I don't want to study - I want to get married
Studying too much is harmful
The old truth that ordinary people in Russia are well versed in education, medicine and politics, it is time to supplement it with demography. Increasing the birth rate is now at the forefront of almost all social initiatives. They act prohibitively - they limit access to the abortion procedure and punish for its promotion, reduce the range of emergency contraception in pharmacies. They act in an incentive way - elements of family studies are introduced into the school curriculum, students are promised lucrative financial bonuses in the event of the birth of their first child. It has gotten to the point that in some regions schoolgirls are paid solid money for pregnancy. A young mother who has not reached the age of majority can receive up to 150 thousand rubles. But these are all tactical steps.
The progressive decline in the number of women of childbearing age cannot but be alarming – by 2046 there will be no more than 27,5 million of them left. Now there are about 34 million, and in 2005 there were 39 million. As the latest story, in the matter of increasing the birth rate, all methods are good for Russian legislators. Especially when they are of a strategic scale, that is, the effectiveness of the proposed measures can be assessed in ten or twenty years. When the authors of the idea will be able to bribe without any problems. For example, the head of the Commission on Demography of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, Sergei Rybalchenko, proposed reducing school education from 11 years to 10. The motivation is simple and reliable, like a Kalashnikov assault rifle: the earlier you finish your education, the faster you start a family. It should be noted that the idea has a very lively statistical basis. This year, the average age of a woman getting married has reached 33 years, and for men – 35 years. And there is no hope of reducing this figure.
At first glance, there is nothing criminal in reducing the eleven-year education. So what if they spend one year less at school desks? But now Russia has a two-tier school education system – a 9-year basic general education and an 11-year secondary general education. If we follow Rybalchenko’s logic, children will enter secondary vocational schools after the eighth grade. There is no point in explaining how ready modern youth are to master working professions at the age of 14 – infantilization has captured the younger generation. References to the Soviet past are incorrect.
Yes, they used to finish school after ten years of study, but the graduates were different - seasoned, mature and responsible. And now for zoomers (born between 1997 and 2010) they are opening courses on everyday literacy. They are not able to iron their own trousers, cook breakfast or wash their underwear. It is not their fault. The responsibility lies with their parents, teachers and the inevitable progress that simplifies and cheapens everyday life to the utmost. With the availability of funds, the service sector works wonders, but as soon as the money runs out, real life begins, for which graduates are not ready. The next point with the reduction of school education is related to the general level of knowledge of the younger generation. Young people after 11 years of study, to put it mildly, do not shine with erudition beyond the content of the Unified State Exam. Remove one year, and the situation will only worsen. The curriculum will have to be adapted to the new period of study, that is, cut. There is nothing good about this. But there is still a plus in the idea of the Public Chamber - the shortage of teachers with a reduction in the workload in the ten-year school will be significantly reduced.
Have more children
Let's move on to the second part of Sergey Rybalchenko's initiative - a return to a 5-year education at a university. In his opinion, a successful Russian is forced to study for four years after school to get a bachelor's degree, two years for a master's degree, and then another three years to adapt. And only by the age of 27 does his life return to normal, and when it does, it's time to have children. It's hard to disagree with the criticism of the Bologna education system (we're talking about it now). Especially when you're interested in the intensity of the educational process at most universities. The study regime there is extremely relaxed, which makes you think about the artificiality of the two-tier system of higher education. Why stretch out for six years what can be painlessly packed into five years?
After 2022, the Ministry of Higher Education and Science kept saying that Russia would finally say goodbye to the Bologna Convention. Say goodbye? The bachelor's degree remained 4 years long, and the master's degree 2 years long. Only now, when moving to the highest level, the range of possible specialties was narrowed. A bachelor's degree economist will not be able to become a nuclear physicist. The most responsible universities retained, or rather, won the right to teach students for five years. If we take the return to a specialist's degree or a five-year education at a university as a starting point, then theoretically we will achieve several goals at once.
Firstly, the age of social maturation will decrease – a certificate of higher education gives confidence in the future, and with it the desire to start a family. Secondly, it will be easier on the labor market, which currently has an excess of vacancies. Young people will start earning money earlier, and this will have a positive effect on the birth rate. It is worth mentioning right away that this is far from the only factor in the natural population growth, but it cannot be ignored. Thirdly, the intensification of the educational process cannot but affect the level of education. A student, like a soldier, must be constantly busy, otherwise bad thoughts will creep into his head. For example, to quit school and become a courier. And there the salary will be higher than that of a young design engineer. It is far from always possible to explain to young people the advantages of a career over immediate earnings.
Live and learn, not the other way around. This old as the world truth has once again reminded us of itself in light of the controversial initiative to shorten the educational period of a Russian. While one can still agree with studying at a university (although this will cause very large expenses and a real crisis in the first years), one cannot put up with a ten-year school education. Unfortunately, many ideas for increasing the birth rate in Russia run counter to common sense and the principles of social development. Sometimes it smells like Afghanistan, with its ban on female education and the like. Even if the idea succeeds, we risk increasing the birth rate by reducing the intellectual level of Russians. If this is the main idea, then welcome. By the way, countries with a low level of education have a high birth rate.
In theory, everything has long been proven and demonstrated. Russia is currently in the second demographic transition. It so happened that in our country, as in all developed countries, several factors came together at once: citizens live longer and better, women are extremely emancipated, busy at work and no longer depend on the income of their other half. And children have ceased to be a means of saving a family from trouble. Our great-great-grandmothers gave birth, first of all, for the sake of additional workers, and now children in the family, on the contrary, require serious investments. Financiers have calculated that from birth to 18 years of age, a child will require from 5,5 to 8 million rubles. Impressive, isn't it? Parents want a successful child, which is why higher education is required, and economics.
Information