« Fun From The Corner | Main | The Specter of Specter »
November 01, 2005
Education as a Positional Good
This idea that education is a positional good (as in, school quality mostly matters as compared to other schools rather than on isolated quality markers) seems obviously right to me. Education, after all, is instrumental these days. The better your performance, the more prestigious and numerous your options. If you want to learn for the sole sake of personal enrichment, you can read a book, entering the competitive and costly atmosphere of structured schooling is unnecessary.
At the same time, I think parents get the strategy on this wrong. Taking the argument that education is a positional good, remember that how the student is valued is also positional. Class rank, grades, opportunities for extracurricular leadership -- these all rely on your competition. So unless your kid is brilliant and driven, what you want is to put him into a mediocre school where he's more likely to excel. Now, there's the danger that he'll get the wrong values and aims from his peer group, but parenting and environment can potentially counteract that. When trying to trade on your education, what you really need is to be a big fish in the pond, and while it's best to be a big fish in a big pond, being big in a small pond is still better than being undersized anywhere. So trying to get your kids into the best school possible really isn't a great strategy. You want them in the best-ranked school where they can excel relative to their fellow students, not simply the best-ranked school in the area.
November 1, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83493b4da69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Education as a Positional Good:
Comments
I think as a private good education is positional, but as a public good it's absolute.
That's a great point you make about rather being a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big pond and I wish I had thought more about it five years ago.
However, there are definitely points to be considered for those environmental factors that aren't simply balanced by parental and individual factors. It's really enjoyable and useful to be surrounded by smart and hard working people who share your interests.
Which is to say, being in the top 1% is probably ideal when you share that 1% with a hundred other kids, and not just yourself.
Posted by: Tony Vila | Nov 1, 2005 11:52:05 AM
Uhh ... I think it depends on what level you're talking about. And it also depends on what your goals (or your kids' goals).
At the college level, it's not positional. Being in the middle of the class at an Ivy League school is better than being #1 at ... what the heck is the best University in the Mountain West! Arizona? Colorado? You will almost certainly have more opportunities for greater income earning and/or improved QoL by going to a top-tier school. Most employers don't look at where you were in your graduting class; they just look at where your degree is from, if they look at all.
At the high school level, it's a different question. The goal is to signal to colleges that you are highly likely to succeed. So, what is the best way to send such a signal? I don't know; I haven't seen any studies of admissions at top-tier private or public schools, other than the ones that show that a huge number of their students are from the top income quartile.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Nov 1, 2005 1:26:46 PM
If you want to learn for the sole sake of personal enrichment, you can read a book, entering the competitive and costly atmosphere of structured schooling is unnecessary.
I think this is false. I'm as cynical about higher education as the next person, but I don't think that just reading books in isolation can match the experience of in-depth study within a university context. There's much more to learning than just reading books. If you really want to become an expert in philosophy, or art, or whatever, I think you have to do formal study in that field. Just reading some books - even a lot of books - isn't the same as participating in seminars, writing papers, getting feedback from experts in the field, etc. etc.
When trying to trade on your education, what you really need is to be a big fish in the pond, and while it's best to be a big fish in a big pond, being big in a small pond is still better than being undersized anywhere. So trying to get your kids into the best school possible really isn't a great strategy. You want them in the best-ranked school where they can excel relative to their fellow students, not simply the best-ranked school in the area.
What evidence is there that this is true? The opposite seems to be the case at least as often. A degree from Harvard and a 3.0 GPA will probably be much more useful than a degree from, say, Ohio State and a 4.0 GPA.
Posted by: Dadahead | Nov 1, 2005 1:41:43 PM
Excuse me - The Ohio State University!
Posted by: Dadahead | Nov 1, 2005 1:43:39 PM
The fallacy here is that the student is a constant- that his or her performance will be identical no matter what school he or she attends.
At mediocre schools, students put in minimal effort and spend their time getting plowed and watching sports. Hard-working students are ridiculed.
At good schools the teaching is demanding and inspiring. Students judge each other on their academic prowess, not on how much they can drink.
Given room, a fish can grow. A fish in a small pond stays small.
Posted by: JR | Nov 1, 2005 1:46:09 PM
Sorry, I'm talking about high school in the positional argument above. As for being able to self-direct college learning, having just been to college, I could not believe in the institution's basic mediocrity any more than I do. If you're not motivated and need to be led, it's great, otherwise you could do just as well with a Amazon.com and a willingness to write e-mails.
