The reason why it bothered me was because there are only jobs in town. The only employment opportunities available are located away from the rural areas. This made me question what we were trying to accomplish by promoting education. It is obvious that we invest in the rural people because they constitute the majority but as well so that farmers stay farmers. Investing in the agricultural sector and avoiding what Schumacher would call the twin evils of mass migration and mass unemployment in the already over-crowed urban centers.
Urban migration is one of the leading contributing causes of unemployment in cities and thus crime. Governments can hardly keep up with the job creation required for satisfying the demand placed on it by the supply of urban graduates; let alone all the rural poor looking for opportunities. So why are we educating rural farmers so that they can simply leave the rural parts and head to the cities?
Some would argue that a literate farmer is better than an illiterate farmer, and I completely agree. But what I noticed is that you get a growing divide with young adults returning to rural life with urban educations. Not only is there now a tension between traditional beliefs and modern ways of thinking, but also you have educated adults with a bit of a chip on their shoulder. Understandably so, they believe that they deserve more than their uneducated peers, nor do they want to continue doing the labour intensive farming practices their forefathers performed.
A close parallel to this is what happened after the war in
The intuitive response to this undesired outcome is to train farmers in skills and educate them on relevant subject matter to their livelihoods. In essence help farmers become better farmers. I am immediately reminded of a scary scenario illustrated in Alduous Huxley’s Brave New World, where people’s futures are decided for them. Is it right to alter the curriculum for a certain audience in the hopes of providing incentives to take a certain profession?