I apologize for not posting this earlier, when this editorial was fresher, but it's still available (as of 9/8/08) at forbes.com.
The Overeducated Peacock
William Baldwin
Forbes Magazine dated August 11, 2008
Four-year colleges in the U.S. slurp up $330 billion a year. Money well spent? If you are about to pack a child off to an expensive university, you might wonder whether your outlay, which will approach a quarter of a million dollars, is a good investment. Conventional analysis of the situation says that colleges are good for society because a B.A. more than pays for itself in higher lifetime earnings. But there are two holes in this reasoning.
The first is that it overlooks the possibility that diplomas, whatever their economic value, are manufactured in a wasteful fashion . . .
The other dirty secret of higher ed is that it is not making society a whole lot more productive. Bryan Caplan, an associate professor of economics at George Mason working on a book entitled The Case Against Education, says that the paper chase on campus is an elaborate form of signaling. Much of what goes on doesn't make people into better workers. It just signals to employers which workers they ought to hire. In other words, a B.A. is like peacock feathers. The fancy feathers on a peacock don't improve its survival; they simply signal to a peahen how strong and healthy the owner must be.
An undergrad staying up all night to get an A in "History of Byzantium II, 867--1453" isn't making himself into a more productive member of the economy. He's just signaling to Goldman Sachs that he's smarter and harder working than the next job applicant. If we could somehow call a halt to this intellectual arms race, Goldman would wind up with the same employees, but at lower cost to society.
. . .
I thought something was wrong when I read it. I remembered hearing time and again that a well rounded education was an important contributor to making someone a productive member of society -- and I still believe that. Then I realized what it was: Mr. Baldwin substituted "productive member of the economy" for the more common and traditional "productive member of society". If the economic contribution of every individual were the only measure of their worth, then History really wouldn't be worth teaching. I, for one, do not welcome our new shallow, anti-intellectual overlords.
Read the full column here.
http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2008/0811/014.html