

Three Graphs About Trying and Failing - libovness
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/05/three_graphs_ab.html

======
Scienz
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."

~~~
yummyfajitas
_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._

Caplan has a counterargument to this - twin studies and various observational
studies that attempt to do similar things. He goes into detail occasionally on
his blog, and also in his book:

[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465028616/ref=as_li_tl?ie=...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465028616/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0465028616&linkCode=as2&tag=christuc-20&linkId=6FNGHQ5PCQRIEMMI)

(The focus of the book is not on education, but on how variation in parenting
strategy does not affect adult outcomes. )

Also, your view is not incompatible with Caplan's "elitist, Ayn Rand-ian
worldview". Caplan merely asserts that at the time of entering college, it's
pointless for most people. The specific reason at which it became pointless
for them is irrelevant - "socioeconomic factors", genetics or whatever, it's
still a waste of money.

~~~
Scienz
Interesting, and I'm glad to hear any counterarguments (no idea who downvoted
you). I'll have to read the book and/or studies before I could give a good
reply, but judging from the Amazon reviews, it looks like even he mitigates it
in the book by saying some parental actions can have important effects (for an
extreme example, being violently abusive to your kids). Given stuff like that,
and a lot of the recent stuff in social influence on epigenetics[1], I'm a bit
skeptical where to draw the line between nature and nurture. But I'll really
have to read the book and twin studies before I could debate those points.

[1] [http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/the-
soci...](http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/the-social-life-
of-genes-64616/)

------
larksimian
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.

------
michaelt

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

------
o1iver
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).

------
saraid216
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.

