Silby on Ian Ayres: "What Is Happening Is Fine Because If Something Very Different Were Happening That Something Would Be Good"

Insert Economist Joke Here: So much wrong in such a short paragraph:

Students at University of California schools have been protesting the decision of the Board of Regents “to raise undergraduate fees — the equivalent of tuition — 32 percent next fall.” But higher tuition, if it is accompanied with higher financial aid for lower- and middle-income students, improves equity

This, the start of a longer article by Ian Ayres at the Freakonomics blog of the New York Times, continues the argument about equity and tuition to reach triumphantly the conclusion that “By increasing the effective tuition for some of our wealthier students, we might be able to reduce the price for some of the less wealthy.” In other words, the tuition raise could be a good thing.

Reading it, I boggled. It’s a particular kind of context-and-responsibility-free analysis, shorn of everything except the preconceptions and assumptions of a particular discipline, that actively reduces the quality of the debate by giving one position the cover of a seemingly scholarly analysis. Is it likely that California, in the midst of a massively catastrophic fiscal situation, with a horrendously dysfunctional state government, will raise the amount of financial aid for state students? Or that the federal government, also facing serious fiscal issues and with a certain level of dysfunction of its own, will step into that absence?

Really?

So essentially, the argument is that the tuition raise might be a good thing if this almost certainly impossible thing happens along with it. That’s not reasoning, that’s “and a pony” logic.

That’s not even considering the myriad other problems with the argument. Is it possible that there could be other definitions of equity rather than economic that a university might be seeking with low up-front tuition? Is it possible that the lower-income students might be thrown off by the intimidation factor of high up-front price and simply not apply at all? Is it possible that having high tuitions at the state colleges in California will further erode the sense of ownership that Californians have in their state system and lead to a continuing spiral of budget cuts and tuition increases? I don’t know, but I rather suspect that all of those issues are worth considering.

Also worth considering is the idea that those who are public voices simply because of their reputation for acuity would do well to live up to that reputation.

I wish for that, and a pony.

Comments

[robert waldmann]

Indeed the freakonomics post shows the very worst side of the economics profession. I would put it a bit differently. For "It’s a particular kind of context-and-responsibility-free analysis, shorn of everything" I would say "It's a particular kind of analysis in which facts, data and reality are completely irrelevant."

At least people who argued about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin did no positive harm.

I think the problem here is the passing reference to recent events. Ayres wanted to write an article about how higher tuition might be a good policy under some circumstances. To tie the post to current events he mentioned a case with very different circumstances.

A debate in which he makes his argument for some polity other than California and you make your counter arguments might be useful.

The utter contempt for facts, empirical observation and well anything any natural scientist would recognise is demonstrated by tossing in an irrelevant reference to recent events which have nothing to do with the topic of Ayres post.

Facts are a decoration. The attempt at serious discussion has nothing to do with mere facts.

But the worst thing is that powerful people listen to us.