9 ms·

Does Education Matter? Tests from Extensions of Schooling in 1919-22, 47 and 72

32 points by barry-cotter 4y ago

WalterBright 4y ago
Undergraduate education mattered a lot to me. But of course, I chose to go, it wasn't compulsory.
- epgui 4y ago
  Same here. I am always dismayed at anti-intellectual perspectives and approaches to education. My view is perhaps a bit of a "no true Scotsman", but I think if we're not measuring positive outcomes from more education, we're either not educating effectively, or we're not measuring the right outcomes. It's also admittedly true that it will almost certainly never be possible to "properly educate" everyone, but I do think we'd do a heck of a lot better if society valued "education for the sake of education" as much as it valued the Superbowl, or the Kardashians, or whatever mindless vacuous thing is hot on TikTok these days. What the heck happened to being curious about the magical wonders of the world? Why do people not care about science, maths and technology? It boggles and frustrates my mind!
  - rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
    My theory is that people who are parroting anti-intellectualist sentiments are really just reacting to socioeconomic inequality and academic elitism, but I fully agree with you that it’s an unfortunate, far more self-destructive response.
  - iratewizard 4y ago
    I personally think your perspective is a "sour grapes" about adult daycare. Why does the world need gatekeepers of the world's curiosities? How can they justify their six figure pricetag when the numbers skew so heavily towards "bad investment"? Framing it as "either you get a degree or you're a Superbowl Kardashian pleb" is the most midwit redditor take you could possibly have.
    - epgui 4y ago
      That's quite possibly the most ungenerous interpretation of my actual take. Was I that unclear?
  - imtringued 4y ago
    Why do people not care about a bureaucrats preconceived notions of science, maths and technology? It doesn't boggle anyone's mind.
    - epgui 4y ago
      Who said anything about bureaucrats?
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    There was a lot of anti-intellectualism in the US at the time. You know, doing well on a test and other students would say "nerd alert nerd alert". The nerd in the movies always had his glasses taped together and was always asked to "say that again in English" and of course they didn't win the girl. But people like me simply did not care. I remember instances of finally understanding something, and the feeling that somebody had suddenly turned the lights on.
- throwaway0asd 4y ago
  The benefits of higher education appear to depend more upon the student than the curriculum or quality of instructors. I know that must sound elitist but like everything else in life it’s measurable and exceedingly predictable against intelligence, interest, and personality metrics. This is compounded given that below a given threshold a student is incapable of appreciating the difference between education and trade school.
  - czstar 4y ago
    Some people just aren’t capable of learning advanced concepts. It is obvious that this is so but saying this in higher education circles is akin to burning a Koran in Mecca.
    - gedy 4y ago
      I agree, but wondering where this "blank slate" belief comes from and how it persists?
      - raarts 4y ago
        "Other people have it better than me, I want that too, if I accept innate differences being the cause then it means I'll never get there which is unbearable. If all humans are born the same then I can declare the others malicious oppressors - which is a powerful moral weapon - and work from there. At least I'll have a chance to get some of what the others have".
        WalterBright 4y ago
        I always knew I'd never be a pro ball player nor an Air Force pilot, due to the innate configuration of my body. It wasn't unbearable. Everybody has different strengths and weaknesses. I find what I am suited for and exploit that.
      - czstar 4y ago
        In the U.S. a lot of emotions surrounding this topic come from racist policies/perceptions of the past. It’s hard to have an open conversation about this topic without someone resorting to name calling.
smitty1e 4y ago
For such questions, the costs and empirical results of social policies seem less significant than the intentions of those enacting the polices.
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  Can you expand on that? I don’t understand on what basis that could be true, unless it’s a purely aesthetic one.
  - smitty1e 4y ago
    A current piece of legislation in the U.S. is "The Inflation Reduction Act". Whether or not the real-world result of the policy would achieve even a modicum the stated intent has little impact on the package's likelihood of passage into law.
    - blippage 4y ago
      I'm from UK, so it's the first I've heard of this. It seems that their solution to curbing inflation is by spending money. Hmmm. The concept that you can battle inflation by passing laws strikes my as deluded in the extreme. Battling inflation comes from sound economic principles (that you learn from your mother, not some economist). You simply can't will away inflation. If you really want to battle inflation, just follow Warren Buffett's suggestion: you're no longer eligible for re-election if inflation exceeded 5% during your tenancy.
greatpostman 4y ago
Society will never admit that most behavior is genetic
- thatfrenchguy 4y ago
  Because it’s not true?
- ch4s3 4y ago
  People working in epigenetics would probably disagree, moreover while some genes are highly predictive their predictive power is usually not as high as people think.
