« Assorted links | Main | Markets in everything »
Caplan on Education
How much does increasing college-going rates matter to our economy and society?
Caplan: College attendance, in my view, is usually a drain on our economy and society. Encouraging talented people to spend many years in wasteful status contests deprives the economy of millions of man-years of output. If this were really an "investment," of course, it might be worth it. But I see little connection between the skills that students acquire in college and the skills they'll need later in life.Much more here, including answers from Charles Murray, Richard Vedder and others. Hat tip to Arnold Kling.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on November 10, 2009 at 01:35 PM in Economics, Education | Permalink
Comments
By the same logic, isn't reading blogs such as MR also a waste of output?
Posted by: libert at Nov 10, 2009 1:46:36 PM
I was looking for numbers on the Nordic countries. I didn't find anything current, but I suspect accept fewer college freshmen but fully subsidize more of them. I think our mix might be off ... especially when we graduate too many, with the wrong degrees, and with high college loan balances.
Posted by: odograph at Nov 10, 2009 1:46:42 PM
"By the same logic, isn't reading blogs such as MR also a waste of output?"
Is the government subsidizing you to read MR for 4 years instead of working/acquiring skills?
Posted by: tom at Nov 10, 2009 2:04:39 PM
reading blogs doesn't cost you over $100,000.
Posted by: charlie at Nov 10, 2009 2:06:55 PM
If it's such a waste, then how come employers seem to value it so highly? "Credentialing" or "signaling" is not an answer it's a restatement of the question.
If you believe in the wisdom of the markets, then it makes more sense to ask what students learn in college that isn't specifically related to their coursework.
Posted by: bjk at Nov 10, 2009 2:13:23 PM
Does anyone know where Murray's comment about only 10-15% of the nation's youth having the requisite intellectual ability comes from?
Posted by: anon at Nov 10, 2009 2:21:26 PM
Over-education is a market failure. Industrial psychologists have known for years that general intelligence tests, job knowledge tests, and personality tests (though imperfect) are all vastly better predictors of job performance than years of education, letters of recommendation, or interviews (structured and unstructured). Yet most employers care a great deal more about the last three than about the objective tests. Humans are reluctant to trust objective tests over "expert" opinion, and high status affiliations.
Like many other market failures, over-education is subsidized in a big way by government.
Posted by: kevin at Nov 10, 2009 2:29:33 PM
I think Bryan would make the point stronger by expressing it in comparative terms. People do learn things of value in going to college, but how much more so than in not going?
The college years are formative years, and a lot will be learned during them no matter what. Saying that college goers don't learn stuff is very misleading.
Posted by: Daniel Klein at Nov 10, 2009 2:29:43 PM
I think Murray is assuming at least an 115 IQ.
Posted by: bjk at Nov 10, 2009 2:31:50 PM
"If it's such a waste, then how come employers seem to value it so highly? "Credentialing" or "signaling" is not an answer it's a restatement of the question."
They are forbidden to use general intelligence tests that would be a much cheaper way of getting the same results. As a result of this restriction, the college equilibrium may be the most efficient solution.
Posted by: PeterW at Nov 10, 2009 2:37:00 PM
then why do so many foreign students study in the US? are they inframarginal? how big is the margin? is an american college education just a means to an end, an american job?
Posted by: samson at Nov 10, 2009 2:47:53 PM
Caplan may be right at the high end. Probably most Harvard students would do just fine even without the degree. I think the idea that college is mostly signaling is ridiculous at the low end. My low-end college students need lots of work on very basic things like reading and writing skills, which will pay off in almost any work field. These are often not the kinds of things one learns well "on the job."
Also, having lived in areas with a relatively high average education level and areas with a low level, the difference is really apparent in almost every aspect of public life. Higher average education levels improve quality of life for everyone.
Posted by: bp at Nov 10, 2009 2:48:09 PM
They are forbidden to use general intelligence tests that would be a much cheaper way of getting the same results.
A Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Princeton degree means that you not only have an IQ north of 135 but you're also a type-a, perfectionist, work-a-holic. You wouldn't want to hire a bunch of 150 IQs (based on a test) only to find that they are lazy, sloppy and unmotivated.
Posted by: jmo at Nov 10, 2009 2:48:22 PM
They are forbidden to use general intelligence tests that would be a much cheaper way of getting the same results.
A Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Princeton degree means that you not only have an IQ north of 135 but you're also a type-a, perfectionist, work-a-holic. You wouldn't want to hire a bunch of 150 IQs (based on a test) only to find that they are lazy, sloppy and unmotivated.
Posted by: jmo at Nov 10, 2009 2:48:36 PM
A Stanford, ..., Harvard, Princeton degree means that you not only have an IQ north of 135 but you're also a type-a, perfectionist, work-a-holic.
Unless you're a legacy. But then, for those folks all those other attributes are pretty irrelevant.
Posted by: bartman at Nov 10, 2009 2:59:30 PM
Wait, don't people like going to college?
Posted by: Jim at Nov 10, 2009 3:03:16 PM
"If it's such a waste, then how come employers seem to value it so highly?"
It's a Nash equilibrium.
Posted by: josh at Nov 10, 2009 3:03:58 PM
Unless you're a legacy.
I'd have to think that the pool of potential legacies is deep enough that they never have to dip much below 130 when trying to meet the legacy quota.
Posted by: jmo at Nov 10, 2009 3:04:40 PM
Bryan's comments are very much major-specific, and career-specific. If you're planning on being a physicist, college is in fact a good investment and you will in fact likely learn things and gain experience directly relevant to your work. Ditto for other hard sciences, engineering, mathematics.
If he's arguing that the classic liberal arts education doesn't provide useful job skills, then I think that's pretty much a given... It might or might now provide critical analysis skills. If you're bright enough to make use of them, that is. For the top several percent, a classic liberal arts education can be wonderful, if done right, both in terms of personal fulfillment and skills gained.
Posted by: Boris at Nov 10, 2009 3:19:49 PM
Well I guess Caplan knows the true value of what he is teaching his students.
Posted by: spencer at Nov 10, 2009 3:25:19 PM
another thing about colleges
http://barbarafrankonline.com/blog.php/2009/10/19/another-dirty-secret-about-college/
Posted by: winston smith at Nov 10, 2009 3:39:52 PM
I had a job interview which included the question "what was the most valuable thing you learned in college?" My reply was "give the Dean's secretary roses on her birthday."
I have, however, gotten two jobs that I wasn't qualified for on the weight of having a degree (in an irrelevant subject) from University of Virginia. For the bookkeeping job, I left the interview, got some texts, and got qualified by Monday morning.
Posted by: Laserlight at Nov 10, 2009 3:47:32 PM
As long as college is the way to produce good grandchildren, parents will still pay for their kids to go to college, regardless of what appears nonsensical from a career standpoint. Assortative mating is the name of the game.
Posted by: Allison at Nov 10, 2009 3:51:36 PM
the key then is to get highschool graduation rates down. guidance counselors should start encouraging skipping class, bringing drugs to school, etc. (i knew in my heart that everything they told me was wrong)
Posted by: rob at Nov 10, 2009 4:00:15 PM
I'm guessing alot of the people who go to Stanford and Harvard didn't work so hard to get there. The smarter you are, the less you have to work.
Posted by: bjk at Nov 10, 2009 4:04:15 PM
