Category: Education
How Socio-Economic Background Shapes Academia
We explore how socio-economic background shapes academia, collecting the largest dataset of U.S. academics’ backgrounds and research output. Individuals from poorer backgrounds have been severely underrepresented for seven decades, especially in humanities and elite universities. Father’s occupation predicts professors’ discipline choice and, thus, the direction of research. While we find no differences in the average number of publications, academics from poorer backgrounds are both more likely to not publish and to have outstanding publication records. Academics from poorer backgrounds introduce more novel scientific concepts, but are less likely to receive recognition, as measured by citations, Nobel Prize nominations, and awards.
That is from a new NBER working paper by
Steve Davis, Elon Musk’s Go-To Cost-Cutter Is Working for DOGE
A Bloomberg profile of the excellent Steve Davis:
Elon Musk’s deputy Steve Davis has spent more than 20 years helping the billionaire cut costs at businesses like SpaceX, the Boring Company and Twitter ….[now] Davis is helping recruit staff at DOGE, Musk’s effort to reduce government waste, in addition to his day job as president of Musk’s tunneling startup, the Boring Company.
At Boring, Davis has a reputation for frugality, signing off on costs as low as a few hundred dollars, according to people familiar with the conversations — unusual for a company that has raised about $800 million in capital. He also drives hard bargains with suppliers of products like raw steel, sensors, or even items as small as hose fittings, said the people, who asked not to be identified discussing private information.
His favorite directive for staff doing the negotiations: “Go back and ask again.”
…Davis started working for Musk in 2003, when he joined SpaceX, at the time a new company. He had just earned a master’s degree in aerospace engineering from Stanford University, and distinguished himself at the startup by solving hard engineering problems. At one point, Musk tasked the engineer with finding a cheaper alternative to a part that cost $120,000. Davis spent weeks on the challenge and figured out how to do it for $3,900, according to a biography of Musk. (Musk emailed back one word: “Thanks.”)
…Multitasking has proved a Davis signature, dating back to his student days. While he was working on his doctorate in economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, Davis was working full time at SpaceX and owned a frozen-yogurt shop called Mr. Yogato in Washington’s Dupont Circle. Alex Tabarrok, one of Davis’ professors, remembers him juggling the multiple roles.
“I told him, ‘Look, you’re getting a Ph.D., you can’t be having a job and running a business at the same time,” Tabarrok recalls. “Focus on getting your Ph.D.”
But Davis declined to give up any of his pursuits, at one time incorporating business trends at Mr. Yogato into an academic paper and bringing some yogurt into class for sampling. Tabarrok can’t recall Davis’ grades, but says he stood out anyway. He “had so much energy, and was so entrepreneurial,” Tabarrok says. “It’s been kind of exciting to see him become one of Elon’s most trusted right-hand men.”
Davis’s GMU training in political economy will serve him very well in Washington.
See also my previous post, an MR classic, Why We Can’t Have Nice Things–Elon Musk and the Subways.
Addendum: 2013 profile of Steve and another of his businesses, Thomas Foolery a bar in DC where you paid for drinks according to plinko. Hat tip: Kevin Lewis.
Year-end CWT episode with Jeff Holmes
Here is the audio, video, and transcript. Here is a short summary:
On this special year-in-review episode, Tyler and producer Jeff Holmes look back on the past year in the show and more, including covering the most popular and underrated episodes, fielding listener questions, reviewing Tyler’s pop culture picks from 2014, mulling over ideas for what to name CWT fans, and more.
As for an excerpt:
HOLMES: Moving on to underrated episodes, episodes that weren’t necessarily breaking download records but are still very, very good. You could think of them as a personal favorite. I’ve got my picks. Do you want to throw out a couple?
COWEN: One underrated episode was Masaaki Suzuki because most people don’t know enough about Bach to really love what he said. Plus, he had an accent; that may hurt downloads a bit. But that one, I was very fond of. Fareed Zakaria, you got to see the real Fareed. Even his son loved the episode. I don’t know how many downloads it got, but it has to be underrated. Michael Nielsen. Most are underrated. Tom Tugendhat, who did not make it to be head of the Conservative Party, but someday still might and certainly ought to be.
