What is a Good Education?

The most obvious reason we take the trouble to educate young people is to help them gain possession of a body of knowledge they can profitably use to achieve personal goals.  This approach, the fundamental mission of our K-16 educational institutions, equates knowledge with usefulness.  But the question that increasingly dominates the current discussion about educational policy is whether there is a difference between a useful education and a good education.  If we establish a definition of good education based on usefulness, the answer would have something to do with measurable outcomes.  So, a successful college would be one that produces graduates who are prepared for the workplace and successful in finding employment.  Consider requirements of the U.S. Department of Education for establishing the eligibility of higher education institutions to "participate in programs authorized under Title IV of the 1998 Higher Education Amendments and other federal programs."

     4.1 The institution evaluates success with respect to student achievement    

       including, as appropriate, consideration of course completion, state 

       licensing examinations, and job placement rates. (Student achievement) 

Source: The Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, 2010 Edition, pg. 37, http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/2010principlesofacreditation.pdf, accessed 12 April 2011.

These standards are indeed appropriate for many students and likely indicate institutional competence.  But is this the same thing as a good education?  The academic world is now vigorously debating this point in light of recent research showing how little students really learn in college.  Similarly, Steve Kaufmann has noted that measurable improvements in cognitive skills are best obtained not in traditional degree programs, but through reading, a low-tech and basically free activity.

If traditional university degree programs are not really teaching students all that much, and if a program of individual reading and study teaches more, then why not develop degree programs that recognize this?  A two-track bachelor's degree might be one way to do so.  The first, a career-track degree, would get students ready for the workplace and the professions.  Preparing for a job is important and often difficult, and education measured in this way could be evaluated according to a cost-benefit calculation, where tuition reflects the projected economic benefit of the degree.  The second track would be a more general degree program of essentially guided reading which would cost very little while still leading to an actual degree certificate.  Quality here would measured by subjective evaluation of student written and oral presentations.

A simplistic approach like this may not be realistic, but interest in such unconventional ways to lower the cost of education are becoming mainstream.  The Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, has recently directed the Texas Department of Education to develop a $10,000 bachelor's degree for state residents.  A reading program in the humanities and social sciences, or even mathematics and hard sciences, under the direction of faculty mentors, could easily be provided at almost any institution at very low cost.  Students who are inspired to branch out and engage in lab work, service learning activities or internships, could modify their degree program accordingly, or could jump to the career-track degree program whenever they wanted to.

The quality of an education often depends on factors unrelated to immediate mastery of professional knowledge.  Qualities such as historical and philosophical awareness, personal discipline and powers of reasoning should not be shortchanged even if they are difficult to measure.  (As a side note, these qualities are all required in the workplace, even in the professions, for positions above the entry level.)  A good education would not neglect these qualities and would be neither rigidly constructed nor reliant on standards external to the students themselves. 

Roth IRAs--Whose money is it, anyway? con't.

It's already starting to happen -- otherwise modest, forward-thinking, self-reliant and prudent young people are wondering whether or not IRA savings are safe.  This of course leads to the conclusion that if savings aren't safe, why save at all?

Differential Tuition

One overlooked aspect of the higher education bubble is the de facto subsidy paid by liberal arts and social sciences majors to business and engineering majors.  Undergraduate tuition rates at most universities are the same for every major even though the perceived value of those majors, and some would say actual value, are not nearly the same.  Therefore a political science major pays the same amount of tuition as a business major even though the latter has much higher earning potential upon graduation and, presumably, a higher intrinsic value to the student.  In addition, faculty salaries tend to be much higher in those disciplines where there is a relative shortage of workers (professors) with both practical experience and academic credentials, making these programs more expensive to operate.

Universities should consider a tuition pricing plan where students pay according to the "value" of their degrees: differential tuition.  Such a scheme is already in effect in some institutions, but the concept could be much more widely adopted.  This would allow liberal arts programs to offer students (and parents) a discount on their tuition, attracting more majors and incentivizing departments to improve the value of their degrees in order to justify price increases.  It would also allow for liberal arts departments to enhance their value relative to other liberal arts departments.  An English department, for instance, could make the case that their graduates fare better in graduate school placements and post-graduation hiring rates than, say, history majors.  Tuition would be higher to reflect this higher value.  Most importantly, such a plan would push faculties to track students after graduation and incorporate this information into design of the major and individual courses.  Relevant factors to consider in setting tuition rates could include job placement rates, first-year salaries, student demand, department costs, graduate school acceptance rates, measures of department prestige, etc.  Incidentally, these measures are also relevant for administrators to use in assessing department productivity.
 
One possible objection would be that differential tuition stigmatizes students in the "cheaper" programs, implying that they are not worth as much as engineering or accounting majors.  However, the stigma is already there, only students are now forced to pay the same rate for products of widely different economic value.  And to the extent that awareness of value is brought home to individual faculty members, they are in a position to improve their programs to better accommodate a changing environment.

Another objection is that such a scheme turns higher education into a commodity.  It is true that factors other than financial should be included in decisions students make about their fields of study.  But, with so much money now flowing into higher education and so many students graduating with huge debt to pay for their degrees, more of this kind of thinking would not be misplaced.

Roth IRAs--Whose money is it, anyway?

The Roth IRA is a great way to invest tax-free with no age-based mandatory withdrawal.  But, I've been waiting for the day when the idea that withdrawals from these accounts will be tax free begins to rankle those who wish to maximize the reach of "shared sacrifice."  That day has apparently arrived.  The interesting notion that investments are simply sitting idle completely misrepresents the nature of saving and investing, both necessary to economic expansion.