US
education
What's the return?
More Singaporeans are heading there. Does it really pay
off? By Anna Bernasek. NY Times
Dec 13, 2005
SOCRATES
once said that the more he learned, the more he became convinced
of his own ignorance. It's a familiar feeling for anyone
who tries to make sense of the American education system.
This
academic year, the better part of US$1 trillion will be
spent on education in the United States. That's an awful
lot of spending, approaching 10 percent of the overall economy.
But what exactly is the return on all of that money?
While
the costs are fairly simple to calculate, the benefits of
education are harder to sum up.
Much
of what a nation wants from its schools has nothing to do
with money. Consider the social and cultural benefits, for
instance: making friends, learning social rules and norms
and understanding civic roles.
But
some of the most sought-after benefits from education are
economic. Specialised knowledge and technical skills, for
example, lead to higher incomes, greater productivity and
generation of valuable ideas.
Those
benefits are vital to a nation's growth.
In recent
years, Americans have become keenly aware of the impact
of education as freshly educated workers from China and
India compete for good jobs once held in the United States.
Today,
many parents have a gut feeling that education is the way
to ensure prosperity for their children, yet there is surprisingly
little certainty about how much education contributes to
the nation's overall wealth.
It is
largely a problem of measurement. Economists have tried
for decades to quantify the impact of education.
They still don't have all the answers, but their work can
shed some light on what Americans are getting for their
investment.
That
information could serve as a backdrop for debates on how
much government should spend on education and what should
be left to individuals.
Start
with what economists are confident about: the payoff to
individuals.
By measuring
the relationship between the number of years of schooling
and income earned in the job market, economists think that
they have a good idea of what it's worth.
Alan
B. Krueger, an economics professor at Princeton, says the
evidence suggests that, up to a point, an additional year
of schooling is likely to raise an individual's earnings
about 10 percent.
For
someone earning the national median household income of
$42,000, an extra year of training could provide an additional
$4,200 a year. (all in US$)
Over
the span of a career, that could easily add up to $30,000
or $40,000 of present value. If the year's education costs
less than that, there is a net gain.
The
payoff, of course, varies by individual. Another year of
education will not have the same benefit for everyone. And
school resources matter as well.
According
to studies by Professor Krueger and others, class size,
teacher quality and school size can make a difference in
the outcome.
They have found that the effect of better schools is most
pronounced for disadvantaged students.
There
is less certainty about the big picture. That is partly
because educational benefits accrue to the economy gradually,
often showing up years after schooling is complete.
Another
problem is the difficulty of quantifying indirect benefits.
One unknown, for example, is the degree to which formal
education fosters new commercial ideas and technological
breakthroughs.
While
there is little doubt that there are benefits, those measurement
challenges have led to big shifts in the conclusions of
economic studies over time.
In the
early 1990's, economists calculated big economic rewards
from additional investment in education.
A decade
later, the conclusions were different: studies suggested
that while one individual might gain advantage over another
through greater education, there might be no overall economic
benefit.
Today,
economists suspect that the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Jonathan Temple, an economist at the University of Bristol
in England, says the research trend is moving back toward
the earlier findings.
The
latest attempts to quantify the impact of education on total
economic growth have tended to conclude that it is at least
as significant as that measured for individuals.
Because
indirect benefits can't be counted accurately, Professor
Temple suspects an even bigger impact. Insofar as education
enhances worker productivity, there is a clear benefit to
the economy.
Two
Harvard economists, Lawrence F. Katz and Claudia Goldin,
studied the effect of increases in educational attainment
in the United States labour force from 1915 to 1999.
They
estimated that those gains directly resulted in at least
23 percent of the overall growth in productivity, or around
10 percent of growth in gross domestic product.
The
most important factor was the move to universal high school
education from 1910 to 1940.
It expanded
the education of the work force far more rapidly than at
any other time in the nation's history, creating economic
benefits that extended well into the remainder of the century,
according to Professors Katz and Goldin.
That
moved the United States ahead of other countries in education
and laid the foundation for the expansion of higher education.
Today,
more Americans attend college than ever before, but the
rest of the world is catching up.
The
once-large educational gap between the United States and
other countries is closing - making it increasingly important
to understand what education is really worth to a nation.
If economists
are right, it is not just part of the cost of maintaining
a functioning democracy, but a source of wealth creation
for all. That means that investing in the education of every
American is in everyone's self-interest.
Still, we're a long way from being able to judge the right
level of spending on education - and how to achieve it.
With
a college degree more important than ever, the cost of higher
education is rising steeply, creating growing stress for
many American families.
With
more study, researchers may be able to identify ways of
reducing costs while increasing the payoff from education.
Taking
our cue from Socrates, the first step may be to recognize
what we don't know.
New York Times