Tyler Cowen cites and comments on on an interesting post by Brad DeLong
.
Having reading a study about education, market inequality and the question, "why more people don't go to college?", by Altonji, Bharadwaj, and Lange, Brad Delong concludes:
Altonji, Bharadwaj, and Lange do not know.
DeLong, a liberal Democrat, goes to criticize the prescription of making higher education free for all as a means bringing up skill levels to close the inequality gap as a "dubious policy" because it will basically transfer taxes from the average worker of today to the better educated and wealthier of tomorrow.
Now I'm not sure how further DeLong, is willing to go with his criticism but I see another problem as well:
Such a policy robs much of the value and investment in going to college. It also makes those who perhaps do not have the aptitude or real use for going to college less discriminating and conscientious in their post-secondary paths. And in doing so, colleges are then inundated with lackluster students who will wind up cheapening and diluting the end product and experience for those whose time would be well spent at a university...in much the same way such policies do in high schools.
The massive increase in demand for post-secondary education would at the same time make it greatly more expensive in absolute terms as well as on the tax payer while lowering the quality and value of it at the same time.
Cowen adds another wrinkle, which looks at the basic question of why more people, at present and given the grants, federal loans available along with the availability of lower price colleges, don't go to college. And this goes directly onto the would-be students themselves.
Says Cowen:
I can only conclude that Altonji, Bharadwaj, and Lange have never taught Introduction to Composition to a large group of freshman in a public university in the United States. Anyone who has taught such a class -- or for that matter talked to anyone who has -- will have some inkling why more people are not going to college. Herein lie the roots of growing inequality -- on the bottom side at least -- and don't let anyone induce you to take your eye off the ball by playing switcheroo and bringing up the (separate) topic of the growing wealth of the top one percent.
So perhaps the real answer to the question of why more people don't go to college can be found in society or our "free" public school system rather than the wallets of would-be college students.
__________________________
musing on college education
Charles Murray had some interesting comments in What's Wrong With Vocational School
? In general, I agree with his assertion that a minority of American high-school students are prepared for a four-year program focused on developing their "advanced analytic skills".
One way or another, they just don't have what it takes. Either they just aren't smart enough, or they don't have the motivation, or they don't have the preparation. This becomes a substantial problem when large swarths of our society have developed the perception that American kids should go to college straight out of high-school. In high school, I knew a number of kids who didn't really want to continue at school (and consequently wasted much of their tuition money and time), but had a sense that they needed to get that degree. Likewise, I met more of this type of kid at college, even though it was a rather selective school. As a college instructor, I've seen a number of kids who pretty obviously didn't want to be in my class; consequently, I hated teaching them.
From these experiences, I'm strongly opposed to the idea that everyone should be enabled to attend a four-year college. I'd greatly prefer to expand our system of Community Colleges and Vocational Schools.
The big message here is that our Bachelor's degree system is pretty good as it is...we don't need to expand it. We may want to refine it a bit (I'd favor increased admission standards at public universities and increasing merit-based financial aid), but attempts to improve education in America should really focus on the lower levels.
P.S. REad the math panel report
.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
excellent comments.
I have little to add.
Actually, I have nothing to add.
:)
When I graduated from high school in the late 1960's,
being female definitely had its advantages; a girl could take a year off before deciding what to do with her life, and not have to worry about being drafted into the Army and shipped off to Indo-China to either kill or be killed.
Boys, on the other hand, had less of a choice back then; it was either go to college straight out of high school or be drafted, and get shipped off to Southeast Asia to kill or be killed.
I'm with John
The only thing I'd add is that our secondary schools should, for the lack of a better term, weed out the people who don't want to learn and the people who aren't planning on a 4-year degree. In my high school, college prep curricula didn't start in earnest until my junior year. Partly due to what I would assume was poor funding, partly due to the fact that we were a rural/industrial small town, and partly due to the idea that we can't start segregating kids until we're sure they aren't college material.
It's not politically or socially acceptable to say this, but not everyone has the "book learnin'" skills needed to go to college and succeed. Some people are going to be losers in every sense of the word and some people can't do much better than a factory job. We really ought to increase our funding of 2-year colleges and trade schools.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
I'm glad you spelled that out. Agreed.
I thought it would seem harsh to say that but it is the right thing to do.
Personally, I don't think it's a matter of having to weed out. I think it's simply a matter of removing the compulsion and giving people with different plans in life better and more suitable choices.
Honestly, ask yourself this question...not just stinerman but anyone:
Why should ambitious students with college and careers in high power careers in mind and less ambitious students with no idea on careers or no serious plans be forced to go to the same high school...simply because they live in the same town?
Furthermore, why do we assume that the system we have in place...never mind the amount of funding...is the best way to handle this?
Granted, I too used to think it was "the only fair way" but I've come to realize that it simply is not. Besides, what's so fair about it?
On the one hand, ambitious students, especially in urban public schools, are robbed of a better education and/or their parents are forced to pay an arm and a leg for private school while funding public schools.
On the other hand, less ambitious students are forced into a curriculum that doesn't prepare them for anything useful while wasting valuable years drudging around in a system that simply doesn't suite them.
Parse error
Why should ambitious students with college and careers in high power careers in mind and less ambitious students with no idea on careers or no serious plans
I think I know what you're saying, but i reread that phrase several times. :-)
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
I agree...
On the one hand, ambitious students, especially in urban public schools, are robbed of a better education and/or their parents are forced to pay an arm and a leg for private school...
Not if the kid is 6'5" with good outside touch, then its a scholarship and a spot on the b-ball team.
Some kids are just better off at vocational schools, some people have great technical skills and aren't good at "high skill" jobs.
In a related topic: I hate the term "unskilled"
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Now couple that thought with
this
.
I can't help but get the sneaking suspicion that they are missing the point in way by focusing on the "graduation rate" rather than the realties that lie beneath.
Unions, School Choice and Education
A pertinent post by Megan McArdle
.
That's quite a bit to chew on and I agree with her.