Dividends on Education

So I have a funny story about this one, I was surfing reason.com about a week ago and the banner was for this Frontline documentary on for profit colleges.  Well the ad right under it was an ad for University of Phoenix online.  Strangely ironic, that I was also reading an article about education policy.  Perhaps the programmers should make the website not place ads for both sides of the argument at the same time.  :-)

So, I have very complicated thoughts on education.  I spent a considerable amount of time in college/graduate school.  I have a lot to say about the problems and sometimes I even have solutions to some of the problems.  This post, however, is not about traditional colleges.

I have long said that not everyone should go to college.  Our colleges are stuffed with people who are only there to get a job when they graduate, they have very slight interest in their chosen field, and/or are there to party and live without parental supervision.  This is bad and hurts our education system.  I have also in the same breath said that we need community colleges and technical schools to step up and educate those who are not bound or should not be bound for college.  So where do the for-profits sit in that equation?

America has a lot of problems.  (All countries do.)  However there is one common thread, if people were more educated they would be less likely to 1) do stupid or irrational things, 2) vote for stupid or irrational things, and 3) be a detriment to society.  If this gap can be filled with for profit institutions then I say go for it.  However, I personally would not invest in a for profit school.  I feel like the problem is education policy at the regional and state level and more intelligent administration could fill in the gaps more effectively and render the profit margins of for profit schools lower.  (However good luck getting any government at any level to do anything remotely rational.)  Education is one of those ivory tower things that benefit all of society.  I feel like they should be non-profit and private (maybe owned by alumni).  So I guess for profits are here to stay.  As a society we need smarter people who are more able to fill the roles needed and less likely to need jobs we can't do (like a lot of manufacturing these days).

So what are the problems?  Cost.  They cost more.  There are more loans needed by the students.  This is a huge issue.  I was surprised that the 10% default number (default right after they leave school) for these schools was shown as a good thing (as opposed to a higher number).  (I have no idea what it is for private or state school but the video said for profits are 10% of the loans but 50% of the defaults so you can do the math.)  Basically people get a lot of loans and then get out or don't finish and can't pay their bills.  This seems like a place where the government could step in and say, hey, thats fine that you make money on education but you have to find private funding for loans.  (I feel that a lot of government financing of education should be allocated with a thought to whether or not the investment is worth it on an individual basis and private investors should do that.)

Unfortunately not everyone can handle the work load of an online university either.  This shows a major failing of the primary educational system in America.  This is a topic for another post though.

The biggest problem I feel is accreditation and quality of knowledge when people exit.  I also feel this is a major problem with foreign schools as well.  (I have had to work with a lot of people who may be the cream of the crop in another country, where they were educated, however in America they just can't cut the mustard.)  This suggests a failing of the schooling and not the person as it is a systemic problem.  (This is a general statement, individual results may vary.)  For profits, especially the online ones, lack this credibility as well.  Is this justified?  In some cases yes, I believe so and in others no I do not.  I do not feel that a for profit education is the same as a poor education.  However a lot of people do.  I feel like the variance is high in the quality of graduate and mean may be a little lower due to the sample of students who enter.  The rate of cheating is just as bad in regular colleges (man do I have stories I could tell you).  Grade inflation is just as bad in both places.  So why finger one type of school and say they are worse?

Also on the other side of the coin I do not think the established universities are out to get for profits or online schools.  While their structure does have specific failings of their own (I will discuss another time) they are not enemies.  In fact they could complement each other very well if they could work together.

Anyway, education is important and in America there are problems.  This video suggests an interesting approach to the problem and presented the problems associated with it.  I have given my stance (they can exist but I do not support them), watch the video, make up your mind.

Smart, S-M-R-T

Your reading for this post, the recent article on the reason about Washington D.C.'s public schools.

Most people know I am not a huge fan of the status quo in American education.  I have spent over 10 years after high school in my quest to learn stuff (I still teach myself a lot, look at my reading list to see how this is going).  I have a lot to say about all levels of education, everyone does.  I have a lot of friends who are teachers, everyone does.  I think it is wrong to say, 'If you don't have a solution, you can't criticize the current situation,' which is just a stupid thing to say.  Anyone can look at a stock portfolio that is down 20% and realize there is a problem when everyone else is only down 10%, doesn't mean we all know the answer to fix the former.

