THE VALUE OF ECONOMICS. University Diaries concurs in part and dissents in part with the latest from pseudonymous Chronicle of Higher Education college critic Thomas H. Benton. (If we're picking nineteenth-century avatars, I get to be James J. Hill.)

Criticisms of the academic enterprise might work better with proper economics fundamentals. So let it be with this essay.

The consumer mentality of students results in their desiring less rigorous instruction because they are paying more for it. They use the cost of tuition — which, I acknowledge, is far too high — as a justification for lowering standards. So they will pay again later when they discover that their degrees are a form of inflated currency and that employers will not treat them like little geniuses but expect them to actually work without complaining. Even if one accepts the instrumentalist view of education, we do our students no favors by letting them leave with so little knowledge and so much attitude.

What "instrumentalist view?" Isn't it simpler to use the Principle of Derived Demand? A university degree has value precisely as an instrument. How else interpret "To get a good job, get a good education?" The rate of return on a college degree, even at private-college rates, exceeds the rate of return on a Treasury bill, without the risks of a portfolio of Enrons and World Coms. Now, does that say tuition is too costly, or too cheap? On to the inflated currency. Apparently "honors degree from Harvard" translates into "can't find the way to the bathroom?" That's a market test. The striver who finishes at Northern Illinois or Wisconsin who can find the way to the bathroom gets to make the big bucks. Provided, that is, the Wisconsins and the Northern Illinoises are doing their job properly. If they're not, perhaps the premia for the name colleges are a form of insurance (our kids may not be any smarter than their contemporaries at Northern Illinois or Wisconsin, but they're exposed to a higher order of fluff at Harvard) or a positional arms race. Taken together, economics suggests that higher education is giving too much and asking too little, and paying more for less is suboptimal.

Onward:

Students, even if they are paying tuition, are not "customers" because, at most institutions, their tuition covers only a fraction of the total cost of their education, which is paid for by the state, donors, and accumulated institutional capital. The professors are also making a major contribution by working for far less than comparably educated professionals.

By that logic, no spectator at a sporting event or passenger on a money-losing airline is a "customer." For that matter, a personal trainer could use Professor Benton's logic to argue that a trainee is not a "customer." And apparently Professor Benton could use a refresher course on compensating differentials. Professors that are sufficiently displeased with the pay and the working conditions are not precluded from seeking a different bundle of pay and working conditions elsewhere.

It strains credulity to argue, as he does, that "Most untenured faculty members who maintain high expectations are eventually unemployed faculty members." "Academic ninja" is not something I became with age, or with tenure. That said, I recommend that all read Professor Benton's suggestions for strengthening the curriculum.