The Opportunity Cost of Education: Where Do the Lost Years Go?
Economists often introduce their classes to opportunity cost concepts by pointing out the additional incomes students could be earning were they employed full time rather than attending university. A potential additional cost, a reduction in years of future labor force participation, is unlikely to be mentioned. We argue that although this ‘work-life’ effect may safely be ignored in calculating rates of return to education, it must be taken into account if the goal is to correctly identify the cost of individuals’ time out of the labor force, particularly for purposes other than education. The fact that this issue was raised in a court case by a vocational analyst provides “real” life example of how this “work life” effect matters and may serve to intrigue our students and validate the study of our discipline. Our paper demonstrates the appropriate methodology and information necessary to identify work-life costs and suggests introducing the concept at introductory levels.
Volume (Year): 12 (2012)
Issue (Month): 1 (Fall)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.mtsu.edu/~jee|
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Jacob A. Mincer, 1974. "Introduction to "Schooling, Experience, and Earnings"," NBER Chapters, in: Schooling, Experience, and Earnings, pages 1-4 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Jacob A. Mincer, 1974. "Schooling, Experience, and Earnings," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number minc74-1, 07.
- Leigh, Andrew & Ryan, Chris, 2008.
"Estimating returns to education using different natural experiment techniques,"
Economics of Education Review,
Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 149-160, April.
- Andrew Leigh & Chris Ryan, 2005. "Estimating Returns to Education: Three Natural Experiment Techniques Compared," CEPR Discussion Papers 493, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mts:jrnlee:v:12:y:2012:i:1:p:43-52. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sally Govan)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.