Austin Scholar on relevant lessons; Freddie DeBoer on how college works; and on Chetty's metrics; Hollis Robbins on a market opportunity in credentialing
“His point is that college is not about information transfer. It is about creating an environment that induces learning.”
College is not a norm. It shouldn’t be like high school (or even like colleges have been for the last several decades.). Only scholars should go to college (plus those few students who are capable of achieving a STEM career or a career in medicine or law.)
What is a scholar? The short answer is a learner who seeks knowledge for its own sake. The shorter answer: if you’re not one you already know it.
The median student learns nothing in 4 years of high school. I think it should not be compulsory to spend 4 years in that fashion.
Man, if I could have spent high school + college being a technician at e.g. Anduril or apprenticing in engineering, that would have been much more enjoyable and valuable. I mention Anduril because they've made a program for high school grads to skip college and go right into.
That's the real missing piece, is that it's two sided -- desirable companies need to be set up for hiring out of high school and smart & conscientious students need to be willing to do that in lieu of college. I wish it was more of an industry-wide push.
Don't congratulate yourself on boldness for "going further".People have been advocating less education for those who don't need it (in their view) for generations.
"The median student learns nothing in 4 years of high school. I think it should not be compulsory to spend 4 years in that fashion."
This is a false statement.I know exactly what source you are using to make that claim.And the claim is bullshit.
The median student is learning things in high school. What the median student is not doing is learning more about things that he or she did not master in third grade. That is what the data that you will undoubtedly cite will show.
What is a prison? Answer: a forced association of humans without liberty or the freedom to choose to be someplace else—anyplace else.
In other words, a prison is an involuntary association.
For children of a certain age (prescribed by the authorities), school is a prison. Students are its prisoners; Teachers are its unwitting (some) correction officers.
You disagree?! School is a place of education, you say. What do you mean by education? Wait I will come back to that question. For now let us examine the nature of schooling—government schooling. Let us not forget that the authorities must ordain and license all schooling—government run and privately run.
Parents must deliver their school age children to a government authorized school (there are some exceptions like homeschooling but let’s not ruin a perfectly healthy rant—on my part—with a practice few parents can afford to choose.).
Children have been sentenced by the authorities to 13 years of forced education. This is only slightly less than the average prison term for second degree murder (although children do get their weekends and holidays off and sleep in their own beds each night).
But just try and keep your children from reporting to government schools; the authorities will not be forgiving and may even remove your children from their homes.
But of course, you say, children should go to school—how else will they learn?! How else indeed.
How many words do children learn before being assigned to their government schools? Answer: Between 5,000 and 10,000 words.
This massive language development typically starts with a "vocabulary explosion" around age two, after which children learn new words at an accelerated pace—sometimes picking up as many as 10 new words per day.
If children can learn words and speech (and so much more) in a non-school setting, why must parents be forced to intern their children for a period of time that fewer than 16 percent of all criminals receive for their prison sentences.
How can I be so confident that by returning the choice of how to educate their children back to parents we won’t be doing more harm to our children or their education?
First the short answer: For many more years than written language has been in existence, humans have been learning from other humans without the institution of schools. Children learn from their parents and even learn best from other children. See The Nurture Assumption by Judith Rich Harris and Free to LEARN by Peter Gray.
Education is NOT synonymous with institutionalized schooling. Learning is every normal human’s superpower. Some humans do have greater abilities to learn than others (and the opposite is true), but let’s not descend into the IQ abyss. The very fact that we are here today and (for the most part) civilized is my irrefutable evidence against forced education.
Some of the greatest minds never attended (or dropped out) of formal education: Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison are prime examples.
Famous historical figures and pioneers who bypassed traditional schooling include:
Abraham Lincoln: With less than a year of formal schooling, he taught himself law, literature, and politics, ultimately becoming one of America's most celebrated presidents.
George Washington: The first U.S. President had minimal formal education and began his career as a surveyor at age 17.
Frederick Douglass: Escaping slavery at age 20, he taught himself to read and write, eventually becoming a world-renowned abolitionist, orator, and writer.
The Wright Brothers (Orville and Wilbur): Neither brother graduated from high school nor attended college. They taught themselves aerodynamics and engineering to invent the world's first successful airplane.
Henry Ford: After only attending a one-room schoolhouse and completing a few years at a local academy, he left school at 15 to work in machine shops, going on to revolutionize manufacturing with the assembly line.
Winston Churchill: After doing poorly and receiving minimal formal academic education, the famous British Prime Minister focused heavily on self-teaching and went on to win the Nobel Prize in Literature.
In the modern era, many of history's greatest technological and creative disruptors also walked away from formal education:
Walt Disney: Struggled with traditional schooling and officially dropped out at 16 to pursue his artistic and entertainment career.
Steve Jobs: Dropped out of Reed College after just one semester but went on to revolutionize computing, music, and mobile technology at Apple.
Bill Gates: Dropped out of Harvard University to co-found Microsoft and pioneer the personal computer revolution.
Mark Zuckerberg: Left Harvard to focus entirely on building Facebook, profoundly reshaping how the world communicates.
So why you are probably asking yourself do “we” compel our children to attend government authorized schools? “We” don’t; “They” do—our authorities! Our authorities are in control over our lives and the lives of our children.
A free mind is a dangerous mind to authority. A free mind refuses to accept dogma without question. By challenging the status quo and relying on critical thinking rather than blind obedience, autonomous thinkers pose a fundamental threat to control structures that rely on conformity and unquestioning compliance to maintain their power.
“Power” is the final answer to why any authority exists over the individual. Compulsory education and state controlled schools grants power to “them” over each of “us”.
Either way on that, your proposed solution sounds wonderful but I see no hope for it working. It requires a long-term commitment from the employer with little hope the employee will stay with them. In my lifetime that hope has only gotten smaller.
"Only scholars should go to college (plus those few students who are capable of achieving a STEM career or a career in medicine or law.)"
This is a narrow view of college and higher education. I have a B.A. in economics from UCSC, a B.S. in mechanical engineering from UC Berkeley, and an M.S. in Optical Sciences from the University of Arizona, but right now I'm taking welding classes at Johnston Community College in North Carolina just because I feel like it and because I'm building metal structures — cloches, grape trellises, and custom garden edging — to keep the weeds and deer out of our gardens.
After taking semester-long stick and TIG welding classes this past year, I started a summer school class this week: WLD 112 Basic Welding. Most of the students are fresh out of high school — training to be machinists, diesel mechanics, welders, or entry-level engineers. None of them fit your profile, except perhaps me. Our instructor certainly doesn't fit your profile either. He worked as a prison guard for years. Here he is in Tuesday's class demonstrating the explosive power of oxy-acetylene prior to us using cutting torches: https://substack.com/@scottgibb/note/c-267119677?r=nb3bl&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
The claim that only scholars should go to college raises an obvious question: who decides who's a scholar? Your definition — "a learner who seeks knowledge for its own sake" — is slippery. By that standard, my wife, who parlayed her Stanford philosophy degree into a lucrative tech career, might not qualify. And I, the guy who got three degrees primarily to make more money, apparently does — since I'm the one now taking welding classes purely out of curiosity. The definition collapses under its own weight.
It also ignores the single biggest reason most people go to college: economic mobility. For first-generation college students, for kids from poor families, for anyone trying to escape a dead-end situation, college is less about the life of the mind and more about the life they want to live. Telling those people that college isn't for them unless they're "scholars" is a luxury opinion — one that's much easier to hold if you already have money. Tell that to the diesel mechanics, machinists, and welders in my WLD 112 class. They're not there to seek knowledge for its own sake — they're there to build skills, earn credentials, and make a living. That's not a lesser reason to go to college. For most people, it's the whole point.
In other words, many people attend college to generate more wealth, to obtain practical skills, to experience the world with like-minded people, and to have fun.
So I'm curious why Arnold liked your comment. Arnold?
The welding classes you are describing are usually under the heading of “trade school” not “college”. Most colleges and universities do not offer degrees in welding. Why are you conflating trade schools and universities? Most people who say universities are a waste of money think they should be more like trade schools after all.
Also, good on you for learning to weld. Such a handy skill.
