A common belief is that America’s primary and secondary education system is designed to create/mold obedient workers, suitable for the demands of industrialized society. The theory goes, in the late 1800′s and early 1900′s, tycoons such as Rockefeller and Ford needed a supply of obedient workers, and hence the modern education system was born to meet this demand.
This narrative is popular because it lends comfort to underachievers, who can attribute their poor grades to rebellion, than not being smart enough. No, you didn’t get low markers because you are slow–no, you found the school system stiffing and oppressive. Yes, in some instances this is true. On Reddit, for example, one can readily find examples of smart people who slacked off in school, getting low grades because they found the work boring or because they refused to complete the assignment in the way teacher wanted, but by virtue of the rarity of high IQ scores, not everyone who get low and average grades is an oppressed genius. Everyone wants to believe they are special, that it’s someone else’s fault for their failure, not their own fault.
The narrative is also wrong, as I will explain. The iffetned i
The answer is, the modern education system is designed not to create workers, but rather as a watered-down version of the civil service exam system of Imperial China, in order to identify promising talent for possible employment in the highest echelons of society, in areas such as law, politics, business, research, government, or technology.