Harrisburg, Pa.—Yet another widely held perception in academia is the idea that somehow universities contribute to economic growth although the exact cause and effect is hard to pin down. “Penn State is the largest single contributor to the commonwealth’s economy,” Augie Bravo writes in The Capital Times. “This may not sound impressive, but when you look at dollar figures, we find that for every dollar which the legislature invests in Penn State through the appropriation, Penn State returns nearly $20 to the Commonwealth’s economy.”
“In recent years, the university’s annual statewide economic impact has totaled more than $6 billion a year.” The Capital Times is the student newspaper at the Harrisburg branch of Penn State.
Bravo gives no source for these stats and later in the story notes that “57% of Penn State graduates leave the commonwealth,” a piece of information that would seem to work against the economic growth thesis. We asked Bravo where his figures come from but as we go to press he has not answered.
“Expenditures by state governments on higher education do not have a positive result in economic growth,” Ohio University economist Richard Vedder stated categorically at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington, D. C. last month. “The evidence suggests the opposite.”
“When I asked Milton Friedman, who said [in an earlier book], libertarian that he was, that we should be funding universities, about this, he said, ‘I’m beginning to think that’s right [that we shouldn’t be subsidizing higher education] and maybe we should be taxing universities.’” A fellow at AEI, Dr. Vedder also directs the Center for College Affordability and Productivity.
AEI scholar Charles Murray, who appeared with Dr. Vedder at the forum at the venerable old think tank, offers an even more provocative take on the problem. “The jobs that a B. A. prepares you for are deadly dull,” Murray observed. “You don’t have to have a college degree.”
“Cabinet makers do very satisfying work and their jobs are not being outsourced to India.” No stranger to controversy, Murray authored The Bell Curve, a book which attempted to examine I. Q. differences between the races.
“There has been an increase in the number of affluent kids with low I.Q.s who did not go to college and an increase in the number of poor kids with high I. Q.s who did go,” Murray pointed out. “Smart kids who do not get the opportunity of college are a shrinking number.”
Conversely, Murray finds that “40 percent of 18- and 19-year-olds are trying to go to college” while “a college education is only accessible to about 20 percent of the population, 25% max.”
This fortunate fifth, or “quality quarter,” in Murray’s estimation should have some working combination of:
• “I.Q.s of 120 and up;”
• “High SAT scores;” and
• “The ability to read and summarize the introduction to an English or Economics textbook.”
Come to think of it, how many elected officials possess this skill set?
Malcolm A. Kline is the executive director of Accuracy in Academia.
