An Educated Population Is Essential to a Nation’s Prosperity, yet Some Politicians Are Demonizing Our Educational System for Political Advantage

"One of the bedrock areas of agreement in this country, for at least the last century, has been that education is a core commitment of our society.  We might disagree about exactly what subject matter should be taught in schools, or about which governments (federal, state, or local) should finance education, but we have rarely wavered in our recognition that universal education is a right, and that higher education is a priority, for the sake of the country’s current and future well-being.

This broad agreement has been based in part on civic ideals, on the recognition of the role of education in creating citizens who understand how our democracy works.  It has also been based on the recognition that education improves our economy, with educated citizens also being more productive workers.  It would be difficult to imagine a more “mom and apple pie” area of agreement, across the political spectrum, than the subject of education.  That is, until recently.

If Economics Teaches Us Anything, It Is That Education Leads to Prosperity

In recent columns on Verdict (here and here), I have described the limited effectiveness of economists in providing policy advice...."

BY: NEIL H. BUCHANAN

https://verdict.justia.com/2012/03/29/an-educated-population-is-essential-to-a-nations-prosperity-yet-some-politicians-are-demonizing-our-educational-system-for-political-advantage

I often think and read books about this issue. Why could it happen that Germans brought so incredible much harm to other people 70 years ago?

If such a behaviour is explainable out of evolution (let me say education) of a Nation than this must be found still in the present education system.

Peter

“Never confuse education with intelligence.” – Albert Einstein

“I don’t want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers.” – John D Rockefeller

“In our dream we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or of science. We are not to raise up among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply.” – Frederick T Gates

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/01/07/the-origin-of-education-and-mandatory-schooling/

ABC of cultural studies?

The concept of nation-state is only after Westphalia. Ashis Nandy argues that nationalism  (in Asian nations, for example) is a product of colonialism.  Since Westphalia, then, all imperial powers in Europe used this concept to construct power relations? Then, they nicely exported it to Asia by colonizing and imposing techniques to rule over others. Nice huh?

I do not like this kind of essentializations. Why should we generalize all Germans over entire history of the mankind? Yes, they did bad things some years ago; but what is the point of revisiting it and scratching the wounds? If this is what we want, real sick, why don't we go all the way to the Arian invasion through the Western boarder of the Roman empire? For one thing, we shall reach more or less the same essentializations without lifting blisters of the Nazi-Jewish question. We are tired, tired of propaganda of any sort. And we shall not be naive any more. We are now rather reluctant and weary  to go that far.

But, if we do, similar generalizations can be made, such as tough and rough Germans,  mercenaries fighting back their Imperial contractors; harm makers; barbarians...

I am reluctant to follow this kind of essentialization (this can't be science nor research), and I would say together with Foucault, I refuse abstractions such as “Who are we?” and "Who are they?"

Let Germans have a life too.

If we want sort of nicer and neolibreal kind of such essentialization, we can just use  some of the following:

Hofstede, G. H. (1984). The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. Academy of Management review, 9(3), 389-398.

Hofstede, G. H. (1991). Cultures and organizations : software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede spent some years in my Alma Mater in Hong Kong. It was then that he came out with some ideas about Collective software (ha!) of mind and educational patterns, which suspiciously follow nation-state geographical frontiers.

I criticized such essentialization here:

Article Metamorphosis of Confucian Heritage Culture and the Possibil...

Data Jae-PARK-Metamorphosis of Confucian Heritage Culture-HKUScho-HUB

I believe that a nation has as many minds as there are individuals, but the strong and powerful will try to influence other to conform to their values and view points, and it seems as if there is a collective mind.

As for the typical German mindset that you describe ("unpolite/harshly, environment-friendly, thoroughly, like a dominant position, little customer orientated, ambitious, niggling, angious (German Angst), creative, thrifty, influenceable and obey leaders"), this could be the influence of the harsh environment that tends to produce such effects.  Whereas in my country, we are more open and friendly and as warm and hospitable as our climate is warm.

Being a teacher, I think that education is 'the process that is life itself', an should be molding us, INFLUENCING US, to be balanced in our outlook, to understand our strong and weak points, and constantly improve ourselves to be polite, friendly (if we are not naturally so), to be caring of humans and environment, creative, thrifty and not wasteful and many wonderful qualities found in persons that we admire including Tesla, Mother Teresa and many others with noble character.

“If you judge people, you have no time to love them.”

― Mother Teresa

Dear sir Peter Eyerer, 

Thank you for your invitation. I agree with Miroslav Pavlović.

Dear Jae

thank you for your extensive answer with parts of your work. I need time to read it.

But as a concerned person, I am born 1941, it is not possible for me to say let them live as nothing has happend. For me the question is: Why did it happen? What do we have to do f.e. in education, to be sure, that it will not happen again in the middle of Europe. And  looking around Europe theses days there is much effort to do that it will not happen again!!! We are on a dangerous way.

And dear Jae, you write this question has nothing to do with science and research.  If we do not care of this unscientific question we will not be able to do science and research in near future without limitations.

Best regards

Peter

Dear Miroslav and dear Santosh,

thank you for your comments!

