The Case Against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money

Available instantly

Audiobook
$0.00
with membership trial

Hardcover
$13.94 - $24.02

Paperback
$12.87 - $15.69

Your audiobook is waiting!

Click above for unlimited listening to select audiobooks, Audible Originals, and podcasts.
One credit a month to pick any title from our entire premium selection — yours to keep (you'll use your first credit now).
You will get an email reminder before your trial ends.
$14.95 a month after 30 days. Cancel online anytime.

Learn more about membership

Sold and delivered by Audible, an Amazon company

List Price: $24.95

By completing your purchase, you agree to Audible’s Conditions Of Use and Amazon's Privacy Notice.

Sold and delivered by Audible, an Amazon company

The Case Against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money Audible Audiobook – Unabridged

Bryan Caplan (Author), Allan Robertson (Narrator), Audible Studios (Publisher)

571

See all formats and editions

Why we need to stop wasting public funds on education

Despite being immensely popular - and immensely lucrative - education is grossly overrated. In this explosive book, Bryan Caplan argues that the primary function of education is not to enhance students' skill but to certify their intelligence, work ethic, and conformity - in other words, to signal the qualities of a good employee.

Learn why students hunt for easy A's and casually forget most of what they learn after the final exam, why decades of growing access to education have not resulted in better jobs for the average worker but instead in runaway credential inflation, how employers reward workers for costly schooling they rarely if ever use, and why cutting education spending is the best remedy.

Caplan draws on the latest social science to show how the labor market values grades over knowledge and why the more education your rivals have, the more you need to impress employers. He explains why graduation is our society's top conformity signal and why even the most useless degrees can certify employability. He advocates two major policy responses. The first is educational austerity. Government needs to sharply cut education funding to curb this wasteful rat race. The second is more vocational education, because practical skills are more socially valuable than teaching students how to outshine their peers.

Romantic notions about education being "good for the soul" must yield to careful research and common sense - The Case Against Education points the way.

Cover design by Leslie Flis.

Listening Length

11 hours
Author

Bryan Caplan
Narrator

Allan Robertson
Audible release date

May 1, 2018
Language

English
Publisher

Audible Studios
ASIN

B07BH3S9DQ
Version

Unabridged
Program Type

Audiobook
See all details

Report an issue with this product or seller

People who viewed this also viewed

Page 1 of 1Start OverPage 1 of 1

People who bought this also bought

Page 1 of 1Start OverPage 1 of 1

Related to this topic

Page 1 of 1Start OverPage 1 of 1

Product details

Listening Length	11 hours
Author	Bryan Caplan
Narrator	Allan Robertson
Audible.com Release Date	May 01, 2018
Publisher	Audible Studios
Program Type	Audiobook
Version	Unabridged
Language	English
ASIN	B07BH3S9DQ
Best Sellers Rank	#64,161 in Audible Books & Originals (See Top 100 in Audible Books & Originals) #43 in Vocational Education #106 in Education Reform & Policy #225 in Public Policy (Audible Books & Originals)

Customer reviews

4.5 out of 5

571 global ratings

How customer reviews and ratings work

Sort reviews by

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Clay Garner

“To stir men’s blood. I only speak right on; I tell you that which you yourselves do know.’’ —Shakespeare, Julius Caesar (285)

Reviewed in the United States on January 17, 2018

Verified Purchase

“For I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth,
Action, nor utterance, nor the power of speech,
To stir men’s blood. I only speak right on;
I tell you that which you yourselves do know.’’
—Shakespeare, Julius Caesar (285)

Well. . .I think Caplan ‘will stir men’s blood’ with this work. Why?

‘I say what you already know’! What! How insulting!

Caplan’s conclusion is that ‘higher education’ serves as ‘signal’ for employers, and does not serve the educated. Why?

“From the standpoint of most teachers, right up to and including the level of teachers of college undergraduates, the ideal student is well behaved, unaggressive, docile, patient, meticulous, and empathetic in the sense of intuiting the response to the teacher that is most likely to please the teacher.’’ (14)
—Richard Posner

‘Signal’ for perfect corporate ball-bearing, round and round with no squeaking! Why so valuable to business?