- mrwh 4y ago
  Er, because we behave the same way as we did thousands of years ago? It's the fact that so much of our behaviour is cultural that's made humans such a success. An obvious corollary is the importance of education.
  - _aavaa_ 4y ago
    While I agree with you main argument, I think that it’s easy to equivocate between schooling and education. The linked study essentially does so in it’s very title.
    - mrwh 4y ago
      I don't have access to the full article itself, but isn't it testing the difference between compulsory schooling and a bit more compulsory schooling, rather than some school or none? To be sure, education is wider than school, but I find it difficult to believe that schooling doesn't make a profound difference, even if slightly more schooling shows diminishing returns.
      - _aavaa_ 4y ago
        It is. My point was that “compulsory schooling versus a bit more compulsory schooling” is what they are measuring and not “less educated vs more educated”. I too would expect a difference in outcomes between more and less compulsory schooling. But I would expect it from the non-education related impacts of it (I.e. de-facto childcare and keeping the kids/teens from engaging in as much long-term harmful activities)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
crackercrews 4y ago
Lots of data about this in The Case Against Education. [1] The basic argument is that much of education is signaling. It would be a better use of resources to let people signal more cheaply instead of getting degrees in subjects that do not teach them skills that are useful for jobs or life more generally. I disagreed with some of the harsher recommendations but found the data compelling. https://www.amazon.com/Case-against-Education-System-Waste/dp/0691174652 https://www.amazon.com/Case-against-Education-System-Waste/d...
- sanxiyn 4y ago
  My understanding of the argument of The Case Against Education is different. "Signaling cheaply" is a difficult problem because cost is part of signal. Consider: can people signal more cheaply instead of buying expensive wedding rings? Rather, the argument is that while wedding rings would always be somewhat expensive, currently it is too expensive because purchase of wedding rings is subsidized by public tax. So public subsidy of wedding rings should stop. Then it would be as expensive as needed to signal, instead of being crazy expensive, and public money won't be wasted.
  - crackercrews 4y ago
    Cost is an intrinsic part of the signal for diamond rings because the signal is "I care about you so much I will spend lots of money to prove it". But for job-readiness, the signal does not have to be costly. It could be accomplished with tests. That would prove ability. It would be harder to prove grit or endurance. But compensation packages could be adjusted to filter out people who are less likely to stick around.
sovietswag 4y ago
Many of us who like learning and view educational positively should read this: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-toward-the-destruction-of-schooling https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-toward-the...
dougmwne 4y ago
It surely matters some. We have a nearly 100% literate society. All people can work with the basic of numbers. All people have the basics of nationalistic myth making, which is a critical part of having a stable nation. People have lots of practice in following orders for small rewards. Not all that much is taught up through high school, but the things that are are important for raising the baseline, even just a little. As for College, it is a lot of signaling, but it also gives practice taking in lots of new information when the expectations of performance are much higher and much closer to that of a typical professional job. It takes that low bar of high school and adds onto it significantly, and the hope is that even if the information was not useful, the ability to assimilate a few books worth of information within in a few weeks of starting a new job will not be a new experience.
- axblount 4y ago
  I'm not sure where you're from, but in the US, literacy rates are definitely not near 100%. In the report below 8.2% we're functionally illiterate and unable to participate in the survey. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019179/index.asp https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019179/index.asp
  - dougmwne 4y ago
    Sort of proving my point since that page you linked states that non-us born people were more likely to be functionally illiterate in English. Makes sense since they would not have gone through 18 years of US schooling in English, but may be literate in their native language. Many countries have literacy rates near 100%. The European country I am in now has a 99% literacy rate.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      Among what subset of the population?
- sanxiyn 4y ago
  This study is specifically about extending compulsory schooling to age 14, 15, and 16. People are literate and can work with numbers by 13. If the benefit of high school is "raising the baseline just a little", we should ask ourselves whether "just a little" benefit justifies the cost. Education is not free, so it needs to move the needle. One way to measure the benefit is to look at outcomes of interest after long time has passed, so this study did that. There was no effect, casting doubt to earlier studies that found large effects. One strength of this study is that they work with complete data, unlike previous studies which mostly worked with sampled panels. This suggests sampling bias as a mechanism to explain previous studies.

