Education works as a placebo effect
Ever wonder why college is so expensive? Commentator Tyler Cowen says it's because there's more to education than just coursework.
Tyler Cowen (George Mason University)
More on Commentaries, Education
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
Kai Ryssdal: College students, and their parents, who have yet to write this fall's tuition checks may want to bear the following statistic in mind. According to the Department of Education, more students are going deeper into debt to pay for school. Last year, total federal student loan payments increased 25 percent. Are students getting what they borrowed for? Commentator Tyler Cowen says yeah they are, sort of.
TYLER COWEN: There's lots of evidence that placebos work in medicine; people get well simply because they think they're supposed to.
But we're learning that placebos apply to a lot of other areas and that includes higher education. Schooling works in large part because it makes people feel they've been transformed. Think about it: college graduates earn a lot more than non-graduates, but studying Walt Whitman rarely gets people a job. In reality, the students are jumping through lots of hoops and acquiring a new self-identity.
The educators and the administrators stage a kind of "theater" to convince students that they now belong to an elite group of higher earners. If students believe this story, many of them will then live it.
Colleges therefore are very concerned with prestige, status, and yes, pretense. That means thick syllabi, famous professors, and an impressive graduation ceremony.
Online instruction will never take over from traditional colleges and universities. Just as missionaries make personal visits to bring their message to life, so must professors and students spend face time together to animate the feeling that learning has taken place.
One reason we spend so much on college is to convince ourselves of our own commitment; similarly, in medicine, experiments show that aspirin relieves more of our pain, if we know that we spent more money on the pills.
In the armed forces, part of "making Marines" is that the soldiers feel they suffered to get there. So, effective higher education probably won't ever be cheap or easy.
It really does cost a lot to bundle together a bit of learning, some good theater, and some missionary zeal, replete with the socially required props.
Colleges and universities may appear inefficient or overpriced, but it's a business model likely to stand the test of time. As long as we keep on thinking that it works, it probably does.
RYSSDAL: Tyler Cowen is what you might call an interested party in the success of higher education. He's a professor of economics at George Mason University. There's more on this in his latest book "Create Your Own Economy: the Path to Prosperity in a Disordered World."
Comments
Comment | Refresh
09/07/2009
Unfortunately, too many people are going to college seemingly for no reason other than because it's "the right thing to do" and because their parents want them to. Of course if you consider that, as mentioned above, the simple act of going to college and "jumping through the hoops" has such a powerful effect it might not be such a bad idea. Nevertheless, I feel part of the reason you hear so much about people spending all this money on education and being no further along career-wise after-wards has to do with the fact that too many people are looking at college AS their business plan instead of PART of their business plan. They seem to assume that once they get their degree, their success is all but inevitable. Too many parents, although well-meaning have over-emphasized the importance of the education part, and somewhat over-looked all (or at least some of) the other necessary elements. Educate yourself everyday, every way you can, PC repair information and guides.
From Oakland, CA, 09/07/2009
I agree with Jim Young and his mantra, education is a racket. It’s not surprising that those who have jumped through
the hoops of higher education value their experience. We value what we work hard at, and educational institutions
exploit this phenomenon.
Life-long learning is vital to economic and social survival. But as Ivan lllich, pointed out in his seminal book,
Deschooling Society (1971), most learning takes place outside of educational institutions.
Sadly, education is purchased for reasons of status. The primary goal should be to encourage curiosity and learning.
One problem is we confuse knowledge with intelligence. The educated person knows how to learn; what to ignore, and
what to attend to.
Our so-called education system is anti-creative. It doesn’t encourage love of learning: acknowledgement, rather it
is something to get through. “Thick syllabi” gives the illusion of quantity being quality. So many people in
businesses don’t enjoy learning. I blame the dulling effect of being lectured to, and having to comply with
mountainous texts that are hardly stimulating.
Transformational experiences come in all shapes and sizes. There is no reason why educational establishments should
be the only place for learning. For many, education is an exercise in compliance. If the only goal is to get the
stamp of approval, then employers wanting a compliant and indebted workforce (which means that they have high level
of fear) are winning. However, there is much lip-service about the need for creative talent. Employers who are open
to contribution will need to look elsewhere.
For a young person to go into debt in order to get a job is a form of slavery. Why should students pay for tenured
professors and the ephemera of sports stadiums, and palatial grounds?
