Are We Dumbing?

Clive Crook writes about "the dumbing of America":

For the first time in decades, and probably ever, workers retiring from the US labor force will be better-educated on average (according to one measure anyway) than their much younger counterparts. Some 12 per cent of 60-64 year olds have a master's degree or better; less than 10 per cent of 30-34 year olds do. More generally, the decades-long rise in the educational quality of the labor force is coming to an end. This is important, because that rise has been one of the principal forces driving American economic growth.

I'm not 100 percent sure this represents genuine "dumbing" since my guess would be that substantially more people are simply delaying acquisition of advanced degrees than was the case 30 years ago. Still, as Clive says even flat levels of educational attainment represent a pretty disturbing trend. On the one hand, it threatens America's future economic growth. On the other hand, the fact that the wage premium that accrues to college graduates keeps going up but the proportion of people going to college doesn't is a contributing factor to growing inequality.

Ryan Avent calls for "investments in education, particularly those that improve affordability." That's important, of course, but it's also crucial to improve college preparation. Kids from disadvantaged backgrounds tend to be lagging far behind by the time they graduate from high school in a way that makes it difficult for any changes to higher education to help people catch up.

Comments

Kids from disadvantaged backgrounds tend to be lagging far behind by the time they graduate from high school in a way that makes it difficult for any changes to higher education to help people catch up.

If they even graduate high school.

Posted by Steve Balboni | April 2, 2008 5:27 PM

A friend of mine has two college-age kids. Aside from the incredible costs involved with financing higher education, the schools are much more selective than they once were. My friend describes applying to something like 15 schools and being rejected by all but the safety schools.

At the same time that health care, food and housing costs are shooting through the roof, higher education costs have been rising very fast too, squeezing the middle class hard.

I'd guess that a part of the fall in overall education levels has to do with the growing level of inequality in the society as a whole.

Posted by jimBOB | April 2, 2008 5:32 PM

Saint Reagan made it okay to be stupid again, and Dumbya Bush turned being a fucking idiot into a Noble Cause. After 30+ years of Repiglican blather against "intellectuals" and "Ivy Leaguers" and "effete this" and "Real American that" is there much surprise that a lot of people are taking it seriously? The idiots now think THEY are the experts!

So we have more people convinced evolution is a lie and that Jeezus is coming back SOON than we used to. This is in no way a good thing. Forty years ago hillbillies were riding on the truck to Beverly Hills, now they're supporting wars in Iraq.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 2, 2008 5:33 PM

my guess would be that substantially more people are simply delaying acquisition of advanced degrees than was the case 30 years ago.

That's exactly backwards. The average age for a graduate degree is dropping like a stone.

Doesn't it make more sense to assume that the work force has expanded?

Posted by Cal | April 2, 2008 5:38 PM

I wonder if there's a de facto saturation point, for lack of a better phrase, for an Masters-degree workforce.

Posted by socctty | April 2, 2008 5:39 PM

I wonder how much of this has to do with population replacement shifting more toward immigration and the children of immigrants as the birthrate among native-born Americans has plummeted to well below the replacement rate.

Posted by DTM | April 2, 2008 5:44 PM

I looked at the chart accompanying the Crook post, and the US is basically at the high end except for three outperformers: Korea, Japan, and Canada. Canada, of course, is relatively small and homogeneous; Korea and Japan are of greater concern, but comparing educational levels across cultures is rife with problems. Degrees, after all, are credentials, and a higher proportion of advanced degrees may simply indicate that employers stress having them more in these countries. Whether they're actual measures of a greater educational level, though, is another matter. As for the question of whether the US is "dumbing down," it looks to me like it's simply reached a cultural optimum level and isn't moving all that much. One needs to ask here what individual decision-makers ask all the time: is an extra sheepskin worth the trouble? Is it to be equated with "greater education," or is it simply a hoop to be jumped through to get a better job?

Posted by David in Nashville | April 2, 2008 5:45 PM

That's exactly backwards. The average age for a graduate degree is dropping like a stone.

Regardless, there are certainly some people who earn a graduate degree between the ages of 34 and 60, and it's quite likely their numbers go a long way in making up that discrepancy. Of course, lack of mathematical and logical reasoning is often the first sign of "dumbing down," so perhaps Mr. Crook is simply proving his own point.

I would also like to be the first person in the thread to point out that Matt went to Harvard, and make some snarky comment i/r/t that fact. Thank you.

Posted by scythia | April 2, 2008 5:46 PM

Still, as Clive says even flat levels of educational attainment represent a pretty disturbing trend.

Think about this premise for a second: to continue economic growth, there needs to be a continuous rise in levels of education. This just doesn't seem right - we don't need to become a nation of phd's just to keep up with the world.

The question is whether much/most education really does provide economic growth, and I don't think the answer is obvious. Most professionals I know are not professional in their field of academic study. There is certainly some merit to "the college learning experience" (generally a shortcut way of describing the ability to create and understand logical arguments, make abstractions, etc etc), but for most people, the bulk of their specific education is never used.

Additionally, any number of degrees are required more for credentialing than for learning in any real sense -- while I am sure MBA programs provide some value, by and large they seem to build resumes more than minds.

Posted by Brad L | April 2, 2008 5:47 PM

"Ryan Avent calls for "investments in education, particularly those that improve affordability." That's important, of course, but it's also crucial to improve college preparation. Kids from disadvantaged backgrounds tend to be lagging far behind by the time they graduate from high school in a way that makes it difficult for any changes to higher education to help people catch up."

You and Ryan Avent should take five minutes and read about Rahmana Muhammad and her four kids. Just read the article about how third grade is an almost insurmountable challenge for these Epsilons and see if you can still take your own or Ryan's policy ideas seriously. America is full of people with the intellectual chops of these Muhammads. You can see it in the graduation rates in public high schools. Higher education can't be the solution for people who can't handle lower education.

