Do you have a more on point summary? That's a lot of text and the parts I skimmed say little against education. Obviously education is used for signaling ability. Not using it this way would be stupid, since it's one of the best tools for that we have. Kind of like the SSN seems to be used as ID in the US. Doesn't mean both of them don't also serve their original purpose anymore. And I haven't found much of of that in that 11 page blog post.
Then there is a bunch about how to build better schools. This seems reasonable in principle, since the way we teach especially in early years is still heavily influenced from by long ago times with different workforce needs and a different culture in general. But lets better not get into the actually mentioned proposals. And this still does hardly fit the "IQ unrelated from schools" narrative discussed in the comments here.
So back to those: If school has no impact, then were do those traits we aspire come from? Are here actually people who believe you can just dump an infant with perfect genes in front of a TV, feed (&co) it regularly, and then expect it to become a genius in adulthood? If not, then what makes the difference and why shouldn't some "school" help citizens apply whatever it is, supported by policy?
In brief: there are strong reasons to believe that much of higher education and even large parts of school serve not to teach but to test students. An English major doesn't lead to higher pay because it makes one a substantially better worker. It does so because achieving it signals three primary traits to the potential employer: intelligence, conscientiousness, and conformity.
This isn't education's only function. Some learning undeniably still takes place. But in Caplan's estimation signalling is probably about 80% of the payoff.
This picture is supported by a large number of observations:
- Why do even top schools like Harvard make little to no effort to prevent non-students from attending lectures?
- Why do students cheer when class is canceled?
- Why does ratemyprofessor.com have the measures "overall quality" and "difficulty" but not an explicit "informativeness" measure and why is high difficulty considered bad?
- Why do students cheat on tests and why do teachers make such a large effort to prevent it?
- Why do employers rarely show concern that you might've forgotten what you learned?
- Why do statistics indicate that graduation year has a much greater effect on wages than all the other years?
All these points contradict the "education = learning" viewpoint but are straightforwardly explained with the signalling model.
And once you acknowledge the importance of signalling it puts statements such as
> And, a good education pays off even for less gifted people. Their lives are better, they contribute more to the economy and less to crime.
into a completely new perspective. As Caplan writes:
> The classic example: You want a better view at a concert. What can you do? Stand up. Individually, standing works. What happens, though, if everyone copies you? Can everyone see better by standing? No way. Popular support for education subsidies rests on the same fallacy. The
person who gets more education, gets a better job. It works; you see it plainly. Yet it does not follow that if everyone gets more education, everyone gets a better job. In the signaling model, subsidizing everyone’s schooling to improve our jobs is like urging everyone to stand up at a concert to improve our views. Both are “smart for one, dumb for all.”
> In the signaling model, subsidizing everyone’s schooling to improve our jobs is like urging everyone to stand up at a concert to improve our views.
It seems that model doesn't even attempt to pretend anymore that our society gives equal opportunity to everyone? Now only the rich shall have the opportunity to signal? That's why I didn't want to go into the actual proposals in that critique... at best they seem to ignore all the complexity of the actual world we live in. Kinda reminded me of someone who just discovered Libertarianism and now thinks governments are totally unnecessary.
If his argument would be "we should reduce signaling", I'd totally love for that to be possible. But I'm not sure it actually is, when taking all the game-theoretic aspects of the real world into account. Maybe all he wants is to reset the out of control spiral of signaling for now? But if the only way we can do so is also a 0.1%er-capitalists wet dream, then I've little hope for the future. Signaling will always exist and be necessary as long as there is a competitive job market, and I don't see society working without.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond. I like the first observation, since it highlights how narrow the allowed path for effective signaling is. Just finishing the material isn't enough, you have to be accepted into the school through official ways. Some observations are kind of weak, though. Especially the second, since it boils down to many people preferring short term gratification over long term success. Students will cheer even if tests are standardized and those canceled classes thus will lead to worse grades => failure at signaling.
Then there is a bunch about how to build better schools. This seems reasonable in principle, since the way we teach especially in early years is still heavily influenced from by long ago times with different workforce needs and a different culture in general. But lets better not get into the actually mentioned proposals. And this still does hardly fit the "IQ unrelated from schools" narrative discussed in the comments here.
So back to those: If school has no impact, then were do those traits we aspire come from? Are here actually people who believe you can just dump an infant with perfect genes in front of a TV, feed (&co) it regularly, and then expect it to become a genius in adulthood? If not, then what makes the difference and why shouldn't some "school" help citizens apply whatever it is, supported by policy?