Thursday assorted links

1. My podcast on Economic Growth, Liberalism, and Philosophy, with Zack Baker of Berkeley.

2. Why Harvard (and David Card) is wrong: “But given that these factors are themselves correlated with race, Mr Card’s argument is statistically rather like saying that once you correct for racial bias, Harvard is not racially biased.”

3. One-day Fight Club for preschoolers, in St. Louis, captured on video.

4. Elena Ferrante and the HBO adaptation (NYT).

5. The new Rubb/Sumner Principles textbook, business orientation, consolidated micro/macro, if I understand correctly.

6. Dwarsliggers (NYT).

7. Stop the Yemen war.


Here's my problem as a brain, but not a mega-brain.

How do you thread the needle that Harvard (23% Asian) is biased in process, but George Mason (19% Asian) is not?

The mega-brain answer must be that process can be biased even if the result is not?

GMU has an average SAT of 1200 or so, which isn't particularly competitive (lets be blunt, its mediocre). Not many high performing Asians would want to go to GMU.

The issue is big at Harvard (or Stuyvesant, or any institution taking from the far right of the bell curve) because small-ish changes in average IQ result in big changes in the composition of the tails.

This isn't to say GMU doesn't discriminate against Asians (I wouldn't know, honestly, and the Asians don't seem to care either). Only that it's at the tails where you start to get to the point where fair admissions would result in Asians being the largest group despite their low-ish % of the population.

TLDR: fair admissions would probably be 40% Asian but nobody in the elite Northeast circles wants them to be >20% (this is true pre-college as much as it is in Harvard).

Let's do some rough numbers. 30% of admissions are legacy, and let's call them all non-Asian as a WAG. Let's say of the other 70% Harvard does select at a 40% Asian rate. That produces 28% Asians? And that's too far from the current 23%?

To get 23% final, they must select 33% Asian within the 70%?

That seems pretty high, if my math is right. It doesn't sound very effectively discriminatory.

You could just as easily say that the acceptance rate amongst non-legacies should be high enough to get to 40% overall. Many of the legacies will have already filled out non-Asian spots in your example so that should leave lots of room for more Asians.

Are we certain the demographics of the applicant pool are entirely similar? I would expect substantial differences.

The allegation is that the result is biased, compared to the composition of the pool of applicants.

Again, the brain but not mega-brain, answer would be:

"I'm old enough to remember when discrimination was selecting below population ratios, not 'not selecting enough above' population ratios."

If they are selecting at about 33% for merit slots that's pretty impressive, relative to a 5.6% population.

Regardless of correspondence to the population, they appear to be turning applicants away disproportionately because of their race. If true, this is straightforward discrimination.

Plus the method they are using to do this is outrageous on its face: giving a "personal rating" without actually meeting the applicants which ranks Asians lower, and which is contradicted by the ratings given by those who actually meet applicants.

You could look at "personal rating" completely differently, as a natural development of a staff who thinks they have extra special personal gifts at selecting Harvard students. They may be wrong, but not in the specific way that everyone suddenly suspects them of being wrong.

Or maybe (some of them) are right, and they can spot "a Harvard kid."

You’re overthinking this.

Is it okay to have racial quotas to keep out minorities or not?

The reference would be UC Berkeley or Caltech. They don’t have a yellow quota.

If they’re 80% of the top applicants, they should be 80% of the student body.

I’m old enough to remember when liberals were against racial discrimination vis-à-vis minorities.

Oh, I would be absolutely fine with Harvard going to something like the UC system for their whole class.

The weird thing is that people seem to want to keep the 30% legacies and at the same time make up for that when selecting specifically Asians for the remaining 70% of the class.

You certainly can't do that without pushing other people out of the merit pool.

The legacy pool isn't that different from the "merit" pool. My understanding is the test scores are almost the same. Legacy is mostly about picking between already acceptable applicants.

If that's true, why isn't everyone ready to ditch it?

Because otherwise you are saying that you're really fine with Harvard doing some kind of Custom Blend freshman class.

