Competitive Education in the Third Millenium: Quo Vadis?

 
PIIS013122270013255-1-1
DOI10.20542/0131-2227-2020-64-11-23-30
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Affiliation: National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE)
Address: 20, Myasnitskaya Str., Moscow. 101000, Russian Federation
Journal nameMirovaia ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia
EditionVolume 64 Issue 11
Pages23-30
Abstract

The 21st century competition has proved to become an educational rivalry. International leader and competitive champion will be the nation that will catch the new global trends in contemporary education and adequately modernize its training of personnel system. The article is aimed at demonstrating the newest tendencies in education sphere that have arisen in the latest years. The review of the empirical investigations, statistical data and theoretical concepts can forecast future development of education models under globalization and digitalization. The latest decades have demonstrated radical changes in labor market all over the world. The participation rate of low educated employees has significantly declined. The majority of labor force now have education (bachelor/master degree). The gap in wages between low- and higher-educated workers has also risen. What factors can explain the education premium? The viewpoints of Gary Beсker and Michael Spence are nowadays far from adequately explaining the education-related bonus dynamics. In a global digitalized economy the benefits from education lie mostly in public good nature of learning. Value of education is considered to be not only in economic terms (like productivity and income) but also in terms of its major contribution to social, political, religious and cultural life of the society. Education transforms personal tastes, values and preferences towards healthier and more ecologically friendly alternatives. As education, especially higher education, is becoming a kind of a merit good for all, new roles for a teacher have occurred. The educator now is not a monopolistic provider of information. Rather, he is a consultant and a tutor in a system of relationships where students are treated as equal partners in the educational process. Can online education fully substitute class learning? Empirical data does not provide evidence for giving a positive answer. The existence of peer effect means that effective education advances can be achieved only under personal (offline) interactions between peer students and teachers. Competitive education nowadays represents a special model of social relationships. It is not just a contact of a student with an object, whether the latter be virtual or real. Basically, it is a dialogue between two parts with equal rights, a teacher and a student, and its inner intensity depends on personal communication face-to-face.

Keywordshuman capital, education, digitalization, online lectures, peer effect, competitiveness
Received29.12.2020
Publication date29.12.2020
Number of characters22597
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.
Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной
1 К XXI веку многие, если и не все, традиционные факторы экономического роста оказались исчерпанными. Новым драйвером успешности страны в глобальной экономике и повышения благосостояния ее граждан становится образование.
2 Если в 1980-е годы в развитых странах в среднем работник с вузовским дипломом (бакалавр) зарабатывал в 1.26 раза больше, чем выпускник средней школы, то в 2015 г. разница составила 1.68 раза [1, р. 166]. Расхождение между зарплатами сотрудников с более высоким уровнем образования (магистратура и аспирантура) и индивидами с дипломом средней школы увеличилось с 1.41 раза в 1980-е годы до 2.17 раза в 2015 г. Было установлено, что 1%-й рост баллов по итоговым тестам в школе приводит к увеличению на 0.57% индивидуального дохода от образования, а улучшение качества образования на 1% сопровождается приростом совокупного выпуска страны на 0.2% в год [2, р. 181].
3

НОВАЯ СТАРАЯ РОЛЬ ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ: БЕККЕР ПРОТИВ СПЕНСА

4 В чем с точки зрения экономического анализа состоит ценность образования? Чем объяснить наличие премии за него в заработной плате работников, получивших более высокое образование, по сравнению с менее образованными коллегами?
5 Долгое время доминировала концепция Г. Беккера, согласно которой считалось, что образование, являясь инвестицией в человеческий капитал, повышает производительность труда работника [3]. Чем выше уровень образования, тем более высокой представляется продуктивность работника и тем значительнее его монопольная рента – сверхнормальная заработная плата, превышающая среднюю величину по отрасли. Однако в 1970-е годы выяснилось, что хотя в США (как и во всем западном мире) образовательная премия резко возросла, это не сопровождалось сопоставимым ростом производительности труда образованных работников.
6 В 1973 г. появилась работа М. Спенса [4], который делал акцент не на реальной производительности труда (во многих случаях мифической), связанной с получением образования, а на значимости диплома как сигнала “качества” работника. Работодатель, нанимающий сотрудника с небольшим или отсутствующим опытом работы, заинтересован в том, чтобы как можно быстрее определить его истинную эффективность и предложить ему адекватную заработную плату.
7 Однако при этом в условиях сильной информационной асимметрии работодатель подвержен ошибкам двух типов. Он может назначить высокую заработную плату низкопроизводительному работнику – и будет нести потери, а уволить работника не так-то просто! Если же работодатель назначает низкую зарплату высокопроизводительному работнику, тот может отказаться от места – и опять же работодатель оказывается в проигрыше, не сумев заинтересовать эффективного сотрудника. Спенс доказывал, что единственно работающий способ найти оптимальное решение – ориентироваться на наличие или отсутствие диплома у соискателя.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 709

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Binder A., Bound J. The Declining Labor Market Prospects of Less-Educated Men. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2019, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 163-190.

