Bigthink - Idea Comments Feed

Comment on: Re: Do we need to change how economics is taught?

Bigthink — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:01:23 +0100

One sort of problem that often arises, as Professor Airely well knows, is that the number of uncontrolled variables in social experiments is so large as to preclude unambiguous conclusions from the outcomes. Multivariate analyses of various sorts are helpful, of course, but conducting the experiments "in the wild", so to speak, make for very difficult terrain. I think this means that one needs to try to formulate the experiment conservatively; try to figure out in advance what these various confounding variables are likely to be, and work hard at experimental designs that anticipate as much as possible their effects and where possible work around them. One would think this to be no more than common sense, but the flood of flawed studies that issue with regularity shows that not so many are ready to do the hard work needed to render a study meaningful. I can't imagine, for example, how one would conduct the Iowa tax cut experiment that Dan Airely suggests in such as way as to get a meaningful result.

Comment on: Re: Do we need to change how economics is taught?

Bigthink — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:35:49 +0100

Not only do we need to change how economics is taught, but we need to broaden the scope of what is included in that topic or discipline. We need to exercise more socially equitable decisions that reflect the needs of society and ensure the costs and benefits are shared equally by all groups.
Economically viable decisions consider ALL costs, including long-term environmental and societal costs.
It's called sustainable development

Comment on: Re: Do we need to change how economics is taught?

Bigthink — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:25:06 +0100

I agree that experiment-based science tends to yield useful results, but there are pretty good reasons why experimentation isn't more common in, e.g., economics, education, environmental science, etc.: One is that it's really hard to conduct meaningful, controlled experiments in these settings. Wanting to do more good experiments is one thing; actually figuring out how to do good experiments in these contexts is quite another.

Comment on: Re: Do we need to change how economics is taught?

Bigthink — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:12:07 +0100

education research is fundamentally different from health research in that in health you are experimenting on physiological systems, while in education you are experimenting on humans as a whole--ration/irrational, decision-making, value-holding humans. this raises a host of problems that mean you can't simply transfer the medical model to educaiton.

Comment on: Re: Do we need to change how economics is taught?

Bigthink — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 13:35:02 +0100

What's needed is an understanding that there is no one single solution to things. Having choices the freedom of CHOICE is one of the most basic elements of the US American system, and of a healthy economy, so it makes more sense to spend time developing several good options and then allow the individuals (students, business owners, etc.) to decide what approach is going to best suit their needs and their goals at any given time, with the freedom to choose a different options when their goals and needs change.

Comment on: Re: Do we need to change how economics is taught?

Bigthink — Tue, 06 May 2008 19:04:20 +0100

This is where qualitative analysis would be useful. One longitudinal study over 5 years would yield lots of insights.

My suggestion would be to take one school, one classroom, or even one family; and then evaluate the effects of a program such as No Child Left Behind(which is in my opinion the most horrid public policy of our time). Too bad we don't have the luxury of a long period of time, because grade school children are being thrown under the bus here and now.

The only other approach would be to investigate backwards. Take one school, one classroom or one child and document the reverse effects. Do the effects support the goals of the program? Wasn't this program supposed to prepare our children for higher education and enable them to compete with the rest of the world?

It is my personal opinion that this atrocity, called No Child Left Behind, not only undermines the goals of higher education by teaching the empty value of monetary reward for academic achievement; but the goal itself has been bankrupted by placing emphasis on test scores over the process of learning.

Has anyone looked at the relationship between No Child Left Behind and an increase in ADHD drug use? These drugs carry a black box warning, yet teachers and schools recommend their use. This is untenable.

Comment on: Re: Do we need to change how economics is taught?

Bigthink — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:05:34 +0100

lss546, i agree, but can you quantify social policies? how can you factor that in the GDP, most school when they teach economic only use quantitative values but they, or at least from what ive seen acknowledge that it leaves out some qualitative factors, so i think until someone figures out for example whats the quantitative affect of such things as global warming or no child left behind etc. its then we are doing the best we can

Comment on: Re: Do we need to change how economics is taught?

Bigthink — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 04:08:06 +0100

In terms of how economics is taught as a university discipline, the heightened emphasis on abstruse quantitative analysis (as opposed to the socio-historical basics) has contributed to economic illiteracy even among well-educated Americans. This is a problem that needs to be addressed.