An Educated Population Is Essential to a Nation’s Prosperity, yet Some Politicians Are Demonizing Our Educational System for Political Advantage

Updated:
Posted in: Education

One of the bedrock areas of agreement in this country, for at least the last century, has been that education is a core commitment of our society.  We might disagree about exactly what subject matter should be taught in schools, or about which governments (federal, state, or local) should finance education, but we have rarely wavered in our recognition that universal education is a right, and that higher education is a priority, for the sake of the country’s current and future well-being.

This broad agreement has been based in part on civic ideals, on the recognition of the role of education in creating citizens who understand how our democracy works.  It has also been based on the recognition that education improves our economy, with educated citizens also being more productive workers.  It would be difficult to imagine a more “mom and apple pie” area of agreement, across the political spectrum, than the subject of education.  That is, until recently.

If Economics Teaches Us Anything, It Is That Education Leads to Prosperity

In recent columns on Verdict (here and here), I have described the limited effectiveness of economists in providing policy advice.  We economists often earn our reputation for being disconnected from reality, and for being unable to agree amongst ourselves.  Some economic concepts are so fundamental, however, that there is very little room for debate.  One among that very small set of concepts is the tenet that an educated population is an essential prerequisite for national prosperity.

When I was in graduate school, one of my professors was a prominent voice against the idea that government could intervene to improve the path of the economy.  I, along with a large majority of economists, disagreed with him about that.  Notwithstanding his commitment to small government, however, this economist also produced research showing that economic prosperity is importantly dependent upon the education of a country’s people.  This is—or, at least, once was—considered a universal truth, by all economists of all ideological stripes.

How do we know that education is so important?  The countries in the world that have become prosperous fall into two categories.  The first category includes those nations that have possessed (or acquired by force) large amounts of a valuable natural resource.  Countries that have been fortunate enough to find themselves sitting on large reserves of gold, oil, rich farmland, and so on, have an obvious advantage over those that are not so fortunately endowed.

The second group of countries—a much larger one—is composed of countries that have educated their citizenry into prosperity.  Nearly all of the countries that have long been the wealthiest in the world reached, or have maintained, that status by having universal pre-college education, along with a strong commitment to higher education.  Even the most resource-poor countries of Northern and Western Europe have enjoyed much higher living standards than many resource-rich countries that do not devote themselves to educating their young people.

Countries that want to become great have learned that economic dominance is predicated upon the creation of a system of high-quality education.  Consider Japan: It possesses few natural resources, consists of a handful of densely-populated islands that are remote from Europe and the United States, and came out of the Second World War with its industrial base all but destroyed.  Even so, the Japanese people committed themselves to building a first-class education system.

The result was decades of impressive economic growth, during which Japan became an economic power and the world’s second-largest economy (only recently surpassed by China, which has a population ten times the size of Japan’s, and is building an impressive education system of its own).  Japan’s stagnation in recent years has been caused by other factors, especially the aging of its population, that are beyond the power of even an excellent education system to reverse.

Other countries have wisely followed Japan’s lead.  Taiwan, for example, is another resource-poor nation that has become an economic powerhouse.  Indeed, a Taiwanese diplomat recently wrote that “Taiwan’s economic achievement is based on education.  [We] believe that education is the bedrock of a nation’s competitiveness.”  One would think that no one would argue with that contention.

Who Should Pay for Education?  Everyone Who Benefits From It—That Is, All of Us

Even if all of the evidence points to the importance of education in achieving economic prosperity, however, one could disagree about who should pay for it.  Becoming better-educated, after all, will benefit a person through higher income and better job opportunities.  If we trust people to choose how to make themselves happy—by buying as much, say, ketchup as they want, and no more—then why do we not simply allow them to buy as much education as they desire, paying out of their own pockets?  The latest census data show that those with high school educations earn about $50,000 per year, while those with college educations earn about $94,000 per year.  Why should we not trust people to go after this economic bonanza, without anyone else’s help?