Nearly three out of four welding credentials in America are earned at a public college or university — not a trade school. That's from the National Center for Education Statistics, which tracked 50,561 welding credentials awarded in 2023:
— 59.1% were awarded at public two-year colleges (community colleges like Johnston)
— 13.5% were awarded at public four-year universities
— 10.6% were awarded at private for-profit two-year schools (the trade schools you're thinking of, like Tulsa Welding School)
— 9.8% were awarded at private for-profit short-certificate programs
Johnston Community College is fully accredited, degree-granting, and part of the North Carolina Community College System. Like most community colleges in America, it offers both academic programs and vocational ones under the same roof, with the same accreditation. And contrary to your claim that most colleges don't offer welding, 583 out of 832 public two-year colleges — 70% of all public community colleges in America — offer welding programs.
The students in my WLD 112 class are college students by any reasonable definition of the term. I'll pass along your compliment about welding — though I suspect they'd rather just be recognized as what they already are.
Why are you confusing trade schools with the 70% of community colleges that offer welding programs?
See the graphic and the csv file here at Data USA. The above data comes from that file. Will you do me a favor and verify this or at least compensate me for crunching the numbers for you? Maybe make a donation to my Substack, please? https://datausa.io/profile/cip/welding-technology
Thanks for the stats. Now, do you understand that when people are bemoaning people going to college for no good reason they are talking about 4 year colleges and universities offering bachelors degrees and higher? If you are talking about 2 year community colleges you are talking about something very different from what other people are referring to.
The original claim that started this conversation was 'only scholars should go to college.' Not 'only scholars should go to four-year universities.' If critics of college mean four-year institutions specifically, they should say so — because the word 'college' covers an enormous range of institutions, from Harvard to Johnston Community College, and the nearly 9 million Americans enrolled in two-year colleges might reasonably object to being told they're not in college.
So perhaps the real argument isn't about who should go to college. It's about where they should start. The two-year community college — affordable, practical, and a proven pathway to four-year institutions for those who want to continue — might be the most underrated and undersold option in American higher education. In Silicon Valley and communities like it, starting at a community college is still seen as a sign of failure. It shouldn't be — and frankly, it isn't seen that way anywhere near a Johnston Community College.
I second "thanks for the stats." I don't think most people realize how much of present day college is not traditional "college". Part of that is your basic empire building. Part of it is a desire on the part of educators to be relevant. But largely, it's a market reaction. There's a lot of money for anything that can be branded college (grants, student loans, etc.).
I suppose we need a clear definition of markets first. There's a market for public goods — schools, parks, roads, medicine, defense. Are we talking about the market for public colleges? Or the labor market that drives demand for degrees in the first place? Stu, what's the market failure you have in mind?
This is where I don’t understand Arnold Kling. What exactly is he complaining about?
You actually made my point. You and your wife are learners. I’m a lawyer who owns a cigar bar. I’m also a former military with a unique set of skills.
Many people are capable of learning skills that will make them successful at various occupations, but that’s not the purpose of college. However, you’re correct that employers are looking for college degrees instead of for qualified employees. But that doesn’t justify parents and their children spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a college degree.
Please note that I didn’t say a college education. Most college graduates don’t receive this.
That's a pretty slippery response. He's doing a few things worth noting:
He's moving the goalposts. His original claim was that only scholars (plus STEM/medicine/law students) should go to college. Now he's retreating to a different claim: that college as currently practiced doesn't deliver a real education anyway. Those are two different arguments.
The "you made my point" opener doesn't hold up. He's saying you and your wife are learners — therefore scholars — therefore his original gatekeeping criterion still stands. But that just confirms your point: the definition of "scholar" is so elastic it can be stretched to fit anyone he wants to include after the fact.
He's conceding the economic reality while dismissing it. He acknowledges that employers demand degrees, then waves it away as unjustified expense. But for a first-generation college student trying to get hired, "employers shouldn't require degrees" is cold comfort. The world as it is matters more than the world as he thinks it should be.
The closing distinction is interesting but undercuts his original claim. If most college graduates don't receive a college education, then his original argument — that college should be reserved for scholars — was aimed at an institution that, by his own admission, doesn't reliably produce scholarship anyway. So what exactly is he gatekeeping?
He's not wrong that credential inflation is a real problem. But he started with a prescriptive claim about who deserves college and is now retreating to a descriptive claim about what college actually delivers. Those are different conversations.
Would you like help drafting a response?
"No, I'll just post what you have above. I'm done for this morning. I need to get back to building cloches before the deer eat all my blueberries."
Wearing underwear and socks isn't for everyone either. Yes, everyone is different…and…that's it?
Not trying to win anything here, Daniel. Just trying to push back on imprecise thinking. I really am busy, so please excuse the curt reply — and yes, I used Claude to help me; so perhaps not a victory for me since Stu docked me points for the one part that was entirely mine.
No harm done. I’m not sure what was imprecise about my comment. College isn’t for everyone. I’m never going to become a doctor but that’s not a slight. Nor should my comment be taken as slighting non-scholars and people who aren’t inclined to pursue STEM careers.
Somewhere along the way some politician promised to make college accessible to everyone; as if by waving a magic wand we could all be made homogeneous in a way that was not thought possible. If we all could go to college then we could all become equally successful. This dream of college for all is absurd. What would be better is to call every college Harvard—then we can all be Harvard graduates.
If we could just roll the clock back 35-55 years, I think there is a lot of value to a broadly liberal education. Liberal, not leftist.
While I fully agree with Arnold that there are now too many students going to college, I wouldn't roll the perecentages back anywhere near as far as you would. I think the percentages somewhere between 1990 and 2005 were about right.
In the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s, the professors in aggregate surely leaned left but still were fundamentally liberal. And I still believe a liberal education is valuable for far more people than you would consider “scholars”.
Of course, grievance studies majors are actively harmful.
And of course the illiberal leftist ideologizing that exists in academia today is profoundly negative and harmful.
So it may well be unsalvageable. I certainly have no answer how to change it incrementally from where we are, which is why, like AK, I am a Brokenist on this topic.
By all means disagree with me, but let us be clear or at least in agreement with what I wrote. I have never said that only so many students should be admitted to college. But to be clear (or clearer) college is not a trades school. People shouldn’t go to college for acquiring skills like math and writing. College is a place of higher learning and scholarship (no course should ever be taught in the study of ….).
As for the professors politics, I really couldn’t care less about such nonsense; as long as they are teaching and not preaching (you see what I just did there?).
PS—I separated from the U.S. Army in 1985. If anyone is the prototype for the Special Forces and Special Operations it is yours truly—NOT Liam.
“I don’t think that colleges endure because they have found the magic formula for creating a learning experience. I think that they endure because it is a social norm that people take for granted.
Going to church used to be such a social norm. But a norm that had persisted in the West for centuries faded out within a couple of generations. I think that the norm of going to college could suffer from a similar preference cascade. AI’s educational capabilities or lack thereof are not going to be the driver.”
That is straightforward and insightful. Yes, I think this is it.
I’m an old dad - 52, three kids 10, 8 and 6. My friends’ kids are largely graduating high school now and figuring out college while I watch with trepidation.
Things have changed, though. I’ve definitely noticed that both my friends and their kids kind of acknowledge that going away to school is a somewhat absurd luxury. Lots are still doing it - most even - but more are going to local colleges than did when I graduated.
And two other interesting differences: college-as-credential seems to be so universally accepted now that nobody even bothers to discuss it anymore. That’s DEFINITELY different than when I left for college in ‘92.
And here’s the weird one: they all seem to be paying a lot LESS for school than any of us thought it’d cost. The sticker price just seems to be the “if you pay this number, we’ll literally give your dog a degree” starting point. Every one of my friends kids have received a massive discount for no particularly good reason - whatever arcane measure schools use to decide what class makeup they want seems to result in heavily skewed costs, and everyone is paying the cheapest tuition they can find.
Still: I’m desperate for this whole edifice to crash before I need to start worrying about it. But time moves very quickly and I doubt it’ll be all that much different before my kids are in the middle. But my grandkids? Oh yeah. I don’t imagine this absurd approach will still be hanging around then.
I appreciated all your comments on college. Some colleges can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. But, for those unable to pay and unwilling to go into debt, there have always been alternatives. Many (most?)middle class kids go to local schools, live at home, and/or spend the first two years at Community Colleges. They then fund their education with a part time job which often subsidizes the cost of college.
My grandson just graduated in 4 years from the University of California system with a STEM degree, no debt and money in his bank account.
My wife and I are already making similar plans. If the kids get into MIT or something, OK, yes, we'll make it work. But if it ends up being a "well, Fairfield is ranked higher in US News and World Report than SUNY Stonybrook..." kind of issue it's going to be Stonybrook all that way unless some sort of magic happens with the tuition at Fairfield. There isn't enough that distinguishes most colleges from each other to make it worth sinking our family in debt.
