Education and the National Interest

Login or Register to leave a comment.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.

THE profound involvement of the United States in world affairs raises many domestic questions, some at levels of deep significance. One, anxiously propounded, inquires regarding the adequacy of our education, both quantitative and qualitative, for our international responsibilities.

Though not generally differentiated, a number of quite different issues are involved in the question. One such is the cold war, now a decade old; many feel that education should take its direction from this central international reality. They believe the national interest is so deeply involved that it should be the dominant factor in determining the content and emphasis of our educational system. On this assumption, there is an eager demand to know whether we are turning out enough, and adequately trained, experts in a wide range of skills essential to "success" in the cold war. The varieties of expertness required for international effectiveness are many: legal, economic, political, linguistic, scientific, engineering, cultural and communication skills are all in demand. From the point of view of the national interest, all these seem to critics to be in very short supply. There are equal, and sometimes greater, doubts about another fundamental: the adequacy and quality of general education for international affairs. Are bachelors of arts and sciences ready to meet the citizen's obligation and participate effectively in shaping public opinion on world questions?

The most common measure of adequacy currently employed is the relationship between our educational product and that of the Soviets. Recently there has been an obsession with what the Russians are doing. In a report to the President, members of a special interdepartmental committee expressed their concern in these words: "Science and engineering have made such remarkable progress in recent decades that the nation which holds the lead in those fields holds the initiative in world affairs. Only at our great peril could we risk having leadership in basic and applied technology pass into the hands of our potential enemies." (Italics supplied.) This tone reflects a sharp reaction from earlier scorn of qualitative progress in the Soviets. For example, we badly underestimated their "mechanical ability;" it was said ad nauseam that Russian boys were not accustomed to strip and reassemble a jalopy, and that, as a consequence, Russia could not build and maintain an industrial society...