Steven D. Levitt recently submitted an opinion to the New York Times regarding the number of students vying for a spot in his course.
{read the article AND the 134 comments (to date) at The New York Times}
Yes, I actually read all 134 comments (I don't intend to read more, I've seen enough). I have also read Freakonomics, and I enjoyed it thoroughly.
What I found interesting about this online article wasn't the article itself--it was the comments section, of all things.
His article sparked many debates among professors, students from his university and others, and the public. Should students or professors be allowed to auction classroom seats? What would be a better system for determining who receives seats in a popular class? How do other colleges and universities handle overfilling classes? Are large classes really effective? What kind of absurd challenges could Professor Levitt give to determine which students were the most interested? How are the seats a commodity and what price ought to be paid for them?
My comment--which I am not posting on the original site of the article--would be this:
Cap classes at twenty or thirty students on a first-come, first-serve basis for majors in the department only. Limit the wait list to the number of seats available, and tell everyone else to go home or find another class. A professor can not effectively teach 80+ students. It does not allow for interaction, personalization, or discussion. A giant road apple pile to any university that believes that lecture-hall classes are effective.
My suggestion is for Professor Levitt to teach seven or eight high-intensity classes. Say, for two weeks, hold class for six hours a day. Of course, the number of hours needed would depend on the number of credits the course is worth and university requirements for the number of hours of teaching per credit hour. Or, even more interestingly, schedule class (for two weeks) from 7:30-10:30 am and 6:30-9:30 pm. Students then have to attend the same class, twice a day, for two weeks, at highly inconvenient times. He could resume teaching other sections of the class or another class for the rest of the day.
I loved my two-week, three-credit Interpersonal and Small Group Communications (also known as "Speech for the Weak") class. I learned much more than I would have in a traditional semester, my class had eight participants, and I wish that all of my classes were held this way. Think: I could take seven or eight classes in a semester, one at a time!
The best comments:
#12: Why not auction the seats with the currency something that is evenly distributed throughout the population? Perhaps something like volunteer hours at a non-profit of their choice?
#28: Back in the day, we had a Chicago way of dealing with such situations. We slept out on Harper quad for the weekend before registration started. I don’t recall any superstar economics classes back then, but if you wanted into War, Shakespeare, or Mammalian biology you arrived early, pitched a tent and made sure you were present for every middle of the night roll call. Students who really cared got the classes they wanted and those who didn’t had a good time anyway. The U of C has lost a lot of its geek charm in recent years, but sleepout is the tradition I mourn most.
#34: Universities may not be free markets but they do come close to practicing perfect price descrimination. What industry other than higher education gets to ask you exactly what assets you have (and therefore your ability to pay)before they tell you the price of the product?
#55: Professor Levitt,
I am not a student at the University of Chicago, but based upon the comments and the excitment that your class obviously generates, I have decided the following:
(1) Quit my job
(2) Get my wife to quit her job
(3) Take the kids out of school
(4) Kick my brother-in-law out
(5) Sell my house
(6) Move to Chicago
(7) Enroll at the Uiversity of Chicago
Can I please then have one of the remaining spots in your class?
#67: I’d like to buy a seat in your class to install at home so I can sit and watch college lectures on the web and feel like I’m really there. Would that be possible?
#69: The thing that really leaps out in these comments is the appalling degree of illiteracy among these UofC students. In the 50 entries posted so far, I count no fewer than 175 errors in grammar and spelling.
#73 (to #72): For god sakes, call the grammar police. Your last sentence is a mess.
#86: #28 - We probably slept together! Well – you, me and a thousand other people.
#89 (to #73): Bethel, it’s “[G/g]od’s sake”, not “god sakes”, which I believe is a particularly excellent Japanese rice wine dealer.
#91: I’m not that interested in taking your class, but could I set up t-shirt/hot-dog/beer stand outside your classroom?
