3 ms·
I agree with one minor quibble: I don't think it's a conflation of education with economic utility, but rather a convergence. To put it another way, it's not so
by _dps 14y ago
I agree with one minor quibble: I don't think it's a conflation of education with economic utility, but rather a convergence. To put it another way, it's not so much a new perception of education but rather a new reality colliding with a 50-year old perception.
Modern employment markets are simply more efficient in pricing the various components of human capital than they used to be; it used to be enough to be smart and good at anything challenging at all (the classical liberal arts value proposition is, I submit, fundamentally based on this idea). The "learning to learn" and "critical thinking" components of this education were valuable enough to demand a price premium relative to 1950s vocational education, but it's much harder to compete with a modern degree in (say) mathematics which, I claim, is at least as powerful in developing said meta-skills as a degree in literature (and has the added bonus of having direct economic value in many industries). Over time, market forces will adjust the prices for these two different investments accordingly.
Thinking purely economically (obviously, there's more to life than economics), education in a subject for which no one will pay and which has no measurable positive externalities is indistinguishable (to the market) from consumption. So I think the future for these kinds of degrees will hinge heavily on finding evidence of positive externalities, or accepting that a degree in medieval history is better compared to a seminary (i.e. no expectation of economic reward) than a medical school.
Edit/Note: I realize that mathematics degrees, done in certain ways, can fit inside the framework of a liberal arts education. However, all the mathematicians of my generation I know took as many math courses as possible within the requirements of their degree programs. I speculate that, even at liberal arts schools, mathematicians pursue much more concentrated curricula than the typical student.
- mjt0229 14y agoI quibble with your quibble. This article does conflate economic return with actual value. Many people contribute positively to society (including economically), without necessarily being directly compensated proportionally to their contribution. For example, I am an engineer at a research institute that does a substantial amount of cancer and other medical research. As a CS guy, I get a pretty nice salary. However, there are plenty of folks who I work with whose degrees came from liberal arts education who contribute more directly to the cancer research, but whose salaries are lower than mine. Much of this research might actually go on to make pharmaceutical companies substantial profits, but these people will not be directly or proportionally compensated for that. If some of the research does not translate to therapeutics, then they will not have increased economic value at all, but will have definitely added intellectual and scientific value - a value that is not really easy to measure on a simple economic scale --- and certainly not on one so simple-minded as the one used in the article.