Bryan D Caplan wrote:
But under the theories of irrationality [discussed] here, people can be
quite wrong, and irrationally wrong, even when they feel comfortable and
feel pretty sure. If you're going to posit an irrational [in]ability to
reason and accept advise in ordinary people, you must be
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
In a message dated 11/4/02 6:31:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< The first involved only making a
narrow technical assessment; the second a broad moral judgement of the sort
that I thought went out of style with the 19th century movement of WASP
elites to "Americanize" all the foolish forei
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
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 g
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 educati
William Dickens wrote:
>
> >My other side couldn't disagree more strongly. A significant percentage
> >of undergrads should really be in some kind of 2-year trade school
> >instead.
>
> Ahhh... But then you have to deal with the very empirical evidence that kicked this
>whole discussion off. If
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
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
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
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), and
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, rath
The focus of the discussion has been on whether college students do the
math of attending college. Perhaps a better question is whether those
young people not in college have done the math.
Alex
--
Alexander Tabarrok
Department of Economics, MSN 1D3
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA, 22030
Tel
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 low.
>>>I happen to believe
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
>My other side couldn't disagree more strongly. A significant percentage
>of undergrads should really be in some kind of 2-year trade school
>instead.
Ahhh... But then you have to deal with the very empirical evidence that kicked this
whole discussion off. If you think that people are making ir
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 real
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 teach
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
>A lack of information hardly indicates a lack of goal-pursuit (rationality)
>nor, I suspect, would many "mainstream economists" be surprised to find that
>young people on average have a level of rational ignorance than adults.
This is the problem. There is an assumption that "goal-pursuit" is
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
>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 th
>
> Of course I'm sure that they actually knew the answers perfectly well,
> but couldn't be bothered to answer my questions accurately being the
> profoundly rational optomizers that they are... ;-}
> - - Bill Dickens
Of course, very few people, if any, are "profoundly rational optimizers,"
but
>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 econ
In a message dated 10/22/02 7:00:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< 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 y
> 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 whe
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?
>
> Honestly no. I've tried to find Kevin's 1993 paper on this and to
> reproduce his argumen
>> 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?
Honestly no. I've tried to find Kevin's 1993 paper on this and to
reproduce his arguments, both to no avail. He has a neat little
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
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
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 r
Bill is quite correct that variation in "discount rates," (which could
also be something like how much you enjoy schooling for its own sake)
can explain the fact that IV estimates are higher than OLS estimates.
Bryan's question, however, can be rephrased as not how do you explain
the data (low abil
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.
Ye
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
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 actuall
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
I've occasionally heard that instrumental variables (IV) estimators of
the return to education yield markedly higher estimates than OLS. Is
this true? And how can this make any intuitive sense? If IV is
correcting for endogeneity, you would expect things to go the other
way.
Why? With a medi
37 matches
Mail list logo