The t-shirts could say things like:
“Levitt: Let there be freakonomics U of Chicago 08″ or
“I got my freak-on with Levitt U of Chicago 08″ or
“Help fight crime: have an abortion” (you know just to be rock).
#105: Unnecessarily restricting to selling seats actually held shows a complete lack of entrepreneurial spirit. I might just sell a whole bunch of seats short, then buy them back cheap a few weeks into the semester...
#114: Or what about this: Professor Levitt opens for Hannah Montana at her shows with lectures from the course. This way millions of unsuspecting teen-age girls can get exposed to freakonomics. And all the students who couldn’t get in to Levitt’s course could then follow the Hannah Montana tour to attend the lectures (then we’d really see who was interested in the course). Who knows maybe that could spark a new type of touring festival with hip professors and music.
Lollapalectures or Monsters of Academia (and Rock).
#125: I teach at a public university and figure that, one of these days, the administration will begin to charge us rent for our classrooms and make us auction off seats to pay our salaries. Those who cannot fill their classrooms will make less or have to go into real estate.
#127: Anything worthwhile is worth Jello wrestling for...
Right on, #127. Right on.
*I edited comments in the interest of space. For the full comments section, refer the link at the beginning of the post.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
So, My Friend Has an Eating Disorder
As I was trying to find something (anything) in the news that wasn't dull or political campaign related, I realized I have all kinds of topics stashed away in my brain.
Eating disorders are usually very secretive illnesses*. Now and again, you'll hear about such-and-such sports team that competes with pounds, as well, or a group of friends that compete against each other. But by and large, most persons with eating disorders don't like to share that information, or won't share that information.
A good friend of mine and I are both eating disordered. We shared this information with each other after we'd met, and we were both disordered before the friendship began.
So, how do we pull it off? Food, weight, and body image affect so many areas of our lives--how could we possibly do anything fun together? How does the food "thing" work in our friendship? How in the world did we manage to live together for three months?
I can only speak for myself. Yet, something tells me that she would say similar things.
I am open, honest, and up front with her. I tell her when things "trigger"** me, when I'm grumpy over having a Fat Day, or completely uncomfortable doing something.
Get this: we do everything (or almost everything) that every other nineteen-year-old does. We play in the sun, on the beach, go swimming, go shopping, go out to eat, and sit on the floor and eat pizza together. We flip through magazines, attend college, sometimes work out, and drink beer. These things can be weird at times, and a little awkward. But in some twisted way, there's no one to comment on my hesitance to eat pizza. It's encouraging, actually.
I don't comment on what, how much, in what fashion, or how often she eats. I would never say, "you need to eat" or "you're going to eat all of that?". I don't comment on her clothes and how they fit. I don't comment on her body. Period. She doesn't comment on mine. Now and again, she'll say she likes what I'm wearing or I'll say that the clothes shes got on look cute. But I never comment on her body or the way her clothing fits her (it's also rude for the general population, by the way).
It wasn't long after our friendship began that I quickly got over the necessity to completely cover my body in front of her. We have this kind of understanding, I think, that both of us are uncomfortable in bathing suits, to an extent. It's a silent understanding, but nonetheless powerful. And for some reason, being uncomfortable with another person who has, at least, empathy, takes away a lot of embarassment.
Food is still weird between us, at times. Sometimes I'm in a kicking-ass-taking-names healthy mode, and she is not, or vice versa. But whether she takes one bite or twenty, it's okay. I get it. To be honest, she's the only one I'm really comfortable eating around, anyway.
We don't do the eating disordered thing together, or compete, or compare. First, it wouldn't be realistic, because we are very different heights and structures. Second, because it's not healthy. Third, we are separate people with separate disordered behaviors and it is still a little bit of a secret.
We lived together, several times. Most recently, she lived in my studio (itty-bitty) apartment. Meaning, we shared everything: a bed, a scale, the fridge, the bathroom, you name it. And we managed well on the eating disorder front, overall.