Another issue is that having spent the time and money, students expect to get a degree. How many fail final exams? I
imagine few, because the universities don’t want to upset the customers. The mass-education response is to dumb down
the courses. If we stopped giving tax breaks for a college education and put all money into primary education there
would be little need for most people to go to college. There is no reason most 16 year-olds can’t grasp basic
calculus, have an ability to argue rationally, appreciate the arts, and have a good knowledge of history, or that
infants not lean three languages and be encouraged to problem solve. When it comes to higher education, we need more
of what might be coined open-source education.
Of course, it is unlikely that higher education institutions will practice academic birth-control. Like any
bureaucracy, the first loyalty is to itself.
So what would be low-cost alternatives, finding mentors, writing books, research, starting companies? How about
actually working your way up from a lowly position?
Ashley Montagu (who at one time used to teach physicians and likened it to having them remember the contents of a
phone book) once remarked that the mark of an educated person is one who has overcome the educations system. I feel
it is not in overcoming the education system but replacing it with a kaleidoscope of offerings that replaces it.
Flexibility, creativity, and adaptability are traits we must encourage in ourselves and others. We need low-cost
education for a dynamic world.
From Chicago, IL, 09/05/2009
The pomp and circumstance doesn't influence the cost of higher ed to a significant degree, nor have faculty salaries or thick syllabi done much to inflate the cost ahead of the cost of other goods. What has, in my experience, had a significant effect on the bottom line of universities is the large and continuing investment in technology. Universities have every reason to maintain this commitment--if an institution doesn't keep up, good luck attracting students who expect total connectivity and "smart" classrooms--but a significant percentage of this investment is, in my view, bells and whistles that adds little to real learning.
09/05/2009
"In fact, my master's degree program in Organizational Development at George Mason University was a transformational experience which did change the way in which I view the world." There's a couple of other comments of this nature, and I think this is missing the point. I don't think Prof. Cowen is saying that higher education isn't transformational. In fact, I think his point is precisely that it is. Read a little more closely.
From Chicago, IL, 09/04/2009
I'm sorry to hear that Prof. Cowen feels that his teaching is primarily theater (which I assume he considers a disparaging term from his use of quotes) designed to convince students they're an elite.
Personally, I believe what I'm doing in the classroom is teaching, and what my students are doing is learning. They may acquire a new identity -- as learners, as thinkers, as educators -- that may lead them to approach their lives and the problems of their fields and society differently. But I'm pretty sure that identity doesn't emerge in my students without them actually doing the intellectual work.
- Alan Schwartz, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine
09/04/2009
William James, writing in that era before college education became a mass phenomenon, reduced the value of a liberal education to the ability to better judge the worth of another person. Quaint by today's standards perhaps, but it captures the significance of richer cultural knowledge for navigating the world wisely, something rather different than pursuing a career sucessfully, the norm by which we measure schooling today.
Yet there is a point to Tyler Cowen's comments. I am a teacher and my mantra is: "Education is a racket." That helps me get through the day.
From L.A., CA, 09/04/2009
As a humanities junkie who spent college strategically skipping from study abroad programs to specialized literature courses, I was amazed to hear Prof. Cowen, who specializes in economics, suggest college is placebo. While I’ve certainly fretted my love of Edith Warton and double major in French Studies and literature might be ill-suited for…any job, really—my more mathematically inclined college friends seemed to learn some palpable work-place skills. Though I can’t remember a project of mine which required the manipulation of an Excel chart or effectively working in a group setting (experiences I realize after nearly seven years in the “real world” would have been highly useful), students studying other, less “artistic” disciplines seemed to deal with these pre-cursers to the working world on a regular basis.
Specializations aside, there’s no denying dealing with deadlines, the one-on-one people skills and etiquette required to “meet” with professors about your work and speaking with four martini-deep alumni visiting for those “blast from the past” weekends provides a set of people skills and maturity you can’t find anywhere else.
My seventy year-old father recently confessed he STILL has dreams he’s forgotten to drop a class and must take a final for a course he’s never once attended—indicating college, as Prof. Cowen suggests, provides a function differing from the black and white notion of “an education” as we often view it. But to say the experiences gained within these four years is a state of mind? It seems a bit…sophomoric and overly simplified. College represents one of the few lasting traditions Americans have managed to keep intact.
Is the experience and “boys club” mentality worth what we pay? That sounds like a question for the kids who liked numbers. If you want to know about the use of local color in women writers’ works, give me a buzz. I’ll be sitting at my desk trying use Excel for my corporate job.
From Wytheville, WY, 09/04/2009
I think Dr. Cowan does make a good point. There's a great deal of the "chancellor's new clothes" in the pomp and circumstance and gowns of academia, just as there is in so many of our formalized institutions--church, state, military, even entertainment and sports. And he's right--the whole production and theatre of it costs a lot of money.
