Humanities have long been the central aspect of the educational system and have been deemed to create a more competent democratic citizen. But American philosopher Martha Nussbaum is arguing that the aims for education have been heading in the wrong direction in the United states and abroad.Concerned with economic growth, education is more focused on teaching students to be more economically productive .
In her second chapter titled “Education for Profit, Education of Democracy” of her book Not for Profit:Why Democracy Needs the Humanities focuses on foundational social principles of countries like the United states and India. In which she focuses on the tensions that live within the nations, one that is more grounded historically an provides readers with solid evidence to renounce “Education for profit”.In the beginning of reading this chapter, Nussbaum starts off with making the reader think “about education for democratic citizenship..”and how national product per capita is not “a good proxy to for a nation’s overall quality of life”(Nussbaum 14).
Then she explains the development model of how the “goal of a nation, says this model of development, should be economic growth”(14). Later in the text she starts getting into how the “old model” has been abandoned by development thinker, but how this way of thinking is still thriving in policy making and policies that are influenced by the United states (15). Later she begins talking about The World bank under James Wolfensohn on how he focused on development but “slipped”to make progress in the International monetary fund. This model is followed in parts of the world like India. The split is that in certain states of india want to insure education and healthcare but the other side is more focused on getting foreign investment is disregarding that aspect.
Even though mostly everyone is with economic growth , the reality is that dependence on the the old model can lead to so many issues. For example she compared the U.S.
voters and the Indian voters that voted for change but all they got was a “growth-oriented paradigm adjusted for distribution”(16).Since both of these nations have an actual written constitution that protect a range of rights. The only difference is that the Indian offers two levels of higher education, meanwhile the United states one did not offer any. But locally we have to conclude that some U.
S. states do cover some type of