Epplin’s paper gives a great background to land grant institutions including their history and the opposition the Morril Land Grant Act faced in its early stages. It’s interesting that many people who opposed the implementation of land grant colleges and universities did so not only because they thought it was a “waste of public lands and public money” but also that the land grants would “benefit proponents of abolition relatively more than proponents of slavery.” It makes sense that southern slave owners would oppose land grants, but was surprising to read since I was under the impression that for the most part, land grant universities were agreed upon as beneficial. It’s also important to consider the contributions made by land grant institutions over time. Although I’m not too familiar with their impact over the course of the 1900s, I have witnessed first-hand some of the work being done by researchers at Virginia Tech. During my Economics of the Chesapeake Bay course, my class traveled to a small farm near Williamsburg that worked under VT to identify the most resilient and effective species of wheat and other crops. The farm also had a lot of advanced technologies used to identify any potential issues with the land, and they were able to use various mapping tools to see how effective their land was at growing crops. This type of information is important because it can be applied to other farmers in order to help them increase their crop yield, which is especially important for farmers that rely on their output to make a living. I also thought it was really interesting (and relevant to our work this summer!) at the end of the paper where Eppin described the shortcomings of introductory economics courses, and hope that Econ 180 will help to solve some of the problems he sees.
Epplin's paper successfully details how public goods are provided. Specifically, Epplin looks at the history of land grant institutions as a means to discuss how the future of education and economics may change. Epplin starts by detailing how public education came to fruition in the United States. It was heavily agreed upon at the time of signing the declaration of independence that a focus on future knowledge would be necessary to good government. Not only would knowledge aid good government but it would allow mankind to achieve in ways that foster greater happiness and satisfaction in life. At this time, education was thought of not as a public good or a place where markets have failed. Instead, the founders recognized that resource allocation is incredibly important. It was common sense to publicly fund education for all. Land grant institutions in particular faced more push back. Those who opposed land grants did so on the basis that they were both a waste of money as well as another way that abolitionist movements would "win". Today, multiple studies continue to find that not enough resources have been allocated to agricultural education. But how do we educate the public on these ideas of market failure and misallocation of public resources? How do you ensure that the citizens of our country understand that government intervention and spending can make everyone better off? Epplin finishes the paper by pointing out how principles of economic classes may have been failing to make this very point. Often, students learn only how markets are successful. If they do not encounter how markets fail, we may be creating a bigger problem than we are solving. In reading this paper I thought back to Wednesday's class where we ultimately determined that Economists are rarely listened to by the public. This is a clear cut example where all economic research has determined what policy ought to be enacted yet no one has done so. If everyone could be better off by investing more in agricultural research and education then why do we not make that a priority? It seems that political influence and policy often clouds the judgement of those who do not understand market failures in the first place. I find this a difficult, if not impossible, problem to combat.
One thing which stood out me was that the author states that it was ‘intuitive’ for the founding fathers to advocate for public funding of education. Similarly, fighting for land grants which would promote publicly funded agricultural universities and research and make agricultural education available for all people regardless of class was intuitive for those who pushed forward the cause, like DeWitt and Turner. These people understood that public funding of education was crucial because it would not otherwise be adequately or efficiently provided by the (private) market. In the case of agricultural education, DeWitt and Turner knew that land grant institutions would lead to better allocation of resources and greater productivity—i.e. to efficiency and a bigger economic pie.
What makes this emphasis on intuition really interesting is that near the end of the piece, when noting that the level of investment in public agricultural education and research is less than what is efficient and that the size of the economic pie is therefore smaller than it could be, Epplin laments economists’ “collective inability to effectively educate the public and our elected representatives about the existence of these market failures and the economically efficient fixes that are possible.” I think maybe he is being a bit too hard on himself and his profession because it seems to me that these concepts are no less intuitive today than they were centuries ago. Unfortunately (as we mentioned jokingly but actually kind of seriously in class the other day), today many people (and politicians) don’t listen to economists; question or deny science and evidence; and evidently don’t even understand, recognize, or acknowledge ideas that make complete intuitive sense. While there are surely ways that principles of economics classes in colleges and universities can be improved to help students better understand concepts like market failure and the role of government, and I believe there are probably ways to improve economic literacy in the general public, I am less optimistic about the prospect of politicians and elected representatives being open to or moved by arguments based on intuition. I fear that most politicians have shoved intuition away into some sort of box marked with ‘potentially hazardous to campaign for reelection.’
I think that one of the most important aspects of the article was the idea of how simple and intuitive economic theory and policy can really be. The realization of the simplicity behind this economic theory makes the poor policy decisions even more frustrating. The founding fathers “intuitively recognized that the net social benefits exceeded the need private benefits”. The limitations that a fully private education market would result in a small economic pie that would not benefit those who could not participate in this private market as well as society as a whole. Yet those in power did not do anything. Wade supported the bill because, “..the thoroughly educated, being most sure to educate their sons, appeared to be perpetuating a monopoly of education inconsistent with the welfare and complete prosperity of the American institutions…”. Epplin then continues to explain that “the class distinction was very clear as well as the intuitive understanding of the external consequences of restricting higher education.” The upper class wants to keep themselves elevated whether or not it is beneficial for the country and society as a whole. This is not fair, nor is it morally right.
Although many oppositions to Turner’s plan had to do with the idea of wasting public lands and the funding mechanism behind it, a reasonable opposition that I could see being a difficult hurdle to cross would be the fact that “college would enable sons to avoid the practical work that they should be doing on the farm.” This reminded me of the conversation of how it can be difficult for lower income countries to change their habits due to the risk factor. Although what they are doing may not currently be the most effective, those individuals know that their current practices work, and their livelihood depends on it, so changing would be of too high a risk. I think that in order to combat this, it would be beneficial to propose a type of insurance coverage that could mitigate the risk of losing hands and productivity on the farm. In initially proposing this initiative, I think it would have been beneficial to look at how exactly they were going to get individuals to college and invest their time in schooling while leaving work at home. I would be interested to learn more about this and the details of how individuals were actually able to make this time investment in school and away from their work.
In his article, Epplin tells the very interesting story of the history of public education in the US. I had no idea that part of the delay in establishing public agricultural universities was in part due to the fact that Southern slave owners did not want to give land and lose their way of life. It is remarkable how there are so many different aspects of history that are tied together in this regard. It is also quite interesting how an individual who has no formal education is more detrimental to society than beneficial, and therefore it is in society's best interest to fund public education so that the masses can become educated.
I think that this article also supports the idea that education is one of the most crucial building blocks for a high performing and high functioning society. As we saw with the Miracle on the Han article, investment in education was one of the leading factors that completely transformed South Korea's economy. It is remarkable how these investments are not made, and even more remarkable how they are not made for the benefit of some and the expense of others. Investment in education should be a top priority, yet I feel as though it is seldom mentioned these days amongst our politicians. If Epplin's article and personal story of how his parents had no more than an 8th grade level education to him being a professor at an accredited university just one generation later is not a testament to that, then I do not know what is.