We just didn't push each other to eat/to not eat. I never felt that I couldn't eat something in front of her, or that I had to eat when (or what) she was eating. We bought our own groceries, though we were poorish and mostly got groceries from others. When we did buy groceries, she bought what appealed to her and I did the same. I ate like I would have had she not been there.
Like any other friendship, when you get down to it, I still only want what's best for her. What I've found is best for our friendship is staying away from things that I know trigger her, not making comments, and leaving the topic of what she's doing with her body at the time to her. I think others would to well to follow that advice, should they find themselves with an eating disordered friend (or end up being a pair of friends that both happen to have eating disorders).
*I say "illness" not "disease" because it is possible to recover.
**I really hate the words "trigger" and "triggering"; they sound like someone else has a pistol to my face. It also reinforces the perception that all eating disordered folk are crazy (with their hands on guns)--and that's simply not true. Yet I continue to use these words because they are widely recognized and I can't think of anything better (yet).
Eating disorders are usually very secretive illnesses*. Now and again, you'll hear about such-and-such sports team that competes with pounds, as well, or a group of friends that compete against each other. But by and large, most persons with eating disorders don't like to share that information, or won't share that information.
A good friend of mine and I are both eating disordered. We shared this information with each other after we'd met, and we were both disordered before the friendship began.
So, how do we pull it off? Food, weight, and body image affect so many areas of our lives--how could we possibly do anything fun together? How does the food "thing" work in our friendship? How in the world did we manage to live together for three months?
I can only speak for myself. Yet, something tells me that she would say similar things.
I am open, honest, and up front with her. I tell her when things "trigger"** me, when I'm grumpy over having a Fat Day, or completely uncomfortable doing something.
Get this: we do everything (or almost everything) that every other nineteen-year-old does. We play in the sun, on the beach, go swimming, go shopping, go out to eat, and sit on the floor and eat pizza together. We flip through magazines, attend college, sometimes work out, and drink beer. These things can be weird at times, and a little awkward. But in some twisted way, there's no one to comment on my hesitance to eat pizza. It's encouraging, actually.
I don't comment on what, how much, in what fashion, or how often she eats. I would never say, "you need to eat" or "you're going to eat all of that?". I don't comment on her clothes and how they fit. I don't comment on her body. Period. She doesn't comment on mine. Now and again, she'll say she likes what I'm wearing or I'll say that the clothes shes got on look cute. But I never comment on her body or the way her clothing fits her (it's also rude for the general population, by the way).
It wasn't long after our friendship began that I quickly got over the necessity to completely cover my body in front of her. We have this kind of understanding, I think, that both of us are uncomfortable in bathing suits, to an extent. It's a silent understanding, but nonetheless powerful. And for some reason, being uncomfortable with another person who has, at least, empathy, takes away a lot of embarassment.
Food is still weird between us, at times. Sometimes I'm in a kicking-ass-taking-names healthy mode, and she is not, or vice versa. But whether she takes one bite or twenty, it's okay. I get it. To be honest, she's the only one I'm really comfortable eating around, anyway.
We don't do the eating disordered thing together, or compete, or compare. First, it wouldn't be realistic, because we are very different heights and structures. Second, because it's not healthy. Third, we are separate people with separate disordered behaviors and it is still a little bit of a secret.
We lived together, several times. Most recently, she lived in my studio (itty-bitty) apartment. Meaning, we shared everything: a bed, a scale, the fridge, the bathroom, you name it. And we managed well on the eating disorder front, overall.
We just didn't push each other to eat/to not eat. I never felt that I couldn't eat something in front of her, or that I had to eat when (or what) she was eating. We bought our own groceries, though we were poorish and mostly got groceries from others. When we did buy groceries, she bought what appealed to her and I did the same. I ate like I would have had she not been there.
Like any other friendship, when you get down to it, I still only want what's best for her. What I've found is best for our friendship is staying away from things that I know trigger her, not making comments, and leaving the topic of what she's doing with her body at the time to her. I think others would to well to follow that advice, should they find themselves with an eating disordered friend (or end up being a pair of friends that both happen to have eating disorders).
