Are people becoming more, or less, educated than 100 years ago?

[Kyriakos]

It seems to me- and i have access to a limited supply of books- that one century ago people who wrote were more literate, educated or downright intelligent than today. I have some exposure to modern literature, particularly contemporary greek literature, and i can share my view that it is very poor compared to what it was 100 years ago. Then we had Cavafy, Papadiamantis, Delta and some other notables. Today there is generally nothing much.
Likewise it could be the case that on the whole books being published are of lesser quality than the old classics. Of course this can only be assessed in retrospect, one might argue, but i am not sure about this.
It is beyond all doubt that 100 years ago there was, on the whole, less knowledge available to people. But then again there was, perhaps even as a direct result of that, less alienation, less estrangement from knowledge. In the time of Aristotle, to go really back, one could be a panepistemon (it means learned in all sciences). Surely 100 years ago this was already impossible, and had been for a long time. But the question is:

-Does the way knowledge expands now, and is taught, do more good than evil? Ie does it become common knowledge of any meaningful amount of people? I am under the impression that most people (if not all) tend to forget nearly everything they were taught, except the object of their later studies, if they attend university. But this way the world seems to become ever more chaotic.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think that you're failing to address the fact that the breadth of the population receiving education is far, far greater than it was a century go, which means you're comparing to wholly different circumstances. People like Aristotle weren't as widely learned as they were simply because there was less to know, but because they weren't expected to do anything else with their time, while the modern university graduate spends most of his waking hours either mashing a small plastic rectangle or sitting in a metal box going back and forth from the rectangle-mashing hut.

 

[warpus]

More people are going to school, but that doesn't mean that overall we're a more intellectual society. (I'm not saying that we aren't, either)

 

[Silurian]

It is easy to see the mountains and hills looking back.
The swamps in between are harder to spot.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I can see a certain case.

100 years ago all the modern distractions were missing. Pictures, the written word and acting were the only media. This already can be expected to improve the art of wring compared to todays media landscape. Additionally, life was "slower", at least in some respects. One just has to think of modes of transportation. And at last, in accordance with less distractions, there was also not this steady storm of info we experience today, allowing for more focused and careful digestion of information.
This all leads me to picture the writer of 100 years as a more thoughtful and intellectually refined man (but not necessarily more intelligent).
Moreover, nowadays any douche can buy books and any douche can try to publish them. So in proportion there is bound to be more crap I think.

 

[Murky]

Knowledge will become like a currency in the future. Paper degrees will have less meaning than actual know-how.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Er... paper degrees are a way to measure actual know-how. And you kind of always will have to measure it.

 

[Murky]

Er... paper degrees are a way to measure actual know-how. And you kind of always will have to measure it.

That's why there are proficiency tests.

A paper degree might get you in the door but you will always have to demonstrate to an employer that you actually know what you're doing at some point.

 

[aronnax]

How many people here do you know?

Spoiler :

William Alabaster
William Alley
Robert Armin
Thomas Ashton
William Barksted
Barnabe Barnes
Lording Barry
Francis Beaumont
Sir William Berkeley
Samuel Brandon
Richard Brome
Lodowick Carlell
William Cartwright
Allan Castellon
William Cavendish
Robert Chamberlain
George Chapman
Henry Chettle
John Clavell
Robert Daborne
Samuel Daniel
William Davenant
Robert Davenport
John Day
Edward de Vere
Thomas Dekker
Michael Drayton
Richard Edwardes
Martin Emilian
Nathan Field
John Fletcher
John Ford
Ulpian Fulwell
Matthew Francis
Steven Galvez
Robert Greene
Richard Hathwaye
William Haughton
Thomas Heywood
Thomas Hughes
Ben Jonson
Henry Killigrew
Thomas Killigrew
Thomas Kyd
Thomas Legge
Thomas Lodge
Thomas Lupton
Steven Luxford
John Lyly
Gervase Markham
Christopher Marlowe
Shackerley Marmion
Steve Marsh
Isaac Martinez
Philip Massinger
Thomas May
Thomas Middleton
Anthony Munday
Thomas Nabbes
Thomas Nashe
Thomas Norton
George Peele
John Phillips
John Pickering
Henry Porter
Thomas Preston
William Rankins
Samuel Rowley
William Rowley
Joseph Rutter
Thomas Sackville
William Sampson
Edward Sharpham
Henry Shirley
James Shirley
Mary Sidney
Philip Sidney
Josefine Skauerud O.
Wentworth Smith
Sir John Suckling
Robert Tailor
Thomas Tomkis
Cyril Tourneur
Adrian Vaca
John Webster
George Wilkins
Arthur Wilson
Robert Wilson

My guess is either not a lot or not at all. But they were all poets and playwrights, authors and writers of great standing during their day in the Elizabethan Era. Yet, people only can remember William Shakespeare. Not that he doesn't deserve his reputation and remembrance. Shakespeare is however, more revered after his death than while he was alive.
We are currently in the same thing as well. Just like that era, we have thousands upon thousands of great writers. But we just can't see the Greatest writers until those who stood the test of time survive years from now.