I am not so sure that this question has nothing to do with education system.  If you look closer to the education system of the Nazis you will find many many steps to influence youth to become "good" Germans. My question is: What are the evolutionary steps that a Nation is growing into such a mass? But also the question is : Do we have a chance to avoid such developments by which kind of education? By which Kind of Integration steps of refugees? I have the Gettos in France in mind. and so on.

Peter

Dear Peter, was it not due to one man (H) and his followers that so much harm and loss of lives were caused?  So may we say that it was WRONG THINKING AND MAKING OUT OTHERS AS vile and despicable that they do not have a right to live.  The only GOOD THING is to learn from this grave mistake.

Didn't some other make a similar mistake?  I refer to the Japanese who make out their royal family as gods, that the ordinary citizens are willing to sacrifice their lives to do the bidding of the emperor, and fight other nations (kill innocent people) to gain their lands?  Education teaches us to learn from our mistakes AND THE MISTAKES OF OTHERS, FOR THE GOOD OF ALL.

An Educated Population Is Essential to a Nation’s Prosperity, yet Some Politicians Are Demonizing Our Educational System for Political Advantage

"One of the bedrock areas of agreement in this country, for at least the last century, has been that education is a core commitment of our society.  We might disagree about exactly what subject matter should be taught in schools, or about which governments (federal, state, or local) should finance education, but we have rarely wavered in our recognition that universal education is a right, and that higher education is a priority, for the sake of the country’s current and future well-being.

This broad agreement has been based in part on civic ideals, on the recognition of the role of education in creating citizens who understand how our democracy works.  It has also been based on the recognition that education improves our economy, with educated citizens also being more productive workers.  It would be difficult to imagine a more “mom and apple pie” area of agreement, across the political spectrum, than the subject of education.  That is, until recently.

If Economics Teaches Us Anything, It Is That Education Leads to Prosperity

In recent columns on Verdict (here and here), I have described the limited effectiveness of economists in providing policy advice...."

BY: NEIL H. BUCHANAN

https://verdict.justia.com/2012/03/29/an-educated-population-is-essential-to-a-nations-prosperity-yet-some-politicians-are-demonizing-our-educational-system-for-political-advantage

The collective mind is not a myth and is always reflected in many fields of life, education is one of them. But is the image still and non-adaptable? What does education mean in the contemporary labour market and life in general, if we don't refer to specific regions, sectors, programs, works, people, are we referring to anything at all? 

On the one hand, it is understandable that the collective image will impact the educational systems through their reputation, brands - consider the overall reputation of German and US universities. But how many people will do their research regarding specific programs, living conditions, research or education target areas, living cost/value ratio, lifestyle, etc.? Do you think that an outsider will ever understand the collective mind the way a person who has lived in the respective country since their birth? I think that all the qualities and characteristics are not as clear for people who only look at numbers, ratings and rankings rather than the cultural conditioning. 

On the other hand, a healthy economy does not always coincide with a healthy educational system, at least not in all its fields and aspects.  And even when it does, you cannot say that graduates are the product of a system. They may succeed because they were motivated to study in their own way, because of family traditions and support or rather because they are looking for ways out of poverty or have decided to succeed abroad.

The competitive labour market is looking for skills people may not have acquired through education, and for more people than the systems are producing. The labour market and public policies are agents that will also change or impact education, and education may change the collective mind.

They are certainly connected but they are moving in all possible directions.

I believe that the connection is reversed: only a good education system, which takes care about educating democratic principles and mechanisms, leads to the existence of "the mind of the nation". Moreover, the education System is not sufficient. One Needs a democratic tradicion and corresponding customs and mechanisms. This cannot be done in some days.

dear Miranda,

thanks a lot for your answer!

Yes it was one man. But what would have been his success nobody would have followed him ? Nothing at all. But almost 75 Millions of Individuals followed him. My parents and gandparents also.

Thank you again

Peter

Dear Mihai,

there is much veritas in your answer. Thank you for your comment!

Peter

Dear All

I am not, for sure, an expert in History but I do have some memories of past History lessons (official and non-official ones, I still remember my long conversations with my father). You probably know some history of Portugal. We also had our "dark" period (slavery, invasions, abuses, sometimes in the name of God, etc). We should learn from past mistakes. There are certain configurations of initial conditions that will, eventually, lead to a known result. We have seen this over the times and now we are dangerously close to these initial conditions of this "dynamical system" we call society. Einstein also said something like (but not exactly): "there are two things that are probably infinite, the Universe and human stupidity but I still have doubts  about the first". The role of education is to catalyse intelligence against stupidity. The role of research is to give tools for a more a advanced education. The goals are a better understanding of the Universe and better quality of life (all life) in a sustainable way: for better and for worst this is the only "Earth" we know and we must all live here (frequently forgotten!!). I still believe that these are the values that we should all be "fighting" for if we want to shape the human collective mind.

ps: this is an assumed non-expert opinion on this topic. I do not study History or Sociology.

Dear Hristina,

I hardly manage to answer you all. Thank you very much for your interest and your interesting comments.

Best regards Peter

Dear Seyed.

much work in front of me. Thank you too for valuable hints.

Best

Peter

Dear Subhash,

the same to you.