*I say "illness" not "disease" because it is possible to recover.
**I really hate the words "trigger" and "triggering"; they sound like someone else has a pistol to my face. It also reinforces the perception that all eating disordered folk are crazy (with their hands on guns)--and that's simply not true. Yet I continue to use these words because they are widely recognized and I can't think of anything better (yet).
Monday, January 7, 2008
The Science of Toga Parties
I'm about to dash off to my first day of winter semester at school, but I thought I'd comment on this morning's news in small bits.
Obama Costs Irish Bookie $75,000
What?! They are betting on our next president in the same way that we gamble on sports and horse races! I was shocked at the principle of doing this, at first. Then, it became quite humorous. I would suppose that if you can't vote, you might as well have money on it anyway.
Both individual behavior and the environment matter when it comes to student-drinking behavior. At the individual level, playing drinking games and having a history of binge drinking predicted higher BrACs. At the environmental level, having a lot of intoxicated people at a party and themed events predicted higher BrACs. One of the more interesting findings was that young women drank more heavily than males at themed events. It is rare to find any situation where women drink more than men, and these events tended to have sexualized themes and costumes.
{read the rest of the article at The New York Times}
Finally, ladies. It's about time that we started outdrinking those men! Wait--that means that we're increasing the likelihood that many more of us will be raped, "taken advantage of", and do stupid shit (like drive). While the article seemed humorous, college students being raped did not. A big huge road apple (courtesy of the Midwest's own) to the New York Times for making light of a very dangerous trend.
In the competitive scramble for prestige and rankings, numerous colleges already try to lure some top students away from the Ivy League by showering them with “merit aid” even if they are well off and can afford full tuition. The practice is controversial, with some college administrators scorning it as a way of “buying” a better incoming class, sometimes at the expense of lower-income students.
Some administrators say there will now be pressure to provide more merit aid to relatively wealthy high achievers, reducing the amount available to poorer students.
“It could lead to schools’ doing this sort of thing because they want to be part of the top group,” David W. Oxtoby, president of Pomona College in California, said of Harvard’s move. If that meant those colleges had to reduce the number of their low-income students, Dr. Oxtoby said, “that would be terrible, exactly the wrong outcome.” (Pomona itself, where full costs are more than $45,000, does not provide merit aid.)
{read the rest of the article from The New York Times}
I'm torn on this concept of merit aid. On one hand, I see where the article is coming from. Giving aid to wealthy students is just not practical, when so many students wouldn't be able to go without the plain-old hand-up. With college now readily available to students from all backgrounds, it is the students from working- and middle-class families (today's question: define middle-class) that need the most help.
On the other hand, I still believe that hard work should be rewarded. After spending years studying, cramming, working, volunteering, and playing sports, it'd be nice to know that a college recognizes one's achievements.
Why not a combination? Why not set income limits for merit aid, then? That would defy the purpose of merit-based aid.
Jonathan Burdick, dean of admissions and financial aid at the University of Rochester, where costs are nearly $45,000, said: “Harvard has made it harder for everybody. They’ve given fuel to the argument that colleges are charging more than they should.”
The problem is that they ARE charging more than they should. Does Mr. Burdick realize that I actually have to repay all of this debt? That I may spend the rest of my life doing so? And this isn't uncommon. In fact, it's to be expected.
Harvard may be fueling that argument (and it's a valid argument!), but kudos to them for taking it upon themselves to recruit from a wider student base. People outside of the top 2% of incomes have skillz, too.
Obama Costs Irish Bookie $75,000
What?! They are betting on our next president in the same way that we gamble on sports and horse races! I was shocked at the principle of doing this, at first. Then, it became quite humorous. I would suppose that if you can't vote, you might as well have money on it anyway.
