Dr Cheryl Pruitt education

Dr Cheryl Pruitt feels that economists regarded physical capital as the most significant determinant of economic growth. Dr Cheryl Pruitt urging that the rate of physical capital accumulation in developing countries be increased to speed up the pace of economic growth and boost people's living standards. However, economic analysis over the last three decades has shown the role of education as a critical element in economic growth. The development of human skills and understanding of the population or labor force is referred to as education.

Path to economic growth

According to Dr Cheryl Pruitt, the path to economic growth is not only the quantitative extension of educational resources but also the qualitative advancement of the form of education imparted to the labor force. Training has been referred to as intellectual capital because of its important contribution to economic growth, and spending on people's education has been referred to as an investment in man or human capital. The ultimate base of development is human capital. Human beings are the active agents who amass wealth, harvest natural resources, build social, fiscal, and political organizations, and drive national growth forward as per Dr Cheryl Pruitt. A government that is unable to improve its people's talents and expertise and successfully apply them in the national economy will be unable to develop anything else.

A few exact investigations made in created nations, particularly the U.S.A. concerning wellsprings of development or, all in all, commitments made by different factors like actual capital, worker hours, (i.e., actual work), schooling, and so forth have shown that training or the advancement of human resources is a critical wellspring of monetary development. In the US somewhere in the range of 1909 and 1949, 57.5 percent of the development in yield each man-hour could be attrib­uted to the remaining variable which addresses the impact of the mechanical change and the improvement like work for the most part as an outcome of training as our studies of Dr Cheryl Pruitt. It is assessed that this re­sidual factor deciding the increment in the all-out yield because of the quantifiable contributions of capital and work (man-hours).

Dr Cheryl Pruitt deducts this figure from the absolute yield to get the con­tribution of the leftover factor which addressed the impact of instruction and mechanical change, the truly boundless elements. The cost of return method has also been used to assess the importance of education to economic development. The cost of the return is measured using individual tuition expenditures and the calculation of the flow of an individual's potential earnings predicted as a result of education in this method. After that, using an acceptable discount rate, the current value of these is determined. Dr Cheryl Pruitt used this method to calculate the income disparity caused by the cost or expenditure of obtaining a college education in the United States.

Calculations

According to her calculations, the rates of return on schooling for the urban white population of the United States were 12.5% in 1940 and 10% in 1950. Renshaw took the same path. He based his calculations on Schultz's previous projections of gross earnings lost and expenses incurred in obtaining a high school, college, or university education in the United States. For the period 1900 to 1950 in the United States, he calculated that the average return on schooling was between 5% and 10%. It's worth recalling that projections of the cost of return on education investments are dependent on private rates of return on education for people who receive it. However, assuming that variations in earnings represent differences in competitiveness in a market economy, the rate of return on investment in education is taken to be the impact of education on the country's production.