Charlotte Rampell on needing more college students

[Hibush]

I'm also quite sure that parents have come to like their K-12 less. I'm sure the Virginia governor's race was determined by that one problem at the margin. The individual States can take care of themselves. My major malfunction is inner cities. And it ain't money.

New York spends more on K-12 than most states, so it is perhaps taking care of itself. The rural and suburban schools get pricy, especially when small. Some charter schools have really set a new standard, with one suburban school district having but one school with 115 elementary students and a $40 million budget. (None of those students will be going to college, BTW). 

[dismalist]

I'm also quite sure that parents have come to like their K-12 less. I'm sure the Virginia governor's race was determined by that one problem at the margin. The individual States can take care of themselves. My major malfunction is inner cities. And it ain't money.

New York spends more on K-12 than most states, so it is perhaps taking care of itself. The rural and suburban schools get pricy, especially when small. Some charter schools have really set a new standard, with one suburban school district having but one school with 115 elementary students and a $40 million budget. (None of those students will be going to college, BTW).

Looks like there's plenty of money [in NY State at least], as I said.

[Wahoo Redux]

I thought her analysis re AS degrees ROI was especially good: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/25/declining-college-education-rate-economic-threat/

Well, it's descriptively better than most higher ed interest group pieces.

The analysis, or the rhetoric, is misleading. "We actually need more people going to, and ultimately graduating from, college." Who's this "we", and what does "need " mean? "Some of us actually want more people going to, and ultimately graduating from college" is what's being said.

Substantively it is claimed that "These trends threaten our future workforce and, ultimately, the U.S. economy.". They do no such thing. Those not going to college are doing best for themselves, given the facts of costs and benefits. There is no reason to think we know more about these individuals than they do. And, it's not "our" workforce. It's people making the best decisions for themselves. The economy is us.

I agree that editorial writers get overly hazy about defining "we" and "need". I often read this framing as "I wish everyone else would do this thing so I'd feel better." Then I don't care to read further.

Remember that this is journalism and not scholarly writing.  Don't overthink it.

Editorials are short and generalized since realistically they will not hold readers' attention all that long.  Rampell is given a hard wordcount to fit in-between the advertisements, so she is writing with great concision and clarity. 

The "we" is simply the "editorial we" (standard practice in op-ed pieces) as if Rampell is a spokesperson for the culture.  She is not referencing "we" as in arrogant middle-class Karens or snooty educated Poindexters, but American culture at large.  It's no different than, say, "we need an amendment..." or "we need to worry about global climate change" or whatever.

I've wondered about the very things she writes.  There will be a bubble.  There are only so many apprenticeships to go around, and we only need so many hotel night clerks.  I hope we have not damaged the infrastructure of higher ed so badly that it cannot recoup in short order if we need to educate near-future generations.

[mahagonny]

I hope we have not damaged the infrastructure of higher ed so badly that it cannot recoup in short order if we need to educate near-future generations.

That's the thing about things that have made themselves too big to fail. They never cease; they just find different ways to limp along.

[ciao_yall]

Well, here is an example of why we need more college graduates. We need them to go to law school, pass the bar exam, and have successful enough careers to become judges.

Riverside County Dismisses Criminal Cases Due to Lack of Judges

[marshwiggle]

One thing that strikes me is that the statement
"We need more people to go to college."
is like saying
"We need more groceries."

If we need milk, getting bread won't help. If we need eggs, getting milk won't help. And a case of ketchup, even if it's on a 50% sale, isn't going to much help at all.

The economy has shortages in certain skill areas, and extra graduates in unrelated areas won't help at all.

[Anselm]

If I ran things I would have closed all schools for a year during Covid and then have students graduate high school one year later than normal.  Read books, learn a musical instrument, make art, find a new hobby, exercise, etc.   The whole online learning venture was a disaster for students and teachers. 

[Stockmann]

If I ran things I would have closed all schools for a year during Covid and then have students graduate high school one year later than normal.  Read books, learn a musical instrument, make art, find a new hobby, exercise, etc.   The whole online learning venture was a disaster for students and teachers.