The answer, again, comes from the most basic economic principles.  Education is good not just for the person who becomes educated, but also for everyone around her.  When citizens are more productive, they are able to contribute to the economy in ways that benefit others far beyond the salaries that they receive.  They also become much less likely to need public assistance (when the economy is not in a slump), to commit criminal acts, and so on.

Economists call these beneficial aspects of education “positive externalities,” because so many of the good things that education creates are enjoyed by others—people who are “external” to the individual who is deciding how much money to spend on education.  This is why it is important for a country’s people, acting together through their government, to increase the amount of spending on education beyond what individuals would choose to spend on their own.

Again, this is about as uncontroversial an economic proposition as one could find.  We can disagree about how heavily education should be subsidized, but we have never before disagreed with the foundational idea that education should be subsidized.

That is one reason why people were so dismayed earlier this month when Republican Presidential front-runner Mitt Romney seemed to abandon the very idea that education should be subsidized by the government.  Answering a question from a young man who expressed concern about his ability to afford higher education, Romney reportedly responded: “It would be popular for me to stand up and say I’m going to give you government money to pay for your college, but I’m not going to promise that. . . . And don’t expect the government to forgive the debt that you take on.”

Why would we not want to give a promising young person “government money” to go to college?  And why would we not want to reduce the debt loads of people who have paid for college by taking out loans?  Failing to do so does not merely punish the individuals who cannot afford college, but also robs the rest of us of the opportunity to share in the prosperity that is possible when young people are enabled to reach their potential.

For Romney’s new position to be correct—that is, for him to accurately say that there should be no “government money” provided to higher education—we would have to believe that there are simply no positive externalities from higher education to justify the assistance.

Until very recently, it was simply a given that American politicians would support education, both pre-college and at the university level.  Subsidized college loans—Pell Grants—received broad bipartisan support.  The program was generally underfunded, but it still managed to send millions of young people to college who otherwise could not have attended.  Yet even funding for Pell Grants is now under attack.

The Republicans’ Disdain for Education: Sowing Social Discord for Political Advantage

America’s most extreme conservatives have a problem.  After years of dominating the political debate, making the tax system less progressive and enabling the wealth in the country to become increasingly concentrated among a tiny elite, they have been surprised by the power of the populist response embodied in the Occupy Wall Street protests.  Even though most Americans never joined the protests, they quickly understood the reality of “the 1%” and “the 99%.”

How to respond?  Divide and conquer, of course!  The vast majority of the population—the very people for whom education would provide such a boon—is in an understandably foul mood, due to the extended pain of the Great Recession and its aftermath.  If that anger can be redirected away from the wealthy and toward a false bogeyman, then the power of the 99% will be effectively neutralized.

We therefore hear Romney make snide remarks about “the faculty lounge,” while his opponent Rick Santorum dismisses President Obama’s call to expand opportunities to attend college as mere snobbery.  The idea, of course, is that “regular folks” in the population should not trust educated people.  Anti-intellectualism is alive and well on the campaign trail.

This attack on educators is especially absurd when leveled against professors at non-Ivy League universities, and even at public school teachers.  Yet a recent editorial by a former university chancellor argues that faculty at non-elite universities—indeed, at community colleges—are overpaid and underworked.  He cites the example of full professors at Maryland’s Montgomery College, who earn the princely sum of $88,000 per year (less than the average for all Americans with a college degree), but who supposedly only work half as much as “their non-academic peers.”

The absurdity of these factual claims has been exposed elsewhere.  My point here is simply that we have reached the point where the American people are being told to turn their anger against highly-educated people who perform some of the most important work in the country—educating a group of students who, in many cases, belong to the first generation in their families to attend college.

We claim to pride ourselves on “equality of opportunity,” but if the people who are essential to preparing young people to seize those opportunities can be painted as somehow coddled—magically teaching their courses without ever taking the time to prepare to teach those course, or ever really “working” at all—then suddenly we are arguing about how to take away those supposedly cushy jobs.  This may be a winning political strategy, but it is disastrous for the long-term health of the country.

