The Case Against Education vs. Libertarian Education Reform
[I originally wrote this in 2018. Covid school closures later changed my mind in one important way.]
Libertarian education reformers have long argued that education is great, but education plus market reforms is even better. The Case Against Education in contrast, argues that the education industry is more like government-sponsored football stadiums: Government support is good for the industry, but bad for society. Here’s an excerpt from the book’s final chapter, “Five Chats on Education and Enlightenment.”
Frederick [fictional character who writes for the Wall St. Journal and blogs for the Chronicle of Higher Education]: You make your reforms sound pragmatic, but isn’t libertarian ideology right below the surface?
Bryan: It’s complicated. My heterodox views on education long precede my interest in political philosophy. I’ve believed in something like signaling since kindergarten.
Frederick: [ironic] Strangely enough, the facts all fit the theory you cooked up when you were five.
Bryan: I had no “theory” in kindergarten. Just two epiphanies:
First, I had to excel academically in order to get a good job when I grew up.
Second, I would never use most of my book learning on the job.
Though it took me years to see the tension between these two epiphanies, I (crudely) reinvented the signaling wheel sometime in junior high. Armed with my crude signaling theory, I gamed the system, working as little as possible to get A’s in all the classes I deemed boring and useless.
Frederick: So you were a rebel, not a reformer?
Bryan: Right, until my senior year of high school. Once I discovered libertarianism, education reform came naturally. Why on earth should government subsidize socially wasteful education?
Frederick: Then you admit your education reforms are ideologically driven.
Bryan: No. I only admit that my political philosophy–or “ideology” if you prefer–sways
the questions I ask.
Frederick: But surprise surprise, the facts are in perfect harmony with your ideology.
Bryan: Hardly. Libertarians rarely challenge the beloved education sector. Instead, they promise, “Free markets will make education even better.”
Frederick: Well, why don’t you say that?
Bryan: Because I disbelieve it. It goes against everything I’ve seen. I’ve attended both public and private schools. They’re cut from the same cloth.
The post appeared first on Econlib.
You've surely answered this question before, but under your model, why wouldn't companies proactively (i.e. no talent/applicant has to be contrarian) invent a cheaper proxy themselves to capitalize on the untapped smart-college-age population? This population would then gain "work experience", making the deal attractive to them aswell. (i.e. assuming the hypothetical company in question is prestigious enough such that this makes up for the lack of college degree such a deal would incur)
However, this seems to have not happened so far in the ~free market, which would call the signaling model into question.
If no such cheaper proxy could be devised, e.g. due to conscientiousness being hard to measure, this would make education efficient again (don't believe that, just responding to a possible objection)
When I was a young American male, my military obligation interfered with my education. In retrospect, it's hard to decide which was the greater waste (I was not injured or killed). Both were near tragic. Thank God for the "near."
I was successful in school, a failure in the navy. Since both, I've oscillated between these.