Possible answer: white legacies have more power and have more money they are willing to donate than Asians.

What am I fine with Harvard doing? I'd like their freshmen class to be composed of people that would benefit me, obviously.

The class of Harvard is a collection of tomorrows leaders. This is necessarily a mix of current leaders and potential future leaders.

Harvard has decided it doesn't want the future leadership class to be more than 20% Asian. They have their reasons. I don't find them particularly compelling to my interests. To the extent their desire runs afoul of the same racial laws they helped to write, I see no reason not to use those laws to knock them down a peg.

I don't think legacy admissions are great. But they are legally permissible, because they are by clear criteria that are not race based.

The problem with the other admissions is it looks a lot like they have come up with a pretext to exclude Asians.

The legacy system is an abomination and should be dismantled.

But no one is saying Harvard should discriminate in Favor of Asians.

What we are saying is that given the merit pool, don’t actively discriminate against a racial minority. And blaming the kids for “having shittier personalities” is adding insult to injury.

If you were a billionaire Harvard grad told your kid is inferior to a poor Chinese immigrant's kid, would you donate a hundred million to Harvard?

Harvard has got a lot of money. They can survive without a particular donation or two.

Look, there is plenty of fat to trim. They could knock the minority set asides down a bit. They could knock foreign kids down to 5%. They could shave 5% off Jews. They could admit a few less legacies. They could increase their class sizes which haven't gone up despite increases in population and applicant pool. If they did this proactively they could even have managed it slowly going from 20% to 40% over a decade of years (maybe Asians would have even been satisfied with 30%).

You've got to make room for a rising elite unless you want it to rebel. It was never in Asians interests to attend a Harvard without billionaire sons, but I think Harvard could have Asians and billionaires and even a few token minorities if it got serious enough about the trade offs.

"If they are selecting at about 33% for merit slots that's pretty impressive, relative to a 5.6% population."

This seems pretty close to Harvard President Abbott Lowell's position.

"I'm old enough to remember when discrimination was selecting below population ratios, not 'not selecting enough above' population ratios."

No, you aren't, because US anti-discrimination law has never paid any significant attention to the general population. It has always paid attention to two things:

1) Explicit policies of race-based discrimination.
2) Acceptance compared to similarly-qualified applicants as evidence of an implicit policy of race-based discrimination.

If your company hires 33% black workers to fill new positions, you are still vulnerable to anti-discrimination lawsuits if you have an explicit rule that you will never hire more than one black person for every three positions filled. And you are also still vulnerable to anti-discrimination lawsuits if, say, 50% of the qualified applicants for new positions are black, as evidence that hiring them at a lower rate indicates you have an implicit policy to limit hiring of blacks.

That blacks are only 13% of the general population is utterly irrelevant. Discrimination in the law is based on how you treat people who actually come before you, not how well you adhere to Census Bureau reports.

You may be right on the law, and I may be thinking of more popular arguments, as when Pew starts a page:

"Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented in science, technology, engineering and math jobs, relative to their presence in the overall U.S. workforce, particularly among workers with a bachelor’s degree or higher.."

They make whatever argument is convenient. If NAM are underrepresented in the applicant pool, they go to population representation, and vice versa

As opposed to the compelling argument "Harvard should have even more Asians, because liberals are bad?"

GMU is not a relevant comparison because it is not top tier. UC-Berkeley, UCLA, and CalTech (all of which do not--at least officially--consider race) are better comparisons, which have 32-42% Asians (and there are suspicions about UCLA's numbers being too low). Even though more Asians live in California, Harvard has an applicant pool from across the nation.

GMU is public and can tax people to get funding, with rich Harvard grads paying for Asians and others at GMU.

Harvard is private and needs to select either rich or poor likely to become rich thanks to a Harvard label and thus give money to Harvard.

Harvard is picking it's future funders as well as rewarding and encouraging its current funders.

It could admit classes of 100% Chinese on merit, but would these Chinese citizens donate billions to a valuable asset in Boston, or would they take over its board and move Harvard to a Boston/Harvard replica in China?