What About “Indoctrination”?  The Content of Higher Education Shows Up in the Economic Benefits of a College Degree—and Other Countries Pay Attention

Even before the recent attacks on solidly middle-class educators emerged, there has always been an important element of the culture wars in the attacks on higher education.  Mr. Santorum is only the most recent cultural conservative to attack colleges for supposedly “indoctrinating” students in liberal dogma.  Americans are apparently meant to believe that their tax money is being ill-spent on subsidizing higher education, because their children are being inculcated with nothing but airy-fairy, lefty political cant.

That argument is, again, based on nothing more than the wild fantasies of those with a broader political agenda.  Rather than refuting the argument by describing what goes on inside America’s college classrooms, however, we can simply look at what comes out of them.  Even if it were true that colleges are incubators of liberalism, they are obviously doing something right.

America’s hard-headed businessmen and businesswomen—people who are interested in making a profit—find it worthwhile to recruit America’s college graduates, and to pay them much more than they would pay a high school graduate. How to explain the salary difference? Unless we believe that the market system is completely broken—and has been for decades—we ought to conclude that American colleges and universities are creating graduates who provide economic value.

In addition, those other countries that have educated themselves into prosperity (in many cases, to the point where their living standards are now higher than in the United States) have long sent their most promising students to American universities.  Our system of higher education—both our public colleges and universities, and our private universities that educate students who take out publicly-subsidized loans—is still the envy of the world.

That asset can, however, be squandered.  In the 1980’s, British politicians savaged that country’s once-excellent university system, turning it into a mere shadow of its former self.  American politicians have been doing the same here for decades, leading to a pronounced decline in our advantage over other countries.  It is not too late to save ourselves, but the trends are running decidedly in the wrong direction.

The fact is that any large institution can be improved, and American higher education is no exception.  Reasonable people can and do work together every day, to try to figure out the best way forward for our colleges and universities.  That work should continue.  Turning one of America’s greatest resources into a political punching bag, however, is a dangerous and self-destructive game.  And it is a game that the people of the United States can ill afford to play.

Posted in: Education, Politics

  • JackdaShack

    If Romney said this why are you saying it’s a GOP attack?  I didn’t know he represented my views.  Even if he’s were to be president, all president’s do not represent the views of all Americans.  I know there is benefit in higher education. I also know there is benefit in learning trades. We will always need trades. Is that like saying we will always want simpler stupider people for trades?  Some tradesmen may not have much in the way of education but can be very wise people. I think you will find that in this atmosphere, almost a civil war of words, when the President is caught off guard talking about those ner do wells and their guns and Bibles, he as President is dividing the nation. So some look at educated people, like the President, skeptically. I’m sure Mr. Romney didn’t get where he got without education. Therefore, how could he be against it totally like you depict him? Things are taken out of context just for the sake of some grist for the mill. To divide and conquer the minds of people is the goal. You might want everyone to watch PBS. I like PBS. I know on average they, the staff/ producers /watchers, etc. are much more educated than myself.  But I like PBS. If everyone does not take a step back and stop dividing by taking people in the news and skewing their words we are going to be a nation at civil war again. I mean destruction in the streets. There are so many calling for that and are preparing. It has become brother against brother, father agains son.  Could you have made your point without setting up someone to punch first?  I think  …. as an educated person.  You could have made your point with out that sucker punch in the beginning.  From a 12th grade educated person. G’day!  “:-

    • Shawn

      There seems to be a wide dissadence between American governance, people, and business leaders but what is left to missunderstand that this social order is suppose to be a working structure collectively instead of wanting self serving structure observationalizers with their own key meanings as the main measure of what they’re real for. It’s best to mind your play in parts as they play in other parts realizing that they play you back some to so that you understand the bigger picture when you do your part in playing yours so that you can keep the fact of the matters straight when playing your needed roles. Understand that a shrewd mindfulness of your true place in societies keeps you realistic in your role of service.

