Expensive Education

(EDITOR’S NOTE: There seems to be a giant disconnect between the quality of education offered in this country (on a state by state basis) and the amount of money spent in pursuit thereof. While I have long been a proponent of augmenting the educational system in the United States, it hardly seems that taxpayers are getting their money’s worth. Pathetic test scores, a student body that is falling ever farther behind on the global map, and a general malaise towards excellence threaten to unseat the United States’ predominant position if this matter is not remedied sooner rather than later.

In excerpts from his column at Forbes.com, Richard Vedder provides some simple observations and statistics that help to enlighten the reader and disavow the notion that spending money solves all problems. At some point, a more impassioned and creative effort is going to be required. –EBO)


On My Mind: College Is a Bad Investment
By RICHARD VEDDER
Forbes.com
June 20, 2005

Pouring more taxpayer money into universities doesn't lead to prosperity. When university presidents plead for government money, they often make an argument for social investment. Pump funds into higher education and the economy will grow, they claim.

But the evidence suggests that increased public funding for universities doesn't lead to greater prosperity-and may even reduce the chances of it. Compare the growth in real per capita income in states that spend a lot on higher education with that of states that spend less and a few surprises show up.

Over the past 50 years low-support New Hampshire outdistanced neighboring Vermont on nearly any economic measure, though Vermont spent more than twice as much of its population's personal income on higher education (2.37% versus 1.15% in New Hampshire). Missouri, with modest state university appropriations (1.32% of personal income), grew faster than its neighbor to the north, Iowa (at 2.41%).

Using data for all 50 states from 1977 and 2002, I compared the 10 states with the highest state funding for universities against the 10 states with the lowest. The result: The low-spending states had far better growth in real income per capita, a median growth of 46% compared with 32% for the states with the highest university spending.

How could this be? Colleges have devoted relatively little new funding over the past generation to the core mission of instruction (spending only 21 cents of each new inflation-adjusted dollar per student on it), preferring instead to assist research, hire more nonacademic staff, give generous pay increases, support athletics and build luxurious facilities. In 1976 American education employed three nonfaculty professional workers (administrators, counselors, librarians, computer experts) for every 100 students; by 2001 that number had doubled.

Another piece of the puzzle: Taxes reduce private-sector activity. People who must pay high taxes tend to work and invest less and also tend to migrate to lower-tax areas. In other words, increasing funding to universities means transferring resources from the relatively productive private sector to higher education, which tends to be less productive and efficient.

So what should we do? College is still a decent individual investment, certifying that the graduate meets minimum standards (often missing in high school) for competence, intelligence, maturity and literacy. But we should rethink the nature and magnitude of public support for universities. Big changes are coming to higher education. They are overdue.

Richard Vedder is a professor of economics at Ohio University and author of Going Broke By Degree: Why College Costs Too Much

Things are not worse than they were in the 70's

But I'm sure you already knew that subconsciously. Another great post from Powerline:


Reflections on How Things Keep Getting Better

Liberalism is more or less synonymous with pessimism, so every time we point out something good, it feels like a subversive act. I'm thinking of this in part because I spent the day in a meeting in Washington--a quick in-and-out trip that wasn't long enough to check in with our D.C. bureau. It was a warm and humid day there, but I was really struck by the air quality. I worked for the State Department for a summer in, I think, 1970. At that time, when you drove into D.C. in the morning, you could see a brown cloud bank hanging over the city most days. The air you breathed generally had the acidic tang of SO2. Today, that is all gone: no brown cloud, no atmospheric pollution to speak of. That is true in city after city across America. The environmental improvement in the last thirty years has been astonishing, but is often unrecognized.

This, in turn, reminds me of my deconstruction of a silly article in the New York Times by one of our premier Chicken Littles, Paul Krugman, and the response I received from Dafydd ab Hugh, who pointed out that I had not articulated anything like the real scale of the improved standard of living over the past thirty years:

I think you missed an even more basic critique of the Krugman opinion piece.

You wrote that "the Census Bureau data show that for the category "Married-Couple Families," median income went from $46,723 in 1973 to $62,281 in 2003. (All numbers are in constant 2003 dollars.) That's a hefty 33% increase in real income."
With all due respect, Hindrocket, that's bullpuckey. The increase in "real income" would be hundreds of times that 33%, once you take into account the value of what you can now buy. Riddle me this:

* In 1973, how many households could afford a desktop computer with hundreds of megabytes of RAM? Ans: none.

* How many could afford a portable telephone that fits in a pocket? Or for that matter, how about a portable computer terminal? Ans: none.

* How many could afford to have genetic diseases in their children repaired by gene therapy? Ans: none.

* How many childless couples could afford in-vitro fertilization? Ans: none.