This issue is more complicated than whether the special folks are in the sample.

Trouble is, tests are not the goal, but a proxy for the goal. The goal is to produce well-educated, productive, well-connected people who go do interesting things and give the school a good name and make money and give the school some of it so it can continue to buy stars and dazzle people and admit the next batch. Part of this goal must be to choose students so that the school will have a successful bottom quarter. If a school only admits total academic stars, some of them will be disappointed and bummed that they end up in the bottom of the class. The athletes and legacy admits can avoid this outcome. They already feel happy with their place in the world and are not insulted or broken-hearted to be in the bottom quarter.

The Asian students test better than they are. The tests are just proxies, they are not the goal. But when a test is introduced, students will aim very hard at the test because it is a metric that is used. Other schools have kept numbers for a long time on who-did-what later, and knows this. My guess is that hvd does this too, but does not want to talk about it.

One thing that has happened around here (because we have a large Chinese population, which has stimulated all these homework and tutoring shops -- really there is one on every block) is that because the Chinese study so hard, then the others must too, and they resent it. It is an inefficiently high standard. The test is not good enough at measurement to be worked on as hard as it is worked on. Yes, I am saying that the level of studying is inefficiently high, and inefficiently directed.

The high school suicides in the Bay Area due to school pressure make the national news. There have been a dozen or so over the last few years. There are now full-time attendants stationed at places where roads cross the train tracks to inhibit these suicides. What does not make the news, but is discussed in the Bay Area Mandarin newspapers, is that all of the suicides were Asian kids. Not some, but all.

I'm going to grant that Asians may not produce top-tier power at the same rate their SAT scores say, and that power is the business Harvard is in.

I'll also grant that its not in the interests of the people running Harvard (mostly not Asian) to allow an Asians to become 40% because then they would be an independent power base. Instead of taking orders (and dutifully doing other peoples math) they might start giving them! Now that's scary. It's not just scary to Harvard, its scary to all these places that use Asians as UMC grinds but don't really let them into leadership.

The question is why it's in OUR interest (American citizens). Harvard is in the power business, but is it using its power in ways that are good for American citizens? If not, why should an American court allow it? If Harvard's best interest isn't America's best interest, I've got no problem with the court smacking them down.

This also goes beyond race. Larry Summers wasn't just removed for noticing them women don't make up most of the Einsteins. He was pushed out for trying to move Harvard away from wishy-washy subjects (social power) and towards harder subjects (STEM). Would America be better off with a Harvard that emphasized science more and grievance studies less? I think so. It also happens to be that Asians are better at that stuff, so a Harvard more aligned in that direction would need more Asians.

Lastly, should I care if Harvard (and elite circles) gets taken over by Asians? If Harvard cared about me maybe I would. There isn't much evidence of this though. Heck, the white people at Harvard probably hate me while Asians would be indifferent. Certainly they would be more pragmatic. For most white people at least, a more Asian Harvard at a minimum has more potential positives than negatives. So I see little reason why a court theoretically representing me should allow them to have an Asian quota.

So, you are anti-Trump, welcoming a future where Asians dominate US political and economic elites?

Or are you of the mind that Harvard status would become a big negative based on Trumpian racism against Asians?

Trump ordered the DOJ to file on behalf of Asians against Harvard.

I think that non-Asian Harvard grads seem to be more anti-white and anti-America than most Asian Harvard grads. So whatever misgivings one has about and Asian dominated elite, consider the alternative.

I've spent a lot of time with Asians, including magnet schools dominated by them and living in Asian countries. I think they are pragmatic leaders and don't hate middle America. I have no particular illusions about their giving a damn about me, but indifference would be an upgrade compared to Harvard today.

Maybe one way to get Asians to stop killing themselves through study would be to take away artificial constraints that make them feel like they need to be superhuman to make the cut.

This is also an argument for more Harvards, which should be quite doable since I am assured intelligence and attainment is all about environment.

