Because of the gusher of easy federal money starting in 1965, higher education has grown like mad. Far more Americans now go to college than before, spending more years in pursuit of degrees, spending and borrowing much more money. And many more jobs now demand college credentials from applicants.
In today’s Martin Center article, Ohio University economics professor Richard Vedder reflects on this state of affairs and finds a useful lesson in it — the law of diminishing returns. In it, he focuses on graduate and professional schools, starting with law schools.
He writes:
In some countries, notably Britain, students can go to law school right after high school, dramatically lowering their educational expenses. In some locations, students can study with a local lawyer and, upon passage of the bar exam, begin the practice of law. Why do we need seven years of university study in the U.S.?
The answer is that the legal profession is great at rent-seeking. It has been able to restrict entry with a high barrier of drawn-out, unnecessary seat time, which also happens to create lots of jobs for faculty and administrators.
And what about students who want to go into academia? They have to obtain Ph.D.s in their fields. In the U.S., they also must spend substantially more time and money than do students elsewhere. They aren’t better trained; they’ve just had to devote more time and money than is necessary before they can begin their careers.
Vedder makes this suggestion:
I believe that more use should be made of comprehensive, rigorous examinations to measure competency—tests like the bar exam, the examinations required to become a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), and physician licensing exams. If a person can pass examinations like these, why do we care how or where he or she acquired the knowledge necessary? This reform would put the individual in charge of his or her training, rather than educational institutions that want to maximize revenues or professional groups that want to minimize competition.