User:Ssr7/Enter your new article name here

Education Vs. Training
In 1867, nineteenth century British philosopher, John Stuart Mill, told students at the University of St. Andrews, “Universities are not intended to teach the knowledge required to fit men for some special mode of gaining their livelihood…Their object is not to make skillful lawyers, or physicians, or engineers, but capable and cultivated human beings.” [1] Mill’s statement captures one essential difference between education and training- namely, that training is associated with specificity and education is associated with generality.

A Canadian educational theorist, Gary Woodill, asked followers of his Twitter page to provide their opinion of the distinction(s) between education and training. Some of the more interesting responses include [2]:


 * “Outcomes: education- gaining knowledge; training- performing actions [sic].


 * “Training is for a specific, proximate target- education is for broader, more distant targets [sic].”


 * “Training suited to environments with linear cause & effect; education suited to complex environments [sic].”

Ohio State professor of mechanical engineering, Robert Essenhigh, claims that the difference between training and education is that between knowing “how” vs. knowing “why” [3].

Under the John Stuart Mill definition of “education”, both undergraduate institutions and the undergraduate divisions of research universities should encourage students to learn the deeper underpinnings behind concepts encountered and should not merely stress the application of those concepts to practical situations. Those who wish to develop skills that can “directly” be used in the “real world” should not be catered to in undergraduate programs. This perspective on the role of undergraduate education is echoed in the Academic Philosophy of Yale College, the undergraduate arm of Yale University:


 * “Yale College offers a liberal arts education, one that aims to cultivate a broadly informed, highly disciplined intellect without specifying in advance how that intellect will be used. Such an approach to learning regards college as a phase of exploration, a place for the exercise of curiosity and an opportunity for the discovery of new interests and abilities.” [4]

In the physical sciences, a clear distinction between those who desire to be educated and those who merely seek to be trained is evident, as indicated by Professor Essenhigh. Individuals who wish to be educated crave knowledge of the origins of a formula (whether empirical or theoretical), rather than merely how to apply the formula (either on an exam or in a practical context). Mechanical engineering professor, Robert Essenhigh, best captures the distinction here: “…if a student tells me, in the middle of taking a core-required thermodynamics or fluid dynamics course, ‘Don't give me all that theortical stuff; just give me the equation and tell me how to use it,’ then I know that the student wants to be trained, not educated. . .” [3]

The “theoretical stuff” [3] is the thought process that led to the derivation of the formula from a particular idealized context. This thought process also includes a keen awareness of what assumptions are being made in the construction of the model for the thermodynamics or fluid mechanics scenario described above. One who wishes to merely succeed on an exam often need not possess this awareness. However, one who wishes to learn for its own sake cherishes such awareness.

Colin S. Diver, President of Reed College, claims that there are two views of education. The first views education as a means to an end. “The end might be to enter a particular profession, to earn a handsome salary, to accumulate power or influence, or to create things (including ideas) of utility or beauty.” [5] The second views education as an end in itself. Those holding the second view see education as:


 * “a process of self-fulfillment, self-realization, through the cultivation, cherishing, and love of knowledge [sic].” [5] Those regarding education in this light derive great satisfaction from solving the puzzles of geometry or calculus, figuring out how to test a scientific or behavioral hypothesis, relishing the beauty, depth, and ambiguity of a great work of art or literature, digging deep into the historical record to explain an event or social phenomenon [sic].” [5]

The second view clearly falls under the classic definition of education offered by philosopher John Stuart Mill [1].

The first view of “education” offered by Diver is closer to training; the notion of “education” directly leading toward a career is training. In other words, Diver is noting the distinction between two schools of thought: one that views the university as a place in which students are trained and another that sees the university as a place in which students are educated.

Education and Training in Contemporary American Undergraduate Education
With the economy today being a largely information-oriented economy and there being too many applicants and too few jobs, it comes as no surprise that college enrollments are at an all-time high. Census surveys indicate that enrollment in four-year degree programs surged from 17.1% in 1973 to 27.9% in 2007 [6]. In years following the Second World War, three forces contributed to the increase in college enrollments [1]:


 * 1) An increase in the percentage of occupations that screened for completion of a degree program


 * 1) An increase in the salaries for individuals holding these positions relative to those holding positions not requiring degrees


 * 1) A larger proportion of the American populace that is able to afford a college education- both due to the increasing affluence of Americans and the increasing availability of grants, loans and scholarships.

These three trends, in addition to driving an increase in college enrollments, also led to the undergraduate degree serving as both a status symbol and an easy basis for filtering out applicants in a large pool of job applications [1].

Many individuals are “weeded out” of the applicant pool for jobs that should not require a college education simply because they do not hold an undergraduate degree. In fact, competence in accounting, grade school teaching and interior designing, for example, require more than four years of training; however, in the case of these professions, most expertise is acquired on the job, and sitting through a four-year undergraduate curriculum would be superfluous, at best [1]. Yet, those who wish to enter these fields are required to have undergraduate degrees, simply for screening purposes.

At the turn of the 20th century there were many reasons that one could have for deciding against opting for the higher education track, such as the lack of adequate finances or the need to work to support one’s family; during this period, one could opt out of going to college without being stigmatized as intellectually incapable [1]. However, in the present-day the undergraduate degree serves as a symbol of success; guidance counselors are trained to funnel the overwhelming majority of high school students into the college-prep track, whether or not they’ve demonstrated sufficient aptitude or interest. It is then understandable that in this era many choose to attend college primarily because it gives them bragging rights over their “uneducated” brethren.

It should seem natural that as more people attend college, curricula are subsequently adjusted to cater to more students’ needs. Along with the increase in accessibility of higher education, higher college attendance rates have fueled a shift in the primary mission of United States undergraduate institutions- namely, from a mission to educate students to a mission to “prepare” students for their future.