Posts tagged ‘Education’
“Choice is inherently inequitable”
Because some people make choices that their betters, like Ms. Fewer, do not agree with, government needs the power to override individual decision-making. We will come back to this, but it turns out the problem here may not be too much choice, but too little.
The entire article is about school choice (defined VERY narrowly as the ability to pick what monopoly government school you want to attend, not the ability to take a voucher and pick any school) leading to a greater racial sorting, rather than mixing, in San Francisco schools.
I have no idea why that would be. And I still have no idea, because the article presented absolutely no facts. Oddly, my first guess -- that racial sorting of schools might match racial sorting of neighborhoods since people want to send their kids to a school that is close with kids and parents they know -- is not even mentioned until, in passing, it comes up around the 35th paragraph.
One of the issues that seems to be confusing the author is that people sometimes express preferences they don't act on. You see that in the very examples in the article. All the parents interviewed say they want a multi-cultural school, perhaps because they are really passionate about that or perhaps because they know they are supposed to say that, but it is not hard to see that these folks care more about having a school nearby with kids and parents with whom they are culturally comfortable. I find it a little weird that the city with possibly the most famous ethnic neighborhood in the country (ie Chinatown) has trouble understanding that there are totally non-racist reasons why ethnic groups, particularly those who speak other languages, might voluntarily sort.
One funny thing in the article that I have pointed out in other contexts: in the absence of facts people like to explain bad trends (and it is not even established that this is necessarily a bad trend, just a trend that planners don't like) with whatever they were against before the trend revealed itself. Teachers don't like the school choice system, so school choice is to blame. Social activists are concerned with income inequality, so they blame the problem on income inequality.
In fact, a lot of the article pursues the inequality thesis, but the interesting lede, in my mind, was buried way way down in the article:
Though the number of racially isolated schools jumped by 22 percent over three years, according to a district study, to date none are more than 60 percent white. Yet in a broader sense, white children are the most isolated in the city.
Whites are 42 percent of the city’s overall population, 33 percent of the children but only 12 percent of public school students. Why aren’t more white children in public school? Again, money appears to be the key factor: The average white San Franciscan makes three times more money than the average black resident. Whites on average also make 66 percent more money than Latinos, and 44 percent more than Asians. Possibly as a result of this wealth, white children are much more likely to be enrolled in private schools than other racial groups.
So the reason public schools are sorting into minority-majority schools is that whites have mostly bailed from the school system altogether. My response to this is not that "choice" has created inequality but that choice hasn't gone far enough. Don't just give public school kids a choice of which crappy public school they want to attend, but hand them the public money the system was going to spend on their education and let them go anywhere for school, just like rich kids.
Closely on the heals of their victory in an asset forfeiture case in New York, the Institute of Justice (IJ) successfully fought the state licensing requirement for hair braiders in Texas.
A 2013 press statement on the Institute for Justice’s website described Brantley’s frustration with the criteria: “This means that Isis must spend 2,250 hours in barber school, pass four exams, and spend thousands of dollars on tuition and a fully-equipped barber college she doesn’t need, all to teach a 35-hour hair-braiding curriculum,” the statement read.
U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks on Monday seemed to agree with Brantley’s concerns that the requirements for hair-braiding entrepreneurs were superfluous. Sparks ruled that the Texas laws were unconstitutional and “absent” a rational connection with Brantley’s intended marketplace, the Associated Press reports.
“I fought for my economic liberty because I believe there is a lot of hope for young people who seek to earn an honest living,” Brantley said in a press statement. “This decision means that I will now be able to teach the next generation of African hair braiders at my own school.”
Good. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a way to fight these stupid licensing laws except one at a time, state by state. And every time we take one on, the incumbent competitors in that business (who are the primary beneficiaries of licensure that restricts new competition) fight tooth and nail every step of the way.
I will observe that red states are just as bad as blue states on occupational licenses. This is cronyism, not ideology. From this site, here are just a few the occupational licenses one still needs in Texas (this is from a school web site, so these are just the ones that have continuing education requirements that this school serves). I suspect that this list is incomplete, as long as it is, because barbers and hair stylists, the subject of this case, are not even on the list.
|LICENSED OCCUPATIONS IN TEXAS|
|Continuing Education Requirements|
|Licensed Occupations||License||Continuing Education Requirements to Renew|
|Accountants & Auditors||Certified Public Accountant||Annual CEUs Ethics-2hrs/yr|
|Acupuncturist||Acupuncturist||17 hours CAE/yr|
|Heating, A/C, & Refrigeration Mechanics & Installers||A/C & Refrigeration Contractor||Voluntary continuing education|
|Athletic Trainer||Athletic Trainer||30 clock hours/ 3 years|
|Judges and Magistrates||Attorney||15 CLE hours/year inc. 3 hrs. ethics|
|Combative Sports Promoter||Boxing Promoter||Voluntary continuing education|
|Child Care Administrator||Child Care Administrator||15 hours for biennial renewal|
|Compliance Officers||Code Enforcement Officer||to be required; rules in development|
|Counselors, Chemical Dependency||Chemical Dependency Counselor||If also licensed as LMSW, LMFT,LPC, physician, or
psychologist-24 hours CE/2yrs.
If not otherwise licensed, 60 hours.
All hours specific to or related to chemical dependency.