Given increases in population and applicant pool, it would make some sense for Harvard to increase its class sizes a bit. It would take a lot of the pressure off.

2. Harvard is saying that giving legacy applicants preferable treatment is NOT effectively racial bias? Am I correctly understanding what their contradiction is?

Actually, nobody is contending that giving the legacy applicants preferable treatment is racial bias.

The plaintiffs are contending that when it comes to evaluating the pool of non-legacy applicants, Harvard is discriminating against Asians. If the plaintiffs win their case, Harvard will still be perfectly free to hand out a whole bunch of places to the legacy and donor applicants and recruited athletes.

What Harvard is fighting to defend in this lawsuit is their right to have admissions officials consistently rate Asians that they've never met as having poorer personalities than whites they've never met, and then use those at-a-distance subjective ratings of personality to justify admitting the whites over Asians with superior academic and extracurricular ratings.

What their defending is a quota system and the personal ratings are just the X variable they need to solve the equation. Unless the court orders them to make their class Y% Asian (and more specifically, East Asian) they will just find some over X variable to solve for why the numbers always come out to 20%.

7. Actually it's stop America's involvement in the war.

Oh come on.... same thing!

Obama spent YEARS saying he "ended the Iraq War" by merely withdrawing (most of) the US troops!

[If you don't remember the Iraq War, it's the one Hillary voted for.]

OK, this is the other worst thing the polarized Rep-bots do (besides subverting the Constitution regarding the Supreme Court). They are so dumb they think they get points pointing out that Hillary voted for a war that THEY STARTED. They didn't just vote for it, it was theirs, all theirs, their baby. And if you weren't with them you were against them and a traitor and probably didn't even call them Freedom Fries.

So to sum up the Rep-bots: it's Hillary's fault that Iraq was a disaster, because she voted for it. It's not Bush/Cheney's fault for starting it and pushing it and voting for it. It's all Hillary.

Stopping US involvement is giving Iran a victory.

And what do they win? Oh yeah, Yemen! No wait, they don't win Yemen, they win more influence in Yemen.

Hmmm, I'm not convinced that the US has a strategic interest worth fighting for.

They win a flank on the Gulf States.

We are not actually fighting there, just providing intel and fueling to the Saudis.

Ah yes the "flank of Gulf States."

So much US influence and interests "in the flank"- gifts that keep on giving. Historical US allies. Did so much for the US during....? Can you name any benefits to the US?

Meanwhile, the US continues to sanction and affect common Iranians, Yemenis, et al. dis-proportionally from the elite of those countries and cut off access to medical goods, all the while hurting US businesses and image. The old starve the people and they'll get mad at the ruler tactic huh?

Thanks for the insight.

Too late neocon, crapping on Saudi Arabia is mainstream virtue signaling now.

@ #7 - Stop the Yemen war - any military experts here? Why is the recoiless rifle and/or artillery piece in the photo behind Koch's head emitting such black smoke? I thought they use smokeless powder or white smoke for shells since WWII? Or are the Yemeni's using some primitive China technology? A quick review on Google Images shows black smoke is not that common coming out of the muzzle.

For more info on obsolete weapons in Yemen, see this link.

Also, yes, large numbers of ammunition are being thrown together on the fly using iffy components. When you're desperate, anything that goes boom and is worth taking a chance on.

Let me just give you a big ol +1

That was a great read.

It’s a howitzer, not a recoilless rifle. M198 I think, 155mm.

The smoke has been enlarged to make it appear more sinister/scary.

When the propellant ignites, there is some smoke release out of the muzzle break.

Holy Cow, I hadn't looked at the picture until I saw this thread. That's a ridiculous amount of smoke.

A similar US shot

Not an expert on cameras and focal lengths, but it seems possible that the original is unaltered.

That's a good counter point. Perhaps the US military is using more smoke generating shells. Historically the reasons to favor smokeless powder were to a) not obscure your line of sight and b) to not foul your weapon with residue.

Obviously howitzers don't care about line of sight and presumably the powder pictured doesn't leave enough residue to effect performance.

