Figured someone who has read the book might see this and be able to answer a question — to what extent is Caplan’s critique of the U.S.-model of widespread-ish resource-intensive higher education tied and the credentialing problem it “solves,” and how much is a critique of higher education in toto?
I can certainly get on board with the former, and if that’s Caplan’s argument, I might have to add his book to my reading list.
Edit: I get that the two critiques I described are difficult to separate in practice, but maybe this will clarify for anyone who might be willing to share their read or Caplan’s argument: it’s the difference between “university is more or less fine, but people should have to pay their own way” vs. “we need to find ways to reduce the real costs of education and/or better socialize the benefits, so that more people have access to education because education is itself a worthy goal”
It's more like, "university is good for most individual who actually complete it, but in aggregate, it is a net loss to the society, both when people pay their own way, and even more so when society subsidizes it".
If that doesn't make sense to you, imagine an alternate universe, where employers greatly value completing the Appalachian Trail, Continental Divide Trail, Pacific Crest Trails, and other great American hiking trails. People who hike through entirety of one or more of them are highly valued on the job market, as this clearly shows that they have patience, grit, spatial ability, following through with commitments to the very end etc. In that alternate universe, we'd have entire industry of check points on the trails, with proctors ensuring that people actually dutifully hike the entire thing without cheating, and issuing diplomas of completion at the finish line. A good number of people greatly enjoy hiking, so they'd love to be able to hike non stop for a few years. Many others couldn't care less about hiking, but will still somewhat enjoy their time on the trail, thanks to people they meet there, and unique experiences they have. Others will slog through, despising the entire exercise, but persisting because it will look good on their resume.
In all, people who do finish the trails will clearly benefit, but only through the virtue of existence of people who do not finish them, not through anything inherent to the things they learn or experience on the trails themselves. If everyone finished the trails, the society would not be better off compared to the scenario where nobody finished the trails. In fact it would probably be worse off, because we'd have millions of people spending years of their life on useless activity (notwithstanding some small percent of them enjoying it). Caplan argues that in our society, college is kinda like the trails.
I love this analogy. On its face, my assumption would be that keeping this trail ritual would be of immeasurable value to the society merely as a shared challenge, myth, and meeting place for all members of the society. At the very least, it's something to do, to aspire to, to measure oneself against, etc. I'm curious now to read the book to see if it addresses this idea.
I can certainly get on board with the former, and if that’s Caplan’s argument, I might have to add his book to my reading list.
Edit: I get that the two critiques I described are difficult to separate in practice, but maybe this will clarify for anyone who might be willing to share their read or Caplan’s argument: it’s the difference between “university is more or less fine, but people should have to pay their own way” vs. “we need to find ways to reduce the real costs of education and/or better socialize the benefits, so that more people have access to education because education is itself a worthy goal”