David Ogilvy, considered to be the "Father of Modern Advertising," one of the original "mad men," and author of fascinating books on the art, science and business of creating advertisements (all of which are amazingly fresh and relevant decades after they were written), starts off Ogilvy on Advertising in an unexpected way:
He describes a few examples of advertising that were found to lower sales. Ford put advertisements in every other copy of Reader's Digest. People who had not seen the advertisements bought more Fords than people who did. Advertisers, he asserted, seemed to buy into a myth that "all advertising increases sales to some degree."
The advertising industry has a lot to offer education. Advertisers are talented at getting people to remember information and act on that information; similar techniques can surely be used in education.
But a similar myth exists: any education is better than none. Any intervention is better than none. But is it true? Is there teaching that lowers knowledge, decreases skills, or hurts character?
I'm an entrepreneur and I teach math, history, economics, and fitness. I'm looking for arguments.