|Counselor, Professional||Counselor, Professional||12 hours/year inc. 3 hours ethics or legal issues every other yr.|
|Dental Hygienists||Dental Hygienist||12 hours/year|
|Dietitians and Nutritionists||Dietitian||6 clock hours/year|
|Drinking Water Utility Plant Operator||Certificate Classes 1-3||1-2 courses in water conditioning|
|Emergency Medical Technicians||Emergency Medical Technician||Varies by level: see below|
|Emergency Care Attendants (ECA)||20 contact hours CE/2yrs; 40 hours within 4/yr cert. period|
|Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT)||40 contact hours CE/2yrs; 80 hours within 4/yr cert. period|
|EMT-Intermediates (EMT-1)||60 contact hours CE/2 yrs; 120 hours within 4/yr cert. period|
|EMT-Paramedics (EMT-P)||80 contact hours CE/2 yrs; 160 hours within 4/yr cert. period|
|Engineers||Professional Engineer||None required|
|Fire Fighters||Fire Protection Personnel/Firefighter||20 hrs CE/year|
|Fire Inspectors||Fire Protection System Contractor||None found|
|Funeral Directors & Morticians||Funeral Director/Embalmer||20 hrs/yr; required 2 hrs-law updates; 2-ethics; 2-vital stats|
|Salespersons, Retail||Hearing Instrument Fitter/Dispenser||20 hrs/yr|
|Insurance Adjusters, Examiners, & Investigators||Insurance Adjuster||30 hrs/2yrs, including 2 hrs/ethics (Most licensees)|
|Sales Agents & Placers, Insurance||Insurance Agent||15 hours CE/yr|
|Interior Designers||Interior Designer||8 hrs/yr|
|Interpreter||Interpreter for the Deaf||75 hrs/5 yrs.|
|Construction-Irrigator||Irrigator, Landscape||8 hours/yr|
|Surveyors and Mapping Scientists||Land Surveyor||8 hrs/yr|
|Landscape Architects||Landscape Architect||8 CEPH/year (CE Program Hrs) TBAE|
|Police Detectives||Law Enforcement Officer||40 hrs/2 yrs Currently in 4 yr cycle|
|Librarians, Professional||Librarian, County|
|Grades II & III (valid for two years)||3 semester hrs at accredited college
or 20 hrs other continuing education activities
|Grade I (permanent)|
|Marriage & Family Therapist||Marriage & Family Therapist||15 hrs/yr; 3 hrs ethics every 3 yrs.|
|Massage Therapist||Massage Therapist||6 clock hrs/yr|
|Medical Scientists||Medical Physicist, Professional||24 contact hours/2 years|
|Radiologic Technologists||Medical Radiologic Technologist, General||24 hours/2 years|
|Limited Certificate||12 hours/2 years|
|Nursing Aides, Orderlies, & Attendants||Midwife, Direct Entry||10 hours CE /yr|
|Licensed Practical Nurses||Nurse, Licensed Vocational (LVN)||20 contact hours (2 CEUs)/2 yrs|
|Registered Nurses||Nurse, Registered (RN)||20 contact hours (2 /CEUs)/2 yrs|
|Nurse Aide, Long Term Care||none found|
|Medicine & Health Services Managers||Nursing Facility Administrator||40 hours CE/ 2 yrs|
|Occupational Therapists||Occupational Therapist||30 hrs/2 yrs.|
|Occupational Therapist Assistant||30 hrs/2yrs|
|On-Site Sewage Facility||Designated Representative||16 hrs/yr|
|Installer Class I||16 hrs/yr|
|Installer Class II||16 hrs/yr|
|Opticians, Dispensing & Measuring||Optician||5 hrs/yr for voluntarily registered opticians|
|Optometrists||Optometrist||sixteen hours of continuing education/ year inc.
six hours in diagnostic or therapeutic education
|prosthetist or orthotist license||24 hrs/2 yrs|
|prosthetist and orthotist license||40 hrs/2 yrs|
|prosthetist or orthotist assistant||12 hrs/2 yrs|
|prosthetist and orthotist assistant||20 hrs/2 yrs|
|prosthetic or orthotic technician||6 hrs/2 yrs|
|prosthetic and orthotic technician||10 hrs/2 yrs|
|Pawn Broker/Lender||Pawnbroker/Lender||None found|
|Cardiology Technologist||Perfusionist||45 CEUs/3 yrs|
|Pest Controllers & Assistants||Pesticide Applicator|
|Private Applicator||15 CEUs/5 yrs ( 2 ea. in laws/regs & integrated pest mgmt.)|
|Private Applicator Certificate Holder||15 CEUs/5 yrs|
|Commercial Applicator||5 CEUs/yr (1 ea fr 2 of: laws/regs, integ pest mgmt, drift min)|
|Noncommercial Applicator||5 CEUs/yr (1 ea fr 2 of: laws/regs, integ pest mgmt, drift min)|
|Pharmacists||Pharmacist||12 hours CE/ yr|
|Physical Therapists||Physical Therapist||3 CEUs (30 contact hours)/2yrs inc. 2 hrs. ethics;|
|Physical Therapist Assistant||2 CEUs (20 contact hours)/2 yrs inc. 2 hrs. ethics|
|Physicians and Surgeons||Physician||24 hrs CME/yr (at least 12 hours formal courses)|
|Physician Assistant||40 hrs CME/yr (at least 20 hours formal courses)|
|Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters||Plumber||6 hrs/ yr|
|Podiatrists||Podiatric Physician||30 hours CE/2 yrs|
|Polygraph Examiners||Polygraph Examiner||voluntary|
|Detectives/Investigators||Private Investigator/Security Guard||12 hrs/2yrs|
|Psychological Associate||12 hrs/yr|
|Specialist in School Psychology||12 hrs/yr|
|Sales Agents, Real Estate||Real Estate Broker||15 classroom hours MCE/ two years inc. 6 hrs legal topics|
|Real Estate Sales Agent||30 hours/yr Salesperson Annual Education (SAE)|
|Construction & Building Inspectors||Real Estate Inspector||8 hours core real estate inspection courses/year|
|Respiratory Therapists||Respiratory Care Practitioner||12 hours CE/yr|
|Sanitarian||Sanitarian||12 CE contact hours/yr|
|Sales Agent, Securities, Commodities, Financial Serv.||Securities Dealer/Investment Advisor||none found|
|Social Workers||Social Work Associate||15 hours CE/yr inc. 3 hours in ethics|
|Licensed Social Worker||15 hours CE/yr inc. 3 hours in ethics|
|Licensed Master Social Worker||15 hours CE/yr inc. 3 hours in ethics|
|Municipal Solid Waste||Solid Waste Technician Class A-Class D||40 hrs-24 hrs/4 yrs|
|Speech-Language Pathologists & Audiologists||Speech-Language Pathologist/Audiologist||10 hrs/yr; 15 if dually licensed|
|Tax Examiners, Collectors, & Revenue Agents||Registered Texas Assessor Collectors||60 CEUs/5 yrs|
|Registered Professional Appraisers||60 CEUs/5 yrs|
|Registered Texas Collectors||25 CEUs/5 yrs|
|Installer||Underground Storage Tank Installer||8 hrs/yr|
|UST On-Site Installer or Remover Supervisor||8 hrs/yr for each license type held|
|Veterinarians and Veterinary Inspectors||Veterinarian||15 hrs/yr; 3 hrs ethics every 3 yrs.|
|Earth Drillers||Water Well Driller/Pump Installer|
|Continuing Education Requirements|
|Clinical Laboratory Scientist||Clinical Laboratory Scientist/Med. Tech||3.6 CEUs/3 yrs|
|Clinical Laboratory Technician||Clinical Laboratory Technician/ Med. Lab. Tech.||3.6 CEUs/3 yrs|
|Clinical Laboratory Phlebotomist||Clinical Laboratory Phlebotomist||3.6 CEUs/3 yrs|
|CT(IAC) International Academy of Cytology||Cytotechnologist||180 continuing education credits/4 yrs|
|Genetic Counselor||Genetic Counselor, Diplomate||25 CEUs/10 yrs|
|Histologic technician||Histologic Technician||3.6 CEUs/3 yrs|
|Kinesiotherapist||Kinesiotherapist||1.2 CEUs (1 CE = 10 contact hours) / year|
|Leisure Professional||Leisure Professional, Certified||2 CEUs/2 yrs|
|Music Therapist||Music Therapist-Board Certified||CE|
|Orthoptist||Orthoptist||15 hours CE/yr|
|Pathologists' Assistant||Pathologists' Assistant||Certification process in development|
|Recreation Therapist||Therapeutic recreation specialist, certified||30-50 hours/5 yrs|
|Surgical Technologist||Certified Surgical Technologist||80 CE credits/6 yrs|
I think folks are rightly concerned that "disparate impact" logic run amok is leading to a lot of questionable practices, like this one in Minnesota:
The good: Minneapolis Public Schools want to decrease total suspensions for non-violent infractions of school rules.
