g m g D e s i g n . c o m

A respected scientist bemoans indoctrination of children in schools, favoring facts over feel-goodism.

Indoctrination of this sort, mostly with a left-ward slant on a variety of issues, seems more likely to backfire. Many former left-wing advocates do a 180 and lean more heavily to the right (David Horowitz, for eg) after realizing that they were “duped,” if you will. Isn’t it better to present both/all sides and focus on objective reasoning than feel-good indoctrination?

Answer: yes, for the students. For the teachers/professors, probably not. Professors known to lean to the right are likely to face consequences for doing so (being shunned, at best). For them, it’s better to withhold their opinions, meaning only their more left-wing counterparts get to control the political message.

Well, at least many people, like Horowitz, will eventually rebel. But, as with Horowitz, rebellion can be counterproductive, as people go too far in the other direction, leading to increasing polarization.

So, for the sake of reduced polarization, it would be nice if the indoctrination ended, not that that will actually happen.

Apparently, school reformists are right. David Brooks (the token conservative at the NY Times) tells an inspirational tale about school reform an Harlem. Teaser:

Let me repeat that. It eliminated the black-white achievement gap. “The results changed my life as a researcher because I am no longer interested in marginal changes,” Fryer wrote in a subsequent e-mail. What Geoffrey Canada, Harlem Children’s Zone’s founder and president, has done is “the equivalent of curing cancer for these kids. It’s amazing. It should be celebrated. But it almost doesn’t matter if we stop there. We don’t have a way to replicate his cure, and we need one since so many of our kids are dying — literally and figuratively.”

Apparently, conventional wisdom is wrong about a few significant things, according to a Slate article.

Key points where conventional wisdom is completely wrong, allegedly:

1. Nuclear proliferation is bad
2. Climate change will be catastrophic
3. China is stable
4. Homeownership is better for us
5. Stocks outperform bonds in the long run
6. Detroit can’t compete
7. We’re running out of fossil fuels

RTFA (read the article) for the case on each point. I have mixed feelings about some of them, of course.

The first is quite controversial. Certainly, nukes precluded a “hot war” b/w the US and the Soviets, possibly saving thousands of lives that would have been lost in direct state-on-state warfare. Having said that, a counter-example would be the DPRK (N Korea), wherein having nuclear arms is not to any overall advantage for anyone but the despots that run that country. Further, there’s always the concern about trans-national actors (like terrorist nut-jobs, or even international criminal groups) getting nuclear material for dirty bombs… or worse. I’d say this one is a wash.

Number 6 is another one I question. On that, the bottom line is that “Detroit” can compete, but will probably flounder without generous largesse from the government (a UAW bailout), something that (thankfully) doesn’t appear to be happening. Getting past vast mistakes made by the Big 3’s management doesn’t do anything about handling the “union problem,” nor do I think the “legacy costs” will be whisked away as quickly as the editorial suggests. In the end, it would be better for the Big 3 to morph into knowledge and IP (intellectual property) companies, as IBM has done by moving away from PC manufacturing. The emerging markets can do the manufacturing, where labor costs are lower and the presence of absence of unions is, for now, less of an issue from a cost standpoint.

Is the “I’ll go to grad school to wait out the recession” idea a bad idea? Perhaps it is. 8 reasons why it might not be best to go to grad school while times are tough:

1. Grad school pointlessly delays adulthood. 

2. PhD programs are pyramid schemes 

3. Business school is not going to help 90% of the people who go.

4. Law school is a factory for depressives. 

5. The medical school model assumes that health care spending is not a mess.

6. Going to grad school is like going into the military. 

7. Most jobs are better than they seem: You can learn from any job.

8. Graduate school forces you to overinvest: It’s too high risk.

I feel better about my B.S. now.

I’ve felt for a while that mandatory liberal arts (or humanities) courses at universities are not the best idea. Never mind that humanities courses often break down into indoctrination courses into illiberal, left-wing thinking. They’re also of limited use in the real world–outside of academia, that is. The NY Times reports on this phenomenon.

No offense to devotees of the liberal arts. Some of the courses are interesting and useful. The NY Times suggests the following justification for humanities courses:

But “the need for my older view of the humanities is, if anything, more urgent today,” he added, referring to the widespread indictment of greed, irresponsibility and fraud that led to the financial meltdown. In his view this is the time to re-examine “what we care about and what we value,” a problem the humanities “are extremely well-equipped to address.”

Of course, the idea that humanities courses at universities encourage morality seems silly to me. Religious beliefs, not left-wing philosophical beliefs, account for personal virtue more than studying the works of Chomsky, Nietzsche, or Marx.

Economically, does it make sense to mandate humanities over business and technology courses? My answer: only if your career ambition is “life-long college student” or liberal arts professor.

What does it take for a society to have, or maintain, economic prosperity? One can approach this from many angles, from governance to geography, or from education to gender equality. There are a myrid of angles one could take to approach this question, so I’ll narrow the question a bit: what does it take for emerging markets to reach prosperity and for developed countries to maintain it?

