HN Books @HNBooksMonth

Much of the discussion here reminds me of Bryan Caplan's work on the relative value of what students learn versus the value of education as signaling.

His piece in the NYT was posted here [1] a few hours ago. It's a super-condensed version of his book, which goes into great detail on his research hypothesis versus others, and policy recommendations (which he admits are too extreme to be enacted).

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32736028

2: https://www.amazon.com/Case-against-Education-System-Waste/d...

Lots of data about this in The Case Against Education. [1] The basic argument is that much of education is signaling. It would be a better use of resources to let people signal more cheaply instead of getting degrees in subjects that do not teach them skills that are useful for jobs or life more generally.

I disagreed with some of the harsher recommendations but found the data compelling.

https://www.amazon.com/Case-against-Education-System-Waste/d...

⬐ sanxiyn

My understanding of the argument of The Case Against Education is different. "Signaling cheaply" is a difficult problem because cost is part of signal. Consider: can people signal more cheaply instead of buying expensive wedding rings?

Rather, the argument is that while wedding rings would always be somewhat expensive, currently it is too expensive because purchase of wedding rings is subsidized by public tax. So public subsidy of wedding rings should stop. Then it would be as expensive as needed to signal, instead of being crazy expensive, and public money won't be wasted.

⬐ crackercrews

Cost is an intrinsic part of the signal for diamond rings because the signal is "I care about you so much I will spend lots of money to prove it". But for job-readiness, the signal does not have to be costly. It could be accomplished with tests. That would prove ability. It would be harder to prove grit or endurance. But compensation packages could be adjusted to filter out people who are less likely to stick around.

> No one is saying we shouldn't have new generations. We should stop growing the population. This means the number of births and the number of death each year would be about the same.

The problem in the west is not a growing population, but a decreasing one.

> The max population of the earth is debatable, but the fact that there is a limit is not.

Yes, but here we are talking about the US population of $327 million decreasing. The population on earth is 7.53 billion and it is growing elsewhere. Are you arguing that a reduction of the US population serves some larger purpose so we should not be concerned about our culture?

> As far as fewer inventions, why focus on giving everyone a good education? Then we would have more than enough people to give us the technology needed to survive.

I'll focus on higher education since in the US other levels are both free and mandatory.

Access to personal growth opportunities is very important. However, data indicate universities are often not the answer to that and it is also questionable if universities makes someone more creative [1]. Regardless 60% and increasing of the US population has taken some college.

In addition to this it is worthwhile considering what the less creative people are taught to follow in universities. Universities seem to be the center of our cultural decay and an anti-intellectual attitude of not teaching core ideas have taken hold in many schools.

Why do you think higher education would help create more innovation?

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Case-against-Education-System-Waste/d...

So the three largest problems for millenials:

- large and increasing cost of housing due to artificial restrictions of housing through zoning and housing permitting

- large and increasing cost of education due to subsidized education with no cost control of the product, leading to bloat in administration and unnecessary spending at universities [cost increase is both monetary and in time due to grade inflation]

- opportunities are increasingly centered in jobs and cities where the two previous problems are aggravated the most

Neither of these are productive uses of the amount of debt millenials accrue for this purpose.

University education is mostly signaling that you are conscientious, smart enough and execute an imposed set of tasks over an extended period of time [1]. The book in the link argue although an individual benefit from graduating at a good college the society as a whole does not get extra value from more people needing a college education to get a job. Maybe we could get a cheaper signal for this?

When buying a home housing has the main purpose of sheltering a family. Short-term increases in house prices lead to a decline in births among non-owners and a net increase among owners [2]. With decreasing birth rates that is already below replacement in the west making it impossible for most to buy and making rent crazy high seem like an incredibly short sighted idea.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Case-against-Education-System-Waste/d...

[2] https://www.nber.org/papers/w17485

Edit: added extra info on education having a time cost. This is Peter Thiels long-standing point.