Posted by: Ezra Klein | Nov 1, 2005 1:49:37 PM
This idea that education is a positional good (as in, school quality mostly matters as compared to other schools rather than on isolated quality markers) seems obviously right to me. Education, after all, is instrumental these days.
As a general matter this is wrong.
Posted by: alkali | Nov 1, 2005 1:56:37 PM
I don't agree with your last point at all. One of your commenters above has already made part of my argument. Employers rarely look at transcripts, but they always look at resumes. So they don't usually know what a kid's grades were, but they always know what school s/he went to. In other words, it's better to be a C student at Yale than an A student at a mid-level school. Just ask George Bush.
Posted by: Rebecca Allen, RN, PhD | Nov 1, 2005 2:00:25 PM
With high schools, your point is certainly more true in general, though there are exceptions - i.e., there are a handful of highly exclusive high schools that seem to greatly improve one's chances of getting into a prestigious university (or that's the CW, anyway).
Posted by: Dadahead | Nov 1, 2005 2:28:34 PM
I guess there is a difference among employers or grad schools, but it definitely is better to have a 4.0 from OSU than a 3.0 from Harvard if you're applying to any grad schools or professional schools. And you probably saved $100,000 in tuition too. (This is part of the argument about inflation. Harvard students, knowing this factor, would like to have a GPA that reflects their achievements relative to the entire year of students in America, not just their school.)
And yes employers look at qualitative aspects on resumes, but that can show up in many ways. It's much easier to get a presitigous research assistant position or get attention from a professor as the top 1% at OSU than as an average student at Harvard, or to be Editor-in-Chief of the Law Review, etc.
Posted by: Tony Vila | Nov 1, 2005 2:44:34 PM
Elementary, high school and college are three very different games, with three very different strategies.
In elementary, competition doesn't really matter unless there is a plan to get into some elite entrance-exam high school, and therefore in elementary levels you don't want your kids' education to be positional, you want it to be absolute. High school is where things matter positionally, just in terms of college admissions. The issue is that there are tens-of-thousands of high schools, so aside from a very, very few the name recognition doesn't fly as well for rewarding the relative merit of going to a school in a slightly better town system that costs the student a 15% drop in rank. And it is in high school that there is a fundamental difference between small ponds and good ponds. I was an undergrad at MIT and a friend of mine often made a joke that he was the Token Admittee from West Virginia. Having myself gone to a small Catholic high school in my area, I think the opportunities were far greater for me there than the larger public schools just by virtue of scarcity. I never would have been a varsity athlete at the larger public schools, but at my high school I lettered all the time. (and generally we were trounced by our larger neighbors, but faired well in size-adjusted tournaments).
Once you get to the college level, it seems it is all dependent on what you make of it, that is, carving out a personalized niche, excelling in it and making connections. Easier to do at a smaller place, but not impossible at large state u
Posted by: random | Nov 1, 2005 3:55:37 PM
you'd think at least some parents of high schoolers of middling intelligence would send them to low ranked high schools to improve their college admission chances, rather than spending to send them to fancy schools and hiring tutors, stanley kaplan, etc....
i don't think it's a great strategy, because i'm
personally not so instrumental about education. but given
the stories about how intensely competitive some parents are these days (if they're true - i don't talk to parents), i'm surprised i don't hear more about this.
Posted by: bz | Nov 1, 2005 4:55:28 PM
It *might* be better to be #1 in a mediocre school than #200 in a very good school -- but as 'random' pointed out, geography plays a factor. Being #1 in a public school in West Virginia is arguably better than being #1 in a mediocre school from a more heavily-populated area like New York, because of the relative numbers of applicants coming from each state.
I was a mediocre student at a top-notch private school. I didn't make the cut at the Ivys but got into a well-known Top 20 school, probably on the strength of my very solid SATs and my school's known reputation for academic rigor.
Posted by: fiat lux | Nov 1, 2005 6:33:31 PM
how many parents are willing to accept their son or daughter isnt the smartest student and sportsman in his class no matter where he goes?
Besides, you underestimate the learning one derives from classmates and friends.
Tony,
Do you really believe a student who gets a 4.0 at OSU will do no better than a 3.0 at harvard? Seems unlikely to me..
