Who was my favorite student this term?
6 years ago
A long pondered but only lately realized blog about economics, politics, evaluation, econometrics, academia, college football and whatever else comes to mind.
Pete Carroll was simply protecting his princes by taking full responsibility for the Washington loss. To know what he was really thinking, simply recall former USC coach John McKay's reaction as coach of the newly formed, inept Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
After another error-filled loss, he was asked, "What do you think of your team's execution?" "I'm all for it," McKay quipped.
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|The Audacity of Hos|
Burton Abrams and George Parsons of the University of Delaware evaluate the efficiency of the recently introduced 'Cash for Clunkers' program and conclude that the cost exceeds the benefit by approximately $2000 per vehicle.In fact, things are worse than this because the authors omit the "excess burden", the social loss associated with raising the funds for the program via a distortionary tax system.
Thank God for Amazon so I don't have to leave my house and see you freakos.I wonder what fraction of retail sales Sears, Montgomery Ward and other catalog retailers had back in their heydey? Amazon is in some sense their conceptual heir.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYThe bit that is new to me is the prohibition of the use of the term "recent graduate" and its replacement by "beginning level salary". I am not sure what to say about this other than that I think we may be near some margin or another.
The American Psychological Association endorses equal employment opportunity practices and accepts only ads that are not discriminatory on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, age, national origin, veteran status, or physical disability. In addition, APA encourages advertisers to not discriminate on the basis of marital status, the numbers and ages of dependent children, mental disability, or sexual orientation. In keeping with this policy, the use of "recent PhD" in the Monitor on Psychology, gradPSYCH, and the PsycCareers advertising is not allowed on the basis that it is potentially age-discriminatory (see U.S. Department of Labor prohibition on use of "recent graduate"). The term "beginning-level salary" may be used. Positions may also be defined in terms of teaching load, specified number of years away from a tenure decision, or requirements of certain skills. We reserve the right to edit all copy and to refuse ads that are not in consonance with the principles of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Veterans' Reemployment * Rights Act Handicap Bias, the Vietnam-Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act, in addition to Public Law 100-238, makes specific legally permissible exceptions to discrimination in hiring by religious institutions, Indian tribes, and federal correctional facilities. For this reason, certain Position Openings advertisements will include job opening restrictions on the basis of religious, racial, and age factors.
"The general claim that care will be rationed under health-care reform is less a lie and more of a non-disprovable projection (as is Howard Dean's assertion that health-care reform will not lead to rationing, ever). What we can say is that there is de facto rationing under the current system, by both Medicare and private insurance. No plan covers everything, but coverage decisions "are now made in opaque ways by insurance companies," says Dr. Donald Berwick of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement."So, let's see, we have rationing now under private health insurance and under Medicare, but whether or not there would be rationing if current reform proposals are implemented is just a "projection". Do they have editors at Newsweek? A newsmagazine that wanted to do some good would make clear that the question is not whether there is rationing but how it is set up. Most introductory economics texts have some wording about how the price system allocates scarce resources in a market. Allocate is just a more apt term for rationing. Resources are always scarce, some mechanism has to sort them among individuals (taking note that the mechanism also affects the amount of resources available).
"[t]he House bill does not use the word `ration.'"I suppose there could be two reasons for this. One is that there is actually no rationing implicit in the reform. The other is that the politicians who wrote the bill avoided the very naughty word rationing. I wonder, which of these could it be?
Nor does [the health care reform bill] call for cost-effectiveness research, much less implementation—the idea that "it isn't cost-effective to give a 90-year-old a hip replacement.What do we learn from this? To begin, we learn that the Newsweek writer does not know what cost-effectiveness research is, something one might consider odd given that she is writing about it in a major newsmagazine. We also learn that, whatever she thinks it is, she does not like it. That is too bad, because the lack of a serious cost-effectiveness component is a major flaw of the bill - not a feature, but a bug. A serious writer and a serious magazine would explain to its readers what cost-effectiveness research is, why it is a good thing, and why its absence indicates a lack of seriousness about controlling expenditures on the part of the bill's authors.