Both individual behavior and the environment matter when it comes to student-drinking behavior. At the individual level, playing drinking games and having a history of binge drinking predicted higher BrACs. At the environmental level, having a lot of intoxicated people at a party and themed events predicted higher BrACs. One of the more interesting findings was that young women drank more heavily than males at themed events. It is rare to find any situation where women drink more than men, and these events tended to have sexualized themes and costumes.
{read the rest of the article at The New York Times}
Finally, ladies. It's about time that we started outdrinking those men! Wait--that means that we're increasing the likelihood that many more of us will be raped, "taken advantage of", and do stupid shit (like drive). While the article seemed humorous, college students being raped did not. A big huge road apple (courtesy of the Midwest's own) to the New York Times for making light of a very dangerous trend.
In the competitive scramble for prestige and rankings, numerous colleges already try to lure some top students away from the Ivy League by showering them with “merit aid” even if they are well off and can afford full tuition. The practice is controversial, with some college administrators scorning it as a way of “buying” a better incoming class, sometimes at the expense of lower-income students.
Some administrators say there will now be pressure to provide more merit aid to relatively wealthy high achievers, reducing the amount available to poorer students.
“It could lead to schools’ doing this sort of thing because they want to be part of the top group,” David W. Oxtoby, president of Pomona College in California, said of Harvard’s move. If that meant those colleges had to reduce the number of their low-income students, Dr. Oxtoby said, “that would be terrible, exactly the wrong outcome.” (Pomona itself, where full costs are more than $45,000, does not provide merit aid.)
{read the rest of the article from The New York Times}
I'm torn on this concept of merit aid. On one hand, I see where the article is coming from. Giving aid to wealthy students is just not practical, when so many students wouldn't be able to go without the plain-old hand-up. With college now readily available to students from all backgrounds, it is the students from working- and middle-class families (today's question: define middle-class) that need the most help.
On the other hand, I still believe that hard work should be rewarded. After spending years studying, cramming, working, volunteering, and playing sports, it'd be nice to know that a college recognizes one's achievements.
Why not a combination? Why not set income limits for merit aid, then? That would defy the purpose of merit-based aid.
Jonathan Burdick, dean of admissions and financial aid at the University of Rochester, where costs are nearly $45,000, said: “Harvard has made it harder for everybody. They’ve given fuel to the argument that colleges are charging more than they should.”
The problem is that they ARE charging more than they should. Does Mr. Burdick realize that I actually have to repay all of this debt? That I may spend the rest of my life doing so? And this isn't uncommon. In fact, it's to be expected.
Harvard may be fueling that argument (and it's a valid argument!), but kudos to them for taking it upon themselves to recruit from a wider student base. People outside of the top 2% of incomes have skillz, too.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Why Did the Roman Republic Fall?
On the Baby Boomer generation aging into retirement:
David Walker, the U.S. comptroller general, thinks failure to come to grips with that fundamental fiscal problem could hold the seeds of the U.S.'s demise. "The Roman Republic fell for many reasons," he has said, "but three reasons are worth remembering: declining moral and political civility at home, an overconfident and overextended military in foreign lands, and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government."
Still, while demography may be destiny, that destiny is not unalterable. There are several economic developments that could lessen the burden of the boomers' sunset years.
One is more rapid growth in productivity. Once the boomers retire, the U.S. will have only two workers for every one person in retirement -- compared with four today. But if those workers are more productive than their predecessors -- perhaps because of better technology -- they can earn enough to finance the boomers' retirement and maintain the nation's wealth. The prospects for technology and productivity rescuing the day, however, have dimmed in the past year, as the government's measures of productivity growth have slowed.
{read the rest of the article at The Wall Street Journal}
One point mentioned was the age for Social Security to kick in. When Social Security was first created, the average lifespan was 65 years; this is why Social Security begins at that age. The amount was intended to supplement an income, not to become an income for the elderly. The average lifespan in the United States is now between 75 and 80 years.
