Should schools teach happiness?

Richard Layard certainly thinks so. In a new article in the Summer 2007 edition of the LSE magazine CentrePiece, the happiness guru argues that a major purpose of schools must be to help develop good and happy people - especially at a time when growing numbers of children are suffering from emotional disturbance. He calls for "educational revolution in which a central purpose of our schools is to teach young people about the main secrets of happiness for which we have empirical evidence". See: Happiness and the teaching of values (PDF).

50% of young people say that their main ambition is to be happy: it’s the most commonly stated ambition and very sensible too (Park et al, 2004). Let’s help them. I have no doubt that new institutions will also develop for adults. But from a public policy perspective, we must start with schools. This is a good moment. People are worried about young people from many angles. We have good tools with which to help them. The key need is to create a profession of PSHE teachers, who give evidence-based teaching that changes lives, and that goes on to 18.

But yesterday's Financial Times leader, Happiness lessons, is sceptical:

The first problem is that happiness is not a teachable subject. It is famously elusive and may be unattainable. Pursuing it as an aim is difficult since it is more readily gained as a side-product of some other achievement or condition.

Happiness is also too varied to teach: a single set of tools will not work for everyone. One pupil may derive great pleasure from being kind to others - another from being the person on the receiving end of that kindness. Where one childmay be happily fulfilled taking ona tough challenge, another mayfind more happiness with a less driven approach.

Comments welcome. Can we really teach happiness? And should we?

Comments

[Arthur Eckart]

In the U.S., undergraduate economics teaches a little about a lot, while graduate economics teaches a lot about a little. Perhaps, schools at the pre-college level should teach more subjects in less time (e.g. a subject each 30 minutes rather than each hour). So, a larger variety of subjects can be taken. Students can then better choose the subject they're most interested in. So, they'll be good at it, be happier, and the money will follow.

[Amit]

The western approach to happiness amuses people in the east. westerners seem to confuse happiness with pleasure of posession and immediate gratification from that posession. Ok, so you got what you are craving for and are happy for about 5 minutes. but wait - now you are 'unhappy' until you get the next thing you now want. the cycle of 'want' never ends and so happiness is forever fleeting and never 'found'. The economics resulting from this behavior is evident in numbers. In reality happiness is ONLY in self realization. No, I am not talking ivory tower Buddhism. I am talking about a sense of purpose, emotional belonging to a social network, clarity of thought about oneself, and self-confidence. ALL of these are founded in a good childhood - which in turn is a consequence of how your parents bring you up. But if parents are just chasing 'more = happy', where do you think the kids will end up? happy? i doubt.

[James]

Whilst I have not read the article in depth, I have to say the current interest in measuring 'happiness' seems rather absurd. Firstly, as previously pointed out how can one remedy for the inherent differences in people? Some people prefer quiet social time with friends when not at work, other people prefer challenging themselves and striving harder. The former may find the latter rather vile and certainly not happiness creating at all.

Secondly, how if the happiness of an individual to be finally measured? If an external measurement based on derived variables should be used, this is evidently going to be subjective. If a person is to use self reported measurements of happiness how reliable can such estimates be? Recently some meta analysis was carried out on a number of European wide surveys and one of the variables that tended to reduce reliability was questions about life in general (see Saris & Gallhofer, Survey Research Methods Vol 1, No 1, pp 29-43).

Would we not be perhaps better to teach children a broader range of subjects, perhaps just simply giving them a taster of other interests. The decision for the child will then be to pursue what interests THEM, also creating more rounded individuals which can perhaps have benefits for both the individual and society. It is difficult to go back and make a career change also in the light of evidence once the child is an adult…

[Lafayette]

J: Whilst I have not read the article in depth, I have to say the current interest in measuring 'happiness' seems rather absurd. Firstly, as previously pointed out how can one remedy for the inherent differences in people?

What makes you think that "measuring happiness" is intended to "remedy inherent differences"?

In a beauty content, is the queen chosen to show that the others are less than perfect? You will say, well, economics is not a beauty contest.

I will agree, it isn't. But, the intent of having a standard set of values against which to measure is not so far fetched. I have a particularly liking for Maslow's hierarchy of needs (that was developed a great many decades ago).

But, I have seen no serious effort to attach a measurement to the needs and thereby derive a "standard" or common yardstick. And yet, it would seem, to me, that such is possible. Not to make the world perfect, but for countries to understand where they can be doing better.

Or, is it the word "happiness" with all its connotations/denotations that bothers you? OK, then how about "contentment"?