Anyway, this article is a very engaging piece.  We need major reform in primary and secondary education.  Let me start by saying that I don't know what the answer is and I don't know if what Rhee is doing is correct, but at least she is trying.  The article is about this change.  I don't know if the decidedly libertarian/pro-voucher/anti-union bias of the article is needed though.  However I would suggest those with a little bit of time give it a read, it is slightly long.

I very much applaud Rhee for trying something in Washington D.C.  It is all too common for people to look towards the federal government for answers.  I think this is a mistake with education (I also think it is a mistake in general but I leave that to another post).  At least with more experiments in more districts we can find what works.  That being said it is not obvious that the changes in Washington D.C. are hurting the kids which is a hurdle most programs must pass for most people.  We need more localized initiatives to fix education.  On a local level people are invested in their schools.  If a school board says, 'We are going to try this' then you know the public will help watch over the program and vote for change locally if things go south.  One a national level you have no such immediate concern for grass-roots efforts.  Additionally you have big money buying votes in congress.  Additionally if education is returned to the local areas then they can copy the things that work from other districts and remove the bad things when they find them.  If someone above you is dictating your policy it is hard to change.

In my opinion education is too important to be left to the federal government.  I am going to follow this post up in a few days with a post about Arne Duncan (the current secretary of education, a department which I do not really like) since he was referenced in this article.  I think it is important to know what he has been doing since assuming office.  If anyone has any reading for that post feel free to post below and I will review it.

Pimp My City

So I know it is no secret that I read the reason.com about weekly (maybe bi-weekly).  Well there is an interesting series this week called "Reason saves Cleveland".  As avid readers of my blog will know (and those who follow the links to the site) the site is very libertarian (hell the editor wrote a book called "Radicals for Capitalism" which I read all about the history of the modern libertarian movement in the US).

So the video series is very libertarian bent in its diagnosis of the problems that ail Cleveland.  While I happen to agree all of those things are bad I feel like they might be painting a half-picture here.  For instance in the second episode they promote charter schools.  Something I completely support.  However they do not state the opposing side of the coin where charter schools go wrong.  Sure there are good examples of Charter schools just like there are good public school districts.  It just happens that Cleveland currently doesn't have a good system.

Another segment deals with the taxes and red tape involved in owning a business.  Well I can't really punch any holes in the argument presented by the reason because I feel very strongly that over regulation is a very bad thing.

What was also a little troubling is that while they referenced other cities which solved the problems Cleveland has (which is the point of the series, to help Cleveland overcome their problems) they actually never focus on one city that does everything they suggest Cleveland does nor find a city that was in as bad of shape as Cleveland currently is in the past.  This is likely an important data point.  Any city could do one of the reforms they propose but to do all of them may be intractable (not just politically).  I feel like focusing on a city that was a rust belt city that turned around (or is turning) could help.  For instance Pittsburgh is turning around and becoming a more thriving city (though I never want to move there).  Perhaps a discussion on how they did it?

In the end I can't completely argue with the thesis that these things need to change.  I personally have a political philosophy that is very amiable to the libertarian mindset.  However I kind of wish for a more even handed approach, both sides of the story as it was.  I am beginning to feel like the reason is not completely about the best practice and is just about the libertarian practice.

Once again Education is broken.

So I am sure everyone has heard about the Texas school board ruling on the content of books.  If not here is a short list of possible reading material:

• http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35839979/ns/us_news-education/
• http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/11/kelly-shackelford-texas-textbook-social-studies-standards-american-history/

So what happened?  They revised their content of the school books.  Why is it important?  Mostly because they changed a lot of stuff that a lot of people disagree with, in both ways.  So I thought I would weigh in on a bunch of the changes, since I am sure everyone cares what I think.  (Most of these are taken from the MSNBC article.)

As an aside, no government or political intervention should be done into textbooks.  In general I a free knowledge proponent.  Basically I think facts should be stated as fact and theories as theories.  Also I think more discussion and reading is better than none.

