Education

Education as the “universal solvent”…seems like a phrase taken out of the Enlightenment. Most would agree that making higher education more accessible and desirable is a worthwhile initiative. On average, college graduates participate in the civic realm at a higher rate so there must be some tangible benefits that are conferred to individuals with higher education.

Kam and McAdam are not enamored with the alleged relative or absolute effects of higher education. In what seems like a typical economist argument, they assert that certain “preadult dispositions” are better indication of civic participation and education is just another byproduct of these dispositions…simply confusing an association for a cause.

I was impressed with the empirical work on this subject despite the lackluster policy implications on their work. This is where I tend to agree with Campbell’s work on relative versus absolute effects of education. Kam and McAdam casually mention at the conclusion of their piece that individuals who are more likely to participate are more likely to go to college so the causal relationship is worthless. But it might be worth reforming earlier sources of inequality that stem from primary and secondary education. Might be?? Starting at the foundation seems like the most logical avenue to me. If you’re predetermined by your environment in a number of ways before the conclusion of high school then why don’t we start younger? Making college accessible sounds fantastic, but how about we make participation accessible as well.

The Teach for America piece is very interesting to me mainly for policy implications. I would agree with the findings for the same reasons Kam discusses but it starts the conversation for potential funding or government marketing in programs like TFA and Peace Corps. I guess you could say that an increase in the raw number of applications provides some in-depth commentary on the predisposition to participate.