Epplin’s talk focuses on the differences between proposing economic policy that would widely benefit people, and actually implementing it. Like others have said it is interesting and frustrating that economists prove theories that will make everyone better off, yet politicians still reject them. Setting aside land for public universities caused a significant increase in productivity on the farm as people were learning and getting better education. This was a government led initiative that still has effect as universities that were established with the help of land grants remain prevalent today. In America, we often think that our system is perfect and that we have solutions to our problems. From Epplin’s paper it is important to note that markets fail, and different factors cause markets to fail to maximize their productivity. Markets change and people need understand that policy that is effective one day might not be effective the next. Governments need to be mindful of this. The Morrill Land Grants are an example of government intervention to stimulate productivity of the markets, and they can be used as a model for developing countries as well. With development and the global economy that we currently live in, I think it is important for countries to help other countries with developing. I don’t know about the quality of universities in developing countries, but if countries with more advanced economies would provide aid to the largely agricultural, developing countries through land grants or education reform, everyone would be better off.
Given my limited familiarity with the Morrill Land Grant Act, I found this article to be particularly enlightening. Moreover, I appreciated the discussion of the topic within the context of economics and the efficient allocation of resources. Overall, I found the author's argument rather compelling; it is clear that public investment in education is a necessity, as the costs incurred by intervening in the field of education are insignificant when compared to the greater social benefits from doing so. Ultimately, as Epplin puts it, more accessible and publicly financed education is necessary to achieve economic efficiency and the "largest sized pie."
This topic is especially notable when thinking about development economics. While Epplin says that more investment in domestic education is needed, I also have thought about it within the context of the developing world. Specifically, I believe that foreign aid should be strongly geared towards building a stronger educational infrastructure within third-world countries. By doing so, the developed world would help to establish the necessary infrastructure to sustain - rather than just merely initiate - growth in these places. I also believe that education will serve as an effective remedy for other ills that lead to the misallocation of resources. For example, corruption will lead to this inefficient outcome. However, by creating an educated public, one would have a general populace that has the competence and knowledge to demand transparency and hold officials accountable for their actions. Such a reduction in corruption would be instrumental in the efficient allocation of resources.
In the paper by Epplin, there were a few lines that read as follows, “formal economic theory was not available to explain market failure and the justification for government intervention in markets. It had not yet been ‘discovered’ (Bator, 1958). The case for publicly funded common schools was more a matter of common sense, which is the case for many results derived from the standard theory of microeconomics.” This line reminded me a lot of what we had read in Krugman’s piece about the rise and fall of development economics. The idea that theory and model couldn’t quite explain something yet, intuitively we knew it made sense. This was the case for publicly funded schools as well. Krugman stated that high development theory depended on economies of scale which were unable to be explained using models. Schools, are an example of an economy of scale as there are high fixed costs, but the marginal cost per student decreases as there are more students. Two of the largest of the fixed costs are the land on which to build the school and the school structure itself. Epplin’s piece addresses the land side of these fixed costs. Epplin talks about how the marginal social benefit of education is greater than the marginal private benefit and thus education is a positive externality. As we have discussed in class externalities lead to market failures and thus government intervention is needed to correct the market failure, in this case to provide greater access to eduction through employing a policy regarding land grants. The policy regarding land grants is similar to the land reforms in South Korea we read about in “Miracle on the Han”. I liked this paper a lot because it tied into many concepts we have already talked about and created a more complete understanding of the material.
Having known little to nothing about the Morrill Land Grant Act, this article was quite enlightening. Something that jumped out at me in particular was the incredible irony of the origins of the idea of agricultural college; there were so many young men obtaining education that they needed a new field to send them into, so they taught them to study something the poor had been doing for thousands upon thousands of years. I think this really speaks to what we've talked about in class a few times now; you can't just come into farming communities and try to impose new methodology on them because you think you know better. I find it so interesting that this was one of the initial reasons for the proposal of an agricultural college system, and I wonder how closely that is tied with the relationship between college students coming into farming communities now to help them 'improve.'
It was also quite interesting to read a couple of the founding father's arguments for the public funding of education; I hadn't actually read anything like this before, and I think it's a really great way to approach people who argue that publicly funded education (or the expansion of it to preschool and post-high school education) isn't the government's responsibility.
Epplin’s paper, “Market Failures and Land Grant Universities,” gave a relatively succinct and comprehensive history of land grant universities in the United States. I specifically found the beginning interesting and the difficulties which were faced when trying to get legislation passed. In the first half of the paper, a quote from Thomas Jefferson stood out: “If the children are untaught, their ignorance and vices will in future life cost us much dearer in their consequences than it would have done in their correction by a good education.” With the elections in full swing, I believe the focus on universal education independent of financial background. In a democracy, education is vitally important. While the paper focuses on agricultural research and education, general schooling is also very important. Any functional democracy relies on the ability of the general public to elect competent leaders. Without an educated populace, any democracy threatens to transition, as Socrates feared, into a demagoguery. More in line with the paper, I found it interesting that we need to allocated even more public resources towards agricultural education. In class we discussed how America should lower intervention in the agricultural sector in order to provide greater opportunity for foreign producers. I suppose Epplin also extends his argument into the fact that taxes can outweigh the social costs and end up increasing overall welfare within a country. Whether that be in the agricultural industry or otherwise.
“Market Failures and Land Grant Universities” delivered by Francis M. Epplin reveals the efficiency problems with education and then documents the US government’s response using anecdotes.I came across the reference to, “...the eighteenth century founders of economics ... assumed that nine out of ten human beings were sentenced by God or nature to lives of grinding poverty and toil...’’ (282). To imagine professionals and academics poverty was considered a divine punishment instead of a consequence of a broken system appalled me. I was more than shocked by this, especially considering the founding fathers of our republic recognized the inequality and sought to provide equal access to education. Unfortunately, the initial definition of “all” was self-serving and limited to white, wealthy men. Education was keeping the ‘elite’ in their and the commoners in their own respective bubbles and inevitably widening a wealth gap early on. Of course, education and job opportunities and Upon further reading, it seems that while primary level education seems to be encouraged throughout, extension of taxpayer funded education to high school and beyond seemed to be a point of contention and in some variation is still a topic of debate. In the fight for publicly funded agricultural universities, there seemed to be two very distinct sides. One side of educated individuals, “did not envision an agricultural college for commoners.” (284). The other, agricultural adept folk that argued, “College would enable sons to avoid the practical work they should be doing on the farm.” (285). To hear, the rationale behind land grants due to their association with abolition served to further confuse me. Ultimately, the speech was an enjoyable read overall.
For me, the most salient part of Epplin’s remarks was when he talked about the real rate of return to the US agricultural institutions. At first, I was amazed just how beneficial they were (with a benefit-cost ratio of 32). I thought for sure Epplin was going to talk about how much of a success this was, but he immediately pointed out that given the fact that the benefit outweighed the cost by this much, the US must still be severely underinvesting in agricultural research and educational institutions. He asks “how much ‘grinding toil and poverty’ persists… as a result of our inability to effectively educate the public.” Although this perspective is a bit more somber than solely focusing on the widespread success of the investments in agricultural institutions, I think it is crucial. I don’t believe I would have thought of the fact that because such investments have been so successful, the US is not fully internalizing this positive externality, and should invest more. I certainly wouldn’t have considered it in terms how much poverty could have been eradicated if we had corrected for this market failure. I also think it was important that he mentioned why the US has underinvested. Even though intervention can increase total social welfare, the groups that do not benefit or are made worse off will resist the change. To add to this, I would emphasize that market failures often remain uncorrected when these groups have influence over political decision-making. Epplin’s arguments are so important because their applications are much further reaching than agricultural institutions and land grant universities. Failure to correct inefficient markets is an obvious problem in other places where powerful individuals or firms have vested interests in keeping the status quo, such as with carbon emissions.
