NBC: Why Americans are increasingly dubious about going to college

[dismalist]

"Sure, I'll pay to educate other white kids, but not all those Blacks."

That's calumny.

All government spending on all education, as a share of GDP, took off like a rocket around 1950. Amid ups and downs, it has never been higher than today. This is true of K-12, though more recently it has been relatively flat at 4% of GDP. [The flatness coincides with declining cohort size.] Spending on higher ed has never taken up a higher share of GDP than today, at 6% of GDP

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_spending

[Wahoo Redux]

The value to us of the extra life, the extra health is paid to the producers of such. Safety is produced first and foremost by competition. Regulation is often, shall we say, uneducated.

Please let my producers of safety go to college.  Ditto my regulators.

Rule of law is a necessity. It's hard to see what its prevalence has to do with education, though.

Please, please, please let my lawyer be college educated, and of course, let hu go to a law school associated with a university---including the University of American Samoa Law School.

Those who invent certain public things, such as ideas, things that make us more productive do get a share of their extra benefits. Could be larger. More for Bill Gates and the pharma inventors!

All of whom have at least some college. 

[dismalist]

The value to us of the extra life, the extra health is paid to the producers of such. Safety is produced first and foremost by competition. Regulation is often, shall we say, uneducated.

Please let my producers of safety go to college.  Ditto my regulators.

Rule of law is a necessity. It's hard to see what its prevalence has to do with education, though.

Please, please, please let my lawyer be college educated, and of course, let hu go to a law school associated with a university---including the University of American Samoa Law School.

Those who invent certain public things, such as ideas, things that make us more productive do get a share of their extra benefits. Could be larger. More for Bill Gates and the pharma inventors!

All of whom have at least some college.

We are all better off that Bill dropped out, or we would have had to wait longer for our PC's.

I hope my regulators who went to college did not major in xxx Studies.

And, Honest Abe Lincoln was a lawyer and he never went to college. He was apprenticed and then passed the bar exam.

[Wahoo Redux]

And, Honest Abe Lincoln was a lawyer and he never went to college. He was apprenticed and then passed the bar exam.

Most regulators regulate what they studied in college.  That was a weak retort. 

If you can get Abe to represent you, good luck.

I will wait for my college-educated public defender, thank you very much.

[ciao_yall]

Find me a country with no, or few college graduates.

How well is their government run? Public services? Infrastructure? Health care? Life expectancy? Public safety?

I'll wait.

[ciao_yall]

And, Honest Abe Lincoln was a lawyer and he never went to college. He was apprenticed and then passed the bar exam.

Back then, medical education wasn't as formalized as it is today.

Is that your standard for your doctors?

[dismalist]

Find me a country with no, or few college graduates.

How well is their government run? Public services? Infrastructure? Health care? Life expectancy? Public safety?

I'll wait.

OECD data include vocational training in what they call "tertiary". Northern and western Europe have a similar share of tertiary graduates in the population as the US, at least for recent cohorts. My [educated] guess is that northern and western European countries have a higher share of useful graduates than the US does.

But don't miss the point. It is not that educations are bad, but rather who is to pay for all this stuff? As long as we have functioning capital markets, there is no reason for the public to pay for this, some basic research aside.

ETA: I remember now, from what I cited on another thread about these data: The secondary graduates of northern and western European countries include lots of vocational type schools.

Having lots of college graduates proves nothing. As I wrote there, Norway has them and sits on top of a gas bubble. If one is rich one can pay for this stuff -- as a consumption good.

[dismalist]

And, Honest Abe Lincoln was a lawyer and he never went to college. He was apprenticed and then passed the bar exam.

Back then, medical education wasn't as formalized as it is today.

Is that your standard for your doctors?

I never said all educations are bad. Lawyering is trivial compared to doctoring. I did say competition enforces standards more and better than regulation.

[Let's not talk about "regulatory capture", though; it's a field of its own.]

Once again, the question is who pays.

[ciao_yall]

I never said all educations are bad. Lawyering is trivial compared to doctoring. I did say competition enforces standards more and better than regulation.

[Let's not talk about "regulatory capture", though; it's a field of its own.]

Once again, the question is who pays.

How many doctors does a community need to have sufficient competition such that people will choose the doctor with the highest standards?

[dismalist]

I never said all educations are bad. Lawyering is trivial compared to doctoring. I did say competition enforces standards more and better than regulation.

[Let's not talk about "regulatory capture", though; it's a field of its own.]

Once again, the question is who pays.

How many doctors does a community need to have sufficient competition such that people will choose the doctor with the highest standards?

Do you drive  Merc or a car with lower standards? Why haven't you chosen the car with the highest standards?

[pgher]

"Sure, I'll pay to educate other white kids, but not all those Blacks."

That's calumny.

All government spending on all education, as a share of GDP, took off like a rocket around 1950. Amid ups and downs, it has never been higher than today. This is true of K-12, though more recently it has been relatively flat at 4% of GDP. [The flatness coincides with declining cohort size.] Spending on higher ed has never taken up a higher share of GDP than today, at 6% of GDP

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_spending

Hmm, I took a look, and there are some interesting features:

• The overall trend is nearly a straight line, from effectively zero in 1900 to what should be 7.0% now.
• There was an upward blip during the Great Depression (maybe due to depressed GDP?) and a valley during WWII due to spending on other government projects.
• There was a substantial surge above the trend, from 1965 to 1985. Perhaps due to new college campuses, community colleges, that sort of thing? It's all education spending, so there were also a ton of new schools being built to educate the Baby Boomers.
• There was a smaller dip below the trend, from about 2010 to 2020. Perhaps due to the recession and prolonged recovery?

