isadore;1855161 wrote:1. Harvard was founded in 1636. The government of the colony was basically theocratic. Only people with the acceptable Puritan faith approved by the ministers of the colony were allowed in the legislature. The Puritans, were the established Church, supported with tax funds. Other churches were persecuted. The college was set up for the training of Puritan clergy, not any other faith. The government was hardly civil in the sense we thing of the term. Luther’s views were hardly enlightened. He saw the colleges role preparing Christians and rejected the learning of Artistotle and the ancients. From his open letter. “The universities also need a good, thorough reformation—I must say it no matter whom it vexes—for everything which the papacy has instituted and ordered is directed only towards the increasing of sin and error. What else are the universities, if their present condition remains unchanged, than as the book of Maccabees says, 'Places for training youth in Greek glory,' in which loose living prevails, tile Holy Scriptures and the Christian faith are little taught, and the blind, heathen master Aristotle rules alone, even more than Christ?"
"In truth, much depends upon it (that is, the reformation of the schools—DE); for it is here that the Christian youth and the best of our people, with whom the future of Christendom lies, are to be educated and trained…
There is a lot here that is flat-out untrue.
The government wasn't basically theocratic. There's a difference between a member of a government recognizing a particular deity and a member of government seeking to legislate according to the morality of that deity.
Second, the Quakers, who existed at that time in large numbers, were not Puritans. They were also not actively persecuted by them.
Third, a college that teaches theology among its classes is not inherently interested in teaching clergy. In fact, one of the issues that caused problems with the Church in England and those who left was the disagreement over whom could read and study the Bible, the relocators having fallen on the side of individuals being able to do so.
So again, the teaching of Christian doctrine in a college doesn't support the notion that the intent was to exclusively teach clergy members.
You're certainly not wrong that Luther's views were, in all aspects, enlightened. In fact, during the Reformation, it is likely that he had people put to death in turn.
However, you're again ignoring what I was addressing there. I wasn't calling Luther enlightened. I was suggesting that even from his time, the purpose of universities that he supported was to educate the people at large. He obviously intended that they should be educated in Scriptures as well as other studies, but not exclusively for the clergy.
isadore;1855161 wrote:2. Public education should provide for the needs of the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century, with post secondary education for all who wish it at no cost to them.
No. It should not. If the education itself is of value, the information is available using our modern modes of communication (ie, the Internet). However, a diploma isn't necessarily an education.
The needs involving education within a population are no different today. If you care about your education, you can find the information necessary to be educated. The fact that we still employ anyone based on their receiving a diploma that might mean little more than the fact that they didn't quite party too hard to pass their classes is more problematic than anything related to going to a university.
isadore;1855161 wrote:3. Luther obviously saw the training of Christians in the faith as the role of college education
He saw it as part, but you're trying to fit him into a smaller narrative than he fits.
isadore;1855161 wrote:4. At the time most people in society did not see the value of a college education except the clergy wannabes and the children of the rich. Of course land grant colleges offerings helped to change the view of colleges as a site for professional training.
An unnecessary expense, as there were already established avenues for that brand of learning that cost even less, something akin to an apprenticeship.
As for those who saw the value, you're again incorrect. The colonists, including those who founded Harvard, valued higher education for a variety of reasons. First, a large portion of the colonists were graduates from universities in England, and as such, saw the value. Second, those who were interested in civil leadership also saw the value, as there was a value placed on a well-rounded education for civil leaders, even for small, local jurisdictions. And yes, as you've wanted to push this whole time, they also valued a clergy that was learned in a wide variety of studies.
As for cost, however, the cost was relatively low even compared to the average household's yearly income. Hell, it remained that way at least through the 1800s.
isadore;1855161 wrote:5. I see the changes in colleges as a positive. Land Grant Universities began a change to make them more useful. The GI Bill involved the government in providing post secondary education to millions for their and our great benefit. The earlier system was served the needs of theocrats and dilettantes
Again, you're putting the cart before the horse. The universities were not useful as vocational education until after the Morrill Land Grant Act. It laid the foundation for universities to usurp hands-on experience vocational training, which was more affordable, even with the land grants.
The earlier system served the desires of those who valued a widely-educated population. The only way you can come up with anything else is by cherry-picking and ignoring the context of anything else.
