Having touched upon subject of education in another thread it seems few, now, outside certain rare circles, seem to understand difference between a school of learning and school of education. Thought I would share at least one short paper for those who may be curious.
One statement highlights what others have called, basically preposterous, in another discussion, namely being one must be able to see interconnections between all subjects rather than focusing on one.
Do you often come across people for whom, all their lives, a "subject" remains a "subject," divided by watertight bulkheads from all other "subjects," so that they experience very great difficulty in making an immediate mental connection between let us say, algebra and detective fiction, sewage disposal and the price of salmon--or, more generally, between such spheres of knowledge as philosophy and economics, or chemistry and art?
Education was once teaching the skills so one could learn on their own without the need for a teacher/educator. The Lost tools of Learning
Notice use of the word learning.
Another complication with modern system; I have bemoaned often; the prolongation of immaturity, and formation of dependency which 12 years of primary schooling enforces, creating mental hardships on those attending, and financial upon the parents.
Primary education which now is taking 13 years can be done in 5 years.
The greatest minds, producing the greatest discoveries, were mostly educated in the trivium and quadrivium.
Refer to the 1643 Harvard graduation requirements.
Interesting one of the requirements was Nature of Plants.
Link posted is only one of many which highlights the differences, and alludes to the unhappiness of the author, from those with which she has interacted, being unable to free themselves from influencing agent of propaganda and advertising pitches, which result from the fact they were schooled instead of being educated to learn.