Live data from Hacker News

Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015)

demos.org

31–40 of 196 posts

Re: Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015)

#31
post #26
post #14

It's worthwhile to consider where the point of diminishing returns is with education. I'd argue that we are well past it. There is not really that much work even in the modern economy that requires more than a 10th grade general education. We know that because in countries like Germany it is quite common for someone to exit the formal schooling system at 16 and still get a white collar job.

Isn't there a greater focus on apprentices and in-work training though? It's not like people leave school at 16 and stop learning, surely?

Yes; German workers in some industries are arguably more educated than their American counterparts because of the training and continuing education programs in their workplaces.

Re: Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015)

#32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting data. Seems to me like there's a top tier of 3 highly technical majors (EE, CS, ME), and then a big cluster of 9 pretty decent majors (10 of the 12 at this stage might reasonably be called "STEM"). Communications is in the decent tier for women but not men. And then there are a bunch of weaker majors. The only thing that's even remotely surprising to me is that Chemistry isn't a little higher.

Yeah, I wonder why so many people keep repeating "study STEM" instead of "study Engineering or Finance or Medicine", considering the fact that "S" (Biology/Chemistry) and "M" (Math) seem to be pretty weak.

Are you sure you looked at the table? Chemistry and Mathematics are in the upper half of the table, i.e. higher earnings.

Re: Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015)

#33
You can classify degrees by the portion of students who end up doing something directly requiring that degree. Suddenly, it becomes clear what is going on.

Your high school guidance councilor probably told you that the degree wouldn't matter much, which is correct for somebody like him. For a large portion of the population, a degree is purely signalling. It shows you are a more upper class, more able to plan ahead, more willing to show up every day, and more willing to put up with nonsense. People with these sorts of careers are fighting to out-signal each other. If we made a bachelor's degree free, they'd need a master's degree. (actually already happening, even w/o being free) If the master's degree were standard, they'd need the doctorate. The skills actually demanded require no such thing, and would've been beneath high school 80 years ago. It's an arms race, pure and simple. Individuals may benefit from getting to the top, but it does our economy no good to encourage and support this. Keeping people out of the workforce while diverting money toward funding the arms race is harmful.

On the other hand, there are degrees for which most students end up in a career that more-or-less requires the degree. Famously, it's the STEM stuff, but this also applies to nursing. We know something from the fact that students end up taking jobs which require their degree: these fields are not purely an arms race. These fields can still take more people. These fields have degrees that are of value beyond signaling. Our economy would benefit from getting more people into these fields.

Re: Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015)

#34
post #14

It's worthwhile to consider where the point of diminishing returns is with education. I'd argue that we are well past it. There is not really that much work even in the modern economy that requires more than a 10th grade general education. We know that because in countries like Germany it is quite common for someone to exit the formal schooling system at 16 and still get a white collar job.

I think rather than not educating, I say there needs to be more education, for advanced topics, such as the sciences. More people ought to be doing research. Research into better tech, material sciences, bio sciences etc. A 10th grade education is not enough.

Re: Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015)

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting data. Seems to me like there's a top tier of 3 highly technical majors (EE, CS, ME), and then a big cluster of 9 pretty decent majors (10 of the 12 at this stage might reasonably be called "STEM"). Communications is in the decent tier for women but not men. And then there are a bunch of weaker majors. The only thing that's even remotely surprising to me is that Chemistry isn't a little higher.

Yeah, I wonder why so many people keep repeating "study STEM" instead of "study Engineering or Finance or Medicine", considering the fact that "S" (Biology/Chemistry) and "M" (Math) seem to be pretty weak.

I would consider medicine to be a subset of Science, and finance to be at least related to Math (with some disciplines being very heavy math.)

STEM as a whole is basically the entire top half of that chart. Even math, which you call "pretty weak", is (taking the average) as close to CS as it is to communications, and much closer to the top cluster than it is to the bottom cluster.

So I think "study STEM" is perfectly good advice, particularly given that there will be shifts in the value of various degrees based on subtle economic changes.

Re: Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015)

#36
post #11

Well, yeah. Education increases individual income primarily through competitive advantage in the job market, right? But, also, the function of education in the job market is largely just as a certification arms race, right? Just a ritual we go through to compete for jobs that don’t actually make any use of or require our advanced educations, in most cases. So educating us all doesn’t produce many benefits, because th…

I don't think it's a commonly accepted conclusion that education increases income primarily through competitive advantage (i.e. it's a zero sum game). Take, for example, being educated on home farming methods to grow 200 cabbages a year instead of 100. In this case your income grows directly as a result of your education. Now yes there are some cases that may be signaling, but I'd like to see some empirical evidence…

Unless, of course, all home cabbage farmers receive the education, thus doubling the supply of cabbage on the market, which we would expect to more or less halve the price, leading to ... a zero sum game ;)

Re: Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015)

#37
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's a commonly accepted conclusion that education increases income primarily through competitive advantage (i.e. it's a zero sum game). Take, for example, being educated on home farming methods to grow 200 cabbages a year instead of 100. In this case your income grows directly as a result of your education. Now yes there are some cases that may be signaling, but I'd like to see some empirical evidence…

Unless, of course, all home cabbage farmers receive the education, thus doubling the supply of cabbage on the market, which we would expect to more or less halve the price, leading to ... a zero sum game ;)

and now we need half as many cabbage farmers, which means that half those people doing manual labor can do something else, which in turn makes the economy more productive

either way, you get more of something in the economy, even if it's not money for those in poverty. in this case, it'd likely lead to food becoming cheaper and more people being able to eat

I fail to see how education hasn't benefited those in need in this (somewhat contrived) analogy

Re: Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015)

#38
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I wonder why so many people keep repeating "study STEM" instead of "study Engineering or Finance or Medicine", considering the fact that "S" (Biology/Chemistry) and "M" (Math) seem to be pretty weak.

Are you sure you looked at the table? Chemistry and Mathematics are in the upper half of the table, i.e. higher earnings.

Right, Math being "pretty weak" was a bit of an overstatement.

I meant that for a major that's generally considered to be hard and lead to a lucrative career (it's part of "STEM" after all), it's not that different from Pol Sci or Business (and it does worse than Accounting or Economics, both of which are non-STEM), which most people probably wouldn't expect.

Re: Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015)

#39
One thing the author totally overlooked - when you have a large percentage of the population that spends an extra 2-6+ years in education, that same large percentage of the population spends 2-6+ less years producing things for people to consume. If those same people aren't more productive as a result of their education, this means that the net productivity of society is lower as a result of the education, while the number of people in the society is the same. End result is that the stuff:people ratio goes down, and poverty naturally increases.

Education has an extremely high cost both in terms of lost productivity and resources consumed to provide it. Misapplied education will throw additional people into poverty, every time. Possibly directly, through onerous student loans, or indirectly by consuming resources that could have been used to produce basic goods for consumption.

Re: Why Education Does Not Fix Poverty (2015)

#40
Author states that if you contemplate the two graphs you'll have an epiphany. Quite right, it went "Wow, that is not how you analyse data and I'm sure I heard about an actual investigation with cited sources and actual math and everything which came to pretty much the opposite conclusions". [0]

[0] https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/valueofcollegemajors/

Post reply on HN