Comments on: Richard Vedder Is Getting More Radical

By: Cliff Grammich

Cliff Grammich — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:18:54 +0000

Peter, regarding signaling, I recall some reports (alas, I have only vague recollections, not citations) that fewer CEOs of the largest firms are Ivy graduates (and more from cheaper–or more efficient?–state schools?). I’m guessing you, Joe, Vedder, or nearly any other reader of this blog mioght be more familiar with data on that phenomenon.

What brought this post and its comments to my mind again was an on-line essay I stumbled across over the weekend by Rick Perlstein (http://nytimes.com/marketing/collegeessay/essay.html) on “What’s the Matter with College?” that your more up-to-date readers–I think that’s everybody but me–might have already seen. Perlstein was a few years behind me at Chicago, so I found his perspective interesting, although maybe not as much as what as I infer is his surprise that persons paying more and more for a commodity (the cost of post-secondary education has exceeded that of all inflation indices for several decades now, no?) would expect more of an economic return from it. Another friend to whom I sent this was also surprised that Perlstein would very much tout the independence that students get in college, but ignore some of the broad meanings of “disciplines” they are supposed to get there as well (admittedly a point removed from the economics of it, but one I thought possibly worth noting).

By: jonfernquest

jonfernquest — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:04:40 +0000

I just think the purely intellectual curriculum should be diversified with some more manual skills such as carpentry, automobile mechanics, or horticulture, for instance.

By: Peter Klein

Peter Klein — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:23:14 +0000

Marcin, signaling is valuable, to be sure, but it’s hard to believe there aren’t less costly signaling mechanisms. We had an earlier discussion of signaling here:

http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2006/11/30/should-business-schools-be-like-medical-schools/

By: Marcin Tustin

Marcin Tustin — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:51:05 +0000

The question is how individuals will get replace the signalling mechanism which increases their own wealth, without needing to engage in significant entrepreneurship, and which gives them four years of leisure whilst still young.

The latter can be addressed by a citizen’s basic income. But the former?

By: drtaxsacto

drtaxsacto — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:08:06 +0000

One might take that interpretation or another which would suggest that once they have seen the lights they are attracted like moths to light. Vedder has become increasingly strident on a couple of issues recently but it remains to be seen whether any of this “research” is more than a glorified polemic. The marginal expenditure study is just that, marginal in its methodology making little differentiation on types of expenditures or focus. But then why should careful methodology be important?

By: Joe Mahoney

Joe Mahoney — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:57:24 +0000

1. Perhaps from an ECONOMIC view the data do support that too many folks go to College. But might there be other benefits (to both the individual and to society) besides economic for taking a course on history, English literature, and so forth?

2. Colleges are inefficient? Shocked, shocked I tell you! :-)

3. Goodness knows that Business Schools allocate insufficient resources to undergraduate education. Deans’ careers seem to be based largely on MBA rankings and this translates into lots of resources for MBA students (better teachers, better classrooms) at the expense of the undergraduates.