Economics, Current Events

Is Liberal Arts Education Founded on a Lie?

Princeton University Press will published Bryan Caplan’s The Case Against Education in 2017. I’m reading through the penultimate draft right now, and I’ve been fortunate to have Caplan guest lecture on this topic in my classes a number of times. As an educator, I find his results upsetting, but sometimes the truth is upsetting. Caplan’s main thesis is that at least 30% of the college wage premium can be explained by the signaling model of higher education, though he thinks it’s really more like 80%. (The signaling model holds that completing a college degree signals to employers that you are a smart, perseverant conformist, while the human capital model holds that going to school makes you better.)

Defenders of liberal arts education, or of higher education in general, claim that obtaining a college degree tends to develop a wide range of soft skills. But that’s an empirical claim, and it turns out that educational psychologists and others have attempted to test this thesis. In general,  as Caplan reviews in the book, they tend to come up with null results.

If so, what does that tell us about the ethics of selling higher education? For example, how should we respond to webpages like this one, which defend the value of a liberal arts education? Notice how the page asserts that studying liberal arts produces a wide range of aretaic benefits. But does it? 

Here’s a thought experiment:

Suppose it turned out that Pfizer has been selling a drug, since 1850, which A) costs $240,000, B) requires four years of treatment, and C) which they claim makes patients more open-minded, smarter, better and deeper thinkers, wiser, more creative, better at expressing themselves, better at understanding others, etc.

Now suppose Pfizer not only had no proper evidence that the drug had this effect, but in fact other medical scientists had studied the drug, and over and over again found a null effect. We’d probably think Pfizer had committing fraud or engaged in negligent advertising. We’d probably demand the government shut Pfizer down or fine them. Pfizer might face a class-action lawsuit.

Fortunately, Pfizer isn’t so unethical that it would do such a thing.

However, the thought experiment above is real. Substitute “colleges,” “liberal arts education,” and “educational psychologists” for “Pfizer,” “drug,” and “other medical scientists.” Voila!

As I’ve argued before, philosophy departments tend to have bad business ethics. But perhaps universities and colleges in general have bad business ethics.

  • I think it makes a difference whether higher education is at least apt to have these benefits, and the reason why many / most students don’t obtain them is due to their own laziness or failure to take advantage of the full educational opportunities the university offers.

    Higher education is surely more like a gym membership than a magic pill. And it wouldn’t be such an indictment on gyms if they advertised themselves as making one fit when actually most people with gym memberships don’t use them properly. That’s a problem of user error, not bad service. (Though of course it would be more honest to advertise as offering the *opportunity* to obtain said benefits, rather than a *guarantee* of such! So I agree with you there.)

    • Jason Brennan

      That might be right. That’s the best counterargument I’ve seen so far. (Granted, this is the first comment, but I’ve made this argument before and heard counterarguments.)

      But let’s go with the gym thing. Suppose it turned out that, biologically, most people *cannot* get healthier as a result of going to gym. Suppose it turned out that most people just don’t respond to exercise. They not only don’t lose weight, but don’t get any fitter, even if they work out hours a day. If that were the case, there would be something worrisome about most gym advertisements.

      Ed psychologists aren’t just saying most students don’t learn. They’re making stronger claims: most students *can’t* “learn to learn,” can’t “transfer learning,” and can’t develop in all the standard ways we hope they would.

      • King Goat

        Jason, are you overstating your case? The work you cite (Arum and Ruska) is not by ‘educational psychologists’ but two sociology professors of education, and says (in the description of the work) not that ‘most students *can’t* learn to learn etc., but that 45% show no significant benefits. Furthermore, the authors don’t seem to be making the case that the students *can’t* learn, but seem to ascribe it to socio-cultural factors (“result of a student body distracted by socializing or working and an institutional culture that puts undergraduate learning close to the bottom of the priority list.”).

        • Jason Brennan

          I’m not citing all the studies here, or even most of them. I’m just citing one. Part of the reason for that is that I’m not free to just post all the stuff Caplan has brought to my attention, as I’m not supposed to quote his book without permission yet.

          • King Goat

            I see, fair enough.

        • LLC

          Jason, let us be reminded that ‘Sophomore’ means ‘wise fool’. I would argue that the end of the Sophomore year is probably the worst time to make such a measure, which leads me to question the motives of the authors of the study quoted. What were they trying to show, as opposed to discover?