If it isn't OK for this professor to discuss it from the inside, whose perspective shall we call disinterested? It's remarkable to me that very few comments so far describe anything but dismay that he is exposing, or at least questioning, the real value--not of learning, but of all this rigamarole.
Yes, we need higher education. It should last all of our lives. As the liberal arts tradition aimed to do, we should teach/learn how and why and where to seek a lifelong education. This rarely happens in the K-12 standardized-test mills we shove our kids thru on conveyor belts.
Many terrific professors ARE lifelong students, but should we not all be? Of what advantage could it be to close off one's mind on graduation day and just focus on money? Because we do expect this, we have a nation of joyless folks who think money is the point of life, instead of vice versa, and who boast some of the highest depression and addiction rates in the world. Why? Because no amount of money can provide the wisdom and love of life/God/others that we're here to develop.
So some kind of instruction does need to suggest to the young that education, wisdom and truth are worth more than gold and are perenially of value in themselves, not just as a ticket to higher salaries.
But the pursuit of wisdom and knowledge surely don't have to require the cost of several mansions. What huge tonnage of extra infrastructure and theatrics are we paying for?
And if we can't pull down the curtain to get a glimpse of what we're paying for, and of the real wizard behind the theatre of it all, how can we come up with better, simpler, more accessible-to-all ways of offering and getting an education?
Dr. Cowan has opened a needed discussion among us. Thank you so much.
Liza Field
From NYC, NY, 09/04/2009
Professor Cowen is 100% correct in saying that higher education is a kind of placebo. If I group my friends and acquaintances by the amount of formal education they've received (one group for those with Ph.D's, one group for those with Master's degrees, one group for those with Bachelor's degrees, one group for those with high-school diplomas, etc.), the smartest, most on-the-ball, and most knowledgeable group would be the ones who never completed first grade. In my opinion, the educational system offers participants a comfortable, nonthreatening and accredited way to acquire the discipline, social skills, and intellectual interest necessary to succeed in the world.
There are many other ways to acquire those skills than by spending your days getting formally educated, particularly at the post-secondary level. Those other ways, like running your own retail business, or training as a paratrooper, are more threatening and less universally suited than formal higher education.
From Medfield, MA, 09/04/2009
Professor Cowan's remarks are incomplete unfortunate, in that they paint an incomplete picture. Although as a parent I share his concerns about the rising cost of higher education, and would agree that the value proposition deteriorates, the notion of education as a placebo is hard to swallow. My engineering undergraduate education and business graduate education both gave me specific knowledge, without which I would not, indeed could not, have succeeded. As others have commented, my education also gave me self confidence in my ability to tackle and master complex problems and projects - there is no question that one learns much more after college then ever could be learned during. However I wouldn't call that a placebo effect, which is a trick of the mind. Rather it reflects a duality of learning - not only about facts and figures, but (and at least as importantly) also about one's own capacity for learning and growth, and how best to combine the two.
Indeed, but for his higher education, would Professor Cowen have the option of teaching? I would posit that even if GMU were willing to higher the economics professor without his Harvard PhD, I very much doubt he could have demonstrated the requisite skill set.
From Rockville, MD, 09/04/2009
If college were all about pomp, it is doubtful that so many people would complete undergraduate education and go on to graduate education. To simply call higher education a placebo is incorrect. This would mean that those who choose to complete higher education get nothing more out of it than good feelings about themselves. There's much more to it than that. There's a lot of critical skills as well as discipline to be learned. Like a few have commented before, these skills are highly attractive to the students' future employers. Employers do not just hire people because they went to college, employers are more interested in what people actually learned while there.
From Atlanta, GA, 09/04/2009
This commentary is a flaming testimony as to what happens when academia detaches from reality and conjures its own daydreams about how the world works. A college education is “theatrics”? A college degree is a “placebo”? Really? The last time I checked, college students who merely “act” the part rarely make it past their freshman year. The critical element that determines the success or failure every college student is discipline. Curiously enough, it’s also the element makes college graduates more attractive to employers compared to those who don’t have a college degree. What I see when I review the resume of a successful college grad is evidence of an individual who has demonstrated initiative, effort, and a candidate who has documented academic—and therefore, intellectual rigor. There is no substitute for genuine accomplishment. Nor is there a “placebo” for execution and results. To preach otherwise is to overlook the timeless value of good old-fashioned hard work.
