Thu 7 Aug 2008
If Wick Sloane ‘76 were to meet with Bill and Melinda gates on the topic of education, here is what he would say.
No one has done better than Gates with a plan for “The Problem Too Big To Be Seen,” the crisis of the work force and community colleges, than the February 2008 Gates Foundation paper “Post-Secondary Education+: An initiative to dramatically expand social mobility in America.” A friend at Gates sent (not leaked) the paper to me a few of weeks ago. The paper, at Gates’s now-familiar New Deal scale and ambition, offers two key conclusions.
“First, our research revealed that a high-leverage intervention point in breaking the intergenerational transmission of poverty is to focus on young people in the critical decade between ages 16 and 26, as they make the transition to adulthood and as (or before) they become parents themselves. Second, our research showed that if one were to choose the single most important lever for improving the life prospects of these young people and their children, it would be to help young adults earn educational credentials beyond a high school diploma.”
Right on, Bill and Melinda.
If you really want to know the effect of providing more schooling, you would run a randomized experiment. Take 1,000 students, randomly offer 500 of them free tuition (or income support or whatever goo-goo intervention you like) and then, a few years later, compare the 500 who received the intervention with the 500 who didn’t. Odds are, you won’t see much/any effect. But that is an empirical question that the Gates Foundation ought to investigate.
10 Responses to “ Right On ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from Entertaining Mr Sloane - Here’s another fine mess … » EphBlog
August 7th, 2008 at 2:55 pm[...] Comments Soph Mom on Right Oneph’11 on Fawning over Ephs, Left and RightSoph Mom on Right OnFawning over Ephs, Left and Right [...]

August 7th, 2008 at 9:33 am
David: It is surmised that you believe that they won’t because they won’t like the result.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:04 am
If you think higher education is so worthless, David, why do you maintain a blog about, ummmm, higher education?
August 7th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I like how you aren’t really telling us what on exactly you’d be comparing between the groups. Although, I think it’s safe to assume they should compare what doesn’t piss you off among the non-assisted students to what pisses you off about the assisted students.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:49 am
I guess I should inform the young woman I know who has just started at full-ride at Stanford…our valedictorian whose parents don’t speak English. After all, why waste her time and Stanford’s money?
(Really David…what the heck are you talking about? That it would be better if she accomplished this on her own? Or that a lesser school, one that she could maybe afford if she worked a couple of jobs on the side, would be just as valuable? Or that she should just go directly to the local supermarket and start there, because the Stanford education will make no difference in her earning power or quality of life? Explain your logic, please…I can’t wait to hear it.)
August 7th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Hack.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:07 am
The Gordian Knot is, I believe, causing these kids in poverty to refrain from procreating until their educations are complete.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:33 am
I don’t think Dave is against higher education per se, but rather his argument (I think) is that the “boost” that college educated people get is caused by underlying effects, rather than the effect of the college education itself. Namely, people who are predisposed to try and go to college are the ones who get the boost - and that other people who do not have the motivation to do so on their own are not going to benefit from being dragged through college.
I do not agree with that argument, and hopefully Dave will clarify if his argument is along those lines.
Also, Cullen, Jacob and Levitt had a study about school children in which they basically found that school choice did not affect performance post-high school graduation, but rather it was the student motivation itself (measured by whether the students wanted to go to better schools) that mattered most.
I think that college is different from school in a fundamental way such that Levitt’s work does not apply in this case. Dave might disagree.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Arjun,
I couldn’t get your link to work.
Also, I am interested in your explanation of Dave’s possible logic…but having a little trouble grasping the gist of it. For example, how would an argument like that apply to the Stanford student I mentioned?
I did get, BTW, that you don’t agree with this…but obviously some people do…and so I would like to better understand it.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Oops…got the link now.
That is one interesting study. I need to digest that a bit…because if it is true, it could certainly change a lot…from admissions procedures on down.
We chose to ignore all the ‘advice’ given us about how going with an ordinary public school education was ‘inferior’. But admittedly, our decision was based on the idea that what was gained had to do with something other than the actual quality of the academics.