• BC and AD vs BCE and CE.  Texas is wrong in my opinion.  AD is completely wrong given current scholarly work on the death of Christ anyway.  It is dumb.  (Texas 0, Anti-Texas 1)
• Origin of Isreali Conflict.  This is a tough one, it really depends on how it is specified.  If the conflict is specified in a politically agnostic way then this is a win for Texas but I doubt it will be so I will give each side a 0.5.  (Texas 0.5, Anti-Texas 1.5)
• Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir.  Win for Texas.  This shows a women in a powerful position and gives historical context to the era.  The reason the left doesn't like it I would imagine is that she was associated with Thatcher in England and more libertarian market principles.  (Texas 1.5, Anti-Texas 1.5)
• Second Amendment.   Not a win for Texas.  Unless of course the section specifies how all of the bill of rights can be applied to good citizenship.  (Texas 1.5, Anti-Texas 2.5)
• The conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s.  Important because it gives a context to things that happened in politics after the long new deal era.  As long as the previous decades are correctly talked about in the context of the broader political significance.  (Texas 2.5, Anti-Texas 2.5)
• Phyllis Schlafly.  It is good to know the opposite side of discussions however I don't know why she was there.  Plus this is likely too specific for the age groups.  (Texas 2.5, Anti-Texas 3.5)
• The Contract With America.  Seems to me to be the pinnacle of the resurgence of conservative.  However I don't know why would point this out in isolation.  This sounds like a biased view of the contract so I am going 0.5 for each here.  (Texas 3.0, Anti-Texas 4.0)
• The Heritage Foundation.  This doesn't need to be talked about separately.  This is too specific for HS and younger kids. (Texas 3.0, Anti-Texas 5.0)
• The Moral Majority.  Again too specific.  Could be a passing comment in the resurgence section. (Texas 3.0, Anti-Texas 6.0)
• The National Rifle Association. Don't see why this is relevant.  They haven't done anything except protect the second amendment.  This should be in the same section as the ACLU.  (Texas 3.0, Anti-Texas 7.0)
• Violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s nonviolent approach.  This is a tough one because it is an example of opposing forces for the same product.  It is also a good example of the triumph of nonviolent approaches and using the system to get change.  This is like talking about Gandhi in India.  I am going with a 0.25 because I think the Black Panthers will be misrepresented.  (Texas 3.25, Anti-Texas 7.75)
• Votes in Congress on civil rights legislation.  It was bipartisan to an extent.  Should be noted.  (Texas 4.25, Anti-Texas 7.75)
• Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek.  Absolutely.  However I question whether Keynes should be studied directly in HS anyway.  If you are going to study Keynes and economic history you need to include the works of Hayek and Friedman.  If not the students would get a very one sided view of government intervention in the economy.  (Texas 5.25, Anti-Texas 7.75)
• Hip-Hop.  Signficant.  Texas loses because all theydo is line dance.  (Texas 5.25, Anti-Texas 8.75)
• Trivializing Hispanics.  Bad, there are more than just cowboys and Christians in the world.  Texas loses 2 points for that.  (Texas 5.25, Anti-Texas 10.75)
• "laws of nature and nature's God". Sounds like a bad idea.  Government should be independent of the people.  This seems like a misleading requirement to represent history wrongly.  (Texas 5.25, Anti-Texas 11.75)
• "Democratic" to "Constitutional Republic."  This is correct.  (Texas 6.25, Anti-Texas 11.75)
• In addition to learning the Bill of Rights, the board specifies a reference to the Second Amendment right to bear arms in a section about citizenship in a U.S. government class. (Texas 6.25, Anti-Texas 11.75)
• "Analyze the decline of the U.S. dollar including abandonment of the gold standard."For a history course?  Maybe talk about it but to have a worksheet on it is likely dumb.  Texas Loses here.  (Texas 6.25, Anti-Texas 12.75)
• Germans and Italians were interned in the United States during World War II.   This happened and there are lots of reasons for this however this seems to downplay the amount of internment for Japanese Americans. (Texas 6.25, Anti-Texas 13.75)
• "How the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government." This seems to downplay the actual lesson here that the hearings were mostly unconstitutional and violated due process.  We'll give Texas 0.25 for that.  (Texas 6.5, Anti-Texas 15.5)
• "The importance of personal responsibility for life choices" in a section on teen suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders. However this seems to mistake the influence of external factors.  I'll give each 0.5 because in the end people need to be accountable for their decisions.  (Texas 7, Anti-Texas 16)

So we can see since 16 > 7 and no one required anti-counting in Texas that Texas has some problems with their standards.  It seems like the board has some points that the history should be taught in a more even handed manner giving weight to more sides of the stories given current knowledge.  However it seems a little over-handed in some cases.

Wait, I should have a place in this course

So I have nothing important to blog about tonight.  I have no energy to blog something complicated.  However I wanted to talk about a really frustrating thing that I witnessed today.

So I am in training currently.  After you leave school and enter the work force you will continually train both for your benefit and for a check box on your manager's commitments.  Some training is good and some is bad.  My training this week is putting me to sleep.  It makes me feel good to know I can still learn things on my own though.  I am probably too knowledgeable to get a LOT out of the course.  Little victories in life is what all people have to look forward to once they graduate.

