Some Comments on Education

A while back BostonDissentator asked for opinions on education. It was his contention that education is the single most important domestic political issue, and I would not immediately disagree. But for a moment, I'd like to consider an odd, and probably terribly unpopular position on education. I do so not to be overtly contentious, as some accuse me, nor to "spleen" my thoughtful and eloquent colleague, the Boston Dissentator, nor to rouse the indignant spirit of our Southern dispatch, the Virginia Dissentator, nor even really to push any specific policy. Rather, I'll meander tentatively down an intellectual side-alley, not often marked, let alone traveled, in the hopes of shedding some new light on our current thinking about education and maybe say a thing or two about it's role in modern political issues.

It's long been conventional wisdom that education is both the fuel of the economy and the antidote to bigotry, aggression, and fear. I believe a lot of the modern sentiment on education comes from Rousseau's famous quote "man must be forced to be free." Forced through education. This enlightenment belief is readily appropriated by republicans and democrats alike, though usually in divergent ways: The republicans will call for more education to increase national productivity (fuel of the economy) while democrats will tout the intangible benefits of liberal educations (antidote to bigotry). And probably, they are both right. Education increases productivity and acceptance. But is there no end? How productive and accepting can we get? And is there no cost? Why do we crave more and better education, and is there any reason why we shouldn't?

I'd like to offer two diagnosis for why we crave education and then two reasons why education may not be the universal good we often take it for.

Firstly, I think people mistakenly separate political problems into disparate arenas, when really the political world, like the economy, is a complicated interwoven web where everything is related to everything. People siphon-off education as a stand-alone problem and then assume that if they throw enough money at it, they can crack the whole system. Education is an attractive issue to focus on because it's charge is so rewarding: what could be more heart-warming than educating our children? But are we sure that education is really the root of everything. Does improving education improve race relations, or does improving race relations improve education? Does equality of education close the gender gap, or does closing the gender gap produce equality in education? As far as I know, these questions have not been solved conclusively.

Secondly, and this may be the most cynical part of my position, I think the drive for education has been mixed up with the modern American obsession with competition, productivity, and soulless drive for an empty notion of success. A college education is now held up as the necessary achievement of a successful person. And not just any college education. It has to be the best college education. Why? Is college so great that one could not succeed without one. Plenty of very successful people have got along just fine in this world without a college education. Whatsmore, college is not for everyone. The rigid structure of papers and tests can be too much for people. Or the lack of structured time can cause straight-forward minds to flounder. Or maybe someone just doesn't take instruction well and is better left to their own devises. There are any number of reasons college may not be the best place for someone, but it is thoroughly ingrained that children must go to college. I think this a dangerous belief that belies a national obsession with control. Is that too cynical?

Well, maybe it is. Maybe college and education in general is the greatest thing ever and everyone should go. But here are two widely discussed theories for why education might not be the greatest thing ever.

Firstly, from the Economist Michael Spence, we have learned that productive education is theoretically indistinguishable from a useless sorting mechanism. That is, if education did really enhance peoples' human capital (made them smarter) people would end up earning the same income as if they were born with innate ability and degrees and diplomas served merely to divide the productive people from the nonproductive people for employers. The concept is called signaling, and Spence won a Nobel prize for it.

Secondly, there are some sociological theories floating around that suggest the productive value of formal education is not primarily to develop human capital, but rather to teach a common set of practices and values so that the rich can identify their own. Now, I don't want anybody calling me a Marxist for that last sentence. I've never even fired a gun. But I do think that we could definitely be more self-aware in this country about the subtle ways that we perpetuate class divisions, despite our adamant denial of class systems and fervent belief in equal opportunity. I think education may be a particularly insidious form of this classism. I think I will have to make this discussion a separate post.

So there is my most-likely terribly unpopular comments on education. To divest myself of responsibility for them, I'd like to repeat that I am not advocating any policy. And I am most certainly, not, in anyway, against education, or teachers, or anything like that. College was great. Best seven years of my life. I just want to propose that there may be some other ways of thinking about it.