skills were occasionally included in the timetable. We were thus prepared to make our way in the world, whatever that 'way' might be.