      • Gregory Patrick Wesson

        The fallacy of a liberal education has nothing to do with a person’s ability to learn but rather choosing the wrong curriculum (possibly as an easy means to an end). The fact that students have been accepted to college (while many are not) proves a basic ability to learn.

        Using the gym analogy: A liberal arts education is like selling fitness with a gym membership to a gym with only elliptical machines. Btw, this gym membership will cost you $35K per year and “fitness” in this case represents a degree with no employable prospects.

    • urstoff

      If higher education were a gym, it would be a gym where none of the personal trainers know what makes someone get in shape and where the equipment really only works about 5% of the time.

      • Sean II

        And you’ve got it.

        That analogy doesn’t get education off the hook. It just indicts gym memberships.

    • derek shiller

      It seems to me that it would be fairly immoral to sell a very expensive product with a target market that contains few people who are able to use appropriately. Higher education may not be wrong in principle, but if it does not ordinarily produce the effect that it is claimed to, it should be marketed rather differently. If a gym made 90% of its money from people who never ended up using the gym, there would be something suspect about it, right?

      • Yeah, I agree it should be marketed differently.

      • LLC

        I think you’re surprisingly close to the actual figures.

    • Philosophy Student

      Hi Richard,

      thanks for your comment and insightful analogy. As it happens I’m an undergrad philosophy student in my final year (at your institution) and on reflection, count myself as one of these ‘fat’ students, who despite my expensive ‘gym membership’ and love of sports (i.e. philosophy), seem to have been unable to make use of many of the benefits offered by the philosophy department. I’ve more or less self-taught many of my modules and completed most of my assignments in massive 72 hour shifts, days before the deadline. Having talked to fellow philosophy student and friends, this seems quite a common approach. In the following I will offer a student perspective on:

      (1) what kind of problems this (poor) approach causes for us in particular;
      (2) why it happens to us and how it might be combated by the university.

      (SIDE NOTE 1: I’m afraid this is going to be a bit of a long comment– but I hope that some people will take the time and read it, in order to see the problem from a student perspective. Thanks in advance!)


      As far as I can see it, the two biggest problems associated with this (poor) approach are as follows:
      (A) not being able to discuss the essays with the tutors and peer reviewing the essays with the fellow students before actually submitting them;
      (B) not having sufficient time to complete the additional assignments, when facing a deadline with more than one assignment. (Given the strict submission policy, this has resulted for many in a massive loss of marks, due to late penalties, for what have originally been essays ranging in the 65 – 75 mark range).

      (SIDE NOTE 2: Institutions that use online submission methods, could check in how far this description matches their students. Using the data from the system, they could analyse whether the majority uploaded last minute, or well before the deadline and whether the first uploaded assignment is significantly better than the proceeding ones. I will proceed with the assumption that for a significant amount of students, this is true).

      Fortunately, I’ve been lucky to have been very well coached in essay writing previous to university and have managed (despite of this foolish approach) to get good enough results across my assignments to satisfy a mid range 2:1 average. Nevertheless, avoiding the above two pitfalls would have surely improved my performance significantly, probably putting me on a first. Unfortunately, many students didn’t have this sort of advantage and face – next to starting their assignments late – the challenge of having to learn *how* to write philosophy, *as* they are learning the course material and writing their assignments – this is clearly too much for any one individual and results in poor marks.

      The answer from the traditional academic perspective seems obvious: Don’t be lazy (!) go to your contact hours and then you’ll learn the course material; write your assignments in a timely fashion and we will give you the help you need. And from my experience I can say that the services of this kind that *I did* take advantage of are above and beyond reproach. The lecturers at York present the course material in an extremely clear, interesting and easy to follow fashion. They have always been keen to help above and beyond the office hours they offer already. The course is interesting and diverse. Further, the experiences I had concerning administrative features and flexibility of the department consistently outdid that of what my friends (particularly in the continental universities) have reported of their departments. So, it seems to me the quality of the services the university advertises clearly meets the standards of what is advertised.


