I was constantly having to translate your prose into dumdum. Why say “value added “ when you can just say “better”? I realize this kind of critique for a totally free service is churlish, but the info is fascinating and important and could reach more people if the prose style was just a hair dopier.
Glad you liked it! I tend to stick to the terms in use in the literature I'm describing, but I might drop that going forward if enough people think it'll be helpful.
ugh sorry (as below), I should stop reading complex things on my phone.
I do think in general one key to Mr. Unspeakable Bat Signal's success is his ability to translate interesting insights into dumdum amenable prose. He makes it look easier than it really is!
Great post. In your opinion, what is the mechanism by which quality education improves outcomes? Why does this happen? Is it signaling, selection, or some kind of genuine human capital accumulation? If the latter, it would presumably be through the formation of non-cognitive skills.
One of the things I hoped to convey was that I don't think there's one mechanism involved in bringing about educational benefits, I think there are many. I suspect there's genuine human capital accumulation of some sort and, at the very least, for some outcomes, facultative mechanisms at play. For example, a school that encourages after-school attendance might keep kids out of gangs by simply taking away their free time, effectively incapacitating them.
“In The Allure of Order, Mehta recounts a century of attempts at revitalizing public education, and puts forward a truly new agenda to reach this elusive goal. Not once, not twice, but three separate times-in the Progressive Era, the 1960s and '70s, and NCLB-reformers have hit upon the same idea for remaking schools. Over and over again, outsiders have been fascinated by the promise of scientific management and have attempted to apply principles of rational administration from above. Each of these movements started with high hopes and ambitious promises, but each gradually discovered that schooling is not easy to "order" from afar: policymakers are too far from schools to know what they need; teachers are resistant to top-down mandates; and the practice of good teaching is too complex for simple external standardization.
The larger problem, Mehta argues, is that reformers have it backwards: they are trying to do on the back-end, through external accountability, what they should have done on the front-end: build a strong, skilled and expert profession. Our current pattern is to draw less than our most talented people into teaching, equip them with little relevant knowledge, train them minimally, put them in a weak welfare state, and then hold them accountable when they predictably do not achieve what we seek. What we want, Mehta argues, is the opposite approach which characterizes top-performing educational nations: attract strong candidates into teaching, develop relevant and usable knowledge, train teachers extensively in that knowledge, and support these efforts through a strong welfare state.”
My take on the long term index - maybe something similar to how bronze price winners are the happiest.
You are grateful for just making it into your preferred school and realize if you had worked a little less hard, missed some opportunity you wouldn’t have made it. That probably makes you a lot more conscientious in all aspects of life including health. Those with higher scores may just feel more confident and those with very high scores may have personalities which hyper focus on just a couple of things, and avoid things they aren’t good at. Those who narrowly missed may just feel dejected that their hard work didn’t benefit.
Income difference for education discordant MZ twins is basically non existent? More proof that modern education is useless. Even MZ twins differ slightly in behavior so you'd expect that the slightly more hard working twin is more likely to go to uni. Doubt it's uni that makes the difference for independence or other silly metrics.
"Income difference for education discordant MZ twins is basically non existent?
Increased income is not the most crucial advantage of higher education. The greatest benefit is gaining knowledge and learning to think logically and rationally.
I was constantly having to translate your prose into dumdum. Why say “value added “ when you can just say “better”? I realize this kind of critique for a totally free service is churlish, but the info is fascinating and important and could reach more people if the prose style was just a hair dopier.
Glad you liked it! I tend to stick to the terms in use in the literature I'm describing, but I might drop that going forward if enough people think it'll be helpful.
ugh sorry (as below), I should stop reading complex things on my phone.
I do think in general one key to Mr. Unspeakable Bat Signal's success is his ability to translate interesting insights into dumdum amenable prose. He makes it look easier than it really is!
Great post. In your opinion, what is the mechanism by which quality education improves outcomes? Why does this happen? Is it signaling, selection, or some kind of genuine human capital accumulation? If the latter, it would presumably be through the formation of non-cognitive skills.
One of the things I hoped to convey was that I don't think there's one mechanism involved in bringing about educational benefits, I think there are many. I suspect there's genuine human capital accumulation of some sort and, at the very least, for some outcomes, facultative mechanisms at play. For example, a school that encourages after-school attendance might keep kids out of gangs by simply taking away their free time, effectively incapacitating them.
The surprising results in figure 2d can be explained by people aiming for more selective schools getting in by a smaller margin
Have you read "The Allure of Order"? It's adjacent to this idea. Curious what you think!
Never heard of it!
“In The Allure of Order, Mehta recounts a century of attempts at revitalizing public education, and puts forward a truly new agenda to reach this elusive goal. Not once, not twice, but three separate times-in the Progressive Era, the 1960s and '70s, and NCLB-reformers have hit upon the same idea for remaking schools. Over and over again, outsiders have been fascinated by the promise of scientific management and have attempted to apply principles of rational administration from above. Each of these movements started with high hopes and ambitious promises, but each gradually discovered that schooling is not easy to "order" from afar: policymakers are too far from schools to know what they need; teachers are resistant to top-down mandates; and the practice of good teaching is too complex for simple external standardization.
The larger problem, Mehta argues, is that reformers have it backwards: they are trying to do on the back-end, through external accountability, what they should have done on the front-end: build a strong, skilled and expert profession. Our current pattern is to draw less than our most talented people into teaching, equip them with little relevant knowledge, train them minimally, put them in a weak welfare state, and then hold them accountable when they predictably do not achieve what we seek. What we want, Mehta argues, is the opposite approach which characterizes top-performing educational nations: attract strong candidates into teaching, develop relevant and usable knowledge, train teachers extensively in that knowledge, and support these efforts through a strong welfare state.”
My take on the long term index - maybe something similar to how bronze price winners are the happiest.
You are grateful for just making it into your preferred school and realize if you had worked a little less hard, missed some opportunity you wouldn’t have made it. That probably makes you a lot more conscientious in all aspects of life including health. Those with higher scores may just feel more confident and those with very high scores may have personalities which hyper focus on just a couple of things, and avoid things they aren’t good at. Those who narrowly missed may just feel dejected that their hard work didn’t benefit.
Income difference for education discordant MZ twins is basically non existent? More proof that modern education is useless. Even MZ twins differ slightly in behavior so you'd expect that the slightly more hard working twin is more likely to go to uni. Doubt it's uni that makes the difference for independence or other silly metrics.
"Income difference for education discordant MZ twins is basically non existent?
Increased income is not the most crucial advantage of higher education. The greatest benefit is gaining knowledge and learning to think logically and rationally.
Why “education discordant” instead of “differently educated”?
I am quoting Ugabuga. You should address your question to them.
that will teach me to scroll on my phone only half paying attention! Well, probably not actually but anyway: apologies.