Bryan Caplan's Blog, page 66
May 2, 2018
Roccia on The Case Against Education, by Bryan Caplan
Here's... Johnny.
Okay, so I just finished the book. First off -
incredible. It went beyond even my very high expectations. But I
can gush later, and I'm sure you've heard enough of that by now anyway.
But I have to share a thought that doesn't seem to appear
anywhere within those pages. A factor that you may have considered, but
would be incredibly hard to research, I'd imagine.
Lying.
So let's say education is 80/20 signaling/capital. And
the capital share really only comes into play once you HAVE the job, since it's
pretty hard to measure beforehand. So signaling is the primary metric by
which you GET a job.
So... how many people do you think lie about having a
degree?
Anecdotally: I know lots (a dozen+) adults who have
long-standing, high-paying professional jobs that ostensibly
"require" a degree. Those people do not have college
degrees. They lied about that fact, got the job, and were perfectly
capable of doing it so they kept it. I also know several high-school
dropouts who are of the "smart but rebellious" variety, in similar
positions.
My experience: Very few employers actually *check* to
see if you have a college degree. NO ONE checks to see if you graduated
high school. Graduating high school, in particular, is so standard that
it's just assumed, and therefore virtually no employer wastes the
time/money/effort required to actually verify. And for those people that
I personally know, I'd have never realized they didn't graduate if they hadn't
told me. How would you even tell? I've been out of high school for
17 years, so I don't have the mental means to grill someone on their
experience.
If even 10% of people who claim to have a college degree are
lying about it, how would that affect the numbers in your book? That
*hugely* pushes the validity of the signaling model, but it's got to be hard to
research - how do you ask people if they're lying about their degree?
If you search in the news, you can always find a few cases where some
high-profile person was "outed" from a prominent position because it
was revealed they lied about their credentials. (This seems absurd on the
surface - if they've been doing the job for a decade, why does not having a
degree suddenly disqualify them? Of course, learning new facts regarding
their overall level of honesty can make you not want to continue employing
them, but their basic competence is unchanged.) But those seem rare - and
the result of some extenuating circumstances in each case. As long as you
stick to jobs you can actually do, you're usually fine.
My advice to job-seeking friends: If a job listing has
"Bachelor's in Engineering Required," then you probably need
one. If it just says "Bachelor's degree required," then go
ahead and apply anyway - after all, if a degree in ANY major is equally good,
then the job isn't really looking for skills, just conformity and brains.
You say degrees are helpful because it's hard to fake
long-term conformity, but it's really easy - you just fake having the degree.
So what explains employers' lax enforcement of a signaling
system they're so invested in? Well, what if employers *ALREADY*
recognize that education is mostly bunk, but Social Desirability Bias works on
them, too? An employer that loudly claims "We don't care about
degrees!" looks weird, and then probably attracts only low-caliber applicants.
How do you get around this? Say you require degrees, but then don't
check! That way, you get TWO classes of applicants - those with degrees,
and those with the chutzpah to claim they do (and the confidence that they can
do the job anyway!).
From my own experience: If I see a job I want that
lists a degree as a requirement, I apply anyway. My resume in my career
field is impressive, despite the lack of degree. I almost always get a
callback, and get the job - the interviewer never even *asks* about my
college. So employers use it as a filter, but don't actually care about
it. Social Desirability Bias, with a covert workaround.
Thoughts?
(12 COMMENTS)
May 1, 2018
April 30, 2018
Extra Questions for Taleb, by Bryan Caplan
1. Do you think the traditional academic curriculum is even worse than I say, because it creates a
national intellectual monoculture, prone to experiencing negative Black Swans
and missing positive Black Swans?
2. You write: "There is an ample academic literature trying
to convince us that options are not rational to own because some options are overpriced, and they
are deemed overpriced according to business school methods of computing risks
that do not take into account the possibility of rare events." This isn't quite what I do when I compute
education's selfish and social returns, but would you apply the same critique
to my estimates?
3. I've won both my public bets with Tyler. But he thinks that if I really knew what I
was talking about, I'd already be a fabulously rich investor. I reply that, unfortunately, most of my
superior insight is barely relevant to any available investment opportunity. I was thinking about this Caplan-Cowen
dispute when you wrote, "Indeed many people lost their shirt from the drop of
oil - while correctly predicting war. They just thought it was the same ting."
