5 ms·

This massively misrepresents Tim Bartik's work on the topic. Bartik wrote a long thread here:Check out @TimBartik’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/TimBartik/status/

This massively misrepresents Tim Bartik's work on the topic. Bartik wrote a long thread here:Check out @TimBartik’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/TimBartik/status/996865804179263489?s=09 https://twitter.com/TimBartik/status/996865804179263489?s=09

sologoub 8y ago
Reading the article I thought to myself that it’s a crappy piece that oversimplifies the complex landscape and tries to draw sensationalist conclusions... but after reading the Tweeter thread by the very scientist who’s work is cited, the article looks intentionally false and a retraction worthy. Instead of saying that college is not worth it, why don’t we do MORE to make it free? Even if people don’t end up using their knowledge fully, simply giving them the opportunity to have that knowledge may enrich their lives. There aren’t social downsides to free education (so long as it’s not censored).
- stevenwoo 8y ago
  It's an opinion piece so based on what I've read in the NYT(or the WSJ, doesn't matter the ostensible political leanings of the paper in question) there will never be a retraction and the editorial board will double down on backing the editorial.
- sigstoat 8y ago
  > Instead of saying that college is not worth it, why don’t we do MORE to make it free? you don't make things more cost effective by changing who pays for them. you just get more people taking advantage of the cost ineffective good.
  - sologoub 8y ago
    The article states nothing of the cost inefficiency, that is cost of producing the good or service. Instead, the article tries to claim that the price of education makes it a questionable investment, given the monetary returns. Higher education can and is being delivered at reasonable costs across much of the developed world, with many countries choosing to have taxpayers carry the burden of funding education. This common-pool resource approach (that is non-excludable, but still rivalrous) to education does not prevent private education that exists as a private good (that is both excludable and rivalrous), but it does ensure a baseline. As a society, we have decided that certain things should not be left to market forces, because either the outcomes are morally objectionable to the majority of the population (welfare for example), or we see a greater overall economic return on investment by doing it en mass (healthcare, education, etc). Healthcare is especially interesting - if we leave it completely to market, we will likely have return of pandemics that are currently being kept at by via vaccinations and mass treatment. If we allow an economic driver to avoid this care, the diseases we largely think of as extinct can return. Education can be thought of in the same view - if we provide everyone with a solid baseline, and support future growth regardless of economic background, it is likely that we will reduce the negative effects lack of education currently has on society. Removing the debts will also help and provide a huge social benefit, as well as spur additional economic activity.
    - sanxiyn 8y ago
      > we will reduce the negative effects lack of education currently has on society. Such as...? While I lament innumeracy of people for example, I observe even educated people are mostly innumerate. I am pessimistic problems attributed to lack of education will be solved by education because education is so ineffective.
- sanxiyn 8y ago
  Of course there are social downsides to free education! Education may become free for you, but it will not become free for the society.

sologoub 8y ago

Reading the article I thought to myself that it’s a crappy piece that oversimplifies the complex landscape and tries to draw sensationalist conclusions... but after reading the Tweeter thread by the very scientist who’s work is cited, the article looks intentionally false and a retraction worthy. Instead of saying that college is not worth it, why don’t we do MORE to make it free? Even if people don’t end up using their knowledge fully, simply giving them the opportunity to have that knowledge may enrich their lives. There aren’t social downsides to free education (so long as it’s not censored).

stevenwoo 8y ago
It's an opinion piece so based on what I've read in the NYT(or the WSJ, doesn't matter the ostensible political leanings of the paper in question) there will never be a retraction and the editorial board will double down on backing the editorial.
sigstoat 8y ago
> Instead of saying that college is not worth it, why don’t we do MORE to make it free? you don't make things more cost effective by changing who pays for them. you just get more people taking advantage of the cost ineffective good.
- sologoub 8y ago
  The article states nothing of the cost inefficiency, that is cost of producing the good or service. Instead, the article tries to claim that the price of education makes it a questionable investment, given the monetary returns. Higher education can and is being delivered at reasonable costs across much of the developed world, with many countries choosing to have taxpayers carry the burden of funding education. This common-pool resource approach (that is non-excludable, but still rivalrous) to education does not prevent private education that exists as a private good (that is both excludable and rivalrous), but it does ensure a baseline. As a society, we have decided that certain things should not be left to market forces, because either the outcomes are morally objectionable to the majority of the population (welfare for example), or we see a greater overall economic return on investment by doing it en mass (healthcare, education, etc). Healthcare is especially interesting - if we leave it completely to market, we will likely have return of pandemics that are currently being kept at by via vaccinations and mass treatment. If we allow an economic driver to avoid this care, the diseases we largely think of as extinct can return. Education can be thought of in the same view - if we provide everyone with a solid baseline, and support future growth regardless of economic background, it is likely that we will reduce the negative effects lack of education currently has on society. Removing the debts will also help and provide a huge social benefit, as well as spur additional economic activity.
  - sanxiyn 8y ago
    > we will reduce the negative effects lack of education currently has on society. Such as...? While I lament innumeracy of people for example, I observe even educated people are mostly innumerate. I am pessimistic problems attributed to lack of education will be solved by education because education is so ineffective.
sanxiyn 8y ago
Of course there are social downsides to free education! Education may become free for you, but it will not become free for the society.