Lots of good thoughts in there but I disagree people go to college because it's a social norm. While it is a social norm, that's not why they go. Ignoring the kids who gain necessary technical skills in college, employers find it to be a useful sorting tool. Is it a costly one? Yes. Does it work perfectly? Not even close. But the alternatives available are difficult to use for better results. As long as employers use it this way, it will continue. I see no obvious reasons for them to stop so kids will go to college to gain access to those jobs.
I wish more commenters would make this point. People make choices given the opportunities they perceive. If there is a bad alternative and a worse one, you can't blame them for picking the bad one.
Employers use college degrees as a signal because the existing alternatives are generally illegal, e.g., IQ tests or any tests that have not been "validated"--which at the present time, means pretty much any that exist, and the cost of validation means that no more will exist.
So: it doesn't work very well but employers use it anyway. Sounds like a social norm to me.
Think of skin color, or religion, or sex. Those used to be employment determinants too; not very good, but they were used because everyone used them. Social norms which faded away.
First of all they didn't really fade away. It was forced as much as faded.
Either way, I'd argue none of those are as good at sorting as a college degree.
Finally, I said nothing about how well it works other than not being perfect. Regardless, that misses the point. Employers think it is useful and I don't see that changing.
No, they were fading away socially before the government forced them away. I know of no polls on the matter, but there are unemployment statistics that show black youth had a lower unemployment rate until FDR instituted the federal minimum wage law. A cynic might say that was blacks employing blacks, but that implies blacks were earning as much as whites and had as much capacity for hiring blacks as did the whites, and no one thinks "separate but equal" was anywhere near equal. Thurgood Marshall and other blacks got law degrees and passed the bar long before government made racism somewhat illegal. Baseball integrated with Jackie Robinson long before laws required it. Black boxers were even recognized as world champions in spite of constantly looking for Great White Hopes, and eventually became *American* champions, not just *black* champions, long before the end of Jim Crow. Jesse Owens made the 1936 Olympics teams 30 years before laws caught up.
Catholics had been oppressed in England, but had their own colony in the Americas, and were accepted more and more in social and political life. The original anti-abortion laws of the mid-1800s were in response to panics over Catholics outbreeding Protestants; Irish and Italians were routinely discriminated against into the 1900s, and that too kept diminishing as time went by. JFK and other Catholics were elected to political office long before religious discrimination was officially banned.
Women were making independent livings long before they got the vote. Typewriting used to be a man's occupation, so I have read, until women dominated. Bicycles gave women a means of transport independent of men. Electric home appliances gave women spare time for a life outside the home before Title ?? made sex discrimination illegal. The 1920s flappers would have been unthinkable in the previous century.
Complaining that race, religion, and sex were never good at sorting employment is a silly argument. College is a piss poor way for the vast majority of graduates. That it is accepted now and the other three aren't has nothing to do with how much they were used in earlier times.
You claimed my three categories were changed by government diktat. I showed otherwise. I take your lack of response as an entirely relevant admission I was right.
I'm currently discussing the deBoer piece with Claude. Here's what Claude thinks:
"The church analogy is thought-provoking but imperfect. College has a much tighter coupling to economic outcomes than church attendance did — employers use degrees as signals, and that credentialing function is somewhat independent of whether learning actually happens. That's a stabilizing force Kling doesn't fully address.
Where I'd push back on deBoer slightly is that he might be underestimating how much the cost equation has changed. His argument that 18-year-olds will rationally choose fun over a cubicle job made more sense when college was cheaper. At $300,000 in debt, the calculus shifts.
Ultimately I think both writers are probably right that AI won't be the primary driver either way — which is itself an interesting conclusion given how much noise surrounds that particular debate.
Let me start at the beginning. I notice a huge boost in my motivation to read and learn when I go to the library. Being surrounded by books and by people reading and learning helps me read and learn. I think this is true of many people, and this is why so many college students go to the library to study and work through problem sets. The library environment increases their productivity.
Why?
One reason is fewer distractions. The TV, computer, phone, refrigerator, and roommates talking are replaced by other students getting stuff done, quietly reading, and the constant reminder that the test is coming. At the library, the computer lab, or the study lounge, other students provide encouragement, dialogue, companionship, bonding, and motivation to learn. It's more enjoyable to learn with others, just like it's more enjoyable to watch a movie with your family: "We experienced that together."
I could say the same thing about the gym, the garage, the garden, the kitchen, doing dishes or cooking together, speaking clubs like Toastmasters, self-help groups like AA, book clubs, vacation resorts, museums, youth sports — we do similar things better together. It's as if our minds are linked: they are doing "this," which gives me permission, motivation, reason, justification, companionship, and belonging to do "this" also. It's almost magic.
Surrounding yourself with people who are doing what you want to be doing and who are becoming what you want to become is the best way to accomplish your goals.
The same thing is true of this blog: we are here for the collective experience of reading, learning, and conversing together. Thanks for creating this place for us, Arnold.
It's a lovely observation and a genuinely important one. A few directions worth thinking through more completely:
What you're describing has a name. Behavioral economists and psychologists call it social proof and identity-based motivation — we take cues from those around us about what's normal and desirable behavior. You might find it rewarding to engage with that literature, since it would sharpen and ground your intuition considerably.
It cuts both ways. If surrounding yourself with learners makes you learn, surrounding yourself with people avoiding learning makes you avoid it too. This might actually strengthen deBoer's pessimism — in a culture where intellectual disengagement is increasingly the norm, the motivating environment becomes harder to find or sustain.
It raises a pointed question about AI. Could an online environment ever replicate this effect? Some people report that study-with-me YouTube videos, or online communities like the one you're describing, partially do. Where exactly does the magic break down in digital spaces, and why?
Your examples are interestingly varied. AA and Toastmasters are somewhat different from the library — they involve explicit accountability structures and personal vulnerability, not just passive co-presence. Is mere proximity enough, or does something more active need to happen?
These feel like the natural next questions your argument is reaching toward.
As the actual cost of college for middle income folk, getting help for the expensive elite colleges but much less help for the similarly expensive non-elite colleges find out, there are marginal almost-scholars (SAT 1200? 1250? 1150?) who don't make elite Ivy+ but accepted to #50 or maybe #355 as their top choice.
A strong recent argument I read is that HR has some Ivy+ list, and most other colleges are merely other: 50, 355, 955, college rank means little.
Financial aid for middle folk means the rich pay full price, 90%? 80% ? 70%? but most middle & lower class folk with good enough SATs pay far less.
The cost equation changes become more personal on a school by school, & income percentile basis. Inconsistently across schools, tho with some reasonable plateau steps for each school.
The much lower prices, with good education as determined by testing, will drive the changes. AI helps achieve those drivers.
“How to evaluate teachers? If we had smaller school districts and no teachers’ unions, then the evaluations could be done by parents and principals based on what they observe, not on using formal metrics. This is a case where substituting econometric noise for Hayekian tacit knowledge is a really bad idea.”
101 cheers to this.
However, to truly work properly would also require school choice, so that parents with good principles could select away from bad principals.
As a former teacher, I can tell you that principals have almost no idea of what goes on in any particular classroom. They simply don't have the time. Around here, department chairs do an observation and evaluation about once a year, but it is largely a dog and pony show, often very different from a normal day.
Great related links. Both relevance & most importantly motivation. The motivation for studying before college, is to get into college; or merely to graduate from HS for a job. It's still a majority of 18 year olds do NOT go on to college, and a larger majority of 22, 24, or 26 year olds who don't have a 4 yr degree.
Huge numbers of jobs require a degree to go thru HR, but the actual work doesn't need the info.
The Robbins idea of a mastery exam should be interesting to many different groups, and seems a clear opportunity, but difficulty in getting objective standards for learning remains a huge obstacle.
Yale recently reinstated SAT scores, despite the fact that Blacks still have much lower scores, on average. Harvard faculty recently voted for new rule to limit the number of As given; they understand the problem of grade inflation devaluing the whole degree. Caplan's degree= signal idea remains about 80%.
It's likely that maximum AI instruction will occur first in English as a Second Language course. Because there are already many exams on English knowledge, with EU levels of A1, A2, A3; B1, B2, B3; C1, C2, & native speaker. My kids are native in both English & Slovak; my Slovak is about B2-B3 (after 35 years here). When I was at IBM ... last decade, I pushed to have Watson (remember that ai? Winner of Jeopardy! failed at medicine, tho.) teach English.
