“Why stay in college? Why go to night school? Gonna be different this time …”

Via the usual source, why bright kids should, in many cases, drop out is thoroughly explained at America’s Most Overrated Product: the Bachelor’s Degree. It’s positively Freakonomics-worthy stuff. Turns out I knew what I was doing at age 19 … avoiding a s___load of debt and not compromising my future earning power much, if at all.

(Actually, in my case there is almost no doubt I would be both 1] making less money and 2] living somewhere more expensive right now if I’d somehow stayed in the academic world. Figure student debt into that and my net worth would be perhaps a quarter its present value, and that’s if I were lucky.)

Key passage: “You could lock the collegebound in a closet for four years, and they’d still go on to earn more than the pool of non-collegebound …”

The Talking Heads would agree.

(Related: lengthy six-month old post, Get Out the Hankies, with tons of comments, over on Transterrestrial Musings.)

UPDATE: More food for thought

Dancing Fast and Squinting Hard

I don’t read Industrial Equipment News on a regular basis (who does?), but they printed a fascinating article by Mark Devlin that is worth checking out.

Mr. Devlin took umbrage at a recent paper written by two sociologist PhD’s in association with the University of Oxford. In the paper, the argument is made that there is something about engineers that causes them to become murderous, right wing radicals in greater numbers than other professions. This is due to the fact that most of the movers and shakers of international Islamic terrorist organizations were trained as engineers.

The 800 pound gorilla that the two sociologists are trying oh-so-hard to ignore is that an engineering degree might just be something sought after by people who are desperate to build bombs and place them where they will do the most damage. Terrorist wannabes will take classes that reveal the weak points in infrastructure and how to use explosives, as opposed to Texas Instruments turning normal college students into monsters with their mind-warping engineering calculators.

Or, as Mr. Devlin so pithily states, “Tough to overthrow much with an English degree.”

But I actually think there are two factors that both Mr. Devlin and the authors of the paper missed.

More than a few terrorist organizations of the Left in the 1960’s and 1970’s were started by, and heavily recruited, disgruntled college students and university professors. It worked back then, why wouldn’t it work now?

(As an aside, I would like to point out that the majority of those Leftist college students who turned to terrorism were enrolled in the soft sciences, mostly philosophy. I think the authors of the Oxford study would get bent out of shape if someone would suggest that the humanities warps the mind and turns people into violent terrorists. I would never do that myself for fear that Ginny, our resident expert on the humanities and former college student in the 1970’s, would decide to retire to her kitchen and assemble something volatile from common household cleaning products.)

It is also no secret that the Arab world is hardly a hotbed of growth and innovation. Seems to me that most of the families which can afford to pay for a modern Western style education would be pushing their spawn to get a degree in the hard sciences, if for no other reason than there is a real need for development through most of the Islamic world.

I corresponded very briefly with our fellow Chicago Boyz and resident engineer Steven den Beste about this article, and he had this to say about well educated terrorists….

“As to them being disproportionately engineers, I would suggest that observation of any large university will show that the vast majority of exchange students are to be found in departments who teach utilitarian subjects. Not too many Arabs are to be found studying postmodern literary theory or art history. And I don’t think you’ll find too many of them in the Women’s Studies department, let alone Queer Studies. Or any other “studies”, for that matter.”

That appears to be sound wisdom to me.

(Hat tip to Ace.)

Naive Observations Prompted by Foster

A) Business schools are difficult to get into – for freshman and those who finish core courses. When our students transfer they are told the average required for business is 3.8 or 3.9 (liberal arts is around 3, some engineering are lower than that, education is always low). The courses for engineering are, however, much more demanding. My daughter found the meeting for incoming liberal arts students at a 4-year school dominated by the majority who wanted to strategize getting into business. This emphasis on grade point means business attracts smart, competent majors; it may, however, discourage risk takers and people who want to take challenging classes.

B) When I was advising I found many students were pushed by their parents who ran businesses and thought that major would bring an acumen they lacked. I wonder if horticulture would help a florist or greenhouse business, construction science a home builder, etc. more. (Not that basic courses in accounting, management law, etc. wouldn’t be useful.)

C) In papers we typed, bound, etc., management techniques seemed “proved” in a soft science way. With my background in Henry James, I soon realized it takes an idiot to lose money in oil companies during boom years & a genius to make it during rough ones. Their examples were from boom years and seldom acknowledged the problems with such a cyclic industry. When I began in 1979, typing was a decent part of our business; when I sold it in 1992, papers had become a smaller – if much easier – part. Now, few make a living typing student papers. Such changes in technology are not always addressed in pure management models.

D) On the other hand, the business that bought me out was run by guys coming through business school. They were young and energetic when I was getting tired, but they also knew what they were doing. They are still making a good profit.

Two Memes I Doubt Our Readers Buy

Some here may be interested in the task Cafe Hayek sets its readers:

a contest to find examples from the web or the media that make the claim that our standard of living is stagnant or that the middle class can’t get ahead and so on. Or better yet that the middle class is falling behind. Or that all the gains of the last x years have gone to the top 1% or the top 20%.

Read more

Gosh, Is There Anything Bush Can’t Do?

Now he’s responsible for ignorant teenagers:

… President Bush’s education law, No Child Left Behind, has impoverished public school curriculums by holding schools accountable for student scores on annual tests in reading and mathematics, but in no other subjects.

Really, what are these people going to do when Utopia fails to arrive next January 20th? What happens when you think all the world’s problems (and solutions) come from the White House?