Friday Links

Actually, this is a pretty good idea.

The new Archbishop of Canterbury wants to help not-for-profit credit unions put payday lenders out of business:

I said to him quite bluntly, ‘We’re not in the business of trying to legislate you out of existence, we’re trying to compete you out of existence’.

He’s a businessman, he took that well.

Test scores are bad at predicting performance at Google... but probably not for the reason you think:

Google likely doesn’t have much variability among those hired with respect to test scores and grades. And when there is no variability, there is no correlation with anything. [Furthermore,...] If someone is hired despite their lower test scores, it usually means some compelling compensating characteristics made that person look like a good bet. That is why the correlation between a valid selection instrument and job performance can be dramatically depressed when only looking at the hired sample.

Finally, here's a pinterest page that blurs the line between pop culture and fine art.

Humanities and Uncertainties

Thanks. We'll try.

John Horgan at Scientific American has some thoughts about the intellectual contribution of the humanities and social sciences. His basic thesis:

In your science, mathematics and engineering classes, you’re given facts, answers, knowledge, truth. Your professors say, “This is how things are.” They give you certainty. The humanities, at least the way I teach them, give you uncertainty, doubt and skepticism.

This is one of the major objectives of the courses I teach, in statistics and economics. In economics, I want students to realize that when they (or anyone else) suggests there is a simple, easy to understand solution to a major problem the world is facing, it is going to be wrong. We don't have the information to reach easy answers, and in general the easy answers aren't there to be found in the first place. I like to quote Thomas Sowell: "There are no solutions, only tradeoffs."

In statistics, I want students to think in terms of probability rather than certainty, and realize that we can be confident in our beliefs while still being willing to learn. I like to quote Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."

I also agree with Horgan that science education is increasingly dogmatic, and this is a major problem. Science educators have gotten so frustrated with 'evolution is just a theory' that they fight back with the same fundamentalism, insisting that science gives us things we totally, definitely know for sure:

[...] science if properly taught should incorporate skepticism. But science is becomingly increasingly dogmatic and arrogant in our era, which is why we need the humanities to foster a healthy anti-dogmatism.

So if the humanities are teaching students to be more questioning, and to be comfortable in a world of uncertainty, then more power to them. It's nice to have allies.

News in Brief

I just got my Ph.D. in Economics. Pretty pleased about it, to be honest. Life as usual to return presently. That is all.

Four on Education

Brad DeLong offers his thoughts on economics education:

Rethinking, I conclude that there is something subtle wrong with the undergraduate curriculum after all. What is taught in the classroom seems, largely, not bad. But what is retained after college seems to me, at least, to be horrible. What fraction of college-educated Americans have taken Econ 1? And what do they remember from it well enough to use? Tracking little--much less than I would hope or expect.

DeLong also offers Grant Gilmore's thoughts on the strange duty of academics:

We do something called teaching. But we all know from bitter personal experience that nothing is, or can be, taught once we get beyond the communication to small children of the basic mysteries on which civilization depends - how to read, how to write, how to count. [...] It may be that we can stimulate, or irritate, an occasional student into undertaking this arduous task - but, if we do so, it will be much more by accident than by our own design.

Scott Adams recommends hands on entrepreneurial training for most of us:

One day the managers of The Coffee House [a student-run, college-subsidized bar where Adams worked] had a meeting to discuss two topics. First, our Minister of Employment was recommending that we fire a bartender, who happened to be one of my best friends. Second, we needed to choose a leader for our group. On the first question, there was a general consensus that my friend lacked both the will and the potential to master the bartending arts. I reluctantly voted with the majority to fire him.

But when it came to discussing who should be our new leader, I pointed out that my friend—the soon-to-be-fired bartender—was tall, good-looking and so gifted at b.s. that he'd be the perfect leader. By the end of the meeting I had persuaded the group to fire the worst bartender that any of us had ever seen…and ask him if he would consider being our leader. My friend nailed the interview and became our Commissioner. He went on to do a terrific job. That was the year I learned everything I know about management.