Non-native speakers already spend more of their own money on learning English than any other subject. Motivation is making more money (as usual) but also travelling the world, enjoyment of almost any subject, including Japanese anime which has English sub-titles, often also dubbing. AI teaching English is among the easiest to make relevant to the student, whatever the student is interested in. Personalized vocabulary & practice on whatever the student already enjoys.
Maybe after there are recognized great English ai tutors, similar methods might work for other subjects. Maybe not; but unlikely for any other subject to be done well before English.
I'm almost ready to teach an Advanced English class using karaoke; but the money to be made doesn't quite seem worth the time. Tho the time could be fun.
"Going to church used to be such a social norm. But a norm that had persisted in the West for centuries faded out within a couple of generations. "
Not directly related to Education, but I'm not sure to what extent this is actually true. From what I've read (and asked Claude to check just now), universal weekly attendance has been a thing only in certain times and subpopulations. Or caused by coercion (directly mandated attendance).
Outside of that it seems to have always been patchy with many people only showing up a few times a year. The peak of mass voluntary weekly attendance might well have been a late and temporary thing rather than ancient tradition.
I invite you to examine the NY Board of Regents tests before you comment further. Chemistry, Biology, Earth Science, how are these not subject matter testing? As for the College Board, all it does is testing. Yes, SAT, but also AP, CLEP.
Why not? I think it's because the Regent's tests are actually good tests and the students who can finish them early immediately move up to AP tests, plow through those (more free education), and then on to university. It isn't uncommon these days for a kid to have 8 AP tests, which was nearly unheard of back in my day. That amounts to a year of college credit, at least where I studied.
“ I don’t think that colleges endure because they have found the magic formula for creating a learning experience. I think that they endure because it is a social norm that people take for granted.”
I surely agree with the first sentence.
As recently as 5-7 years ago I’d have agreed with the second sentence being a big reason for why colleges endure.
Now - at least for about 50%-60% of the country, anyway - I believe the overwhelming reason it endures is the signaling value, and that nothing else has shown up to sufficiently replace that.
Since I am a Brokenist like Arnold when it comes to education, I surely hope something comes along soon that can satisfy said signaling value.
Why would a late adolescent spend hours studying the Federalist Papers? It's because he acquires status by doing so. Traditionally that status has been awarded by a professor. Eg, if I said I studied economics under Professor Kling, then I'm claiming that the prestigious Professor has vouched for me. My incentive to study economics is to win Dr. Kling's imprimatur. I'll work very hard.
An extreme example of status transfer from mentor to student is represented by the Erdős number.
In the past professors have achieved their status by being founts of knowledge. But AI knows way more about economics than even the illustrious Professor Kling, and therefore Dr. Kling's ability to transfer status to me is sharply diminished. Beyond the elite tier of colleges, professorial status is now rapidly approaching zero.
Doug McMillan, the recently retired CEO of Walmart put it this way (quoting from memory): He was asked--given Walmart's aggressive use of AI in its operations--when will Walmart start using humanoid robots in customer-facing roles? "When humanoid robots start being our customers, then we'll think about it. In the meantime, all of our customers are human beings, and therefore all of our customer-facing employees will also be human beings."
The point is, only humans can award status to other humans. This is surely one thing AI will never be able to do. Education at its core will always include a human to human status transfer--it will never, ever be fully automated. Now, if not professors, who will those humans be? I don't know. Peers? Mentors? Counselors? Employers? Your guess is as good as mine.
Kerry McDonald at https://www.liberatedpodcast.com/ is documenting all the new forms of K-12 providers. To borrow from Star Wars, go the Alliance to Restore the Republic, aka the Rebel Alliance!
"His point is that college is not about information transfer. It is about creating an environment that induces learning."
No. It is about both. Depends on the area of study. Depends on the student within that area of study. Some majors don't need information transfer, some do. Some students don't need to develop learning skills,bothers most definitely do.
There are too many people who think it is all knowledge transfer or inducing learning and learning skills. It is all of the above.
“I think that the norm of going to college could suffer from a similar preference cascade.“
If it does, might it be because alternatives from the past return that offer clearer career paths, greater assurance of educational relevance, greater support, less financial stress, and better security? With more and more college kids in their twenties and thirties living with their parents, might the old notion of the family business return and offer more appeal as an alternative to college?
Had a lot of work done on a house I own recently and had the pleasure of meeting, employing, and getting to know a little, a tile guy and his assistant, a roofer, a drop down ceiling guy, a painter, a countertop fabricator and installer, a pair of electrician brothers, a cabinet maker, an independent dumpster rental guy, as well as interacting with the college-educated county guys from whom I had to pull permits.
The tile guy had the biggest job removing and installing the floor and walls as well as doing the plumbing and cutting the channels for new electrical wiring as the house is brick constructed inside and out. He also installed new windows and doors. The most flexible of all of them and easiest to work with, probably because he was a sole proprietor and we had worked with him on a bathroom renovation earlier. His assistant was the kid who was dating his daughter. I expect that they will get worried and the kid will continue in the tile installation trade and have a nice, middle-class life without much formal education or licensure if any. His reputation will be his major capital and having a supportive father-in-law will be worth more than any license or certification. Parents who don’t want their kids living with them or dependent on support maybe ought consider this model.
Interestingly, the roofer brought his son with him several days. But that seemed more to keep him uot of trouble than for any practical purpose. The kid didn’t actually do a lot but watch and I doubt he will follow that career path, but at least he will have been around work sites and gotten acclimated to such an environment and the associated norms. One wonders how much exposure to professional working environments the typical undergraduate has had and what uncertainties about entering the office world trouble them? Roofers I have been told several times over the year are on average the dumbest of the building trade practitioners. Not sure, but it is interesting that he did have a license and professional certification and the roofing trade association does appear to offer a lot of educational support to members. Probably a lot cheaper than typical community college tuition as well. I imagine four years spent as a paid roofing apprentice is not the worst of alternatives for young men who spurn the college route.
I won’t go through the others, but I will say the county permit guys seemed like the least happy of the lot and definitely the least friendly. Might AI replacement be troubling their souls? Nobody goes to college to become a county bureaucrat issuing permits, yet, go to college you must. One wonders what career disappointments they must have suffered when they found themselves accepting this work. And it doesn’t really pay all that great either and has a lot less autonomy than the other guys I dealt with.
And so I find myself encouraging the grandkids to pick up a tool and work on projects with me when they visit. And when they get enough I’ll offer to spring for summer camps offering mechanical electrical, or similar experiences and hopefully build their confidence in their ability to interact with the physical world in a competent and workmanlike manner. They are smart as anything but I can’t help but think that having a broader experience base is going to serve them well even if they do go the college route. And I suspect their lives will be enriched just by interacting with common working people as well, and that they will much less likely to assume that the median voter is mentally defective.
"Nobody goes to college to become a county bureaucrat issuing permits"
Well ... People go to college to get a white collar job. Because, at 12:48 EDT on May 29, 2026 in America, a white collar job has higher status than a blue collar job. Few people dream of becoming county bureaucrats when they grow up but for many, it's better than the alternatives.
“His point is that college is not about information transfer. It is about creating an environment that induces learning.”
College is not a norm. It shouldn’t be like high school (or even like colleges have been for the last several decades.). Only scholars should go to college (plus those few students who are capable of achieving a STEM career or a career in medicine or law.)
What is a scholar? The short answer is a learner who seeks knowledge for its own sake. The shorter answer: if you’re not one you already know it.
Yeah, but I'd go even further.
The median student learns nothing in 4 years of high school. I think it should not be compulsory to spend 4 years in that fashion.
Man, if I could have spent high school + college being a technician at e.g. Anduril or apprenticing in engineering, that would have been much more enjoyable and valuable. I mention Anduril because they've made a program for high school grads to skip college and go right into.
That's the real missing piece, is that it's two sided -- desirable companies need to be set up for hiring out of high school and smart & conscientious students need to be willing to do that in lieu of college. I wish it was more of an industry-wide push.
Don't congratulate yourself on boldness for "going further".People have been advocating less education for those who don't need it (in their view) for generations.
"The median student learns nothing in 4 years of high school. I think it should not be compulsory to spend 4 years in that fashion."
This is a false statement.I know exactly what source you are using to make that claim.And the claim is bullshit.
The median student is learning things in high school. What the median student is not doing is learning more about things that he or she did not master in third grade. That is what the data that you will undoubtedly cite will show.