“The road to academic success is paved with the trinity of intelligence, conscientiousness, and conformity. The stronger your academic record, the greater employers’ confidence you have the whole package. Why do employers seek this package? Because the road to academic success and the road to job success are paved with the same materials. An intelligent worker learns quickly and deeply. A conscientious worker labors until the job’s done right. A conformist worker obeys superiors and cooperates with teammates. If you lack the right stuff to succeed in school, you probably lack the right stuff to succeed in the labor market.’’ (18)

Right! Well . . .

What about just the wonderful goal of - just ‘teaching how to think’?

“Transfer researchers usually begin their careers as idealists. Before studying educational psychology, they take their power to “teach students how to think” for granted.’’

Who wouldn’t?

“When they discover the professional consensus against transfer, they think they can overturn it. Eventually, though, young researchers grow sadder and wiser. The scientific evidence wears them down—and their firsthand experience as educators finishes the job. Hear the pedagogical odyssey of psychologist Douglas Detterman:

When I began teaching, I thought it was important to make things as hard as possible for students so they would discover the principles for themselves. I thought the discovery of principles was a fundamental skill that students needed to learn and transfer to new situations. Now I view education, even graduate education, as the learning of information.’’

How did he adjust to the real classroom, with actual students?

“I try to make it as easy for students as possible. Where before I was ambiguous about what a good paper was, I now provide examples of the best papers from past classes. Before, I expected students to infer the general conclusion from specific examples. Now I provide the general conclusion and support it with specific examples. In general, I subscribe to the principle that you should teach people exactly what you want them to learn in a situation as close as possible to the one in which the learning will be applied. I don’t count on transfer and I don’t try to promote it except by explicitly pointing out where taught skills may be applied.’’ (58)

Who can deny it?

CHAPTER 1 -The Magic of Education
CHAPTER 2 -The Puzzle Is Real: The Ubiquity of Useless Education
CHAPTER 3 -The Puzzle Is Real: The Handsome Rewards of Useless Education
CHAPTER 4 -The Signs of Signaling: In Case You’re Still Not Convinced
CHAPTER 5 -Who Cares If It’s Signaling? The Selfish Return to Education
CHAPTER 6 -We Care If It’s Signaling: The Social Return to Education
CHAPTER 7 -The White Elephant in the Room: We Need Lots Less Education
CHAPTER 8 - We Need More Vocational Education
CHAPTER 9 -Nourishing Mother: Is Education Good for the Soul?
CHAPTER 10 -Five Chats on Education and Enlightenment

One fantastic, fascinating, marvelous feature . . .

“Though I can heed everyone, I cannot please everyone. Rather than try to placate any one faction, this chapter brings them all together for a battle royale.’’

‘’The following dialogues are inspired by three decades of arguments about education. I’m the only real character. The rest are archetypes, composites—though hopefully not caricatures—of my favorite critics. The Cast -

Bryan Caplan, professor of economics at George Mason University. Highest credential: Ph.D. in economics from Princeton University.
James Cooper, freshman at the University of Kansas; major: undeclared. Highest credential: diploma from Topeka High School.
Frederick Dodd, columnist for the Wall Street Journal, blogger for the Chronicle of Higher Education. Highest credential: M.A. in journalism from New York University.
Alan Lang, professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley. Highest credential: Ph.D. in economics from MIT.
Gillian Morgan, freelance tech journalist. Highest credential: B.S. in computer science from UCLA.
Cynthia Ragan, English teacher at Woodrow Wilson High School, New Jersey. Highest credential: B.A. in English from the College of New Jersey.
Derek Romano, recent high school dropout. Highest credential: none.
Gretchen Simpson, student loan activist. Highest credential: M.A. in sociology from the University of Florida.
Daria Stein, entrepreneur and parent of a high school junior. Highest credential: B.S. in engineering from the University of Texas.’’ (262)

This part is so. . .so. . .cool. I hope other writers copy this technique. What a gift. This chapter alone worth the price of the book!