Care to comment?
4. It seems to
me that every bite of food I eat is fragile in your sense.
After all, any bite could be lethally poisonous, and if that possibility
ever materializes, I die. My inclination
is to say, "Who cares about fragility, when the probability of poison is so
low?" Is my complacency wrong - and if
so, why?
April 26, 2018
A Eulogy for Corneliu Mateescu, by Bryan Caplan
My father-in-law, the little boy in the late-1930s picture below, died last week. Here is the eulogy I just delivered for this courageous and determined family man.
Today we come together to honor the memory of Corneliu
Dumitru Mateescu. He was the husband of
the loving and devoted Maria Mateescu, and the father of my wife, Corina
Caplan. Cornel and Maria have four
grandchildren, all of them here with us today: grandsons Aidan, Tristan, and
Simon, and granddaughter Valeria - named for Cornel's dear mother. Last January, Cornel and Maria celebrated
their Golden Anniversary. Many of you
were there to celebrate that happy day with us, and we're honored that you join
us on this sad day just three months later.
Cornel was born in the mid-1930s. He enjoyed an idyllic childhood with his
loving parents... until the war came. Before
long, young Cornel became a refugee for the first - but not the last - time in
his life, as his family fled Bucharest to escape the bombing. When the war ended, Cornel endured the tyranny
and privation of Communist rule for decades.
But he made the best life an honest man could make for himself in such a
system, working as an electrician, marrying in 1968, and becoming a father in
1971.
The defining period in Cornel's life began just three years
later. Maria received permission from
the Communist government to travel outside the Eastern Bloc, leaving her
husband and daughter behind as hostages.
When Maria reached the United States, Cornel requested permission for
the whole family to join her. As usual
in such cases, he was not merely refused, but insulted and threatened for his
counter-revolutionary request. Unlike
most people in his position, however, Cornel stood firm. He asked again. Again he was insulted and threatened, but he
wouldn't take no for an answer. Year
after year, he demanded freedom for himself, his daughter, and his parents. In
the end, his amazing courage and determination paid off. In 1978, Cornel left Communist Romania with
his daughter - and never returned until their dictatorship was no more.
At this point, Cornel became a refugee for the second time
in his life. After reaching the way
station of Italy, the American government didn't feel ready to grant him
permission to rejoin his wife, so they kept him waiting in bureaucratic
limbo. Cornel and Corina had to make a
temporary home in an special building for Italy's refugees. Cornel, speaking no Italian, found a job in a
bottling factory to support himself and his daughter. I still remember Cornel telling me that they
ate so much macaroni during those months that he never wanted to eat pasta
again as long as he lived.
About six months later, the U.S. bureaucracy finally gave
Cornel and Corina a green light to rejoin Maria in Los Angeles. It was a joyous reunion, but another hard
chapter in Cornel's life. Almost as old
as I am today, he had to learn a new language and start over. In Romania, he was a managing
electrician. In America, he became a
janitor. But over the years, with his
famous determination, Cornel's English improved - and he was able to return to
his chosen occupation, working for JPL for many years. In time, Cornel brought his beloved parents
to join the family. With faith and hard
work, the Mateescus carved out their slice of the American dream, buying a
house right here in sunny California and sending their daughter to the top
public university in the country, UC Berkeley.
Cornel and Maria found the time and money to travel to Europe, and even
revisit Romania.
The highlight of Cornel's golden years, though, were his
grandchildren. Cornel was an only child,
and Romanians have grown used to small families. Imagine his delight, then, when he learned
that he would soon be the grandfather of two twin boys! Cornel and Maria spent many months with us
during Aidan and Tristan's early years - and our sons spent many months in
California in their grandparents' loving care.
I'm not sure if Cornel ever changed a diaper, but he fed them, watched
them, joked with them, told them stories, played with them, and put endless
batteries into their toys. When Simon
came along, Opapa (as he liked to be called) was eager to do it all over again. By the time that Cornel met his first
granddaughter, he was already slowing down, but whenever they were together,
little Valeria was the center of his world.