From Wayne, NJ, 09/03/2009
I was startled to hear this commentary on your show, because you usually don't air claims without providing at least a little bit of evidence that might support their plausibility. It seems fair to say that Professor Cowen's claim (that higher education improves career prospects solely because of the placebo effect) is counterintuitive. Even in "soft" disciplines like Literary Theory, students develop their abilities to speak and write, and to tackle complicated problems. It seems pretty straightforward that this general skill set is going to help people perform well at complicated jobs. The fact that Professor Cowen's thesis is counterintuitive doesn't mean that it's wrong, of course, but it means that a reasonable NPR commentary asserting this thesis ought to give listeners some reasons (evidence or argument of some sort) to take it seriously. But no such reasons were given. There are good reasons to think that education makes a profound impact on the mind, in ways that have nothing to do with the placebo effect. Recent research shows that the brain remains plastic much later in life that was previously believed, and there is every reason to suppose that higher education makes a difference to brain architecture. Recent research supports the idea that formal education reduces the functional impact of Alzheimer's disease, for example. Sure, Cowen's thesis is intriguing, but I don't see how that makes it deserving of valuable airtime when it's not presented with a reasoned basis.
From HI, 09/03/2009
Well, yes, of course, college is quite an institutionalized adventure. Prep school for this adventure opens early, opens the first week of a child's life. The sooner parents realize how much infrastructure child will need for the higher learning, sooner they will start the process. Do parents fear that child will shun the less educated parents? Afraid the child will be called *Nerd* if she/he lets on how much she/he knows? Do such fears tempt the parents to postpone *thought infrastructure*? Is that delay more deadly than we had suspected? Should we teach children to be slow at revealing their knowledge, but teach them early on?
Think of the scholarship funds parents can save by starting children early. Think of it each time child comes home from school with homework. Think of it each time you say, "You can't go out and play until you get homework done. Get busy, Weirdrdrdrdo", when you could have said, "would you like for me to do homework with you now, My Big Fat Pig?"
From Waukesha, WI, 09/03/2009
I acknowledge what Dr. Cowen says about the value of confidence and self identity, but higher education is anything but a placebo. Learning itself is a critical skill which is gained through study, and that study might be biology, business, physics, physiology, zoology, or any number of other areas, including Walt Whitman. In a pinch, maybe even economics will do.
A college degree does not mean a student has mastered a subject, rather it is an indication that the student is teachable, and capable of jumping through the higher hoops of their profession.
From Baltimore, MD, 09/03/2009
Per Mr. Keating's comments, I agree that a college education does not provide necessary job training for every profession, nor should it. I also agree that some people feel pushed into college just for the degree (parents buy into this too) and do not care to learn. The person may not be ready psychologically or intellectually, or the person may simply be more interested in other areas of life. A variety of choices on how to get job training should be not be threatening to either college or non-college educated people. However, even a friend who went into construction upon graduation with a degree in English told me repeatedly how glad he was that he went to college because he learned so much about himself, others, and the things that he considers important in life. Indeed, we must remember that college was not created to just be a place of job training, but is more importantly a place to learn.
Further, there is no neutral party in this debate. Those who did not go to college have no basis upon which to evaluate the college experience, having only heresay upon which to base their conclusions. Those who work at colleges, such as myself, do certainly have a vested interest in keeping our jobs, though one should not assume that we are merely involved for opportunistic reasons. Most faculty are here for ideals and our commitment to education, and I promise that most of us can make much more money in the private sector while continuing to work the 60-80 hour weeks that we already must in order to do well in our current jobs. Third, those who did attend college but do not work at colleges - perhaps the most interesting respondents - still may be accused of being elitists by non-college attendees just for having attended college, thus also presenting biased commentary according to some.
Finally, lest anyone seek to make the claim that the content of my arguments is based on some leftist liberal indoctrination agenda, I am a registered Indepedent - happily so. Many of my students will tell you that they have no idea what my political leanings are, as I feel that their education is about their learning, not my politics. Beyond being pro-education, an ideal I openly espouse, my teaching philosophy seeks to help students discover their political views, not parrot mine.
From Baltimore, MD, 09/03/2009
Actually, a college professor of all people should be commenting here; it is after all a college professor who has made this commentary in the first place.
As a current college student, I am a firm believer that college is what you make of it, and yes it is necessary to many professions. I have learned over my college courses that most things you study do matter; not all, but most. Learning about literature helps ensure that you can not only read, but understand complex ideas in written works that prepare you for future endeavors no matter what the subject. Most likely literature classes have you write papers, which prove that you can understand the work and create theories in response to it. It probably is not needed for being a car salesman, unless you retain some eloquent language that could help you land a deal with a customer. However, other college courses in economics and business would be beneficial for anyone wanting to venture into sales.
