4 ms·

Caplan is talking about all education, but he says each kind has different value. In short he believes k-12 is useful as daycare, and college is useful as a sig

Caplan is talking about all education, but he says each kind has different value. In short he believes k-12 is useful as daycare, and college is useful as a signal of how smart and hard working and conformist you are. He believes those benefits are not worth the massive subsidies. Moreover, the signalling thing doesn't work if everyone is pushed to go to college because it turns into a Red Queen's race. He praises vocational schools in some other countries, where only a minority of students go to college and therefore employers don't demand college degrees for simple jobs like they do in the US. The spreadsheet he mentions, that he complains nobody ever looked at, includes the costs and benefits to both society and individuals. I didn't read the spreadsheet either, but in the book he says that the cost-benefit analysis is positive for smart individuals (if you can go to college and get a degree you should go, for selfish financial reasons) but negative for societies because of all the subsidies.

cycomanic 5y ago
So what is his argument to dismiss the high correlation between many economic indicators and education spending both historically and geographically? I had a look at the spreadsheets but I don't clearly see what are the factors that go into his calculation of benefit to society calculation except for crime rates. I mean how about R&D necessary to grow the economy, competitive advantages for attracting immigrants, participation in democracy ...
- saint_fiasco 5y ago
  The usual argument when a correlation goes against your theory is to say "aha! but what if the causation goes the other way?" and that's pretty much what the author does. He sees higher education as a luxury good. Something that rich societies do when they become rich, because they are rich. If you look at some of the top comments in this thread you might see some evidence in favor of his position. Most people are not trying to justify education spending because of practical concerns about growing the economy and attracting skilled immigrants[1]. They are saying that education has a higher value that cannot be measured in traditional economic terms[2]. [1] By the way, hasn't higher education traditionally been used to restrict immigration? They don't let you work in many rich countries if you don't have a college degree, and some rich countries have point-based systems that deduct points if you don't have a college degree. That sounds a lot like college attracts skilled immigrants, but if you look at the glass half empty it also discourages a lot of skilled immigrants who for some reason or another can't get a college degree. [2] The author then spends many pages discussing social desirability bias and how people are reluctant to argue against maximizing spending for good things even long after the good thing reaches diminishing returns.
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    The problem with the argument of turning around the causality is that there are several examples of countries to have spend significantly on education to then move out of poverty, i.e. where the poverty only reduced after the focus on education. I think you need to come up with some convincing cases that show why the causality should be reversed. Regarding education being a luxury good, I agree you could argue that some of the comments here consider it that. However, that does not mean it is this way from a societies point of view. Regarding your points: [1] My argument was more, that immigrants typically try to go to places where they envision a better future, for themselves, but importantly also for their children. Thus a society that offers good education for future children is obviously attractive. I do agree that education is used as a restriction to immigration, or better more modern societies do not have so much need for unskilled labor, but want skilled immigrants. I guess another point for getting an education, it lets you emigrate to other countries much more easily. [2] Sure, that's a general point about everything not just education. However, it is also still unclear if we have reached diminishing returns for education.
    - mst 5y ago
      It seems quite plausible to me that both of these can be true at the same time: - A certain baseline level of education will make a massive difference, especially e.g. literacy education in a society where parents are almost all illiterate so organic transfer of literacy skills across generations isn't really a thing. - Much current education spending in first world countries is providing a truly terrible return on investment.

cycomanic 5y ago

So what is his argument to dismiss the high correlation between many economic indicators and education spending both historically and geographically? I had a look at the spreadsheets but I don't clearly see what are the factors that go into his calculation of benefit to society calculation except for crime rates. I mean how about R&D necessary to grow the economy, competitive advantages for attracting immigrants, participation in democracy ...

saint_fiasco 5y ago
The usual argument when a correlation goes against your theory is to say "aha! but what if the causation goes the other way?" and that's pretty much what the author does. He sees higher education as a luxury good. Something that rich societies do when they become rich, because they are rich. If you look at some of the top comments in this thread you might see some evidence in favor of his position. Most people are not trying to justify education spending because of practical concerns about growing the economy and attracting skilled immigrants[1]. They are saying that education has a higher value that cannot be measured in traditional economic terms[2]. [1] By the way, hasn't higher education traditionally been used to restrict immigration? They don't let you work in many rich countries if you don't have a college degree, and some rich countries have point-based systems that deduct points if you don't have a college degree. That sounds a lot like college attracts skilled immigrants, but if you look at the glass half empty it also discourages a lot of skilled immigrants who for some reason or another can't get a college degree. [2] The author then spends many pages discussing social desirability bias and how people are reluctant to argue against maximizing spending for good things even long after the good thing reaches diminishing returns.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  The problem with the argument of turning around the causality is that there are several examples of countries to have spend significantly on education to then move out of poverty, i.e. where the poverty only reduced after the focus on education. I think you need to come up with some convincing cases that show why the causality should be reversed. Regarding education being a luxury good, I agree you could argue that some of the comments here consider it that. However, that does not mean it is this way from a societies point of view. Regarding your points: [1] My argument was more, that immigrants typically try to go to places where they envision a better future, for themselves, but importantly also for their children. Thus a society that offers good education for future children is obviously attractive. I do agree that education is used as a restriction to immigration, or better more modern societies do not have so much need for unskilled labor, but want skilled immigrants. I guess another point for getting an education, it lets you emigrate to other countries much more easily. [2] Sure, that's a general point about everything not just education. However, it is also still unclear if we have reached diminishing returns for education.
  - mst 5y ago
    It seems quite plausible to me that both of these can be true at the same time: - A certain baseline level of education will make a massive difference, especially e.g. literacy education in a society where parents are almost all illiterate so organic transfer of literacy skills across generations isn't really a thing. - Much current education spending in first world countries is providing a truly terrible return on investment.