2. Gu W., Wong A. Productivity and Economic Output of the Education Sector. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 2015, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 165-182.

3. Becker G.S. Human Capital. New York, Columbia University Press, 1964. 264 r.

4. Spence M. Job Market Signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economic, 1973, vol. 87, pp. 355-374.

5. Peracchi F. Educational Wage Premia and the Distribution of Earnings: an International Perspective. Handbook of the Economics of Education. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science, vol. 1, 2006, pp. 189-254.

6. Lange F., Topel R. The Social Value of Education and Human Capital. Handbook of the Economics of Education. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science, vol. 1, 2006. pp. 459-509.

7. Lange F. The Speed of Employer Learning. Journal of Labor Economics, 2007, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1-35.

8. Groshen E., Holzer H. Improving Employment and Earnings in Twenty-First Century Labor Markets: an Introduction. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2019, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 1-19.

9. Ochkina A. Obrazovanie kak fiktivnyj kapital: krizis sotsial'noj znachimosti znaniya. Logos, 2018, № 6, cs. 105-130. [Ochkina A. Obrazovanie kak fiktivnyi kapital: krizis sotsial'noi znachimosti znaniya [Education as fictitious capital: the crisis of social importance of knowledge]. Logos, 2018, no. 6, pp. 105-130.]

10. Lobanova N.I., Logunova L.V. Kontseptsiya obrazovaniya Pitirima Sorokina v kontekste sovremennosti. Alma mater (Vestnik vysshej shkoly), 2019, № 9, cs. 30-35. [Lobanova N.I., Logunova L.V. Kontseptsiya obrazovaniya Pitirima Sorokina v kontekste sovremennosti [Concept of education of Pitirim Sorokin in the context of modernity]. Alma mater (Higher School Herald), 2019, no. 9, pp. 30-35.]

11. Ehrshtejn L.B. Suschnost' i prichiny formalizatsii obrazovaniya v Rossii i v mire. Alma mater (Vestnik vysshej shkoly), 2020, № 3, cs. 19-25. [Ershtein L.B. Sushchnost' i prichiny formalizatsii obrazovaniya v Rossii i v mire. [The nature and causes of formalization of education in Russia and in the world]. Alma mater (Higher School Herald), 2020, no. 3, pp. 19-25.]

12. Roy S., Morton M., Bhattacharya S. Hidden Human Capital: Self-Efficacy, Aspirations and Achievements of Adolescent and Young Women in India. World Development, 2018, vol. 111, pp. 161-180.

13. Cunha F., Hechman J. Formulating, Identifying and Estimating the Technology of Cognitive and Noncognitive Skill Formation. Journal of Human Resources, 2008, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 738-782.

14. Lindqvist E., Vestman R. The Labor Market Returns to Cognitive and Noncognitive Ability: Evidence from the Swedish Enlistment. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2011, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 101-128.

15. Carroll A., Houghton S., Wood R., Unsworth K., Hattie J., Gordon L., Bower J. Self-efficacy and Academic Achievement in Australian High School Students: the Mediating Effects of Academic Aspirations and Delinquency. Journal of Adolescence, 2009, vol. 32, pp. 797-817.

16. Krishnakumar J., Nogales R. Education, Skills and a Good Job: a Multidimensional Econometric Analysis. World Development, 2020, vol. 128. DOI:10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104842

17. Olfindo R. Rethinking Vocational Education in the Philippines: Does It Really Lead to Higher Wages? Journal of Southeast Asian Economies, 2018, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 79-100.

18. Hanushek E., Schwerdt G., Woessmann L., Zhang L. General Education, Vocational Education, and Labor Market Outcomes over the Lifecycle. Journal of Human Resources, 2017, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 49-87.

19. Koritz A. Introduction: the Public Purposes of General Education. The Journal of General Education, 2018, vol. 67, no. 3-4, pp. 173-177.

20. Kim C., Tamborini C. Are They still Worth It? The Long-Run Earnings Benefits of an Associate Degree, Vocational Diploma or Certificate, and Some College. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2019, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 64-85.

21. Talance M. Private and Public Education: Do Parents Care About School Quality? Annals of Economics and Statistics, 2020, no. 137, pp. 117-144.

22. Lochner L. Non-Production Benefits of Education: Crime, Health, and Good Citizenship. Handbook of the Economics of Education. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science, vol. 4, 2011, pp. 183-282.

23. Grossman M. Education and Nonmarket Outcomes. Handbook of the Economics of Education. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science, vol. 1, 2006, pp. 577-633.

24. Graetz N., Woyczynski L., Hay S.I. Mapping Disparities in Education across Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Nature, 2019, vol. 577, pp. 235-238.

25. Masuda K., Yudhistira M.H. Does Education Secularize the Islamic Population? The Effect of Years of Schooling on Religiosity, Voting, and Pluralism in Indonesia. World Development, June 2020, vol. 130. DOI:10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104915

26. Bond V. Culturally Responsive Education in Music Education: a Literature Review. Contributions to Music Education, 2017, vol. 42, pp. 153-180.

