The Financial Times is one of my favorite newspapers, with lots of good columnists. Rana Foroohar is my least favorite FT columnist. Her columns often attack neoliberalism by citing lots of economic problems that are in fact caused by counterproductive government regulations.
Foroohar recently posted a brief review of a book entitled, The Death of Public School. The first two sentences contain four important errors—can you spot them?
Education used to be a way to get ahead in America. But the defunding of public schools and the rise of private education is increasing, rather than reducing the wealth divide.
1. When I was young, blue color workers often made as much as college professors. My first job as a professor (in 1981) paid $19,300. At the time, there were UAW autoworkers at Michigan plants earning more than that. The obsession with getting into the top schools was much less pronounced in the 20th century, as the education/income gradient was much flatter than today. Thus, the first sentence in Foroohar’s review gets things exactly backward. Education is now a much more important way to get ahead than in earlier decades.
2. Not only have American public schools not been “defunded,” spending on public education has risen over time, even in real terms (and as a share of GDP). Spending in the US is high when compared to other developed countries. Spending is especially high in poor neighborhoods in some of our biggest cities. The quality of education at a given school depends largely on whether the students at that school come from families that emphasize education, not dollars spent. So Foroohar’s second claim is incorrect.
3. There is no “rise of private education” in the US. The Huffington Post reports that:
Proportion of U.S. Students in Private Schools is 10 Percent and Declining
Here’s the graph they provide:
4. And since private education is not on the rise, it hardly seems likely that the rise of private education is increasing the wealth gap.
Well meaning people can have different interpretations of recent trends. But any discussion of those trends should be based on rigorous facts, not lazy clichés.
READER COMMENTS
vince
Jun 23 2023 at 2:57pm
And, of course, *how* the money is spent.
Scott Sumner
Jun 23 2023 at 4:29pm
Sure, but even that is much less a factor than student attitudes.
john hare
Jun 23 2023 at 5:40pm
Many teachers including my daughter in law have mentioned that the students least in need of help had parents showing up for meetings. And they have also pointed out that the students most in need of help had AWOL parents.
Dylan
Jun 23 2023 at 9:06pm
This seems to be akin to saying that the price of TVs has gone down, so there is no inflation.
This piece says that both the college income and wealth premium have been declining.
https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/review/2019/10/15/is-college-still-worth-it-the-new-calculus-of-falling-returns.pdf
On the point of rising private school education, I’m speculating that they are focused on non-religious schools and the higher percentage of wealthy families that send their kids to one of these “expensive” private schools vs. “cheap” Catholic schools where middle class and poorer families would often send their kids in decades past.
Brandon Berg
Jun 24 2023 at 2:07am
The college wealth premium for people born in the 1980s in 2016 was lower than previous generations for at least a few reasons:
People born in the 1980s were about 30 +/- 5 years old in 2016, so many still had student loan debt to pay off, or had only recently paid it off. Even if their wealth trajectory was higher than previous generations, they were starting from a lower intercept. By now, Millennials have caught up with Boomers in terms of inflation- and age-adjusted per-capita net worth
Millennial college graduates, especially terminal bachelor’s graduates, are a less highly self-selected group than college graduates from earlier generations. A much larger share of top students now go on to graduate or professional school.
They also come from less wealthy families on average. It used to be that only rich kids went to college. Now about 2/3 go for at least a semester or two, and IIRC about 40% eventually get a degree. So on average they’re getting less parental support than earlier generations of terminal bachelor’s graduates.
Dylan
Jun 24 2023 at 8:03am
All good points. Note, that the piece I linked to explicitly controls for age related asset accumulation.
I think your point about cohort composition is stronger. Note, I wasn’t trying to suggest that education wasn’t important, just that the evidence that Scott presents for this statement “Education is now a much more important way to get ahead than in earlier decades.” is particularly weak by his standards, and that there are credible sources suggesting the opposite.
Scott Sumner
Jun 24 2023 at 11:22pm
“This seems to be akin to saying that the price of TVs has gone down, so there is no inflation.”
Sorry, but I just don’t see any connection. Care to explain?
As for your other point, I believe that the wage gap between blue-color workers and professionals has expanded greatly since the 1960s, at least according to most of the studies that I’ve seen. Brandon’s point about more people now going to college may bias the data.
Dylan
Jun 25 2023 at 11:01am
Apologies I wasn’t clear. All I meant was that you presented one variable, that starting salaries for college professors have gone up in relation to UAW workers over the last 40 years. From that you derive a general conclusion that education is much more important to get ahead now then it was back then. In fairness, you follow that example with a broader claim about incomes being much flatter back then then now, but without any further evidence.
This went against what I thought I’d heard about falling education premiums, so I did a quick search and came up with the study I linked to. Which shows that income premiums for those with a BA have mostly held steady (when controlling for demographic factors) but the wealth premium has decreased.
Yes, I agree that there are demographic changes in composition that make analysis more nuanced, but that doesn’t change the overall picture and seems to contradict your claim that education is more important than ever.
Jim Glass
Jun 23 2023 at 10:29pm
NYC public schools new contract: 20% raise, salaries now going from $75,000 to $151,000, plus the greatest benefits ever, for nine months a year, sabbatical years, *total, utter* job security (those who commit the very worst offenses get taken out of the classroom and sit doing nothing at full pay in ‘rubber rooms’)…
My kids are out of school now so I admit this underfunding doesn’t bother me so much.
Michael Sandifer
Jun 23 2023 at 11:24pm
I agree on the FT and I like to entertain contrary views, some of which can be very enlightening. I don’t find that Rana Foroohar adds much of substance to topics she addresses though, so I agree with you there too. I’ve also listened to her on podcasts, and usually find myself frustrated that obvious counter-arguments are not being made.
Perhaps she’s employed by the FT as a provocateur. I assume she is widely read, hence her position there.
One thing I miss about old media, being in my upper 40s, was how much more often contrary views were offered on the same broadcast, and sometimes, even articles. I can’t see how anything like an equal time doctrine could be enforced today, and am not even suggesting it was a good rule, but I do miss the contrasting views approach.
Comments are closed.