The simplest axiom that comes to mind in regards to the link between education and society is the age old phrase often repeated from youth until the commitment to a particular career path or choice of studies: "Knowledge is power." Assuming that knowledge is power and social science involves the distribution of power, it is easy to see why education can quickly become relevant to any study involving the sciences and the question of what makes a society efficient or inefficient in scope of historical context.

Today the question of how we educate persons both individually and as a society is at the forefront of political and economic discussion. There are clear problems in the low job placement for students leaving college with a four-year degree, along with the low incomes for these students and the high number of loan defaulters or students in debt. “Too many of our young people cannot afford a college education and those who do go to college are faced with crushing debt.” [2] While these problems remain largely uncontested, the solution to these problems has sparked debate in the economic, academic, and political community.I have recently written an article entitled Education for Sale:Are You, and this article is a follow up on that article, attempting to address one of the suggested solutions to a market based education system: Free Education.

One of the most intriguing and arguably controversial solutions that made its way to the national spotlight as a feature in both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Senator Bernie Sander’s presidential platforms for education reform. Free Education is a hot button issue in this election. While the media has allowed political fire to spread on the ideology of free education, I have felt it is best to review the concept from more historical and philosophical lenses, borrowing on the the ideas of social scientists. By reviewing a specific political policy through the lenses of a social science, it is possible to transcend politics and economics, and observe the causalities and effects of a policy to society on a large scale manner. In analyzing a proposed education reform, the importance of education is reinforced by the discussion made possible by the exploration of what theories of certain individuals could extend out to support or refute.

For this purpose, we will explore the philosophies of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, John Mill, and Max Weber, and then I will analysis how there ideas may be used to weigh into this controversial issue with unforeseen coherence and diffusion in the scope of the social sciences. Analysis of their most popular works in this manner yields a conclusion that while Weber would likely oppose of free public higher education, and Mill would at the very least question the utility of such an ideology; Hobbes would likely be in support of the idea ,and Locke would ultimately sit on the fence.

To first set aside any confusion that may be caused by the term free public higher education, for the sake of this argument it can be defined to include the notions spelled out in Bernie Sanders education plan: that public four year institutions would provide education to students regardless of their individual means , for free, and that to supplement this cost, taxes would have to be increased and the government will take the risk of economic loss for the individual, rendering education as a gift for the individual. One of the greatest arguments against the idea of reforming education in the aforementioned manner is the contradiction to American cultural values. Weber believes that the observance or commentary on social phenomena must be subjective, and in line with the historical and culturally acceptable practices at the time.[3] Current American culture values place emphasis on risk taking, self reliance, individualism, and liberty[4]. While these ideas speak to the values emphasized by many Americans today, they also stand directly in contradiction with the idea of free higher education. The proposed plan for higher education reform would call for a price that would remove the risk taking aspect of a student’s collegiate decisions (free college means no financial risk), and it also runs contrary to the concept of self reliance and individualism as the plan requires massive help and investment from the government and society while standardizing education to conform to a massive appeal that would undoubtedly by nature be more focused on the collective than on the individual.

In Weber’s writing he often also recognizes the influence religious tradition has on economic spirit and he considers the link to be important enough to warrant his subjective view on social sciences[5], thus it is hardly a stretch to believe Weber would stand and defend the Calvinist based traditions that place capitalism and entrepreneurship at the forefront of society, and thus he would be this logical progression be opposed to education reform in any manner that attempted to adjust this spirit or remove risk taking from economic decisions (such as the decision to attend a given institution of higher learning).

