3 ms·

Yes, there is plenty of evidence that education has a positive effect on wealth creation. Here's one example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleU

by GavinB 17y ago

Yes, there is plenty of evidence that education has a positive effect on wealth creation. Here's one example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WPG-45JB1XN-2F&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=989751790&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=49a431dae887d571f89a263e18860e11 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi... Early childhood education is found to produce persistent effects on achievement and academic success, but not on IQ . . . Cost-benefit analysis based on one randomized trial finds that the economic return from providing early education to children in poverty far exceeds the costs.

bokonist 17y ago
This article is behind a $31.50 paywall. Did you actually read this article? Or are you just assuming that just because some academic wrote it an abstract that its true? I used to browse my college's social science library for fun. The number of methodological flaws in the typical journal article is enough to make a person cry. If you have a copy of the article, maybe you could send it to me. If you haven't read it - well - citing a gated journal article that you haven't even read is not evidence and does not contribute to the discussion.
- GavinB 17y ago
  I wasn't assuming that it was true or wouldn't have methodologial flaws. It's basically impossible to find a study of any real-world sociological study whose methodology is beyond dispute. If it helps, here's one with more details: http://www.waisman.wisc.edu/cls/cbaexecsum4.html http://www.waisman.wisc.edu/cls/cbaexecsum4.html Site with more details, including sample surveys etc: http://www.waisman.wisc.edu/cls/REPORTS.HTM http://www.waisman.wisc.edu/cls/REPORTS.HTM Conclusion: As the first cost-benefit analysis of a federally-financed, comprehensive early childhood intervention, findings indicate that participation in each component of the program was associated with economic benefits that exceeded costs. This was accomplished by increasing economic well being and reducing educational and social expenditures for remediation and treatment. Similar to Head Start, the CPC preschool program is the most intensive and comprehensive component and yielded the greatest benefits by age 21. Findings for school-age and extended intervention demonstrate the benefits of reduced class sizes and enriched school environments in the early grades. Thus, contemporary, large-scale child-development programs can provide substantial long-term benefits to society. Google has many many studies that you can look at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=effect+of+early+childhood+education&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=gYo&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholart http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=effect+of+early+childhoo... The effect of education on income is a subject that has been studied heavily. I'm sure that you can find studies that support many conclusions. But I think you will have trouble proposing that someone is making an unsupported claim when they say that education increases wealth and social mobility. Edit: This doesn't mean you can't claim "I think that system X would achieve better results." It's not necessary to tear down the economic results that the American system has achieved in order to propose something that would work better in the future.
  - bokonist 17y ago
    I wasn't assuming that it was true or wouldn't have methodologial flaws. It's basically impossible to find a study of any real-world sociological study whose methodology is beyond dispute.. Well yes. And in general, the flaws are pretty gaping flaws. If you have studies with gaping methodological flaws, then you must completely disregard them. They are not evidence. The study you cite about the CPC program, is majorly flawed. In general, the most astute parents figure out how to find their way into these types of programs. When you look at a more broad based program - like Head Start - the evidence effectiveness does not seem to be exist or be enough to stand out from the noise ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start#Reports_and_statements_critical_of_Head_Start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start#Reports_and_statemen... ) But I think you will have trouble proposing that someone is making an unsupported claim when they say that education increases wealth and social mobility. I dispute it. If you want to play the social science game, check out this article: http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/does-education-really-make-you-smarter-349 http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/does-education-really-... Despite dramatically increasing the amount we spend on education, and the time spent in school, basic measures of vocabulary and math have been flat over the last century. But I don't like playing the social science game. The real reason I don't believe schooling increases national wealth is because I got a topflight education. But after a private high school and an ivy league college, neither I nor virtually any of my friends learned much in the way of wealth-creating skills. I earn a much higher than average income, but its all because of self-taught skills. After spending some time in the workforce, I've noticed the vast majority of people learn their wealth producing skills on the job. This is the norm now, it was the norm fifty years ago, and it was the norm one hundred fifty years ago. It applies to machinists and it applies to software engineers. The only difference is that we are so rich now, we can afford to waste hundreds of billions of dollars on formal schooling. If people who graduate college earn more, it must because of some other affect ( selection effects, zero-sum credentialing laws, or because of social networks). I know this must be the case, because I knows what happens in schools, and I know that outside of engineering (which is a tiny minority of all majors) college does not teach wealth producing skills.
    - roundsquare 17y ago