Why Caplan’s conclusion so difficult, so painful to the ear?

“If research and common sense are both on my side, who’s the defendant? The party line—what we’re supposed to believe about education. You’ve been enmeshed in the irrational exuberance since preschool.
“School prepares us for our future.”
“School is fun.”
“Nothing is more important than education.”

“We’ve all heard it, and we’ve all repeated it. If the party line is so false, why is dissent so scarce?
Social Desirability Bias. Calling school a rat race verges on nihilism. When students challenge the party line, teachers and parents get upset. When graduates challenge it, they seem immature. Even those who don’t care to preen don’t want to get stomped.”

“Education’s like John Gotti, the legendary “Teflon Don”: guilty as sin, but everyone’s petrified to testify against it. The Case against Education aims to reassure the witnesses. Standing up to Social Desirability Bias is inherently scary, but you’re not alone. Most people who reflect on their time in school privately agree with you. Research in economics, psychology, sociology, and education itself has your back. Testifying against education is safer than it looks.’’ (286)

Wow!

Another painful observation . . .

“College graduates often proudly name-drop their alma mater, but few realize the phrase contains a worldview. In Latin, “alma mater” means “nourishing mother.” A rich metaphor.’’

“A nourishing mother doesn’t merely teach you practical skills or help you land a well-paid job. She nurtures your whole person, teaches you right from wrong, and shows you the magic of life. As William Bowen, former president of Princeton, and Derek Bok, former president of Harvard, attest: Education is a special, deeply political, almost sacred civic activity. It is not merely a technical enterprise—providing facts to the untutored. Inescapably, it is a moral and aesthetic enterprise—expressing to impressionable minds a set of convictions about how most nobly to live in the world.’’ (238)

‘Special, deeply political, sacred activity’! This is really a secular religion, as many scholars (J L Talmon, Isaiah Berlin, Herbert Butterfield, Carlton Hayes, etc.) concluded decades ago; faith, trust, ‘worldview’, secular priesthood, holy days, sacrifice, and transferring the will of God to ‘will of the people’, all this replaces the ‘old’ Judeo/Christian system with the ‘new’ Political/scientism one.

Caplan writing for the general reader, although careful and scholarly. Includes enough charts, graphs, etc., to appeal to academics (I skipped most).

Easy to absorb and clear to the ear.

Sounds closer to a friendly talk than a academic essay.

About six hundred excellent notes (linked).

More than eighty pages of references (one thousand?) most with links. Tremendous scholarship!

Fifteen page extensive index (linked). Great!

(See also - “Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes’’ by Jacques Ellul; “The Measure Of Man’’ by Joseph Wood Krutch. Both present fascinating insights into modern education.)

74 people found this helpful

Helpful

Richard B. Schwartz

A Very Important Book

Reviewed in the United States on February 5, 2018

Verified Purchase

This is an important book, one which all educators, parents, students, taxpayers and policy makers should read and absorb. The title is a bit overwrought but the subject is of vast importance and the points of the book are argued rigorously. Bryan Caplan is a Berkeley/Princeton-trained economist who teaches at George Mason. He is a libertarian by political inclination but he says that his views on education were formed long before his views on politics were. As an economist he sometimes says things that appear to be crass; at the same time, as an economist, he says things that are supported by the data even though we might not want to hear them.

The essential argument concerns job skills and the fact that American education (including higher education) does not prepare students for jobs in the real world. Their coursework is still based on 19thc (and earlier) models in which individuals were trained to be clergymen, medical doctors or lawyers. That coursework is now largely dated, irrelevant, boring and out of touch with both student interests and the jobs that they might (realistically) seek. Everyone studies history but there are very few jobs for historians and the vast majority of students forget whatever history they might have learned in school. Thus, their time and tuition dollars are wasted; they suffer through tedious material and, now, in their adulthood, don’t know any history anyway.

