The college mania: the road to hell is paved with good intentions

I have sent the following piece to the Oregonian ... will update this post if and when it is published
...Update: the quick reply from the editor reads: "Thanks for writing. I'll use this in the next week or two."

The 40‐40‐20 plan has set a goal that by 2025, 40 percent of adult Oregonians will have earned bachelor’s degrees or higher; another 40 percent would have earned associate degrees; while the rest would have high school diplomas. This goal is not in the best interests of the children whose futures we are planning for.

In the first place, why 40‐40‐20? Why not 35‐35‐30 or any other numerical combination, in contrast to the roughly 30‐20‐40 split that we have today? A standard requirement in public policymaking is that we evaluate such targets by doing cost‐benefit analysis, which will give us an understanding of how the investment across the alternatives might be returned by a future date. It does not appear that the 40‐40‐20 went through such an analysis.

Thus, the 40‐40‐20 idea essentially means that we are betting that this is the best way to prepare today’s kids for the world of 2025. This assumes that we are also certain about the economic reality of the future. But, by doing so, we forget a profound Yogi Berra insight: it’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future. Here is an example: back in the year 2000, how many amongst us would have correctly predicted the American and global economy of today? Very few would have even correctly guessed, for instance, that Facebook and smartphones would transform our lives in ways that we could not have imagined.

If there is one thing we can state quite confidently, it is that not only can we expect changes, we can also expect those changes to occur at much faster rates than it was the case in the past. “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet” is perhaps a better way to approach the future. In that case, how do we know that it will be a 40‐40‐20 mix that will be in the best interests of the children of today?

Further, pursuing a 40‐40‐20 goal loads up the dice, so to say, in favor of college. If that is what we as a society truly want in our children, then, to use another favorite American expression, we ought to put our money where our mouth is. But, there is simply no way we will be able to pay for all those associate’s and bachelor’s degrees, which means that the costs will be borne by students, who might not be able to reap any dividend at all from that expensive investment.

Finally, if a sole focus on economic productivity is the trigger behind the 40‐40‐20 target, we ought to then keep in mind that even now it is not uncommon to run into baristas and bartenders with bachelor’s degrees—there is an over‐production of college graduates in an economic structure that needs only specific types of collegiate education. The plan will only worsen the economic futures of those betting on college, especially with costly student loans.

An idea often expressed in urban planning is equally applicable in this public policy context: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We need a serious rethink on this rush to college, before it gets too late.