Is more education always better?

Some folks think that the benefit to having more folks with college degrees outweighs the cost of funding student loans with taxpayer dollars.

They may be right.

But I’d like to know what evidence, facts and logic they rely on to draw this conclusion.

Do you know?

5 thoughts on “Is more education always better?

  1. The only way to guarantee the best possible use of scarce resources is to force consumers to consider the opportunity costs of their spending decisions. In order to ensure the best possible use of public funds taxpayers should be allowed to directly allocate their taxes. This would force them to consider the opportunity costs of their tax allocation decisions.

    The quantity of people with college degrees should reflect the demand for people with college degrees. If taxpayers feel that public education is not receiving sufficient funds then they should be able to allocate more of their individual taxes towards the various public schools, colleges and universities. Let them consider the opportunity costs of doing so. Let the corporations, not planners, decide how they want to allocate their taxes among the various public goods that they indirectly benefit from.

      • Sure…doesn’t it defy everything we know about economic theory to believe that 535 congresspeople could allocate taxes more efficiently than millions and millions of taxpayers could?

  2. In one respect, it devalues the marketability of being generically “college educated” (by watering down that market). This is good for many graduates in that there will be higher demands/wages for specific fields and specific educations, thereby rewarding those who choose wisely. (Really, it increases the value of MY education… I like that.) But differentiating will always be a two-edged sword for those differentiated.

    At the same time, it drives up the cost of a college education (as it has been for the past several decades). While this may get more people in lower economic brackets into educations where they can positively change their futures, this has always been possible through private scholarships and grants. By increasing the number of people overall, you’ll likely de facto be lowering the quality of the average student. This also drives up the cost for those who are paying their own way, putting further strain on the middle class. Isn’t the middle class the group liberals complain that Republicans want to squash out of existence?

    But I guess to answer the question… no, I don’t know the logic or the arguments those who want publicly funded higher education use to defend their position. My guess is the direct cost vs. the direct benefit to those with college educations. But this leaves out all market externalities and how this policy has a broader effect, let alone the opportunity cost of those taxed dollars.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s