Three Graphs About Trying and Failing

My problem with Caplan's arguments on education, which I've admittedly only read a few of, is that he seems to derive them largely from an elitist, Ayn Rand-ian sort of worldview where most people are simply beyond hope and investing in their education isn't worth the resources (as priced by market forces). My view is more that most people have a distaste for learning, education and autodidacticism because they grow up steeped in a culture that discourages these things, while simultaneously rewarding the opposite sorts of behaviors. Though it seems to have gotten better in the past few decades with the rise in popularity of "geek culture." Rather than promoting only the top 5% or 25% of people achieving advanced educations, I'd rather look at the culture and socioeconomic factors that cause the bottom 95%/75% to not be as anxious about advancing their knowledge as the ones at the top.

The whole thing easily leaves him open to accusations of trying to build a world of grunt workers who will serve as cheap labor for those at the top, especially when you consider how much of people's potential isn't determined by their genetic gifts, but by the socioeconomic environment they're raised in, who their parents, teachers and peers are, etc. His suggestions seem like they would create a self-fulling prophecy towards a caste system, where as I'd rather see something more akin to "posthumanism for everyone."

At the micro level I agree with Caplan: if you do poorly in high school you probably don't enjoy the academic mode of skill acquisition and your ability to gain from more academic instruction is limited. There are other ways to learn.

On a longer term level I think he's missing the more important question. Being able to function in academic settings is a strong predictor for a variety of important outcomes: income, health, happiness, social and political power. Why do some individuals do better in academia than others?

If it's because of innate factors(genetic laziness?), then by all means, Ayn Rand and social evolutionize away.

If it's because of bad parents, bad teachers, bad state policy(and a tiny smidge of poor genetics to top it off) then we should probably focus on fixing those social problems.

I am inclined to believe the latter case. The #1 thing I find distasteful about Caplan's stance on education, as well as his co-blogger Russ Roberts' for that matter, is that I believe it punishes children for the sins of their parents.

  From a social point of view, I'd only push 
  college on the top 5%.

From what little I've read [1], France has a two-tier university system where the most respected tier only admits 10% of people, based on teenagers' exam results.

By all accounts the results are kind of shitty if you're in the 11th percentile, as you have to go get a foreign masters degree or a PhD if your ambition is to get a top job.

[1] http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1292 http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1293

In Germany we have a clear path for those last and before last groups: apprenticeships. They are structured, widely accepted and highly respected. It seems like in the US such an alternative path is unfortunately missing (i.e. go to college or you will struggle).

I'm honestly irritated at the economic system that is unable to make it so that university is an optional and elite path, rather than a lowish common denominator. The American "college-for-all" bit is fallout from the ideal of social mobility, which is only an ideal because it's such a big deal to go from rags to riches. The reward makes the risk look worthwhile.

And, also related, is that universities are now finishing schools helping delay adulthood as long as possible; grade school is mostly a funnel towards making sure the kids get into college, rather than trying to stand on its own institutional merit.