Finally, Edge.org offers a massive list of possible answers to the question 'What scientific concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit?' A few examples:

Thanks to Karl Popper, we have a simple and powerful tool: the phrase "How Would You Disprove Your Viewpoint?!"- Howard Gardner

There is a widely used notion that does plenty of damage: the notion of "scientifically proven". Nearly an oxymoron. The very foundation of science is to keep the door open to doubt. Precisely because we keep questioning everything, especially our own premises, we are always ready to improve our knowledge. Therefore a good scientist is never 'certain'. Lack of certainty is precisely what makes conclusions more reliable than the conclusions of those who are certain: because the good scientist will be ready to shift to a different point of view if better elements of evidence, or novel arguments emerge. Therefore certainty is not only something of no use, but is in fact damaging, if we value reliability.  - Carlo Rovelli

It is not hard to identify the discipline in which to look for the scientific concept that would most improve everybody's cognitive toolkit; it has to be economics. No other field of study contains so many ideas ignored by so many people at such great cost to themselves and the world. The hard task is picking just one of the many such ideas that economists have developed.  - Dylan Evans, whose check is in the mail

The media cast about for the proximate causes of life's windfalls and disasters. The public demands blocks against the bad and pipelines to the good. Legislators propose new regulations, fruitlessly dousing last year's fires, forever betting on yesterday's winning horses. A little-known truth: Every aspect of the world is fundamentally unpredictable. - Rudy Rucker

The phrase "correlation is not a cause" (CINAC) may be familiar to every scientist but has not found its way into everyday language, even though critical thinking and scientific understanding would improve if more people had this simple reminder in their mental toolkit.  - Sue Blackmore

(I could go on, but just take a look at the links)

UPDATE: Fourth link did not post. It should be working now.

Our New Computer Overlords

Three links on how computers will replace our white-collar labor force long before robots steal our blue-collar jobs.

The first comes from Paul Krugman:

Anyway, I decided to write the piece around a conceit: that information technology would end up reducing, not increasing, the demand for highly educated workers, because a lot of what highly educated workers do could actually be replaced by sophisticated information processing — indeed, replaced more easily than a lot of manual labor.

[...] In my mind this raises several questions. One is whether emphasizing education — even aside from the fact that the big rise in inequality has taken place among the highly educated — is, in effect, fighting the last war. Another is how we have a decent society if and when even highly educated workers can’t command a middle-class income.

The second also comes from Paul Krugman, and I particularly like it for this table:

"This is real, and it calls some of our favorite platitudes into question," Krugman says.

Brad DeLong, on the other hand, has an excellent post in which economics and history triumph over cynicism (and yes, it's a lot like intellect and romance over brute force and cynicism):

We have already gone through the great transformation by which the general business of life--growing and processing our food, building our shelter, weaving our clothes, and telling ourselves stories for information and entertainment--has been extroardinarily [sic], comprehensively automated. And yet we have found things to do.

 Either way, I'd say this is the best argument yet for the long term viability of a career in the humanities!

It's a Hard Life for the Humanities

A few links for those pursuing (or having previously pursued) the difficult road of a terminal degree in any field of the humanities, and I know a few of you read this blog.

Stanley Fish discusses the future of "humanist educators." The punchline:

It looks like the only way humanist educators and their students are going to get to the top is by hanging on to the coattails of their scientist and engineering friends as they go racing by.

Reasons to avoid grad school, mostly oriented toward humanities degrees. I like that "your office is gonna suck" is on the list.

If you do go, though, here are some blogs you might want to check out.

B+?!? No Soup for You!

The most effective parent ever?

I thought I'd offer some brief comments on Amy Chua's WSJ article on parenting, which has been making the rounds:

Once when I was young—maybe more than once—when I was extremely disrespectful to my mother, my father angrily called me "garbage" in our native Hokkien dialect. It worked really well. I felt terrible and deeply ashamed of what I had done. But it didn't damage my self-esteem or anything like that. I knew exactly how highly he thought of me. I didn't actually think I was worthless or feel like a piece of garbage.

As an adult, I once did the same thing to Sophia, calling her garbage in English when she acted extremely disrespectfully toward me. When I mentioned that I had done this at a dinner party, I was immediately ostracized.

Ostracized for ridiculing your daughter and then bragging about it to other mothers? Why on earth would they see that as a bad thing?