HOLMES: Yes, those are good picks. Masaaki Suzuki was a fan mention as well, a favorite of my wife’s, so check that one out if you haven’t. I would also throw out Stephen Kotkin, so pretty recent episode. Kotkin performed very well.
COWEN: That’s one of the best episodes of all time.
HOLMES: It clearly just established itself in the pantheon. Think about Lazarus Lake in the past, or Richard Prum, which were some of my favorites. Just as soon as you listen to it, it’s a clear favorite. If you check out the YouTube comments, many people are commenting that it’s their favorite Stephen Kotkin interview.
COWEN: And people are still listening, so that will climb in the numbers. Paula Byrne was a tremendous episode.
And this:
COWEN: We’re pleasing people too much. Is that the lesson?
Recommended. And who else would you all like to see as guests?
Is academic writing getting harder to read?
To track academic writing over time, The Economist analysed 347,000 PhD abstracts published between 1812 and 2023. The dataset was produced by the British Library and represents a majority of English-language doctoral theses awarded by British universities. We reviewed each abstract using the Flesch reading-ease test, which measures sentence and word length to gauge readability. A score of 100 roughly indicates passages can be understood by someone who has completed fourth grade in America (usually aged 9 or 10), while a score lower than 30 is considered very difficult to read. An average New York Times article scores around 50 and a CNN
article around 70. This article scores 41…We found that, in every discipline, the abstracts have become harder to read over the past 80 years. The shift is most stark in the humanities and social sciences (see chart), with average Flesch scores falling from around 37 in the 1940s to 18 in the 2020s. From the 1990s onwards, those fields went from being substantially more readable than the natural sciences—as you might expect—to as complicated. Ms Louks’s abstract had a reading-ease rating of 15, still more readable than a third of those analysed in total.
Here is more from The Economist, via the excellent Samir Varma.
Unconventional Indicators of National Aspiration
What are your top indicators of national aspiration? Percentage of GDP devoted to R&D would be a good conventional indicator. What about some unconventional indicators? My top five:
1) Top marginal tax rate
2) Space Program
3) Distance to travel to mother’s home
4) Tallest statue
5) Cultural exports
On these, the US and India perform well. India leads on tallest statue and its space program is impressive for a developing country. Cultural exports are currently low but historically high–I would not be surprised at a rebound. A lot of eastern European countries such as Hungary and Romania have flat taxes with top rates of 10-15%. Israel has a space program.
I am always surprised by how little people tend to move from the family home. In the US:
…80% of young adults migrate less than 100 miles from where they grew up. 90% migrate less than 500 miles. Migration distances are shorter for Black and Hispanic individuals and for those from low-income families
If anything this seems to be down in the US despite the much greater ease of moving today than in the past.
Your unconventional indicator?
Hat tip: Connor.
Why are Top Scientists Leaving Harvard?
Harvard magazine has an excellent interview with three scientists, Michael Mina, Douglas Melton and Stuart Schreiber, all highly regarded in their fields of life sciences, who have recently left Harvard for the private sector.
Why did they leave? Mina tells an incredible story of what happened during the pandemic. At the time Mina was a faculty member at the Chan School of Public Health, he is extremely active in advising governments on the pandemic, and he brings Harvard millions of dollars a year in funding. But when he tries to hire someone at his lab, the university refuses because there is hiring freeze! Sorry, no hiring for pandemic research during a pandemic. In my talk on US Pandemic Policy I discuss the similar failure of the Yale School of Public Health and how miraculously and absurdly Tyler stepped in to save the day. The rot is deep.
Melton also notes the difference in speed of response between the public and private/commercial sector:
Polls have shown that principal investigator biologists now spend up to 40 percent of their time—it’s a shocking number, 40 percent of their time—writing grants.
In industry, the funding allows for very rapid change. There’s no writing a grant and waiting six months to see if it could get funded, and then waiting another six months for the university to make arrangements to receive the funds. The speed with which you can move into a new area is not comparable.