So why go to college, when college does not, in most cases, prepare you for useful work? (Note that a great number of STEM-trained students do not end up working in STEM-related fields.) The answer lies in the nature of the labor market. Employers seek three characteristics in potential employees: intelligence, conscientiousness and the ability to conform. They want bright people who have demonstrated their ability to apply themselves, keep on task, do what is expected of them, take orders from superiors and operate successfully in an environment which might be dull, soporific and tedious. Being able to secure a high school diploma and/or being able to secure a college degree are central to that process. Formal education, which is completed, signals the student/ applicant’s abilities in this regard. What you learned is of far less importance than what you have demonstrated that you are able to do (in a setting that may well bear no relationship to the job for which you are applying). Professor Caplan estimates the amount of ‘return’ based on signaling at approximately 80%.
Given the public investment in education and the vacuity of the process itself we should focus instead on those basics which will pay off in the world of work—reading, writing and mathematics—and channel our now-wasted resources elsewhere. The points are made in approximately 300 pp. of closely-reasoned text, with bar graphs galore and number-crunching aplenty.

While the author argues that he is not the philistine he may appear to be at first sight, he does argue that most students are philistines and that they have very little interest in the traditional elements of the liberal arts core curriculum. He sees the value in these areas of study but the students and the marketplace do not. Take, for example, the study of foreign languages. The simple fact is that there are very few jobs in the world for translators (vs. plumbers, mechanics and electricians, e.g.). Most students do not enjoy the study of foreign languages and almost never gain actual fluency in those languages. It is certainly true that an individual might study Italian in order to be able to read Dante, but how many such individuals are there in this world and to what degree should we bend our curriculum in order to somehow lure or persuade or encourage an individual or two to have such a goal?

The numbers are all on his side as is the experience of all faculties young and old. He says that when we teach we teach in the hopes of reaching three or four students in a class, knowing that the others are not interested in the material and will make no future use of the material. I believe that most higher ed teachers will agree with this and that they will also say that the problem has gotten worse and worse as more and more come to college out of the necessity created by credential creep.

In some ways I believe that he understates the problem. When he talks about required high school courses he talks about Latin and Greek, e.g. The liberal arts core which bores college students is now largely non-existent in ‘top’ colleges and universities. The introductory courses are largely taught by contingent faculty and graduate assistants, since tenure track faculty are neither interested in teaching them nor—in a day of hyper specialization--actually capable of teaching them. It is also the case that the courses taken outside of students’ majors are nearly always introductory courses, so that students stare at PowerPoint slides (or, preferably, have the teacher’s lecture notes emailed to them so that they need not attend class), memorize bullet points (or ‘study sheets’) for the exam and then promptly forget the material forever.

While he cites the Arum/Roksa study, ACADEMICALLY ADRIFT, and notes that students now spend a minimum of time studying and a maximum of time socializing he does not emphasize two facts: lax standards are the order of the day among the professoriate, lax standards which are pressed on them by corporatist administrators who seek to maximize tuition whatever the academic cost. These administrators are now largely bureaucrats rather than academic leaders and they are best served by a growth in ‘direct reports’ and ‘programs’ for which they can take credit when seeking their next job. Such non-line administrators as assistant vice provosts have increased by 91% in recent decades; non-teaching academic staff have increased by 240%. These individuals want to swell the ranks of tuition-payers at any cost. With regard to the faculty: two anecdotes. When I took my first serious course in the second half of the 18thc (an over/under course for undergrads as well as master’s students), the teacher had the registration staff hand out notes at the registration table, informing us that we should have read Boswell’s LIFE OF JOHNSON (1400 pp. more or less) by the first class. This represented perhaps 20% of the total course readings; now no one would dream of doing that unless the book was the only text in an entire course. Second anecdote: just before his recent death M.H. Abrams (the first editor of the Norton Anthology of English Literature) discussed the book with its current editor, Stephen Greenblatt. Abrams commented that a book that was once a standard text in freshman and sophomore survey courses is now used by advanced doctoral students to prepare for their comprehensive exams.