Posted by Juan | April 2, 2008 5:48 PM

jimBOB writes: "Aside from the incredible costs involved with financing higher education, the schools are much more selective than they once were. My friend describes applying to something like 15 schools and being rejected by all but the safety schools."

It's not that the schools are more selective, it's that they're getting more applications per space. More parents (and the kids themselves) think that their kids are brighter than they actually are, I suspect, and they're applying over their heads.

I'm constantly amazed by people tossing out strange goals for their not-so-bright offspring. Kids who are failing classes in high school aren't likely to become pediatric oncologists, but I've heard that whopper at least twice from idiots.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 2, 2008 5:49 PM

I kind of agree with Brad here. I'd be more interested to know if the percentage of the labor force with undergraduate degrees is increasing or not.

Posted by mpowell | April 2, 2008 5:52 PM

Of course we're getting dumber, and the causes are not just economic. There are parents who teach their kids that creationism is a fact and the evidence in favor of evolution is the work of the devil. Geography is intentionally under-emphasized in public schools, and history is very pro-America (I remember being taught, as an elementary schooler, that we had never lost a war). AIM and MySpace are more popular than any book not written by J.K. Rowling. With culture problems like that, dumbing down was inevitable.

Posted by We're number 1! | April 2, 2008 5:56 PM

mpowell asks: "I'd be more interested to know if the percentage of the labor force with undergraduate degrees is increasing or not."

I'd want to take a look at what those degrees are in, also. I've seen articles about how degrees in crap like "Corrections Administration" are becoming very common in some states, due to the ever-growing prison population. I'd say such degrees should be printed on toilet paper and don't say much about our overall education level.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 2, 2008 5:58 PM

Why would any young person push on for a master's degree when a BA in philosophy has become qualification enough to write a book on foreign policy? Credentials are dead...

Posted by A New Fox News Fan | April 2, 2008 6:06 PM

We don't need every kid to attain an intellectual degree in order to have a productive economy / enlightened society. Vocational training is extremely valuable, and, accordingly, lucrative. See, e.g., http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/356181_trades24.html (March 23rd article)

Posted by nbt | April 2, 2008 6:06 PM

Americans are dumb and incompetent. If the Americans of 1940 were as dumb as us then by 1945 we would be just getting ready to launch our first attack against........ somebody.

I work in the real world of machine building. I am 56 years old. I travel around a lot. I see ignorance and incompetence every where. The higher one goes in any organization the worse it is. Negative selection rules corporate American and corporate America is the America that does things.

So I see two threads. Modern culture for whatever reason but I suspect mostly to do with modern communications makes people dumb in the sense they cannot solve problems individually or in groups. Then groups themselves are led by incompetents because the corporate model has evolved to the point where negative selection rules. That is that the incompetent are chosen to lead throughout organizations because of their incompetence.

The same things apply to the political sphere of course. Just yesterday John Paulson announced that the Treasury will cover any losses the Fed takes on the paper it took as collateral on loans used to facilitate the Bear Sterns deal. I don't think a single person in the US government has a clue that it is not possible for the Treasury to spend money not appropriated.

Posted by rapier | April 2, 2008 6:08 PM

Master's degrees are the metric?!

I must say that I've had many employees and those with master's degrees were the least capable. I find the skills that allow them to do well in an academic environment don't translate to capability elsewhere. Notably, I found those academically successful individuals to lack creative thinking. Note the number of stories of innovation that tell how a creative thinker didn't do well in school. In my experience, that's not an accident.

I value an individual with undergraduate degree with work experience over one with a master's degree. I even value an individual with just the undergraduate degree and no work experience over the individual with a master's.

Once again, another commenter is more eloquent:
Brad said: ... any number of degrees are required more for credentialing than for learning in any real sense -- while I am sure MBA programs provide some value, by and large they seem to build resumes more than minds.

Posted by jackifus | April 2, 2008 6:09 PM

Of course we are getting dumber. The educated people have fewer children while the undeducated continue to breed more. The uneducated will, on average, not prepare their children for school as well as the educated.

And even among the educated, the malign influence of TV, the Internet and other distractions continue to make us more and more stupid.

Posted by blah | April 2, 2008 6:09 PM

Clive didn't notice that the 55-64 cohort would've turned 18 between 1962-1971: perfect drafting age for Vietnam. That chart shows the effect of the Vietnam War and the military draft, with its completely unfair system of college deferments.

Posted by Aatos | April 2, 2008 6:10 PM

Kristof just wrote about this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30kristof.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Posted by We're number 1! | April 2, 2008 6:18 PM

That's important, of course, but it's also crucial to improve college preparation.

Speaking as a collegiate educator, I totally agree that by the time students get to me, if their basic skills are lacking, it's too late. If they haven't worked on basic skills, I can't do my job to teach them the more advanced materials. Well I can teach, but they're too stuck on the material they were supposed to know to be able to learn the material. In part this is the fault of the university; many universities used to assume less about the students and require courses such as college algebra but are now rather too lax when it comes to such requirements. But the fact that students don't know such material coming in is pretty disturbing.

It tears my heart out to watch freshmen---many of whom are unrealistically optimistic about how well they will do---come in and bomb classes because their preparation wasn't sufficient and their study skills aren't up to it. But God help you if you get a class of seniors hardened to failure taking a course required for their graduation....

Posted by Crimfan | April 2, 2008 6:18 PM

Or maybe making a big deal about 2% which is very close to statistical noise is a stupid thing to do? And my guess is once you control for teachers who tend to get advanced degrees later in careers anyway, it goes away.

Posted by Rob | April 2, 2008 6:21 PM

might also consider the level of technology back in the 50's when I was a tyke. One needed a master degree & a slide rule to be an engineer, now it's pre-programed and available to the masses.

Posted by 1Watt | April 2, 2008 6:30 PM

Crook has everything backwards.

The study is worthless because a large fraction of masters' degrees are issued to schoolteachers and administrators over 30 (my mother-in-law was in her 40s when she got her MA in special ed).