Thank you a lot.

Peter

Dear Nuno,

as an engineer I also have only general knowlegde of history and phiolosophy and sociology and others.

thank you for your comments.

Peter

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Eyerer,

Thanks for your invitation to address this question.

I think there can be little doubt that countries, or many countries, have their specific cultural characters and particularities. Like the people of any particular country, they also have their broader commonalities--one country with another. Like people, countries also change and develop, some more and some less, some at one time and some at another. There are many impediments to generalizations, yet in spite of that we gather overall impressions and experience. Though stereotypes tend to persist, it is often better to remain skeptical about them and look for the contrary evidence.

It is philosophically interesting that your question is formulated in terms of "mind" and "nation": 

Does a Nation have a collective mind and how does this influence the education system in the specific country?

American English tends more more strongly to use "country" in preference to "nation," and, of course, this has its own historical roots, which seem to be reflected or mirrored in the German usage of "Land." Part of the tendency of this is to identify the place with the land or the countryside, instead of its more centralized aspects. Also, of course, in a country so largely based upon immigration and integration of diverse sources, the etymology of "nation" --suggesting those born in a place, from the Latin, may be an important impediment to broader usage. "Country" is the homelier word, differing in emotional connotations from the more formal, Latin-derived "nation." We discuss and debate the political affairs of the nation, but we feel at home in our own country.

"Mind," too has its cultural peculiarities. "Mind the gap," the sign tells you on the London Underground, and sometimes there is a need for a babysitter to "mind the children" while the parents are out. If you are out in company, the the advice may be to "mind your p's and q's," --as though being careful in writing script. But on the other hand, we have "the philosophy of mind," talk of the "development of mind," and so on. We talk of having both mind and body, and we maybe even wonder about "mind over matter." "Mind" in English is both colloquial and common-place, and it becomes involved in theorizing the character of human beings. 

So one might wonder if "mind," or the concept of mind, is a peculiarity of the culture of the English-speaking world, though, of course, it is used in translating a long philosophical tradition, starting at least with the ancient Greek "nous" --something like "intelligent (aspect or division of the) soul"  

Consider some specific variations on the question:

Does each country have a general culture and how does this influence the education system in the specific country?

Does a Nation have a collective spirit (Geist) and how does this influence the education system in the specific Nation?

"Collective mind" seems to come over into English as something like "specific national culture," and I suspect that "collective spirit" is likely more natural as an English phrase. But on the other hand, one does occasionally find "collective mind"  and other more or less similar expressions "soul of the nation," for instance, of "public spirit." 

To conclude this little discussion, I have no doubt that the cultural specifics of particular countries do, indeed have their influence on the educational system. But I was inclined to wonder a bit, somewhat more philosophically, whether differing conception of the uniquely human intellectual capacities actually correspond to differing social-intellectual and social-moral realities in different places and times.

I suspect that there is no little tendency of people in different countries to conceive of themselves as more distinctive and uniquely different than they actually are, and this tendency will have its "bandwagon" effects. Differences arising as a matter of biological evolution seems much more speculative in comparison to differences arising from cultural evolution and the mutual influences of culture and politics.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Peter

Thank you for your comments and question. I would like to add one more comment. It is well known to psychology (some interesting experiments in the 50s) that everything we do/think as potential to limit what we do/think next (see, Kounious & Beeman, the eureka factor). We are (also) the sum of all the past events. As a nation, collectively we all share common events that, eventually, will define future (collective) events for they imprint unconscious behaviours. Mass behaviours are determined some kind of collective mind (some of the times expressing the worst side of it). A very nice book by a portuguese sociologist (Vítor J. Rodrigues) called "General theory of human stupidity" is a very good analysis of the "collective mind in Portugal". In a "Monty Python" way, "always look at the bright side of life" (not easy nowadays) we must think that small perturbations on a chaotic complex system can lead to very large effects. Education, research, scientific thought can be that small perturbation and hope for large (positive) effects.

Dear colleague Mr. Callaway,

for an engineer it is an honor and a pleasure to read a long valuable profound answer of an philosopher to his question. Thank you very much.

I had in mind the German word Psyche when I asked the question.

Thank you again for your very important answer.

Peter

Some countries are more regional - even in the mindset of their inhabitants - than national. This would also have implications. The regional sociological nation-building applies to most of Europe. Thus, we can probably think of regional minds and particular traditions for the respective places which have to do with other forms of education and authorities, such as the church, the family, vocational education (in some technical professions or the arts and crafts). 

Dear Nuno,

very good. Thank you again for your answer with the hint to the book.

Best regards

Peter

dear Pierlorenzo,

I apreciate your answer. Thank you a lot for it.

Best regards

Peter

The national psyche does indeed exist. However the human condition is malleable and ultimately in free will we can accept any psyche or soul condition.

Saint Paul in the Letter to the Gallatians expounds that in our relationship with our Lord there is no nationality only Christ in us.

This the unifying concept which can brind us into a peace beyond understanding. As we unite with Him our allegiance to uniting with nations or cliches will be less for our benefit. International humanism offers a fascismile of this unification but without a personal relationship with someone and something higher than ourselves it falls way short.

