I am teaching IO next fall and would like to use some lectures on YouTube. The class is at the Ph.d. level but a good intuitive talk would be fine, I'm not expecting all of these talks to be directed at the Ph.d. level per se. Would you all have recommendations?
By the way, here is my Google talk on prizes as incentives.
Ben Polak has a nice series of lectures on game theory that might come in handy. I believe that lecture 4 discusses mixed strategy solutions for penalty kicks in soccer.
http://freevideolectures.com/Course/2386/Game-Theory/4
I use some of these resources in a graduate pricing course and also an antitrust course:
1. Valerie Suslow’s video on entry deterrence that goes with these overheads: Competitive Tactics Lecture Series
Winter 2005 (google for the overheads and then search youtube for the video)
2. Ariely’s demonstration videos on Predictably Irrational Website (to show the limits of rationality in marketing and some points on bundling)
3. Polak’s class on game theory mentioned above.
4. Golden Balls video illustrating the prisoner’s dilemma (searchable on youtube)
5. Nalebuff’s videos on strategy (google this as well)
6. Carlton and Perloff’s overheads for their IO book
7. DOJ Antitrust videos from the ADM pricefixing case (get to see price fixing in action, difficulties of maintaining a cartel, and strategies to keep one in place)
8. Overheads that go with Nagle’s book on the Strategy and Tactics of Pricing, particularly on segmentation.
Frankly, though, what I think current IO lacks is a good consumer behavior interface (that is, we assume the rational person) and do not incorporate as much behavioural economics/psych/actual consumer behavior into the models.
Second, the texts still do not do enough in IP licensing.
Third, IO courses do not do have the students do enough work on how one creates or corrects for imperfection in markets, or how to practically gather actionable data, or how to use or construct auctions.
Too much of IO still is the plant engineering model, when we have moved beyond that to the IP or software model. And, too much is theoretical–which is a shame–because data is all around you.
The other thing I would do is arrange to take your graduate students to economics brown bag seminars at the FTC’s Bureau of Economics (visiting lecturers and data work) and the Antitrust Division’s Economic Analysis Group.
These are very practical and data oriented programs tied to the real world.
Second, lectures and reading really misses the opportunity to train economists in the real world. So, what you could do is identify an antitrust case, get access to the redacted economic expert reports, and have the students create their own analysis or critique what someone else did. That way they learn; you also get the other experts work product and you can instruct off of that; and then you get the court opinion; and then, if the case is a few years old, you can go back into the market and find out what happened in the interim.
Finally, if you really want to get your hands dirty, volunteer the students to do some IO work for a state agency–how to create a market in fishing licenses, how the state regulates and should deregulate electricity, how California failed in its deregulation and what would be done differently, etc. States would welcome some of their work, believe it or not.
Can you post the reading list for the course?
The other thing I would do is reach outside of the standard IO literature and materials.
Get an academic pass and review the Harvard Case Study materials used in graduate marketing school courses. A lot is IO based strategy and training on how to analyze data in a case study methodology. A lot (or for others, alot) of the case study materials are contain all the structural data an IO person would ever need. And, the problems are really IO oriented.
In addition, Harvard BSchool and others have developed price simulation and bidding models for students to work on.
Step outside of the dull, theoretical world and into the sunshine of facts and empiricism.
I knew it, I knew it, I knew it.
There would be one more youtube for you to use. Actually, it is a bunch of experiments you can download and use.
Charlie Plott at Caltech, one of the best experimental economists, and a damn honest IO economist as well, has some experiments in economics (bubble markets, market dynamics achieveing equilibrium, etc.) Here is one of his recent lectures, the Cadliffe Memorial Lecture, where he shows some of the experimental economics work:.
http://uctv.canterbury.ac.nz/modules/journal/entry.php?space_key=1&module_key=70&post_key=1080&journal_user_key=0
In my opinion, Plott deserved a Nobel for his work on experimental markets with Vernon Smith.
Call Plott and ask for the bubble and other computer simulations and videos. And, run the experiments on your graduate students.
I had once asked Tyler for justification on the same issue, but unfortunately did not illicit any response. Well, my post involved questioning the kind of people teaching at GMU and getting tenure there, but in retrospect was a little too harsh on GMU….I claimed that a look at the professors profiles at GMU usually showed second rate phds from first rate institutions (but judging their academic publications), but now I think I was wrong. The people there are unique in their own way (even though academically not the best) and there are some brilliant people like Tyler too, who writes with a level of clarity, which is unfortunately reserved for few!
Training PhDs is a standard function of Tier I research universities, like GMU. In some fields, in some periods, job placements are hierarchical, but it doesn’t change the fact that all those PhDs will find decent jobs (maybe more difficult this year and last) because the demand is high compared with that in other disciplines.
Also, GMU has the merit of not trying to be a “second-rate MIT” like everyone else. It plays an invaluable role in preserving a little diversity in the field.
First time watching the google lecture. Pretty great! Checking out the related youtube videos, I couldn’t help but notice the contrast between bearded Tyler and clean shaven Tyler. I think I prefer bearded Tyler – which I think is present-day Tyler.
Comments on this entry are closed.