Where is the Educational Upside?

A recent post from Bryan Caplan which references his book The Case Against Education: Why the Education System is a Waste of Time and Money, calls to mind a potential twist on the old "markets fail, use markets" argument. "K-12 public education fails. Use K-12 public education!"

Should this juxtaposition seem odd: Where is the structural private sector alternative, to the problems which currently face formal education? Regular readers know how I feel about this matter. Supply side institutions need a chance to meaningfully evolve so as to maintain economic and societal stability. Otherwise, immense quantities of wealth could be lost, should political opponents and populists get the chance to destroy institutions they don't like, despite a lack of institutions which could meaningfully replace them.

Nevertheless, public schooling is caught in an deep conundrum which casts shadows over what it has been able to contribute to a 21st century knowledge based economy. Long before recent voices were raised in protest, some were already questioning the value of present day educational roles. For example: In Gender (1982), Ivan Illich complained how men and women supposedly need "education" as part of growing up, then he continued (page 11):

In traditional societies, they matured without the conditions for growth being perceived as scarce. Now, educational institutions teach them that desirable learning and competence are scarce goods for which men and women must compete. Thus, education turns into the name for learning to live under the assumption of scarcity.

Alas, Illich is right about the scarcity part. In particular, artificially defined skills scarcity led to an incredible transfer of 20th century tradable sector wealth, to professional groups who specialized in time based product. Yet this good fortune could not last forever, and the process is also not well suited for sustainable knowledge use patterns in the 21st century. Already, parts of these non tradable sector supply side activities are being dissembled in the political arena. Nowhere are the results of artificially imposed knowledge scarcity more evident, for instance, than in today's healthcare systems.

Even though formal education doesn't function as well as markets in general, these deep institutional social patterns are nowhere near being superseded by a new reality. If we are to maintain economic stability well into the future (thereby allowing automation to successfully continue reducing labour hours in relation to tradable sector output), nations will need to ask all of their citizens to partake in the world of non tradable sector knowledge.

But we can't extend any such welcome on the earlier terms of wealth capture and non coordinated non tradable sector price making. We can't expand indefinitely, a wealth bonanza that was never intended to serve society as a whole. It's far from easy to think about the implications of this reality, which may partially explain the attitude of those who look forward to less mass production and lower population levels in the future. Ivan Illich also expressed his hope for lower mass production levels, decades earlier in Gender - alongside his desire for permanently reduced economic growth. Hopefully, my readers are well aware, that any heavy structural reductions in economic growth would be anathema to me.

In light of these observations, what about Caplan's essential argument? Even if every "rational" and/or extra bright student were to adopt STEM sensibilities as a way forward, our present system would not be able to miraculously expand its workplace offerings to include every aspiring student on today's generous terms. We have stretched beyond recognition, the boundaries of what originating sources of wealth can be expected to keep redistributing for dependent high skill knowledge sectors. Perhaps some of these harsh realities could help to explain why Lev Novikov, educator and start-up engineer, did not get a substantive response after numerous attempts for open discussion re Caplan's book. As Novikov explained:

The short version is that there was a lot of interest in reading the book, but very little interest in discussing it...The students were extremely reluctant to discuss the book, especially in a group.

Indeed, conversations over the course of the school year, basically came down to two points:

• I always knew school was wasting my time! Is this why you're trying to teach us to program and build stuff?
• I can't argue with his points, but I think he's wrong.

Part of the problem is the context of the discussion: Open ended, perhaps, but with few clear alternatives or positive ways to respond. If the argument feels hypothetical, it's also posed as though we should be rid of public education, whether or not trade-offs have been adequately considered. If this weren't enough, economics discussions are normally chock full of trade-offs! What has to be depressing for these kids, is their growing awareness that today's society doesn't really need many of these soon to be high school graduates, in any meaningful context. Young though they may be, many of them can readily discern the doors which are basically closed to them.

Since we continue to inhabit an economy which derives hierarchical services sector dominance from decades of mass production, we don't yet have a true educational upside. But many individuals love to learn. Many individuals also enjoy intellectual challenges and a chance to contribute to society. Let's not leave the impression that it is irrational for the overwhelming majority of humanity to desire a full life, should anyone happen to be born in the "wrong" circumstance. We can open the doors to a more inclusive and meaningful society, which does not require the high costs of today's non tradable sectors. After all, it is the costs of final goods and services in these sectors, which lead to irrational demands for higher wages than many employers are able to pay.

We need to explore possibilities for an educational upside which contributes to better economic outcomes for all concerned. The best way to do so, is to integrate education in all its diversity, with a full range of activities which people perform on a regular basis. Taxpayer expense for public education tends to be beside the point, especially since so much of this takes place via local property taxes. Let's discuss potential structural changes in education, without belittling those who are still trying to make the best of the system which still exists. We can build a new educational framework which illuminates productive responses to present day wants and needs, instead of simply working to undermine a system which in certain respects has largely outlived its usefulness.