      Why then is this foolish approach so popular, if it is clearly obvious to most of us ‘fatties’ that ‘going to the gym’ regularly before ‘running the marathon’ is essential for success? Maybe, as you pointed out, we are all just terribly lazy. And that is surely a part of it. We like to party. Obviously. But if it’s just laziness, how are we capable to produce such a massive effort just before the time runs out? Surely, somebody that puts in 100 hours 6 days before an assignment is due, isn’t more or less lazy than someone who put in the hours consistently as the term progresses. I think rather than laziness, the problem is a lack of motivation to work consistently throughout the term. My year seems to have a problem with waning motivation, given that lectures seem to get more and more empty as the year progresses.

      So, why is there this lack of motivation despite of our love of philosophy and the high standards of the services, recognized by all parties? And more importantly, what can be done about it?

      I think the first question can be answered not in terms of the *quality* of teaching, but in terms of the *kind* of teaching. Most modules I took part in, were taught in a purely propositional way. Course material is presented, then objections to the particular view are presented, then the whole thing is discussed in the following seminar. In a similar way we were *told* how to write an essay. Strategies were presented and advice was given. But we never had any kind of workshops, that focused on actually *doing* the philosophy in question– beyond mere discussion. We never had essay writing workshops, where we had the opportunity to be guided through the entire *production* of a piece of philosophy, with constant feedback during the process. In this way, the lectures and seminars never offered the kind of satisfaction that you get from completing a piece of philosophical work. Nor did they provide explicit practice to acquire the methodology necessary to write a piece of philosophy.

      To get back to the gym analogy: The ‘gym’ (university) does an amazing job at presenting the best kinds of ‘exercises’ (course material and methodology) that is required to ‘run the marathon’ (produce the work). Very occasionally it does short ‘practice marathons’ (i.e. formative work) in order to measure the members ability to run the marathon and give some initial feedback. Eventually it tests all the members with grand marathons (i.e. summative work). It is not, I think, deviant in advertising that these exercises will make a successful marathon runner, as Jason suggests above. If practiced enough they do (in my experience at least). Rather, I think it puts too much emphasis on *presenting* the exercises instead of *practicing* the exercises with the members. In terms of Gilbert Ryle’s bike analogy, the lectures do a terrific job in describing what is necessary to ride a bike: i.e. ‘hold your balance’, ‘peddle’, ‘steer’, don’t hold onto another bike (i.e plagiarise). We as students leave the lecture, knowing everything *about* riding a bike. Occasionally we get to do a *practice run* in the university (formative work). But essentially, we are expected to learn the *how* part entirely by ourselves. Of course most lecturers are benevolent and willing to help those who ask, but it is not necessarily a feature of the curriculum.

      (Side Note 3: In fact one of the few lecturers I encountered, which added such a methodological *how* element *into* her course, was your wife. She made us analyse bits of a theory during the course and eventually made us swap and compare our summative essay drafts at the end of the module. And peer review is an essential part of the *activity* of professional philosophy. Maybe this is partly why everyone loved her module so much(!) – and did quite well in the process. I felt that David E. uses a similar and similarly successful approach in his lectures.)

      This *propositional* way of teaching I think, is (at least partly) the reason why so many people – including myself – loose motivation quickly throughout the course. What is the use of learning loads of propositions if we don’t apply them directly in a meaningful activity? Moreover, what is the use of going to a course, which is meant to guide us into successfully doing a specific activity, if the course only focuses on the theory of the activity – rather than the activity itself? I concede that especially the latter question is put a little crass – of course learning about philosophy, in a way is *doing* philosophy, and *learning* philosophy is meaningful in itself. The point is actually being guided through the *process* of *production* and leaving with a meaningful piece of philosophical work of your own, which can then be used in the work that is essentially marked, is a lot more satisfying and motivating than merely having a certain paper or topic *presented*. So, my proposition to fix this problem of motivation in philosophy students, is to shift the focus of teaching to: teaching by *doing* philosophy (beyond mere discussion), rather than teaching by *telling* about – or *telling* how to – do philosophy. This would have the nice side-effect that assessed assignments could be done *during* the course, with constant guidance and feedback of the experts. Essentially, a lot more philosophy could be produced and maybe, even some of the more creative undergrads, could offer meaningful contributions to an area of philosophical expertise.

      Maybe this is also the reason why I’ve been spending the last hour writing this comment, rather than reviewing my notes for next seminar(!)(?)