Compulsory Education: Another System of Control
(Inspired by Peter Gray’s Free to LEARN)
By Melgar du Poseidon
What is a prison? Answer: a forced association of humans without liberty or the freedom to choose to be someplace else—anyplace else.
In other words, a prison is an involuntary association.
For children of a certain age (prescribed by the authorities), school is a prison. Students are its prisoners; Teachers are its unwitting (some) correction officers.
You disagree?! School is a place of education, you say. What do you mean by education? Wait I will come back to that question. For now let us examine the nature of schooling—government schooling. Let us not forget that the authorities must ordain and license all schooling—government run and privately run.
Parents must deliver their school age children to a government authorized school (there are some exceptions like homeschooling but let’s not ruin a perfectly healthy rant—on my part—with a practice few parents can afford to choose.).
Children have been sentenced by the authorities to 13 years of forced education. This is only slightly less than the average prison term for second degree murder (although children do get their weekends and holidays off and sleep in their own beds each night).
But just try and keep your children from reporting to government schools; the authorities will not be forgiving and may even remove your children from their homes.
But of course, you say, children should go to school—how else will they learn?! How else indeed.
How many words do children learn before being assigned to their government schools? Answer: Between 5,000 and 10,000 words.
This massive language development typically starts with a "vocabulary explosion" around age two, after which children learn new words at an accelerated pace—sometimes picking up as many as 10 new words per day.
If children can learn words and speech (and so much more) in a non-school setting, why must parents be forced to intern their children for a period of time that fewer than 16 percent of all criminals receive for their prison sentences.
How can I be so confident that by returning the choice of how to educate their children back to parents we won’t be doing more harm to our children or their education?
First the short answer: For many more years than written language has been in existence, humans have been learning from other humans without the institution of schools. Children learn from their parents and even learn best from other children. See The Nurture Assumption by Judith Rich Harris and Free to LEARN by Peter Gray.
Education is NOT synonymous with institutionalized schooling. Learning is every normal human’s superpower. Some humans do have greater abilities to learn than others (and the opposite is true), but let’s not descend into the IQ abyss. The very fact that we are here today and (for the most part) civilized is my irrefutable evidence against forced education.
Some of the greatest minds never attended (or dropped out) of formal education: Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison are prime examples.
Famous historical figures and pioneers who bypassed traditional schooling include:
Abraham Lincoln: With less than a year of formal schooling, he taught himself law, literature, and politics, ultimately becoming one of America's most celebrated presidents.
George Washington: The first U.S. President had minimal formal education and began his career as a surveyor at age 17.
Frederick Douglass: Escaping slavery at age 20, he taught himself to read and write, eventually becoming a world-renowned abolitionist, orator, and writer.
The Wright Brothers (Orville and Wilbur): Neither brother graduated from high school nor attended college. They taught themselves aerodynamics and engineering to invent the world's first successful airplane.
Henry Ford: After only attending a one-room schoolhouse and completing a few years at a local academy, he left school at 15 to work in machine shops, going on to revolutionize manufacturing with the assembly line.
Winston Churchill: After doing poorly and receiving minimal formal academic education, the famous British Prime Minister focused heavily on self-teaching and went on to win the Nobel Prize in Literature.
In the modern era, many of history's greatest technological and creative disruptors also walked away from formal education:
Walt Disney: Struggled with traditional schooling and officially dropped out at 16 to pursue his artistic and entertainment career.
Steve Jobs: Dropped out of Reed College after just one semester but went on to revolutionize computing, music, and mobile technology at Apple.
Bill Gates: Dropped out of Harvard University to co-found Microsoft and pioneer the personal computer revolution.
Mark Zuckerberg: Left Harvard to focus entirely on building Facebook, profoundly reshaping how the world communicates.
So why you are probably asking yourself do “we” compel our children to attend government authorized schools? “We” don’t; “They” do—our authorities! Our authorities are in control over our lives and the lives of our children.
A free mind is a dangerous mind to authority. A free mind refuses to accept dogma without question. By challenging the status quo and relying on critical thinking rather than blind obedience, autonomous thinkers pose a fundamental threat to control structures that rely on conformity and unquestioning compliance to maintain their power.
“Power” is the final answer to why any authority exists over the individual. Compulsory education and state controlled schools grants power to “them” over each of “us”.
For all my complaints and concerns regarding our current system, I'm really glad you aren't the one deciding how to change it.
No one should be deciding for anyone.
Not true. Someone has to decide for minors. We largely disagree on who and how.
That’s a bit insulting because we’re discussing college and who should and shouldn’t go, but of course parents should decide for their children.
So half learn nothing? I think not.
Either way on that, your proposed solution sounds wonderful but I see no hope for it working. It requires a long-term commitment from the employer with little hope the employee will stay with them. In my lifetime that hope has only gotten smaller.
"Only scholars should go to college (plus those few students who are capable of achieving a STEM career or a career in medicine or law.)"
This is a narrow view of college and higher education. I have a B.A. in economics from UCSC, a B.S. in mechanical engineering from UC Berkeley, and an M.S. in Optical Sciences from the University of Arizona, but right now I'm taking welding classes at Johnston Community College in North Carolina just because I feel like it and because I'm building metal structures — cloches, grape trellises, and custom garden edging — to keep the weeds and deer out of our gardens.
After taking semester-long stick and TIG welding classes this past year, I started a summer school class this week: WLD 112 Basic Welding. Most of the students are fresh out of high school — training to be machinists, diesel mechanics, welders, or entry-level engineers. None of them fit your profile, except perhaps me. Our instructor certainly doesn't fit your profile either. He worked as a prison guard for years. Here he is in Tuesday's class demonstrating the explosive power of oxy-acetylene prior to us using cutting torches: https://substack.com/@scottgibb/note/c-267119677?r=nb3bl&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
The claim that only scholars should go to college raises an obvious question: who decides who's a scholar? Your definition — "a learner who seeks knowledge for its own sake" — is slippery. By that standard, my wife, who parlayed her Stanford philosophy degree into a lucrative tech career, might not qualify. And I, the guy who got three degrees primarily to make more money, apparently does — since I'm the one now taking welding classes purely out of curiosity. The definition collapses under its own weight.
It also ignores the single biggest reason most people go to college: economic mobility. For first-generation college students, for kids from poor families, for anyone trying to escape a dead-end situation, college is less about the life of the mind and more about the life they want to live. Telling those people that college isn't for them unless they're "scholars" is a luxury opinion — one that's much easier to hold if you already have money. Tell that to the diesel mechanics, machinists, and welders in my WLD 112 class. They're not there to seek knowledge for its own sake — they're there to build skills, earn credentials, and make a living. That's not a lesser reason to go to college. For most people, it's the whole point.
In other words, many people attend college to generate more wealth, to obtain practical skills, to experience the world with like-minded people, and to have fun.
So I'm curious why Arnold liked your comment. Arnold?
The welding classes you are describing are usually under the heading of “trade school” not “college”. Most colleges and universities do not offer degrees in welding. Why are you conflating trade schools and universities? Most people who say universities are a waste of money think they should be more like trade schools after all.
Also, good on you for learning to weld. Such a handy skill.
Nearly three out of four welding credentials in America are earned at a public college or university — not a trade school. That's from the National Center for Education Statistics, which tracked 50,561 welding credentials awarded in 2023:
— 59.1% were awarded at public two-year colleges (community colleges like Johnston)
— 13.5% were awarded at public four-year universities
— 10.6% were awarded at private for-profit two-year schools (the trade schools you're thinking of, like Tulsa Welding School)
— 9.8% were awarded at private for-profit short-certificate programs
Johnston Community College is fully accredited, degree-granting, and part of the North Carolina Community College System. Like most community colleges in America, it offers both academic programs and vocational ones under the same roof, with the same accreditation. And contrary to your claim that most colleges don't offer welding, 583 out of 832 public two-year colleges — 70% of all public community colleges in America — offer welding programs.
The students in my WLD 112 class are college students by any reasonable definition of the term. I'll pass along your compliment about welding — though I suspect they'd rather just be recognized as what they already are.
Why are you confusing trade schools with the 70% of community colleges that offer welding programs?
See the graphic and the csv file here at Data USA. The above data comes from that file. Will you do me a favor and verify this or at least compensate me for crunching the numbers for you? Maybe make a donation to my Substack, please? https://datausa.io/profile/cip/welding-technology
Thanks for the stats. Now, do you understand that when people are bemoaning people going to college for no good reason they are talking about 4 year colleges and universities offering bachelors degrees and higher? If you are talking about 2 year community colleges you are talking about something very different from what other people are referring to.
