Candace — I think I’m with Murray, or even a little more toward the “anti-knowledge” side.

My argument: The fundamental challenges of any society are to keep people (A) taken care of in their basic needs and (B) busy enough that they don’t cause trouble. The best solution to both problems is a free market in which nearly all people can work to the point of self-sufficiency. Education’s role, in my opinion, ought to be to prepare these people for the workforce, and to give a basic grounding in civics (as everyone can vote). This is enough of a challenge for the school system, in terms of its obligations for “all students.”

Now, people toward the high end of the IQ distribution will be able to handle more than that — they’ll be able, and some will want, to study the “big questions” through literature, philosophy, whatever. Lower and higher education should provide an outlet for this. But I don’t think our schools should be forcing these topics on everyone, regardless of their ability to comprehend or desire/need to know. Most students just forget the things they learn in these areas anyway, and are no worse off for it.

In other words, I’m all about a “knowledge rich” curriculum, but I don’t think it needs to apply to “all students.”