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing!

I think the key feature, aside from the overall trend of linear growth, is the surge from 1965 to 1985. That's a bit later than what I think of as the golden age of educational investment. I think there's an argument to be made that the hot 1990's economy resulted from that surge. When I look at my own department's emeritus professors, I see a bunch that retired around 2000-2005, which maybe correlates with a career that started during that surge. I wonder how many decisions, policies, and attitudes are the result of projecting surge-era thinking onto today's world.

There's a lot more to learn from that data, but you're right that we need to start from it.

[Stockmann]

Externalities, including positive externalities, are a pretty basic and non-controversial topic in economics, even if dismalist seems unaware of it. Education and healthcare are standard textbook examples of stuff with substantial positive externalities (and therefore a justifiable target of subsidies). Obviously this has caveats, handing diplomas out to everyone with a pulse (as some K12 schools and diploma mills do) is useless, etc. High schools rife with gang activity, drugs, violence, etc probably have substantial negative externalities (the kids would be better off home-schooled or in the workforce).

Personally, I think the system is better designed in Germany, Switzerland, etc, who aren't pretending all the kids area above average academically and have systems of modern apprenticeships (yes, including for white collar jobs, including in highly paid fields like finance) for those not going to college. The college/university system can then focus its resources on a smaller pool of students who are less likely to require remedial teaching* - that, and much less rolexification, allows for free college that gets the basics right.

*For a lot of things, college is much too late. I will even state the heresy that it's also too late for things like critical thinking - yes, it can be trained further, but if students haven't been thinking at least somewhat critically well before 18, it's probably too late.

[dismalist]

Externalities, including positive externalities, are a pretty basic and non-controversial topic in economics, even if dismalist seems unaware of it. Education and healthcare are standard textbook examples of stuff with substantial positive externalities (and therefore a justifiable target of subsidies). Obviously this has caveats, handing diplomas out to everyone with a pulse (as some K12 schools and diploma mills do) is useless, etc. High schools rife with gang activity, drugs, violence, etc probably have substantial negative externalities (the kids would be better off home-schooled or in the workforce).

Personally, I think the system is better designed in Germany, Switzerland, etc, who aren't pretending all the kids area above average academically and have systems of modern apprenticeships (yes, including for white collar jobs, including in highly paid fields like finance) for those not going to college. The college/university system can then focus its resources on a smaller pool of students who are less likely to require remedial teaching* - that, and much less rolexification, allows for free college that gets the basics right.

*For a lot of things, college is much too late. I will even state the heresy that it's also too late for things like critical thinking - yes, it can be trained further, but if students haven't been thinking at least somewhat critically well before 18, it's probably too late.

Externalities are the last refuge of a scoundrel! :-)

Education and healthcare cannot be general examples of positive externalities. Treating my cancer helps you not one iota. Making me a better poet helps you not one iota, on account you gotta pay for my poems. There are some important exceptions, of course -- basic research and public health, e.g.

For the umpteenth time, not all educations are bad. Almost none deserve to be paid for by the public, however. Question is who shall pay. Research and public health are efficient targets for collective resources.

Germany and Switzerland are indeed the best examples of how things could be done better, much better and more cheaply.

[Anon1787]

Externalities, including positive externalities, are a pretty basic and non-controversial topic in economics, even if dismalist seems unaware of it. Education and healthcare are standard textbook examples of stuff with substantial positive externalities (and therefore a justifiable target of subsidies). Obviously this has caveats, handing diplomas out to everyone with a pulse (as some K12 schools and diploma mills do) is useless, etc. High schools rife with gang activity, drugs, violence, etc probably have substantial negative externalities (the kids would be better off home-schooled or in the workforce).

Personally, I think the system is better designed in Germany, Switzerland, etc, who aren't pretending all the kids area above average academically and have systems of modern apprenticeships (yes, including for white collar jobs, including in highly paid fields like finance) for those not going to college. The college/university system can then focus its resources on a smaller pool of students who are less likely to require remedial teaching* - that, and much less rolexification, allows for free college that gets the basics right.

*For a lot of things, college is much too late. I will even state the heresy that it's also too late for things like critical thinking - yes, it can be trained further, but if students haven't been thinking at least somewhat critically well before 18, it's probably too late.

The existence of positive externalities (which are not as obvious as professors are wont to believe) does not by itself justify large government subsidies if the private incentive is already large. The expected salaries/wages of various occupations is usually sufficient to induce enough people to get the necessary education/training.

As for lawyers, I don't see why taxpayers should subsidize the legal cartel in the U.S., which arguably has too many lawyers creating negative externalities.

Education and healthcare cannot be general examples of positive externalities. Treating my cancer helps you not one iota.

But my age-defying plastic surgery is surely a public good!

[Wahoo Redux]

And, Honest Abe Lincoln was a lawyer and he never went to college. He was apprenticed and then passed the bar exam.

Back then, medical education wasn't as formalized as it is today.

Is that your standard for your doctors?

I never said all educations are bad. Lawyering is trivial compared to doctoring. I did say competition enforces standards more and better than regulation.

[Let's not talk about "regulatory capture", though; it's a field of its own.]

Once again, the question is who pays.

Ummmm, yeah, good lawyering is not "trivial" when you are accused of a crime or, as in my past situation, I needed a restraining order to keep my mother safe from a meth-addicted family member when I lived 1,500 miles away.  Sure, MDs are the smartest, but having a really good lawyer is invaluable.

You are really, really straining to make a fallacious strawman argument here.

We ALL pay when education tumbles.  Pay for it now or pay for it later----isn't that some homespun wisdom?