The bad: The district has pledged to do this by implementing a special review system for cases where a black or Latino student is disciplined. Only minority students will enjoy this special privilege.
That seems purposefully unconstitutional—and is likely illegal, according to certain legal minds.
The new policy is the result of negotiations between MPS and the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. Minority students are disciplined at much higher rates than white students, and for two years the federal government has investigated whether that statistic was the result of institutional racism.
I understand the concern here, and I don't think it is unreasonable to demand that a public institution make this review process applicable to all suspensions, not just to those of black and Hispanic kids.
But good God, if I found out, say, that Hispanics were getting laid off at ten times the rate as Anglo workers in my company, I would definitely do something different in the process. I would not immediately assume it was due to discrimination but I would sure as hell insert myself into the process to make sure things were fair. I could easily see myself at least temporarily demanding in such a case that all terminations of people of color be reviewed with me first. Hell, I wouldn't have waited for two years to do it either. Even if the terminations turned out to be righteous, I would hopefully learn something along the way about why the disparity exists and what I could do about it in the future.
By the way, in today's legal environment, any private employer who says they don't put extra scrutiny on terminations of folks in protected classes, or don't increase the warnings and documentation required internally before firing someone in a protected class, is probably a liar.
In the continuing battle to give males in college roughly the same due process rights as possessed by a black man in 1930's Alabama, my alma mater was one of the last holdouts fighting the trend. No longer:
Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Education wrapped up its investigation of Princeton University's sexual harassment and assault policies. The findings were unsurprising, though still striking: the government essentially accused the university of violating federal anti-discrimination law by extending too much due process to accused students.
Princeton had been one of the last hold-outs on the standard of proof in college rape trials. The university required adjudicators to obtain "clear and convincing" proof that a student was guilty of sexual assault before convicting him. That's too tough, said DOE. As part of its settlement, Princeton is required to lower its evidence standard to "a preponderance of the evidence," which means adjudicators must convict if they are 50.1 percent persuaded by the accuser.
Princeton's old policy was also criticized by DOE for allowing accused students to appeal decisions, but not accusers. Both this practice and the evidence standard were revised under Princeton's new, DOE-compliant policy.
Note that Princeton's former policies on burden of proof and restrictions on double jeopardy roughly mirror the due process rights Americans have in every other context except when they are males accused of sexual assault on a college campus.
I wish Princeton had held out and forced the Administration to test this in court. I certainly would have donated to support the legal fund.
Arizonans are driving less, and relying more on public transportation, according to a report from the Arizona Public Interest Research Group Education Fund.
The shift is causing the Arizona PIRG Education Fund to recommend that public officials shift funding away from more highway projects, and more toward other transportation options."
"We recommend that transportation officials and elected leaders look at the data today, and not outdated assumptions, to make sure that any highway projects are absolutely necessary," Arizona PIRG Education Fund executive director Diane Brown tells New Times....
In the Phoenix metro area, the light rail opened in late 2008 and is already experiencing ridership numbers that weren't projected to be reached until the year 2020. In 2013, the Valley Metro transit system experienced a record high annual ridership, and between 2007-2013, boardings on Valley Metro transit service jumped from 60 million to more than 75 million - an increase of 25 percent. The Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority recently saw its highest monthly ridership in October 2013. And in Yuma, ridership on Yuma County Area Transit has tripled since 2011.
The report suggests that public officials re-allocate their focus and funding, away from building new highways and toward more transportation options.
This is a fantasy.
There is an enormous amount of obfuscation going on here. The percentage rise of public transit trips is actually the miracle of small numbers -- small changes on an even smaller base. The point of these charts is to try to say that Arizonans use a lot of transit and we should dump more billions into these projects. As it turns out, despite all the huge public investment, transit is still a rounding error.
Note that, from their own report, driving vehicle miles per capita are 9175 per person per year. So lets look at transit. They exaggerate by showing averages for Phoenix and Tucson, where transit use is higher, not for the whole state like they show vehicle miles. The total state transit miles per person in the same year, using their numbers, turns out to be as low as 64 (if no one outside of Phoenix or Tucson uses transit) and as high as 110 (if everyone outside of Phoenix and Tucson uses transit at the same rate as in the cities). The likely number is around 75.
This means that after all these billions and billions of transit spending, transit trips are 0.8% of vehicle trips (75 vs. 9175). That is a rounding error. You sure wouldn't get that impression from the report. The Public Interest Research Group has a funny view of "public interest", putting the desired transportation mode of the 0.8% over the desired choice of the 99.2%
Well, you say, I should compare the increase in transit to the decrease in driving. OK. Again using their numbers: Vehicle driving miles went down 348 per capita over the study period. In the same time, per capital transit miles went up by about 26 in Phoenix and Tucson (likely less in the state as a whole). So, at best, transit ridership accounts for about 7% of the drop in driving.