Ultimately we have a large void that only can be truly filled with a relationship of a personal nature with the Lord God most High who came to save us and is documented through Holy Scripture who is proven out historically and in billion under billion of souls who were are and will be saved to increase the Divine Will in which we ultimately are called to.  Once we accept him he will live in us and allow our growth in and to Him.

dear Paul,

an other important aspect. Thank you very much.

Best Peter

dear Peter 

 thanks for sharing thoughts 

In many African  countries, the loyalty is still made upon TRIPE

which is sometimes lead by uneducated leaders

 In many African countries presidents are dictators governing for over 20 and even 30 years,  corruption is at  every where, they do not care about education quality or education as value, they send relatives and member of  their parties to get education from advanced communities.   

 resources are theft.

children at school age struggle to get their  loaf of bread

it  is hard to write about these 

 we are not yet nations 

 we are collected to be under one flag we need very very long time to be nations 

 but we love our ruined countries which are very rich of natural resource, future will be made by rock  digging and we are holding,  gripping our tools

Sorry if I did not answer your question directly   

dear Saifeldin,

you are absolutely wellcome. I apreciate your answer and I would like be able to help.

Best regards

Peter

I think  Nations formed their own  thoughts, believes and perceptions and these will  influence education 

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Eyerer,

Thanks for your clarification. "Psyche" is originally the ancient Greek, usually translated as "soul." It has other usage, but in that tradition of translation the "mind" is only part of the "soul," as "nous" is only part of the "psyche" --say, in Aristotle's De Anima, "On the Soul." (But perhaps you'll think I'm being too philosophical here.)

In any case, your question seems to involve in part, whether there is a "soul of the Nation." Whether "psyche" or "soul" or "mind" or culture, the answer seems to be "sometimes more sometimes less." The diversity of answers is striking.

Its pretty clear that some nation-states are more homogeneous, culturally and religiously, and others much less so. In all pluralistic reasonableness, that seems to be a fact that has to be accepted and recognized. Implicitly, and in relation to education, its a question about how we are to relate "the one" and "the many," and readers of this thread may find the following of interest on that topic:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264238447_The_Meaning_of_Pluralism

It strikes me that the question is very important, just now for Germany and for the E.U. I've long thought that the E.U. needs Germany and Germany needs the E.U. But how to fit the peculiarities of the European nation-states into an overall E.U. plan of union? Cultural homogeneity does not seem to be a good model of the unity which Europeans seek among themselves. "Pluralism," on the other hand has been widely accepted, though not everywhere, of course. 

H.G. Callaway 

Conference Paper The Meaning of Pluralism

no you are not too philosophical. It is very important to know about the origin of words and their derived meaning.

Dear Mr. Callaway, thank you for your few actual sentences.

many greetings

Peter

dear Miroslav,

my point is that the restrict  teacher oriented law and order education system at that time (1800 to 1945) fertilised the soil for the known developments. Regarded this way Nazism might be as well a product of German education system.

Now one can answer: the education systems in other European countries were similar and they did not lead to these desastrous history. An answer could be: but the character of the other nations weren´t so instable, power occupied and so on as the Psyche of the German Nation. You are right WW I and the econoimic consequeneces played also a big role.

So we have many parameters as mostly in complex situations. I just wanted to emphasies that education in combination with the "Soul" of a Nation could be a possible explanation of some historical events and futher: How  can we learn out of it and offer our youth a moer stable education. But I admit again, as an engineer I am not well educated in history and pilosophy and sociology. May be my thoughts are like Klein Mäxchen.

Peter

I think we can talk about a consciousness of the nation before the appearance Internet as a tool for most part of people. Now, the idea of the nation is replaced with a sort of continental federalism: European consciousness, American consciousness etc. which tend to globalisation . So I think the challenge for education is now how to be a teacher (to teach students) in a globalised world, but with different type of consciousness (more or less continental).

 As education is mostly influence by the policy of government. A  democratic nation runs on best of  collective mind . A collective mind is that mind where everyone has power to give their view. A collective minds comes from all the branches of society . So it is helpful to develop a nation.

Peter nowadays there is no more such a thing as a collective mind. People in a small town, far from everything may have access to internet and so receive influence from all parts of the world in a minute. It is good to remember that all influence that the population has can affect the educational system of a community immediately.

Yes, countries of the world are categorized by or are known for their political and social nuances. And, I guess there could be a national "collective mind" in regards to education. However, I think that this national collective mind is not so much the citizens of the country, as it is the opinion of policy makers. It is the policy makers who decide that their country is falling behind in this science or that discipline and set policy in order to make corrections.

I think that it is possible for a nation to develop a collective will or mind instead of the individual minds of people in that nation. That collective will or mind could be in the form of wanting the best for the nation. And when you want the best for your nation, you do your best to avoid doing things that will bring her down. This way of acting towards the nation could also be articulated as an educational policy to be inculcated into the citizenry at a very early age!

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Pomohaci,

You broach an interesting idea of "continental consciousness." However, my understanding of contemporary developments in Europe is that the predominant tendency opposes "European federalism." This dates more or less from the time of the failure to ratify the proposed E.U. constitution.  So, if the "continental consciousness" of the E.U. is not to be federalist, then what will it be? Presumably less unitary and more pluralistic?

