Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk stated that people now teach tools rather than teaching problems. He likened it to teaching separate classes on screwdrivers and wrenches, while students do not understand why these tools exist.

He suggested reversing the correct order. First, provide an engine, with the goal of understanding how it works, and then take it apart; during the disassembly process, tools like wrenches, screwdrivers, cranes, and pulleys come into play, with their uses arising from the problems at hand. He believes this approach engages people, where knowledge of tools is a byproduct of disassembly, not the starting point of the curriculum.

He contrasted this with conventional courses: first a screwdriver class, then a wrench class, where students might question why they need to learn about wrenches. He compared this to teaching calculus without explaining its purpose, leading to forgetfulness after the course. He emphasized that when teaching children, it is essential to explain why the subject is important before teaching problem-solving, rather than just providing a list of tools.

This perspective connects with his approach to founding a school. In 2014, he established Ad Astra for his children at the SpaceX campus, which later became independent as Astra Nova, with a public stance of teaching based on problems rather than grade levels. In hiring, he repeatedly seeks engineers who can deconstruct problems, rather than those who only hold specific software or certificates. His remarks did not provide new school openings, tuition, or course schedules.

The commercial form of tool classes has already spread outside. Classes on programming languages, prompts, and certifications are sold based on tools, with completion rates relying on outlines rather than a machine to be disassembled. Musk's criticism shifts the demand from "learning a specific wrench" to "first having a machine to disassemble." If artificial intelligence courses only teach model names and buttons, they fall into the category of screwdriver classes he mentioned.

This represents a re-pricing of event-driven educational products, not policy. Buyers are parents and companies wanting their children and employees to encounter problems first, while sellers are training institutions charging for tools and certificates. Beneficiaries are schools and internal training programs that prioritize projects, deconstruction, and real tasks in their curricula; those under pressure are tool certifications detached from practical use. Funding will not leave the public system due to a metaphor, but corporate training budgets will shift from tool certificates to projects that correspond to specific problems.

Source: Public Information