Beetle Bailey on Signaling

I don’t always look to EconLog for prudential wisdom, but I must say I enjoyed Bryan Caplan’s post on signaling in education –aka, because these are economists “the signaling model.” A bit of care is required in definition here because standard accounts usually get it wrong. Caplan describes it, conventionally enough, as the view that “education does not increase a worker’s productivity. Instead, the fact that you obtain an education shows that you were productive all along, which makes employers want to hire you.”

This is, as I say, conventional, but as the post makes clear, Caplan understands that this is not quite the issue. The point is not whether you were educated in school, but rather what you learn. In Caplan’s telling thought-experiment: “Which would do more for your career: a Princeton education, but no diploma, or a Princeton diploma, but no education?”

Very well put. Who is it that has a Princeton education, but no diploma? My guess is that you might inquire after Plato in Beetle Bailey who, in the immortal words of Tom Lehrer, “brings a book to every meal.” Chubby (okay, tubby), slovenly, but not hostile, the point is that Plato just isn’t interested: he has his own agenda and he intends to pursue it (I suspect another may be the proprietor of the excellent Laudator Temporis Acti—see his instructive post on his dating habits here). I can’t think of anyone in Beetle Bailey who really does have a Princeton education, but Lt. Fuzz probably has his commission via a goodish university, and sooner or later he will get an MBA from a goodish business school, certifying his capacity to sit still and keep his nose clean (well—maybe a bit brown, but you get my meaning).

I’ve had the privilege of observing a lot of lawyers over the years. What are the marks of a successful lawyer? One quality would be “prudential wisdom” (where have I seen that phrase before?)—the kind of practical good sense that finds constructive solutions to human problems. But if we are measuring “success,” another quality would be sociopathy—the temperamental willingness to do anything, say anything, no matter how vile or disgusting, to get your way. The interesting point, I think, is that universities don’t really teach either of these in any substantial or consistent way. Which suggest one reason why there is such a poor fit between success in life and success in the classroom.

We used to have a saying around the law school (do they still?) that they A students make the professors, the B students make the judges, and the C students make the lawyers—and the D students, we would say, make the Vassar girls, which just goes to show you how old I am. I don’t think it was ever very true. My guess is that the B students make the lawyers; the C students are too distracted or distractible to make much of anything. But the A students do make the professors – at least the A students at the A list schools. Maybe success in the academy does, indeed, measure, well, measure success in the academy. Which brings up an intriguing possibility. To what extent does academic life reward precisely those qualities that might be disapprobated in other places—eccentricity, febrile imagination, an eagerness not to be part of the team? I’m not sure how far to push this one. I guess my point is that Caplan is onto a good issue here, though it may be more complicated than it seems.