Excellent question. How is this?
Ross, Davis R. B. 1969. Preparing for Ulysses: Politics and Veterans during World War II (NY: Columbia University Press). "A Cost benefit Analysis of Government Investment in Post-Secondary Education under the World War II GI Bill." Staff Analysis Prepared for the Use of the Subcommittee on Education and Health of the Joint Economic Committee, December 14, 1988; Appendix to Hearing of the Subcommittee on Education and Health of the Joint Economic Committee. 1990. The Future of Head Start (25 February): pp. 93-115. The government provided about $7 billion for 2.2 million veterans to attend college or graduate school. The cost benefit ratio was between 5 and 12.5 to 1. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 11:15 AM To: Progressive Economics Subject: Re: [Pen-l] What is Higher Education for? A question on a related topic has been nagging me. Is there any literature on the returns to _private_ higher education, relative to the returns on _public_ higher education? This has been on my mind because of the recent report on the Washington Post on people being crushed with a long term burden of student loan debt, something that has been significantly raised in Occupy. Obviously, there is a lot to be said about this topic, in terms of the way higher education is financed in the U.S. as compared to Europe, etc. But one particular element seems to me to have escaped attention: the extent to which people are facing huge long-term debt because they went to private colleges and universities, as opposed to public colleges and universities. I wonder to what extent this is the result of ideology. No doubt there are objective benefits that people perceive from going to private colleges. But are these really sufficient to justify the choice, when the difference in cost is so great? Does the availability of student loans to make this choice - loans you can never get out of, even if you declare bankruptcy - really serve the public interest on net? Or is there something in it akin to loan sharking? On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:00 PM, michael perelman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mark Thoma's blog, Economist's View, there is an active debate > about my post on the Demise of Higher Education. > > http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/04/the-demise-of > -higher-education-in-the-united-states.html > > The comments divided relatively predictable ways, according to whether > the commentor were inclined toward Republican or Democratic policies, > but relatively little energy was given to the question of the value of > higher education. Most people can appreciate the beneficial > technologies will that depend upon the scientific training and > research that goes on in universities, although not everybody > recognizes the debt that society owes to higher education in such > developments. > > Higher education can mean more than learning about science or > classical literature. My own first learning experience in higher > education had little to do with a classroom. I found myself in > contact with a much wider variety of people that I had ever previously > encountered. That in itself broadened my perspective on life. > Classes in history, as well as classical music and literature, helped > to give me a sense of the life and culture of other parts of the > world. My greatest benefit from higher education was a curiosity > about the world that I had lacked before. > > Let me turn for a moment to an observation about my field, economics. > Many of the economists who other economists recognize for making the > greatest contributions to their field are people who benefited from > exposure to different fields. The winner of the not-really Nobel > Prize, Kenneth Arrow, was trained as a meteorologist during the Second > World War. Similarly, Nobelist Paul Samuelson worked with > mathematicians, engineers, and physicists developing radar during the > war. Phil Mirowski's Machine Dreams is filled with such examples. Of > course, scientists have gotten inspiration from similar experiences. > > In short, education in general, on is not something that can be easily > measured in objective terms. Ideas, which initially seemed kooky, > often later turn out to be crucial for future development. > > The me finish by saying that my complaints about are not the product > of some disgruntled academic, upset over low pay, mistreatment, or any > other personal problems. I enjoy what I do. In fact, if I were > willing to retire, I could teach half-time for a few years while > collecting my pension. If I did, so my income would increase but I > can only do so for five years. Consequently, I pay to keep teaching. > I have good relationships with my chairman, my dean, and president of > the University. > My anger is directed toward the forces that are working to destroy a > world, which I love. > > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA > 95929 > > 530 898 5321 > fax 530 898 5901 > http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l -- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected] _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
