Abstract

The intent of this research article is to argue with the line of reasoning of arguments from Paul Hager and other educational theorists against the front-end model of education. The model is rejected because it cannot be achieved in occupational preparation, and, moreover, those critics said that it is based on a wrong idea of conceptual interpretation of learning that makes it less conducive to lifelong learning in the long run. The framework which is rejected is a sharp distinction of two concepts; process and product. The reason of rejection is that the sharp distinction does not exist. However, from the research, many analyses show that the front-end model is one of the most important aspects of employment and vocational education, which is the belief that actual practice at work will guarantee the skills of learners before they enter the actual operation. Based on a method of postmodern philosophical analysis, I found that the relationship between education and work is a highly complex relationship. The result of this complexity makes it impossible to have a perfect reason for Hager and his colleagues to reject the significance of the front-end model as concluded by their previous research. On the other hand, I argue that we would have more weight in reasoning if we are to point out that the new policy of lifelong learning still requires a new interpretation on integrity of front-end model of career preparation. This is because the more plausible definition of human being from Hannah Arendt is related to work and working. From what is conceptualized here as an argument of imperfect employability, I pointed out that the rejection of front-end model itself has an important base of conceptualization that does not match the definition of such conditions of being human. Therefore, the rejection of front-end model should be considered as an argument that does not yet have enough weight in reasoning.