Economics is Hip

Apparently economics is seeing a wave of new prospective students eager to be the next tenured econ-blogging superstar.

At Ohio's Oberlin College, registration in undergrad economics classes is up 25 percent this year, and the chair of the department says he's never seen anything like it. Host Robert Smith finds a similar surge in the classrooms of American University and across the country. So is undergraduate economics getting sexier? In a word: yes.

So when picking out that new grad school consider going into economics--everyone else is doing it.

(Fortunately, the loans you'll most probably be taking out will be payed off with stronger dollars once you get out of school and us all out of this recession with your economics know-how)

The Value of Education

It's pretty valuable.

But an undergraduate degree has become—and graduate degrees are becoming—an important qualification. Students obtain one, because without it they'll be unable to get an interview for most of the best jobs in the country. If everyone could spontaneously agree that students should attend school only up to the point at which the value of the actual knowledge gained exceeded the cost of tuition, then we could dispense with much of this unnecessary rigmarole. Since that's unlikely to happen, the optimal individual decision is to get the undergrad degree, and then often to get a graduate degree, as well.

And if you're going to go back to school, now is the time to do it. Not only is the opportunity cost of the time spent extremely low—wages aren't likely to rise any time soon, and there may not be a job available anyway—but so to is the opportunity cost of the money invested. What, you'd rather have that tuition sitting in the market right now? Or in a home?

Go to grad school, folks!

Donorschoose.org

I'm sure this is old web news, but as someone who values education I wanted to post this so everyone could check out the program and possibly find a project that they would want to support.

Not only is this a brilliant example of using technology toward positive social change, by connecting donors with projects in need of funds it provides at least a glimmer of transparency and accountability in our education system--something not often found with programs that tend to dump money on schools instead of holding teachers accountable for results and ensuring quality educations. If there were a mechanism that could maintain the flow of funds to projects that needed through public channels more efficiently than at present, I would welcome it.  Far too often the stories of underfunded schools that deserve a chance and over funded administrative waste in others pervade our educational system. Until then, it is comforting to see highly motivated social capitalists and the programs that they build moving to fill in the gaps of our nation's state educational systems.

The bottom line: DonorsChoose it is great mechanism for change and should provide a boon to our country's needy schools.

Schola Rasa

Is this something that needs to happen in New Jersey?

A hurricane that takes lives, destroys property and decimates the public school system?
Definitely not.

A clean break from the quagmire of poorly performing school districts all across the state followed by a fresh start?
Most certainly.

I'm not sure that charter schools with independent school boards are the answer, but with test scores that are at a vast discrepancy with education 'capitalization' (the Newark school system has the highest spending per student in the nation at more than $20,000 each while maintaining some of the worst scores) something has to be done.

What do you think is the best solution? Instituting charter schools? Increasing standards for hiring teachers? Breaking the teacher's unions? Eliminating tenure (one of my favorites)?

Simply put--What can be done to increase the quality of education in New Jersey?

Education Gap

Freakonomics had an interesting quorum today on the issue of the education achievement gap. There were many interesting and innovative suggestions as to how we can bridge the (specifically) black-white racial disparity in U.S. education. Of course, the economist of the bunch suggested providing incentives for teachers who produce better outcomes amongst their students:

One thing we have learned definitively in recent years is that teachers differ in their ability to raise students’ achievement. Research shows that your child’s learning will be very different at the end of the school year if he has the best teacher in his grade rather than the worst teacher. Importantly, it is not a master’s degree, a teaching certificate, or experience that makes a teacher the best or the worst. The data show that some teachers are simply better at raising achievement and that their superior talents are not revealed by credentials that would show up on a resume. Since we can identify the better teachers ex post but not necessarily when they are hired, it makes sense to reward teachers based on their students’ learning gains.

If states introduced bonuses for teachers who raised achievement substantially and gave bigger bonuses to teachers who raised disadvantaged students’ achievement, considerable progress might be made in closing the achievement gap. Such a policy would not only give teachers strong incentives to improve their teaching, but it would also draw talented people into the teaching profession and keep them there.