This is not nothing, but hardly justifies the enormous increase in transit spending over the last 15 years and the billions and billions in capital investment.
Oh, and by the way, Phoenix Light Rail ridership has cannibalized bus ridership about 1 for 1. That means all that investment in light rail has just shifted riders to a more expensive, less flexible transit mode. But that is another story.
I don't really have much to say about today's Supreme Court decision on affirmative action. Given that there were 4 different opinions written, the whole issue seems to still be in much dispute. The continuing Court opinion is, I think, that affirmative action is legal (but as expressed today, not required) in education to address diversity and other goals.
My only thought on this is one I have had a long time about colleges and diversity. Universities are, if anything, institutions based on ideas and thought. So it has always been amazing to me that university diversity programs focus not on having a diversity of ideas, but on have a diversity of skin pigment and reproductive plumbing. In fact, if anything, most universities seem to be aspiring towards creating an intellectual monoculture. Diversity of opinion, of politics, and of general outlook among prospective students are not even decision-making variables in any educational institution I know of. And within the faculty, many institutions seem intent on purging from their ranks any single voice that diverges from the majoritarian view. I could have probably found more diversity of political opinion in a 19th century London gentleman's club than I can today in many campus faculties.
I have been meaning to write on the new Obama Administration guidelines to colleges for treating speech as sexual assault and reducing the due process rights of accused students. But George Will does such a great job I am going to let him do it.
Responding to what it considers the University of Montana’s defective handling of complaints about sexual assaults, OCR, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the university a letter intended as a “blueprint” for institutions nationwide when handling sexual harassment, too. The letter, sent on May 9, encourages (see below) adoption of speech codes — actually, censorship regimes — to punish students who:
Make “sexual or dirty jokes” that are “unwelcome.” Or disseminate “sexual rumors” (even if true) that are “unwelcome.” Or make “unwelcome” sexual invitations. Or engage in the “unwelcome” circulation or showing of “e-mails or Web sites of a sexual nature.” Or display or distribute “sexually explicit drawings, pictures, or written materials” that are “unwelcome.”
It takes some work to simultaneously violate this many Constitutional protections in one letter, but the Obama Administration continues to demonstrate its heroic determination to ignore that aging document.
By the way, I cannot find any story about a single university President in the whole country who has objected to these rules. What a bunch a spineless conformists we running universities.
A few things I would add to Will's comments:
- I have written about this emerging "right not to be offended" on University campuses for some time. This is the Obama Administration trying to codify this nutty BS "right" into law.
- There is no way in a rule of law where one can have a law where only the opinion of the victim matters in determining culpability. To some extent, the loss of due process rights are almost secondary here -- if it is a crime if the victim says it is (ie they were offended), then what defense can one have, anyway?
- Given that everyone takes offense to something nearly every day, this law would quickly cause everyone to be kicked out of school. The Venn diagram of speech that is offensive either to, say, fundamentalist Christians or Muslims and to radical feminists would encompass essentially all of speech related to sex. Since everyone will not be kicked out of school, the rules will almost certainly be enforced disparately, likely punishing speech with which the university administration disagrees but being far less aggressive in pursuing "unwanted" sexual speech with which it might disagree.
I am happy to see the public school system coming in for much-deserved criticism. I don't have anything to add to this article that I have not already said about schools many times. But I want to make one complaint about a chart used in the blog post:
SAT scores are a terrible metric for measuring academic performance over time.
First, I am not at all convinced that the test scoring does not shift over time (no WAY my son had a higher score than me, LOL).
But perhaps the most important problem is that all students don't take the SAT -- it is a choice. Shifts in the mix of kids taking the test -- for example, if over time more kids get interested in college so that more marginal academic kids take the test -- then the scores are going to move solely based on mix shifts. Making this more complicated, there is at least one competitive test (the ACT) which enjoys more popularity in some states than others, so the SAT will represent an incomplete and shifting geographic mix of the US. Finally, as students have gotten smarter about this whole process**, they gravitate to the ACT or the SAT based on differing capabilities, since they test in different ways.
To me, all this makes SAT scores barely more scientific than an Internet poll.
** If you have not had a college-bound student recently, you will have to trust me on this, but parents can spend an astounding amount of time trying to out-think this stuff. And that is here in flyover country. Apparently private school parents on the East Coast can be absurd (up to and including hiring consultants for 6 figures). A few years ago it was in vogue to try to find your kid a unique avocation. Violin was passe -- I knew kids playing xylophone and the bagpipes. A friend of mine at a high profile DC private school used to have fun with other parents telling them his son was a national champion at falconry, the craziest thing he could make up on the spur of the moment at a cocktail party. Other parents would sigh enviously, wishing they had thought of that one for their kid.
In Obamacare, it was mandated that health insurance companies spend 85% of premiums on care (vs. marketing, profits, and overhead) or else they owe their customers a refund. So if the same standard was applied to unions, how much of their dues would they have to refund?
For example, according to the most recent federal filings, the Michigan Education Association — the state’s largest labor union — received $122 million and spent $134 million in 2012. They averaged about $800 from each of their 152,000 members.
According to union documents, "representational activities" (money spent on bargaining contracts for members) made up only 11 percent of total spending for the union. Meanwhile, spending on “general overhead” (union administration and employee benefits) comprised of 61 percent of the total spending.
The union appears to have spent nearly the entirety, or $119 million of their $122 million in dues, just supporting their leadership (and various politicians) in grand style. They actually had to borrow $12 million to do their job of representing their members.
By Obama's standard of good management (core activity costs = 85% of total customer dues paid) then the union should have taken only $17.4 million from their members, and owe them a $104.6 million refund.
Generally, I get turned off by education video because I find the information bandwidth is often way too low. I can read it faster, and get 99% of the benefit.
But this is a case where video explains in 60 seconds more than one could in a whole lecture.
Link via Hit and Run
The most frequent justification I see from the Left for increasing government involvement and control of the health care system is that the US spends more per capita on health care than any other country but apparently gets little extra benefit from the spending in terms of health outcomes**.