One can understand American federalism as a development of pluralistic modes of thought, but I do not think that it can be equated with the inclination toward globalization. The American political advocates of globalization tend to be more nationalists, domestically rather than federalists in their inclination--and more internationalists than they are anything like advocates of American particularism. This is somewhat problematic, because, as I see it, the U.S. is a very peculiar kind of nation-state. There are resemblances, of course, especially to other Western hemisphere countries.

My suggestion above was that the E.U is having trouble with its efforts to combine unity with its national cultural diversity. This has become more pronounced of late, say, since the time of the problems on the eastern border of the Ukraine. If European unity had trouble with becoming "deeper," then it could at least become "wider." But that is now also more problematic.

It looks sometimes as though globalization, which has persisted for quite some time now, over decades, is becoming more problematic. We have the continuing wars in the Mideast, and other conflicts threatening.  It is as though the weaker political configurations around the world are being broken up in the international economic competitions of globalized trade; and the larger, or stronger configurations are coming into greater conflict --or into greater threat of conflicts.

We have seen a resurgence of more nationalistic political tendencies which many view as frankly dangerous. It makes a certain amount of sense to expect growing problems with any economic and political policy consistently pursued over longer periods of time. Centralized, cosmopolitan configurations seem to most benefit from globalization, so far, while many have seen disadvantages for the more marginal in many societies and growing inequalities and discontents.  The stronger polities seem best suited to continued globalization. But witness Mr Trump here in the U.S. There is something of a voter rebellion on both the right and the left. 

The chief advocates of the E.U. seem to have departed from the goal of European federalism. Great Britain will shortly vote on whether to stay or go. Eastward expansion seems blocked, and economic and financial problems persist. I see this all as a problem of how to interrelate the 'one" of Europe with the many nations of Europe; but it also seems at times to be a problem of how to relate the "one" of the various European nations to the "many" of their internal political constituencies. Democracy, "the consent of the governed," and human rights, I take it, are more important than globalization and also more important than efforts at European unity.  How is all of this to fit into educational systems?

H.G. Callaway

I think the third world countries do not pay attention to education and education costs for non-belief in the usefulness of education of its population

In a free society some of religious some atheist, some in favour of long prison sentences some want to handle criminal with kid glove and send them back to society. These are just two example of extreme world view and the large mass in between they also differ but they don’t wish for the annihilation of others.  Majority takes care of minority and monitory stay within boundary of reasonable behaviour.  This is a hall mark of a free and just society. Opinion is always divided.

Conscious is coloured with way we live and if we are allowed to hold different and react differently. In a despotic regime everybody should an in most cases hold the same opinion.

After we destroy everything that count! Unfortunately in our days we just can talk more about populations instead of nations. Small groups with same material interests, with an insignificant cultural horizon and, worst with no common conscience! Just individual development it matter!

Dear Peter,

Yes, there is a collective mind of a nation as a highly developed cultural, historical state which is result of an evolution process. I note science is part of culture. Without cultural and historical antecedent there cannot be a collective mind. Without myths, songs, literature and common history there is no collective mind. Sometimes even the desire to have such manifestation of collectiveness may be a pseudo-collective mind. For me Germans are: Kant, Leibnitz, Goethe, Heine, Beethoven, Händel, Bach, Dürer, Gauss, Nietzsche, Wagner, Wilhelm Hauff, Grimm, Wilhelm Busch, Remarque etc. even Thyll Ulenspiegel as an imaginary person.   For me these people are the quiescence of German. Hopefully this is not an Überraschung for you.  

In the United States we see the universities setting degree priorities based on forecasted need or rising job markets. Unfortunately, there is no collaboration between universities, so they all end up cranking out thousands of graduates with degrees in the same fields of study, thus flooding the job market. I recently noted that in the state of Florida alone, of 12 universities, 10 had the same set of priority degree programs for the same exact fields of study.

Dear Prof. Peter Eyerer,

In my opinion a nation develops its education policy on the basis of need of the country. However, a collective mind  may inculcate and influence the education system in the process of its delivery and implementation.

There are certain common traits that a culture carries along with it, I think. It is the result of how parents bring up their children, and consequently how schools teach the children, in that culture, over the generations.

There are any number of more or less subtle examples. Obvious, non-subtle examples would be the role religion plays in the culture. I doubt anyone can deny that people and education systems vary, between the more secular countries and countries that have a religiously conservative culture. And this does carry over to the education systems. Certain subjects may not even be permitted, for example, in religiously conservative education.

Then there are less obvious examples, like when comparing western cultures. A fairly reliable example might be, Germans are more willing to follow rules, Americans and Italians seem to prefer proving that rules should be broken.

But really, anyone who has ever moved to other countries, while growing up or later on for work, cannot deny (I don't think) that cultures are different. Anyone who has attended different school systems, in different countries, while growing up, can't help but have noticed big differences. That's what the term "culture shock" means.