So how are serious, curious, dedicated students supposed to encounter material that was once the province of educated elites? “Most humans intrigued by abstract ideas and high culture are working adults. Instead of lamenting youthful apathy, passionate educators should redirect their energy to humans who are ready for enlightenment” (p. 261).

I wish he had pursued that argument in greater detail. For 17 years I had the opportunity to teach in the Liberal Studies Program at Georgetown. The program was designed for working adults who wanted to ‘read Plato’. It was expressly stated that there would be no vocational dimension to the program and that prospective students (who should be out of school for at least 3 years) should not expect to use it to secure employment or promotion. This was the largest liberal studies program in the country, with approximately 400 students (drawing from an area population of 4,000,000). It was the most memorable and gratifying teaching experience of my life. The students would routinely read the ‘recommended’ materials as well as the ‘required’ ones and saw their classes as the most interesting and engaging part of their week.

I will spare the reader other comments but urge you to obtain this book and give it your most serious attention.

219 people found this helpful

Helpful

Top reviews from other countries

Translate all reviews to English

Pedro Andrés Rangel Walteros

It should be titled "the case against schooling"

Reviewed in Canada on January 2, 2021

Verified Purchase

In this book the author considers two driving forces for the value of schooling: human capital and signalling. Human capital assumes that school teaches you valuable skills, while signalling proposes that the value of your schooling lies on what your diploma/credentials signal to the job market. In particular, the author proposes that a degree signals intelligence, consciousness, and conformity (and that it is hard to evaluate those three combined features which is the reason why the labor market relies on degrees).

The author proposes a 20/80 break down between human capital and signalling (i.e. 20% your education value comes from human capital while 80% comes from signalling). As he mentions in the book, he comes to this figures by a combination of data analysis and guesstimation.

The book's argument echoes the general sentiment that what matters about going to school is to get a diploma. Based on that argument, the author proposes that we should defund education, and instead spend those resources in something else.

The author strengthen his argument by making a sincere effort to address possible criticisms of his analysis. That being said, there are a couple of criticisms that are not fully addressed in the book.

1. Throughout most of the book, human capital is measure by the skills learned in school and directly applied in the labor market. The author argues that humans in general are terrible at transfer learning and that therefore we can almost ignore any knowledge that is not "directly" transferable to the job market. Although I agree that humans are in general terrible at transfer learning, I would like to see a comparison between how fast a person can learn some skills with and without schooling (although I am not sure if there are any research in this area).

2. The author only mention in passing the social value of education derived from the fact that keeping the young in a school allow their parents to go to work. This part of the equation seems not insignificant to me. Without founded K12 education, many parents would be unable to go to work for long periods (this situation might be even worse for single parents)... Although most people like their kids, they don't like their kids 24/7. A sad part of reality is that a fairly large of the population don't like their kids that much, and without schools those kids would grow in even more hostile environments. The author also proposes to relax labor laws to allow kids to work. Here once again, i believe that the author underestimate the possibility of kid exploitation. If we decided on such policy, on the bright side, we might get a modern literary equivalent of Oliver Twist.

in general, I enjoyed the book, and I recommend it to everyone interested in the value of schooling. My main complain is that the book should be titled "the case against schooling". We all know that schooling is a complete waste of time of resources, and yet education opens people minds. Or, as attributed to Mark Twain, "Never let schooling interfere with your education."

6 people found this helpful

Luca Dittmer

Sehr empfehlenswert!

Reviewed in Germany on March 14, 2021

Verified Purchase

Jedem, der das übliche Narrativ bezüglich "Mehr Bildung = Besser" schon immer etwas skeptisch betrachtete, kann ich dieses Buch empfehlen. Der Autor unterzieht dieser Geschichte einer analytischen Betrachtung und kommt zum Schluss, dass ein Großteil an Bildung nichts weiter ist als verschwenderische Signalisierung zwecks selbstzentrierter Chancenerhöhung auf dem Arbeitsmarkt. Gleichzeitig empfiehlt er eine Privatisierung des Bildungssystems, welche für jedermann glasklar Kosten und Nutzen aller möglichen Bildungswege offenlegt.
Zudem ist das Buch gut geschrieben, hier und da mit Humor gewürzt. Wie gesagt, empfehlenswert!

