In The Education Gospel, Grubb and Lazerson seem to argue against the idea of

education as a cure-all for society’s inequalities and injustices, yet also recognize that it still
holds potential to better society. The reading introduces us to the concept of
“vocationalism”—a change in the one or two centuries of education that placed more
emphasis on “soft skills” as opposed to “hard skills”. We see this emphasis in many academic
institutions, including SMU, where educators and curriculums take on a more “hands-on”
approach. The authors challenge the notion of vocationalism as an “Education Gospel”—a
bridge between classes of society, an equalizer in terms of job prospects, and essentially the
saviour of a flawed society. Rather, they assert that while the Education Gospel may not be
the “panacea”, it can become one of many ways we can better humanity through careful and
critical examination of its implementation and execution.
Debs’ and Cheung’s article zooms in on the travails of Singaporean primary school
education. The rat race to send children to “elite” schools or express tracks has, in the
authors’ opinions, has not bridged the divides of our society; rather, it has deepened them. If
presented with the Education Gospel, Debs and Cheung would likely reject it on the grounds
that primary school choice has done little except make parents more kiasu. These class
divides live on university, where we see stereotypes developing around different institutions,
schools, and even CCAs. The Education Gospel’s shortcomings after university have also
been made more evident in recent years, with complaints of companies not recognizing
degrees from X universities. To that end, I would gladly agree with these outlooks on
education—it has not proven itself the antidote of our ills, but done right, it can raise up
generations to be that cure.