27. Mankiw N.G. The Past and Future of Econ 101: The John R. Commons Award Lecture. NBER Working Paper, no. 26702, January 2020, pp. 1-19.

28. Hopkins E. John Dewey and Progressive Education. The Journal of Educational Thought, 2017, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 59-68.

29. Pereskokova T.A., Solov'ev V.P. Vysshee obrazovanie v farvatere razvitiya ehkonomiki. Alma mater (Vestnik vysshej shkoly), 2018, № 9, cs. 11-16. [Pereskokova T.A., Solov’ev V.P. Vysshee obrazovanie v farvatere razvitija jekonomiki [Higher education following economic development lead]. Alma mater (Higher School Herald), 2018, no. 9, pp. 11-16.]

30. Malakhova V.G., Bokova T.N. Osobennosti obrazovaniya v informatsionnom obschestve. Alma mater (Vestnik vysshej shkoly), 2019, № 11, cs. 36-40. [Malahova V.G., Bokova T.N. Osobennosti obrazovanija v informacionnom obshhestve [Features of education in information society]. Alma mater (Higher School Herald), 2019, no. 11, pp. 36-40.]

31. Toropov D.A. Digitalizatsiya obrazovaniya: za i protiv, perspektivy. Pedagogika, 2018, № 6, cc. 109-116. [Toropov D.A. Digitalizatsyia obrazovaniya: za i protiv, perspektivy [Digitalization of education: pro and contra, perspectives]. Pedagogica, 2018, no. 6, pp. 109-116.]

32. Bulman G., Fairlie R.W. Technology and Education: Computers, Software, and the Internet. Handbook of the Economics of Education. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science, vol. 5, 2016, pp. 239-280.

33. Indikatory obrazovaniya. Statisticheskij sbornik. Moskva, NIU VShEh, 2020. 496 c. [Indicators of education. a statistical dataset. Moscow, HSE, 2020. 496 p. (In Russ.)]

34. Manganello F., Falsetti C., Leo T. Self-Regulated Learning for Web-Enhanced Control Engineering Education. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 2019, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 44-58.

35. Zimmerman B. Attaining Self-Regulation: a Social Cognitive Perspective. Handbook of Self-Regulation. San Diego, Academic Press, 2000, pp. 13-39.

36. Delnoij L., Dirkz K., Janssen J., Martens R. Predicting and Resolving Non-Completion in 37. Higher (Online) Education – a Literature Review. Educational Research Review, 2020, vol. 29, Article 100313.

37. Henderikx M., Kreijns K., Kalz M. Refining Success and Dropout in Massive Open Online Courses Based on the Intention-Behavior Gap. Distance Education, 2017, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 353-368.

38. Epple D., Romano R. Peer Effects in Education: a Survey of the Theory and Evidence. Handbook of Social Economics. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science, 2011, vol. 1, pp. 1053-1163.

39. Sacerdote B. Peer Effects in Education: how Might They Work, how Big Are They and how Much Do We Know Thus Far? Handbook of Education. Amsterdam. Elsevier Science, vol. 3, 2011, pp. 249-277.

40. Izaguirre A., Di Capua L. Exploring Peer Effects in Education in Latin America and the Caribbean. Research in Economics, 2020, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 73-86.

41. Fang G., Wan S. Peer Effects among Graduate Students: Evidence from China. China Economic Review, 2020, vol. 60. DOI:10.1016/j.chieco.2020.101406

42. Jain T., Kapoor M. The Impact of Study Groups and Roommates on Academic Performance. Review of Economics and Statistics, 2015, vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 44-54.

43. Adrianzen M.A., Chevez H.F., Morales W.N., Quevedo V., Chiyon S.V. Study-Group Diversity and Early College Academic Outcomes: Experimental Evidence from a Higher Education Inclusion Program in Peru. Economics of Education Review, 2019, vol. 72, pp. 131-146.

44. Mehta N., Stinebrickner R, Stinebrickner T. Time-Use and Academic Peer Effects in College. Economic Inquiry, 2019. vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 162-171.

45. Choi J.Y., Castle S., Burchinal M., Horm D., Guss S., Bingham G. Peer Effects on Low-Income Children’s Learning and Development. Journal of School Psychology, 2018, vol. 71, pp. 1-17.

46. Epple D., Romano R., Sarpca S., Sieg H., Zaber M. Market Power and Price Discrimination in the US Market for Higher Education. RAND Journal of Economics, March 2019, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 201-225.

47. Butz N., Stupnisky R. Improving Student Relatedness through an Online Discussion Intervention: the Application of Self-Determination Theory in Synchronous Hybrid Programs. Computers and Education, November 2017, vol. 114, pp. 117-138.

48. Barak M., Usher M. The Innovation Profile of Nanotechnology Team Projects among Face-To-Face and Online Learners. Computers and Education, August 2019, vol. 137, pp. 1-11.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up