⬐ jayess

> large and increasing cost of education due to subsidized education with no cost control of the product, leading to bloat in administration and unnecessary spending at universities [cost increase is both monetary and in time due to grade inflation]

One could replace "education" with "health care" and make another valid important point.

⬐ asabjorn

Millenials are largely healthy on average due to their youth which is why I didn't include that. However, for the ones that are sick that is definitely a huge problem.

⬐ isostatic

A key thing I look at in graduates is what they did at university. I'm less concerned if they flunked their course just before finals, the things I'm looking for are

1) Independent living -- did they go to university a long way from where they lived? If they treated it as 3 more years of school, they've missed a major point. I'm not going to be parenting them as they are dropped into the real world at the deep end. 2) Extra curricular activities at uni -- did they do student radio? Or theatre? Or music? This indicates they aren't just doing what they think is required of them, but have the ability to think for themselves.

Kids straight out of school are a massive risk, not only can they do the job, but can adapt to an adult world? Graduates that just did 3 more years of school are the same risk.

Kids that dropped out at 16 and worked in a garage for a few years and solved some problems the business had? Brilliant.

⬐ asabjorn

Is this for a startup?

A large corporation might tilt more towards someone that does an assigned task on time regardless of how mind-numbing it is, and even when they have to invent the instructions as they go along.

⬐ isostatic

Depends on the person hiring and how much flexibility they have (and how skilled the hiring department is at getting past any corporate pre-filtering from HR)

⬐ rconti

I don't disagree on your 2nd and 3rd points, but the first point could use a [citation needed]. I live in SV, so I certainly understand there are areas with "artificial restrictions", but I'm not sure it's a major factor, let alone the primary factor. (I mean, yes, if we stacked the entire Peninsula with wall-to-wall tiny houses, the problem would be "solved", but that doesn't prove that this would happen on its own even without restrictive zoning).

Income inequality and the falling prices, in real terms, of virtually everything the upper-middle-class-and-above need to live their lives, means there is more spare money to allocate towards housing, bidding housing costs up.

In a world where food and clothing is cheaper than ever to "most of us", why not pay those rising costs, thus bidding prices ever higher?

⬐ pchristensen

There's so much room between the present built environment and "stacking the entire Peninsula with wall-to-wall tiny houses" - that's a false dichotomy that prevents taking any action. Supply and demand are both part of the solution - you're correct that in a desirable area like the Bay Area with wealthy industries, people will have more money to spend on housing. But increasing housing construction by 4x would make a huge difference but still mean fewer new units per year than San Antonio.

⬐ rconti

I'm not presenting it as a false dichotomy between "do nothing" and "stack the entire Peninsula with wall-to-wall tiny houses". I'm presenting the latter option as an example that the most extreme, non-realistic course of action would not occur even absent the regulatory environment.

Obviously every additional unit places a very slight downward pressure on housing prices, I just disagree that regulation is a primary factor at play here.

⬐ supercanuck

I think you're also missing the fact real estate as an asset class has more value as an investment vehicle v(holder of value) than it does as providing the utility/value it was designed for.

Furthermore, low interest rates has increased the cost of homes as well and increased the amount of money swimming around looking for a home.

⬐ yonran

Investment in housing and low interest rates would actually spur new construction and thus reduce rents if the housing supply were more elastic. It is the fact that supply is inelastic in a few cities that makes investment harmful for homebuyers.

⬐ supercanuck

And technically the market has responded by the plethora of low cost housing all over the city.

Tents.

⬐ pkaler

Exclusionary zoning and high university administrative costs are basically a transfer of wealth from millennials to baby boomers.

⬐ asabjorn

The student loan bonds probably benefit the ones owning them the most, which is not baby boomers in general. Maybe retirement funds buy them so they indirectly benefit?

Exclusionary zoning benefit those that own housing the most, so it does benefit a bunch of baby boomers. However, those with leverage of existing rental units seem to benefit the most because they gain leverage through rental income in the same market as they buy new units in so they can slowly gain new low-risk wealth over time without changing their cost/revenue balance.

