July 17, 2009
President Barack Obama has declared that his administration aims to make college affordable to everyone by greatly expanding government aid to middle class families. The Washington Post says that Obama's higher education proposals, which include creating a brand new Pell Grant entitlement, "could transform the financial aid landscape for millions of students while expanding federal authority to a degree that even Democrats concede is controversial."
But what if President Obama has it backwards? What if America is sending too many people to college?
A recent study found that "Nationally, four-year colleges graduated an average of just 53% of entering students within six years." If 40 percent of students who enter college drop out before graduation and over 50 percent of students take six years to graduate, perhaps Obama is focusing on the wrong issue.
Reason.tv's Michael C. Moynihan sat down with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and the American Enterprise Institute's Charles Murray, author of the recent book Real Education, to analyze how Obama's higher-education plans will impact the economic and cultural future of the United States.
For embed code, an audio podcast, and iPod and HD versions click here.
For a YouTube version of this video, go here.
"The Case Against College Entitlements" was produced by Michael C. Moynihan and Meredith Bragg. Approximately 5 minutes long.
At the Las Vegas-based Amazing Meeting, Reason magazine's Matt Welch recently sat down with Adam Savage, co-host of the enormously popular and captivating Discovery Channel series MythBusters.
Each week, Savage and Jamie Hyneman, aided by a crew of demolition experts and special effects whizzes, delve into mysteries of the moment: Does anything that happens in a James Bond movie have a basis in reality?; was the moon landing faked?; is there such a thing as "beer goggles"?; and much, much more. As important, they explain the science behind many complicated phenomena and rarely miss an opportunity to blow things up real good.
Savage talks about the genesis and success of the show, now in its eighth season, and discusses whether people are becoming more or less skeptical in an increasingly interconnected world. Does the faster flow of information mean the bad crowds out the good?
Approximately 8 minutes. Shot and edited by Dan Hayes.
Go here for embed code, iPod, HD, audio versions, and more videos.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Accepting the argument that too many people are going to college would mean accepting the fact that not everyone is smart enough to do college level work. We can't do that, because it would hurt people's feelings.
Listen, I love Matt Welch like a brother from another mother, but what's with the body language? Adam Savage is not going to blow something up right on that bench. It's okay to be next to him.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste, but my taxes are an even
worse thing to waste. Nobody should be denied a college education
because they simply can't get funding. And nobody should be given a
free ride through party central. But if a Hispanic woman, from the
Bronx, that grew up in public housing can make it to the Supreme
Court, then what are people whining about?
Seriously, there was nothing wrong with the Pell Grant and GSL
programs until Bush and the Republicans gutted them. Average Middle
Class students weren't qualifying for low interest GSLs. So, Mommy
and Daddy had to refinance the house, creating more income for the
banks. And more paper for securitized mortgages. Now, the banks
have no money to lend so the government is going to take over the
GSL program directly, for better or worse.
Gotta agree with Jefferson here. The unmoving, slumped forward
posture combined with that necktie that appears to fall all the way
to the floor made it seem like Matt was photoshopped into the image
while he asked questions from three times zones away. There was
precious little acknowledgment of Savage's answers or segues from
one question context to another. I expect that Matt will get much
better with interviews as they keep producing these things.
I would have liked to see much more about Savage's involvement with
Maker culture and how he sees the growing influence of that
affecting overall culture and politics.
Charles Murray's Real Education was eye-opening. It gives you some perspective on what "average" and "below average" really mean.
American egalitarianism is amazing. We readily accept different athletic aptitudes and abilities, but we insist that everybody is on a level paying field when it comes to intelligence. Poppycock!
I just got a letter from Chase saying that my law school loans have been transferred to the federal government... weak.
College should be for learning field specific knowledge that leads to a job. Instead, it's just a filtering method to deny large segments of the population job opportunities. Look at the want ads calling for college graduates and saying all majors are welcome. If the employer needed someone with specific skills, he should cite the relevant major. If not, he should open the employee search to high school graduates. Simply rejecting the snob appeal of college is a much more cost effective way to equalize opportunity.
Another question to ask about higher education: are we investing
in a moribund industry?
I was discussing the various state "college savings plans" and how
risky they were for him to put money in them for his newborn. After
questioning if you could trust the state of Maryland with your
money, I went off on a transhumanist tangent.
