I saw a commercial for a career college make the claim that the school teaches real skills that are in demand in the marketplace and allow you to earn money.
I thought that was a good shot at traditional colleges, where that isn’t always the case anymore. I think they do still have quite a few degree programs that teach marketable skills, but they also have quite a few that should be adult community education courses.
The previous post brings to mind discussions I’ve had on the topic in the past. In one such discussion, a person asked:
So, do you want to be the one who tells someone they can’t go to college?
It shows how much of a pedestal we’ve put college education upon. Like home ownership, it’s now a dream, that everyone is entitled to.
In home ownership, we forgot that renting was a good option for many. With college education, we forget that people without college education do fine, too.
Do I want to be the one who tells someone they can’t go to college? No. If I did, I’d apply to be a college admissions officer.
But telling people they can’t go to college or people deciding for themselves that it isn’t for them isn’t bad. How’s it any different from telling people they didn’t get a part in a movie or people deciding that pursuing their dream of acting isn’t panning out so they should try something else?
How’s it any different from kids in sports not making the team or deciding that a certain sport isn’t for them?
The question also shows how unimaginative we’ve become. It’s college or else. We can’t imagine alternatives. Yet, there are many.
In this excellent EconTalk podcast, EconLogger Bryan Caplan discusses his upcoming book on education. He closes with this:
…the private return [of education] is high is really a very bad argument for pouring more money on.
Now, the other point, as we were saying, the return that you should be looking at in terms of this argument of not being able to borrow against your future earnings–what you are looking at is return for the marginal people who are just on the edge of going or not going. And as we’ve seen, the return for those people is actually… quite mediocre. And then finally if you adjust for ability and everything else, really I would say that once you appreciate signaling you realize that, so we have subsidized education way past the point of [?] returns. So by my calculations, actually, the social return to education is now quite negative.
And it would be a much better policy to drastically scale it back, so rather than encouraging more people to go, I think it’s better to discourage them from going or at least to encourage them less. So in fact–so, the biggest policy implication that’s going to come out of my book is we just have way too much education. I call this the white elephant in the room. There are way too many people going to school, maybe not from their own selfish point of view, but certainly from a social point of view to go and pour more money on this really is just throwing gasoline on the fire. And we need to do less of it.
I agree. Caplan’s argument is that we college education isn’t the cause of higher income, rather it’s just become the customary path that people with above average ambition and ability take and along the way we’ve mistaken it for the cause of that higher income.
It’s similar to the mistake ‘we’ made with housing. We thought owning a house made people responsible, so we made it easier to irresponsible people to own homes. We learned the hard way that owning a home was a marker of a responsible person, not a cause.
Now, we’re learning the same about college education as many kids graduate and find themselves deep in student loan debt and no higher income job to pay it off.
Tyler Cowen, of Marginal Revolution, links to a piece about the increase in spending on college athletics.
Anyone involved in youth sports in the last decade might have noticed the emergence of large, multi-level sports clubs, playing in multi-million dollar sports complexes all designed to host large quantities of organized competition for young players to become seasoned masters in their sport and attract the attention of college recruiters.
Having your kid get “signed’ to a college team — no matter how small the college, or how un-followed the sport — is the new crowning achievement of childhood that brings ear-to-ear grins to the faces of parents.
Take away taxpayer-provided college athletic subsidies and that crowning achievement of childhood and the industry that has sprouted to help parents achieve that ear-to-ear grin goes away.
Arnold Kling also comments on college athletic spending.
Here’s Mark Perry, of Carpe Diem, regarding John Goodman’s post: If you really care about income inequality, you need only focus on one thing: the inequality of educational opportunity.
As Goodman puts it:
Poor kids are almost always enrolled in bad schools. Rich kids are almost always in good schools.
As they point out, the left seems more concerned with protecting teachers unions than providing quality education.
But, I think it’s worth pointing out that the blame of bad schools doesn’t fall only on the administrators and teachers, though they are partly to blame.
As one commenter on Mark Perry’s blog post pointed out, what do you think would happen if you switched the kids in the good schools with the kids in the bad schools? Do you think the reputation of the schools would remain intact? No.
I think it’s worth considering why that is. It’s not because of inequality. It’s because different people value education differently, just like any other product or service.
Even in a country that provides publicly for education, people still get to make choices based on a number of factors. Those who value education more tend to choose to live in areas where their neighbors value it as well. Those who don’t value education as much are left in the bad schools.
Charters a good way to give more choice to the people who do value education, but happen to be stuck in the areas where their neighbors don’t value it as much.
But, charters won’t convince those who don’t value it, to value it more.
Bryan Caplan thinks it’s inconsistent for the left to believe the poor shouldn’t be blamed for their predicament, but Republicans can be blamed for a host of things like not helping the less fortunate or ignoring evidence of global warming.
He also points out that the predatory pricing practiced by public schools yields only a 90% market share after decades, not a monopoly as folks believe.
One sign of lackluster American education is that politicians who use the shrinking middle class prop get votes instead of laughs.
Post title from Carpe Diem: “Today’s new homes are 1,000 square feet larger than in 1973, and the living space per person has doubled over last 40 years”
Weathermen are smart enough to look out the window to make sure that what they see with their own two eyes matches with their models and instrument.
If you believe the shrinking middle class myth, I suggest spending more time looking out your window and paying attention. Not only have house sizes grown, but middle class homes also include many more amenities than even 15 years ago such a bathroom (or at least bathroom sink) for everyone, walk-in closets, jetted tubs, three car garages, finished basements and the new trend, outdoor living spaces, to name a few.