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.
I’m currently reading Nassim Taleb’s Antifragility: Things That Gain From Disorder. I’m enjoying it and recommend it. There is much to discuss.
I ran into this today:
Authors theorize about some ancestry of my ideas, as if people read books then developed ideas, not wondering whether perhaps it is the other way around; people look for books that support their mental program.
Agreed. That sets up a section about education that ties in with a recent discussion about education on this blog. He introduces what he calls epiphenomenom, which is
…mistaking the merely associative for the causal; that is, if rich countries are educated, immediately inferring that education makes a country rich, without even checking.
He refers to work from Lant Pritchett (recent EconTalk guest) and Alison Wolf that supports that education is a marker of a wealthy country, not necessarily a cause (wealthy countries can afford education). I liked this story:
I once ran into Alison Wolf at a party (parties are great for optionality). As I got her to explain to other people her evidence about the lack of effectiveness of funding formal education, one person got frustrated with our skepticism. Wolf’s answer to him was “real education is this,” pointing at the room full of people chatting.
Taleb is clear in that he is not saying that education and knowledge are not important to an individual, it’s just oversold as a cause of a nation’s wealth. I also agree with this (emphasis mine):
…note that I am not saying that universities do not generate knowledge at all or do not help growth (outside, of course, of most standard economics and other superstitions that set us back); all I am saying is that their role is overly hyped-up and that their members seem to exploit some of our gullibility in establishing wrong causal links, mostly superficial expressions.
That puts into words something I’ve often thought about credentials. In so many areas credentials play on our gullibility and the folks with the credentials seem okay with that, which is a reason I have an inherent distrust for someone who rests on their credentials. You don’t often hear people qualify their credential and caution you to not put that much weight into it. They usually appeal to it.
Learning by doing from the Wall Street Journal. I like it. I think it should start much, much earlier than college.