This would probably have been for the best. On the other hand, if K12 wasn't going to be suspended, it probably would've been best to have a F2F, come hell or high water, approach instead of online. If I'm not mistaken Singapore had that approach, i.e., never went online at all. At the opposite extreme, Mexico kept schools online longest of any country in the world, keeping them shut even as the bars were packed. Perhaps it's not strange that Singapore, one of the countries most serious about education in the entire world, went for F2F, while Mexico, notoriously unserious about it, went for the opposite approach.

I think the US won't really have, overall, too big of a problem in terms of getting enough labor. The US can easily import labor, whether low-skill, low-wage labor, or highly skilled labor. The visa process probably needs major surgery in terms of categories, etc, and needs to be more efficient, but there is no shortage of would-be immigrants. There are exceptions like obvious security issues in having, say, Chinese immigrants in sensitive positions, but mostly it would seem eminently manageable in terms of American demand and global labor supply. The real question, I think, is about how Americans fare - college is a pretty raw deal for those who don't graduate, for example.

[dismalist]

The economy has shortages in certain skill areas, and extra graduates in unrelated areas won't help at all.

I think the US won't really have, overall, too big of a problem in terms of getting enough labor.

With flexible wages, there are no labor shortages of any kind. We get what we pay for, exactly.

Published worries about labor shortages are due either to misunderstandings, or special pleading.

[marshwiggle]

The economy has shortages in certain skill areas, and extra graduates in unrelated areas won't help at all.

I think the US won't really have, overall, too big of a problem in terms of getting enough labor.

With flexible wages, there are no labor shortages of any kind. We get what we pay for, exactly.

Published worries about labor shortages are due either to misunderstandings, or special pleading.

The value of economic projections, (good ones, that is), lies in the fact that things like training takes time. Yes, the market will correct over time, but even sky-high wages won't help hiring if all of the *qualified people are already employed. (They can move to higher-paying employers, but they will leave shortages behind.) So being able to advise young people about labour trends and opportunities that are likely down the road is worthwhile.

(The generic "we need more people to go to college", on the other hand, is useless for this purpose for the reason I stated above.)



*including international candidates - a global shortage of basketweavers isn't going to be alleviated until more are trained.

[dismalist]

The economy has shortages in certain skill areas, and extra graduates in unrelated areas won't help at all.

I think the US won't really have, overall, too big of a problem in terms of getting enough labor.

With flexible wages, there are no labor shortages of any kind. We get what we pay for, exactly.

Published worries about labor shortages are due either to misunderstandings, or special pleading.

The value of economic projections, (good ones, that is), lies in the fact that things like training takes time. Yes, the market will correct over time, but even sky-high wages won't help hiring if all of the *qualified people are already employed. (They can move to higher-paying employers, but they will leave shortages behind.) So being able to advise young people about labour trends and opportunities that are likely down the road is worthwhile.

(The generic "we need more people to go to college", on the other hand, is useless for this purpose for the reason I stated above.)



*including international candidates - a global shortage of basketweavers isn't going to be alleviated until more are trained.

Nay, wages of those left behind rise, too, until we're not willing to pay them more. While it takes time to invest, i.e. changing quantities, the market clears quickly, making a shortage impossible. It does so by having prices and wages change so that we are content to pay for the available quantities.

This is not relying on projections of a centralized kind, though individuals can of course use available information to gamble if they wish. If they don't wish to gamble, they can see the wages of a profession or skill rise and  start investing in their human capital .

There is no problem if wages are free to change.

[marshwiggle]

The value of economic projections, (good ones, that is), lies in the fact that things like training takes time. Yes, the market will correct over time, but even sky-high wages won't help hiring if all of the *qualified people are already employed. (They can move to higher-paying employers, but they will leave shortages behind.) So being able to advise young people about labour trends and opportunities that are likely down the road is worthwhile.

(The generic "we need more people to go to college", on the other hand, is useless for this purpose for the reason I stated above.)



*including international candidates - a global shortage of basketweavers isn't going to be alleviated until more are trained.

Nay, wages of those left behind rise, too, until we're not willing to pay them more. While it takes time to invest, i.e. changing quantities, the market clears quickly, making a shortage impossible. It does so by having prices and wages change so that we are content to pay for the available quantities.

This is not relying on projections of a centralized kind, though individuals can of course use available information to gamble if they wish. If they don't wish to gamble, they can see the wages of a profession or skill rise and  start investing in their human capital .

