Liberal Versus Vocational

As I write, I can hear various exotic birds and beasties singing and calling in the Australian sun beyond my window. I am, as you have probably guessed, on holiday down under, but, before you start worrying that this has morphed into a travelogue blog (a traveblog?), there is a specific educational point that I want to make later related to my current geographical location.

For now, let’s go on a different journey – to a very famous public school some years ago. The occasion is a meeting of HMC Heads of English and I am in the audience. The speaker – who happens to be the Head of English at the very famous public school in question – is introducing the day with a passionate defence of “traditional” educational values. He speaks of the need to maintain standards, to focus on the literary cannon and to guard against the encroachment of easy options. He is, to use his own formulation, seeking to defend “liberal” education from the growing threat of the “vocational”. I am struck by the dichotomy, but not entirely certain as to what he could mean. What is the difference between the two and why should we be bothered if one is expanding at the expense of the other?

“Vocational” seems simple enough: presumably, it refers to education related to some specific job or occupation.  A lot of degrees fall broadly into this category. Exam boards are also offering more and more pre-university, post-16 qualifications of a similar type. Already, though, we have hit a problem: while a course like Hotel Management is pretty clear about which side of the divide it occupies, where would we accommodate such “traditional” subjects as Law and Medicine, both of which would seem to be very directly related to specific career options? 

If there are difficulties here, they are as nothing to those which emerge as soon as we attempt to define “liberal” in this context. Of course, it’s one of those concepts with which everyone knows what they mean, but can’t quite pin down in a satisfactory way. Liberal education is – well, you know... For what it’s worth, my view is that a liberal education is all about defining one’s individuality. Whether a liberal education creates the self, as John Locke appears to suggest, is open to debate, but it certainly helps to develop the self. A person has a clear sense of his or her personal capabilities and interests as a result of a liberal education. An education that is vocational, by contrast, allows someone to play a role in a pre-existing socially-constituted structure and, therefore, it might more properly be termed “training”. It is perhaps worth noting that this distinction is very ancient; if one examines school curricula from the past – even the distant past – they have never been about training. Aristotle did not teach the future Alexander the Great how to make weapons or ride a horse or even how to manage a group of soldiers. And Julius Caesar’s school days were spent mastering literature, philosophy and rhetoric – not boning up on the strategies that would allow him to conquer Gaul.

Perhaps these examples should be borne in mind when the questions of usefulness that I touched on in a previous entry are considered. Advocates of vocational education might well argue that “defining one’s individuality” is all very well, but so what? Society doesn’t need a bunch of deep-thinking, but ineffectual, individuals – it needs people with the skill set required for future progress. Modern day Caesars, the great captains of industry, are often cited to prove that education, meaning a liberal education, is unnecessary for success in the world. Richard Branson left school at 15, we’re told, and Alan Sugar at 14. Neither enjoyed the benefits of any social capital to give them a start in life; they’re self-made men. Yet, as Katharine Birbalsingh has recently pointed out, it is wrong to state that Sir Dick and Lord Shuggs eschewed education in favour of making their own way. Yes, neither chose to pursue education beyond the minimum leaving age at the time, but they had perfectly normal, liberal educations up to that point. Far from proving the uselessness of a liberal education, they are paradigms of the advantages it confers; the mental disciplines they gained from school – a breadth of knowledge of different types, the ability to assimilate information critically, the ability to re-interpret information, numeracy, social skills – have been the bedrock of their business success. Indeed, they almost lead us to a conclusion: that a liberal education gives people the breadth to push new ideas and change whereas vocational courses are always going to follow in the wake of a pre-ordained occupational structure. Getting back to myself in Australia, I can say that I am able to operate here - and would even be eminently employable - because much of my education has been liberal and, thus, unconstrained by narrow parameters, making it international in scope.

However, the vocational should not be dismissed quite so lightly. It could be argued that Law and Medicine, as first degrees, are broad and academic and require further training to be converted into the truly vocational, but that is to ignore the fact that they still tend towards a specific career option. Vocational education is important, ensuring that vital knowledge and skills are preserved within society and passed on from one person to another. It is at our peril, though, that we move towards seeing that as the be-all and end-all of education. Those who would see a liberal education as “useless” ought perhaps to think again...