If, in the next 18 years, it becomes possible make education more
efficient by orders of magnitude, like uploading the equivalant of
a masters direct to the brain -- would he be able to extract the
"college savings" money from the state to pay for his son's
hardware upgrades? The state would be stuck with state
university/buggy whip industry that is overloaded with union
members, complex facilities and pension obligations. The state
would insist the money be spent to prop up the failing industry
over the fancy new 'uplink' education.
Since you guys have access to the Mythbusters crew, might I suggest having Kari Byron appear in Reason magazine's first annual swimsuit issue?
I believe multiple errors in assessment confuse the issue.
First, intelligence does not always translate into academic
aptitude. Many highly intelligent farmers, craftsmen, artists and
other productive people will serve everyone best by attending to
concrete rather than abstract data, to their own and others'
irreplaceable satisfaction.
Second, intelligence != moral worth. Some less intelligent peoples'
other virtues - such as kindness, or reliability - make them much
more desirable company than their cleverer brethren.
Third and fourth, much contemporary college training actually dulls
individual initiative and creativity, and being spared ideological
indoctrination will work to many young people's benefit.
College is not/should not be for everyone. But that may say more
about college than it does about everyone.
In Georgia the Hope Scholarship (free tuition to any state Univ.
for students with a B or better average) has led to severe grade
inflation in the high schools, an abysmally low state average SAT
score, and a high flunk-out rate for college freshman. Waaay too
many high school kids (and their parents) feel they are entitled to
a spot at State U.
The whole system is a disaster and more government help will, of
course, make it even worse, though it's hard to imagine it being
worse.
Anarch at 8:09 has it exactly right.
Beyond his good points is basic economic reality. It is much harder
to find enough people really skilled in the trades these days than
yet another college graduate to push paper. Wages, salaries and the
income of self employed folks are starting to reflect that
reality.
As in almost all else, this latest government initiative will prove
essentially futile in the long run as the economics of supply and
demand sort out the real value of a college degree. Its unfortunate
that a college degree has become so debased as an indicator of
anything.
Look at the want ads calling for college graduates and saying all majors are welcome. If the employer needed someone with specific skills, he should cite the relevant major. If not, he should open the employee search to high school graduates.
Slight cavil here. With all else you say being true, surviving 4
years of college, as well as succeeding in higher degrees, does
indicate to a prospective employer the candidate's ability to
accomplish tasks that require Sitzfleisch, a certain
measure of social skills, controlled impulsivity, and a capacity to
delay gratification, maybe akin to veteran status, to a greater
extent than a HS diploma. A college degree also certifies, at least
ostensibly, having been exposed to, and shown civility in the face
of, other ways of viewing the world than one's own.
And a BA should show that one is capable of learning, though it may show only that one is capable of being trained - which is already a feature a boss will seek.
So what IS the case against Mythbuster's Adam Savage? You never made that clear.
College may not be for everyone, however we may be depriving our
society of some marvelous talent by making it too expensive or
difficult to attain by average people. I am convinced that most
people of average intelligent are capable of handling college-level
work, and I don't think it hurts anyone to have some college so
long as they don't overburden themselves with debt.
On the other hand, our society would benefit greatly from
respecting everyone who labors (with adequate wages and recognition
of worth) regardless of whether they hold a degree or not.
I am convinced that most people of average intelligent are
capable of handling college-level work
That depends (greatly) on the coursework. I don't think an average
person is capable of getting a degree in physics from a quality
university. An average person is probably able to handle a BA, but
a real degree? Some would be able to get by, some would not.
The American college market is a perfect small-universe example
of the Austrian theory of monetary inflation causing systematic
price increases.
Normally, rising prices would tend to dampen demand. However, the
colleges have been able to do two things to counteract this:
(1) They practice perfect market discrimination: colleges don't
even pretend to charge a single price, but instead are very
up-front about charging each set of parents as much as they can
pay, up to a predetermined maximum. It's the old "How much does it
cost?"/"How much you got?" scam, but for some reason people think
they are getting a deal. I was no different: I received a lot of
financial aid, and thought at the time that I was getting away with
murder.