Something that I did not fully understand in this paper was the benefit-cost ratio of 32 and how this ratio was indicative of inefficiencies of resource allocation. That aside, Epplin's paper was succinct and very easy to understand. The topic of the article is an interesting and currently relevant one. Education is clearly a game-changer, not only for the livelihoods of individuals but for the vitality of a whole society. It makes for a compelling argument for fewer barriers to higher/specialized education. Largely because of movements toward research/land grants and public education, I don't think that anyone in the U.S. today would feel that nine out of ten people in our society are sentenced to "grinding poverty and toil," obviously a great achievement. But still, many may not achieve higher education (for a variety of reasons), and it would be highly beneficial and efficient to make education more accessible. Another thought that occurred to me while reading Epplin's article was of the inefficiencies of many public schools. I know from experience that public high schools can be of relatively low quality and can even waste a good amount of time that could be used toward genuine/effective learning. It's hard to get to an institution of higher learning if you don't gain the proper skills and knowledge that you need as a foundation while in lower education. I'm certain many efforts have been undertaken to prevent wastefulness, and I would like to do some internet research to see what has been done and what more could be done to make public schooling effective for as many students as possible.
This discussion I find to be especially interesting in relation to what we talked about last class in investing in better agricultural methods. In the United States, the interest of the founding fathers of providing for education is critical when looking at our development of human capital and the ability for that to lead to sustained economic growth. No doubt, the poor countries today who have a hard time ensuring that all kids attend lower school, and even still having effective education, probably have a ways to go before a college agricultural education will be established. I also thought that the discussion of how difficult the legislation was to pass was interesting. Today, we see that almost all policy proposals are met with high levels of gridlock. The same seems to have been true in the 1800s. It literally took the entire conservative party's succession from the Union to be able to pass this necessary legislation through congress. The idea of being "poor, but happy" is one that I find to be very unique in the contexts of this class. Generally, and I am certain that all would agree with me, poverty is thought of as the grinding turmoil described by the author. I think that this show an interesting idea that in America where people are relatively better off, farming is seen as a valuable way to sustain oneself, and an honorable pursuit. Therefore, by increasing education associated with agriculture, we enable people to continue to do what they want at a higher level. This contrasts todays developing world in that I sense a greater proportion are farming for subsistence alone, rather than being poor and happy. Lastly, I thought his idea of the way that economics are taught was interesting. I would have to agree that sometimes when Econ 100 ideas are brought up, I am slow to remember exactly what concept it is that you are talking about. The amount of ideas taught in this intro level course may cloud minds of students, and keep them from retaining the most important information regarding market failure and market success.
In this paper, Epplin discusses the history of land grant universities and public education in the United States and concludes with a suggested strategy to help bring awareness to and correct the underallocation of public funds dedicated to agricultural education. Although the idea of accessible, publicly funded education, and its benefits to society at large, were commonly viewed as intuitive at the time the U.S. Declaration of Independence was signed, the Morrill Land Grant Act was not easily passed. Prior to the fight for publicly funded agricultural universities, historical events such as the Kalamazoo Case supported the use of public resources for education provided to all and justified the collection of taxes for public schooling. When Jonathan Baldwin Turner’s plan for publicly funded agricultural universities and agricultural research was first printed, biased and uninformed opposition groups denounced the plan. Certain representatives worried that the establishment of publicly funded higher education would result in lost factory workers. Southern states purported that the use of public lands to provide higher education would benefit non-slave states. Eventually, the Morrill Act was passed in 1862 and over time public support for higher education grew and land grant universities became established institutions. Although public investment in higher education and agricultural research has proven to be beneficial to society, the benefit-cost ratio for investments in public agricultural research and extension suggests that the level of investments has not been economically efficient. Epplin suggests that the lack of public knowledge concerning allocative inefficiencies and market failures is a major challenge to improving the allocation of resources and experiencing efficient markets.
We need to make individual self-interest coincide with social interest. The societal benefits of intervening in education and education policy far outweigh the costs. As such, public investment in education is seemingly obvious. Economic theory suggests that education is one of the basic foundations of development that set the stage for universal economic growth. We saw this in South Korea. We can also see this in Sri Lanka, which boasts some of the best educational outcomes among developing countries. The benefits of education are linked to other factors in development as well, such as health outcomes. Higher education levels correlating with better health outcomes is a generally accepted and observed global phenomenon. In Sri Lanka, education influences health outcomes for the country so much so that one the most effective investments in health is to improve education. If all of this is known and proven… why can we not move forward on these investments? How can we continue along a path that knowingly benefits some while hurting those most vulnerable along the way? Crazy stuff!
Epplin's struggles reminded me of what Professor Casey said to Stephanie Sezen during our last class, "Nobody listens to us economists..." Despite having the great potential to benefit many young people by providing them with a field that deviated from the few professional paths people took, Epplin's proposal got rejected by people left and right: the farmers did not find Epplin's plan appealing because they did not think a university education was necessary to farm; the professional class found the idea too foreign; people from the South feared that Epplin's proposal might bring slave-opposing people to their regions. Despite all of the opposition Epplin kept pushing for his ideas until finally, his efforts began to pay off, and land grant universities became established sustainable institutions. Public universities thrive today and thousands upon thousands of young men and women reap their benefits. So at the end of the day, Epplin was right; he understood that a private market for education was a horrible idea and that everyone would benefit from the efficiencies of public higher education. I know that many people in Cambodia today don't see the value in university education because they think that they will return to their small family farm after university anyway. Perhaps similar government intervention can take place in developing countries like Cambodia so that they can see and reap the benefits of education as well.
Furthermore, this article really resonated with me because the majority of my dad's family attended Texas A&M, and experienced firsthand the benefits of a public education focused on increased agricultural productivity. My dad is very fond of his Animal Science and Agricultural Economics courses that he took in college, which he applies to his work today in terms of using sustainable practices to increase land and cattle productivity. Not only do institutions like A&M provide a public education to students from all socioeconomic backgrounds, but they works to increase environmental sustainability, a pillar of the SDGs. I think this article was a very compelling in the way that it places the responsibility of higher level public education in the hands of the government and illustrates the two schools of thought on land grants for public universities.
In this article, Epplin details the history of land grant institutions in terms of the economic pie. I was very intrigued by those who opposed Turner's plan due to the applicability of their thoughts to our class discussions regarding human behavior. The upperclass citizens who opposed the passing of this bill in order to maintain their socioeconomic status is very disheartening because it seems irrational to reject a bill that would create positive spillover effects by increasing educational opportunities and agricultural productivity. I cannot imagine the frustration of those in favor of the policy because as Epplin reveals "the level of investments in public agricultural education and research and extension institutions was less than the economically efficient level." On the other hand, the farmers opposed to the plan because they believed that "college would enable sons to avoid the practical work that they should be doing on the farm," reminded me of our risk versus reward discussion, in that lower-income families often do not have the luxury of investing in an uncertain reward when the potential risk could severely compromise their livelihood.
Epplin's paper taught me very much about land grant institutions, and I found the author's view to be interesting. It's refreshing to read about effective government intervention, how they came in to introduce an improvement, like the land grant institutions, which provided a mutually beneficial service for the students and for the country in the effective workers it produced. It would be interesting to think of the modern day equivalency of this, 'free college' has been a hot political topic for years now. I have always been a fan of programs like one my home state of Maine had, they had one in place for teachers, where the state had a shortage, where they would pay for a significant portion of your education if you committed to teaching in Maine for a few years after college. This is the same sort of mutual benefit, state gets a need fulfilled, and so does the student who has their burden eased. This is a way to kind of utilize the student debt crisis to nudge people towards areas of need in their economy.