Translate review to English

David Didau

Fascinating, well argued and mostly right

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on January 18, 2019

Verified Purchase

This book provides some important and persuasive arguments against the common sense view that education is a powerful force for good. I'm convinced by the point that most of the point of getting a degree amounts to what Caplan calls 'signalling' but still think him wrong on the ability of education to raise intelligence. While his counter arguments are well researched and lucidly structured, he discounts the role of knowledge on changing cognitive architecture, especially for the most disadvantaged. In short, Caplan's case against education is far too compelling for anyone to be complacent about. A must read.

7 people found this helpful

tyaki

What is the most important is how we deal with Overrated Education.

Reviewed in Japan on August 5, 2023

Verified Purchase

I am Japanese university student and I'm trying to take a teacher licence. So, frankly speaking, I want to express some opposed opinions, but couldn't.
This is because the book answer my question I have had for long time and show how we should solve the problem.
However, I feel the author idea is similar to a certain class system in Mediaeval Ages, which is renovated for modern society. I don't know which is fair that we show our children the definite and useful class system or tell a lie that our education is useful and your dream come true by education.

Alberto Zaragoza Comendador

It's not your imagination - school really is a waste

Reviewed in Spain on January 23, 2018

Verified Purchase

This is the most thorough book on education one could imagine. Page after page, chapter after chapter Caplan takes on all the possible pros and cons of education, and all the possible explanations for the advantages that education confers (or not) on students. It's so refreshing to find an author who takes on the challenge head-on instead of demurring "well, you know, it depends on your opinion".

There will be many reviews extolling the book's attention to detail (and Caplan's prose). So let me describe two small nitpicks.

First, Caplan uses two designations for different explanations of the education premium, related to how much of said premium is derived from human capital as opposed to signalling. An 80/20 divide, i.e. one in which 80% of the extra earnings that derive from getting a degree is due to signalling as opposed to human capital, is branded "reasonable". No problem with that, and no point in arguing semantics. The problem is that the other share is labelled "cautious" and, if I understood the text correctly, assumes signalling's share is only that due to the sheepskin effect, i.e. the bump in earnings that comes with graduation. (Thus, a person who drops out of college before graduating would enjoy a certain income premium over an identical person who didn't attend college, but said premium would be all human capital and no signalling).
Issues:
a) Many people will not read this book as a novel, and instead will jump from chapter 7 to 3 and so on. Even if they read chapter 1, 2... in order, they may simply forget the definition of "cautious signalling". So a lot of readers will be scratching their head when Caplan brings up this term.
b) Caplan does remind the reader of the definition of "cautious signalling" sometimes, but at this point I honestly couldn't even ballpark a percentage because this effect is different for high school, college, and master's; all I know is signalling's share under this assumption is much lower than 80%.
In short, a mini-appendix explaining the different assumptions and percentages involved in "cautious" and "reasonable" signalling would have helped. (With the Kindle version Caplan could even include a link to that mini-appendix every time he used a chart with those terms).

Second, Caplan brings up the fact that waiters, janitors, etc. with college degrees make more money than workers in these same professions who only have a high school degree, and the latter in turn out-earn high school dropouts. While this is certainly evidence against the human capital theory, I don't see why it's specifically evidence for signalling. It seems at least as plausible that it represents evidence for ability bias: an intelligent, hard-working waiter will get into better restaurants (and may also work more hours), thus earning a higher income.

Other than that, I find the book's case unassailable.

Now where's the Spanish version?

EDIT - January 30, 2018. Upon re-reading, Caplan does address the second issue I raise in page 107, and offers convincing evidence that ability bias alone cannot explain the education premium for non-academic professions. It seems by the time I wrote the review I'd already forgotten the contents I'd read a few days before - obviously that would never happen with the stuff you study in school! ;)

3 people found this helpful

Translate review to English

See more reviews