If the child comes home with a B on the test, some Western parents will still praise the child. Other Western parents will sit their child down and express disapproval, but they will be careful not to make their child feel inadequate or insecure, and they will not call their child "stupid," "worthless" or "a disgrace." [...] If a Chinese child gets a B—which would never happen—there would first be a screaming, hair-tearing explosion. The devastated Chinese mother would then get dozens, maybe hundreds of practice tests and work through them with her child for as long as it takes to get the grade up to an A.

First of all, the idea that the Chinese parenting style creates high achievers is overplayed. If anything it creates good test-takers--unsurprising since Chinese society has thousands of years of history in which one's ranking in the government, and thus their standing in society, depends on taking an exam. It does not in any sense encourage problem solving, understanding, or *actual* hard work.

Chinese college students are renowned for failing to attend class and instead cramming for final and placement exams. The exams I write require you to understand why things work a certain way, rather than just memorizing formulae or finding the answer to a multiple choice question. Chinese exchange students have no better a track record in my course than either first generation college students from small town Oklahoma or the narcissistic children of alumni. 

Others have commented on this as well.  We have Bryan Caplan, Part 1:

My initial reaction is exasperation.  Yet another essay on parenting that doesn't even contain the words "genes" or "heredity"?

And Part 2:

The most bizarre thing about Amy Chua's essay is that she combines contempt for drama with fanatical devotion to music.

 I originally got the pointer from Angus at KPC, who is not known for mincing words:

Huge article in today's WSJ by Yale Law professor Amy Chua (of World on Fire "fame") called, "Why Chinese Mothers are Superior". Should have been titled "I am a raging, abusive, racist, a-hole".

It's terrific to read the whole thing. You think it can't get any worse and then it does.

I will add at the end here that the parenting she criticizes is also, admittedly, horrible.  Christians are not commanded to raise their children "in the entitlement and self-pity of the Lord"; but neither are we to raise them "in the mercilessness and Stockholm syndrome of the Lord." Those two words "nurture and admonition" (or paideia kai nouqesia for you Greek scholars out there) are pretty important. 

"If only someone had called me garbage!"

Some Insights from Practice Job Interviews

1.   Keep the summary of your job paper brief
1a. Don't summarize your job paper too briefly

2.   The fact that you can do Bayesian statistics is a selling point
2a. Don't sell the Bayesian stuff too hard; be as un-technical as possible

3.   Relax and be yourself, you're trying to find a good match
3a. Relax and be whatever it is they want, you're trying to find a job

4.   Ask questions about the interviewer to show interest
4a. Already know everything about the interviewer to show interest
 
5.   Similarly, asking about the town shows interest
5a. Similarly, asking about the town shows lack of interest

6.   If you're unclear, the interviewer might misunderstand you
6a. If you're clear, the interviewer might misunderstand you

7.   Be energetic and animated
7a. But not too energetic and animated

8.   Be careful about revealing personal information
8a. Reveal some personal information

9.   Have a long list of courses you can teach and research ideas you might explore

10. More specifics are always better (as long as they aren't technical)


If I promise not to unionize, do you think they'll hire me at the Wendy's?

Teachers Good and Evil

In my recent post on education, I stirred up considerable debate by saying that the goals of education are consumption, productivity, and signaling, and essentially rejecting any idea of character building or promoting virtue. I stand by my view, even though I know there are many teachers out there who care primarily about character and virtue, because from the perspective of the student becoming a better person is still only a desired goal if it allows you to communicate something (signaling), to do something (productivity), or if you simply value your own character and want to enjoy something (consumption). It's not the only way to break down these motivations, but I believe it is the most intellectually helpful way.

But I don't want this view to suggest that I think teaching is a mechanical process, in which relationships don't matter and values aren't influenced. Far from it. Within this framework it is still possible for teachers to promote good or evil toward their students. An example of the latter came up in a post by Albert Mohler, in which an English professor at Northwestern indicates his goal of indoctrinating students:

“The children of red states will seek a higher education,” he explains, “and that education will very often happen in blue states or blue islands in red states. For the foreseeable future, loyal dittoheads will continue to drop off their children at the dorms. After a teary-eyed hug, Mom and Dad will drive their SUV off toward the nearest gas station, leaving their beloved progeny behind.”