The
purpose of this paper is to review the history of
selected events that resulted in the development
of publicly funded U.S. educational institutions
and to issue a challenge for our profession to
do a better job of educating about the theoret-
ical justification for using tax dollars to suppor
The
purpose of this paper is to review the history of
selected events that resulted in the development
of publicly funded U.S. educational institutions
and to issue a challenge for our profession to
do a better job of educating about the theoret-
ical justification for using tax dollars to suppor
Epplin’s work demonstrates how land grant institutions have contributed to forming the public education system we know of now. It’s no surprise that investing in education and ensuring it is accessible are two key factors in developing a society that is productive and ensuring citizens feel fulfillment by achieving their goals and specializing in areas of study that most interest them. Nonetheless, there have been market failures, especially regarding resource allocation, that have hindered us from reaching an efficient and equitable educational system. The roots of the push back for public agricultural colleges perfectly exemplify issues around equity, which have honestly yet to be addressed. People in the South refused to support them because it meant sacrificing wealth and social capital. We currently see pushback against affirmative action and other initiatives working towards making education accessible regardless of one’s background (whether based on being first generation, low income, or a racial minority).
The reading was thought provoking when applying this to the current educational system and saddening prospects for the future. Although economics shows that the social benefit of providing free education outweighs the social cost, we are still seeing an underfunded system. If we can’t get politicians and other leaders to see the existing issue with social inequality and its interplay with education now, will it only be harder later? If this topic has been shoved under the rug for so many years, won’t it be easy for politicians to keep ignoring it rather than make it a priority? How wide does the gap have to get for people to address it? Can we focus on investing in programs developing children’s knowledge at earlier ages in life in order to avoid the issue accumulating and requiring more serious attention and resources? I am hoping that government leaders can take action sooner rather than later and invest in an education system that will bring significant returns to a society that will then benefit from it holistically.
Epplin’s work demonstrates how land grant institutions have contributed to forming the public education system we know of now. It’s no surprise that investing in education and ensuring it is accessible are two key factors in developing a society that is productive and ensuring citizens feel fulfillment by achieving their goals and specializing in areas of study that most interest them. Nonetheless, there have been market failures, especially regarding resource allocation, that have hindered us from reaching an efficient and equitable educational system. The roots of the push back for public agricultural colleges perfectly exemplify issues around equity, which have honestly yet to be addressed. People in the South refused to support them because it meant sacrificing wealth and social capital. We currently see pushback against affirmative action and other initiatives working towards making education accessible regardless of one’s background (whether based on being first generation, low income, or a racial minority).
The reading was thought provoking when applying this to the current educational system and saddening prospects for the future. Although economics shows that the social benefit of providing free education outweighs the social cost, we are still seeing an underfunded system. If we can’t get politicians and other leaders to see the existing issue with social inequality and its interplay with education now, will it only be harder later? If this topic has been shoved under the rug for so many years, won’t it be easy for politicians to keep ignoring it rather than make it a priority? How wide does the gap have to get for people to address it? Can we focus on investing in programs developing children’s knowledge at earlier ages in life in order to avoid the issue accumulating and requiring more serious attention and resources? I am hoping that government leaders can take action sooner rather than later and invest in an education system that will bring significant returns to a society that will then benefit from it holistically.
I found this paper quite interesting, because not only did the author provide a fairly comprehensive history of land-grant institutions, but additionally he connected the evolutions of American education to his own personal experiences. To firstly address his introduction, I do think it is truly fascinating how much the scope of education has changed in the United States over the past few generations. It is true, I believe my grandmother only made it to 8th grade. Though that wasn't necessarily as much of an impediment back in those days as it is now. Now, if you are fortunate enough to have access to education, it is seemingly expected of young people to attend college. The fabric of education in the United States has been dramatically altered, and now it seems to me from my experience that at least in relatively well-off areas, higher education has become the norm.
As for the history of land grant institutions, I think it is very interesting to consider how much opposition there was to this legislation despite the fact that so many Americans were involved in the agricultural sector at that time. Although of course those in politics and other modernized sectors may have been somewhat removed from this world of agriculture and farming, I believe that is how most of their constituents were employed. One can see some of the similarities between the history detailed in this paper and the modern-day lobbying that we see within our government. This legislation faced substantial opposition because slave owners in the South would likely be at a disadvantage in terms of land values. It is difficult to think that there was a time that the politicians in the American government catered to these interests, with even President Buchanan avoiding signing the legislation into law because he was nervous it would incite the Civil War. Thankfully, President Lincoln was able to confront that opposition during his time as president and effectively pass this legislation which has had lasting impacts since its introduction.
I did not know what to expect when I read Epplin's paper. I didn't know much about Land Grant Universities, and I especially didn't understand its importance in expanding education. What interested me the most was how Epplin provided a link between agriculture economics and education. Ultimately, the goal of economics is to understand market failures and Land Grant Universities acted as a solution to barriers to education through government allocation of land to education. One remark by Eggin that stuck to me the most, and probably the most relevant to today’s economic issues was his incredulity at contemporary government’s neglect of education. With the founding father’s of the country adamant about extending education across class, it’s hard to believe that a cohort of politicians that are so adamant about preserving constitutional values have underscored the value of education. It seems that education is an afterthought, rather than a priority to diminish economic difference in the US. A government that is more keen on removing taxes even if it means constraining educational spending appears to behaving contrary to the Founding Father’s vision of equity. Although it’s obvious that the Founding Father’s were not exactly inclusive in their pursuit of education for “all,” their ideas were still salient enough to improve the lives of many individuals who would have continued to squander in poverty had the Morrill Land Grant Act not been passed.
One point made towards the end of this paper is that most colleges are inefficiently teaching their students. The example he uses is with entry-level, principle economics courses. He says that most students who take that course test no better than an average person who has not taken the course. His argument is that there are too many ideas, concepts, theories that are thrown at the students for them to absorb most of the information. He proposes many arguments and the history behind land grant schools and providing more funding into agricultural education. However, I would be curious to know what he would suggest the agricultural schools teach in their entry-level classes. I wonder if the results would be similar to that of what he thinks of a principle economics course. Further, he argues that it would be economically efficient to reallocate funds towards agricultural education, but he uses basic economic theory to make an argument. His argument is rudimentary, as he repeats over and over again that the goal is to “increase the size of the economic pie”. However, I do appreciate the historic background he gives of land grants and the Morril Land Grant Act. It is interesting to think that as climate change and the negative human’s effects on planet earth are becoming more well-known, we may start to see this argument of increased funding for agricultural education revitalize.
Epplin’s paper gives a great background to land grant institutions including their history and the opposition the Morril Land Grant Act faced in its early stages. It’s interesting that many people who opposed the implementation of land grant colleges and universities did so not only because they thought it was a “waste of public lands and public money” but also that the land grants would “benefit proponents of abolition relatively more than proponents of slavery.” It makes sense that southern slave owners would oppose land grants, but was surprising to read since I was under the impression that for the most part, land grant universities were agreed upon as beneficial. It’s also important to consider the contributions made by land grant institutions over time. Although I’m not too familiar with their impact over the course of the 1900s, I have witnessed first-hand some of the work being done by researchers at Virginia Tech. During my Economics of the Chesapeake Bay course, my class traveled to a small farm near Williamsburg that worked under VT to identify the most resilient and effective species of wheat and other crops. The farm also had a lot of advanced technologies used to identify any potential issues with the land, and they were able to use various mapping tools to see how effective their land was at growing crops. This type of information is important because it can be applied to other farmers in order to help them increase their crop yield, which is especially important for farmers that rely on their output to make a living. I also thought it was really interesting (and relevant to our work this summer!) at the end of the paper where Eppin described the shortcomings of introductory economics courses, and hope that Econ 180 will help to solve some of the problems he sees.
