Education Pays? A Debatable Claim Being Swept Under the Rug (Part 2)
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Plusone Stumbleupon

Education Pays? A Debatable Claim Being Swept Under the Rug (Part 2)

Without significantly changing the formula of higher education, its value for students will increasingly face criticism.

In the first installment of this two-part series, George Leef argued that, contrary to popular belief, higher education does not have the positive financial outcomes for students that reports such as the College Board’s “Education Pays” would have the public believe. In this second installment, he tackles some of the reasons for this decline in the value of postsecondary credentials.

A conundrum: going to college does not lead to gains in skill and knowledge for many students, and yet college appears to lead to a huge earnings boost on average for those who have gone. How can we explain that?

The main reason is that credential inflation has spread over the employment landscape like kudzu spreading over a field. Owing to decades of pushing college as the only path to success, we have so many graduates that employers often screen out anyone without a college degree — even for jobs that do not call for anything beyond basic trainability. We have reached the point where, as a New York Times headline proclaimed earlier this year, It Takes a B.A. to Find a Job as a File Clerk.

Therefore, college appears to confer a big earnings premium not because all graduates become so productive, but rather because fewer and fewer good career paths remain open to people who don’t have college credentials. Increasingly, those who don’t have degrees are blocked from entry-level jobs they could easily learn, confining them to the shrinking segment of the labor market where credentials don’t matter.

Thus, the “college earnings premium” is mostly a mirage caused by our severe case of credentialitis.

In his 1997 book “How to Succeed in School Without Really Learning,” David Labaree excoriated the credentials mania that now grips the United States, which causes people to pursue college degrees not for learning, but because they’ve become necessary for access to the labor market. He wrote, “The result is a spiral of credential inflation, for as each level of education in turn gradually floods with a crowd of ambitious consumers, individuals have to keep seeking higher levels of credentials in order to move a step ahead of the pack. In such a system, nobody wins.”

You won’t find a reference to that book in the “Education Pays” report; Labaree’s insights don’t harmonize with the authors’ happy song.

In the attempt to keep college enrollments growing, “Education Pays” throws in everything but the kitchen sink. Besides the misleading claims about the college earnings premium, it also declares that college lowers your chances of becoming unemployed, raises your job satisfaction, gives you improved social mobility, lowers your chance of needing public assistance and confers a batch of health benefits, such as more inclination to exercise and not to smoke.

Overwhelmingly, those are mere correlations. An individual who is overweight and smokes shouldn’t go to college thinking that doing so will solve his or her problems. Tellingly, the authors overlook the fact that college causes some students to adopt bad behaviors they probably otherwise wouldn’t have due to stress and a tendency to work for short-term goals over long-term outcomes.

College is no panacea. It has high costs and, for many people, negligible benefits. Promoting it like a magic elixir is irresponsible.

This series was adapted from an article originally published by Forbes.

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Plusone Stumbleupon
Government Legislation and Regulations, Opinions, Today's Learner

Tags:

Subscribe to The EvoLLLution, Get Premium Content And Stay Up To Date

2 Responses to Education Pays? A Debatable Claim Being Swept Under the Rug (Part 2)

  1. Anthony Day Reply

    2013/12/19 at 9:36 am

    My concern is that, along with credential inflation, we are also seeing grade inflation and eroded standards. University education was never designed for the masses; say what you will about this being an elitist statement, but it’s true. It takes a certain kind of student to excel at the critical thinking and writing we require of a university graduate. That’s not to say that only a few people are ‘smart enough’ for university. I’m simply trying to point out that university education was designed to suit a particular learning style.

    The danger now is that people who aren’t well suited for a university education feel the pressure to enroll to improve their job prospects. To make up for the fact that they wouldn’t succeed in a traditional university program, there are specially-designed ones (hybrid, accelerated, online) that have different standards for these students — and unscrupulous providers who will do anything to ensure they get a ‘degree.’

  2. Glenda Cullen Reply

    2013/12/19 at 3:55 pm

    If Leef had more carefully read the report he discusses so flippantly, he would see that it doesn’t suggest direct causation between a degree and the effects he mentions (health benefits, etc.) What the report does say is that there is strong correlation. In an era of economic uncertainty, who wouldn’t want to invest in something that improves social mobility and could improve job security?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

© 2014 The EvoLLLution. All rights reserved.