JONAH GOLDBERG: Education spending isn't that smart.

Higher education in particular is almost universally championed as the key to "winning the future" .... New York Times economics columnist David Leonhardt calls education the "lifeblood of economic growth."

Now, obviously, education is important and necessary for a host of reasons. But there's little evidence it drives growth.

British scholar Alison Wolf writes in "Does Education Matter?": "The simple one-way relationship ... -- education spending in, economic growth out -- simply does not exist. Moreover, the larger and more complex the education sector, the less obvious any links to productivity."

Think about it this way: Growing economies spend a lot on education, but that doesn't necessarily mean that spending makes them grow. During the so-called Gilded Age, the U.S. economy roared faster and longer than ever before or since, while the illiteracy rate went down. But the rising literacy didn't cause the growth. Similarly, in the 20th century, in places like China, South Korea and India, the economic boom -- and the policies that create it -- always come first while the investments in education come later.

I submit that the national overemphasis on education is the problem, not the solution, and for proof, I offer Washington D.C. -- overfilled with overeducated people who can't do a damn thing that's even remotely productive.