> a particular section of society has done very well from the status quo
Name me a country where this is not the case. The only thing we've failed to do is educate enough of our people to prosper as a deindustrialized nation. That and failed to protect our democracy.
> we've failed to do is educate enough of our people to prosper as a deindustrialized nation
What education did we give them to prosper as an industrialized nation? It seems to me that the population was able to discover that and benefit from it entirely on their own. Why do they need "education" to "prosper" in current conditions?
Aren't we currently living in the most educated time already? That is we have more people going to and graduating from college than ever before. What is currently missing? Do we need to force everyone to go to college? What about those who don't graduate? They just won't ever be able to prosper?
> That and failed to protect our democracy.
I think a little more than half the country would disagree with this assessment.
> What education did we give them to prosper as an industrialized nation?
That's an odd question, given that Prussian schooling was invented to turn children into productive factory workers.
The model and the curriculum are two separate things and our schools never included industrial education. That and our higher education is far less "vocational" than the countries that more strictly adhered to the system.
There's nothing odd about the question. What's odd is that you assert that conditions 200 years ago are relevant to it.
I think we've promoted little else besides de-industrialized degrees. That's why it's going to be so hard to ramp up again. How many kids think it's cool to get a textile engineering or materials science degree vs marketing or software engineering?