With regard to the collective mind, Émile Durkheim (1858—1917) writes as follows:

"If we can say that in some sense collective representations exist outside of individual consciences, it is because they derive not from individuals taken one by one, but from their interaction, which is very different. No doubt each one brings his own share in the elaboration of the common result; but private sentiments become social only in combining under the pressure of sui generis forces that this association develops. Following these combinations and the mutual alterations that result from them, they become something else." [Teken from "Durkheim's collective conscience" by Martin Masse (2001), http://www.quebecoislibre.org/DIR010416.htm]

The most important of the sui generis forces mentioned in this quote is the policy of the government. The governing party want to keep their position and to influence the education in the way they like. This is quite dangerous, and people should be careful about such a trend. On the other hand, there is also a sort of good and unique collective mind formed by the environment of the nation. Collective mind of this kind should be valued.

The problem is, no nation has a single, collective mind of her own. Disputes, quarrels, fightings will always exist, this mind problem is the source of almost all wars, disputes between peoples and nations. In terms of education system, the general trend, I am afraid, is that one theory/notion/system wins over another/other competing one/ones, and in time, gets won over by another/others. 

Dear Sir,

As a general matter, I agree education is important. However, it has been increasingly observed by a broad spectrum of non-partisan sources that

1.        The ballooning costs of college is not keeping pace with income potential;

2.        The loans necessary for a college education and the growing inability to pay them - defaults are at record levels - pose a danger greater than the housing bubble;

3.        Higher education has simply become the new floor - if everyone has a degree, everyone can't earn more than everyone else (on average);

4.       College education often doesn't live up to the hype of providing the skills necessary for global competition (or even general usefulness).

How do we know that education is so important?  The countries in the world that have become prosperous fall into two categories. 

 The first category includes those nations that have possessed (or acquired by force) large amounts of a valuable natural resource.  Countries that have been fortunate enough to find themselves sitting on large reserves of gold, oil, rich farmland, and so on, have an obvious advantage over those that are not so fortunately endowed.

The second group of countries—a much larger one—is composed of countries that have educated their citizenry into prosperity.  Nearly all of the countries that have long been the wealthiest in the world reached, or have maintained, that status by having universal pre-college education, along with a strong commitment to higher education.  Even the most resource-poor countries of Northern and Western Europe have enjoyed much higher living standards than many resource-rich countries that do not devote themselves to educating their young people.

Regards,

Prem Baboo

Nations have a collective mind and that can influence the education system in any country. Even organizations have a collective mind and every organization has its culture and identity.

dear Albert,

thank you for your Statement. I appriciate it!!

That´s my opinion also.

Best

Peter

dear Tatsuo,

I agree!

Peter

Dear Brem,

you are refering to education. No doubt we have tremendous unsolved problems and difficulties on that.

Thank you for comment

Peter

dear Lewis,

very true. thank you for your time and comment

Peter

dear Afaq,

who determins the need of a country? Which ways will be the "right" ones to reach the aim? And how ist it done?

Peter

dear James, m

does the market need not be a regulative for this uniformity?

Peter

dear Iolanda-Gabriela,

I agree to your demand. But reality looks different? As James said: 10 of 12 Universities in Florida have a similar profil for students. Does reality know cliches?

Peter

dear Diana,

of course we have many different groups or states forming a political Nation or country. But look on sport events, or at UNO;  we have more than 200 nations on earth.

And my question was: do they have a collective mind and which role Plays Evolution (and education)  thereby?

Peter

dear Andreas,

no it is not a Überraschung (surprise) for me. The names you cited and many more of them show, that Germans are very ambivalent. (an other property of the average of the Nation mind) On one side highest performance, on the other side lowest levels of mankind.

Do we not have to look on both sides?

Thank you for Klein Mäxchen!!!

many greetings

Peter

dear Napoleon,

thanks for comments.

I understand, that the situation between a rich industrialised  and a developing country are totally differnt. Generalizations are not possible.

Allthough why should their not be a collective mind out of individuals? I am convinced there is one!

Peter

'Nations' tend to have their own 'character' - even if these characterizations tend to exaggerate the tenor to some extend. This 'national character' is clearly wrong for each individual, but shows the trend of attitude of a society (nation).

IMHO the evolution of these national attitudes does not count in millenia but in hundreds of years. "La grande nation" is only dating back until 1790 (and still in the mind of the French). "Great Britain" and the British Empire are not much older. On the other hand, in northern Italy you can still detect influences that can be attritbuted to the time of the "Heiliges römisches Reich deutscher Nation" (meaning you can find some attributes that are considered "typisch deutsch"). And so on...

Regarding your basic question: is this influencing the educational system ?

Yes. As education is done by humans, by members of the individual nations, their attitude clearly influences the educational system.

BUT: as stated above, the evolution of the current 'national characters' evolved over centuries - a relatively short time. And you can see theses attitudes shifting - ever so slightly - due to influences of the younger history, immigration, globalization. This is not a fast process (how could it be - regarding the mass of individuals involved in forming this 'national mind'), but it is happening. Maybe not always to the best, but this is to be judged by generations to come.

Dear Ulrich,

if I could I would give you many ups. Thank you for your answer

Peter

It can be argued that the Great out pouring of Western culture is a consequence of the agriculture revolution which permitted people to be successful in producing abundance around the World.

