"When measuring the IQ of undergraduates, graduates, and high school-educated individuals, we find that the mean IQ of degree-holders has plunged in the last 50 years. The mean IQ of a graduate student in the 1960s was 114, but by the 2000s it was just 105.8. For undergraduates, the mean IQ dropped from 111.3 to 100.4 by the 2010s. An IQ of 100 is average, therefore a college degree now merely signals average intelligence to potential employers. A college-educated person today scores barely a point higher than a high school-educated person did in the 1960s. Indeed, that since the 1970s, the “vocabulary attainment” of Americans declined across all levels of education, with the largest declines found in undergraduate and graduate students."
Hmmm. What evidence are you relying on for the average IQ of graduate students (both in the past and today)? For undergraduate students? These numbers look low, particularly contemporary estimate.
One of the more interesting results from Son Also Rises was the fact that there's basically ZERO change in persistence rates of "social competence," when you look at spans of time that include massive educational changes in the UK, Sweden, the US, and others.
For example, going from "only elites can and do get their kids educated" to "state funded education through high school / undergrad / Phd" drove ZERO change in persistence / social mobility across multiple countries.
This was an additional triangulation point that education is mainly about signaling, and that the trillions spent on it are largely wasted, at least in the sense that we think it drives "more equal opportunity" or "increased social mobility," because apparently that is not true in the aggregate.
It just becomes another Red Queen's Race, which it most definitely is in every Western country today.
If human capital attainment increased across all cohorts evenly, you’d see minimal changes in variation in outcome. I didn’t include it because it’s totally irrelevant.
> If human capital attainment increased across all cohorts evenly, you’d see minimal changes in variation in outcome. I didn’t include it because it’s totally irrelevant.
But there's many reasons to suspect that it would NOT increase human capital in all cohorts evenly - see undergrad degress losing some of their signaling value as the average human capital of holders has gone down, as just one example.
And even if it DID increase capital uniformly, we should have seen effects, because we went from something like 20% of the population being educated to 100%, with big chunks at various times, and those timings and chunks happening differently across several countries / times.
For instance, education was first rolled out to boys, and only decades later to girls, too. State funded education was primarily an urban thing first, and had differential geographical rollouts. In the US, it rolled out in the Northeast way before the South. Working class children in England were only eligible for basic schooling for a while, and on and on.
Surely if education raised human capital, we would expect to see some shifts in mobility over time as suddenly, 30% of the population is being educated when it wasn't before, and then 60%, and then 80%, etc. But we don't.
Nice piece here Nicholas.
I tend to agree with the core tenants found in the conclusion that:
1) We probably could make the final 2 years of high school non-mandatory
2) We are over subsidizing high education.
For what it’s worth, I also noted on the topic of signaling here: https://www.lianeon.org/p/the-tuition-treadmill
"When measuring the IQ of undergraduates, graduates, and high school-educated individuals, we find that the mean IQ of degree-holders has plunged in the last 50 years. The mean IQ of a graduate student in the 1960s was 114, but by the 2000s it was just 105.8. For undergraduates, the mean IQ dropped from 111.3 to 100.4 by the 2010s. An IQ of 100 is average, therefore a college degree now merely signals average intelligence to potential employers. A college-educated person today scores barely a point higher than a high school-educated person did in the 1960s. Indeed, that since the 1970s, the “vocabulary attainment” of Americans declined across all levels of education, with the largest declines found in undergraduate and graduate students."
Hmmm. What evidence are you relying on for the average IQ of graduate students (both in the past and today)? For undergraduate students? These numbers look low, particularly contemporary estimate.
Yes, I liked to the original studies. I found it surprising as well.
Ah, well there is a pay wall…
Nice thumbnail
No love for Greg Clark?
One of the more interesting results from Son Also Rises was the fact that there's basically ZERO change in persistence rates of "social competence," when you look at spans of time that include massive educational changes in the UK, Sweden, the US, and others.
For example, going from "only elites can and do get their kids educated" to "state funded education through high school / undergrad / Phd" drove ZERO change in persistence / social mobility across multiple countries.
This was an additional triangulation point that education is mainly about signaling, and that the trillions spent on it are largely wasted, at least in the sense that we think it drives "more equal opportunity" or "increased social mobility," because apparently that is not true in the aggregate.
It just becomes another Red Queen's Race, which it most definitely is in every Western country today.
If human capital attainment increased across all cohorts evenly, you’d see minimal changes in variation in outcome. I didn’t include it because it’s totally irrelevant.
> If human capital attainment increased across all cohorts evenly, you’d see minimal changes in variation in outcome. I didn’t include it because it’s totally irrelevant.
But there's many reasons to suspect that it would NOT increase human capital in all cohorts evenly - see undergrad degress losing some of their signaling value as the average human capital of holders has gone down, as just one example.
And even if it DID increase capital uniformly, we should have seen effects, because we went from something like 20% of the population being educated to 100%, with big chunks at various times, and those timings and chunks happening differently across several countries / times.
For instance, education was first rolled out to boys, and only decades later to girls, too. State funded education was primarily an urban thing first, and had differential geographical rollouts. In the US, it rolled out in the Northeast way before the South. Working class children in England were only eligible for basic schooling for a while, and on and on.
Surely if education raised human capital, we would expect to see some shifts in mobility over time as suddenly, 30% of the population is being educated when it wasn't before, and then 60%, and then 80%, etc. But we don't.
But no, I guess it's just "irrelevant."