policy & reform
campusreview.com.au
Caplan compares university
education to a Gordian knot.
Image: Alexander Cutting the
Gordian Knot by Donato Creti
Uni a waste of time?
Universities need to spend
more time preparing students
for the jobs they’re likely to do,
argues economics professor.
By Loren Smith
A
lthough the government’s university
funding freeze attracted sector‑wide
scorn, at least it relieved universities
from having to relentlessly justify graduating
increasing numbers of students amid a tepid
job market.
But what if, demand-driven byproducts
aside, the teaching element of universities
remains futile? This is contrarian American
economist Bryan Caplan’s thesis.
He acknowledges the hypocrisy inherent
in it upfront. “Socially speaking, this book
argues that our education system is a
big waste of time and money. Selfishly
speaking, however, the six years I’ve
spent writing this book at George Mason
University have truly been well spent,” he
writes in the preface to The Case against
Education: Why the Education System is a
Waste of Time and Money.
Published by Princeton University Press,
his book is both an indictment of universities,
and – especially timely for Australia – a
clarion call for vocational education.
Caplan, an economics professor at the
largest public university in Virginia, like many
others, likens university education to a mere
“credentialist arms race”. He fathoms that
10
just 20 per cent of a university education
produces skills and knowledge, and of
the knowledge proportion, much is lost
post-graduation.
“When we measure what the average
college graduate recalls years later, the results
are discouraging, to say the least,” he states,
adding that the skill of applying knowledge,
too, isn’t enhanced by a degree.
This has been established elsewhere,
including in Australia.
Caplan attributes the remaining
80 per cent of a university’s contribution
to students to signalling intelligence,
conscientiousness and conformity – a neat
package of attributes that employers value.
“This in turn implies a mountain of wasted
resources – time and money that would be
better spent preparing students for the jobs
they’re likely to do,” he argues, neglecting
to explore of the value of the attributes
themselves – to jobs or otherwise.
Aside from forgotten knowledge,
university’s ‘socio-spiritual fulfilment’
promise isn’t borne out either, he claims.
Although it has the potential to provide
enlightenment, most students and teachers
aren’t interested in this. As he provocatively
puts it, “I’m cynical about students. The vast
majority are philistines. I’m cynical about
teachers. The vast majority are uninspiring;
they can’t even convince themselves to love
ideas and culture, much less their students.”
He does, however, find that those who
are university educated are more likely
to be socially liberal and economically
conservative, whatever that’s worth
(he doesn’t really explain this).
He also concedes the long-known finding
that university graduates experience – and
produce – societal gains in net economic
terms. However, he says this is not an
accurate measure of education’s benefits
(without providing what is).
In doubting the efficacy of education, he
then paradoxically questions, “What kind of
society do we want to live in: an educated
one or an ignorant one?”, and advocates
cuts to public funding for universities.
His arguments throughout the book seem
one-sided and absolute, especially in light
of his more nuanced conclusion, where he
suggests college numbers should drop, not
disappear entirely.
“Starting college, like starting a business,
is a gamble – with the odds stacked in
favour of ‘nerds’ and ‘teacher’s pets’. Pushing
college on the failure-prone majority is
cruelly misleading,” he writes, using this as a
springboard for a case for more vocational
education, particularly for academically
weaker students.
“Conventional education mostly helps
students by raising their status, but average
status cannot rise,” he contends.
“Vocational education mostly helps
students by building their skills – and
average skill can rise. Why are social
returns especially ample for poor students?
Because vocational ed trains these crime-
prone students for productive work without
igniting severe credential inflation.” ■