Anyway, when you sign up for the course it specifically says that if you are not there on time your seat will be given away.  It actually says this in every email they send to you to remind you about the course.  Thus you can show up the day of and get in usually because people just do not show up.  So anyway today two people came in about 15 minutes late and were lucky there were still seats in the room.  The course was just opened like last week so apparently many people didn't get a chance to get approval.  Well anyway, about 2 hours later (about 25% of the day is gone by now) two people walk in right after each other and try to sit down.  The instructor is like, um, 'no leave, there is no room'.  To which the people are like, but 'I am registered'.  The course had run out of books for the course and thus there was no possible way they could have gotten in.

Even though all the emails and websites are like, 'you will lose your seat if you are not on time' these people still went up to the instructor and were like, 'but I'm registered'.  Unbelievable.  If I was the instructor I would not have been that nice to them.  I am sure the instructor deals with it all the time though.  For one the courses start about 9 AM usually.  Which is a whole hour after normal work starting times for other people.  This time is very much in the core hours of work time.  If you can't make it into work by this time there really is something wrong.  I just can't believe people in the world feel like they can just walk into anything and do whatever they want.  Based on the driving habits of people around here I really shouldn't be surprised at this attitude though.  Completely unbelievable.

The rewards of schooling...

(So this topic will likely be the combination of multiple posts across months.  I have so much to say on the topic of education and the rewards (or lack thereof of them).  I also have a lot of say of the problems having been exposed to the darker underbelly of the education system.  Anyway on with this post.)

So what is this post about?  Well let me pose it like this: I was once asked by a friend who was getting their Master's why they wouldn't make enough money to pay for it.  Well I have finally found a great article to cite to discuss the answer.  My original answer (while true) was hard to articulate when someone doesn't understand economics (or worse doesn't 'believe' in it).

Anyway the article was from the reason.com.  The article doesn't really talk about education but the text is directly applicable to education.  So basically the article discusses something really important, the market DOES NOT reward merit, it rewards value.  Let me say that again, NOT merit, but value.  (Merit would be like trying hard, paying a lot for an education, or some other entitlement.)

What is value in an economic sense?  Basically anything people will pay money for.  I think what is really interesting is there has been a discussion on a private distribution list I am member of about the value of a college education in the wake of significant government intervention in the loans market (which only increase the cost of the education which I will discuss in another post).  An interesting anecdote was provided about a plumber who make $100 an hour and lived way better than the rest of the people in the neighborhood (who were all engineers).  He also worked less hours and was in general, 'happier'.  Why did he make so much?  Well barriers to entry was one, but also he was doing a job a lot of people can't or don't want to do, and people are willing to pay for it.  That is value.

Where does this leave merit?  The market will only reward merit as much as it creates value.  So what about people who work really hard but never make a lot of money?  Or what about people with $100k computer science degrees who are replaced by a person overseas who didn't pay anything for their education?  Out of luck mostly.  If someone can do your job (add the same value/cost or greater than you) then why should the company pay for you?  Why should the public pay for your technology over someone else's to repair a bridge if another 'less innovative' approach works as well?  (It is amazing to me how many people make truck loads of money doing stuff others don't want to do because it is not glamourous or is boring).

This article really made me think because too often we would like the market (or companies) to reward merit more because it seems like the right thing to do.  ('Wow that is a neat idea they should make money.')  But in reality it can't work that way, do you go to the expensive salon and pay 2x the cost of the low cost provider when they produce a equal amount of value?  Of course not.  So why should I or anyone else expect to get pay or awards all because I 'deserve' it?  The market doesn't pay you more for an education unless you provide value.  (It you do add value and are not paid for it you should find a new job which will pay for that value.)  The flip side of this is how do you know if you are adding value?  I'll attempt that topic more in future posts as I have some thoughts about that.

So back to the answer to my friend.  The reason is that your Master's degree doesn't add enough value to warrant having gotten it.  While they said it was 'what they wanted to do' and 'without it wouldn't get paid much or get any jobs in their chosen area'.  Well the problem is the area is overcrowded and has a low bar of entry for new talent.  In places like this value is everything and it is very hard to find value from just a degree.  Also stay out of the public sector as they rarely reward value (what does value mean in a government context) nor merit (when the state is giving out money everyone 'deserves it') but usually time (how long you worked there which is not correlated with value) and who you know (which is inefficient).