(2) Colleges successfully lobby for ever more state-sponsored loans
and grant packages that act as additional money, albeit restricted
initially to the college market. This is where the Austrians come
in: as the supply of money available for tuition increases, so do
prices, precisely because there are more dollars chasing the same
number of incoming class seats.
This strategy would not work without a general perception among the
public that going to college is necessary in order to get ahead, or
among white collar recruiters that a college degree involving four
years of goofing off, working hard a few days a semester, and
drinking the rest of the time is necessary for most jobs. Both are
unfortunate falsehoods, but until demand is reduced relative to
supply, I don't see prices dropping.
What will bring demand down relative to supply? I see two main
possibilities:
(a) Price pressure at the top. In an environment of declining
long-term prosperity such as the West has entered, the number of
parents who will be able to and willing to afford $50,000 per year
per child for a college education will go down dramatically.
Certainly there will be enough to fill the rolls at Harvard, Yale,
etc... but enough to justify $50,000 per year at Tufts? American
University? Ithaca College? Probably not. And as the most desirable
colleges are also generally the richest, they are the most likely
to succumb to internal pressure to fulfill their supposed missions
to educate by eliminating tuition altogether.
(b) Increased prevalence of and respect for private for-profit
educational institutions, like University of Phoenix, and for
lower-cost colleges that don't participate in the insanity of the
existing financial aid system. This will require time, as the
inertia of reputation is great. But the effect of this change on
supply could be immense: the number of seats in a distance learning
setting is potentially unlimited.
Furthermore, costs would be far lower: a focused degree (i.e., not
liberal arts) would likely not take anywhere near 4 years; and
distance learning does not involve expensive stone buildings with
yearly ivy pruning and the overhead of maintaining bullshit
interfraternity councils and diversity programs and putting up with
activist demands.
Like all economic problems, eventually this one will fix itself
because the numbers don't allow it to work out any other way. IMO,
it will be interesting to see it play out.
The case against MythBusters' Adam Savage?
Does he have a doctorate? And if so, why doesn't he go by Doc Savage?
squarooticus, do you see no possibility of emergency federal
bailouts, nationalization, consolidation, monopolization,
homogenization - such that every local McU franchise becomes an arm
of the State?
The old joke during the Cold War was that the pessimists were
teaching themselves to eat caviar with chopsticks.
That's what I thought when I read the title - I thought it was
"a case against... Mythbusters' Adam Savage"
I guess he is somewhat of a ginger person (i'm sure he was a
ginger-kid), so Cartman would want him dead.
anarch:
At what point do people start fleeing the system? Look at the NHS
in Britain: anyone who has money adds supplemental private health
insurance so they can actually get treated. Since the government
can never have infinite resources but always approaches maximal
waste, it's inevitable that it would screw up the schools it
nationalized, so I expect a similar dynamic would eventually
occur.
Honestly, I don't expect things to get that bad. The West is
already in the process of contracting, though we don't really know
it yet so as a result we'll go through several years of nasty
inflation before we get the hang of reducing spending: the days of
financing ever-expanding government through debt are over.
My comparative religion professor related that in his own
student days, a Soviet refugee in his graduate seminar at Princeton
would always have the most thorough, polished answer to biblical
questions; when called on, the man would ritually stand and belt
out the exact reference, then, with inveterate Slavic formality,
bow and crisply take his seat again. Asked how he had learned even
obscure material so well, he explained that the Bible was the only
text their underground classes could scrounge, so they prized and
learned it very well.
Since scarcity drives value, perhaps teachers here can look forward
to black-market prices for lessons in free inquiry.
or among white collar recruiters that a college degree
involving four years of goofing off, working hard a few days a
semester, and drinking the rest of the time is necessary for most
jobs.
When you put it that way, college does sound like decent prep fro
most white collar jobs.
I too thought Reason was making their case against Mr. Savage. I
mean besides being a ginger kid, he's just too damn nice. Not to
sound glib, but I met him at last year's TAM and he was a heck of a
nice guy. (So was Teller, who yaps and yaps off stage.) He's a
skeptic and libertarian so what's not to like?
Also, it always makes me chuckle to see Jamie get a little peeved
when they have to go out of state for many of their gun myths. They
should just move out of CA and build a big compound outside of
Vegas next to Penn's house.
Benjamin
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245