Dimond in his book Germs Guns and Steel points to the success of the culture was a consequence of the evolution of grains and animals which allowed civilized societies to grow.

The animals in particular which were closely associated with our culture gave us an ability to have strengthened immune systems and when we spread out the native peoples without this agricultural background were at a major disadvantage related to disease.

As for the "American crimes" I believe the Axis powers were certainly not spotless related to consequences of the World Wars. I would argue that nationalizing crimes is a false concept and that each individual would need to look inside and come to grips with individual conscience and condition.

Even I could admit to the extermination of Neanderthal man it would do little good know. History is importance yet man's ultimate struggle is a fight to be fully present and alive in the eternal moment and to leave a better future for their progeny.

In terms of national identity I believe we must embrace where we come from without necessarily remaining there.

In some ways we are Universal citizens living in our pods, clusters and communities but we are not that   but we are a potential of everything we become a part of.

Our affiliation is something we need to be very jealous of and at the same time we need to accept people where they are as they come in and out of our lives.

In addition I share your concern on the synthetic nature of culture. No matter how engaging is simulation nothing can beat the real thing and I am not talking about Coca Cola friend.  

Dear Peter, i think individuals, families, cultures and social Groups (e.g. nations) have all some Kind of collective mind, which of course is influencing also the educational System. But the interaction between all of them is unfortunately often neglected (seldom overemphasized by certain institutions).

dear Miroslav,

probabely nobody can explain to you a direct  connection between single crimes and educational Systems. Wether in Amerca nor in Germany. But during the 1920 to 1945 the typ of educational System dominated by Nazism and the specific collective mind of the German People lead to a climate of denutiation and look away which enables the few "leaders" to play their dirty facts. 

The bloody crimes during the Crusade wars were initiated out of relgious fanatism. This was the educational System of that time.

So  the  basic reasons at that time are the same as now a days: it depends of educational environment and of the collective mind of the concerned groups or nations.

Peter

It is also worth considering heritage, particularly visible in newly built countries such as New Zealand, for instance. Correct me if I am wrong but I think their educational system is influenced by the systems of the Netherlands and Scotland. 

dear Miroslav,

my points are not election figures but soft facts in education.

Peter

I think that the Education System forms under greatest influence of the Nation's Collective mind... and of course vice versa - is true. However the Education System is very inert. That is, in particular, why during the recent 10-15 years in many countries the parents prefer to give their kids a home education. But to give more detailed examples - is a very delicate topic.

Leonid 

dear Miroslav,

I like your answer!

You deny the influence of collective mind and simultanousely describe the Germans with 3 characteristic properties of that mind.

:):):) many greetings

Peter

Dear  Miroslav Pavlović 

I think we can  be more and more  global by  more and more communications

dear Miroslav

I am born in Munich!

Peter

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Eyerer,

Thinking further on your question, I want to go at it a bit differently, and for that purpose, I offer yet another translation or paraphrase of your question:

Is there an American mentality, and what influence should it have on education?

I select the word "mentality" here, after considering possible alternatives. Though it is not a word that Americans would typically use in this context, use of it may help in communicating with others who have taken an interest in your question. Notice, too, that I have paraphrased your question into a partly normative question, "what influence should it have on education?

Is their a distinctive (U.S.) American mentality? Yes, I would say there is, though this judgment is also a partly normative judgment. There are formative facts on the ground, of course, and I have made a long study of American moral-intellectual history. See the listing of my books, here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/H.-G.-Callaway/e/B001HOPRBU

and here:

http://www.amazon.com/H.-G.-Callaway/e/B001HOPRBU

or, here:

http://www.amazon.fr/H.-G.-Callaway/e/B001HOPRBU/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1458147038&sr=1-1

and here:

http://www.amazon.de/H.-G.-Callaway/e/B001HOPRBU/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1458147123&sr=1-1

Going at the question of "American mentality" historically, and with an awareness of current problems and conflicts, its partly a matter of projecting historical trends: looking at what has worked best in the past and weeding out the alternatives. I call the result of this projection "pluralism" following William James on this--America's most popular philosopher. I have opposed this "pluralism" to both "multiculturalism" and to " doctrinaire relativism."  The basic idea can be summed up by emphasis on the process implied by our national motto: "E pluribus unum," Out of many, one.

I emphasize the "process" because it is never properly finished, though it is an integrative process, creating greater unity out of diversity--as needed. The motto actually dates from the revolutionary era or the early republic and indicated the need to unify the states into "the United States." But being made up so heavily of immigrants, there was always a very considerable ethnic, religious and racial diversity in the country; and some considerable need to unify it socially and politically. Integration of diversity, I would say is a social-political condition of the existence of the country. 

Acceptance and tolerance of differences is constitutive, as is emphasis upon integration as needed to meet outstanding problems. If you simply reward people for being different, then you will produce ever more differences. So rewards must be placed on the integrative process. On the other hand, if we rejected people simply for being different, then they would be plausibly unwilling to cooperate in the solution of common problems.