I think that, given the recent research that correlates education success with gifted and motivated teachers, strengthening this group is a fascinating approach. However, I wonder what sort of incentives Professor Hoxby had in mind. Intuition tells me that most teachers, especially ones in inner-city schools and traditionally underserved areas often take up the profession for a variety of reasons, of which monetary reward is not amongst the top. Therefore, what sort of incentives would motivate teachers to perform better for their students? Also, as suggested in the Freakonomics book, would this sort of incentive cause more teachers to cheat (for more information, see the book: teachers' cheating methods include fabricating standardized testing scores, providing easier tests & quizzes for their students, or even giving them answers beforehand!)

Other suggestions in the quorum included various mechanisms for improving high school education to prepare students for post-secondary school (as opposed to lowering admissions and curriculum standards in colleges--something which I haven't actually seen happen much so far), investing in means to support impoverished children and families, improving pre-school study (a "head start" approach to education), and many more...

I think the question of how far back and how early an age to invest in quality education is an important one. For example, should we start by building on pre-schools and elementary schools or focus more on high school education? In addition, should we focus on recruiting better teachers into the profession, or is it more of a systemic problem that needs a massive overhaul?

What do you think?

Stop Thinking With Your Brain

Like most other men, I've been accused of thinking with parts of my body other than my brain but apparently there is some truth in the matter.

There are some fascinating implications for learning languages (what I keep myself busy with these days, both teaching and learning) through usage in real world examples. The article brings up the example of children learning their primary language by linking words to physical examples. This has been at work in various courses of foreign language learning which have students learning how to shop at the same time they learn the abstract idea of communicating their birthday.

The practicality of learning this type of lingual maneuvering early in language acquisition is important for its own sake of course, say if you find yourself in a sushi restaurant and want to impress your date by ordering in fluent Japanese (which could easily fall apart if asked whether you want your coffee before or after your meal...) However, this strategy for second language acquisition could prove to be leagues more effective than rote memorization of conjugation tables and declensions--a secret which is not lost on the more successful language courses.

And We're Back...With a Post about Graphic Novels

Sorry for the temporary hiatus, folks. T and I have been incredibly busy over the past few weeks with work, life, love, action, romance, and everything in between. We now return to your regularly scheduled blogging.

Should schools start using graphic novels in their English and literature classes? Well, technically, should they make alternative mediums a crucial part of the curriculum? The Newsarama blog linked to an interesting article about it. Here's the kicker: it's told in the form of a comic book! Clever, huh?

I think that treating graphic novels as literary sources, especially for children in early ages, is a great idea. Younger kids find it easier to associate words with images. Art Spiegelman, notable writer of the famous novel, Maus, has even begun putting out a line of comics for children, in an effort to help expand their English skills and take an interest in reading.

Of course, there are critics. From Newsarama's link:

The only one who should use a graphic novel in school might be K-2, to ensure competence and retention of the new language. Anyone beyond that grade should be reading progressively higher forms of English text. What will they all do when they have to read Legal and Medical journals; convert them into Graphic Novels; oh I forgot, we won’t be producing any Doctors or Lawyers or Engineers, because THEY CAN’T READ!

This makes no sense to me. Critics of education with graphic novels seem to all think that there would be some slippery slope that would eventually lead to the diminished use of classic literature and standard books. I don't think this will happen. And I don't even think the comment about doctors, lawyers and engineers warrants a response beyond this acknowledgement of its absurdity.

True, graphic novels have their limits--though they contain heavy exposition, narration, and dialogue, they do sacrifice a great deal of English grammar and punctuation, since dialogues appear in thought bubbles. Of course, the same can be said about many forms of literature that do not come delivered in the typical book package. Take plays, for instance, which focus more on dialogues and monologues, than exposition.

All in all, I'm in favor of trying the graphic novel approach as a supplement to the classics and standards. Sure, there will be the conservative critics fearful of the year-3000, experimental approaches, but we have no substantial reason to suspect that graphic novels are any worse a medium than others.