Years ago, the pharmaceutical industry rarely did discovery research. But now, pharmaceutical companies do basic science. That’s been a good shift, in my opinion, but it’s been a shift.
“The computational resources, the sequencing, the chemical screening— it’s not comparable to what we can do in any university.”
Everything gets done much quicker. For example, when you want to file for a patent at a company, the next morning there are two patent attorneys in your office ready to write that patent. The computational resources, the sequencing, the chemical screening— it’s not comparable to what we can do in any university. It’s a whole order of magnitude different.
Our last hire at GMU took well over a year to complete. It’s outrageous. There are no functional reasons why universities should be so slow. Don’t forget, Harvard has an endowment of $50 billion!
Melton also asks whether a new private-public partnership model is possible:
Why can’t we find a way—since many of our undergraduates and graduates will end up working in industry—why can’t we find a way for them to do their studies and their Ph.D. and their postdoctoral work in conjunction with Harvard, with MIT, and with Vertex? There are reasons for that, but we haven’t been imaginative enough to think about a compromise.
Hat tip: R.P.
Emergent Ventures 39th cohort
Karina Bao, San Francisco, to translate the autobiography of Morris Chang.
Theodor Grether-Murray and Marta Bernardino, high school in Montreal, Portugal, noise cancelling technologies for the ocean.
Jim Larsen, Denver, electricity and infrastructure and geothermal energy in Indonesia, Substack.
Sunir Manandhar, San Francisco/Kathmandu, ports and transportation, and better automation in industrial vehicles.
Ahad Hassan, NYC, to attend a neurodiagnostics conference in Abu Dhabi.
Kenneth Sarip, high school in San Ramon, CA, neurotech.
Jasmine Sun, San Francisco, for full-time writing and Substack.
Stella Tsantekidou, London, general career support, to write a book on feminism.
Conrad Scheibe and Daniel Coupak, high school in the London area, rocket company.
Badis Labbedi, Tunisia, University of Chicago, physics and math.
Ivan Primachenko, Kyiv, Prometheus, scalable quality online training programs for Ukrainians.
Helena Rosengarten, Berlin soon Cambridge MA, “Ozempic for sleep.”
Ansh Chopra, San Francisco, to turn classic books into video using AI.
Again, here is Nabeel Qureshi’s software for querying about EV winners.
Kevin Bryan and Joshua Gans have a new AI educational project
Just wanted to ping you about a tool Joshua Gans and I launched publicly today after a year of trials at universities all over the world (and just a stupid amount of work!) which I think is up your alley.
Idea is simple: AI should be 1) personalized to the student, 2) personalized to the professor’s content, and 3) structured to improve rather than degrade learning. In a perfect world, we want every student to have individual-level assistance, at any time, in any language, in the format they want (a chatbot TA, a question bank, a sample test grader, etc.). We want all assignments to be adaptive “mastery learning”. We want the professor to have insight on a weekly basis into how students are doing, and even into topics they may have taught in a somewhat confusing way. And we want to do this basically for free.
Right now, we have either raw GPT or Claude accomplishing 1 but not 2 or 3 (and some evidence it degrades learning for some students), or we have classes big enough to build custom AI-driven classes (like Khan Academy for basic algebra). For the thousands of classes where the professor’s teaching is idiosyncratic, the latter set of tools is basically “give the students a random textbook off the library shelf on the topic and have them study it” – not at all what I want my students to do!
We set up a team including proper UX designers and backend devs and built this guy here: https://www.alldayta.com/. It’s drag-and-drop for your course audio/video, slides, handouts, etc., preprocesses everything is a much deeper raw than raw OCR or LLMs, then preps a set of tools. Right now, there is a student-facing “virtual TA” and an autosummary weekly of where students are having trouble with the rest rolling out once we’re convinced the beta version is high enough quality. In my classes, I’ve had up to 10000 interactions in a term with this, and we ran trials at [redacted]. And we can do it at like a buck or two a student across a term, spun up in like 30 minutes of professor time for smaller courses.
