This specific system has very little to do with war or piece - it's only causal link with the society at large is it's funding - how much, by whom and by witch terms.
This is not to say all academia is problematic - but too large areas, as claimed by this article, clearly are.
I believe one could argue rather successfully that we need more poets, painters, cinematographers, musicians and artist of all shades and stripes over scientist if peace is the ultimate goal.
Another citation required. Liberal arts and philosophy majors aren't useful in spreading world peace? Ancient historians would strenuously disagree.
The US was / is involved in 5 to 7 "conflicts." Edu isn't helping to stop that. In fact, anecdotally, I see educated people part of the problem. They have become less open minded, less willing to change position because their info was incomplete.
We need thought, and people willing and able to use it. Not education.
See also John Taylor Gatto's "The Underground History of American Education" and Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States".
Oh and your assumption that education somewhat prevents wars is completely false. Societies like pre ww2 Germany and Japan were full of well educated folks.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/7768/war-support-education-gap.a...
"The results provide evidence for both the grievance and stability arguments, providing strong support for the pacifying effects of education on civil war"
> There is a modest decline in war support as educational levels increase from high school or less, to some college, to college graduate (with no postgraduate education). However, the largest gap occurs at the highest level, between those with a postgraduate education and those without. Only among the postgraduate group is the majority opposed to war, 56% to 40%, while the other three categories all show majority support.
Postgraduates almost don't count since there are so few of them in a civil society. So virtually no difference between high school level and college graduates, which does not support your point.
Yes, and these educated folks opposed the Nazis. The parts of [Weimar culture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_culture) that were the centre of art, music, literature, poetry, mathematics, and science was the parts that did not become Nazi.
Out of their Nobel Prize Winners, many of them were Jewish. Out of the places that participated most in that culture was Berlin (famous for the [Berlin Circle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Circle), also the area that voted least for the Nazis).
The people who were cultured were less likely to be Nazis. The gay clubs in Berlin were later shut down by Nazis. Nazi conservatism was to some extent a backlash against the permissive and flourishing culture - and they associated Jews, gays and Marxists with that culture.
I'm not saying cultured people can't also be barbaric - they can. But it's also not true that somehow the most cultured place in the world was hiding a dark secret - the parts that were cultured were not the parts that instigated the backlash.
Negatively correlated? We'd need hard and reliable data to compare and make proper judgment here, and it is going to be difficult since almost everyone involved is not neutral.
The problem is that as humans, we tend to believe that the ones who support different parties/ideologies have low IQ compared to our own parties/ideologies.
It is far from being obvious because intelligence and education is usually widespread among various groups and currents of thoughts.
As individuals it is actually very dangerous to think in this way, because it leads us to underestimate our adversaries wherever they are.