Then what? He proudly claims: “And then they are all mine.”

That is creepy. Not the fact that the worldview of the professor will affect the students; as Mohler points out:

All teaching involves ideology and intellectual commitments. There is no position of authentic objectivity. Every teacher, as well as every student, comes into the classroom with certain intellectual commitments.

It's not the fact that the teacher is sharing his own ideology---or even that he is trying to influence the ideology of his students---that makes this approach to teaching bad. It's the fact that "winning" the ideological war is the only objective expressed here. This professor doesn't care about the objectives of the students, and he doesn't even seem to care about the students' virtuous character. All he cares about is shifting the student's worldview to be more in line with his own.  That's not education. That's brainwashing.

In subtle contrast to this terrifying approach to teaching, Chris links to someone's personal account of having his worldview dismantled by a professor. But this wasn't the work of someone lying in wait to pounce on an unsuspecting eighteen-year-old (or at least, it doesn't seem so). This was the patient, relationship building of someone who genuinely wants a student to understand the world better:

It was John who—in the course of one extended conversation on the political thought of John Locke—broke through my well-armored adolescent Marxism and first introduced me to the challenges of intellectual history. He managed this by the simple device of listening very intently to everything I said, taking it with extraordinary seriousness on its own terms, and then picking it gently and firmly apart in a way that I could both accept and respect.

That is teaching. It is also a certain sort of liberalism: the kind that engages in good faith with dissenting (or simply mistaken) opinions across a broad political spectrum.

Was this second teacher also brainwashing his student? Possibly. But it is at least as possible that he was trying to help build the student's character, or make him a more productive thinker with the capacity to enjoy the subtleties of philosophical thought.

So we have here two cases of teachers who seem to be ignoring the student-perspective goals of consumption, productivity, and signaling. While I believe thinking about teaching in the way I do precludes the brainwashing of the first teacher, I hope I can say it doesn't prevent the care and relational efforts of the latter.

What After the Three Rs?

What should students learn after they are literate and numerate at a functional level? Here's one argument for why mathematical proofs matter. Matt Rognlie offers some pros and cons of studying 'classics' (although he is less charitable towards some than others).

This question is tricky because it's really a matter of the purpose of education, but in a very specific sense. If we want to satisfy the consumption goal, should students read To Kill a Mockingbird? I mean, I loved it, but a lot of people don't. What about The Old Man and the Sea? That one I couldn't stand. From a consumption perspective, shouldn't we be telling everyone to read more Tolkien? Or letting students choose from an array of comic books? How do we know what readings now will give students more satisfaction in ten and twenty years time?

If, on the other hand, we are after productivity, then all education tends to become vocational, doesn't it? We could argue back and forth a bit about how best to develop "critical thinking skills" and other abstract tools many workers will need, but in general the idea becomes clear: let students try many things, and as they demonstrate interest or aptitude in one, narrow down their training to the specific skills they'll use in that profession. This makes moving between different kinds of jobs more difficult, but these days it usually doesn't pay to be a generalist.

If it's signaling we want to promote, of course, then we have a bit more leeway. The goal is to show a willingness and ability to endure the kinds of pain that you would only do if you really had the traits and talents employers are looking for. Of course, there are lots of ways to endure pain; Hemingway is just one option. Knowledge bowl with canings for the loser would work just as well.

Different cultures have relied on different mixes of these goals throughout history, and some are easier to figure out than others. China has had, since ancient times, a major emphasis on exams determining vocation; it seems to me that this is primarily a signaling education. In aristocratic societies, it seems to largely be a matter of consumption. Western societies have for at least a couple centuries now focused on creating workers with identical skill sets---particularly the "don't question the boss" skill---well suited for factory work, call centers, or middle management.

What should the mix of educational goals look like? What would education that served this mix well look like? What mix(es) would be acceptable from a Christian worldview, and are there any that must be categorically rejected?

