Is this an example of a failure to let the market operate?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/06/15/137203549/two-million-open-jobs-yes-but-u-s-has-a-skills-mismatch?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
"'Yes," said Carnevale, and the reason is "a mismatch problem. ... Even though there aren't enough jobs to go around, there are a lot of jobs that people don't have the skills to fill."
Where and what are these jobs?
"The industries that we're talking about are fairly broad-based," Carnevale said. "But the ones that are most striking are industries that have lots of what I would call 'orphan jobs.' Manufacturing, utilities, transportation, mining — a whole set of agricultural jobs."
All those industries, he said, "are dying." But because so many baby boomers will be retiring in the next decade, those industries will still produce "huge numbers of job openings that we can't fill."
Yes, it is a failure to let the market opperate. I'm pleased to see someone interviewed on NPR who actually voices the notion that the solution "requires rethinking a college-is-for-everybody attitude." The man is exactly right on this point. Government subsidization of specific industries throws off the balance of production, subsidization of higher education throws off the balance of the supply and demand of that good, and the overall encouragement in other ways creates a terribly false notion of how an economy grows.
Exactly. However he does make this ridiculous comment: ""If we decide that we're going to, especially in high school, begin to train people for vocations — especially vocations that ... don't require four year[s of] college — we'll quickly find that the kids who are available for that are black, Hispanic or low income. ... We'll end up 'tracking.' That makes it very difficult for political leadership and policy leadership to focus on this issue."
I don't see how it would be tracking if you let the students choose what they want to do. I suppose what he's suggesting, implicitly, is that the school or the federal government decide who goes into what profession or vocation. I mean, for God's sake, wouldn't gaining a marketable skill in high school be more valuable than a useless liberal arts degree anyways?
I assume by "tracking" he means putting people on certain restricted "tracks" of educational persuits...which, as you point out, doesn't make much sense if the students are choosing. But it's possible what he's meaning to say is that it would be perceived as de facto tracking because low-income kids don't have many other options...which does make sense especially in light of the truism he finishes with, that it makes it politically difficult for politicians to be able to focus on it.
An easy way to get around any of those problems is get the government out of education. Same thing Ron Paul brought up in the debate on Monday about "gay marriage": Of course by no means should the federal government be involved, but why should any government be involved?
That's a good point, but that problem is people have this assumption that if the government gets out of it it will disappear completely. Take the example of NASA in the debate. I can't remember who it was, Gingrich maybe, who said we would probably have a much better space program if it was completely left to the private sector but the moderator kept pushing the assumption that somehow this would change America's identity or something.
Perhaps we should be even more radical and question the very idea of high school itself. Why is it that we have to assume that people should be learning this or that at this age and if they don't there's something wrong with them? Maybe one person will be able to learn chemistry and excel at it at the age of 16 and another might not even care about it or want to learn about it until 25. This goes back to individual freedom and choice I guess.
You're exactly right about people's perceptions. Privatizing things that the government has done for so long is not an easy concept to wrap your head around very quickly. Look at the way everyone automatically points to the highway system anytime some questions the usefulness or even the competency of government. I actually had a long-time interaction with one guy who frequented the same forum I did for a number of years...and for years, anytime someone brought up education this guy (who served in the Navy and has a wife and two teenage children...God help us) would always exclaim "How in the world do you expect to get the government out of schooling? Private schools only house a SMALL PERCENTAGE of the school population. There are simply not enough private schools!!!" I am not kidding, or exaggerating. He literally asked "how do you expect to private schools to provide education for every single child?" And he maintained this for over a year at least. Granted, this guy was a total idiot, but this is how deeply ingrained these things are.
They honestly can't think of how a lot of things would even exist without government. And I can totally understand this because I was once there myself. It's not a quick and easy journey to anarcho-capitalism...and like they said in Hollow Man...genius is the ability to get from A to D without having to go through B and C. Very few people are geniuses. And the truth is, while "access to educational resources" is quickly diminishing as an excuse, still very few people have the time or the interest in going on that philosophical and ideological journey....which is why our job—as people who have walked that road—to expose, educate, and persuade others, is so important. I can so easily imagine a future in which people cannot imagine the government not running the farming industry and the grocery stores, and believing if we didn't have our grocery vouchers and government farms we would all starve to death because..."who would grow all the food?"