The much bigger story is that the bottom half of American society is going downhill in education. According to the 2007 study by Nobel Laureate economist and master statistician James Heckman, the dropout rate bottomed out at around 20% in about 1970 and has since gone up to about 25%. (And that's ignoring recently arrived immigrants -- Heckman is only counting people born in America or who arrived by age 8).

According to Heckman, the racial gaps in high school graduation haven't changed since the early 1970s (with Hispanics and blacks dropping out at about twice the white rate), so much of the worsening of the dropout problem is due to changing demographics (e.g., the children of illegal immigrants).

For a detailed analysis of Heckman's study, see:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/080101_dropout.htm

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 2, 2008 6:33 PM

Re: I'm not 100 percent sure this represents genuine "dumbing" since my guess would be that substantially more people are simply delaying acquisition of advanced degrees than was the case 30 years ago.

If you exclude the non-native born population to what extent is this even true?

Re: There are parents who teach their kids that creationism is a fact and the evidence in favor of evolution is the work of the devil.

That's always been true. And it doesn't stop you from getting an advanced degree in fields unrelated to biology.

Posted by JonF | April 2, 2008 6:35 PM

I'd like to see comparative statistics. No push on Matthew, but he says, "more people are simply delaying acquisition of advanced degrees than was the case 30 years ago." OK, you're comparing the percent of 60-64 year olds with advanced degrees to the same stats for 30-34 year olds; with an overall difference of 2%. Really?

How about whoever the wanker is that wrote the original article comparing the % of 30-34 year olds with grad degrees in 1978 to that same statistic in 2008? Then perhaps adjust his original 1978 sample by the % size of population that had the GI Bill coming out of Vietnam or for college deferments to avoid such (thanks Aatos!). One last adjustment for relatively free public college tuition in 1978... about the time when those same grad students started figuring out what their education really cost and decided THEY didn't want to shoulder that kind of burden for no kids in 2008!

Finally, the state of our current education system (and country!) is one inditement against those 60-64 year olds from using their grad degrees to do anything productive over the last 30-35 years.

Posted by Jaycal | April 2, 2008 6:37 PM

So, the worry here is that fewer educated Americans means a less productive workforce. Odd, I would worry, were I the worrying type, that fewer educated Americans means fewer Americans with the sustained training in critical thinking and, in general, exposure to the pleasure of thinking, learning, arguing, reading, and generally exercising the mind. Not, of course, that the only place to gain or do any of these skills is college or university, still its not the worst place. When, in other words, did the purpose of education become the creation of more efficient and more productive workers and not the more humanistic notion that education allowed individuals to engage in the life-long pursuit of matters intellectual? Do you think that this instrumental understanding of education might lead to the situation rapier describes, which my own experiences ratifies.

Posted by t jasper parnell | April 2, 2008 6:41 PM

Matt (and everyone else), the way you frame the post, you seem to say that we want a higher and higher number of people getting advances degrees, indefinitely. That doesn't seem either desirable or realistic to me.

Perhaps present college enrollment (which apparently has been static for a while) is fairly close to optimal, or at least achievable. We don't have tuition in Sweden, but not much higher university enrollment. (Maybe lower. Can't remember.)

Posted by David Weman | April 2, 2008 6:49 PM

The adult women of the United States are educated, capable and totally under utilized as a source of creative intelligence to inform cultural products and our society as a whole.

This is historically the case and it remains so to this date.

Draw women forth intellectually and societially- womens' creations, inventions, ideas, discoveries are this country's future.

Posted by Ali Andrews | April 2, 2008 7:00 PM

How many times do we have to have these kind of poorly thought out interpretations of 'data' such as these. This dumbing down meme is nonsense imho -- surely it is on the basis of this highly circumspect index -- master's degrees of 60-64 and 30-34 year olds? ... Please. If you want more unconvincing data on this issue, here's some: my wife and I don't know when it got started but I know that both of us, highly educated, Ph.Ds in our late 50s now, have watched our 'dumbed down children' now in their middle twenties go to public schools where they and everyone practically took on material in high school we did not get to until college --and in college take classes and programs that many a graduate student would have been proud to have. Their education is at least 2-3 years ahead of what we got. By college graduation they have had a chance at an education easily as brilliant as any masters we could have had -- and most of them took good advantage of it.

Posted by sluethiness_in_the_blogosphere | April 2, 2008 7:15 PM

How many times do we have to have these kind of poorly thought out interpretations of 'data' such as these. This dumbing down meme is nonsense imho -- surely it is on the basis of this highly circumspect index -- master's degrees of 60-64 and 30-34 year olds? ... Please. If you want more unconvincing data on this issue, here's some: my wife and I don't know when it got started but I know that both of us, highly educated, Ph.Ds in our late 50s now, have watched our 'dumbed down children' now in their middle twenties go to public schools where they and everyone practically took on material in high school we did not get to until college --and in college take classes and programs that many a graduate student would have been proud to have. Their education is at least 2-3 years ahead of what we got. By college graduation they have had a chance at an education easily as brilliant as any masters we could have had -- and most of them took good advantage of it.

Posted by sluethiness_in_the_blogosphere | April 2, 2008 7:16 PM

Men who are 60-64 years old today were at prime draft age during the years of most aggressive pursuit of, and largest increases in troop levels in, the war in Vietnam. Perhaps that produced a not repeatable, higher than average bump in graduate school enrollment?

Posted by esmense | April 2, 2008 7:19 PM

I wish to remind everyone that there is ZERO correlation between an advanced degree (or even a Bachelors Degree) and intelligence, happiness or life accomplishment. Zero.

Just ask George Bush.

Advanced degrees are a scam invented by the educational-industrial complex designed to extract the maximum amount of money from the mark (i.e. the easily convinced upper middle class white person that without an advanced degree, he, or more likely she, is nothing).

