Robin Hanson wrote:
Now maybe you accept this, and think yourself part of, or advisor to, an
elite empowered to make ordinary people do things that are good for them,
whether they like it or not.
I think that what Bill might say is that even though people under-invest
in their own
In a message dated 11/4/02 4:30:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think Bill would say that he's pretty sure. He's seen the data,
crunched the numbers, read the literature, etc. If you feel comfortable
failing people on their exams, why shouldn't you feel comfortable giving
them a failing
Bryan Caplan wrote:
Now maybe you accept this, and think yourself part of, or advisor to, an
elite empowered to make ordinary people do things that are good for them,
whether they like it or not.
I think that what Bill might say is that even though people under-invest
in their own education,
Robin Hanson wrote:
I know that Bryan Caplan would say that people as consumers and people as
voters are just two different sets of preferences, and there is no particular
reason to expect much consistency between them. But that's a pretty unusual
position, so I didn't necessarily expect
On 10/25/02, William Dickens wrote:
... the rationality assumptions built into to any inter-temporal
optimizing model are so demanding that sort of trying to get it right
will get you no where near the predictions of the of the
full-rationality-perfect-information model. The deviations are
I have a lot to say in response to Bill on this topic. In fact, I was
too fascinated with the topic to sleep well last night. I'm going to
begin by answering a few specific points, then give one longer post.
William Dickens wrote:
If the decision is literally a no-brainer, then failing to
William Dickens wrote:
I see Bill already answered my question.
Not the way you think. See my response to yours.
I should also add that the social costs of tuition are much higher than
the private costs for public universities, making it even more likely
that the social return is quite
A belated reply to Bill.
William Dickens wrote:
Note its the _parents_ in your story who are groaning, not the kids.
OK, I'll admit that the no idea was based on what I know it was like
when I was going to college in the 70s. However, it is still my
impression after 13 years of teaching
Eric Crampton wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, William Dickens wrote:
continue schooling largely under weights the future benefits. Nearly
everyone should get more schooling than they do. This is only one of
I see Bill already answered my question. Blunt reaction: Come on! If
you really
If the decision is literally a no-brainer, then failing to consider
alternatives is rational.
??!!! Not if they make the wrong choice! OK, I suppose you are going to argue that
all the people who didn't have a clue what the return to continuing their education
was are the ones for whom it was
Data that includes going to college almost certainly includes SAT scores.
(I also think they correlate strongly with IQ, but haven't looked for that
data).
I'm sure that the effect of more schooling is higher on those with higher
SAT scores.
In addition, I'd guess the data includes average,
Is there a significant difference in the returns to education for those
who get schooling in top ranked programs? I thought I remember a
Newsweek a couple years back that had a story about SAT scores of
successful people (two profiles were G.W. Bush and Gore so I guess it
was around 2000),
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, William Dickens wrote:
continue schooling largely under weights the future benefits. Nearly
everyone should get more schooling than they do. This is only one of
Self-serving Eric, who hopes to be an econoimcs professor, couldn't agree
more. Demand for college professors
Of course, very few people, if any, are profoundly rational optimizers,
but they are approximate optimizers.
This is always the response of mainstream economists when one points out that people
obviously are not behaving as models predict. Unfortunately, for a lot of people that
is where the
In a message dated 10/24/02 10:51:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is always the response of mainstream economists when one points out
that people obviously are not behaving as models predict. Unfortunately, for
a lot of people that is where the discussion stops. The assumption seems to
because
I strongly suspect that 1) people have almost no idea how much it
will
be worth for them to continue in school,
Gee, now you're sounding Austrian! No idea? Come on. Just look at
how parents groan when their kids talk about the low-earning majors
like
sociology, and rejoice when
The history majors knew they'd make less with a
history degree, on average, but placed a higher value on doing
something they
enjoyed then on having a higher income.
Yes, but did they know how much of a difference it would make? I once
did a survey of students in one of my undergraduate
But controling for IQ isn't warranted if years of schooling is
endogenous. Kevin Lang has written extensively about these issues. - -
Bill
William T. Dickens
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 797-6113
FAX: (202) 797-6181
E-MAIL: [EMAIL
William Dickens wrote:
But controling for IQ isn't warranted if years of schooling is
endogenous. Kevin Lang has written extensively about these issues. - -
Could you enlighten us?
Bill
William T. Dickens
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
William Dickens wrote:
As I remember the standard neo-classical answer to this is that the main
source of endogenaity isn't ability bias but discount rate bias - - that
people with below average discount rates get more schooling.
I hadn't thought of that (or heard it). Is there actually
Just a note on discount rates. The late sociologist Ed Banfield had an entire
theory of poverty, education, crime, and in general, class distinction based
not on income but on discount rates, e.g. higher rates, less education, more
crime, lower-class behavior.
It was very intuitive in terms of a
Rodney F Weiher wrote:
Just a note on discount rates. The late sociologist Ed Banfield had an entire
theory of poverty, education, crime, and in general, class distinction based
not on income but on discount rates, e.g. higher rates, less education, more
crime, lower-class behavior.
Yes,
Alex T Tabarrok wrote:
Bryan's question, however, can be rephrased as not how do you explain
the data (low ability bias and high discount rate bias) but why is it
that ability bias appears low?
Ability bias isn't really low. Using the NLSY data, for example,
controlling for AFQT scores
As I remember the standard neo-classical answer to this is that the main
source of endogenaity isn't ability bias but discount rate bias - - that
people with below average discount rates get more schooling. So if the
question you want to know is the effect of attending high school vs.
only going
24 matches
Mail list logo