Intriguingly, the exact same statement can be made of the American education system, which is already nearly fully nationalized. We spend more per capita than any other country and get only middling results. I wonder why those who use high spending with modest results as a justification for rethinking the health care system do not come to the same conclusion for the public education system?
To some extent, the US spends more on education and health care because we think are critical and because we are wealthier. We spend on items way down the Pareto chart where we get less bang for the buck because we can. And to my mind, it's no coincidence that both health care and education are dominated by third part expenditures. Take the price value decision making out of the ultimate consumers hands, and, well, the whole price-value equation is bound to get screwed up.
** There are several reasons US often looks bad in these health comparisons. The first is that we have a lot of life-shortening habits (eating, smoking, driving, crime) completely out of control of the health care industry. So our lifespans are shorter, but control for those exogenous factors and our health care system looks among the best. Check out this data, which shows that correcting for crime and accidents, US has the highest life expectancy in the world.
The other problem is the data is often cherry-picked by academics sympathetic to the state health care model. As seen in the link above, we have the highest cancer survival rates in the world, and the highest life expectancy for people who reach 65. Even our supposed out-groups, such as black males, have higher cancer survival rates in the US than the average in most European countries. But you seldom see these metrics included in comparisons.
I also refer you to an oldie but goodie, showing how a study failed to correct for differences in lifestyles between countries.
I hinted at it in my last post, but have addressed it in more depth in my column this week at Forbes. A brief excerpt:
The theme from all these failures is distorted signals and corrupted communication. People, no matter how savvy, cannot possibly research every nook and cranny of the economy before making an investment. They make decisions, therefore, based on signals – prices, interest rates, perceived risks, and the profit history of other similar investments. If these signals are artificially altered or corrupted, bad decisions that destroy wealth and growth will result.
Which brings me back to education. I will tell you something almost every business owner knows: We business owners may whine from time to time that banks won’t lend us money, but what really is in short support are great people. Nothing has more long-term impact on an economy than amount and types of skills that are sought by future workers. That is why everyone accepts as a truism that education is critical to economic health.
Unfortunately, there is good evidence that our education policies have already done long-term harm. The signals we send to kids making their higher education plans have disconnected them from reality in a number of fundamental ways, causing them to make bad decisions for themselves and the broader economy.
Examples follow. Read it all.
A key reason why a preponderance of the population is fascinated with the student loan market is that as USA Today reported in a landmark piece last year, it is now bigger than ever the credit card market. And as the monthly consumer debt update from the Fed reminds us, the primary source of funding is none other than the US government. To many, this market has become the biggest credit bubble in America. Why do we make a big deal out of this? Because as Bloomberg reported last night, we now have prima facie evidence that the student loan market is not only an epic bubble, but it is also the next subprime! To wit: "Vince Sampson, president, Education Finance Council, said during a panel at the IMN ABS East Conference in Miami Monday that lenders are no longer pushing loans to people who can’t afford them." Re-read the last sentence as many times as necessary for it to sink in. Yes: just like before lenders were "pushing loans to people who can't afford them" which became the reason for the subprime bubble which has since spread to prime, but was missing the actual confirmation from authorities of just this action, this time around we have actual confirmation that student loans are being actually peddled to people who can not afford them. And with the government a primary source of lending, we will be lucky if tears is all this ends in.
When you mess with pricing signals and resource allocation, you get bubbles. And one could easily argue that OWS is as much about the student loan bubble bursting as about Wall Street.
I must say that I never had a ton of sympathy for home buyers who were supposedly "lured" into taking on loans they could not afford. The ultimate cost for most of them was the loss of a home that, if the credit had not been extended, they would never have had anyway. US law protects our other assets from home purchase failures, and while we have to sit in the credit penalty box for a while after mortgage default or bankruptcy, most people are able to recover in a few years.
Student loans are entirely different. In large part because the government is the largest lender via Sallie Mae, student loans cannot be discharged via bankruptcy. You can be 80 years old and still have your social security checks garnished to pay back your student loans. You can more easily discharge credit card debt run up buying lap dances in topless bars than you can student loans. There is absolutely no way to escape a mistake, which is all the more draconian given that most folks who are borrowing are in their early twenties or even their teens.
I can see it now, the pious folks in power trying to foist this bubble off on some nameless loan originators. Well, this is a problem we all caused. The government, as a long-standing policy, has pushed college and student lending. Private lenders have marketed these loans aggressively. Colleges have jacked costs up into the stratosphere, in large part because student loans disconnected consumers from the immediate true costs. And nearly everyone in any leadership position have pushed kids to go to college, irregardless of whether their course of study made even a lick of sense vis a vis their ability to earn back the costs later in the job market.
Public service note: Their are, to my knowledge, five colleges that will provide up to 100% financial aid in the form of grants, such that a student can graduate debt free: Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Amherst. These are obviously really hard schools to get into. I don't think a single one has a double digit percentage admissions rate. But these are the top schools that hopefully establish trends.
I am thrilled my alma mater is on the list. For years I have argued that they were approach severe diminishing returns from spending tens of millions of dollars to improve educational quality another 0.25%. If an institution is really going to live by the liberal arts college philosophy -- that a liberal arts education makes one a better human being irregardless of whether the course of study is easily monetized after graduation -- then it better have a way for students who want to join the Peace Corp or run for the state legislature to graduate without a debt load than only a Wall Street job can pay off.
By the way, my other proposal for Princeton has been this: rather than increasing the educational quality 1% more to the existing students, why not bring Ivy League education to 3x as many students. I have always wondered why a school like Princeton doesn't buy a bunch of cheap land in Arizona and build a western campus for another 10,000 kids.
My son and I spent the last year touring colleges. One common denominator of all the good and great private colleges: they are all over 100 years old. Rice was probably the newest, when a rich guy toured the great colleges of the world and thought he could do as well, and started Rice (Stanford is older but has a sort of similar origin story). Where are the new schools? The number of kids with the qualifications and desire to go to a top private college have skyrocketed, and tuition have risen far more than inflation, but there is no new supply coming on the market. Why is that?
I have pimped the Teaching Company (now called the Great Courses) for years on this blog. I have done over 20 courses, and am nearly addicted to their offerings. Nothing bums we out more than to read their catalog and find nothing new I want, except when that happens I order something random I don't think I want and usually love it. I listen to music a lot less than I used to because I often have a Great Course on my mp3 player instead.