32 points by barry-cotter 4y ago

WalterBright 4y ago

Undergraduate education mattered a lot to me. But of course, I chose to go, it wasn't compulsory.

epgui 4y ago
Same here. I am always dismayed at anti-intellectual perspectives and approaches to education. My view is perhaps a bit of a "no true Scotsman", but I think if we're not measuring positive outcomes from more education, we're either not educating effectively, or we're not measuring the right outcomes. It's also admittedly true that it will almost certainly never be possible to "properly educate" everyone, but I do think we'd do a heck of a lot better if society valued "education for the sake of education" as much as it valued the Superbowl, or the Kardashians, or whatever mindless vacuous thing is hot on TikTok these days. What the heck happened to being curious about the magical wonders of the world? Why do people not care about science, maths and technology? It boggles and frustrates my mind!
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 4y ago
  My theory is that people who are parroting anti-intellectualist sentiments are really just reacting to socioeconomic inequality and academic elitism, but I fully agree with you that it’s an unfortunate, far more self-destructive response.
- iratewizard 4y ago
  I personally think your perspective is a "sour grapes" about adult daycare. Why does the world need gatekeepers of the world's curiosities? How can they justify their six figure pricetag when the numbers skew so heavily towards "bad investment"? Framing it as "either you get a degree or you're a Superbowl Kardashian pleb" is the most midwit redditor take you could possibly have.
  - epgui 4y ago
    That's quite possibly the most ungenerous interpretation of my actual take. Was I that unclear?
- imtringued 4y ago
  Why do people not care about a bureaucrats preconceived notions of science, maths and technology? It doesn't boggle anyone's mind.
  - epgui 4y ago
    Who said anything about bureaucrats?
- WalterBright 4y ago
  There was a lot of anti-intellectualism in the US at the time. You know, doing well on a test and other students would say "nerd alert nerd alert". The nerd in the movies always had his glasses taped together and was always asked to "say that again in English" and of course they didn't win the girl. But people like me simply did not care. I remember instances of finally understanding something, and the feeling that somebody had suddenly turned the lights on.
throwaway0asd 4y ago
The benefits of higher education appear to depend more upon the student than the curriculum or quality of instructors. I know that must sound elitist but like everything else in life it’s measurable and exceedingly predictable against intelligence, interest, and personality metrics. This is compounded given that below a given threshold a student is incapable of appreciating the difference between education and trade school.
- czstar 4y ago
  Some people just aren’t capable of learning advanced concepts. It is obvious that this is so but saying this in higher education circles is akin to burning a Koran in Mecca.
  - gedy 4y ago
    I agree, but wondering where this "blank slate" belief comes from and how it persists?
    - raarts 4y ago
      "Other people have it better than me, I want that too, if I accept innate differences being the cause then it means I'll never get there which is unbearable. If all humans are born the same then I can declare the others malicious oppressors - which is a powerful moral weapon - and work from there. At least I'll have a chance to get some of what the others have".
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        I always knew I'd never be a pro ball player nor an Air Force pilot, due to the innate configuration of my body. It wasn't unbearable. Everybody has different strengths and weaknesses. I find what I am suited for and exploit that.
    - czstar 4y ago
      In the U.S. a lot of emotions surrounding this topic come from racist policies/perceptions of the past. It’s hard to have an open conversation about this topic without someone resorting to name calling.

smitty1e 4y ago

For such questions, the costs and empirical results of social policies seem less significant than the intentions of those enacting the polices.

barry-cotter 4y ago
Can you expand on that? I don’t understand on what basis that could be true, unless it’s a purely aesthetic one.
- smitty1e 4y ago
  A current piece of legislation in the U.S. is "The Inflation Reduction Act". Whether or not the real-world result of the policy would achieve even a modicum the stated intent has little impact on the package's likelihood of passage into law.
  - blippage 4y ago
    I'm from UK, so it's the first I've heard of this. It seems that their solution to curbing inflation is by spending money. Hmmm. The concept that you can battle inflation by passing laws strikes my as deluded in the extreme. Battling inflation comes from sound economic principles (that you learn from your mother, not some economist). You simply can't will away inflation. If you really want to battle inflation, just follow Warren Buffett's suggestion: you're no longer eligible for re-election if inflation exceeded 5% during your tenancy.