In general low-risk investments such as student loan bonds and rental properties should be low-margin. However, due to regulations that stop the market from doing its thing that is not the case.

⬐ njarboe

I believe the "baby boomer" cohort in the US owns the majority of the wealth, probably just because of the age and size of it. They have the voting and economic power to control society. They should be careful not to create a large angry cohort of young people as they head off to retirement, leave the power centers, but still draw on the resources of others. So far they have done a poor job of that. Maybe universal surveillance, AI, and robot soldiers can prevent the younger generations from clawing back some of the wealth extracted from them, who knows.

This is a bit of a strange article.

First, "in his recent book" refers to his 2011 book [1]. And Christensen has been prophesying this general bankruptcy "in the next decade" since that time. [2]

In any case it's interesting to think about the larger argument of the future of traditional higher education in general versus online education.

Bryan Caplan's thesis that (the state should cut funding for higher education because) higher education is mostly about signalling 3 things is a good tool. He argues that higher education signals a combination of intelligence, conscientiousness and conformity. The combination of the 3 is crucial for the model. [3]

Online education, and more generally self-education, fails on the conformity side. Companies do not want in general to risk such non-conformists, when they can hire from a stream of fresh graduates (smart, hard-working and relatively conformist).

Also, I think the socialization, friendships and networking that happen in the university are extremely valuable and not easily replaced by online education (where and with who can a smart, driven 18 year old hang out while studying and learning for 4 years on MOOCs and textbooks?)

And in addition, I hope, traditional universities are starting to improve their teaching methods (eg, flipped classroom, peer instruction) to multiply the pedagogical and motivational value they offer vs MOOCs.

For online education to replace traditional higher ed, it might require taking into account these factors. Could something like workspaces for freelancers or remote workers - but for studying - replace the traditional institution and the above benefits? Such that, for example, you would not be seen as an extreme non-conformist by not enrolling in a university?

Also, outside the US, tuition costs is often much lower. An online STEM degree, say a certified online masters in software engineering such as coursera or edx, could easily be more expensive than regular (or even the best) university.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Innovative-University-Changing-Higher...

[2] https://www.economist.com/international/2012/12/22/learning-...

[3] https://www.amazon.com/Case-against-Education-System-Waste/d...

(To be clear, he argues that from the individual's perspective, university is still net positive, if you have what it takes to finish the degree and don't get too much in debt. It's the state that should cut funding since it's inflating credentials.)

I highly recommend The Case Against Education by Bryan Caplan (https://www.amazon.com/Case-against-Education-System-Waste/d...). It's one of the more careful social science books I've ever read, and while it comes to controversial conclusions, even if you disagree with them you'll learn a lot about the issues by reading it. The assumption that education can be assumed to be profitable for society simply isn't supported by the evidence.

⬐ pyrale

So, by pointing out this book, are you saying that your only metric for education is economic value and wage marketability?

⬐ Matticus_Rex

No, and neither is this book -- it also deals heavily with less tangible factors.

We have decent data on this, and college is still worth it (for the individual) for all above-average students. Its social returns (which is some of what she's getting at without the vocabulary for it) are near-zero or negative, however, despite the many tropes about "an educated society" to the contrary.

For a much, much deeper discussion of this issue and the factors involved, read The Case Against Education by Bryan Caplan (https://www.amazon.com/Case-against-Education-System-Waste/d...). It's one of the more careful social science books I've ever read, and while it comes to controversial conclusions, even if you disagree with them you'll learn a lot about the issues by reading it.

While not directly related, Bryan Caplan of George Mason University argues that pushing everyone to college doesn't make sense and most of what's learned in school is a waste of time from the job market perspective. The degree is about signaling how competent someone is instead of the useful skills and knowledge obtained via education.

The link to the podcast from 2014 better represents this nuanced argument.

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/04/bryan_caplan_on.htm...

His book on the topic will be released in January 2018 https://www.amazon.com/Case-against-Education-System-Waste/d...