Posted by: Olivia Indelicato | 10/01/2020 at 12:03 PM
Epplin's paper successfully details how public goods are provided. Specifically, Epplin looks at the history of land grant institutions as a means to discuss how the future of education and economics may change. Epplin starts by detailing how public education came to fruition in the United States. It was heavily agreed upon at the time of signing the declaration of independence that a focus on future knowledge would be necessary to good government. Not only would knowledge aid good government but it would allow mankind to achieve in ways that foster greater happiness and satisfaction in life. At this time, education was thought of not as a public good or a place where markets have failed. Instead, the founders recognized that resource allocation is incredibly important. It was common sense to publicly fund education for all. Land grant institutions in particular faced more push back. Those who opposed land grants did so on the basis that they were both a waste of money as well as another way that abolitionist movements would "win". Today, multiple studies continue to find that not enough resources have been allocated to agricultural education. But how do we educate the public on these ideas of market failure and misallocation of public resources? How do you ensure that the citizens of our country understand that government intervention and spending can make everyone better off? Epplin finishes the paper by pointing out how principles of economic classes may have been failing to make this very point. Often, students learn only how markets are successful. If they do not encounter how markets fail, we may be creating a bigger problem than we are solving. In reading this paper I thought back to Wednesday's class where we ultimately determined that Economists are rarely listened to by the public. This is a clear cut example where all economic research has determined what policy ought to be enacted yet no one has done so. If everyone could be better off by investing more in agricultural research and education then why do we not make that a priority? It seems that political influence and policy often clouds the judgement of those who do not understand market failures in the first place. I find this a difficult, if not impossible, problem to combat.
Posted by: Jack Parham | 10/01/2020 at 01:04 PM
One thing which stood out me was that the author states that it was ‘intuitive’ for the founding fathers to advocate for public funding of education. Similarly, fighting for land grants which would promote publicly funded agricultural universities and research and make agricultural education available for all people regardless of class was intuitive for those who pushed forward the cause, like DeWitt and Turner. These people understood that public funding of education was crucial because it would not otherwise be adequately or efficiently provided by the (private) market. In the case of agricultural education, DeWitt and Turner knew that land grant institutions would lead to better allocation of resources and greater productivity—i.e. to efficiency and a bigger economic pie.
What makes this emphasis on intuition really interesting is that near the end of the piece, when noting that the level of investment in public agricultural education and research is less than what is efficient and that the size of the economic pie is therefore smaller than it could be, Epplin laments economists’ “collective inability to effectively educate the public and our elected representatives about the existence of these market failures and the economically efficient fixes that are possible.” I think maybe he is being a bit too hard on himself and his profession because it seems to me that these concepts are no less intuitive today than they were centuries ago. Unfortunately (as we mentioned jokingly but actually kind of seriously in class the other day), today many people (and politicians) don’t listen to economists; question or deny science and evidence; and evidently don’t even understand, recognize, or acknowledge ideas that make complete intuitive sense. While there are surely ways that principles of economics classes in colleges and universities can be improved to help students better understand concepts like market failure and the role of government, and I believe there are probably ways to improve economic literacy in the general public, I am less optimistic about the prospect of politicians and elected representatives being open to or moved by arguments based on intuition. I fear that most politicians have shoved intuition away into some sort of box marked with ‘potentially hazardous to campaign for reelection.’
Posted by: Sarah Hollen | 10/01/2020 at 02:06 PM
I think that one of the most important aspects of the article was the idea of how simple and intuitive economic theory and policy can really be. The realization of the simplicity behind this economic theory makes the poor policy decisions even more frustrating. The founding fathers “intuitively recognized that the net social benefits exceeded the need private benefits”. The limitations that a fully private education market would result in a small economic pie that would not benefit those who could not participate in this private market as well as society as a whole. Yet those in power did not do anything. Wade supported the bill because, “..the thoroughly educated, being most sure to educate their sons, appeared to be perpetuating a monopoly of education inconsistent with the welfare and complete prosperity of the American institutions…”. Epplin then continues to explain that “the class distinction was very clear as well as the intuitive understanding of the external consequences of restricting higher education.” The upper class wants to keep themselves elevated whether or not it is beneficial for the country and society as a whole. This is not fair, nor is it morally right.
Although many oppositions to Turner’s plan had to do with the idea of wasting public lands and the funding mechanism behind it, a reasonable opposition that I could see being a difficult hurdle to cross would be the fact that “college would enable sons to avoid the practical work that they should be doing on the farm.” This reminded me of the conversation of how it can be difficult for lower income countries to change their habits due to the risk factor. Although what they are doing may not currently be the most effective, those individuals know that their current practices work, and their livelihood depends on it, so changing would be of too high a risk. I think that in order to combat this, it would be beneficial to propose a type of insurance coverage that could mitigate the risk of losing hands and productivity on the farm. In initially proposing this initiative, I think it would have been beneficial to look at how exactly they were going to get individuals to college and invest their time in schooling while leaving work at home. I would be interested to learn more about this and the details of how individuals were actually able to make this time investment in school and away from their work.
Posted by: Christina Cavallo | 10/01/2020 at 03:00 PM
In his article, Epplin tells the very interesting story of the history of public education in the US. I had no idea that part of the delay in establishing public agricultural universities was in part due to the fact that Southern slave owners did not want to give land and lose their way of life. It is remarkable how there are so many different aspects of history that are tied together in this regard. It is also quite interesting how an individual who has no formal education is more detrimental to society than beneficial, and therefore it is in society's best interest to fund public education so that the masses can become educated.
I think that this article also supports the idea that education is one of the most crucial building blocks for a high performing and high functioning society. As we saw with the Miracle on the Han article, investment in education was one of the leading factors that completely transformed South Korea's economy. It is remarkable how these investments are not made, and even more remarkable how they are not made for the benefit of some and the expense of others. Investment in education should be a top priority, yet I feel as though it is seldom mentioned these days amongst our politicians. If Epplin's article and personal story of how his parents had no more than an 8th grade level education to him being a professor at an accredited university just one generation later is not a testament to that, then I do not know what is.
Posted by: Mason Shuffler | 10/01/2020 at 03:59 PM
Epplin’s talk focuses on the differences between proposing economic policy that would widely benefit people, and actually implementing it. Like others have said it is interesting and frustrating that economists prove theories that will make everyone better off, yet politicians still reject them. Setting aside land for public universities caused a significant increase in productivity on the farm as people were learning and getting better education. This was a government led initiative that still has effect as universities that were established with the help of land grants remain prevalent today. In America, we often think that our system is perfect and that we have solutions to our problems. From Epplin’s paper it is important to note that markets fail, and different factors cause markets to fail to maximize their productivity. Markets change and people need understand that policy that is effective one day might not be effective the next. Governments need to be mindful of this. The Morrill Land Grants are an example of government intervention to stimulate productivity of the markets, and they can be used as a model for developing countries as well. With development and the global economy that we currently live in, I think it is important for countries to help other countries with developing. I don’t know about the quality of universities in developing countries, but if countries with more advanced economies would provide aid to the largely agricultural, developing countries through land grants or education reform, everyone would be better off.
