More Government in Education, Right?

Market solutions = nearly always preferred

Federal interventions = (generally) bad

These two statements contain the essence of conservative social preferences, that market solutions should be exhausted before inviting government entanglements.  However, our dear colleagues on the Left insist instead that, if we would only flood federal dollars and bureaucracy through our societal veins, all inequity and injustice will quickly fade from sight.

For instance, we find this logic applied in the debate over higher education.  All sides recognize that the face-value of a college degree is slowly diminishing, yet blame is laid upon vastly different parties.

Suzanne Mettler, a professor of government at Cornell University, recently condemned the perceived stratification of higher education.  Mettler claims that, while more people are attending college, the value of a degree increasingly rests with its institution of origin, forming a “caste” system between state and private schools. She essentially calls for the government to even the playing field, that “the federal government must step up and lead” through more regulations and spending programs.  All graduates should find “the surest way to a better life,” and it is clearly the government’s responsibility to ensure this reality.

The problem is, using government funds to increase the labor-market supply of college graduates does not guarantee a corresponding shift in demand.  In the flood of graduates, where will employers look?  They will examine qualities such as where, which school, internships, etc.–questions that will not be answered through shoveling federal funds in the general direction of universities.

Perhaps our answer to finding a “better life” lies with the entrepreneur, the creative steward of new wealth and markets, rather than in government subsidy programs.