Posted by calipygian | April 2, 2008 7:20 PM

America's future is dumberer, no question about it. Just check where California, America's harbinger state, home to the highest percentage of immigrants of any state, ranks on the 2007 federal NAEP tests of public school students.

California students' reading scores are horrible, with the state ranking 48th out of 50 states in 4th grade reading and 49th in 8th grade reading.

But the performance of California, home to Silicon Valley, in that universal language, mathematics, may be even more disturbing: 47th in 4th grade math, 46th in 8th grade math.

You can look up the numbers yourself here:

http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2007/r0005.asp?tab_id=tab2&subtab_id=Tab_1#chart

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 2, 2008 7:21 PM

When, in other words, did the purpose of education become the creation of more efficient and more productive workers and not the more humanistic notion that education allowed individuals to engage in the life-long pursuit of matters intellectual?

When? Oh, about the time that tuition at even the cheaper private colleges hit $10,000 a semester. Lotta drachmas to be spending on the life-long pursuit of matters intellectual, dude.

Posted by James Gary | April 2, 2008 7:25 PM

Importing masses of more kids from disadvantaged backgrounds makes a larger number of kids that need to be helped, and thus makes for an ever growing challenge, when the initial challenge has been too much for us to handle already. The prudent thing to do would be to stop low skilled immigration until we figure out how to erase achievement gaps.

Posted by scottynx | April 2, 2008 7:27 PM

about the time that tuition at even the cheaper private colleges hit $10,000 a semester. Lotta drachmas to be spending on the life-long pursuit of matters intellectual, dude.

Spending that much money on "education" is idiocy. Why spend that much money sitting in a class and writing a couple of papers that noone wants to research, write, edit or grade when for that money you can read a few books and do some traveling? Seems like a much more productive use of money to me.

Posted by calipygian | April 2, 2008 7:33 PM

One should also take into account that a large number of Grad School degrees are MBAs. And the average age of people in MBA programs tends to be significantly higher than that of most other graduate programs.

I'm not sure how big the difference between age brackets would be for non-MBA degree people, but I'm fairly certain it should be not as big.

Posted by torteya | April 2, 2008 7:35 PM

Matt: "On the one hand, it threatens America's future economic growth. On the other hand, the fact that the wage premium that accrues to college graduates keeps going up but the proportion of people going to college doesn't is a contributing factor to growing inequality."

Exactly what "wage premium" are you talking about? I received a bachelor's degree from a major state university last December and, since then, have been on an unsuccessful search for a job - any job paying $30,000 a year or more. When I spoke to the agent at the college's career center about employment prospects, she "helpfully" suggested that I work as a clerk at the local outlet mall and said that an entry-level job search was a "nine-month process." She also told me that she has a bachelor's degree and has worked there for 15 years, and is still only earning $14 an hour (so, implicitly, how dare I expect any more). It would have been nice if someone told me all this before I spent three years and went $20,000 in debt continuing my education. But I foolishly believed the mantra that Matt is parroting above - that a college degree carries a "wage premium" and that college graduates are in demand by employers. It simply isn't true.

Posted by Josh G. | April 2, 2008 7:40 PM

What about skilled trades? These are at least as vital to a modern economy as college degrees, yet normally aren't learnt through college, so wouldn't show up in these statistics (they do require a good high school pass, so if the level of high school graduates is declining, this is a very bad sign).

Posted by CSI | April 2, 2008 7:47 PM

America's future is dumberer, no question about it. Just check where California, America's harbinger state, home to the highest percentage of immigrants of any state, ranks on the 2007 federal NAEP tests of public school students.

Steve Sailor: California continues to prove itself to be one of the most innovative places on the planet, with one of the most dynamic economies. It continues to produce an outsized share of many of the world's most valuable goods and services. California also happens to share a land border with a region of the world home to a couple of hundred million young, underemployed workers, and so has inevitably undergone significant demographic change. But this demographic change seems to have had very little effect on California's ability to innovate, and to lead the global economy into the 21st century.

The very smart people who power California's (and America's) economy aren't going to become any smarter if we kick out all the brown people. They are going to become somewhat poorer, however.

Posted by Jasper | April 2, 2008 7:55 PM

It's not only that. It's not just preparation, say from the high school level.

From the elementary school level up, we need more emphasis in education. Parents need to be mindlessly nagged to kick their kids into gear, curricula need to be reformed, kids and schools and teachers need resources, too.

Education is a lifelong deal, and it needs to be made a priority. Trouble is, there are so many things that need to be made a priority nowadays, and so many people opposed to everything even resembling progress that it feels impossible to pull off.

Posted by bhagamu | April 2, 2008 7:56 PM

The education premium is itself largely a myth. To paraphrase Brad Delong's post:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/07/the_pattern_of_.html

If you adjust for the income inequality factor, i.e., the fact that the top 1% tend to be very highly educated individuals such as doctors, and CEO's, then the value of a degree is not nearly as clear for the bulk of those getting an education.

It may be that a degree, or certain degrees, get you into the top 1% lottery, but if you miss that group the benefit of an education is not as clear.

Posted by BobPM | April 2, 2008 7:58 PM

But I foolishly believed the mantra that Matt is parroting above - that a college degree carries a "wage premium" and that college graduates are in demand by employers. It simply isn't true.

Here is the sad truth about American higher education. I am retiring from the military in a few weeks after 20 years (I.E. 20 years of experience in a highly technical, highly skilled job field.) I started searching for jobs last year, starting with several high profile defense contractors. I had a recruiter for a certain defense contractor literally throw my resume back at me in my face at a job fair declaring that I was not qualified for the job because I did not have a Bachelors (20 years experience in the field wasn't enough). So, fast forward to now. I just finished my Bachelors through a Middle State's regionally accredited college favored by the military because they take credits from any accredited university and are generous regarding credits earned from military training (as a four time graduate of the Defense Language Institute in three languages and an advanced interpretation course, I have over 100 credit hours from military training). All I had to do was take a 6 credit English exam, with essay, to earn my Bachelors.

