Bryan Caplan's new book The Case Against Education argues for educational austerity. We're trapped in a credentials arms race, so let's at least stop subsidizing people to get better credentials than their competitors. If you buy Caplan's argument that education is mostly signalling (as I do), then austerity makes sense. But fat chance we'll convince a large enough coalition of voters to make any kind of difference. Just how many libertarian, wonkish, numerate, cautious thinkers are there in the world? The overlap of that Venn diagram gets smaller with each criterion we add.
Geoffrey Miller and Tucker Max might have an answer that does not require large change in public policy. In their book What Women Want (aka Mate, the title it's sold under on Audible where I purchased it), they offer a provocative recommendation to young men who are college bound. Wait a few years, they say, and go when you are 24 or so. Their rationale is maturity. The 18-year-old brain (particularly the 18-year-old male brain) is just not optimally suited for long hours of study. Geoffrey Miller is an evolutionary psychologist. I presume there is some scientific merit to his suggestion. Having once been an 18-22 year old male, it strikes me as true that some important maturation happens during this time. (Stop snickering. I said maturation!) His book argues that instead of going to college young men should find employment, travel, indulge hobbies, etc. Here is where it gets provocative. In addition to being more mature and better able to cope with a college curriculum, young men will be more attractive to their female classmates.
An 18-year-old male entering college has basically zero social status. Maybe he's done something interesting, or maybe he's a hotshot sports star. But more likely he has nothing interesting to say and nothing to offer the young women he meets. If he's gone off on his own and lived a life for a few years, that changes. He know something. He's managed to survive at work for at least a short career. He has colleagues and acquaintances. He can legally purchase alcohol. Maybe he's even traveled a little and seen parts of the world that other young people are curious about. A short break between high school and college won't exactly make him the Most Interesting Man in the World, but it will give him a leg up over his useless 18-year-old self.
For a lot of young men, this is probably bad advice. I for one wouldn't have found anything better to do with myself. College was the best choice for me. And I've seen the "screw college, I'll go my own way" approach backfire badly. But for a large number of young men who only go to college because they're "supposed to", or because it's free to them, this consideration might dissuade them from making a bad investment (and thus avoid forcing society to underwrite that bad investment). Better yet, many of these young men might "find themselves" in the real world and forego the college experience altogether. It might nudge society to a better equilibrium, where people don't feel like they need a college degree just to compete and employers don't demand a college degree just because every candidate already has one. If enough young people find Miller's suggestion persuasive, there could be a big shift toward that equilibrium without a major change in public policy.
All this feels a little bit creepy. Not the part about telling young men how to make themselves more attractive to women. The book does this in a totally non-creepy way. Despite the title (the original and the alternate), it is not a "pick-up guide" (something I personally would have zero use for). It's more like a self-improvement/self-help book. It doesn't say, "Talk this way and women will like you; say these magic words and women will give you consent." The book is very blunt with the reader that they will have to do some serious work to make themselves attractive to the opposite sex. Get in better shape, because that actually makes you healthier and more worthy as a mate. Clean your home, especially your kitchen and bathrooms, because this actually gives visitors a more pleasant experience. Get a well-fitted wardrobe and groom yourself because it actually shows people that you give a shit. Work hard at your career because success in that realm actually proves that you can navigate the social world. Take up a serious hobby because it shows you have real self-discipline. The book frequently uses the phrases "social proof" and "material proof", referring to observable signals that you are a competent person and have something to offer as a companion and potential father. Having high status at work or with your group of friends (if they are quality friends!) gives you social proof. It's not that women are petty socialites trying to climb some meaningless social hierarchy. They just want some kind of proof that you're not a creep. Having a decent job and income is "material proof". Women aren't just looking for a sugar daddy; the book explicitly argues against "the more wealth you have the more attractive you will be to women" because it's plainly not true. They just want some kind of proof that you can navigate a career and provide for a family. Eighteen-year-olds entering college typically have none of these social or material proofs, but someone who has a short career already behind him has some.
The book takes an evolutionary psyche approach to the dating world. (Anyone who has read The Selfish Gene or The Blank Slate will see familiar themes; people who have not read these books or something similar might be squeamish about the following paragraph.) Women want proof of the above-mentioned traits because they want healthy children who will grow up to have similar traits. In the evolutionary psyche story, if a woman failed to do this she'd give birth to losers who would fail to carry on the gene line. If she's choosy about mates and picks only men who convincingly demonstrate desirable traits (importantly: in a way that is hard to fake), she will have high-quality children who will carry on her genes. It might be obvious that "You should clean your bathroom and the place where you eat so your date doesn't get grossed out" or "You should be in reasonably good physical shape to attract the opposite sex", but some young men probably need to hear it. Hell, some grown-ass men with families probably need to hear it. Even some very successful high-functioning adults probably need a gentle reminder now and then. It's not creepy to give these young men advice that, if actually taken, would truly make the world a little better. (It wouldn't just raise their relative status in an arms-race sense. A world with one cleaner bathroom is a slightly nicer world indeed!)
What feels creepy is enticing young men to solve a bad signaling equilibrium by promising them the attention of young women. Ultimately I'm okay with it. For many young men "delay higher education until you're mature enough to appreciate and benefit from it" is legitimately good advice.
I have some lingering doubts. If you take a break from your working career at ages 24-28, as opposed to 18-22, you are taking yourself out of the labor market at a point when you have more experience and your income is higher. This likely lowers your lifetime income, unless maturation causes you to really get a lot more out of college. If Bryan Caplan's signalling story is true then this is unlikely, unless maturation means you are simply more likely to finish college. Another point: most people don't go to college anyway. Sixty percent of working adults don't hold a college degree. (I think most people in my personal bubble would be surprised by this figure. Take a moment to soak it in, and contrast it with the fraction you'd get by surveying people you personally know and interact with.) So most people are already taking Miller's advice, just without the "go to college later" part. Spreading this advice more widely might encourage young men currently in the labor force to instead go to college, perhaps more so than it does to encourage young college-bound men to instead join the labor force. The net effect on college enrollment/completion is unclear. Still, my guess is that most young men are not even remote candidates for college and never will be. The advice to "Get a job, grow worldly, enter college when you are more interesting and mature" probably only appeals to people who would enter college in the first place. I'm sharing because I thought Miller's "delay college" advice was provocative and probably appropriate for a lot of young people currently considering college. If in a few years my own children are not absolute shoe-ins for college (and on sheer base-rates most kids aren't), I'll gladly share this thought with them.
No comments:
Post a Comment