Fair point. And that's precisely the issue.
The original claim that started this conversation was 'only scholars should go to college.' Not 'only scholars should go to four-year universities.' If critics of college mean four-year institutions specifically, they should say so — because the word 'college' covers an enormous range of institutions, from Harvard to Johnston Community College, and the nearly 9 million Americans enrolled in two-year colleges might reasonably object to being told they're not in college.
So perhaps the real argument isn't about who should go to college. It's about where they should start. The two-year community college — affordable, practical, and a proven pathway to four-year institutions for those who want to continue — might be the most underrated and undersold option in American higher education. In Silicon Valley and communities like it, starting at a community college is still seen as a sign of failure. It shouldn't be — and frankly, it isn't seen that way anywhere near a Johnston Community College.
Why are we not talking more about that instead?
I second "thanks for the stats." I don't think most people realize how much of present day college is not traditional "college". Part of that is your basic empire building. Part of it is a desire on the part of educators to be relevant. But largely, it's a market reaction. There's a lot of money for anything that can be branded college (grants, student loans, etc.).
It's kind of like "brand extension" in business.
I loved every word. Your best comment ever. You explained my viewpoint perfectly.
Ok, one more thing you made me think of. Anyone who wants to limit who goes to college breaks the maxim, "markets fail, use markets."
I suppose we need a clear definition of markets first. There's a market for public goods — schools, parks, roads, medicine, defense. Are we talking about the market for public colleges? Or the labor market that drives demand for degrees in the first place? Stu, what's the market failure you have in mind?
This is where I don’t understand Arnold Kling. What exactly is he complaining about?
You actually made my point. You and your wife are learners. I’m a lawyer who owns a cigar bar. I’m also a former military with a unique set of skills.
Many people are capable of learning skills that will make them successful at various occupations, but that’s not the purpose of college. However, you’re correct that employers are looking for college degrees instead of for qualified employees. But that doesn’t justify parents and their children spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a college degree.
Please note that I didn’t say a college education. Most college graduates don’t receive this.
That's a pretty slippery response. He's doing a few things worth noting:
He's moving the goalposts. His original claim was that only scholars (plus STEM/medicine/law students) should go to college. Now he's retreating to a different claim: that college as currently practiced doesn't deliver a real education anyway. Those are two different arguments.
The "you made my point" opener doesn't hold up. He's saying you and your wife are learners — therefore scholars — therefore his original gatekeeping criterion still stands. But that just confirms your point: the definition of "scholar" is so elastic it can be stretched to fit anyone he wants to include after the fact.
He's conceding the economic reality while dismissing it. He acknowledges that employers demand degrees, then waves it away as unjustified expense. But for a first-generation college student trying to get hired, "employers shouldn't require degrees" is cold comfort. The world as it is matters more than the world as he thinks it should be.
The closing distinction is interesting but undercuts his original claim. If most college graduates don't receive a college education, then his original argument — that college should be reserved for scholars — was aimed at an institution that, by his own admission, doesn't reliably produce scholarship anyway. So what exactly is he gatekeeping?
He's not wrong that credential inflation is a real problem. But he started with a prescriptive claim about who deserves college and is now retreating to a descriptive claim about what college actually delivers. Those are different conversations.
Would you like help drafting a response?
"No, I'll just post what you have above. I'm done for this morning. I need to get back to building cloches before the deer eat all my blueberries."
Perfect up until your last question. That and the quote after would be better left unsaid.
Thanks for the pro-tip stu.
Scott,
If it makes you feel better to view our exchange as a victory by all means go ahead.
My point is a very simple one. College isn’t for everyone; and everyone isn’t right for college.
I can agree with this last point but it's not close to what I interpreted from your previous comments.
Wearing underwear and socks isn't for everyone either. Yes, everyone is different…and…that's it?
Not trying to win anything here, Daniel. Just trying to push back on imprecise thinking. I really am busy, so please excuse the curt reply — and yes, I used Claude to help me; so perhaps not a victory for me since Stu docked me points for the one part that was entirely mine.
Scott,
No harm done. I’m not sure what was imprecise about my comment. College isn’t for everyone. I’m never going to become a doctor but that’s not a slight. Nor should my comment be taken as slighting non-scholars and people who aren’t inclined to pursue STEM careers.
Somewhere along the way some politician promised to make college accessible to everyone; as if by waving a magic wand we could all be made homogeneous in a way that was not thought possible. If we all could go to college then we could all become equally successful. This dream of college for all is absurd. What would be better is to call every college Harvard—then we can all be Harvard graduates.
“ I’m also a former military with a unique set of skills.”
Did you just compare yourself to Liam Neeson?!? 😏
Allow me to respectfully disagree.
If we could just roll the clock back 35-55 years, I think there is a lot of value to a broadly liberal education. Liberal, not leftist.
While I fully agree with Arnold that there are now too many students going to college, I wouldn't roll the perecentages back anywhere near as far as you would. I think the percentages somewhere between 1990 and 2005 were about right.
In the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s, the professors in aggregate surely leaned left but still were fundamentally liberal. And I still believe a liberal education is valuable for far more people than you would consider “scholars”.
Of course, grievance studies majors are actively harmful.
And of course the illiberal leftist ideologizing that exists in academia today is profoundly negative and harmful.
So it may well be unsalvageable. I certainly have no answer how to change it incrementally from where we are, which is why, like AK, I am a Brokenist on this topic.
By all means disagree with me, but let us be clear or at least in agreement with what I wrote. I have never said that only so many students should be admitted to college. But to be clear (or clearer) college is not a trades school. People shouldn’t go to college for acquiring skills like math and writing. College is a place of higher learning and scholarship (no course should ever be taught in the study of ….).
As for the professors politics, I really couldn’t care less about such nonsense; as long as they are teaching and not preaching (you see what I just did there?).
PS—I separated from the U.S. Army in 1985. If anyone is the prototype for the Special Forces and Special Operations it is yours truly—NOT Liam.
Thanks for the follow on.
We may still have smaller differences here, but they are not nearly as large as your first comment led me to believe.
Small differences make life more interesting.
“Only scholars should go to college (plus those few students who are capable of achieving a STEM career or a career in medicine or law.)”
Why don’t you read what I wrote instead of telling me about what you think I wrote.
Lots of kids go for stem and transition out. Most are ones less likely to become scholars. You would have them drop out completely?
“I don’t think that colleges endure because they have found the magic formula for creating a learning experience. I think that they endure because it is a social norm that people take for granted.
Going to church used to be such a social norm. But a norm that had persisted in the West for centuries faded out within a couple of generations. I think that the norm of going to college could suffer from a similar preference cascade. AI’s educational capabilities or lack thereof are not going to be the driver.”
That is straightforward and insightful. Yes, I think this is it.
I’m an old dad - 52, three kids 10, 8 and 6. My friends’ kids are largely graduating high school now and figuring out college while I watch with trepidation.
Things have changed, though. I’ve definitely noticed that both my friends and their kids kind of acknowledge that going away to school is a somewhat absurd luxury. Lots are still doing it - most even - but more are going to local colleges than did when I graduated.
And two other interesting differences: college-as-credential seems to be so universally accepted now that nobody even bothers to discuss it anymore. That’s DEFINITELY different than when I left for college in ‘92.
And here’s the weird one: they all seem to be paying a lot LESS for school than any of us thought it’d cost. The sticker price just seems to be the “if you pay this number, we’ll literally give your dog a degree” starting point. Every one of my friends kids have received a massive discount for no particularly good reason - whatever arcane measure schools use to decide what class makeup they want seems to result in heavily skewed costs, and everyone is paying the cheapest tuition they can find.
Still: I’m desperate for this whole edifice to crash before I need to start worrying about it. But time moves very quickly and I doubt it’ll be all that much different before my kids are in the middle. But my grandkids? Oh yeah. I don’t imagine this absurd approach will still be hanging around then.
I appreciated all your comments on college. Some colleges can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. But, for those unable to pay and unwilling to go into debt, there have always been alternatives. Many (most?)middle class kids go to local schools, live at home, and/or spend the first two years at Community Colleges. They then fund their education with a part time job which often subsidizes the cost of college.
My grandson just graduated in 4 years from the University of California system with a STEM degree, no debt and money in his bank account.