The government will set doctors' wages.Apparently when government sets reimbursement rates for a large segment of the market it has no effect on wages in the rest of the doctor labor market. Any economist, including my friend Amitabh, whose quote here is unrelated to the point at issue, could have told the author that this is a very silly argument, indeed.
This, too, seems to have originated on the Flecksoflife blog on July 19. But while page 127 of the House bill says that physicians who choose to accept patients in the public insurance plan would receive 5 percent more than Medicare pays for a given service, doctors can refuse to accept such patients, and, even if they participate in a public plan, they are not salaried employees of it any more than your doctor today is an employee of, say, Aetna. "Nobody is saying we want the doctors working for the government; that's completely false," says Amitabh Chandra, professor of public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
VisitDenmark disagrees.Hat tip: Lars Skipper
”Karen’s story shows that Denmark is a broad-minded country where you can do what you want. The film is a good example of independent, dignified, Danish women who dare to make their own choices,” says VisitDenmark CEO Dorte Kiilerich.
Why have you chosen to market Denmark as a country with drunken women who have unsafe sex with casual acquaintances?
”That is not a story that I recognise. We tell a good and sweet story about a mature, responsible woman who lives in a free society and shoulders the responsibilty of her actions. And she uses a modern social medium,” Kiilerich says.
Congress and the Obama administration are now putting together an education bill that tries to deal with the problem. It would cancel about $9 billion in annual government subsidies for banks that lend to college students and use much of the money to increase financial aid. A small portion of the money would be set aside for promising pilot programs aimed at lifting the number of college graduates. All in all, the bill would help.Now, how exactly do we know that this will help? Changing who issues student loans does not change their terms and so should have no effect on graduation rates. We are not told the nature of the promising pilot programs nor, more importantly, whether they will be evaluated in a serious way, e.g. with a random assignment experiment, or in a non-serious way, e.g. with a before after comparison and/or "stakeholder" interviews. I suspect the latter, in which case this is just money wasted. A bit of skepticism here would help the NYT reporter.
This bit treats graduation rates as structural parameters that do not vary across persons. Does anyone really think that the graduate rate of someone who chooses to attend WMU instead of Michigan would be the same at Michigan (or at WMU) as students who make the opposite choice?
About half of low-income students with a high school grade-point average of at least 3.5 and an SAT score of at least 1,200 do not attend the best college they could have. Many don’t even apply. Some apply but don’t enroll. “I was really astonished by the degree to which presumptively well-qualified students from poor families under-matched,” Mr. Bowen told me.They could have been admitted to Michigan’s Ann Arbor campus (graduation rate: 88 percent, according to College Results Online) or Michigan State (74 percent), but they went, say, to Eastern Michigan (39 percent) or Western Michigan (54 percent). If they graduate, it would be hard to get upset about their choice. But large numbers do not. You can see that in the chart with this column.
Last year, even in the grip of a recession that has spared no group of workers, the gap between what a college graduate earned and what everyone else earned reached a record. Workers with bachelor’s degrees made 54 percent more on average than those who attended college but didn’t finish, according to the Labor Department. Fifty-four percent — just think about how that adds up over a lifetime. And then think about how many students never cross the college finish line.Let's think about what this paragraph does. It treats a simple mean difference as a causal effect. There is a giant (really, giant) literature in labor economics devoted to establishing, beyond any reasonable doubt, the untruth of exactly this proposition. How can the author not have learned that in the course of researching the article? Moreover, even if the mean difference were an average treatment effect, it is almost surely not the treatment effect that is relevant to students at the margin of choosing to go to college or not. There is an equally large, but less definitive literature here, as it appears that the effects of college at the margin vary by margin and by quality of college attended. But I don't know of any papers that suggest it is anywhere near the difference implied by the simple comparison of means.
The research shows men who spend even a few minutes in the company of an attractive woman perform less well in tests designed to measure brain function than those who chat to someone they do not find attractive.There is no similar effect of attractive men on women.