4 ms·

There is a great deal of information (in studies and research) that shows post-secondary schooling is a good investment for the individual, but that does not me

by nickff 10y ago

There is a great deal of information (in studies and research) that shows post-secondary schooling is a good investment for the individual, but that does not mean that increasing the average amount of schooling is good for the country. A number of people are now making the argument that greater 'educational' achievement is mostly just signalling status, intelligence, socialization, and work ethic, not actually teaching people anything useful. If this view is correct, increasing the amount of education that the average citizen receives is just wasting their time (as most people do not enjoy their time in class), at great expense to them and the average taxpayer.[1] [1] http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/02/why_the_college.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/02/why_the_college.... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)

drabiega 10y ago
> If this view is correct, increasing the amount of education that the average citizen receives is just wasting their time (as most people do not enjoy their time in class), at great expense to them and the average taxpayer.[1] Even accepting your first premise, this does not follow. Even if degrees are 100% signalling and 0% actual education, it's still the right choice for the individual because that signalling has value. The alternative is that people who have the positive qualities that are signaled but not the money for the degree cannot get the jobs which require those characteristics and have good pay.
- nickff 10y ago
  Subsidizing a signal serves to make the signal more expensive, and does not increase its utility; all Western governments are subsidizing education, and hurting their citizenries by doing so. Some proponents of the signalling theory have gone as far as to advocate for a tax on education.
dharma1 10y ago
I think that is very country specific, and depends on the quality of the education too. Educating scientists and engineers (and other valued professions, like teachers who all have higher education) definitely improved the productivity of Nordic countries - and allowed them to build high tech industries relatively quickly.

by nickff 10y ago

drabiega 10y ago

> If this view is correct, increasing the amount of education that the average citizen receives is just wasting their time (as most people do not enjoy their time in class), at great expense to them and the average taxpayer.[1] Even accepting your first premise, this does not follow. Even if degrees are 100% signalling and 0% actual education, it's still the right choice for the individual because that signalling has value. The alternative is that people who have the positive qualities that are signaled but not the money for the degree cannot get the jobs which require those characteristics and have good pay.

nickff 10y ago
Subsidizing a signal serves to make the signal more expensive, and does not increase its utility; all Western governments are subsidizing education, and hurting their citizenries by doing so. Some proponents of the signalling theory have gone as far as to advocate for a tax on education.

dharma1 10y ago

I think that is very country specific, and depends on the quality of the education too. Educating scientists and engineers (and other valued professions, like teachers who all have higher education) definitely improved the productivity of Nordic countries - and allowed them to build high tech industries relatively quickly.