My wife and I are already making similar plans. If the kids get into MIT or something, OK, yes, we'll make it work. But if it ends up being a "well, Fairfield is ranked higher in US News and World Report than SUNY Stonybrook..." kind of issue it's going to be Stonybrook all that way unless some sort of magic happens with the tuition at Fairfield. There isn't enough that distinguishes most colleges from each other to make it worth sinking our family in debt.
Lots of good thoughts in there but I disagree people go to college because it's a social norm. While it is a social norm, that's not why they go. Ignoring the kids who gain necessary technical skills in college, employers find it to be a useful sorting tool. Is it a costly one? Yes. Does it work perfectly? Not even close. But the alternatives available are difficult to use for better results. As long as employers use it this way, it will continue. I see no obvious reasons for them to stop so kids will go to college to gain access to those jobs.
I wish more commenters would make this point. People make choices given the opportunities they perceive. If there is a bad alternative and a worse one, you can't blame them for picking the bad one.
Employers use college degrees as a signal because the existing alternatives are generally illegal, e.g., IQ tests or any tests that have not been "validated"--which at the present time, means pretty much any that exist, and the cost of validation means that no more will exist.
So: it doesn't work very well but employers use it anyway. Sounds like a social norm to me.
Think of skin color, or religion, or sex. Those used to be employment determinants too; not very good, but they were used because everyone used them. Social norms which faded away.
Wow. Is that really what you believe?
First of all they didn't really fade away. It was forced as much as faded.
Either way, I'd argue none of those are as good at sorting as a college degree.
Finally, I said nothing about how well it works other than not being perfect. Regardless, that misses the point. Employers think it is useful and I don't see that changing.
No, they were fading away socially before the government forced them away. I know of no polls on the matter, but there are unemployment statistics that show black youth had a lower unemployment rate until FDR instituted the federal minimum wage law. A cynic might say that was blacks employing blacks, but that implies blacks were earning as much as whites and had as much capacity for hiring blacks as did the whites, and no one thinks "separate but equal" was anywhere near equal. Thurgood Marshall and other blacks got law degrees and passed the bar long before government made racism somewhat illegal. Baseball integrated with Jackie Robinson long before laws required it. Black boxers were even recognized as world champions in spite of constantly looking for Great White Hopes, and eventually became *American* champions, not just *black* champions, long before the end of Jim Crow. Jesse Owens made the 1936 Olympics teams 30 years before laws caught up.
Catholics had been oppressed in England, but had their own colony in the Americas, and were accepted more and more in social and political life. The original anti-abortion laws of the mid-1800s were in response to panics over Catholics outbreeding Protestants; Irish and Italians were routinely discriminated against into the 1900s, and that too kept diminishing as time went by. JFK and other Catholics were elected to political office long before religious discrimination was officially banned.
Women were making independent livings long before they got the vote. Typewriting used to be a man's occupation, so I have read, until women dominated. Bicycles gave women a means of transport independent of men. Electric home appliances gave women spare time for a life outside the home before Title ?? made sex discrimination illegal. The 1920s flappers would have been unthinkable in the previous century.
Complaining that race, religion, and sex were never good at sorting employment is a silly argument. College is a piss poor way for the vast majority of graduates. That it is accepted now and the other three aren't has nothing to do with how much they were used in earlier times.
Still irrelevant to my point
You claimed my three categories were changed by government diktat. I showed otherwise. I take your lack of response as an entirely relevant admission I was right.
I'm currently discussing the deBoer piece with Claude. Here's what Claude thinks:
"The church analogy is thought-provoking but imperfect. College has a much tighter coupling to economic outcomes than church attendance did — employers use degrees as signals, and that credentialing function is somewhat independent of whether learning actually happens. That's a stabilizing force Kling doesn't fully address.
Where I'd push back on deBoer slightly is that he might be underestimating how much the cost equation has changed. His argument that 18-year-olds will rationally choose fun over a cubicle job made more sense when college was cheaper. At $300,000 in debt, the calculus shifts.
Ultimately I think both writers are probably right that AI won't be the primary driver either way — which is itself an interesting conclusion given how much noise surrounds that particular debate.
What's your own read on it?"
I'll share my thoughts in the reply.
Let me start at the beginning. I notice a huge boost in my motivation to read and learn when I go to the library. Being surrounded by books and by people reading and learning helps me read and learn. I think this is true of many people, and this is why so many college students go to the library to study and work through problem sets. The library environment increases their productivity.
Why?
One reason is fewer distractions. The TV, computer, phone, refrigerator, and roommates talking are replaced by other students getting stuff done, quietly reading, and the constant reminder that the test is coming. At the library, the computer lab, or the study lounge, other students provide encouragement, dialogue, companionship, bonding, and motivation to learn. It's more enjoyable to learn with others, just like it's more enjoyable to watch a movie with your family: "We experienced that together."
I could say the same thing about the gym, the garage, the garden, the kitchen, doing dishes or cooking together, speaking clubs like Toastmasters, self-help groups like AA, book clubs, vacation resorts, museums, youth sports — we do similar things better together. It's as if our minds are linked: they are doing "this," which gives me permission, motivation, reason, justification, companionship, and belonging to do "this" also. It's almost magic.
Surrounding yourself with people who are doing what you want to be doing and who are becoming what you want to become is the best way to accomplish your goals.
The same thing is true of this blog: we are here for the collective experience of reading, learning, and conversing together. Thanks for creating this place for us, Arnold.
Do you agree?
It's a lovely observation and a genuinely important one. A few directions worth thinking through more completely:
What you're describing has a name. Behavioral economists and psychologists call it social proof and identity-based motivation — we take cues from those around us about what's normal and desirable behavior. You might find it rewarding to engage with that literature, since it would sharpen and ground your intuition considerably.
It cuts both ways. If surrounding yourself with learners makes you learn, surrounding yourself with people avoiding learning makes you avoid it too. This might actually strengthen deBoer's pessimism — in a culture where intellectual disengagement is increasingly the norm, the motivating environment becomes harder to find or sustain.
It raises a pointed question about AI. Could an online environment ever replicate this effect? Some people report that study-with-me YouTube videos, or online communities like the one you're describing, partially do. Where exactly does the magic break down in digital spaces, and why?
Your examples are interestingly varied. AA and Toastmasters are somewhat different from the library — they involve explicit accountability structures and personal vulnerability, not just passive co-presence. Is mere proximity enough, or does something more active need to happen?
These feel like the natural next questions your argument is reaching toward.
As the actual cost of college for middle income folk, getting help for the expensive elite colleges but much less help for the similarly expensive non-elite colleges find out, there are marginal almost-scholars (SAT 1200? 1250? 1150?) who don't make elite Ivy+ but accepted to #50 or maybe #355 as their top choice.
A strong recent argument I read is that HR has some Ivy+ list, and most other colleges are merely other: 50, 355, 955, college rank means little.
Financial aid for middle folk means the rich pay full price, 90%? 80% ? 70%? but most middle & lower class folk with good enough SATs pay far less.
The cost equation changes become more personal on a school by school, & income percentile basis. Inconsistently across schools, tho with some reasonable plateau steps for each school.
The much lower prices, with good education as determined by testing, will drive the changes. AI helps achieve those drivers.
“How to evaluate teachers? If we had smaller school districts and no teachers’ unions, then the evaluations could be done by parents and principals based on what they observe, not on using formal metrics. This is a case where substituting econometric noise for Hayekian tacit knowledge is a really bad idea.”
101 cheers to this.
However, to truly work properly would also require school choice, so that parents with good principles could select away from bad principals.
As a former teacher, I can tell you that principals have almost no idea of what goes on in any particular classroom. They simply don't have the time. Around here, department chairs do an observation and evaluation about once a year, but it is largely a dog and pony show, often very different from a normal day.
Public school or private school?
In a public school, I don’t doubt you for a second - or rather, I concur that what you describe would be typical.
At a private school (I attended both as a child) I think the principals/headmasters were more in tune with what was going on.
Of course, even if that used to be correct, it may no longer be.
Public. I suspect the big difference is size of school
Great related links. Both relevance & most importantly motivation. The motivation for studying before college, is to get into college; or merely to graduate from HS for a job. It's still a majority of 18 year olds do NOT go on to college, and a larger majority of 22, 24, or 26 year olds who don't have a 4 yr degree.
Huge numbers of jobs require a degree to go thru HR, but the actual work doesn't need the info.