The Nicholas Sparks of English literature will fade into oblivion and the David Mitchells will live on. (I just use David Mitchell cause he is the only good writer I can think of so far, I dont read much)

 

[Tahuti]

Er... paper degrees are a way to measure actual know-how. And you kind of always will have to measure it.

The problem is, that there increasingly more degrees around, to the point degrees mean nothing.

 

[aronnax]

The problem is, that there increasingly more degrees around, to the point degrees mean nothing.

I think that's only a problem if you are from one of America's several thousand universities that accept students with a 2.0-2.8 GPA.

 

[kramerfan86]

The problem is, that there increasingly more degrees around, to the point degrees mean nothing.

To me it depends on where the degree came from and what sort of academic performance came with it. If the degree comes from a well known school that is known to be reliable and the student did well with A's and B's I think it still carries weight, at the very least it shows they have good learning ability and likely can learn the job with ease. If someone gets like C's and D's and barely passes some internet college that has existed for less than 10 years, yea, I wouldnt put much stock in that. And if someone gets C's and D's from a respectable university you know that while they have the degree they did the absolute bare minimum to obtain it and therefore it should be viewed with some skepticism.

On the actual topic I think it is a bit ridiculous to judge societal education on philosophy and literature. That is only one form of education, one which taking the back burner to science education in the modern day.

 

[MobBoss]

Well, considering how many people are in the world today vs 100 years ago, there are far more in both categories.

 

[Murky]

I think that's only a problem if you are from one of America's several thousand university that accept students with a 2.0-2.8 GPA.

But it's not hard to get someone's transcripts and check their GPA during the screening process. You can also get an idea based on the resume and list of accomplishments, and if they have a web presence or not.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

That's why there are proficiency tests.

A paper degree might get you in the door but you will always have to demonstrate to an employer that you actually know what you're doing at some point.

So you point isn't actually that the role of knowledge/know-how will change, but that the measurement of it will evolve?
Well, then you should have wrote that.

 

[Tahuti]

I think that's only a problem if you are from one of America's several thousand university that accept students with a 2.0-2.8 GPA.

Not only in America. I think college education in general is becoming antiquated and that the only reason we persue degrees, is for the sake of pursuing degrees and not to actually gain knowledge. Once the college bubble explodes, college education should and will return to its old purpose: To educate people to become professors and philosophers, not white-collar labour.

 

[Monsterzuma]

+1 to arronax 1st post

also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Kaiserguard
There is some truth in what you say. But I don't see what exactly justifies the term "bubble" or how it should burst. College degrees are not becoming useless per se after all, but rather, they are becoming not useful enough on the employment market.

 

[aronnax]

But it's not hard to get someone's transcripts and check their GPA during the screening process. You can also get an idea based on the resume and list of accomplishments, and if they have a web presence or not.

No, I meant for the student that just spent several thousand dollars and 4 years for a university education just for a (relatively) worthless degree.

Not only in America. I think college education in general is becoming antiquated and that the only reason we persue degrees, is for the sake of pursuing degrees and not to actually gain knowledge. Once the college bubble explodes, college education should and will return to its old purpose: To educate people to become professors and philosophers, not white-collar labour.

I disagree. Degrees in law, medicine, dentistry, engineering, the hard sciences, economics and so on show that this person has mastered the basics of his craft and is certified to work in said field as well as gaining knowledge.

 

[Zelig]

It seems to me- and i have access to a limited supply of books- that one century ago people who wrote were more literate, educated or downright intelligent than today. I have some exposure to modern literature, particularly contemporary greek literature, and i can share my view that it is very poor compared to what it was 100 years ago. Then we had Cavafy, Papadiamantis, Delta and some other notables. Today there is generally nothing much.
Likewise it could be the case that on the whole books being published are of lesser quality than the old classics. Of course this can only be assessed in retrospect, one might argue, but i am not sure about this.
It is beyond all doubt that 100 years ago there was, on the whole, less knowledge available to people. But then again there was, perhaps even as a direct result of that, less alienation, less estrangement from knowledge. In the time of Aristotle, to go really back, one could be a panepistemon (it means learned in all sciences). Surely 100 years ago this was already impossible, and had been for a long time. But the question is:

-Does the way knowledge expands now, and is taught, do more good than evil? Ie does it become common knowledge of any meaningful amount of people? I am under the impression that most people (if not all) tend to forget nearly everything they were taught, except the object of their later studies, if they attend university. But this way the world seems to become ever more chaotic.

This literature is an extremely narrow facet of education. Overall, people are vastly more educated than they were 100 years ago.

Being learned in all sciences isn't impossible - obviously, you can't become an expert at everything (you can't even become an expert at everything in a single field of science), but it's not unreasonable to have an undergrad-level understanding of all the major sciences.