  • As a general matter, I agree education is important. However, it has been increasingly observed by a broad spectrum of non-partisan sources that (1) the ballooning costs of college is not keeping pace with income potential; (2) the loans necessary for a college education and the growing inability to pay them – defaults are at record levels – pose a danger greater than the housing bubble; (3) higher education has simply become the new floor – if everyone has a degree, everyone can’t earn more than everyone else (on average); (4) college education often doesn’t live up to the hype of providing the skills necessary for global competition (or even general usefulness).

    First off, I am very very happy I went to college and then law school. It has not paid off. The loans are killing me. I didn’t learn useful skills as an undergrad. Looking for a job has been a terrible experience. But I did still love my educational experience. I do want others to have the opportunity to obtain a higher education.

    The current economy does play a major role in the current rate of defaults. But it is a danger encouraged by the notion that everyone should receive a higher education and that the government will encourage us to take out the necessary loans to get it. With this in mind, Romney’s stance is very reasonable.

    Assumptions underlying your argument is that the costs of higher education is keeping pace with income potential and that higher education, by and large, provides us with useful skills and greater understanding of how our democracy works. I do not think either of these propositions are true.

    As far as Republicans disparaging intellectual elitism, that’s a populist attack. You do go far in exaggerating what the candidates actually said, but I’ll concede the basic point that Republican candidates have said critical things about “the faculty lounge.” It does not rise to a general “disdain for education” nor the “sowing of social discord” – at least to the many of us who don’t spend time in faculty lounges.

    While you are ostensibly criticizing Republicans in that section, you cite David C. Levy’s piece criticizing faculty at non-elite universities. He donated to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the last election, 2010 (per city-data.com). So it does seem odd to include his critique as part and parcel of populist Republican comments. His attacks appears to be of a different nature.

    I also think you greatly exaggerate claims of “indoctrination.” It is merely a way of arguing that institutions of higher learning are failing in the goal of civic education (which you identify as one of the most important goals).

    You say that “Our system of higher education…is still the envy of the world.” I hope that is the case! What the politicians and media tell us is that we’re failing to keep up with the world in actual measurements of education and skill. The comparison with the British system points to the dangers of a nationalized system. I understand the concern that if fewer students take loans to give to universities, then universities have less money to give raises and hire professors. It means less construction of new buildings, fewer research projects, less of a lot of things one might find on a campus.

    Whether we can actually afford those things is a serious question. There is not a Republican war on higher education. There are deep and serious concerns. Maybe as an educated conservative who benefited from subsidized loans, I should be expected to simply stay quiet, lest I be called a hypocrite. We see this where conservative blacks have been helped by affirmative action and thereafter criticize it.

    I recognize my path would have been more difficult and that those who come after me would have a more difficult path without the advantage of subsidized loans. And I’m not even advocating doing away with such loans. But something need to be done to address issues of cost and the growing disconnect between education and earning potential. These facts underlie the Republican critique. Rejecting that critique as ignorance and politics is advocacy of simply staying the course (and do some unspecified things at some point if we have to) if not make it worse by increasing loans and costs.

  • Rafael Bocanegra

    I share your concern with the education of every child in america,one that has slowly been eroded,and reach a point to were parent’s now a day’s must look closely where their children will attent classes,there are a number of thing’s that have allowed this erosion,and number one and above all else, it has been parental supervision,the one’s that blame the system most often are the creator’s of their children’s own disability to learn,so if we are to start anywhere,has to be at home,politician’s will be politician’s, but moving their jaws is not the solution,nor the problem.

  • Jedlimon

    Thank you for your opinion.

    Lawyers should stick to lawyering, if you want to be a politician, run for office.

  • Jenni White

    “Americans are apparently meant to believe that their tax money is being
    ill-spent on subsidizing higher education, because their children are
    being inculcated with nothing but airy-fairy, lefty political cant.”