      Despite these thoughts, (and my own motivational problems along the way) it has been a great pleasure studying Philosophy in York. I’ve learned a great deal, feel very fortunate and enjoyed in particular your teaching in Block 2 of the Moral Philosophy Pathway last year. Thank you, and anyone who took the time to read this! I’d be very curious on comments and responses to my ideas expressed here and exited that the internet makes such an intellectual exchange possible, even amongst different academic levels.

      Thank you and all the best

      • Thanks so much for this thoughtful feedback! I think you’re absolutely right that the aim should be to get students *doing* philosophy (and not just learning *about* it). It’s a fair challenge to encourage us as lecturers to think about ways to structure our teaching to better enable this — not only in the form of class discussions, which perhaps tends to be our current focus, but also in better training our students in philosophical writing (and revision in light of peer feedback).

        [Our department is actually in the midst of revising our pedagogy with that sort of goal very much in mind. So I’ll pass your comment along to the relevant colleagues, who I think will be very interested in your thoughts, and also very sympathetic to them!]

    • AtlanticReader5

      If students realize that the value in a BA is the signal, not the human capital, then their laziness is rational. Why take advantage of a liberal education if all you want is a diploma and a decent GPA? The high signalling value (not to mention the government subsidies) induces a ton of people who have little interest in a liberal education to attend college.

  • JH

    I haven’t read Caplan’s book (although I want to!). But I read his blog and much of what he’s written online about education. I find it plausible that about 20-40 percent of the returns to school is signalling (or so). But the 80 percent estimate seems way too high to me. If the returns to schooling were 80 percent due to signaling, I have a hard time making sense of (1) regression discontinuity studies that find that education has large returns for marginal students and (2) evidence that employers do learn about employee productivity over time.

    Here’s the puzzle: we know from these studies that education raises income decades after you have completed your degree and also that employers can accurate rate an employee’s productivity after a few months on the job. How can these both be true if signaling explains 80 percent of the returns to education?

    • Jason Brennan

      JH, for what it’s worth, he covers that objection in the first or second chapter.

  • Brad Hobbs

    What an excellent and pithy example! I can not wait to read Bryan’s book!!!

  • I’ll agree with a few comments and call foul on the Pfizer analogy. The gym analogy is a more apt analogy.

    If there is a better criticism to make of the claims of colleges and those defending liberal arts, it’s probably this: Defenders of the value of a college education use a version of the “no true scotsman” fallacy. They will claim that a liberal arts education makes you (1) a better person and (2) more employable/likely to advance once employed. When data is presented that challenges such claims, the defenders can say something like “well, students can get a degree without really getting the true wisdom that the liberal arts can impart” (or something like that).

    I’m not sure, though, how much that is really like the “no true scotsman” fallacy–mostly because I’m not sure how clear the terms are. The problem with education is that it’s so dependent upon not only how students take in the material, but how the material is presented, and how it is used later on in life. Then you’ve got the problem of how to sort through the qualitative data regarding how good a person is at their job. Even if you can pin that down, what if the reason they don’t excel in their job has nothing to do with their education, but with that company in particular, or external factors having to do with fit, culture, or other things?

    At a distance here, I’m not sure how wade through the qualitative muck.

  • Sean II

    This post makes an interesting side point about political culture.

    The same people who now drool over the claimed benefits of education and defend the education industry against every criticism except “it doesn’t spend enough money”…they would surely oppose that Pfizer product from the moment it was proposed, even before discovering that it didn’t work.

    • Jeff R.

      Heh. Yeah. I suspect they’d oppose it while it was expensive, because, ya know….inequality and such. Then, if it got cheaper they’d demand subsidies for it, and if it became really cheap, they’d force people to take it.

      • Sean II

        Or they’d oppose it for puritanical reasons. A failing common to both Left and Right. See: the insane reaction nearly everyone has to performance enhancing drug use among athletes.

  • Jonathan Culp


    I’m sorry you can’t post some of the other research on this topic. On its face, I find it hard to believe that students *can’t* “learn to learn” or transfer, since they do it all the time in activities that they are interested in, or perceive as relevant, and where they are able to receive coaching, feedback, etc. (Sports, hobbies, the profession or vocation they move on to, etc.)