There is no problem if wages are free to change.

In physics, oscillatory systems are either under-damped, over-damped, or critically-damped. An underdamped system oscillates and can take a long time to settle. This is what an entirely free market is like. An overdamped system doesn't oscillate, but very slowly reaches equilibrium. This is what a government bureaucracy  often does. A critically-damped system has just enough inertia to reach equilibrium as quickly as possible without oscillation. This should be the goal of government intervention.

[dismalist]

The value of economic projections, (good ones, that is), lies in the fact that things like training takes time. Yes, the market will correct over time, but even sky-high wages won't help hiring if all of the *qualified people are already employed. (They can move to higher-paying employers, but they will leave shortages behind.) So being able to advise young people about labour trends and opportunities that are likely down the road is worthwhile.

(The generic "we need more people to go to college", on the other hand, is useless for this purpose for the reason I stated above.)



*including international candidates - a global shortage of basketweavers isn't going to be alleviated until more are trained.

Nay, wages of those left behind rise, too, until we're not willing to pay them more. While it takes time to invest, i.e. changing quantities, the market clears quickly, making a shortage impossible. It does so by having prices and wages change so that we are content to pay for the available quantities.

This is not relying on projections of a centralized kind, though individuals can of course use available information to gamble if they wish. If they don't wish to gamble, they can see the wages of a profession or skill rise and  start investing in their human capital .

There is no problem if wages are free to change.

In physics, oscillatory systems are either under-damped, over-damped, or critically-damped. An underdamped system oscillates and can take a long time to settle. This is what an entirely free market is like. An overdamped system doesn't oscillate, but very slowly reaches equilibrium. This is what a government bureaucracy  often does. A critically-damped system has just enough inertia to reach equilibrium as quickly as possible without oscillation. This should be the goal of government intervention.

And the government does not have the knowledge to effectuate this, least of all on the micro level we're discussing.  Free markets in individual goods and services in no way oscillate and take a long time to settle.

It might be said that it used to be thought that the macroeconomy might be underdamped. Two central bodies, government and central bank, could try to smooth out deviations from bliss. Their success has been, well, oscillatory! I think success depend on politics as well as having the right theory.

[dismalist]

The value of economic projections, (good ones, that is), lies in the fact that things like training takes time. Yes, the market will correct over time, but even sky-high wages won't help hiring if all of the *qualified people are already employed. (They can move to higher-paying employers, but they will leave shortages behind.) So being able to advise young people about labour trends and opportunities that are likely down the road is worthwhile.

(The generic "we need more people to go to college", on the other hand, is useless for this purpose for the reason I stated above.)



*including international candidates - a global shortage of basketweavers isn't going to be alleviated until more are trained.

Nay, wages of those left behind rise, too, until we're not willing to pay them more. While it takes time to invest, i.e. changing quantities, the market clears quickly, making a shortage impossible. It does so by having prices and wages change so that we are content to pay for the available quantities.

This is not relying on projections of a centralized kind, though individuals can of course use available information to gamble if they wish. If they don't wish to gamble, they can see the wages of a profession or skill rise and  start investing in their human capital .

There is no problem if wages are free to change.

In physics, oscillatory systems are either under-damped, over-damped, or critically-damped. An underdamped system oscillates and can take a long time to settle. This is what an entirely free market is like. An overdamped system doesn't oscillate, but very slowly reaches equilibrium. This is what a government bureaucracy  often does. A critically-damped system has just enough inertia to reach equilibrium as quickly as possible without oscillation. This should be the goal of government intervention.

And the government does not have the knowledge to effectuate this, least of all on the micro level we're discussing.  Free markets in individual goods and services in no way oscillate and take a long time to settle.

It might be said that it used to be thought that the macroeconomy might be underdamped. Two central bodies, government and central bank, could try to smooth out deviations from bliss. Their success has been, well, oscillatory! I think success depend on politics as well as having the right theory.

By chance, I came across this illuminating video by Steve Levitt, precisely on forecasting macro [e.g. inflation] and micro [e.g. jobs in higher ed]. I think he goes a tad too far with his views on macro, but it's a useful picture.

It's only 2 ½  minutes long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8SRUU2Pt68