Posted by: Gus Wise | 10/01/2020 at 04:03 PM
Given my limited familiarity with the Morrill Land Grant Act, I found this article to be particularly enlightening. Moreover, I appreciated the discussion of the topic within the context of economics and the efficient allocation of resources. Overall, I found the author's argument rather compelling; it is clear that public investment in education is a necessity, as the costs incurred by intervening in the field of education are insignificant when compared to the greater social benefits from doing so. Ultimately, as Epplin puts it, more accessible and publicly financed education is necessary to achieve economic efficiency and the "largest sized pie."
This topic is especially notable when thinking about development economics. While Epplin says that more investment in domestic education is needed, I also have thought about it within the context of the developing world. Specifically, I believe that foreign aid should be strongly geared towards building a stronger educational infrastructure within third-world countries. By doing so, the developed world would help to establish the necessary infrastructure to sustain - rather than just merely initiate - growth in these places. I also believe that education will serve as an effective remedy for other ills that lead to the misallocation of resources. For example, corruption will lead to this inefficient outcome. However, by creating an educated public, one would have a general populace that has the competence and knowledge to demand transparency and hold officials accountable for their actions. Such a reduction in corruption would be instrumental in the efficient allocation of resources.
Posted by: Ben Graham | 10/01/2020 at 05:45 PM
In the paper by Epplin, there were a few lines that read as follows, “formal economic theory was not available to explain market failure and the justification for government intervention in markets. It had not yet been ‘discovered’ (Bator, 1958). The case for publicly funded common schools was more a matter of common sense, which is the case for many results derived from the standard theory of microeconomics.” This line reminded me a lot of what we had read in Krugman’s piece about the rise and fall of development economics. The idea that theory and model couldn’t quite explain something yet, intuitively we knew it made sense. This was the case for publicly funded schools as well. Krugman stated that high development theory depended on economies of scale which were unable to be explained using models. Schools, are an example of an economy of scale as there are high fixed costs, but the marginal cost per student decreases as there are more students. Two of the largest of the fixed costs are the land on which to build the school and the school structure itself. Epplin’s piece addresses the land side of these fixed costs. Epplin talks about how the marginal social benefit of education is greater than the marginal private benefit and thus education is a positive externality. As we have discussed in class externalities lead to market failures and thus government intervention is needed to correct the market failure, in this case to provide greater access to eduction through employing a policy regarding land grants. The policy regarding land grants is similar to the land reforms in South Korea we read about in “Miracle on the Han”. I liked this paper a lot because it tied into many concepts we have already talked about and created a more complete understanding of the material.
Posted by: Sydney Goldstein | 10/01/2020 at 06:33 PM
Having known little to nothing about the Morrill Land Grant Act, this article was quite enlightening. Something that jumped out at me in particular was the incredible irony of the origins of the idea of agricultural college; there were so many young men obtaining education that they needed a new field to send them into, so they taught them to study something the poor had been doing for thousands upon thousands of years. I think this really speaks to what we've talked about in class a few times now; you can't just come into farming communities and try to impose new methodology on them because you think you know better. I find it so interesting that this was one of the initial reasons for the proposal of an agricultural college system, and I wonder how closely that is tied with the relationship between college students coming into farming communities now to help them 'improve.'
It was also quite interesting to read a couple of the founding father's arguments for the public funding of education; I hadn't actually read anything like this before, and I think it's a really great way to approach people who argue that publicly funded education (or the expansion of it to preschool and post-high school education) isn't the government's responsibility.
Posted by: Joey Dickinson | 10/01/2020 at 06:57 PM
Epplin’s paper, “Market Failures and Land Grant Universities,” gave a relatively succinct and comprehensive history of land grant universities in the United States. I specifically found the beginning interesting and the difficulties which were faced when trying to get legislation passed. In the first half of the paper, a quote from Thomas Jefferson stood out: “If the children are untaught, their ignorance and vices will in future life cost us much dearer in their consequences than it would have done in their correction by a good education.” With the elections in full swing, I believe the focus on universal education independent of financial background. In a democracy, education is vitally important. While the paper focuses on agricultural research and education, general schooling is also very important. Any functional democracy relies on the ability of the general public to elect competent leaders. Without an educated populace, any democracy threatens to transition, as Socrates feared, into a demagoguery. More in line with the paper, I found it interesting that we need to allocated even more public resources towards agricultural education. In class we discussed how America should lower intervention in the agricultural sector in order to provide greater opportunity for foreign producers. I suppose Epplin also extends his argument into the fact that taxes can outweigh the social costs and end up increasing overall welfare within a country. Whether that be in the agricultural industry or otherwise.
Posted by: John Lavette | 10/01/2020 at 07:37 PM
“Market Failures and Land Grant Universities” delivered by Francis M. Epplin reveals the efficiency problems with education and then documents the US government’s response using anecdotes.I came across the reference to, “...the eighteenth century founders of economics ... assumed that nine out of ten human beings were sentenced by God or nature to lives of grinding poverty and toil...’’ (282). To imagine professionals and academics poverty was considered a divine punishment instead of a consequence of a broken system appalled me. I was more than shocked by this, especially considering the founding fathers of our republic recognized the inequality and sought to provide equal access to education. Unfortunately, the initial definition of “all” was self-serving and limited to white, wealthy men. Education was keeping the ‘elite’ in their and the commoners in their own respective bubbles and inevitably widening a wealth gap early on. Of course, education and job opportunities and Upon further reading, it seems that while primary level education seems to be encouraged throughout, extension of taxpayer funded education to high school and beyond seemed to be a point of contention and in some variation is still a topic of debate. In the fight for publicly funded agricultural universities, there seemed to be two very distinct sides. One side of educated individuals, “did not envision an agricultural college for commoners.” (284). The other, agricultural adept folk that argued, “College would enable sons to avoid the practical work they should be doing on the farm.” (285). To hear, the rationale behind land grants due to their association with abolition served to further confuse me. Ultimately, the speech was an enjoyable read overall.
Posted by: abrahamr22 | 10/01/2020 at 07:48 PM
For me, the most salient part of Epplin’s remarks was when he talked about the real rate of return to the US agricultural institutions. At first, I was amazed just how beneficial they were (with a benefit-cost ratio of 32). I thought for sure Epplin was going to talk about how much of a success this was, but he immediately pointed out that given the fact that the benefit outweighed the cost by this much, the US must still be severely underinvesting in agricultural research and educational institutions. He asks “how much ‘grinding toil and poverty’ persists… as a result of our inability to effectively educate the public.” Although this perspective is a bit more somber than solely focusing on the widespread success of the investments in agricultural institutions, I think it is crucial. I don’t believe I would have thought of the fact that because such investments have been so successful, the US is not fully internalizing this positive externality, and should invest more. I certainly wouldn’t have considered it in terms how much poverty could have been eradicated if we had corrected for this market failure. I also think it was important that he mentioned why the US has underinvested. Even though intervention can increase total social welfare, the groups that do not benefit or are made worse off will resist the change. To add to this, I would emphasize that market failures often remain uncorrected when these groups have influence over political decision-making. Epplin’s arguments are so important because their applications are much further reaching than agricultural institutions and land grant universities. Failure to correct inefficient markets is an obvious problem in other places where powerful individuals or firms have vested interests in keeping the status quo, such as with carbon emissions.
