I have to admit that, over time, I have reconsidered my views on the role of education. Years ago, I was rather critical. I believed that the primary mission of schools should be to prepare young people for the workplace. I envisioned an education system that taught students how organizations function, how to read an organizational chart, understand process-based operations, manage documentation, and provide evidence of how a task has been carried out.
However, after reflecting on the subject more carefully, I have come to reassess that perspective.
In reality, schools are not meant to train workers—they are meant to educate citizens. From this standpoint, their purpose should not, in my opinion, be to provide immediately applicable operational skills, but rather to cultivate a way of thinking: the ability to analyze, interpret, and make sense of what happens around us.
In other words, schools should teach students how to think, not just how to do.
Of course, acquiring technical knowledge—such as understanding machine tools—is essential, especially in vocational and technical education. Even then, however, the approach should never be purely task-oriented. When a student first approaches a lathe or a gear hobbing machine, the experience should go beyond learning the correct operating procedure. It should become an opportunity to understand the underlying principles and develop a critical awareness of what they are doing.
My impression, however, is that this dimension has gradually faded over the past few decades.
There is now a greater emphasis on teaching how something is done than on encouraging students to ask why it is done. In my opinion, this represents a significant cultural impoverishment.
Another widespread trend in education today is to expose students to a broader range of topics, but in a much less in-depth manner, based on the assumption that it is enough simply to know that something exists. If deeper knowledge is ever required, students can always look it up later using the resources available to them.
While this logic is understandable, I believe it is also somewhat risky.
Imagine introducing five technical concepts. If students retain only about 20% of what they learn—which is roughly the average long-term retention rate—and even part of that is forgotten over time, how much solid knowledge actually remains as a foundation?
The idea of simply providing students with “reference points”—offering a framework that they can later explore independently—is certainly appealing, but, in my view, it is overly optimistic.
If those reference points are not firmly embedded, they are not even enough to provide direction, let alone to build the coherent critical and technical thinking that will prove invaluable both in a professional career and throughout life.
At MICROingranaggi, we experience this reality every day. We know there is a gap between education and the workplace, and that anyone joining the company for the first time must go through a period of adaptation—to production rhythms, operating procedures, and everyday working relationships. For this reason, whenever we hire someone new, we assume that at least the first six months will be an investment rather than an immediate return. It is an investment of time, energy, and attention on the part of our more experienced colleagues.
Ultimately, however, what makes the real difference is the individual.
When we recruit new employees, we do not focus primarily on their educational background, because a résumé often reflects theoretical knowledge more than genuine potential.
What we look for is curiosity—the desire to understand, to go beyond the obvious, and to ask questions. Curiosity fuels the drive to learn, transforming a skill into true competence and information into genuine knowledge.
By contrast, someone who simply waits for instructions and carries out tasks without questioning, without exploring, and without trying to understand ultimately undermines every training effort. It is like watering sandy soil: the water simply drains away, leaving nothing behind.
Perhaps this is where education and industry should truly meet: in developing curious people who know how to think, not just how to do.
