Scucca

The wage gain exceeds the investment (in terms of both tuition fees and losses in earnings)

That obviously happens. However, it is the case that people choose more difficult courses that have a lower rate of return. People like to refer to tabloid cases, such as a module on David Beckham, but there still remains people choosing less 'worthwhile' (in terms of economic return) degrees. This should be encouraged. I'd prefer more English students to more Law students

__________________

Mach

From the government perspective?
- Partially in an effort to ensure future prosperity
- Partially in an effort to meet lobbyist requests/political reasons
- Partially because universities are the R&D arm of the nation and must then be funded to produce (the non-human part of the investment).

From an individuals perspective?
- To boost income once they enter the job market
- For the prestige/bragging rights
- To increase the chances of working less for higher pay (power)
- To allow access to a job they pereceive they will enjoy
- For the enjoyment of learning/subject matter
- Because they were marketed to by the university (may have relied on any of the above)

From Business donation/sponsorship?
- To maintain and develop a well-trained resource pool
- for access to R&D
- for prestige/marketing/philanthropy (internal or external)

I believe many tax payers who later start a business have selective amnesia when they hire those well-trained canidates from a federally funded university, to work on a product that uses material/techniques/process developed at a fedreally funded R&D program.

They suddently squeal about the high taxes when they are profiting so much from their own investment. They want both the profit from their investment, and to not make such an investment, at the same time. "But why should I, the person who profits from all that federal funding in my business, have to fund what I use? I would much prefer to use that funding, but not contribute to it!! Wouldn't that be grand and libertarian? (last bit was a bit of a jab)
But they cannot have their cake and eat it too.

-Mach

__________________
Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is an illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and I am content.- Conan

Scucca

To what extent does that income boost reflect an increase in the individual's productivity? Take an extreme case: If the universities only paid lip service to testing (i.e. only convince the non-student that testing methods were followed), would it have any impact on graduate quality?

Mach

My guess would be a more heavily screened graduate class would perform better on average than a less screened one (same students).

That's due to at least two reasons. 1. Screening. 2. When screening is present and obvious, it is "supervising", and when human work is supervised (includes learning), they will produce more statistically.

So they will be both a better group due to pruning of the worse ones, and better on average per individual due to the "supervising" effect of the testing. Humans are efficient and do not like to do as much work if it's not measured.

Screening will screen for all sorts of things, including potential, actually knowledge/training, and motivation. Not just "what they know". Depending on the job, motivation and potential may be far more important than actual knowledge.

If you mean to imply that simply screening by itself would be far more efficient with a different system, that is true. But training should impart foundation, and diversity, and not be 1:1 with the market. Biology teaches us this in a competitive diverse ecosystem. You don't plan for what you know, you plan for what you do not know, so to speak.
You also do not teach soley for employers, you also teach to bestow opportunity upon the populace, to extract the gems that would otherwise go undiscovered, and as a compliment to a free society where literally anyone can technically get the education to do most anything. Exposure is a big part of that, and exposure and diversity are costly. I would guess not doing this would be even more costly to society in the long run.

Look at any specieis that is hyper-specialized. One small change in environment and extinction.

-Mach

UtahBill

Advanced education available to many increases the liklihood that the educators can find, in the screening process, a potential next generation Einstein (within science). Only a very few of our students will enter research, and in past generations, only a few were needed. With the pace of scientific advancements ramping up in the last few decades, perhpaps we need to find more geniuses.

Or, said another way, it is just like with children. You aren't likely to find a great musical talent unless you expose a lot of children to music lessons. The ones who outshine all the others are obviously the ones with talent.

Those who get the advanced education, even with good grades, are still only slightly more likely to make a great discovery than some ordinary engineer or tinkerer who while trying to make one thing accidentally discovers or invents another.

It may seem to be a waste of resources to super educate the many who show potential, but long run, I don't think so, as long as it is in the hard sciences. We should not super educate political science types. They will just find more ways to stick their hands in our pockets.

__________________
The Age of Reason doesn't have to be a thing of the past.
Being judgemental is the prime directive of some evangelicals.
No success can compensate for failure in the home.

Scucca

You're not understanding the nature of the screening hypothesis. It essentially argues that education plays no role in improving the student's ability. It represents only a method for the student to wave a certificate in the air, such that they get an interview and the non-graduate's application is binned.

"Super-education" in terms of generating research is completely different. Learning research skills is obviously an improvement in the individual's human capital.

UtahBill

You might be describing how it is, I prefer to think of how it should be...

Scucca

It should be "human capital". The screening process at least cheapens the value of education. For example, if education is purely screening orientated there should be no public sector subsidies (as they will only cheapen the value of the certificate, given subsidies will be used by lower ability youngsters to "pretend" that they are high ability)

UtahBill

Simple example of that, a friend's daughter goes off to college and fails nearly everything, ends up taking remedial classes for the first year.
He says, "but she was on the honor roll". Yes, along with most of the graduating class of her high school. Seems that the only ones NOT on the honor roll were those who were on the high honor roll, or special ed. But they graduated with high artificial scores that led the parents to believe their children were doing well. The under-educated are seldom aware that they have been handed a second class skill set. Standards need to be raised across the board, and as much funding and attention given to high achievers as low achievers. Average achievers are doing OK for the most part.
But, what you said about education playing no roll in improving ability, I have to disagree. All the natural ability in the world means little if the child doesn't obtain a base of knowledge as a springboard.
What gripes me the most is that a lot of very talented kids are excluded from the superior education they need. I know several people who "look" dumb, but once you engage them in conversation, you know immediately that looks are deceiving. They were probably never considered for extra help by their teachers, school counselors, etc. They end up in blue collar jobs, where excellence is seldom rewarded.
We need better screening, and once a gifted child is identified, give them the extra attention they deserve.

American

I think both theories applied to the current system, disregarding qualities issues. Some education serves as a test while others serve to impart a skill. The problem with the current system is that it violates both theories by providing poor measures of aptitude while imparting questionable skills.

__________________
It's Obama's fault!