* How many could afford to have diseases diagnosed with Positron Emission Tomography or treated by laser surgery? How many could afford to have Lasik corrective eye surgery? How many could afford to have depression or anxiety cured or controlled by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) like Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox or Celexa? How many could afford to have their teeth repaired by composite resin fillings? How many could afford laser microsurgery, radio-telemetry surgery, foetal-abnormality surgery, minimally-invasive surgery, robotic surgery, or "beating heart" cardiac surgery? Ans: none.

* How many could afford to start their own "magazines" that could be read by tens or hundreds of thousands of people each week without even being distributed? Ans: none.

* How many could afford a luxury family vehicle suitable for offroading adventures? Ans: none.

* How many breadwinners could afford to telecommute? Ans: none.

* How many could afford a Mint Mocha Chip Frappuccino? How many could buy fat-free potato chips? How many could afford NutraSweet? How about lactose-free milk? How many could afford to go out routinely for Pad Thai, Japanese sushi, Armenian khorovatz, Ethiopian aleecha, Chorizo Argentino, Lebanese hummus and shawarma, or even a nice, simple blueberry bagel? Ans: none.

The point should be clear: it is impossible to legitimately compare buying power in 1973 with buying power today, for the simple reason that a huge proportion of what we buy today simply did not even exist thirty years ago. This is more obvious when you try to compare today's economy with the economy of the Middle Ages: the strides in technology and society are so staggering, they swamp any attempted calculation of monetary value: how many emperors in A.D. 750 could afford antibiotics?

Claiming that "working families have seen little if any progress over the past 30 years," as Krugman claimed, is so manifestly preposterous -- even before taking economics into account -- that I don't question his veracity so much as his sanity. Is he mentally ill?

On the last question: no comment.

Key Compromise on Iraqi Constitution Brings in Sunni Tribes

The Sunni leaders have been sending signals for quite some time now that they want to join the political process and get with the program. Now an agreement has been brokered to do just that. What this means is that things will eventually quiet down significantly and the only violence will be from Jihadi/Al-Qaeda types, and their operations will be much impeded once the local sunni tribes stop assisting them and providing them safe haven.

If a transition to democracy without civil war can happen in South Africa, then it can happen anywhere.

From Powerline.

What could be very important news came out of Iraq this morning: an agreement has been reached regarding the role to be played by Sunni Iraqis in drafting the country's new constitution. AFP
reports that the deal, which gives the Sunnis 25 seats on the panelthat will draft the constitution--ten of whom are "advisers"--"raises prospects that the largely Sunni-inspired insurgency might be undermined as a result."

In more good news, Mohammed Khalaf Shakar, also known as AbuTalha, who has been in charge of operations for Zarqawi's terrorist network, was captured today in Mosul. This could well be more important than capturing Zarqawi himself. Shakar was said to wear a suicide vest at all times and to have vowed never to be taken alive. However, he surrendered quietly and without a fight. Once again, tips from civilians who detest the terrorists apparently led to Shakar's apprehension.

I hope he's being questioned by the Iraqis, and that they're not just
playing pop music for him.

With this bone, I thee wed?

This just seems vaguely "wrong" (as in yuck) to me for some reason. But who knows what will be the norm 50 years from now?

Rings of bone grown for couples

Couples who want to share more than vows are getting the opportunity to share their bone too in a "bio jewellery" research project.

Using bioglass, a special bioactive ceramic which mimics the structure of bone material, researchers are growing rings made out of the couples' bone.

Five couples are having the rings made. They will be grown from bone cells taken from their jawbone.

The project in London aims to ignite public debate about bioengineering.

Sufi Wisdom

Published on the Winds of Change Blog, these are short humorous stories from one of the peaceful voives in Islam, called Sufi. Their teachings are passed on in this way, as well as with mystical or romantic poetry. There are weekly installments. Enjoy.

Archives of prior posts can be found in the link below.


Sufi Wisdom: Deceitful Donkey

by T.L. James of MarsBlog.

Part of our weekly Sufi Wisdom series. As terrorist Islam does its best to discredit the religion, it is important to remember that there are other voices within the faith. One such is the Sufis, a branch of Islamic mystics with roots in many religious traditions. The lessons of Sufism are often communicated through humorous stories and mystical or romantic poetry.

Nasrudin was riding home from the bazaar daydreaming of the pulao he would have for his supper. With his thoughts full of the saffroned rice, juicy meat and fried onions, he did not pay much attention to the route his donkey was taking home. His daydream was finally broken when the donkey lurched to a halt outside a house.

'Come! I have all the ingredients for your best pulao,' Nasrudin called to his wife. But the woman he saw before him when he eventually looked up was a complete stranger. Realising that it was not only the wrong wife, but the wrong house and even the wrong village, the Mulla looked at his donkey severely.

'If you had told me that you wish to move here, I would perhaps have considered it, but I will not stand for deceit!'

Who is deceiving whom?