    It seems to me the problem might be pedagogy. Clearly the materials one finds in liberal arts curricula are apt to produce “critical thinking” and so forth, since they tackle important and controversial issues. But most lectures and even discussion sections are poorly designed to elicit critical thinking, and are even more poorly designed to give students the kind of sustained guided practice (with feedback) necessary to improve these general aptitudes in a reliable manner. Most teachers, in my experience, test for basic skill and/or knowledge acquisition, rarely simulate situations where “transfer” is called for, rarely assess genuine understanding, and even when an assignment might call for understanding (such as an essay), rarely provide the kind of guidance, feedback, revision opportunities, reflective exercises, etc. that would give students the practice that they need. (Grant Wiggins used to harp on this all the time.)

    Of course, professorial investment in the kind of high-intensity teaching required to foster transfer or genuine understanding (as gauged by valid measures) is not really rewarded by universities, and it consumes a great deal of time, energy, and so forth. So it’s no wonder so few of us teach this way. There are neither carrots nor sticks. And, since we don’t teach this way, I think most arguments for liberal education are fraudulent. And I teach at a liberal arts university!

    None of this is to let lazy students off the hook. But even the good ones aren’t given the kinds of learning opportunities they genuinely need. They get As and, within a year, have forgotten almost everything they “learned.”

    • Sean II

      If people could actually “learn to learn”, and if education was the way to do that, then you’d see people leave grad school with a higher IQ than when they started. “Learning to learn” or “general ability to learn” being just another name for g.

      That doesn’t happen. Which means there is no such thing as learning to learn.

      • Jonathan Culp

        I’m not sure that IQ is a reliable proxy for what I was thinking of. Of the students I’ve had as undergrads who’ve gone on to get PhDs, I couldn’t say that any of them left grad school with higher IQs, but I *can* say that they come out of it better able to identify particular problems, offer and assess different ways of trying to solve the problem, etc. That’s more of what I mean by “learning to learn.” Does IQ measure those sorts of things reliably? (That’s an honest question on my part.)

        As I said above, it seems to me that people *do* become better learners (often with guided practice) in other areas of life. I just don’t think most undergrad liberal arts programs even seriously *try* to teach these aptitudes in a systematic, evidence-based manner.

        • Sean II

          That’s just it. Being “better able to identify particular problems, offer and assess different ways of trying to solve the problem” is crystallized knowledge relevant to those particular problems. It’s not the same thing as “learning to learn”.

          To isolate “learning to learn” would require a test like this: take 100 finished Econ PhD’s and 100 who just started, then make them both do a prep course for something unrelated to the crystallized knowledge of that field, say maybe Step 1 of the USMLE. Now make them take the exam. If learning to learn exists, and if graduate school Econ programs are a place where that happens, then the first group should just trounce the second. “Why the critical thinking should make them better…”

          But that’s not what happens when anyone does a test like that. People perform more or less as you’d expect from looking at some prior indicator, like the GRE score they earned before starting grad school.

          And yes, not only do IQ tests reliably measure g, they measure it better than almost any other thing except maybe short-term memory.

          • Jonathan Culp

            Thanks for the reply, Sean. I see your point, though I’m still not sure we are talking about exactly the same thing. That’s mainly my fault for choosing a misleading example above, your response to which was right on point. Still, unless the development of generalized skills of asking and answering questions is deliberately incorporated into teaching, feedback, and assessment practices at the grad level, the test results you mention could be measuring the failure of grad schools to attempt to teach those skills rather the impossibility of teaching them. At any rate, thanks!

          • Sean II

            “…could be measuring the failure to teach those skills rather than the impossibility of teaching them”.

            True. It could be that schools as we know them are merely failing to find the right techniques.

            Strike against that: we’ve been trying really hard, for a really long time, and with the help of really large sums of money, and yet…bupkes!

            Just think: in four years, for 26 billion dollars, the Manhattan Project completed the seemingly impossible task of making an atom bomb. The U.S. government alone spends the equivalent of 50 Manhattan Projects every year on education, and we still haven’t figured out how to make little Johnny into John von Neumann.

          • King Goat

            Bupkes? Sean, serious question, have you read the work of Richard Nisbett (I’m thinking Intelligence and How to Get it: Why Schools and Culture Count) or James Flynn?

      • David Jacobs

        What if there is no such thing as “g?” What if it is a statistical artifact? What if one can be trained to score highly on a variety of tests, including aptitude and intelligence tests? Curiously, the apparent success of crams schools
        ( may demonstrate that guided practice can improve skills and performance in a variety of contexts.