I claim that it takes three things in particular: religion, science and freedom.

Religion

Across the developed world (US and Europe in particular), religion has had rotten eggs thrown in its direction. After 9/11, the world discovered what happened when Salafi-Islamism is allowed to operate unchecked by our intell services. Most people probably didn’t see the nuance and instead simply became paranoid of all Muslims. Some people, mostly “intellectuals,” simply blamed America rather than worry about more plausible explanations.

The terror attacks of 9/11 (and subsequent attacks or attempts inside or outside the US) have given the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and others, the opportunity to launch attacks on religion in general and Christianity in particular. Hollywood is in on the fun, jeering or even demonizing religion, esp Christianity (Islam has largely been ignored from direct criticism, oddly).

Certainly, not all religions are created equally. Not all practitioners are equal in their piety. Focusing on the developed world, has religion–namely Christianity–been a bane, or a boon?

I’d argue that it has been a boon. The US was built on the system of moral values innate in Christian doctrine. Contrary to anti-Christian commentary, many scientists in this country’s history were also Christians. Our Founding Fathers were largely Christians as well. Absent their convictions, I question whether or not representative democracy would have been their priority.

But I doubt our Founding Fathers could have imagined the “values void” that we see in Europe and, increasingly, the United States. So what would happen if we were all atheists, or “humanists”? Since this blog post is economy-centered, I’ll point out that business thrives when trust and integrity are high. The “greed is good” phrase in Wall Street (a movie starring Michael Douglas) has proven to be absurdity. Look at WorldCom and Enron and you’ll see greed, not innovation, and certainly not integrity. When people are able to have a relatively high level of trust in others, and when they’re able to take them at their word, that is an environment where business is able to thrive.

The alternative is a society that requires much higher regulation and enforcement. The godless might not fear the wrath of God, but they fear the law. Since that is all that keeps them in check, regulation must be much more rigorous, and like a neighborhood of hoodlums, enforcement must be higher. Sarbox (Sarbanes-Oxley legislation) might not have been over the top after all. When people increasingly have no moral convictions and no moral concern outside themselves, more oversight isn’t just useful, but necessary.

The contrarian will argue that some religions have been harmful in some parts of the world. Look at the Middle East, where the areas of prosperity other than oil-wealth are areas where conservative Islam has taken a back seat. The UAE comes to mind. I agree with this assessment, and point again to the idea that not all religious are created equally. One could make the same argument in relation to India, whose polytheistic religion has not seemingly served to bolster their economy. Some philosophical religions, like Taoism or Buddhism, have had marginal roles in economic growth. Another contrarian argument might be this: what about “atheist China” and it’s 10%+ GDP growth for the past two decades? The China example is interesting, because China’s dabbling with the atheistic governance (call Communism) did not turn out so well for its people (tens of millions died during Mao’s unfortunate tenure). Now, China has more regular church-goers than western Europe.

So, when “God is dead,” Big Government becomes bigger. Regulations become more burdensome. People cling to their new Higher Power–the state–and freedom takes a back seat.

Science

In early 2007, Bill Gates wrote a commentary on the WP. It begins as such:

For centuries people assumed that economic growth resulted from the interplay between capital and labor. Today we know that these elements are outweighed by a single critical factor: innovation.

I think he’s right, and I think science is key to this single, critical factor. Science isn’t just about cell phones or wind turbines. It’s a thought process, one that requires analysis and detail. I can’t think of a single prosperous country that has become so without rigorous science curriculae. Although most people (that I know) would likely nod in agreement at this assertion, science courses are rarely mandatory in college, while “liberal arts” courses are always required. I suppose art history is more important than physics? Or maybe computer science takes a back seat to English Literature? In fact, current priorities are in favor of other nations excelling us in math and science, a process that is already unfolding.

Freedom

No country can achieve economic prosperity without freedom. Freedom allows us to start businesses without knowing top government insiders or being friends with the president. Freedom gives us the ability to work wherever we choose to work; it also gives employers the ability to fire employers at their whim.

Not all “free” countries are comparable. France, for eg, has restrictive labor laws. It’s difficult to fire even non-unionized employees, meaning that special care is taken in hiring them. If they’re “different,” i.e., non-white, they’re not going to be hired as frequently. The riots in France were a result to idle hands unable to get work. France’s labor laws are innately anti-freedom. Unions are inherently anti-freedom as well, displacing individual liberty with herd mentality.

Just as economies can’t prosper without freedom, freedom cannot exist without capitalism. Capitalism is freedom in the context of the marketplace, and without it, freedom (in the general sense of the word) simply doesn’t exist. How can one be free if he is a serf to the state to provide his employment and means of survival? How can he donate to charity if he does not control his own purse strings? He can’t do either.