by GavinB 17y ago

bokonist 17y ago

This article is behind a $31.50 paywall. Did you actually read this article? Or are you just assuming that just because some academic wrote it an abstract that its true? I used to browse my college's social science library for fun. The number of methodological flaws in the typical journal article is enough to make a person cry. If you have a copy of the article, maybe you could send it to me. If you haven't read it - well - citing a gated journal article that you haven't even read is not evidence and does not contribute to the discussion.

GavinB 17y ago
I wasn't assuming that it was true or wouldn't have methodologial flaws. It's basically impossible to find a study of any real-world sociological study whose methodology is beyond dispute. If it helps, here's one with more details: http://www.waisman.wisc.edu/cls/cbaexecsum4.html http://www.waisman.wisc.edu/cls/cbaexecsum4.html Site with more details, including sample surveys etc: http://www.waisman.wisc.edu/cls/REPORTS.HTM http://www.waisman.wisc.edu/cls/REPORTS.HTM Conclusion: As the first cost-benefit analysis of a federally-financed, comprehensive early childhood intervention, findings indicate that participation in each component of the program was associated with economic benefits that exceeded costs. This was accomplished by increasing economic well being and reducing educational and social expenditures for remediation and treatment. Similar to Head Start, the CPC preschool program is the most intensive and comprehensive component and yielded the greatest benefits by age 21. Findings for school-age and extended intervention demonstrate the benefits of reduced class sizes and enriched school environments in the early grades. Thus, contemporary, large-scale child-development programs can provide substantial long-term benefits to society. Google has many many studies that you can look at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=effect+of+early+childhood+education&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=gYo&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholart http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=effect+of+early+childhoo... The effect of education on income is a subject that has been studied heavily. I'm sure that you can find studies that support many conclusions. But I think you will have trouble proposing that someone is making an unsupported claim when they say that education increases wealth and social mobility. Edit: This doesn't mean you can't claim "I think that system X would achieve better results." It's not necessary to tear down the economic results that the American system has achieved in order to propose something that would work better in the future.
- bokonist 17y ago
  I wasn't assuming that it was true or wouldn't have methodologial flaws. It's basically impossible to find a study of any real-world sociological study whose methodology is beyond dispute.. Well yes. And in general, the flaws are pretty gaping flaws. If you have studies with gaping methodological flaws, then you must completely disregard them. They are not evidence. The study you cite about the CPC program, is majorly flawed. In general, the most astute parents figure out how to find their way into these types of programs. When you look at a more broad based program - like Head Start - the evidence effectiveness does not seem to be exist or be enough to stand out from the noise ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start#Reports_and_statements_critical_of_Head_Start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start#Reports_and_statemen... ) But I think you will have trouble proposing that someone is making an unsupported claim when they say that education increases wealth and social mobility. I dispute it. If you want to play the social science game, check out this article: http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/does-education-really-make-you-smarter-349 http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/does-education-really-... Despite dramatically increasing the amount we spend on education, and the time spent in school, basic measures of vocabulary and math have been flat over the last century. But I don't like playing the social science game. The real reason I don't believe schooling increases national wealth is because I got a topflight education. But after a private high school and an ivy league college, neither I nor virtually any of my friends learned much in the way of wealth-creating skills. I earn a much higher than average income, but its all because of self-taught skills. After spending some time in the workforce, I've noticed the vast majority of people learn their wealth producing skills on the job. This is the norm now, it was the norm fifty years ago, and it was the norm one hundred fifty years ago. It applies to machinists and it applies to software engineers. The only difference is that we are so rich now, we can afford to waste hundreds of billions of dollars on formal schooling. If people who graduate college earn more, it must because of some other affect ( selection effects, zero-sum credentialing laws, or because of social networks). I know this must be the case, because I knows what happens in schools, and I know that outside of engineering (which is a tiny minority of all majors) college does not teach wealth producing skills.
  - roundsquare 17y ago