When compared to Weber the reason that John Mill’s ideology comes into opposition of free public higher education has little to do with American culture values and more with objection to its usefulness. Mill is an empiricist who believes that knowledge comes as a result of experience and that this forms the only basis of knowledge. Mill recounts the history of humanity in regards to the acquiring of knowledge and concludes that “during all that time Mankind was learning by experience the tendency of actions “. [6]Mill then supports knowledge into inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning, coming to terms with his belief that inductive reasoning is the one true pursuit of knowledge. This idea of inductive reasoning as being the highest form of knowledge already conflicts with the self purported goals of many institutions of higher learning. Most institutions buy into the idea that the goal of education is to teach individuals how to think and from deductions where as Mill is steadfast in his belief that inductive reasoning is more useful and leads to more knowledge. Mill rejects intuitive knowledge as being of value, and places a great emphasis on the need for action and experience; two things that college certainly lacks in comparison to internships and the job market. For this reason, I believe that Mill would call all higher education into question which would automatically be grounds by which he would reject the notion that free higher education is so important that we should reform our education system or invest taxpayer money.

Locke’s idea of knowledge as empirical is like Mill in that it holds inductive reasoning as the highest form of knowledge, but it is his interpretation of natural rights, feelings on private property, and his feelings on what matters should be separate from government. Locke certainly can concede some aspects of free public higher education as being beneficial for society.[7] Certainly the higher education system itself is superior to the natural system of education in which no one’s knowledge can be proven with comparison. The proposed education reform also provides a public good through education and could serve to increase utility for society, so it is easy to see why Locke might weigh the benefits of such a plan. Yet the causality of the plan would destroy principles even more significant to Locke: the consensual participation in government action. The consent of every individual in investing government spending in education reform is simply an unrealistic goal to hold, as higher taxes might place a burden on individuals that violates their rights to private property.[8] Locke believes all products of man’s labors are his in ownership, and therefore the giving away of education would have to be consented to by the teachers and students who would participate in the system; not the government. The individualistic nature of Locke’s philosophy is in this case contrary to Locke’s ascertain that man does hold some stake in society, so it should be of little surprise that Locke’s words place him on the fence, and that his philosophy could be used to support either side on the issue of free public higher education.

While Thomas Hobbes is often related to Locke in regards to political developments, on the issues of free public higher education, Hobbes is distinctly different in his theoretical support for the collective good of society. Hobbes believes that the laws of nature govern man exclusively and lead man to act as an animal or machine in the natural system. As individuals, Hobbes sees selfishness, but as a collective, the system of society can be made into a greater good. Free public higher education calls on society to come together as an establishment and reject individual gains for mutual betterment, a concept that is reoccurring in Leviathan: Cooperation is a greater utility to man than competition. In this manner free public higher education is the definitive form of cooperation, a system in which society encourages distribution of power, wealth, and knowledge in exchange for the promise of the betterment of society later on. Hobbes is often attributed as the founder of the ideological “social contract”[9], so it is only fitting that he would support a contract in education involving society.

The expected outcome of such a microscopic examination is that society is too ingrained in its own cultural values to accept reform in higher education at this time. Many agree there are problems, but a plan similar to Bernie Sanders’ would likely result in massive issues from a cultural standpoint (the entire idea is based in a socialist school of thought), and an economic standpoint (the money needed to fund an idea is notably obscene). For this reason it seems as if Weber holds the most relevant chip in the debate on the merits and flaws of the proposed plan in his belief that an idea or judgment must be held in its own culture. Our culture holds education and the workplace as entrepreneurship roots that are planted in the seeds of economic risk. The American ideal in a capitalistic society is not that knowledge is power, but rather that money is power, and thus until that changes, we should expect to continue seeing students gamble their money into a higher education system that is bleeding them dry through tuition, and we should expect to see public education remain for sale.

SOURCES:

[2] Sanders said in remarks prepared for the forum at American University

[3] Max Weber “Objectivity in Social Science and Social Policy” pgs 50,51

[4] Gary Weaver American Cultural Values pgs 9-15

[5] Max Weber “Objectivity in Social Science and Social Policy” pgs 75-79

[6] John Stuart Mill “Utilitarianism” pgs 30-33

[7] John Locke “Two Treatises on Government” pgs 208-217

[8]John Locke “Two Treatises on Government” pg 220

[9] Thomas Hobbes Levithan Pgs 89-92