Via Econlog comes a great article about the Great Courses, and make me feel a bit better that I am not alone in my obsession. Its one of those really interesting stories about an entrepreneur who sticks with his vision, right down to his last dollar.
But it is also a depressing read for someone who may soon be sending his kid to a small liberal arts college. Some excerpts related to current college education:
the company offers a treasure trove of traditional academic content that undergraduates paying $50,000 a year may find nowhere on their Club Med–like campuses. This past academic year, for example, a Bowdoin College student interested in American history courses could have taken “Black Women in Atlantic New Orleans,” “Women in American History, 1600–1900,” or “Lawn Boy Meets Valley Girl: Gender and the Suburbs,” but if he wanted a course in American political history, the colonial and revolutionary periods, or the Civil War, he would have been out of luck. A Great Courses customer, by contrast, can choose from a cornucopia of American history not yet divvied up into the fiefdoms of race, gender, and sexual orientation, with multiple offerings in the American Revolution, the constitutional period, the Civil War, the Bill of Rights, and the intellectual influences on the country’s founding. There are lessons here for the academy, if it will only pay them heed....
The Great Courses’ uninhibited enthusiasm is so alien to contemporary academic discourse that several professors who have recorded for the firm became defensive when I asked them about their course descriptions, emphatically denying any part in writing the copy—as if celebrating beauty were something to be ashamed of....
So totalitarian is the contemporary university that professors have written to Rollins complaining that his courses are too canonical in content and do not include enough of the requisite “silenced” voices. It is not enough, apparently, that identity politics dominate college humanities departments; they must also rule outside the academy. Of course, outside the academy, theory encounters a little something called the marketplace, where it turns out that courses like “Queering the Alamo,” say, can’t compete with “Great Authors of the Western Literary Tradition.”...
In its emphasis on teaching, the company differs radically from the academic world, where “teaching is routinely stigmatized as a lower-order pursuit, and the ‘real’ academic work is research,” notes Allen Guelzo, an American history professor at Gettysburg College. Though colleges ritually berate themselves for not putting a high enough premium on teaching, they inevitably ignore that skill in awarding tenure or extra pay. As for reaching an audience beyond the hallowed walls of academe, perhaps a regular NPR gig would gain notice in the faculty lounge, but not a Great Courses series. Jeremy McInerney, a University of Pennsylvania history professor, told The Chronicle of Higher Education in 1998 that he wouldn’t have taped “Ancient Greek Civilization” for the company if his tenure vote had been in doubt: “This doesn’t win you any further respect. If anything, there’s a danger of people looking down on it, since many people are suspicious of anything that reeks of popularism.” So much for the academy’s supposed stance against elitism....
Further, it isn’t clear that the Great Courses professors teach the same way back on their home campuses. A professor who teaches the Civil War as the “greatest slave uprising in history” to his undergraduates because that is what is expected of him, says University of Pennsylvania history professor Alan Kors, will know perfectly well how to teach a more intellectually honest course for paying adults.
While I took a fair number of liberal arts courses, being an engineer really sheltered me from this kind of BS. But my kids interests run more towards liberal arts, and while I am working to enforce the double major approach (you can take whatever major interests you as long as you double it with economics or something useful), I still despair that they really are going to get what they think they will get at college.
Quin Hillyer discusses the increasing armed firepower of the federal government. Most people expect agencies like the FBI to be well armed for law enforcement purposes. But the Railroad Retirement Board? He reports that federal agencies far and wide now have armed agents, including the Small Business Administration. For what? To scare away phony 8(a) applications?? The United States Department of Education bought 27 Remington Model 870 12-gauge shotguns last year
I have no insight into what is going on in these particular agencies. But I can comment on another agency. Nearly every state parks organization has seen a proliferation of law enforcement titles among its employees. Seemingly every field employee nowadays needs to have a gun and a badge. Why?
Well, there are those who say that this arms race is necessary to keep the parks safe against some mythical crime wave. But I can say with some authority, since our company runs over 150 public parks across the country, that with very, very few exceptions, parks don't need this kind of on-site law enforcement support. Most problems can be handled with on-site customer service employees, with the occasional call the the sheriff if things get rough. In fact, customer service is actually improved without all the badges around. Rangers with law enforcement credentials tend to solve issues with their visitors by issuing citations. This is awful customer service -- I am sure McDonald's doesn't like it if someone messes up the bathroom or parks across two parking spaces, but you won't see them issuing citations to their customers.
The reason for this proliferation of law enforcement titles in parks is not demand for order, but incentives among employees. In most states, getting a law enforcement title in a parks organization gives one an automatic raise, participation in the far-more-lucrative state law enforcement pension plan, and training that can be valuable when one leaves the parks organization. Also, for some, it carries non-monetary benefits -- some folks think its cool to wield a gun and a badge.
I am sure everyone is resting easier now that the government has taken over all student loan activity. Now we won't see any of that abusive behavior by private lenders. Ha ha, just kidding. Don't get behind on your government student loans! Via Radley Balko (Updates: Still bizarre the DOE has this kind of firepower, but DOE says its a criminal / fraud case, not a payment issue.)
Kenneth Wright does not have a criminal record and he had no reason to believe a S.W.A.T team would be breaking down his door at 6 a.m. on Tuesday.
"I look out of my window and I see 15 police officers," Wright said.
Wright came downstairs in his boxer shorts as the officers team barged through his front door. Wright said an officer grabbed him by the neck and led him outside on his front lawn.
"He had his knee on my back and I had no idea why they were there," Wright said.
According to Wright, officers also woke his three young children ages 3, 7, and 11, and put them in a Stockton police patrol car with him. Officers then searched his house.
As it turned out, the person law enforcement was looking for was not there - Wright's estranged wife.
"They put me in handcuffs in that hot patrol car for six hours, traumatizing my kids," Wright said.
Wright said he later went to the mayor and Stockton Police Department, but the City of Stockton had nothing to do with Wright's search warrant.
The U.S. Department of Education issued the search and called in the S.W.A.T for his wife's defaulted student loans.