greatpostman 4y ago

Society will never admit that most behavior is genetic

thatfrenchguy 4y ago
Because it’s not true?
ch4s3 4y ago
People working in epigenetics would probably disagree, moreover while some genes are highly predictive their predictive power is usually not as high as people think.
mrwh 4y ago
Er, because we behave the same way as we did thousands of years ago? It's the fact that so much of our behaviour is cultural that's made humans such a success. An obvious corollary is the importance of education.
- _aavaa_ 4y ago
  While I agree with you main argument, I think that it’s easy to equivocate between schooling and education. The linked study essentially does so in it’s very title.
  - mrwh 4y ago
    I don't have access to the full article itself, but isn't it testing the difference between compulsory schooling and a bit more compulsory schooling, rather than some school or none? To be sure, education is wider than school, but I find it difficult to believe that schooling doesn't make a profound difference, even if slightly more schooling shows diminishing returns.
    - _aavaa_ 4y ago
      It is. My point was that “compulsory schooling versus a bit more compulsory schooling” is what they are measuring and not “less educated vs more educated”. I too would expect a difference in outcomes between more and less compulsory schooling. But I would expect it from the non-education related impacts of it (I.e. de-facto childcare and keeping the kids/teens from engaging in as much long-term harmful activities)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

crackercrews 4y ago

Lots of data about this in The Case Against Education. [1] The basic argument is that much of education is signaling. It would be a better use of resources to let people signal more cheaply instead of getting degrees in subjects that do not teach them skills that are useful for jobs or life more generally. I disagreed with some of the harsher recommendations but found the data compelling. https://www.amazon.com/Case-against-Education-System-Waste/dp/0691174652 https://www.amazon.com/Case-against-Education-System-Waste/d...

sanxiyn 4y ago
My understanding of the argument of The Case Against Education is different. "Signaling cheaply" is a difficult problem because cost is part of signal. Consider: can people signal more cheaply instead of buying expensive wedding rings? Rather, the argument is that while wedding rings would always be somewhat expensive, currently it is too expensive because purchase of wedding rings is subsidized by public tax. So public subsidy of wedding rings should stop. Then it would be as expensive as needed to signal, instead of being crazy expensive, and public money won't be wasted.
- crackercrews 4y ago
  Cost is an intrinsic part of the signal for diamond rings because the signal is "I care about you so much I will spend lots of money to prove it". But for job-readiness, the signal does not have to be costly. It could be accomplished with tests. That would prove ability. It would be harder to prove grit or endurance. But compensation packages could be adjusted to filter out people who are less likely to stick around.

sovietswag 4y ago

Many of us who like learning and view educational positively should read this: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-toward-the-destruction-of-schooling https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-toward-the...

dougmwne 4y ago

It surely matters some. We have a nearly 100% literate society. All people can work with the basic of numbers. All people have the basics of nationalistic myth making, which is a critical part of having a stable nation. People have lots of practice in following orders for small rewards. Not all that much is taught up through high school, but the things that are are important for raising the baseline, even just a little. As for College, it is a lot of signaling, but it also gives practice taking in lots of new information when the expectations of performance are much higher and much closer to that of a typical professional job. It takes that low bar of high school and adds onto it significantly, and the hope is that even if the information was not useful, the ability to assimilate a few books worth of information within in a few weeks of starting a new job will not be a new experience.

axblount 4y ago
I'm not sure where you're from, but in the US, literacy rates are definitely not near 100%. In the report below 8.2% we're functionally illiterate and unable to participate in the survey. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019179/index.asp https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019179/index.asp
- dougmwne 4y ago
  Sort of proving my point since that page you linked states that non-us born people were more likely to be functionally illiterate in English. Makes sense since they would not have gone through 18 years of US schooling in English, but may be literate in their native language. Many countries have literacy rates near 100%. The European country I am in now has a 99% literacy rate.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    Among what subset of the population?
sanxiyn 4y ago
This study is specifically about extending compulsory schooling to age 14, 15, and 16. People are literate and can work with numbers by 13. If the benefit of high school is "raising the baseline just a little", we should ask ourselves whether "just a little" benefit justifies the cost. Education is not free, so it needs to move the needle. One way to measure the benefit is to look at outcomes of interest after long time has passed, so this study did that. There was no effect, casting doubt to earlier studies that found large effects. One strength of this study is that they work with complete data, unlike previous studies which mostly worked with sampled panels. This suggests sampling bias as a mechanism to explain previous studies.