Posted by: Danny Lynch | 10/01/2020 at 07:52 PM
Something that I did not fully understand in this paper was the benefit-cost ratio of 32 and how this ratio was indicative of inefficiencies of resource allocation. That aside, Epplin's paper was succinct and very easy to understand. The topic of the article is an interesting and currently relevant one. Education is clearly a game-changer, not only for the livelihoods of individuals but for the vitality of a whole society. It makes for a compelling argument for fewer barriers to higher/specialized education. Largely because of movements toward research/land grants and public education, I don't think that anyone in the U.S. today would feel that nine out of ten people in our society are sentenced to "grinding poverty and toil," obviously a great achievement. But still, many may not achieve higher education (for a variety of reasons), and it would be highly beneficial and efficient to make education more accessible. Another thought that occurred to me while reading Epplin's article was of the inefficiencies of many public schools. I know from experience that public high schools can be of relatively low quality and can even waste a good amount of time that could be used toward genuine/effective learning. It's hard to get to an institution of higher learning if you don't gain the proper skills and knowledge that you need as a foundation while in lower education. I'm certain many efforts have been undertaken to prevent wastefulness, and I would like to do some internet research to see what has been done and what more could be done to make public schooling effective for as many students as possible.
Posted by: Katie Timmerman | 10/01/2020 at 07:58 PM
This discussion I find to be especially interesting in relation to what we talked about last class in investing in better agricultural methods. In the United States, the interest of the founding fathers of providing for education is critical when looking at our development of human capital and the ability for that to lead to sustained economic growth. No doubt, the poor countries today who have a hard time ensuring that all kids attend lower school, and even still having effective education, probably have a ways to go before a college agricultural education will be established. I also thought that the discussion of how difficult the legislation was to pass was interesting. Today, we see that almost all policy proposals are met with high levels of gridlock. The same seems to have been true in the 1800s. It literally took the entire conservative party's succession from the Union to be able to pass this necessary legislation through congress. The idea of being "poor, but happy" is one that I find to be very unique in the contexts of this class. Generally, and I am certain that all would agree with me, poverty is thought of as the grinding turmoil described by the author. I think that this show an interesting idea that in America where people are relatively better off, farming is seen as a valuable way to sustain oneself, and an honorable pursuit. Therefore, by increasing education associated with agriculture, we enable people to continue to do what they want at a higher level. This contrasts todays developing world in that I sense a greater proportion are farming for subsistence alone, rather than being poor and happy. Lastly, I thought his idea of the way that economics are taught was interesting. I would have to agree that sometimes when Econ 100 ideas are brought up, I am slow to remember exactly what concept it is that you are talking about. The amount of ideas taught in this intro level course may cloud minds of students, and keep them from retaining the most important information regarding market failure and market success.
Posted by: Andrew Frailer | 10/01/2020 at 07:59 PM
In this paper, Epplin discusses the history of land grant universities and public education in the United States and concludes with a suggested strategy to help bring awareness to and correct the underallocation of public funds dedicated to agricultural education. Although the idea of accessible, publicly funded education, and its benefits to society at large, were commonly viewed as intuitive at the time the U.S. Declaration of Independence was signed, the Morrill Land Grant Act was not easily passed. Prior to the fight for publicly funded agricultural universities, historical events such as the Kalamazoo Case supported the use of public resources for education provided to all and justified the collection of taxes for public schooling. When Jonathan Baldwin Turner’s plan for publicly funded agricultural universities and agricultural research was first printed, biased and uninformed opposition groups denounced the plan. Certain representatives worried that the establishment of publicly funded higher education would result in lost factory workers. Southern states purported that the use of public lands to provide higher education would benefit non-slave states. Eventually, the Morrill Act was passed in 1862 and over time public support for higher education grew and land grant universities became established institutions. Although public investment in higher education and agricultural research has proven to be beneficial to society, the benefit-cost ratio for investments in public agricultural research and extension suggests that the level of investments has not been economically efficient. Epplin suggests that the lack of public knowledge concerning allocative inefficiencies and market failures is a major challenge to improving the allocation of resources and experiencing efficient markets.
Posted by: GrahamJameson | 10/01/2020 at 08:02 PM
We need to make individual self-interest coincide with social interest. The societal benefits of intervening in education and education policy far outweigh the costs. As such, public investment in education is seemingly obvious. Economic theory suggests that education is one of the basic foundations of development that set the stage for universal economic growth. We saw this in South Korea. We can also see this in Sri Lanka, which boasts some of the best educational outcomes among developing countries. The benefits of education are linked to other factors in development as well, such as health outcomes. Higher education levels correlating with better health outcomes is a generally accepted and observed global phenomenon. In Sri Lanka, education influences health outcomes for the country so much so that one the most effective investments in health is to improve education. If all of this is known and proven… why can we not move forward on these investments? How can we continue along a path that knowingly benefits some while hurting those most vulnerable along the way? Crazy stuff!
Posted by: Didi Pace | 10/01/2020 at 08:02 PM
Epplin's struggles reminded me of what Professor Casey said to Stephanie Sezen during our last class, "Nobody listens to us economists..." Despite having the great potential to benefit many young people by providing them with a field that deviated from the few professional paths people took, Epplin's proposal got rejected by people left and right: the farmers did not find Epplin's plan appealing because they did not think a university education was necessary to farm; the professional class found the idea too foreign; people from the South feared that Epplin's proposal might bring slave-opposing people to their regions. Despite all of the opposition Epplin kept pushing for his ideas until finally, his efforts began to pay off, and land grant universities became established sustainable institutions. Public universities thrive today and thousands upon thousands of young men and women reap their benefits. So at the end of the day, Epplin was right; he understood that a private market for education was a horrible idea and that everyone would benefit from the efficiencies of public higher education. I know that many people in Cambodia today don't see the value in university education because they think that they will return to their small family farm after university anyway. Perhaps similar government intervention can take place in developing countries like Cambodia so that they can see and reap the benefits of education as well.
Posted by: YoungJae | 10/01/2020 at 08:15 PM
Furthermore, this article really resonated with me because the majority of my dad's family attended Texas A&M, and experienced firsthand the benefits of a public education focused on increased agricultural productivity. My dad is very fond of his Animal Science and Agricultural Economics courses that he took in college, which he applies to his work today in terms of using sustainable practices to increase land and cattle productivity. Not only do institutions like A&M provide a public education to students from all socioeconomic backgrounds, but they works to increase environmental sustainability, a pillar of the SDGs. I think this article was a very compelling in the way that it places the responsibility of higher level public education in the hands of the government and illustrates the two schools of thought on land grants for public universities.
Posted by: Savannah Corey | 10/01/2020 at 08:18 PM
In this article, Epplin details the history of land grant institutions in terms of the economic pie. I was very intrigued by those who opposed Turner's plan due to the applicability of their thoughts to our class discussions regarding human behavior. The upperclass citizens who opposed the passing of this bill in order to maintain their socioeconomic status is very disheartening because it seems irrational to reject a bill that would create positive spillover effects by increasing educational opportunities and agricultural productivity. I cannot imagine the frustration of those in favor of the policy because as Epplin reveals "the level of investments in public agricultural education and research and extension institutions was less than the economically efficient level." On the other hand, the farmers opposed to the plan because they believed that "college would enable sons to avoid the practical work that they should be doing on the farm," reminded me of our risk versus reward discussion, in that lower-income families often do not have the luxury of investing in an uncertain reward when the potential risk could severely compromise their livelihood.