Living in Phoenix I know a number of people who work for Apollo (University of Phoenix). They have obviously been appalled by the Obama war on for-profit colleges and the egregiously-flawed report that came out last year. Several have told me they have complained for a while that certain hedge funds were pushing this initiative in order to make money off of short positions on their stock. I thought this was a bit paranoid, but now the accusation is coming from third parties, even those on the Left:
A proposed regulation from the Education Department threatens to devastate for-profit career or trade schools, but one thing is even more controversial than the regulation -- how it was crafted.
Education Department officials were encouraged and advised about the content of the regulation by a man who stood to make millions if it were issued.
"Wall Street investors were manipulating the regulatory process and Department of Education officials were letting them," charged Melanie Sloan of a liberal-leaning ethics watchdog called Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington....
Among others, Sloan is referring to Steven Eisman, a hedge fund manager and a figure in the book "The Big Short," who testified in the Senate against for-profit career or trade schools, attacking them as "fundamentally unsound."
At the same time, he was betting that the stocks of those companies would fall, a practice known as short selling. "Making sure that they were going to be defamed and that their value was going to be depressed," said Harry Alford, head of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, who worries about the schools because they serve many minority students.
Simultaneously, through emails and conference calls, Eisman was advising Education Department officials -- and one White House adviser -- in detail on how best to write the new regulation, which he estimated would reduce the schools' earnings by as much as 75 percent.
The proposed regulation from the administration is aimed at what are known as career or vocational schools. The rule would cut federal aid to programs where student debt levels are deemed to be too high and where students are struggling to repay their loans.
In other news, everyone seems A-OK with kids in not-for-profit universities running up $200,000 debts to get such lucrative, workplace-ready degrees as women's studies, comp. lit. and poetry.
As much as I enjoy seeing Yale circling the drain of self-destruction, I am simply flabbergasted by the most recent discrimination suit it faces from a group of current and former female students.
The Yale group's confidential Title IX complaint to the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) reportedly includes testimony about sexual assaults, but the hostile-environment charge against the university rests as well on a litany of complaints about offensive exercises of First Amendment freedoms. A December 2010 draft complaint letter, obtained by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), focuses on these "incidents": In 2006, a group of frat boys chant "No means yes, yes means anal" outside the Yale Women's Center. In 2010, a group of fraternity pledges repeat this obnoxious chant outside a first-year women's dorm. In 2008, pledges surround the Women's Center holding signs saying, "We love Yale sluts." In 2009, Yale students publish a report listing the names and addresses of first-year women and estimating the number of beers "it would take to have sex with them."
There are few adults who would not recognize these incidents as stupid, boorish frat-boy behavior not to be emulated. But taking Yale to court, in effect seeking to force the University to punish such speech, takes the current college trend of protection the right not to be offended to absurd extremes.
Consider for a moment that there are radical women's organizations on most college campuses that take it as an article of faith that all men are rapists and all men are complicit in violence against women. How is this speech any less aggressive, though it is treated with complete respect by universities. In fact, many integrate this point of view into required Freshman sensitivity training. Women on compuses routinely engage in speech saying that every man is a guilty felon complicit in awful crimes, and I don't see any men whining and running to Uncle Sugar to protect their delicate ears from offense. At least the frat boys were probably drunk and joking -- the women are sober and dead serious.
Don't not be mistaken -- this is not about rights or freedom, but about a bid for totalitarian control of campuses by a niche group. From Wendy Kaminer
Sad to say, but feminism helped lead the assault on civil liberty and now seems practically subsumed by it. Decades ago, when Catherine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, and their followers began equating pornography with rape (literally) and calling it a civil-rights violation, groups of free-speech feminists fought back, in print, at conferences, and in state legislatures, with some success. We won some battles (and free speech advocates in general can take solace in the Supreme Court's recent decision upholding the right to engage in offensive speech on public property and public affairs). But all things considered (notably the generations of students unlearning liberty) we seem to be losing the war, especially among progressives.
This is not simply a loss for liberty on campus and the right to indulge in what's condemned as verbal harassment or bullying, broadly defined. It's a loss of political freedom: the theories of censoring offensive or hurtful speech that are used to prosecute alleged student harassers are used to foment opposition to the right to burn a flag or a copy of the Quran or build a Muslim community center near Ground Zero. The disregard for liberty that the Obama administration displays in its approach to sexual harassment and bullying is consistent with its disregard for liberty, and the presumption of innocence, in the Bush/Obama war on terror. Of course, the restriction of puerile, sexist speech on campus is an inconvenience compared to the indefinite detention or show trials of people suspected of terrorism, sometimes on the basis of un-reviewed or un-reviewable evidence. But underlying trivial and tragic deprivations of liberty, the authoritarian impulse is the same.
PS- The last part in the first quote about rating women as related to sex is ironic, as, if memory serves, Yale was the location around 1980 when a group of female students created a guide rating male students on their sexual talents. When women do it, it is a brave act of liberation. When men do it, it is sexual harassment.
PPS- My son is going through the college admissions process. All these schools stress how much they are looking for future leaders. How can Yale be so selective that it has an admissions rate around 7% of applicants but still end up with so many people who cannot function in the world as an adult? The women are begging to have a daddy to protect them and the men seem to need a daddy to kick their ass until they act like adults.
I have been told that the first person in a negotiation that mentions a number will lose. Something similar is at work with the US federal budget. When they controlled Congress, Democrats never even proposed a budget for this fiscal year (which began last October, months before they lost control of the House). Obama's budget is simply a bad joke, a non-effort, that simply extrapolates current trends without any real change or exercise of control.
Its amazing to me that all the news reports today are about the "risk" Republicans are taking by actually proposing a plan into this vacuum. It is amazing to me that actually trying to exercise adult supervision when everyone else is voting "present" could be "political suicide," but I have to accept that the political experts know their stuff.
This situation is in fact exactly what Democrats have been hoping for -- they have purposefully hoped to avoid suggesting any solutions in order to force the Republicans to be the first and only ones to the table with suggestions. Democrats have zero desire to actually close the multi-trillion dollar deficit; rather, they see it as a huge opportunity that traps Republicans into trying to actually, you know, solve the problem. These proposed solutions can then be demagogued against to electoral victory. Or so goes the theory.
