When I write, I doggedly search for ways to make my point compelling. But here’s a fine slogan I didn’t hit upon until months after the publication of The Case Against Education:
Education is a passport to the real training.
The “real training,” as I’ve already explained, primarily occurs on-the-job. By doing. You don’t learn how to fly a plane by listening to lectures on flying theory – or deploying the “critical thinking” skills you gained by writing essays on Shakespeare. You learn to fly a plane by getting in a flight simulator (or later, a cockpit) and listening to a flight instructor tell you what you’re doing wrong. The same goes for almost any job… except Shakespeare scholar.
What’s bizarre about our society is that kids have to spend a decade-plus in the Land of School to get the credentials they need to gain entry to the Land of Work. Once they arrive, they can finally learn how to do something real. Until then, they just have to keep polishing their passport applications. And tragically, whenever the average application gets shinier, employers’ main response is to raise standards – not issue extra passports.
Is there a better way? Of course: End schooling sooner! Once kids no longer need daycare, why not leapfrog over the fake training of the classroom to the real training of the workplace? Why not?!
READER COMMENTS
Barry R. Tuwentry
Nov 1 2018 at 4:03pm
Hi Bryan,
You write here about the benefits of entering the workplace. But your book is about the overestimated benefits of schooling. It seems that a more direct conclusion of your point is that barriers to entering the workforce should be reduced. Subsidies to education increase the opportunity cost of joining the workforce, but they are hardly the main barrier. If all labor regulations were eliminated, how far would that go to reducing wasted time and money spent on college education, in your opinion?
AlexR
Nov 1 2018 at 4:20pm
I think there is some truth to the signaling hypothesis, but it does not follow that it would be unilaterally optimal for anyone to opt out of a college degree. We might be in a “bad equilibrium” in which getting a degree doesn’t inherently signal quality, but because virtually everyone believes that everyone else believes this to be true, opting out generates a bad signal anyway–similar to Peter Leeson’s idea that medieval trials by ordeal helped determine guilt or innocence because they were believed. (The same is likely true for the modern version–polygraph tests.)
In any case, I don’t see the signaling hypothesis applying beyond liberal arts degrees, and it may not apply as well in the future as it has in the past. For example, real skills are learned in computer science classes, skills that will be essential on day 1 of any programming job. Now, you might ask why all those skills aren’t obtained on the job instead. That’s a reasonable question, but no different from any other question about vertical integration. Presumably (channeling Coase) the transaction costs to Google training programmers entirely in-house are higher than outsourcing some of these services to a university (or private training company).
One of the startling trends that’s gone under the radar is that, since 2008, there’s been a massive shift across colleges in students’ choice of major from liberal arts toward meatier subjects like engineering, computer science, data science, math, physics, etc. It’s intriguing to think that the Great Recession may have nudged education toward a “better equilibrium.”
nobody.really
Nov 1 2018 at 5:57pm
What is the difference between consumption and investment? Yes, I’m addressing Caplan’s point, but bear with me.
Consumption provides utility in the present; investment provides the hope of utility in the future. But these are not discrete phenomenon, because some things achieve both outcomes. Buying a house generates the benefits of consumption AND investment, because it gives me utility now AND in the future. But home-buying is a lumpy kind of investment: People make a purchase at a point in time, trying to predict what level of consumption may seem optimal in the future, with limited by the capital/credit constraints of their current circumstances. If you are ever going to add that porch or refurbish that kitchen, the optimal time is as soon as you buy the house—precisely when you will likely have maxed out your borrowing capacity.
Likewise, a vacation generates the benefits of both consumption and investment: It gives you pleasure in the moment AND a stream of happy memories into the future. Arguably, the optimal time to take a vacation is as young as possible, consistent with being at an appropriate developmental age; vacationing as a 2-yr-old may not be so rewarding.
Now, let’s talk about “appropriate developmental age.” Because there comes a time in a young person’s life when he or she feels the need to separate from parents and affiliate with peers. Perhaps coincidentally, this is also a time he or she starts wanting to have sex. An enormous amount of our literature focuses on people at these ages; it seems to be an optimal time for creating memories. Memories to last a lifetime, one might say.
Hypothesis: College evolved as a means by which affluent parents sent their young men (yes, historically men) on a four-year vacation with their peers to gain memories with which to enrich themselves for the rest of their lives. Education was one type of gratification made available to the young men. The idea that this education might also be remunerative, and thus the central focus, only came later—a kind of Protestant Work Ethic fig-leaf to justify the adventure to others.
Caplan criticizes college education because of the loose nexus between the institution and the stated educational objective. But the stated objective was always a pretext—at least as applied to the affluent. Thus, Caplan’s proposals for better conforming the institution of college to its stated objectives misses the (admittedly unstated) point.
But today, many people who are NOT affluent ape the behaviors of the affluent, thinking (because they have been told) that this is the road to affluence. (And often their expectations are fulfilled—if only by happenstance.) Caplan’s proposals might better address their objectives.