Bin Laden ‘Che Guevara of al Qaida’

My first thought when I read this is, “Gosh, it’s only a matter of time before hippie liberals are wearing bin Laden T-shirts and ivory tower professors are supporting the 9/11 mastermind.” Unfortunately, I’m not resorting to hyperbole. How will the illiberal Left view bin Laden in 10 years, or 20 years from now? With the same sympathy and solidarity that it bestows upon Ernesto Guevara, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez?

Bill Gates offered his commentary on how the US can maintain/bolster its global competitiveness. In a nutshell:  a) improve education (esp science & tech); b) revamp visa system for high-skilled; c) increase fed financing for scientific research; d) provide incentives for private R&D.

Good suggestions? Yeah, overall I’d say they’re pretty good. Likely? The first sug seems possible, but unlikely in any short order given that our pre-collegiate education model is strangled by teachers’ unions that prevent vouchers at all costs. For that reason & others, education will likely stratify: it will (perhaps) get better for some and remain mediocre for many (for some, it will be very bad, depending mostly on geography).

The second suggestion is a no-brainer. Yes, of course we need to revamp this system, making it more efficient & raising the current (low) ceiling on the number of temporary, highly skilled workers coming in. Likely? No, not while this country is going through an anti-immigrant phase (and no, that sentiment isn’t just against illegal immigrants).

The third suggestion is a bit controversial to me. On the surface the idea seems worthy, but do we really need the Big Government to sponsor scientific reseach? Maybe. But I’d prefer private efforts over governmental ones.

The fourth suggestion is a bit vague, but sure, providing incentives sounds fine. As always, the devil’s in the details with such a vague suggestion. (Like, what sort of incentives? How many tax dollars are we talking about? Could it lead to favoritism of one company over another? etc)

 Edited on 3-16:

I found an email I wrote to some family members in response to a question on the US economy. My email response to his original email pretty much captures my overall thoughts on economic policy. I specifically touch on the economic stimulus package, but my main focus is more general. Here it is:

My feeling on this is that our economic future is pretty good, given this country’s history of resisting micro-management of the economy by our political “luminaries.” Keep in mind that recessions are arguably part of the “creative-destructive” forces in the market, providing a temporary and effective means of discouraging investment in areas of the market that are unproductive (or not as productive as the high level of investment would suggest). Hence, I suspect that we don’t need a “stimulus package” to fix a system that is fully operational. I’m not dogmatically against the stimulus package, however. But I think the strategic thinking on this should primarily be long-term.

Further, I assert that times like these (not that I think times are particularly bad, by any stretch) should encourage the geniuses in Washington (so to speak) to broach a discussion on further augmenting our global competitiveness. Completely off the top of my head, some possible suggestions are:

1. raising the low cap on the number of working visas that are issued next year and the years ahead, giving us a competitive advantage as the world’s brightest minds come to work in the US
2. making the process of obtaining permanent residency status faster and less bureaucratic
3. making the process of obtaining other visas, including visas for university students, faster, easier, and less bureaucratic
4. implementing a reasonable guest-worker program and finding an acceptable, humane status for the illegal immigrants who are currently in this country
5. expanding FTAs (free trade agreements)
6. negotiating FTAs with few strings attached; for eg, no imposed worker rights clauses (working conditions tend to get better as economies advance, not due to clauses added under duress, so such clauses delay the FTA and/or are used primarily to please certain groups, like unions)
7. finally, politicians should resist the urge to pick the economic “winners” (like corn-based ethanol, for eg)

Good commentary on education vouchers and why we need them (if we consider education important, that is). First para:

Many studies of education vouchers have looked at the achievement of children who are given vouchers and who transfer to private schools.  Generally these studies have found small but meaningful improvements (e.g. here and here).  A voucher program, however, is about much more than transferring students from lousy public schools to better private schools it’s about creating incentives to improve the public schools.

(Note: bold-faced font added by me.)

So, in addition to vouchers affording greater personal freedom for individuals, they also stand a chance of being a) good for the quality of education, and b) more cost competitive (cause, face it, public schools are expensive on a per capita basis).

Later on in the blog post, Tabarrok suggests that a voucher program be national, not just at the local or state level. I agree, but I think that, pragmatically, more local and state voucher programs would due for now. Remember that local experimentation can be replicated by other regions and, if an experiment fails to bear fruit, at least it won’t taint the idea of vouchers on a national scale.

I was thinking the other day… many colleges/universities mandate certain courses to get a degree. The argument is often that such courses provide for a well-balanced education. They often include a couple/few semesters of English (writing & literature), history, art, theater, and so forth. Certainly, such courses are useful, and I’m not (necessarily) arguing against the mandatory nature of such courses. But what is curiously absent from that list is science & engineering. Why not mandate a course or two in computer science or computer engineering. I mean, wouldn’t that be consistent with the “well-balanced education” idea? And, conveniently, wouldn’t that lead to greater overall competitiveness after college of this country’s (or any country’s) students?

So why not? Colleges require liberal arts (“humanities”) courses that, for many people, are neither “enriching” nor are they economically useful (again, for most). Why not mandate courses that are (generally considered) economically beneficial and also mind-expanding?