I also believe that companies requiring a college degree are not merely “lazy.” They want candidates who are focused on a future, and dedicated. As in they had enough commitment to finish college, so hopefully that will transform that they can be dedicated to our company. I am sorry that Peter Keating feels college was a waste, perhaps he should have studied something he was more interested in; before putting down forms of education and college professors.
As for Professor Cowen; I agree that rising tuition is a concern. I have a lot of school loan debt already, and I have not finished my bachelor’s degree yet. But, I have to disagree that college is not focused on learning. Being a professor, he of all people should inspire students and a zest for knowledge, not discourage students from wanting to better themselves through education. I have to think that perhaps he should find another profession at this point, as his chosen one does not seem to have any appeal to him anymore. Does he not realize that without college, his profession would not exist at all?
Finally, I once again would like to reiterate that college prepares you. Not necessarily for life, but with information to help you in your future. What you study in college is not for show; it should be the passion that you wish to pursue for your life. In my studies I have learned many skills that I can take into the world that I would not have had at the end of graduating high school. Although, if education is being attacked here; I guess I should not assume Professor Cowen believes high school is important either.
09/03/2009
With all due respect Prof. McCartney, a professional academic really has no place in this discussion. Of course, a formal education is necessary for you. Most professors are really just professional students. You read, you study, you work out problems and then write papers about what you've learned. Moreover, your entire profession depends on maintaining the myth that "everyone" should get a college education.
I think Prof. Cowen's point is well-considered even if I disagree with his conclusions. The reality is that studying literature and discussing Durkheim with your classmates may make you slightly more interesting in conversation, but it probably won't make you a better car salesman, restaurant manager, network administrator, et al. And even if the college experience does add something to what an employee brings to his/her employer, it is almost certainly not worth the time and money required to obtain a college degree.
Yes, for certain professional fields such as medicine, engineering, and the like it's probably efficient that the practitioners in these fields go to college to learn the skills necessary to ply their trade. But, for the rest of us college is generally just a bad investment. For this reason, it's unfortunate that so many employers insist applicants have college degrees for positions which simply do not require them. Requiring a college degree to be, e.g., an insurance adjuster is really just a lazy form of employee screening. Hopefully, more companies will awaken to this reality and get back to simply hiring hard-working and conscientious persons who are willing and eager to learn on the job.
From Silver Spring, MD, 09/03/2009
As an alumni of George Mason University, I must disagree with Prof. Cowen's rather transactional rather than relational view on higher education.
In fact, my master's degree program in Organizational Development at George Mason University was a transformational experience which did change the way in which I view the world. This is after I already had a law degree and a bachelor's in Philosophy.
Perhaps, Prof. Cowen should speak to the former chair of our department Professor Mark Addelson who is a recovering economist.
09/03/2009
My college was a period of intense learning, and not so much about myself, but math, physics, computer science.
I guess the college experience depends a lot about what you study.
From Baltimore, MD, 09/03/2009
I understand and agree with Prof. Cowen's concerns about rising tuition and the extent to which some of those funds are spent on pomp. However, most of his commentary suggests that a college education is *more* about pomp than about learning. Carrying a great deal of student loan debt myself (without commensurate salary to pay it off quickly), I argue that college is mostly about learning, yes, about oneself, but even an average student gains critical thinking skills that enable complex problem solving and acquires important information and skills that are crucial in attaining a good job. In college, I was able to learn about all sorts of ideas, test those ideas in informed debates with others, and review how various ideas have impacted every aspect of my life. Some of my experiences included jumping through hoops (often sets of required courses), but even these hoops, such as the Intro anthropology class and religion classes that I initially groaned about, left me with experiences that still inform my life many years later. If his teaching experience is more about pomp, then perhaps he is burnt out on teaching and needs to find another profession. If he meant to suggest that too much money is spent on pomp rather than on actual learning, then he needs to rethink and re-submit his commentary.
Signed, Former Student, Now a Professsor of Political Science
From Muskegon, MI, 09/03/2009
Tyler Cowen is on to something, but reaches the wrong conclusion.
Cowen describes college as "theater" to make students believe they've transformed and that self-esteem boost is why that success professionally as opposed to any actual skills gained.
The truth is students aren't being fooled. Most are perfectly aware they are just buying an expensive piece of paper. The desireable jobs, however, require that piece of paper and so
the students jump through the hoops and pay the tuition.
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.