But the irony is that, as less-affluent people actually succeed at achieving affluence, they come to value the same “superior goods” that the affluent do. Yet one kind of superior good—a lifetime of happy memories achieved in the early 20s—may be forever denied to the scrappy social climber who takes Caplan’s advice and invests his early years only in “productive” activities. Caplan’s measure of productivity take no account of the value of these memories.
Komori
Nov 2 2018 at 6:22pm
If your hypothesis is correct, there is no reason at all to support universities with tax money. I suspect the universities will deny this is a possibility.
nobody.really
Nov 3 2018 at 7:27am
You fascinating question, transcending the current topic: The definition of rationality is the logical pursuit of an objective. In public policy, what should be the objective?
For example, mercantilism is a policy designed to promote selling and discourage buying. Mercantilism is widely disparaged by economists, yet still beloved by laymen (such as Donald Trump). It seems to appeal to a Protestant Work Ethic of industry and self-denial–and perhaps the love of measurable results at the expense of non-measurable results. In contrast, words such as hedonism–the forthright pursuit of utility without pretext–carry a negative connotation.
More generally, if we design public policy around Homo Economus–the stylized agent seeking to maximize her utility–should we design public policy to actually maximize utility? Or should we design public policy to maximize one step removed–to maximize wealth, with which a person might THEN seek to maximize utility to the best of her ability?
Homo Economus has been told to maximize the returns on her economic activities, and then uses the proceeds to maximize her utility. Thus, the Homo Economus apple farmer dutifully sells all her apples into the market (at wholesale prices) to maximize her return–and later buys apples (at higher, retail prices) for her own consumption (utility). Clearly, sometimes this two-step optimization produces worse results than simply optimizing for utility directly.
The US government compels taxpayers to finance Grand Canyon National Park. If you haven’t gone, I must encourage a visit. It’s awesome–that is, inspiring awe–and I know of no picture or movie that duplicates the experience. Yet I must warn you: The experience will not likely put a nickle in your pocket. It’s pure utility, without any intervening step of wealth-maximization. And from this fact, should we conclude that Grand Canyon National Park–and, by extension, all public parks, art museums, the National Institute of Arts, etc.–reflect a misuse of public funds?
Mark Brophy
Nov 5 2018 at 7:18pm
Yes, we the Grand Canyon National Park and all public parks, art museums, and the National Institute of Arts, are a misuse of public funds. Since we have an enormous budget deficit, it should be easy to eliminate this spending. The federal government shouldn’t manage entertainment businesses to compete against the private sector. Why does the federal government subsidize art museums but subsidize sports teams much less? Is it because art museums are entertainment patronized by the rich people who give money to candidates for federal offices?
nobody.really
Nov 6 2018 at 2:05am
‘Cuz state and local governments already provide ample subsidies?
That said, the federal tax code exempted MLB from taxes until 2007, and the NFL from taxes until 2015. So there’s that.
robc
Nov 6 2018 at 10:20am
You are assuming we should have a public policy. I prefer 325 million private policies.
I think the case needs to be made that a public policy should exist before we discuss what it should be, and I have never heard a good argument in favor of one.
Ahmed Fares
Nov 2 2018 at 2:41am
One of the problems with human capital is that it belongs to the worker, not the business which created it. A business may try to reduce the risk of loss with non-compete clauses, insuring valuable workers, etc.
That makes investing in human capital risky for a business. Better to let the workers take the risk.
I believe this is the main reason why businesses are reluctant to provide training.
Norman
Nov 2 2018 at 7:41am
“You don’t learn how to fly a plane by listening to lectures on flying theory.” Is that true? I don’t know how to fly a plane, but I would have imagined that there are some lectures on flight theory involved. I am pretty sure that aspiring surgeons have to listen to some lectures on circulatory theory before they start cutting. I once took a half day course on how to use a chain saw, and we started with a half hour lecture on chain saw principles before the instructor let us start the saw. Perhaps medical schools are also doing it wrong, and they should hand the knife over as soon as the kids leave daycare. But my recollection of your book is that you did allow that there may be some utility to university instruction in at least some fields, such as engineering. I’m not sure that overstating your case will make it more compelling. I’m inclined to agree with AlexR that the signaling theory is most persuasive as applied to liberal arts degrees.
BC
Nov 2 2018 at 10:22am
“What’s bizarre about our society is that kids have to spend a decade-plus in the Land of School to get the credentials they need to gain entry to the Land of Work.”
It’s not so bizarre if people are differentiated in their ability and willingness to acquire skills through “real training”. Perhaps, it really does take a decade-plus to reveal information about a candidate’s persistence, conscientiousness, etc. Education would be an effective signal only if there is truly some underlying information to signal. If such information is non-rivalrous — many employers can simultaneously benefit from the information when selecting candidates for “real training” — then what would Caplan’s solution be for generating that information?
Comments are closed.