Now, magically, I am qualified for any number of jobs. The difference between me qualified and unqualified was an english exam and a check.

College education is a goddam scam.

Example two: I just took the PRAXIS II exam in Social Studies to qualify as a high school teacher. There were people who went to four years of school, full time, who were already Social Studies teachers who were taking that exam four, five times. It was obvious they didn't know the material and they were fucking history majors and sat in class to learn the material.

College education, in short, is a joke.

Posted by calipygian | April 2, 2008 7:58 PM

In the current New York Review of Books there's an article (available online) that examines why people enlist in the military. It turns out that for a very large percentage of them it's because of the college tuition money. This leads one to the conclusion that the United States is not going to make it easier for people to go to college because of the effect it would have on military enlistments.

Posted by Ted | April 2, 2008 8:00 PM

Do you REALLY HAVE TO go to college to be "not dumb". With the easy access to quality information on the internet today - more of it for free than anyone can absorb, one must wonder if the investment of time and money is worth it. Except for a few graduates from the very top universities I find that often the brightest, most creative, compassionate and well informed people I meet have no college education. The business community nowadays talks about the "MBA disease" when screening job applicants. Except for a few professional careers, most people smart enough to get into college may possibly learn more through a disciplined program of self-study than attending lectures of questionable value and discussing them with stoned TAs.

Posted by C. Abrahamsohn | April 2, 2008 8:03 PM

Ah, the master's degree: the piece of paper that requires a mortgage's worth of debt if you're seeking it in your twenties. And people are shying away? Go figure.

Advanced degrees are a scam invented by the educational-industrial complex designed to extract the maximum amount of money from the mark (i.e. the easily convinced upper middle class white person that without an advanced degree, he, or more likely she, is nothing).

Too damn right. Though alternatively, the mark is someone who wants to work in a profession -- say, public health -- that will never decently repay the costs. Dumb move, the usual suspects will say, and perhaps so, though they'd probably be whining if people were recruited from elsewhere to fill those jobs. Or if the posts were unfilled.

Philip Greenspun was right about this, at least for his particular field.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 2, 2008 8:15 PM

Why would any young person push on for a master's degree when a BA in philosophy has become qualification enough to write a book on foreign policy? Credentials are dead...

Posted by A New Fox News Fan | April 2, 2008 6:06 PM

************************************************

he he! It's easy if you keep your head in the sand!

Posted by Campesino | April 2, 2008 8:18 PM

Re: Advanced degrees are a scam invented by the educational-industrial complex designed to extract the maximum amount of money from the mark (i.e. the easily convinced upper middle class white person that without an advanced degree, he, or more likely she, is nothing).

Quite a lot of non-whites fall for that too. And check out the way the hoi polloi prefix "Dr" in front of beloved cult figures (Dr Ron Paul, Dr Martin Luther King, Dr Dobson) as if it were a title of nobility.

Posted by JonF | April 2, 2008 9:19 PM

I received a bachelor's degree from a major state university last December and, since then, have been on an unsuccessful search for a job - any job paying $30,000 a year or more

I was in the same situation; I'll share the solution. Join the military as an officer. You'll make that much and get either a free apartment or money to rent one. And free healthcare. Also, you'll never work with better people.

Posted by guineapigfury | April 2, 2008 9:24 PM

The original post was about international comparisons, and I think most would agree that a better educated society is likely to be more prosperous, and possibly even happier, than an ignorant one. Much of this discussion instead has been about the market value of a degree etc. within the US labour market. But MY's original post is about degree density internationally, and one could spend endless hours arguing whether a Yale degree in X is worth more than a Utrecht degree in Y, and worrying about whether the US is really staring into an educational, and hence economic, abyss.

So, drop down a level to secondary education where huge data sets are available comparing competencies among teens from around the globe:
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf

The data reveals that the US is indeed staring into the abyss, and on two levels. First, the literacy and numeracy skills of American teens are very low ON AVERAGE, and second, this average hides huge socioeconomic and ethnic differences. The only reason the US gets into the low averages is that its elites manage to educate their kids up to a mediocre level in international terms.

Canada is mentioned by Dave from Nashville above as a "small and homogeneous" country, with the implication I guess that it doesn't really count... LOL. Dave clearly has never been to the wildly diverse Toronto, or to Vancouver, or to Quebec, let alone driven between them. Canada is part of America, with the same immigrant, multicultural and risk taking society as south of the border. Yet it has a school system which is better than most of the Asian or European systems, AND one that smooths out most of the socioeconomic and ethnic bumps. An inner city Toronto kid from Jamaica is usually not that far behind a well heeled Quebecoise from Outremont in secondary level competencies (see data sets above). And crucially, both are at a higher level than the global average, so that social equality does not equal mediocrity.

Sorry for the long post, but Americans really should get out and about a bit more, especially in the context of a knowledge based global economy.

Posted by Estrien | April 2, 2008 9:37 PM

Another thing to keep in mind is that it's much easier to graduate from college in some countries than in the US.

For example in Korea (and I think Japan as well) once you're in college its pretty much impossible to flunk out no matter how lazy you are so that skews the statistics a good bit.

Posted by Bosh | April 2, 2008 10:26 PM

The problem isn't so much colleges. It is that forums for the natural intelligence of people - white people, brown people, black people, of course - need more encouragement. I think it is a mistake to argue for this from an economic point of view, as if whatever public investments one suggest have to turn some kind of monetary profit. The "profit" here is cultural and civic. And the forums I am talking about - things like public libraries - are underfunded. One of the great things about blogging is that it turns out there is a lot of raw knowledge and creativity out there, looking for a place to express itself. Libraries, with their computers and internet connections, are one of the places that tie together a grassroots culture of learning with the online world. I know, of course, that there are plenty of other nodes, but this is one that can truly use twice the public funding it receives now. Take it, say, out of the next useless fighter plane appropriation.

