More on online learning

The Times produces another article about online learning ventures laying out some of the directions in this field and critiques. One reader posted in a comment a link to an interesting article in Science showing variation in learning outcomes across in-person teaching methods.

Changing retirement ages in the Euro zone

The Washington Post reports on rising public sector retirement ages in Italy and also presents a nifty graphic comparing them across a number of OECD countries. The first article describes the hopelessness felt by older individuals when these changes are announced without much lead time. Say what one will about the ability of OECD governments in general to tackle the fiscal challenges of population aging head-on, but at least such changes have been legislated in some countries well in advance of their taking effect. The 1983 Social Security Amendments scheduled a gradual rise in the normal retirement age starting in 2000, a full seventeen years later.

Anna J. Schwartz, 1915-2012

The New York Times has reported the death of the great monetary economist Anna J. Schwartz at 96. I'll never forget attending a seminar conducted by her and Hugo Kaufmann in the basement of the CUNY Graduate Center on Tuesday, December 2, 2008. My best memory of what she said that day was that she felt Bernanke was "fighting the last war" with monetary policy, or using the wrong tools for the current job. That point reappears toward the end of her Times op-ed published the next summer.

George Will on higher ed costs

Dripping with signature wit and sarcasm, George Will's latest concerns the cost of higher education. I'm not sure about how factually based such points are, but he cites "academic administrators outnumber[ing] faculty"in the UC system, hearkening back to a recent post of mine on the topic.

Derivatives and a simple example

This article on NPR.org provides a helpful explanation of what derivatives are, all in the context of chicken farmers. I'm never sure whether near-metaphors like that are helpful or only more confusing, but I can't resist them!

Brooks and Collins on education

What don't they discuss in this week's Conversation, which is about education?  A wide-ranging and fascinating back-and-forth ensues.  I particularly liked the discussion about costs and the growth in managers at UC ("Soon every faculty member will have a personal senior manager") and the trajectories over 4 years of college in various metrics of students' well-being and progress from the Wabash National Study.  Motivation?  Fuhgeddaboudit!

Conard's full monty in the NYT-M

Edward Conard, a retired Bain executive, is interviewed in the NYT Magazine about his forthcoming book on inequality, Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About the Economy Is Wrong.  I admit I skimmed the article, but I couldn't find the promised argument about why more inequality was better than less.  Conard is big on saving and investment, which most would agree is important. Perhaps he just doesn't view inequality as good or bad, or maybe it's one of those perspectives that ex post inequality could be evidence of ex ante opportunity.

But the best passage by far was at the bottom of the fourth page:

There’s also the fact that Conard applies a relentless, mathematical logic to nearly everything, even finding a good spouse. He advocates, in utter seriousness, using demographic data to calculate the number of potential mates in your geographic area. Then, he says, you should set aside a bit of time for “calibration” — dating as many people as you can so that you have a sense of what the marriage marketplace is like. Then you enter the selection phase, this time with the goal of picking a permanent mate. The first woman you date who is a better match than the best woman you met during the calibration phase is, therefore, the person you should marry. By statistical probability, she is as good a match as you’re going to get. (Conard used this system himself.)


Look out, eHarmony!!