Posted by: Savannah Corey | 10/01/2020 at 08:19 PM
Epplin's paper taught me very much about land grant institutions, and I found the author's view to be interesting. It's refreshing to read about effective government intervention, how they came in to introduce an improvement, like the land grant institutions, which provided a mutually beneficial service for the students and for the country in the effective workers it produced. It would be interesting to think of the modern day equivalency of this, 'free college' has been a hot political topic for years now. I have always been a fan of programs like one my home state of Maine had, they had one in place for teachers, where the state had a shortage, where they would pay for a significant portion of your education if you committed to teaching in Maine for a few years after college. This is the same sort of mutual benefit, state gets a need fulfilled, and so does the student who has their burden eased. This is a way to kind of utilize the student debt crisis to nudge people towards areas of need in their economy.
Posted by: Matthew Todd | 10/01/2020 at 08:20 PM
The
purpose of this paper is to review the history of
selected events that resulted in the development
of publicly funded U.S. educational institutions
and to issue a challenge for our profession to
do a better job of educating about the theoret-
ical justification for using tax dollars to suppor
The
purpose of this paper is to review the history of
selected events that resulted in the development
of publicly funded U.S. educational institutions
and to issue a challenge for our profession to
do a better job of educating about the theoret-
ical justification for using tax dollars to suppor
Epplin’s work demonstrates how land grant institutions have contributed to forming the public education system we know of now. It’s no surprise that investing in education and ensuring it is accessible are two key factors in developing a society that is productive and ensuring citizens feel fulfillment by achieving their goals and specializing in areas of study that most interest them. Nonetheless, there have been market failures, especially regarding resource allocation, that have hindered us from reaching an efficient and equitable educational system. The roots of the push back for public agricultural colleges perfectly exemplify issues around equity, which have honestly yet to be addressed. People in the South refused to support them because it meant sacrificing wealth and social capital. We currently see pushback against affirmative action and other initiatives working towards making education accessible regardless of one’s background (whether based on being first generation, low income, or a racial minority).
The reading was thought provoking when applying this to the current educational system and saddening prospects for the future. Although economics shows that the social benefit of providing free education outweighs the social cost, we are still seeing an underfunded system. If we can’t get politicians and other leaders to see the existing issue with social inequality and its interplay with education now, will it only be harder later? If this topic has been shoved under the rug for so many years, won’t it be easy for politicians to keep ignoring it rather than make it a priority? How wide does the gap have to get for people to address it? Can we focus on investing in programs developing children’s knowledge at earlier ages in life in order to avoid the issue accumulating and requiring more serious attention and resources? I am hoping that government leaders can take action sooner rather than later and invest in an education system that will bring significant returns to a society that will then benefit from it holistically.
Posted by: Jackie Tamez | 10/01/2020 at 08:25 PM
Epplin’s work demonstrates how land grant institutions have contributed to forming the public education system we know of now. It’s no surprise that investing in education and ensuring it is accessible are two key factors in developing a society that is productive and ensuring citizens feel fulfillment by achieving their goals and specializing in areas of study that most interest them. Nonetheless, there have been market failures, especially regarding resource allocation, that have hindered us from reaching an efficient and equitable educational system. The roots of the push back for public agricultural colleges perfectly exemplify issues around equity, which have honestly yet to be addressed. People in the South refused to support them because it meant sacrificing wealth and social capital. We currently see pushback against affirmative action and other initiatives working towards making education accessible regardless of one’s background (whether based on being first generation, low income, or a racial minority).
The reading was thought provoking when applying this to the current educational system and saddening prospects for the future. Although economics shows that the social benefit of providing free education outweighs the social cost, we are still seeing an underfunded system. If we can’t get politicians and other leaders to see the existing issue with social inequality and its interplay with education now, will it only be harder later? If this topic has been shoved under the rug for so many years, won’t it be easy for politicians to keep ignoring it rather than make it a priority? How wide does the gap have to get for people to address it? Can we focus on investing in programs developing children’s knowledge at earlier ages in life in order to avoid the issue accumulating and requiring more serious attention and resources? I am hoping that government leaders can take action sooner rather than later and invest in an education system that will bring significant returns to a society that will then benefit from it holistically.
Posted by: Jackie Tamez | 10/01/2020 at 08:26 PM
I found this paper quite interesting, because not only did the author provide a fairly comprehensive history of land-grant institutions, but additionally he connected the evolutions of American education to his own personal experiences. To firstly address his introduction, I do think it is truly fascinating how much the scope of education has changed in the United States over the past few generations. It is true, I believe my grandmother only made it to 8th grade. Though that wasn't necessarily as much of an impediment back in those days as it is now. Now, if you are fortunate enough to have access to education, it is seemingly expected of young people to attend college. The fabric of education in the United States has been dramatically altered, and now it seems to me from my experience that at least in relatively well-off areas, higher education has become the norm.
As for the history of land grant institutions, I think it is very interesting to consider how much opposition there was to this legislation despite the fact that so many Americans were involved in the agricultural sector at that time. Although of course those in politics and other modernized sectors may have been somewhat removed from this world of agriculture and farming, I believe that is how most of their constituents were employed. One can see some of the similarities between the history detailed in this paper and the modern-day lobbying that we see within our government. This legislation faced substantial opposition because slave owners in the South would likely be at a disadvantage in terms of land values. It is difficult to think that there was a time that the politicians in the American government catered to these interests, with even President Buchanan avoiding signing the legislation into law because he was nervous it would incite the Civil War. Thankfully, President Lincoln was able to confront that opposition during his time as president and effectively pass this legislation which has had lasting impacts since its introduction.
Posted by: Eric Schleicher | 10/01/2020 at 08:42 PM
I did not know what to expect when I read Epplin's paper. I didn't know much about Land Grant Universities, and I especially didn't understand its importance in expanding education. What interested me the most was how Epplin provided a link between agriculture economics and education. Ultimately, the goal of economics is to understand market failures and Land Grant Universities acted as a solution to barriers to education through government allocation of land to education. One remark by Eggin that stuck to me the most, and probably the most relevant to today’s economic issues was his incredulity at contemporary government’s neglect of education. With the founding father’s of the country adamant about extending education across class, it’s hard to believe that a cohort of politicians that are so adamant about preserving constitutional values have underscored the value of education. It seems that education is an afterthought, rather than a priority to diminish economic difference in the US. A government that is more keen on removing taxes even if it means constraining educational spending appears to behaving contrary to the Founding Father’s vision of equity. Although it’s obvious that the Founding Father’s were not exactly inclusive in their pursuit of education for “all,” their ideas were still salient enough to improve the lives of many individuals who would have continued to squander in poverty had the Morrill Land Grant Act not been passed.
Posted by: Stelifanie | 10/01/2020 at 09:36 PM
One point made towards the end of this paper is that most colleges are inefficiently teaching their students. The example he uses is with entry-level, principle economics courses. He says that most students who take that course test no better than an average person who has not taken the course. His argument is that there are too many ideas, concepts, theories that are thrown at the students for them to absorb most of the information. He proposes many arguments and the history behind land grant schools and providing more funding into agricultural education. However, I would be curious to know what he would suggest the agricultural schools teach in their entry-level classes. I wonder if the results would be similar to that of what he thinks of a principle economics course. Further, he argues that it would be economically efficient to reallocate funds towards agricultural education, but he uses basic economic theory to make an argument. His argument is rudimentary, as he repeats over and over again that the goal is to “increase the size of the economic pie”. However, I do appreciate the historic background he gives of land grants and the Morril Land Grant Act. It is interesting to think that as climate change and the negative human’s effects on planet earth are becoming more well-known, we may start to see this argument of increased funding for agricultural education revitalize.
Posted by: Austin Lee | 10/01/2020 at 09:59 PM