When Ben Franklin founded the first public library in Philadelphia, he started the real American revolution. It shouldn't be allowed to go out. But it is, squeezed to death by a parsimonous only economics framework and an inability on the part of liberals to speak up for a robust public culture as a thing that is valuable in itself.

Posted by roger | April 2, 2008 10:34 PM

This is cherry-picked data that just reflects graduate participation during boom and bust economies. I started my grad degree in 1990 (total bust) to delay entering workforce during high unemployment. By '94 the economy was much better and many of my classmates had left for industry and incoming native enrollment was dropping. That would make those new students about 36 today. Unemployment has been relatively low ever since, along with American grad student enrollment. The same could be said of the older bracket in grad school in the early 70's (another bust economy).

Posted by DTZ | April 2, 2008 10:34 PM

guineapigfury: "I was in the same situation; I'll share the solution. Join the military as an officer. You'll make that much and get either a free apartment or money to rent one. And free healthcare. Also, you'll never work with better people."

Well, I thought it went without saying that "not getting shot at" was one of my implicit criteria for jobs I would or would not accept. I also wouldn't take jobs that involved criminal activity, or so forth. When I said I couldn't find a job, I meant a normal civilian job.

Posted by Josh G. | April 2, 2008 10:57 PM

Or, to put it more concisely: The military isn't a job. It is signing away your life to George W. Bush.

Posted by Josh G. | April 2, 2008 10:58 PM

Assume, just for the sake fo discussion, that there is a problem which is characterized by dropping educational attainment. Why would that be so?

The root of the problem is that we have two mutually conflicting visions of what the school system is supposed to do. On one hand is the old view: a degree (high school, college, or post graduate) indicates that the individual has learned certain things. On the other hand is the newer view: that a because statistics show that those with degrees earn more and generally do better economically in life, as many people as possible should have one.

The result of view two is that a degree no longer means anything about what the individual has learned. For several decades, you could get a high school diploma if you were only willing to show up religiously for four years. Actually learning anything was irrelevant. It was held to be important to your "self-actualization" to have the diploma as a mark of success -- even if there had been no success.

The High School Exit Exams are an attempt to restore some signifigance to the diploma. Unfortunately, provision is made for anyone who is deemed to be educationally disadvantages, so they can get one in spite of not passing the exam on the same terms as everybody else. So the solution may be well intended, but the culture of entitlement hasn't conceeded defeat yet.

Posted by wj | April 2, 2008 11:02 PM

"And the forums I am talking about - things like public libraries - are underfunded."

Please. It's no secret who uses libraries and who doesn't. Doubling the funding of local libraries wouldn't change that.

"Or, to put it more concisely: The military isn't a job. It is signing away your life to George W. Bush."

That little bit of indoctrination will prove about as useful to you as the rest of your college education has been so far. And the attitude you served back to someone who tried to offer you some helpful advice won't get you too far either. Enjoy working in the mall.

Posted by Fred | April 3, 2008 12:10 AM

Ex stupid fucking teachers, stupid fucking Americans fit.

Quadruple teacher pay immediately, and eliminate the requirement that teachers have education degrees. The stupid fucking teacher problem will be solved in 5 years.

The rest isn't quite as easy (i.e., on the parents side).

Posted by sherifffriuitfly | April 3, 2008 12:24 AM

Fred quotes and writes: ""Or, to put it more concisely: The military isn't a job. It is signing away your life to George W. Bush."

That little bit of indoctrination will prove about as useful to you as the rest of your college education has been so far. And the attitude you served back to someone who tried to offer you some helpful advice won't get you too far either. Enjoy working in the mall."

In other words, Fred is saying, "Fuck you, sonny. Sign up and kill for our Great Leader."

Fuck you, Fred, and everyone like you who aids and abets the murderous Bushpigs with every breath you take. If you get hit by a bus tomorrow the world will be a better place and your poor wife will be able to lose the number for the battered women's shelter.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 3, 2008 12:48 AM

I don't believe it would be possible to make a civil response to the loathsome Fred, so I will simply second what MoeLarryAndJesus said above.

Posted by Josh G. | April 3, 2008 1:16 AM

"I don't believe it would be possible to make a civil response to the loathsome Fred, so I will simply second what MoeLarryAndJesus said above."

You'll have to learn to respond civilly to people you don't like in your new job at the mall. Remember, the customer is always right.

Posted by Fred | April 3, 2008 1:23 AM

Given that I have several years of technical support experience prior to attending college, I assure you I am fully aware of customer service principles. And, believe it or not, the customer is not always right. Sometimes, they do get told no. Of course, this is always done in a polite fashion.

You, however, are not a customer, so I don't have to be polite. I can treat you with every bit of the contempt you deserve.

Incidentally, Fred, where are you stationed in Iraq? Given that you are so gung-ho for Bush and the military, I assume that you've put your own ass on the line?

Posted by Josh G. | April 3, 2008 1:28 AM

Y'all realize that there's going to be a different Prez in 9 months, right? Oh well, have fun with your flame war, sorry to interupt.

Count me as another who thinks grad education is overrated, (unless you want to be a doctor or lawyer) but a B.S. is essential these days (unless you know how to actually do something.)

Although if you do work in the big business or gov sector, you'll eventually need a grad degree or you'll hit a glass ceiling similar to the one calipygian described. Credential inflation is everywhere. But if you don't really care about keeping up with the Jones', you will probably find a niche with a comfortable living without the grad degree.

Posted by Kolohe | April 3, 2008 1:33 AM

"Given that you are so gung-ho for Bush and the military, I assume that you've put your own ass on the line?"

I have, when I was your age.

"Count me as another who thinks grad education is overrated, (unless you want to be a doctor or lawyer) but a B.S. is essential these days (unless you know how to actually do something.)"

See James Altucher for some alternative ideas to getting a B.S.: "College a waste of time and money for kids"

Posted by Fred | April 3, 2008 1:52 AM

I am surprised no one in this thread mentioned the strong connection innovation has to do with the US economy. Competent risk taking and successful entrepreneurialism are what matter most. I don't see how degrees (or any other stat I know of) translate into a measure of this important quantity.