There’s a free trial anyone can just sign up for; if your colleagues or the MR crowd would be interested, definitely send it along. I put a Twitter thread up about it as well with some examples of where we are going and why we think this is where higher ed is headed: https://x.com/Afinetheorem/status/1867632900956365307
My Conversation with the excellent Paula Byrne
Here is the audio, video, and transcript. Here is part of the episode summary:
Tyler and Paula discuss Virginia Woolf’s surprising impressions of Hardy, why Wessex has lost a sense of its past, what Jude the Obscure reveals about Hardy’s ideas about marriage, why so many Hardy tragedies come in doubles, the best least-read Hardy novels, why Mary Robinson was the most interesting woman of her day, how Georgian theater shaped Jane Austen’s writing, British fastidiousness, Evelyn Waugh’s hidden warmth, Paula’s strange experience with poison pen letters, how American and British couples are different, the mental health crisis among teenagers, the most underrated Beatles songs, the weirdest thing about living in Arizona, and more.
This was one of the most fun — and funny — CWTs of all time. But those parts are best experienced in context, so I’ll give you an excerpt of something else:
COWEN: Your book on Evelyn Waugh, the phrase pops up, and I quote, “naturally fastidious.” Why can it be said that so many British people are naturally fastidious?
BYRNE: Your questions are so crazy. I love it. Did I say that? [laughs]
COWEN: I think Evelyn Waugh said it, not you. It’s in the book.
BYRNE: Give me the context of that.
COWEN: Oh, I’d have to go back and look. It’s just in my memory.
BYRNE: That’s really funny. It’s a great phrase.
COWEN: We can evaluate the claim on its own terms, right?
BYRNE: Yes, we can.
COWEN: I’m not sure they are anymore. It seems maybe they once were, but the stiff-upper-lip tradition seems weaker with time.
BYRNE: The stiff upper lip. Yes, I think Evelyn Waugh would be appalled with the way England has gone. Naturally fastidious, yes, it’s different to reticent, isn’t it? Fastidious — hard to please, it means, doesn’t it? Naturally hard to please. I think that’s quite true, certainly of Evelyn Waugh because he was naturally fastidious. That literally sums him up in a phrase.
COWEN: If I go to Britain as an American, I very much have the feeling that people derive status from having negative opinions more than positive. That’s quite different from this country. Would you agree with that?
Definitely recommended, one of my favorite episodes in some while. And of course we got around to discussing Paul McCartney and Liverpool…
Info Finance has a Future!
Info finance is Vitalik Buterin’s term for combining things like prediction markets and news. Indeed, a prediction market like Polymarket is “a betting site for the participants and a news site for everyone else.”
Here’s an incredible instantiation of the idea from Packy McCormick. As I understand it, betting odds are drawn from Polymarket, context is provided by Perplexity and Grok, a script is written by ChatGPT and read by an AI using Packy’s voice and a video is produced by combining with some simple visuals. All automated.
What’s really impressive, however, is that it works. I learned something from the final product. I can see reading this like a newspaper.
Info finance has a future!
Addendum: See also my in-depth a16z crypto podcast (Apple, Spotify) talking with Kominers and Chokshi for more.
Interview with Jonathan Levin, economist and Stanford president
Stanford Review: …Several freshmen I have talked to have bemoaned their mandatory COLLEGE classes that are contract graded, meaning that students will receive an A if their work is turned in on time regardless of quality. One frosh even told me that all of her first quarter classes are contract graded. How does this set students up for success at Stanford and beyond?
President Levin: So the COLLEGE curriculum, that’s part of the design—and of course, it’s a new course. So many aspects of COLLEGE are an experiment. We’re learning. The faculty who teach it are learning about the best design for that class, what the syllabus should look like, what’s the best way to manage discussion, what’s the teaching model, what’s the grading model. And that’s something that the Faculty Senate discussed maybe 18 months ago or last year, the grading model, and at the time, they presented some evidence suggesting that it seemed to have been a positive experience.
Here is the link, Julia Steinberg did a great job. Interesting throughout. Jon you are an awesome economist, but you have to have much better answers than these, even by the standards of bureaucratic blah blah blah. We are looking to you to save Stanford, and bring a modicum of leadership and common sense, after the previous president was revealed to be a fraudster, among his other drawbacks. But more is needed than simply trying not to answer any of the questions!