I believe that my position is somewhat controversial, but it is nonetheless correct. My experience has been that people from more ethnically homogeneous countries have some considerable trouble in actually understanding it--though versions of pluralism have more recently been adopted in Europe--contrasting with "multiculturalism." I suspect that foreigners often don't know how to deal with it; and they think, well, good, there is all this diversity, but who calls the shots? (Who do we deal with socially in order to make a deal?)  But in fact, to disrupt the integrative process by ethnic favoritism is disruptive of the American polity. That makes for a nastier America--ultimately harder to deal with.It turns out more centralized and more top-down in structure: more inclined to throw the weight of the country around.

I would emphasize, too, that properly, "diversity" does not mean the same as  "minorities." That I think is exactly the multicultural fallacy. Follow the fallacy long enough and it degenerates into ethnic favoritism and eventuates in phenomena such as  we see at present in Mr. Trump.

That the "just powers of government" derive, from "the consent of the governed," to quote Jefferson, implies equality before the law and the rooting out of political favoritism. The interests and views of all citizens must be equally eligible for consideration. The implications for education will place heavy emphasis on open debate and discussion.

H.G. Callaway

Mr. Peter Eyerer

Sports? We forget something very important, that sports are for the individual glory and money in the same time and for the country or nation in secondary (see table tennis: a lot of Asian players in the European teams in international contests as an example)! As for the UNO there are the main countries/nations with the veto power and the others with the obedience! In my country the „ancient” education system was full of political influence, as you know. The new one is far for been performing, for now and probably for the near future. Why? For many reasons, but one of the most important is that we (and it mean our leadership) look away for models instead of searching in our (still) nation soul! So my answer is: the collective mind can be educated by a national system of values only in independent powerful states, not in our contemporary society!

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Vasca-Zamfir,

I am sure that I am chiefly unaware of developments in Romania, though I was glad to see the country enter the E.U. and NATO. You make some interesting comments or observations just above, which I think to comment upon in turn.

You wrote:

As for the UNO there are the main countries/nations with the veto power and the others with the obedience!

---End quotation.

The UN system in the Security Council was set up after WWII, of course, and the victors in that war made themselves the veto powers. I can well imagine that this may seem unfair or unjustified by other countries, and there have been some attempts made to modify the system. On the other hand, the role of the veto powers seems to be a kind of recognition of international political realities. The existence of this role testifies to the fact that the founders of the UN did not expect the major powers to agree among themselves in every crucial situation. The continuation of the UN, and its talking, or diplomatic efforts, depends, to this day, I expect, on the fact that the major powers can veto the decisions of the Security Council. If they couldn't, then I expect they would simply leave the organization. The UN is far from perfect, but its imperfections seem to reflect those of the actual world we live in. (This is nothing against proposals for reform.)

You also wrote:

In my country the „ancient” education system was full of political influence, as you know. The new one is far for been performing, for now and probably for the near future. Why? For many reasons, but one of the most important is that we (and it mean our leadership) look away for models instead of searching in our (still) nation soul! So my answer is: the collective mind can be educated by a national system of values only in independent powerful states, not in our contemporary society!

---End quotation

You seem to highlight here, if I follow you correctly, the ways in which greater international communications and relations can benefit domestic developments. We can indeed search for models abroad which may help in the solution of domestic problems. I take it you are saying that your national leadership looked to other (European?) models in reforming education.

Crucial here, I think, is what you may mean by a "national system of values" and education in accordance with a "national system of values." You say that in your country, the "ancient" system of education "was full of political influence." Again, I am unsure if you mean the old system under the communist regime or something older still. But in any case, I wonder, given your comments, if your leaders did not consider the system as it existed, or as previously suited to the country, in deciding how to adapt anything useful from abroad.  If you think there was nothing suited to the country in the older system(s), then I can imagine your favoring radical change. But on the other hand, it may be that you think the leadership did deeply consider and incorporate elements of prior educational system and practices into the new system. Whatever the influence of models from afar, I would think that the country should be in a position to decide for itself what is best.

At home, I should perhaps say, I am a (patriotic) anti-nationalist; I tend to be skeptical of nation-wide consolidation in so large a country as the U.S. In this context, "federalist" or "constitutional" liberal makes a sensible contrast with any form of nationalism. We don't really want to finish our "out of many, one" that would render the national motto obsolete! Its the democratic, deliberative process that belongs to the American soul, not some preconceived finished product--old or new. Its the open discussion and debate which is essential.

H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G. Callaway

First of all thanks for the pertinent comment. Second the ancient system was indeed the communist one.  Third, or doesn’t matter the order, the actual education system in Romania is still searching for answers and directions, unfortunately with collateral victims among the present generations of kids on different educational stages. Sometimes there are not the greatest ideas to follow, or it not matches on our spirit! That’s why the image is not the clearest and acceptable one for the insiders. Somewhere in the future we probably find our own way. As for the UNO (about which I don`t have any frustration or expectation, by the way) if you look anywhere in the world… It looks to me that the name is not enough for all the international problems. I have the feeling that the real mechanism is different starting from 1989.

And about the nationalism is obvious that the old nation must have a strong one (see the major European ones) and the new (as historical age) aggregate ones no. But you see, as long as the national anthem and the flag are unique… Anyway if I can support and live together with different nationalities on the same land it’s ok

Diana Vasca- Zamfir