The Robbins idea of a mastery exam should be interesting to many different groups, and seems a clear opportunity, but difficulty in getting objective standards for learning remains a huge obstacle.
Yale recently reinstated SAT scores, despite the fact that Blacks still have much lower scores, on average. Harvard faculty recently voted for new rule to limit the number of As given; they understand the problem of grade inflation devaluing the whole degree. Caplan's degree= signal idea remains about 80%.
It's likely that maximum AI instruction will occur first in English as a Second Language course. Because there are already many exams on English knowledge, with EU levels of A1, A2, A3; B1, B2, B3; C1, C2, & native speaker. My kids are native in both English & Slovak; my Slovak is about B2-B3 (after 35 years here). When I was at IBM ... last decade, I pushed to have Watson (remember that ai? Winner of Jeopardy! failed at medicine, tho.) teach English.
Non-native speakers already spend more of their own money on learning English than any other subject. Motivation is making more money (as usual) but also travelling the world, enjoyment of almost any subject, including Japanese anime which has English sub-titles, often also dubbing. AI teaching English is among the easiest to make relevant to the student, whatever the student is interested in. Personalized vocabulary & practice on whatever the student already enjoys.
Maybe after there are recognized great English ai tutors, similar methods might work for other subjects. Maybe not; but unlikely for any other subject to be done well before English.
I'm almost ready to teach an Advanced English class using karaoke; but the money to be made doesn't quite seem worth the time. Tho the time could be fun.
"Going to church used to be such a social norm. But a norm that had persisted in the West for centuries faded out within a couple of generations. "
Not directly related to Education, but I'm not sure to what extent this is actually true. From what I've read (and asked Claude to check just now), universal weekly attendance has been a thing only in certain times and subpopulations. Or caused by coercion (directly mandated attendance).
Outside of that it seems to have always been patchy with many people only showing up a few times a year. The peak of mass voluntary weekly attendance might well have been a late and temporary thing rather than ancient tradition.
The college board, the NY regents, there are several such testing services... they already exist.
I don't think these orgs do subject matter testing. More post college SAT / IQ testing.
An example would be good to make your point.
I invite you to examine the NY Board of Regents tests before you comment further. Chemistry, Biology, Earth Science, how are these not subject matter testing? As for the College Board, all it does is testing. Yes, SAT, but also AP, CLEP.
https://www.nysed.gov/standards-instruction/graduation-requirements
Seems like subjects only K-12, or AP.
Could be a model of development for college level testing of subjects, but doesn't seem to be that testing now.
HS graduation requires both getting credits by being there, as well as scoring on the tests.
Why don't more NY advanced students just take the tests early & finish sooner?
Why not? I think it's because the Regent's tests are actually good tests and the students who can finish them early immediately move up to AP tests, plow through those (more free education), and then on to university. It isn't uncommon these days for a kid to have 8 AP tests, which was nearly unheard of back in my day. That amounts to a year of college credit, at least where I studied.
“ I don’t think that colleges endure because they have found the magic formula for creating a learning experience. I think that they endure because it is a social norm that people take for granted.”
I surely agree with the first sentence.
As recently as 5-7 years ago I’d have agreed with the second sentence being a big reason for why colleges endure.
Now - at least for about 50%-60% of the country, anyway - I believe the overwhelming reason it endures is the signaling value, and that nothing else has shown up to sufficiently replace that.
Since I am a Brokenist like Arnold when it comes to education, I surely hope something comes along soon that can satisfy said signaling value.
Yesterday would be none too soon.
Why would a late adolescent spend hours studying the Federalist Papers? It's because he acquires status by doing so. Traditionally that status has been awarded by a professor. Eg, if I said I studied economics under Professor Kling, then I'm claiming that the prestigious Professor has vouched for me. My incentive to study economics is to win Dr. Kling's imprimatur. I'll work very hard.
An extreme example of status transfer from mentor to student is represented by the Erdős number.
In the past professors have achieved their status by being founts of knowledge. But AI knows way more about economics than even the illustrious Professor Kling, and therefore Dr. Kling's ability to transfer status to me is sharply diminished. Beyond the elite tier of colleges, professorial status is now rapidly approaching zero.
Doug McMillan, the recently retired CEO of Walmart put it this way (quoting from memory): He was asked--given Walmart's aggressive use of AI in its operations--when will Walmart start using humanoid robots in customer-facing roles? "When humanoid robots start being our customers, then we'll think about it. In the meantime, all of our customers are human beings, and therefore all of our customer-facing employees will also be human beings."
The point is, only humans can award status to other humans. This is surely one thing AI will never be able to do. Education at its core will always include a human to human status transfer--it will never, ever be fully automated. Now, if not professors, who will those humans be? I don't know. Peers? Mentors? Counselors? Employers? Your guess is as good as mine.
"The point is, only humans can award status to other humans."
I strongly suspect that hypothesis will be falsified in the next several years.
Kerry McDonald at https://www.liberatedpodcast.com/ is documenting all the new forms of K-12 providers. To borrow from Star Wars, go the Alliance to Restore the Republic, aka the Rebel Alliance!
"His point is that college is not about information transfer. It is about creating an environment that induces learning."
No. It is about both. Depends on the area of study. Depends on the student within that area of study. Some majors don't need information transfer, some do. Some students don't need to develop learning skills,bothers most definitely do.
There are too many people who think it is all knowledge transfer or inducing learning and learning skills. It is all of the above.
“I think that the norm of going to college could suffer from a similar preference cascade.“
If it does, might it be because alternatives from the past return that offer clearer career paths, greater assurance of educational relevance, greater support, less financial stress, and better security? With more and more college kids in their twenties and thirties living with their parents, might the old notion of the family business return and offer more appeal as an alternative to college?
Had a lot of work done on a house I own recently and had the pleasure of meeting, employing, and getting to know a little, a tile guy and his assistant, a roofer, a drop down ceiling guy, a painter, a countertop fabricator and installer, a pair of electrician brothers, a cabinet maker, an independent dumpster rental guy, as well as interacting with the college-educated county guys from whom I had to pull permits.
The tile guy had the biggest job removing and installing the floor and walls as well as doing the plumbing and cutting the channels for new electrical wiring as the house is brick constructed inside and out. He also installed new windows and doors. The most flexible of all of them and easiest to work with, probably because he was a sole proprietor and we had worked with him on a bathroom renovation earlier. His assistant was the kid who was dating his daughter. I expect that they will get worried and the kid will continue in the tile installation trade and have a nice, middle-class life without much formal education or licensure if any. His reputation will be his major capital and having a supportive father-in-law will be worth more than any license or certification. Parents who don’t want their kids living with them or dependent on support maybe ought consider this model.
Interestingly, the roofer brought his son with him several days. But that seemed more to keep him uot of trouble than for any practical purpose. The kid didn’t actually do a lot but watch and I doubt he will follow that career path, but at least he will have been around work sites and gotten acclimated to such an environment and the associated norms. One wonders how much exposure to professional working environments the typical undergraduate has had and what uncertainties about entering the office world trouble them? Roofers I have been told several times over the year are on average the dumbest of the building trade practitioners. Not sure, but it is interesting that he did have a license and professional certification and the roofing trade association does appear to offer a lot of educational support to members. Probably a lot cheaper than typical community college tuition as well. I imagine four years spent as a paid roofing apprentice is not the worst of alternatives for young men who spurn the college route.
I won’t go through the others, but I will say the county permit guys seemed like the least happy of the lot and definitely the least friendly. Might AI replacement be troubling their souls? Nobody goes to college to become a county bureaucrat issuing permits, yet, go to college you must. One wonders what career disappointments they must have suffered when they found themselves accepting this work. And it doesn’t really pay all that great either and has a lot less autonomy than the other guys I dealt with.
And so I find myself encouraging the grandkids to pick up a tool and work on projects with me when they visit. And when they get enough I’ll offer to spring for summer camps offering mechanical electrical, or similar experiences and hopefully build their confidence in their ability to interact with the physical world in a competent and workmanlike manner. They are smart as anything but I can’t help but think that having a broader experience base is going to serve them well even if they do go the college route. And I suspect their lives will be enriched just by interacting with common working people as well, and that they will much less likely to assume that the median voter is mentally defective.
"Nobody goes to college to become a county bureaucrat issuing permits"
Well ... People go to college to get a white collar job. Because, at 12:48 EDT on May 29, 2026 in America, a white collar job has higher status than a blue collar job. Few people dream of becoming county bureaucrats when they grow up but for many, it's better than the alternatives.