<p>A few thoughts about the blog posted and the studies it cites:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>George Mason U Law School = very predictable</p></li>
<li><p>As originaloog suggests, why isn’t governmental subsidy justified on a pure investment analysis? If college education really creates higher earnings, as well as better health and higher earnings expectations for the next generation, why isn’t there some subsidy level where government would expect to earn its “investment” back through higher tax collections in the future? That’s not income redistribution, that’s productive investment.</p></li>
<li><p>Looking at the underlying Census study, I wonder just how good the case is that higher education creates wealth. Just as with some of the studies comparing different “quality” levels of colleges, this study makes no attempt to correct for innate skill differences among groups with various educational attainments. If one hypothesizes that there may be significant differences in intelligence, focus, drive between people who graduate from high school and attend no college, and people who get BA degrees, then one wonders how much of the $1 million average estimated worklife earning difference is attributable to that, and not to the skills learned while getting a BA.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The study also fails to account for reduced earnings prior to age 25 among people who go to college rather than work full time. Thus, it overstates, significantly if time-value is taken into account, the difference between going to college and not going to college.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Getting an AA degree seems to produce about two-thirds of the expected income difference between merely graduating from high school and getting a BA. Given the cost difference between the two, it’s an interesting question whether the investment in a BA is rational (unless it’s a way station to a higher degree). It looks like it is – but maybe not if you adjust for intelligence and lost early-career earnings.</p></li>
<li><p>Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t most community colleges heavily subsidized? Why isn’t the author complaining about that – it presents exactly the same redistribution issues as tuition subsidies. For that matter, I would love to see data on the lifetime earnings of those who serve in the military vs. those who don’t, given equivalent educational achievements. Should we stop “subsidizing” military training – something where the subsidy level is about 100% – because the people who get it may wind up richer that others?</p></li>
</ol>