All of us who knew Cornel know that he could be
stubborn. But when you reflect on his
long life, it's clear that his stubbornness is the root of all he
accomplished. Almost anyone else would
have accepted the hopelessness of reuniting his family, of trying to give his
daughter a better and freer life. Almost
anyone else would have cowered at the insults, and caved in to the
threats. But Cornel endured his staring
match with the Communists year after year until they blinked. How many of us would have made it as
refugees? Cornel did it twice. Imagine trying to learn a new language and
find a job - any job - in your forties.
Cornel did it. Twice. We can all use some of his stubbornness to
help us through the adversities of life.
But the greater lesson of Cornel's life is the value of
family. Cornel was a truly devoted son,
husband, father, and grandfather. He
loved them all - and was not afraid to show his feelings with hugs, kisses, and
tears. When they needed him, he gave
them his all. Without his love and
determination, my wife probably wouldn't even be in this country, much less in
my life. Our children never would have
been born. We owe Cornel all that we
have, and we will never forget him.
(3 COMMENTS)
April 18, 2018
How People Get Good at Their Jobs: IDF Edition, by Bryan Caplan
Email from EconLog reader Joshua Fox, reprinted with his permission. There's no reason, of course, that you couldn't have a similar job training model without the injustice of conscription.Bryan, I loved The Case Against Education.
Further support for your thesis comes from the Israel
Defense Forces, where twenty-year-olds control air traffic, direct large
organizations, and develop software.
In civilian life, such levels of responsibility would
require an advanced education.
The IDF sorts candidates partially by their formal
schooling. But since the process starts in the beginning of the senior
year, and certainly before matriculation tests are finished, academic progress
is not the most important criterion.
The IDF administers IQ tests. They also give
personality tests (created by no other than Daniel Kahnemann!). Other markers
of personal "quality" are used, with less weight, as for example leadership
in extracurricular activities.
New soldiers get taught exactly the needed skills. For
example, software developers get a few months of training focused on
software development. The army allows a a few recruits in
relevant areas, like engineering and medicine, to delay their service until
after their degree.
And amazingly, the software developers, air traffic
controllers, medics and others seem to do as good a job as any in civilian
life. In fact, their levels of responsibility would otherwise
require many years of experience, another twist on your thesis. And these
soldiers are not just a select few: Israel has broad mandatory conscription.
The next questions are whether and why these soldiers have
to step down to a lower level of responsibility when they enter civilian life,
and whether and why they need a B.A. to get hired.
Best,
Joshua
P.S. My four kids didn't attend school.
(0 COMMENTS)
April 17, 2018
Divine Clarity, by Bryan Caplan
[M]ost moderately religious people, especially here in the West, approach their religious scriptures very differently from how they would read, say, Alice in Wonderland, or this book you're reading right now. As I write this, I am making a conscious, deliberate effort to be as clear as I possibly can and minimize any potential ambiguity. I know I will not be given the luxury of generous "interpretation" beyond what these words say at face value. I will literally be held to a much higher standard as a writer than God himself. It isn't uncommon for critics of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris to quote decontextualized excerpts from their writings to accuse them of being bigots, while also hurling the same accusation at those who don't adequately "interpret" verses in the Quran that endorse in plain language the beheading of disbelievers or beating of wives. In a 2014 tweet, Reza Aslan gave Harris some unsolicited advice: "If you're constantly having to explain away horrid things you've written, don't write them in [the first] place." Note that this is from a man who has partly made a career out of constantly explaining to people why violent passages in the Scripture don't really mean what they say.The book was a birthday present from my courageous friend, Ish Faisal of Ex-Muslims of North America.
