Again you can actually read the book.Īnd resists reform to the education on the basis that it's harder to do than scrapping it all together. Its quite possible to accept Caplan's point without going that far in terms of policy prescription. He bases his conclusions on mainstream economic literature, such as Spence's Job Market Signaling and Hungerford & Solon's Sheepskin Effects In The Returns To Education.Ībout cutting education all the way down to 8th grade News flash: libertarians are sometimes correct, and it isn't like Caplan's analysis relies on extreme ideas. You're dismissing it out of hand just because you don't like Caplan's politics. Again, read Caplan, he reviews the literature very thoroughly. A good piece of evidence for this is Sheepskin Effects, as demonstrated by Hungerford and Solon. There's plenty of research into education's value as signaling.
I don't see a reason to think this claim is true. Then why are jobs which used to require only high school now insisting on college degrees?Įven if we assume only 30% of education's value is in signaling, then we're oversubsidizing it It could also signal an economy where unskilled labor is cheaper and skilled labor requires more skill than ever.
No insults against other members of the sub You've already made clear that you consider all political beliefs other than your own "crack pot." You are not open-minded, you repeatedly presume malicious intentions on the part of your interlocutors, and you often engage in obtuse readings so as to come to the most unflattering interpretation you can.