- Jehu: Honest Graft
- Devin: The Destruction of Urban Life
- Hanson: the Research on Brainstorming. Verdict: FAIL.
- Sailer: Social impact on measured IQ? Turns out we see the same thing in low-caste Indians and Black Americans.
- Oz Conservative brings the conservative. In his discussion, he links to a very good point: Serious autonomy (economic) for women isn't actually possible without birth control & abortion.
- The Monkey Cage: Corporations work like countries...and basically like BBdM says. Explains some/much corporate failure.
- BHL opposes inequality-targeting.
- Crampton: What do lots of highly research-driven economists agree on? If you don't take this seriously...if it doesn't shift your opinions...your thinker is broken and you don't understand epistemology.
- Sonic Charmer on Prop Trading.
- Hanson on inequality in the future.
- Raymond on AGW and IQ. Some gloating on the AGW thing...old news on IQ. AGW thing not as well thought as normal, because he's feasting on the hearts of his enemies.
- Todd on The Iceman. This is my favorite article of the month.
- Slashdot says study habits research contradicts common knowledge.
- Borepatch links to FEMA vs. Texas
- Arnold Kling maintains phenomenally Hayekian humilty. This is a case study for how to think about ANYTHING. If you don't think with this level of humility...you need more practice thinking.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Linky Part II
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
So, does the fact that "expert" economists cannot agree that vouchers would improve education alter your priors?
Go look at the responses, and see if you think they are responding to the question in the same spirit that they are responding to, say, the question about a gold standard.
Sometimes you just have to conclude that religion and social conformity blinds people to certain things.
It would be interesting to be able to take the data they have there, and then see how answers change if I can weight the economists. I'd give Nancy Stokey a 10: "It's the only way to break the unions." Whereas Cecilia Rouse (Disagree, no reason, confidence 10), gets my own 1. Or maybe a zero -- who cares what she thinks.
Leonard,
Actually, vouchers per se has been studied moderately well. The evidence (from the USA) is pretty solid that having a voucher program in and of itself doesn't help.
On the other hand, international evidence, in particular, using Sweden's hardcore voucher approach, says that if you design the voucher program right (specifically, you allow failure), it does have positive results. this is the first link I could find this morning: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2003/03/01/voucher-lessons-sweden
So...no, it doesn't change my priors. I agree with the conclusion as stated...actually, I am closer to the vouchers don't help side. However, I think the question is poorly formed, given the known data: Some voucher programs make a difference, and others don't. The question SHOULD have been: What characteristics of a voucher or tax-credit program lead to improved school effectiveness.
I know of no voucher program in the USA that is anything like what their question was, namely, vouchers at the current spending level, for all students.
What "they" have studied are the very limited voucher experiments that somehow have been done in various localities. And I can state many objections off the top of my head.
1. These voucher plans tend to be for less than is spent on public schools per capita.
2. The voucher plans are always politically at risk.
3. The "they" doing the studies are academics, and can be expected to understand that vouchers are a direct political threat to Democrats. They have strong reason to find them bad or ineffective.
4. The voucher plans tend to be for low-income students of failing schools, not a general population, and particularly not smart students.
The Swedish system seems like a much better test. And it is successful.
Leonard,
I can agree with many of your objections...and I'd add another one that I think is more important:
Schooling MUST be goal-directed. Choosing goals is probably the single biggest value you obtain by picking schools. And it's not measured by the voucher measurement. The voucher measurements thus far have been about the state's goals, not the parent's goals...which are deeply different.
On the other hand...I don't object much to the notion that a voucher program must have certain characteristics in order to succeed. I furthermore think we don't have enough practice designing voucher programs to have nailed down all the requirements. Once, 3 years ago or so...I suggested that a voucher program should require that all private schools participating in voucher programs must have entrance/exit tests...one standard, and one custom-per-school...thus allowing parents to see (a) how the schools compare on a standard curriculum, and (b) how the schools compare on the custom curriculum.
Even though I like vouchers in general...I have a mild fondness for transferrable tax credits instead.
Swedish system is good/successful. I'd bet with tinkering, it could be improved.
Basic answer: vouchers by themselves are NOT the answer. SOME voucher programs, well designed, are clear wins. ANd that comports decently with the econ tribe's assessment, though in more detail.
No, it doesn't.
There is a stupid-simple argument for the vouchers they were asked about. (Full money, mind you.) You give every student extra options, while taking away no option. (First order effects here.) This can only improve that student's situation.
Basic economics. Options have value. Only 36% of the "experts" agreed.
Now, obviously one can tell many tales about how second order effect in this case outweigh the first order. But that still should leave an honest man at worst "uncertain".
19% of those "experts" disagreed. The reasons they give indicate that they either have not understood the question, simple as it is, reading in an "ALL students will benefit", which is stupid. Or they are choosing to ignore the plain meaning and focus on their Rawlsian religious duty to help the worst-off.
Leonard,
I just went back and read the question. "Public school students would receive a higher quality education if they all had the option of taking the government money (local, state, federal) currently being spent on their own education and turning that money into vouchers that they could use towards covering the costs of any private school or public school of their choice (e.g. charter schools)."
1. I think the question has a HUGE amount of room for lack of clarity on what is being said.
2. Let me analogize: IF every kid were given $500 to buy jeans, would the quality of the jeans they had at the end be BETTER than that of the jeans they had without the $500? Hmm...I think that they'd buy designer jeans that were questionably of higher quality, but certainly of higher preference. Try adults and wine.
3. I think there are two approaches that one has to address here. "What is the evidence" and "What does theory say". When evidence and theory conflict, the correct answer is to check where your theory is fishy. Thus far...it's pretty obvious that the evidence is unclear. Hence, even though Econ 101 says that parents will get more of what they want for their students in schools...that's a different question than the evidence suggesting that voucher programs thus far have only delivered results under some circumstances. Did you read the comments on the question from the economists? I have trouble picking any single comment to disagree with, pro or con.
Your analogy (2) is weak. It is like every kid is already having $500 spent on him to buy jeans, by his government clothing suppliers, except for a small number of rich kids (whose parents are spending $1000 of their own money in addition to paying $5000 in taxes for schools), and a few crazy "home clothers". Then someone proposes to just give the $500 to the kid's parent instead.
Yes, I read the comments. I said I did. Many of those even who disagreed that vouchers would work had what amount to neutral comments; paraphrasing "it could work but some would be left behind". It is the mismatch between comment and indicated level of agreement I find objectionable. For example, how do you get "disagree, strength 6", from "Many would of course benefit, but those in rural areas or with irresponsible parents wouldn't. Charters aren't magic." That's dishonest.
So is it a disagreement then over the wording of the question?
"Public school students would receive a higher quality education...".
This leaves a whole lot of precision off.
Some, Most, All, The Average Student, ???
If you accept that different people are reading the question differently...that everyone agrees that it would make SOME better off...that everyone disagrees that it would make ALL better off...
I'm inclined to read the quesetion as imprecise, and thus the answers as imprecise.
I have a strong tendency to NOT impute bad motives.
Post a Comment