Should United States citizens privatize Social Security? You'd only get back what you put into it. Selfishly, I wouldn't mind if Social Security was privatized, because I can forsee myself with a stable, well-paying career (at least, I hope this expensive college education will pay off!). I also do not wish to support those that have not chosen to be as productive as they could possibly be throughout their lives, at the end of their lives.
However, I don't believe that privatizing Social Security would be for the "greater good". The United States would have to create (and fund, which means more taxes!) new programs for those that are disabled or unable to work for whatever reason.
What about raising the age at which one is eligible for Social Security? I disagree with this, though it might be good for the masses. It could mean that I spend 65 years of my life working (around age 15 to 80?). Sixty-five years of obligation to a company. At what point would I burn out? At some point, I'd like to retire with enough years left to travel and to pursue volunteering interests.
The article raises an interesting point about young immigrants. If we allowed more working-age immigrants in, then we would have a broader base from which Social Security is drawn. What the article doesn't mention is that this is already happening. Immigrants come to the United States and sometimes have to use made-up or false SSN's to get jobs (if not legal citizens)*. Thus, money is often taken from their paychecks already--for programs that they are unable to take advantage of (if not legal citizens).
I know that this article has made me reconsider investing in the stock market.
Thoughts?
*The reason that I use the clause "if not legal citizens" is due to the fact that many immigrants ARE citizens. I think sometimes people forget that not all immigrants have arrived in the United States by illegal means.
David Walker, the U.S. comptroller general, thinks failure to come to grips with that fundamental fiscal problem could hold the seeds of the U.S.'s demise. "The Roman Republic fell for many reasons," he has said, "but three reasons are worth remembering: declining moral and political civility at home, an overconfident and overextended military in foreign lands, and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government."
Still, while demography may be destiny, that destiny is not unalterable. There are several economic developments that could lessen the burden of the boomers' sunset years.
One is more rapid growth in productivity. Once the boomers retire, the U.S. will have only two workers for every one person in retirement -- compared with four today. But if those workers are more productive than their predecessors -- perhaps because of better technology -- they can earn enough to finance the boomers' retirement and maintain the nation's wealth. The prospects for technology and productivity rescuing the day, however, have dimmed in the past year, as the government's measures of productivity growth have slowed.
{read the rest of the article at The Wall Street Journal}
One point mentioned was the age for Social Security to kick in. When Social Security was first created, the average lifespan was 65 years; this is why Social Security begins at that age. The amount was intended to supplement an income, not to become an income for the elderly. The average lifespan in the United States is now between 75 and 80 years.
Should United States citizens privatize Social Security? You'd only get back what you put into it. Selfishly, I wouldn't mind if Social Security was privatized, because I can forsee myself with a stable, well-paying career (at least, I hope this expensive college education will pay off!). I also do not wish to support those that have not chosen to be as productive as they could possibly be throughout their lives, at the end of their lives.
However, I don't believe that privatizing Social Security would be for the "greater good". The United States would have to create (and fund, which means more taxes!) new programs for those that are disabled or unable to work for whatever reason.
What about raising the age at which one is eligible for Social Security? I disagree with this, though it might be good for the masses. It could mean that I spend 65 years of my life working (around age 15 to 80?). Sixty-five years of obligation to a company. At what point would I burn out? At some point, I'd like to retire with enough years left to travel and to pursue volunteering interests.
The article raises an interesting point about young immigrants. If we allowed more working-age immigrants in, then we would have a broader base from which Social Security is drawn. What the article doesn't mention is that this is already happening. Immigrants come to the United States and sometimes have to use made-up or false SSN's to get jobs (if not legal citizens)*. Thus, money is often taken from their paychecks already--for programs that they are unable to take advantage of (if not legal citizens).
I know that this article has made me reconsider investing in the stock market.
Thoughts?
*The reason that I use the clause "if not legal citizens" is due to the fact that many immigrants ARE citizens. I think sometimes people forget that not all immigrants have arrived in the United States by illegal means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
