Privatization would make these sorts of problems worse, as schools compete more vigorously to sell signalling value to parents.
The fix is to monopolize signalling value through legal fiat - make it illegal to ask job applicants or allow applicants to disclose the school they attended, and replace it with an examination and/or interview based certification monopoly.
And, indeed, what studies are available seem to confirm this. Not just for private schools - charter schools also tend to underperform the public schools.
Granted, kids who go to them do tend to get better test scores, go to better universities, have more successful careers, etc. But that's because the whole education industry is a massive exercise in selection bias. The most careful studies I've seen, though, seem to indicate that, all other factors being equal, a typical kid is going to learn more in public school than in private or charter school.
This rather mirrors my own experience. I did 2 years of public high school, and 2 years of college prep. I can say that it's absolutely true that my classmates were generally smarter and more studious in the prep school. But the prep school was also easy. It really didn't particularly matter how much effort I put into my homework. As long as I didn't blatantly blow it off, my teachers would dutifully send my parents a report card full of the As and Bs they were paying for.
By contrast, it was the public schools where I had the teachers who'd keep ratcheting up their expectations until they could sense that I was actually working to try and get good grades on my papers.
In terms of actual student performance (as opposed to grades), I'd expect parents to be a major factor. They're going to build support networks-- running the fundraisers, supporting extracurriculars, keeping an eye on student performance and scandals.
When we provide "options" -- charters, private schooling, even public magnets-- the parents who are motivated and concerned enough to build those networks tend to pounce on them. The "default" public school loses its champions and ends up producing worse outcomes for everyone whose parents aren't tuned in.
> Privatization would make these sorts of problems worse, as schools compete more vigorously to sell signalling value to parents.
That's one of the most compelling arguments against school vouchers I've encountered. Especially as that is exactly what has happened in higher education where consumer choice is higher.
Most universities here are private, and everybody knows that you have to get "a college education".
The end result being that, outside of a select few national institutions that appear to have some degree of academic rigor, university in Japan is referred to as a "four-year vacation", and graduation is effectively automatic.
Reflecting back on the original post, I'm not sure that nationalization of universities in the US would help. We have plenty of high-quality state schools as-is, but Harvard and friends are prestigious because their brands come with deeply powerful social networks.
The same effect applies to making it illegal to put university names on resumes.
Sure, there is definitely a halo effect in being able to put Harvard or Stanford on your resume, but I would wager that the vast majority of top-tier university students don't apply by (metaphorically) filling out a job application and handing it to the shift manager.
Instead, your work comes through your network. Alice introduces you to Bob who knows that Charlene has invested in TinyCo, which is poised to be the next unicorn, and so you get in on the "ground floor" in this fashion.
That's not the kind of thing you can really address via legislation.
(Note that there is an assumption here that you can Do The Thing. Charlene probably doesn't want you working at TinyCo and squandering her investment if you aren't going to help make it the next unicorn.)
I discovered that it’s even worse. Alice’s mom sends an email to Bob who tells Charlene that his friend’s kid is super smart and of course from Harvard, and then when Alice calls she can ask for Charlene directly and see if she wants to go for a glass of wine.
Competition should be a good thing. The real issue is that colleges and employers are looking at the wrong signals. This leads the existing competition.
GPA for example is arbitrary yet colleges and employers are basically asking schools to 'optimize' / maximize it. Standardized testing (ACT/SAT) is much better, but still misses important aspects like leadership ability. Even the prestige of the school is a poor signal.
Give employers / colleges a better objective measure and they will gladly use it. Perhaps we should have a post-college standardized test.
The fix is to monopolize signalling value through legal fiat - make it illegal to ask job applicants or allow applicants to disclose the school they attended, and replace it with an examination and/or interview based certification monopoly.