(PS - I know some readers may want to say that none of these goals is in line with a Christian worldview, since the goal of education should be "raising children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," and ultimately God's glory comes above all other goals. Well, OK, sure. I contend that you're still going to promote God's glory by nurturing and admonishing in a way that combines consumption, productivity, and signaling. The question is what types of consumption, productivity, and signaling best promote God's glory, and what combinations implicitly refuse to nurture and admonish. So I'm not looking for a Mardel's answer, nor even the Reformed equivalent. Dig deep here, people.)

What Schooling Is For

Today is the start of another semester, and that means the ever popular Opening Lecture. I sorted out several semesters back that I'm not the only one bored to tears when the first thing a professor does in a class is pass around a syllabus and then read it. Instead of doing that, now I open by explaining to students why they're in my class; not why they're taking microeconomics, but why they are in college in the first place. It allows me to bring up a lot of topics we'll cover over the semester, and I think it's pretty eye-opening to those who are likely to pay attention to the course.

Now, I don't really go into the historical sources of the university system, although that certainly would be suggestive. Matt Yglesias puts it this way:

[...]as Brad DeLong likes to point out the “get a bunch of people in a room to listen to some guy talk” model of education was an organizational response to the high price of books. In principle, it would seem to have been made obsolete by the printing press and the public library. Yet obviously that didn’t happen. Colleges and universities managed to make themselves indispensable sources of credentials and social prestige. And though they’ve of course incorporated information technology innovations into their work, they still engage in an incredible quantity of pre-Gutenberg educating.

So advancing our knowledge was once the primary purpose of schooling, but it hasn't been for a long, long time. This is why when I see questions like Arnold Kling's ("Yes, our kids do graduate, but could they have learned just as much on their own on the Web?"), I can't help but feel he's missing the main point.

As a teacher, I want how I teach to be shaped by the goals the students have when they sign up. As an economist, I know that these goals really fall into three broad categories: consumption, productivity, and signaling.

'Consumption' means some students go to school because they like it. Maybe the enjoy the social environment, or maybe they think the subjects are interesting. Perhaps, as one keen observer of the human condition has said, people go to college to become better conversationalists. In any case, all these reasons are just different ways of saying they derive satisfaction from the experience of school itself, and in economics, when people derive satisfaction from the thing itself, we call it consumption.

The problem with this is that formal schooling is usually only fun for those who are naturally good at formal schooling (i.e., people like me). For many others, it's a torturous, life-sucking experience that drains the creativity right out of them. Sure, college parties are fun, but why borrow money so your four years of partying can be interrupted by memorizing facts about price controls? Why don't we send everyone to Europe for two years, then send 'em to the workforce?

'Productivity' is what most traditional views of education focus on, and what all political posturing focuses on. Productivity means students go to school to make them better at whatever they are going to do when they stop going to school; sometimes schooling is viewed as a requirement to gain necessary skills, without which many people simply could never figure out how to do some jobs. Within this class is the idea that workers with higher productivity are more valuable to employers, and generally this will be reflected in higher wages / salaries and better benefits offered.

Productivity is what everyone worries about when it comes to education, but in reality it's probably the least important reason to go to school. Part of the reason is precisely Arnold Kling's point: intelligent individuals can learn most of the same things on their own. Formal education doesn't make kids smart, and it doesn't make them dedicated or hard-working. In some cases it can help by imposing a degree of discipline on students who aren't very good at self-discipline, but it's probably as likely to have the opposite effect. So what is formal education really good at?

'Signaling' is the primary purpose of education. It's all about credentials. The thing is, employers need to be able to distinguish people who are talented in the areas that matter to them most from those who are not very good in those areas. One of the best ways to do this (for technical reasons that I won't go into here) is to see who is willing and able to endure the most hardship in the name of the areas that matter to the employer. Hence, college majors. Of course, colleges need to be able to sort students into those most likely to succeed in a given area, too, so they look to those who dealt with the most (semi-relevant) pain in high school. High schools do the same, and so on.

In the end, most of what formal education is about is enduring hardship as proof that you have passion and talent for something. It sounds ridiculous, but it's actually quite important for employers to be able to make good decisions. Of course, this presents a problem the earlier you get in someone's life, because children usually don't know their talents yet, and if they are locked into a course early they never get the chance to explore and find what their real passions are. That doesn't mean formal education is bad. But it does mean we should use education for what it can do, and avoid using it for what it can't.