I for one would like to thank Fred for his quixotic posts into MY's wilderness of progressive fanatic bloggers.

Posted by Keith | April 3, 2008 3:01 AM

I second what Keith said. There can be few better example of "dumbing" than the kind of fanatical sanctimony of the lunatic fringe so well illustrated by the appalling "MoeLarryandJesus".

Posted by Robert Powell | April 3, 2008 3:41 AM

Quite aside from the potential statistical anomalies of boom/bust economics and the Veitnam war bump, this is a flat out bogus apples to oranges comparison.

The question can't be "what percentage of 30-34 year olds have advanced degrees versus percentage of 60-64 year olds have advanced degrees"

The relevant comparison is percentage of 30-34 year olds who possess advanced degrees compared to 60-64 year olds who had degrees when they were 34.

You might as well ask "what percentage of 64 year olds have wrinkles and grey hair?" and "what percentage of 34 year olds have wrinkles and grey hair?" and conclude that we are growing smoother skinned and darker haired as a nation.

While most people finish their schooling near the start of their careers, some meaningful percentage of secondary degrees must awarded to people older than thirty years of age. This may be particularly true with MBAs, which are often undertaken for career advancement years after undergraduate work.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | April 3, 2008 5:06 AM

"You and Ryan Avent should take five minutes and read about Rahmana Muhammad and her four kids. Just read the article about how third grade is an almost insurmountable challenge for these Epsilons and see if you can still take your own or Ryan's policy ideas seriously. America is full of people with the intellectual chops of these Muhammads."

Seeing "Juan" flogging this story with all the enthusiasm of a Mississippi slaveowner through at least three threads, I figured it was some horrid dyspeptic piece moaning in fear of a dysgenic dystopia. Given his repeated references to 'low-IQ' individuals and now the even cruder 'these Epsilons', I also assumed that Rahmana and her children were all known to be seriously learning- or developmentally disabled, perhaps in such a way to suggest some genetic contribution.

Nope. Instead, it's a NY Times article about a poorly performing (and high poverty) Newark school that's striving to turn itself around. Yes, we do learn that Ms. Muhammad's children all had a hard time in third grade, but this is in a a school where

"In third grade, 41 of the 54 students who were tested in math received D’s or F’s. The eighth graders did even worse in math: 34 of the 35 students who were tested failed; the other received a C."

The only specific details we learn about any of her children is that nine-year-old Dyshirah has already gone from averaging 17% on math tests at the beginning of the marking period to 51% - as Ms. Muhammad said, "“I’m not happy but I’m optimistic." While we don't know anything about the other children, we do find out that Dyshirah was recently diagnosed with ADD. (Which doesn't = 'low-IQ' or 'epsilon' status: I have ADD, a B.A. (from a high-ranked liberal arts school, even, fwiw) and an M.A. (that being the cause of Mr. Crook's concern). Whether or not Dyshirah is receiving any treatment, her mother has noticed a striking change:

"She said that when she used to hand Dyshirah a book to read, she would drift over to the television or pick up a toy instead. Then, last fall, Dyshirah started bringing home books from school and sounding out large words on her own. One night, she asked to read one of Ms. Muhammad’s books, about Jamestown, after learning about the colonial settlement in school.

“I didn’t like to read before, and now I do,” Dyshirah said. “Reading is fun.”

At least some of this probably has to do with the efforts the school is making - another parent cites similar changes in her kids, and a teacher mentions that only two of her students were still reading below grade level in January, compared to 11 in the beginning of the school year.

What of Rahma Muhammad's four children - what is their situation, their problems, their potential? Really, we simply don't know. We do know that "Juan," with unseemly haste, has decided that nine-year-old Dyshirah who wants to read about Jamestown, and the other three, whose names we never even learn, can all simply be dismissed as a 'low IQ' 'epsilons'. We can imagine that this would have policy implications even beyond his earlier proposal for quasi-voluntary sterilization.

Dyshirah's school has made many changes recently, including:

" . . . Every teacher has been supplied with a laptop computer and steeped in the latest research on effective teaching strategies. Seton Hall educators serve as coaches and mentors in classrooms, and undergraduates tutor Newton students in an extended day program. A revived parent-teacher organization has brought in families for free breakfasts, a remembrance vigil for Newton alumni killed by street violence, and a workshop on expunging prison records"

But alongside these commendable efforts (which do seem to be paying off), there's something interesting, and all the more interesting for its unremarked and unremarkableness. The article mentions one fifth grade teacher who is "22 . . . [and] in her first year as a teacher." Dyshirah's third grade teacher's also 22, and most likely in his first year of teaching as well. Without at all questioning their dedication and hard work, one should note that the first year of teaching is very much on-the-job training, not infrequently (at least in struggling areas) punctuated by bouts of exhausted sobbing in empty classrooms and small apartments. If you were trying to turn around a "failing school" in an impoverished neighborhood, where the revived PTA boasts 14 members who reportedly ask (quite possibly for very practical reasons) "OK, do I have to come all the time?," would inexperienced teachers right out of college be your first choice?

Probably not. And there are doubtlessly various and somewhat-complicated reasons why it's the case here. Ultimately, though, it boils down to something very simple. Like" Juan," we as a society have made our attitudes and priorities very plain. He's just honest about it in words as well as deeds.

Posted by Dan S. | April 3, 2008 8:38 AM

Estrien wrote:

Dave clearly has never been to the wildly diverse Toronto, or to Vancouver, or to Quebec, let alone driven between them. Canada is part of America, with the same immigrant, multicultural and risk taking society as south of the border.

True enough. Canada has the highest, or one of the highest, rates of immigration in the world. On the other hand, it is still more homegeneously white than the United States for at least a few more decades.