(1 COMMENTS)
April 16, 2018
My WSJ Interview/Profile, by Bryan Caplan
(0 COMMENTS)
April 13, 2018
Bleg: The Most Quotable Immigrant Memoirs, by Bryan Caplan
(4 COMMENTS)
April 12, 2018
From Game Theory to Gas Theory, by Bryan Caplan
So how would a good game theorist make sense of the decision to use poison gas? I don't know, but this 2017 piece by journalist Gwynne Dyer is the best analysis I could find. Highlights:
When a crime is committed, the likeliest
culprit is the person who benefited from the deed... [W]ho stood to benefit from the
chemical attack in the first place?There was absolutely no direct military
advantage to be derived from killing 80 civilians with poison gas in
Khan Sheikhoun. The town, located in al-Qaida-controlled territory in
Idlib province, is not near any front line, and it is of no military
significance. The one useful thing that the gas attack might produce,
with an impulsive new president in the White House, was an American
attack on the Syrian regime.Who would benefit from that? Well, the
rebels obviously would. They have been on the ropes since the Assad
regime reconquered Aleppo in December, and if the warming relationship
between Washington and Moscow resulted in an imposed peace settlement in
Syria, they would lose everything..Chemical weapons were stored in military
facilities all over Syria, and at one point half the country was under
rebel control...The results have already been spectacular.
The developing Russian-American alliance in Syria is broken, the
prospect of an imposed peace that sidelines the rebels -- indeed, of any
peace at all -- has retreated below the horizon...
Just Pro-Putin propaganda? I think not. Dyer continues:
But we should also consider the
possibility that Assad actually did order the attack. Why would he do
that? For exactly the same reason: to trigger an American attack on the
Syrian regime. From a policy perspective, that could make perfectly good
sense.
The American attack didn't really hurt
much, after all, and it has already smashed a developing
Russian-American relationship in Syria that could have ended up imposing
unwelcome conditions on Assad. Indeed, Moscow and Washington might
ultimately have decided that ejecting Assad -- though not the entire
regime -- from power was an essential part of the peace settlement.Assad doesn't want foreigners deciding his
fate, and he doesn't want a "premature" peace settlement either. He
wants the war to go on long enough for him to reconquer and reunite the
whole country --with Russian help, of course. So use a little poison gas,
and Trump will obligingly over-react. That should end the threat of
U.S.-Russian collaboration in Syria.
Punchline:
Either of these possibilities -- a
false-flag attack by al-Qaida or a deliberate provocation by the regime
itself -- is quite plausible. What is not remotely believable is the
notion that the stupid and evil Syrian regime just decided that a random
poison gas attack on an unimportant town would be a bit of fun.
Note: Dyer is analyzing last year's Syrian gas attack, not the latest news...
April 11, 2018
Dr. Pritchett's Six Bitter Pills, by Bryan Caplan
finding (a finding reflecting an unpopular belief) that you wish more
people cared about?," Lant Pritchett swiftly rattled off six responses. I stitch them together here, with Lant's permission. Lant speaking:
1. One
of course is that the income gains to movers from migration are an
order of magnitude bigger than any in situ development project/program
gain.
2. Another
is that the variance of economic growth rates is much lower among
democracies than non-democracies and hence (descriptively) nearly all
episodes of rapid, sustained, (and hence poverty reducing) economic
growth were initiated by non-democratic regimes (e.g. Indonesia, China,
Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam).
3. Another
is that on many individualized indicators of well-being (education,
health, malnutrition, self-reported subjective well-being) the gaps
between the sexes within poor countries are at least an order of
magnitude smaller than the gaps between males in poor countries and
females in rich (OECD) countries.
4. Another
is the point Dani Rodrik has made (and Branko and me using Engle curves
and food shares not income) that the rich in poor countries (e.g. 95th
percentile) are much poorer than the poor in rich countries (say 20th
percentile).
5. Another
is that the high scoring students in poor countries on examinations
like PISA (or equivalent) are much lower than even the average of the
OECD--so while there are rich-poor gaps in the quality of education in
poor countries this is not because the
rich get a good education and the poor get a bad one but because the
rich get a bad one and the poor get none at all (e.g. on a recent OECD
study tertiary graduates in the capital city of Jakarta had lower
measured literacy than high school drop-outs in Denmark, or when Indian
states participated in PISA there were literally no students in the
sample in the top two categories (5 and 6) of a six level scale of
performance).
6. The
reason I wish more people paid attention to the last three is that in
my view in development today there is too much attention to inequality
within poor countries and not enough to the very low levels such that
things are pretty bad even for the, say, 80th percentile.
(8 COMMENTS)
Bryan Caplan's Blog
- Bryan Caplan's profile
- 372 followers