    No contest here – WE DO BECAUSE COLLEGES ARE ABSOLUTELY inculcating students with “airy-fairy, lefty political cant” and one has only to read One Party Classroom by David Horowitz (a REFORMED liberal moron) to see literally THOUSANDS of examples of such (http://www.amazon.com/One-Party-Classroom-Professors-Indoctrinate-Undermine/dp/0307452557)! PS: if you don’t like Horowitz, I’ll find more…

    “That argument is, again, based on nothing more than the wild fantasies
    of those with a broader political agenda.  Rather than refuting the
    argument by describing what goes on inside America’s college classrooms,
    however, we can simply look at what comes out of them.  Even if it were
    true that colleges are incubators of liberalism, they are obviously
    doing something right.”

    I agree Professor, let’s look at what comes out of your classrooms! We have only to look at the election of a president like Obama – who routinely uses class warfare to justify socialist policy, operates outside the Constitution with his endless Executive Orders and allows the government to steal private industries (and homes) from owners in order to turn them into government run/owned entities –  to determine that our country has made a radical shift to the left. Now, using recent Census Bureau (government) data, we find that the two largest categories of voters are College Graduates and Post Grads (http://elections.gmu.edu/CPS_2008.html).

    To sum up…thousands of examples regarding collegiate leftist dogma indoctrination exist and as you churn out (severely indebted) graduates, they go out and vote and give us what we have in America right now – a severe turn from the personal liberty and small government of our forefathers to the Marxist, Socialist dogma directing the failed economies of countries such as Russia, Cuba and East Germany (to name a few) – which is fully crippling the once-greatest economic engine in the world – the US.

    In closing, my research indicates you to be a fully liberalized moron who only touts what he THINKS and BELIEVES because he only associates with other fully liberalized morons who don’t have a clue about the real world because they love to hear themselves talk to each other so much they don’t have time to do any real research or reading outside their own little bubble and therefore remain fully liberalized morons fully living out and perpetuating the liberalism in their own lives while indoctrinating their students in the same. Maybe a cure will be found and you will finally escape the liberal moron negative feedback loop and reform yourself…at least we can all HOPE.

    •  Those are nice talking points, however, in mathematics, computer science, chemistry, and other science fields, no one gives a shit about left or right.

  • We need more engineers, not lawyers and financial analysts.

  • WishingForLowerTuition

    Why should I be forced to pay for some kid to go to college when I cannot  afford to pay for my own child to go to college.  My daughter worked hard to earn scholarships to pay for a portion of her schooling, relies on a scholarship from her parents to pay part, and is working part time to pay the remainder in order to graduate debt free.  She has to work harder to make it happen, but she’s learning time management, is more involved in her education because she has some skin in the game, and has matured a good deal more than her peers who are getting a free ride.  Rather than focusing on getting the government to give out free money, maybe colleges should focus on reducing the cost of education.  The WSJ had a recent editorial about killing football at colleges, where some schools are subsidizing their programs with millions of dollars a year.  There are ways to make a college education affordable so the average student and their parents can pay for it without thousands of dollars in student loans.  Then stay in touch with them and get them to donate to the school through the alumni association.

  • Pingback: Destroying Our Universities by Turning Us Against Ourselves | Neil H. Buchanan | Verdict | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia()

  • Veronica

    I know I’m a little late (2 years) to this discussion, but what is said above can’t, nor will ever apply to everyone, or be equal. The ‘rest of us’ you talk about: I assume you mean the rest of us that isn’t educated. I understand that a country can benefit from educated people, but what about when everyone was educated? What if we make everyone educated and not have to pay for it? If everyone is educated, then there is no worth for education anymore. ” The latest census data show that those with high school educations earn about $50,000 per year, while those with college educations earn about $94,000 per year.” What if everyone has a college education, and everyone earns that much? Then that much, won’t be that much anymore. The rest of us uneducated people can benefit from educated people, but we can’y, nor will we ever be educated ourself. I’m a 15 year old ‘educated’ person from Australia by the way.

  • jacku

    the below discussion was good!!!