  • LLC

    A couple of thoughts: A large insurance company I did recruiting for years ago told me they wanted people who had a bachelor’s degree. When I asked which majors they wanted, they said it didn’t matter. What the degree signaled to them was that the individual could set a long term goal and achieve it — that and nothing more was what they sought. Another is that lower division teaching is so often done by graduate students, as opposed to professors (who are busily publishing), who don’t want to teach, are distracted as hell, and rarely possess much by way of pedagogical skills.

  • Pingback: Rational Review News Digest, 04/12/16 - Pakistan: Regime bans rallies in Islamabad ahead of PTI foundation day - Thomas L. Knapp -

  • Jameson Graber

    I really want to read this book when it comes out. In the meantime, I’m frustrated with how muddled the discussion is in the blogosphere. The whole “learning to learn” idea does strike me as a fantasy. But is the goal of higher education really to endow students with transferable skills? I think the primary goal of education is to produce good citizens. Unfortunately, most universities don’t seem to be run according to this ideal.

    I’d like to see a more positive vision, especially from a libertarian perspective, of what education should be all about. This blog would be perfect for such a topic.

    • Sean II

      The problem with having good citizenship as a goal of education is that it quickly leads to these two choices:

      1) Teach students what to think, by enshrining a given set of policy preferences in the curriculum, on the theory that good citizens are simply those who have the right answers to important questions.

      2) Teach students how to think, on the assumption that good critical thinkers are more likely to be good citizens.

      Clearly 2) is just a rephrase of “learning to learn”, so that’s out. And we can all see how 1) is working out – it’s turned our best schools into places of thought-terminating conformism – so that seems even worse. A mere placebo (2) being always better than an actual poison (1).

      What is needed then: a way to make people good citizens without pre-determining the content of good citizenship, and without relying on attempts to improve critical thinking. Tall order.

      • Jameson Graber

        2) is not clearly a rephrase of “learning to learn.” It could be, but it need not be. The problem with “learning to learn” is that it’s not actually a transferable skill. That is, getting good at philosophy is not actually going to make you better at whatever job you’re going for after graduation, unless you’re going to be a philosopher. On the other hand, if we teach students to think critically about the kinds of issues that are important to our future as a civilization, then we’ve done something important. This is not “learning to learn” so much as it is learning to think about problems other than those the typical person encounters at work.

        On the other hand, I’m not averse to trying to reach consensus on actual content. This is more along the lines of 1), but I’m not so much talking about agreeing on the answers to big questions as I am agreeing on essential facts about the world we live in. You can’t teach “critical thinking” in a vacuum. Students need to become deeply familiar with the details of what they’re talking about before they start talking.

        • Sean II

          Well, you’ve got a point there. On second thought there is only a partial overlap between “learning to learn” and making students generally familiar with the type of questions that must be asked and answered in the course of good citizenship.

  • Rob Gressis

    Jason, does Caplan address the work of Eric Hanushek, according to whom good teachers have a lasting and substantial effect on the learning outcomes of students? (See, e.g.:

  • Peter St Onge

    One of my commenters noted that even if universities don’t offer the benefit they tout, they do offer a real signaling benefit. Which makes them still a fraudulent product, but one with side benefits. Not quite snake oil, but perhaps cholesterol meds falsely labeled as blood pressure meds.

  • ByzantineGeneral

    Here’s a model that might work:

    Out of high school, adolescents seek apprenticeships. The apprenticor (totally a word… now) is then the customer of any institute of nursery beer-drinking and meaningless sex that the apprentice attends. At the end of N years of formal education, by graduation or otherwise, the apprentice owes the apprenticor for the education, repayable by cash or (at the apprentice’s option) N years of H1-B like employment.

    Every player in this drama would seem to have appropriate incentives to ensure that the educational process add value at the lowest possible price to promising raw material.

    There are many other models that might work. All of them share these features, which are completely absent from our current model.

  • JW Ogden

    I do not think colleges really sell that stuff, and certainly most students are not trying to buy that stuff, Colleges sell diplomas and students buy diplomas, at least the chance of getting a diploma. The U of Phoenix ads focus on the jobs the diploma will get you. Most people on both ends of the trade act as if they are selling and buying a long test.

    Today even if college delivers human capital, it is not so important because most education/ human capital can be obtained for free today, it is mostly the diplomas/signals that cost.