AND one that smooths out most of the socioeconomic and ethnic bumps. An inner city Toronto kid from Jamaica is usually not that far behind a well heeled Quebecoise from Outremont in secondary level competencies (see data sets above).

Where are Canadian data broken down in such a way? Skimming the report you linked in your post, I don't see that claim made or substantiated, but I'll confess I may be overlooking it.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | April 3, 2008 9:57 AM

I don't know about "dumbing down". Freshman or sophomore computer science students now regularly do small compiler projects as a term project. A generation ago people got PhDs for doing that. I think you'll see that phenomenon throughout engineering and the sciences. (Juniors in physics reproduce experiments that won their originators Nobel prizes, DNA recombination is now done in elementary biology labs, etc., etc.).

Posted by dm | April 3, 2008 11:12 AM

I know the answer to this. In the 1960s, you got a college deferment from the draft if you stayed in school.

Posted by Raenelle | April 3, 2008 11:20 AM

Has anyone graphed single parent household data against academic performance data to see if there is a correlation? I would be willing to bet there is a direct correlation. Throwing more money at education is not the answer. I saw a chart that listed the DC public schools as having the highest $/student expenditure and also having the lowest performance.

While I agree that a college degree is overrated, it is the ticket punch to the next level of employment. I was alarmed by the level of education of my fellow students in my masters program. Some of them were grossly uneducated. They still got a Masters. A Masters is the ticket punch for a 30 something.

Josh - I was stationed at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait from 2005 - 2006. Not sure if that counts as having my "ass on the line" but I did my part. Whether you like it or not, we are in Iraq as part of a constitutional process. Your replies give some insights into your character. Unfortunately, educated guys like me hire pissants like you. I agree with Fred; good luck at the mall.

Posted by danceswithgoats | April 3, 2008 11:32 AM

OtherCyrus: The specific contrast I made was of course metaphorical, but pp. 34 on makes the general point in regard to a low impact of socioeconomic status on results for Canada. For provincial breakdowns, I was relying on my memory of news summaries at the time of publication, but they are in fact available for Canada at:
http://www.pisa.gc.ca/BROCHUR-E-28.pdf
p. 6 of this summary reiterates the point that
"differences in the performance of students with different levels of [SocioEconomic Status] were less pronounced for Canada than they were for all OECD countries combined". So that "Canada is held as a model for achieving both excellence and equity."
This is the science summary, but the reading one had very similar results.

In the other point (whiteness), this may be true, but on the other hand, these whites speak separate languages, so to call Canada homogeneous even before mass non-white immigration is hardly accurate.

Posted by Estrien | April 3, 2008 11:37 AM

Torture-supporting Bushpig Robert Powell says: "There can be few better example of "dumbing" than the kind of fanatical sanctimony of the lunatic fringe so well illustrated by the appalling "MoeLarryandJesus"."

Good news, Bobby! Your intellectual heroine Lynndie England is out of jail, so the two of you can now get together and breed a whole litter of 'mericans just as brave and bright as the two of you are. Of course she's tougher than you so she might smack you around from time to time, but as you spend all your time now licking Cheney's taint you're a natural submissive, so you'll probably like that part the best.

Good luck to you and the little England-Powells!

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 3, 2008 2:25 PM

"Seeing "Juan" flogging this story with all the enthusiasm of a Mississippi slaveowner through at least three threads, I figured it was some horrid dyspeptic piece moaning in fear of a dysgenic dystopia. Given his repeated references to 'low-IQ' individuals and now the even cruder 'these Epsilons', I also assumed that Rahmana and her children were all known to be seriously learning- or developmentally disabled, perhaps in such a way to suggest some genetic contribution."

Seeing "Dan S." read the actual NY Times story I linked to and not understand its implications is unsurprising. The students in that school aren't struggling with 3rd grade for lack of attention or teacher effort; they're struggling because they are of below-average intelligence. We're not all above average, "Dan S.", and these kids are apparently far below average. These students will be lucky to graduate high school. It's unrealistic to expect that more post-high school education will help them.

Posted by Juan | April 3, 2008 3:14 PM

I have an undergraduate degree in Chemistry and four of the classes I took in my senior year where graduate classes and I scored better than most of the Masters students in my class.

All they need is a B and that's what they shoot for between work and school.

I, on the other hand, planned on going on to earn a joint MD/PhD degree so could not afford anything less than a B+ hence, I studied like crazy.

Besides, The professor that thought me Organic Chemistry in my junior year in college confessed to us in class that the Organic Chemistry she was teaching us was mostly what she did during her graduate years and her PhD thesis was on one of the topics we where learning as undergrads.

I think in some fields (chemistry for example) a PhD obtained in 1979 is almost equivalent to an undergraduate degree obtained from a good state University in 2007. I wonder if they factor in some of the advances in education.

I also did research as an undergrad and most of the graduate students I worked with were not that bright. I think getting a PhD or Masters degree will be a piece of cake for me compared to how hard I worked in college. Graduate degrees in some fields are not that big of a deal and I don't know why companies place so much emphasis on them. Having said that, I will still get my MD/PhD dual degree because I think in this case it actually means something.

Posted by Owlwhy | April 3, 2008 3:44 PM

I'm on record for years opposing torture, including "enhanced interrogation methods". It doesn't work, and is in fact counterproductive.

Larrymoen'jesus continues to prove my characterization of him/her/it as "appalling" to be correct. This is the same sort of analysis that gave us Jewish world conspiracies and kulak class enemies. Morally and intellectually bankrupt reasoning--just label the Bad Guys, don't sweat the facts. Really profound.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 3, 2008 6:21 PM

Robert Powell writes: "I'm on record for years opposing torture, including "enhanced interrogation methods". It doesn't work, and is in fact counterproductive."

Yeah, you've aligned yourself with McCain on the issue, and you'll be voting for him... and we've all seen how seriously he takes the torture issue. Seriously enough not to vote for banning it.

You're both men of honor, right?

*cough*

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 3, 2008 8:44 PM