Posted by: Mihir | Nov 1, 2005 8:30:19 PM
I guess there is a difference among employers or grad schools, but it definitely is better to have a 4.0 from OSU than a 3.0 from Harvard if you're applying to any grad schools
IAAP. Having read hundreds of grad school applications at one of the top math grad programs, let me be the nth person to tell Tony that he's completely off base here. When a Harvard professor tells me "this guy's pretty average for our math undergrad program" it's way more information than an OSU professor telling me "this guy's great, for our program".
Ezra, I couldn't disagree more with your thesis here. One sign of excellent people is that they seek the company of excellent people. (See JR's comment above.) People in high school can be forgiven for not figuring this out yet, or for having to go to school close to home, etc. As you get higher and higher up, this becomes less and less true.
Posted by: Allen K. | Nov 1, 2005 11:39:52 PM
This is the worst post I've ever read on this blog.
Secondary education is NOT a positional good. It is not for getting into college, getting a job, or any of that jazz. The fundamental point of education is create a citizenry capable of governing itself. Sending your kid to some bumfuck mississippi school where she gets the highest grade in ant eating might get her into a better college, but it isn't going to do shit when it comes to knowing how to participate in civic life.
Seriously, I am so disappointed in this post it is unbelievable.
Posted by: Drew Miller | Nov 2, 2005 1:48:47 AM
Posted by: Julian Elson | Nov 2, 2005 2:15:05 AM
I agree with Ezra on this one. I was the only parent in my circle of friends to send my kid to the moderately decent public school in the neighborhood based (at least partly) on exactly the argument Ezra is making. The rest of the parents I know sent their kids to charter schools.
Posted by: Marianne | Nov 2, 2005 8:51:22 AM
First, you ignore the importance of the SAT and ACT. Just because your kid gets a 4.0 at Podunk High doesn't mean elite schools are going to accept her. If her education was deficient, then she'll suffer for it, no matter where she ends up positionally.
Secondly, I think any parent who'd go to these strategic lengths to try to get her kid into a top school is going to push that kid to be pretty damn driven in her studies, so that parent will be expecting a pretty high positional ranking even at top high schools. And the parents that don't push so hard probably don't care enough about which colleges accept their kids, so they'll just want their kids to get the best education possible, regardless of what game theory might dictate.
(Yeah, I did the gender switch on ambiguous pronouns. I'm having a quasi-feminist moment. I think the Trenton, NJ thing you pointed out got to me.)
Posted by: Royko | Nov 2, 2005 11:05:59 AM
It is this kind of cynical attitude towards education that results in my having to deal with dozens of college students every year who cannot add fractions. Many of them were "A" students in high school, and almost all averaged at least a 3.0 GPA.
When they finally reach the "real world," and are barely able to function as members of society, who benefited from their excelling amongst mediocrity?
Posted by: OmerosPeanut | Nov 2, 2005 7:39:46 PM
My sense is that there are parents who steer their kids into top-rated high schools (private or magnet or charter), then hound the teachers and administrators to give their child A's for work that deserves C's. That offends me, and strikes me as the worst of both worlds.
However, while I basically agree with Drew Miller's comment that education is an absolute good and the basis of civic life, I'm bothered by the dismissive tone. It's not as obvious or as easy a choice as he implies. There will never be enough "quality schools" to go around, so we should make the commitment to supporting the "bumfuck Mississippi school" and making it better. Which is hard, slow work, and in the meantime your kid is growing up and her only shot at an education is slipping away.
Posted by: dix hill | Nov 3, 2005 10:21:05 AM
I was in the top 10% of a very good school in high school and probably could have made the top 1 or 2% of the mediocre schools in the city next door, but I wouldn't have gotten an education. My school valued critical thinking, one of the things I remember the most is the teachers encouraged us to argue with them. Too many other schools, the mediocre ones, value rote learning and conformity.
There is another thing you haven't thought through. My son is mildly autistic. He's a B and C student in his excellent middle school and gets alot of support in order to get those grades, and is actually learning at grade level and keeping up. He's a mediocre student in an excellent school. What would he be in a mediocre school? I doubt he would be a big fish in a small pond, he would probably have little or no support and drop like a rock to the bottom of the class.
Posted by: Donna | Nov 4, 2005 11:56:50 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