Marginal Revolution Podcast–The New Monetary Economics!
Today on the MR Podcast Tyler and I discuss the “New Monetary Economics”. Here’s the opening
TABARROK: Today we’re going to be talking about the new monetary economics. Now, perhaps the first thing to say is that it’s not new anymore. The new monetary economics refers to a set of claims and ideas about monetary economics from the 1980s, more or less, coming from people mostly in finance, like Fischer Black and Eugene Fama, and making some very bold claims that macroeconomics had gotten some things completely wrong. You and Randall Kroszner also wrote a great book, Explorations in the New Monetary Economics, and that appeared in 1994. [Someone should reprint this book!, AT]
Now, most people thought that the ideas of the new monetary economics were simply crazy. Black and Fama, for example, they argued that the Fed was essentially impotent; that it couldn’t control the money supply or even the price level, let alone the economy, at least in some circumstances.
COWEN: Fischer Black started the new monetary economics with a 1970 article, very early. Not in a standard journal, of course. Black argued that the Fed doesn’t matter. The supply of money and the price level were not closely related in any obvious way. There’s a well-known story where Fischer Black showed up at Chicago to present a paper at Milton Friedman’s monetary seminar. Friedman started off by introducing Black as, “Fischer Black’s paper is totally wrong. He’s going to present it to us. We have two hours to figure out why.”
At the same time, people like Paul Samuelson, Robert Solow, the MIT crowd, they also just said Black is totally wrong. He’s a genius on finance and options pricing, but when it comes to monetary economics, just forget about it. Dismiss him. They even said this in print at times.
The ideas of the NME remain as counterintuitive as ever–is it really possible that the Fed has no power over inflation let alone the real economy??? Yet the ideas seem increasingly relevant to modern, sophisticated, highly liquid financial markets and monetary systems including crypto. If anything, the NME has become harder to dismiss, as the world theorized by its proponents in the 1970s and 1980s now mirrors today’s reality far more than their own. While the NME may be now be old, the ideas remain as challenging and even as inspiring as ever.
I am not sure that either Tyler or I have a solid conclusion on the NME but we invite you to join us on this exploration.
Subscribe now to take a small step toward a much better world: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube.
Literacy Rates and Simpson’s Paradox
Max T. at Maximum Progress shows that between 1992 and 2003 US literacy rates fell dramatically within every single educational category but the aggregate literacy rate didn’t budge. A great example of Simpson’s Paradox! The easiest way to see how this is possible is just to imagine that no one’s literacy level changes but everyone moves up an educational category. The result is zero increase in literacy but falling literacy rates in each category.
Two interesting things follow. First, this is very suggestive of credentialing and the signaling theory of education. Second, and more originally, Max suggests that total factor productivity is likely to have been mismeasured. Total factor productivity tells us how much more output can we get from the same inputs. If inputs increase, we expect output to increase so to measure TFP we must subtract any increase in output due to greater inputs. It’s common practice, however, to use educational attainment as a (partial) measure of skill or labor quality. If educational attainment is just rising credentialism, however, then this overestimates the increase in output due to labor skill and underestimates the gain to TFP.
This does not imply that we are richer than we actually are–output is what it is–but it does imply that if we want to know why we haven’t grown richer as quickly as we did in the past we should direct less attention to ideas and TFP and more attention to the failure to truly increase human capital.
Who Americans spend their time with, by age
Via the excellent Bryan Caplan.
Why more South Asian than East Asian CEOs?
Analyses revealed that East Asians faced less prejudice than South Asians and were equally motivated by work and leadership as South Asians. However, East Asians were lower in assertiveness, which consistently mediated the leadership attainment gap between East Asians and South Asians. These results suggest that East Asians hit the bamboo ceiling because their low assertiveness is incongruent with American norms concerning how leaders should communicate.
That is from a new piece by Jackson G. Lu, Richard E. Nibett, and Michael W. Morris, via the excellent Kevin Lewis.