So, I want to thank the Republicans for actually producing a budget plan that actually attempts to bring some fiscal sense to the government. I would have like to see other changes (less defense spending, elimination of Dept. of Education in favor of block grants, zeroing out of all farm and ethanol subsidies, etc) and Ryan's numbers seem screwy, but let us be happy there is at least one adult in Washington.
One proposed rule, which is expected to be finalized this spring, will restrict students from using federal financial aid to pay for programs that rack up excessive loan debt but train students for occupations with relatively low entry-level salaries.
A second rule, which will go into effect this summer, will close loopholes that allowed admissions counselors to be compensated based on how many students they signed up
The first rule is particularly interesting to focus on, especially given that they do not apply to government-run schools. This means that if you want to go to UCLA and run up loads of debt in economically dead-end majors like women's studies or art history, you are still free to do so. But go forbid you want to study to be a nurse or a teacher at the University of Phoenix. This from the CEO of Apollo, the parent company of University of Phoenix
some of the trade-school-type programs may be more vulnerable because of gainful employment (the anticipated federal rule about debt and entry-level salaries). . . . Gainful employment will cause programs, in areas such as nursing or teacher education or law enforcement, (for) for-profits not to be able to offer them . . . (because the federal formula) uses first-year salaries.
I can tell you my first-year salary for what I wanted to do wouldn't have qualified. It takes time.
Two things you can expect from any set of regulations. 1) Large companies will eventually benefit, because the compliance costs will weed out smaller companies and deter future startups. 2) Innovation will be reduced, as certain established business models and practices will become safe harbors under the rules, adding risk to anyone wishing to try an additional approach.
"A sports conference that always scheduled weekday basketball doubleheaders in which women's teams played the first game -- letting the men play in the later time slot -- has altered the practice, after an anonymous sex discrimination complaint charged that this made the women's games appear to be a "warm-up" act for the men's games.
Now, hoping to avoid possible gender equity suits, other athletic conferences are considering similar scheduling changes. Last month, the Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletics Conference announced that it would alternate from season to season the order in which men's and women's teams would play in doubleheaders. The men will play first this season, and the women will play first next season.
Dell Robinson, the conference commissioner, said the decision was made after the league received an inquiry in March from the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. An anonymous complaint filed with the agency argued that the negative connotation conveyed by always having women's teams play first in these doubleheaders was detrimental to women's athletics."
So let's imagine a alternate world where women's basketball games had always traditionally been played in the second game of the double-header, after men's games. Does anyone believe that the civil rights folks wouldn't have filed a complaint saying
Having women's games always played after men's games makes them appear to be an after-thought to the main contest, positioning the game later in the prime social hours where potential student fans will be more likely to leave early and head to the bar instead of staying to watch. The negative connotation conveyed by always having women't teams play last in these doubleheaders is detrimental to women's athletics.
See, its easy to be a race/gender advocate.
Congress just passed a new $26 billion payoff to state governments, easing the pressure on states to institute some sort of fiscal responsibility. The follows on the heals of last year's tens of billions of dollars in direct aid to state budgets in the original stimulus bill.
Taking the pressure off states for real fiscal reform is bad enough, but this is worse:
Maintaining the salaries and generous benefit plans for members of teachers unions is indeed a top Democratic priority. That's why $10 billion of the bill's funding is allocated to education, and the money comes with strings that will multiply the benefits for this core Obama constituency.Specifically, the bill stipulates that federal funds must supplement, not replace, state spending on education. Also, in each state, next year's spending on elementary and secondary education as a percentage of total state revenues must be equal to or greater than the previous year's level.
This is roughly equivalent to the government telling mortgage holders that took on too much debt that the government will bail them out, a clear moral hazard. But then it goes further to force the mortgage-holder to promise to take on a bigger mortgage next year. Unbelievable.
In a move right out of Atlas Shrugged, Texas is singled out for special penalties in the law because, well, it seems to be doing better than all the other states economically and is one of the few that seem comitted to fiscal responsibility
For Texas, and only Texas, this funding rule will be in place through 2013 [rather than 2011]. This is a form of punishment because the Beltway crowd believes the Lone Star State didn't spend enough of its 2009 stimulus money.
So much for equal protection. This Congress sure has set an incredible record for itself in choosing to reward and punish individual states (remember Nebraska and Louisiana) in its legislation.
The WSJ thinks perhaps a different kind of multiplier, other than the Keynesian one, is behind this legislation.
Keep in mind that this teacher bailout also amounts to a huge contribution by Democrats to their own election campaigns. The National Right to Work Committee estimates that two of every three teachers belong to unions. The average union dues payment varies, but a reasonable estimate is that between 1% and 1.5% of teacher salaries goes to dues. The National Education Association and other unions will thus get as much as $100 million in additional dues from this bill, much of which will flow immediately to endangered Democratic candidates in competitive House and Senate races this year.
In one of the largest Statehouse rallies ever, thousands of unionized government workers and social-service advocates rallied for an income-tax hike that could avert billions of dollars in crippling budget cuts.Three hundred busloads of people, mostly from AFSCME Council 31, SEIU, the Illinois Education Association and the Illinois Federation of Teachers, converged outside the Capitol while lawmakers were in session.
On several occasions during the late-morning rally, protesters turned away from the stage across from the Capitol to face the ornate seat of state government and chant, "Raise our taxes!" and "Save Our state!"
James King here in Arizona thinks the new "I didn't pay enough" law here is dumb.
Feel like voluntarily ponyin' up some of your hard-earned cash to help legislators dig themselves out of the budget crisis they created? Of course you don't, but that didn't stop legislators from taking time out of their day to pass a bill that asks taxpayers to do exactly that.
The "I-didn't-pay-enough fund" is the creation of numb Skull Valley Representative Judy Burges. It asks taxpayers to voluntarily donate money to the state government to help chip away at the state's $2.6 billion budget shortfall.
What he doesn't readlize is that it is aimed directly at the folks that are protesting in the example above. Want to pay higher taxes, then send in a check! But don't make the rest of us do so.
Chicago Breaking News reported late last night that former Chicago schools chief and current Secretary of Education Arne Duncan manipulated a system to favor powerful political allies by placing their children in the schools of their choice. The discovery of a list, the existence of which had been long denied by the city, and its composition of mainly high-powered political figures calls into question the appeals system used to reconsider applications that had been denied by the top Chicago-area schools:
This is going to be even more fun when this game is applied to jumping the hospital waiting list.