Good for Koch, end that war.

"end that war"

Talk to Iran,its backing the other side.

I don't care if Iranian ayatollahs beat Arab sheiks in a proxy battle on the other side of the globe.

What if they are involved in half a dozen proxy wars? What if they win them and take more territory and double down with another half dozen proxy wars? What if their proxy wars cause American and American allies deaths? At what point do you fight back or is a white flag your choice?

Imagine an Afghanistan, a Taliban, that was just as stupid but didn't decide to shelter bin Laden. They would still be over there blowing up historic sites and marrying each other's daughters, but would we really care?

There really are elbows of the world without strategic importance, and those really should be left alone

"There really are elbows of the world without strategic importance, and those really should be left alone"

Agreed but the Arabian peninsula is not such an elbow.

I assure you I am every bit as truculent and nationalistic as you, probably more so. I just don't think we need to be fighting over other countries' borders.

You seem to be assuming a scenario whereby Iran somehow acquires Yemen, then the Arabian Peninsula, then the Levant. And from there Europe. Then Canada. Then the American homeland itself so we end up with this Man In The High Castle Scenario, except its Russia and Iran.

Maybe we really should put lithium in the water. Calm you people down.

Again, we are not fighting, just supporting the Saudis. No US troops are at risk.

Preventing one regional power from dominating the Mideast is in the interests of the US and its allies. We may produce a lot more oil now but Japan and Europe does no. $400 oil prices are not in anyone's interest.

Have you noticed the rapproachment between Israel and the Gulf States? Its from mutual fear of Iran. It offers a possible way to reach agreement between the Arabs in the West Bank and Israel which is in our interests.

@Hmmm, @EverExtruder - thanks. What a fascinating site, just spend a few minutes examining it and you'll understand more about the Yemen war than anything seen on CNN IMO. Note they had a civil war before, in the 1950s-60s.

(A Houthi fighter with a M48B in 2016. The sticker on the butt translates “Allah is great, Death to America, Death to Israel”.) (Reuters News photo)

The severe dangers therein are endless: an overpressure rupture of the 70 year-old breech, a squib in the barrel, and so on. It’s no wonder the Yemenis don’t want to be in the turret when these rounds are shot.Even with genuine 85mm rounds, any remaining ammunition is at least half a century old, maybe older, and nobody is probably keen on being a few inches away from it as it is fired.

(Apparently unconcerned for his hearing, a Yemeni civilian celebrates during a 2015 street battle against the Houthi. Pistol is a Soviet-made TT-33.)

(A camel in Yemen laden with ammunition crates during the late 1960s. Pickup trucks have taken up a lot of the slack but this remains a viable option for transporting munitions in 2018.)

Bonus trivia: you will notice that the resolution that Koch is backing was almost passed earlier this year, so it's not that novel. The difference today is that there's a greater chance, due to the MbS murder fiasco, that the resolution will pass.

#2 This is classic objective vs. subjective standard. Harvard should say that they aren't objective in their admissions standards, and leave it at that, because they aren't.

#3 I always ask myself what must be going through the minds of people that allows/encourage this. And then I stop. I don't really want to know.

#7 "Stop the Yemen War." Which one?

"Harvard should say that they aren't objective in their admissions standards, and leave it at that"

They can hardly say, "Oh yes, our admissions personnel subjectively give Asians (whom they've never met) lower personality scores. But, hey, that's just the 'holistic' way we roll!"

Actually they can. They are a private institution, albeit one that receives huge amount of govt. support and funding, funding they would have to give up if they said so.

Then there's their reputation, which would suffer horribly with such an admission.

But the "personality score" is and could be argued under freedom of association as a doable-if-not-less-than-ideal work around. That coupled with other metrics, a limited number of available slots, an already "diverse" student body, and their current status (sans govt. funding) would probably be enough to inoculate them against prima fascia evidence of overt racism in court. Pure speculation on my part, but there it is.

This is a really quick way to lose a Title VII discrimination suit: have no admissions or hiring standards, claim they are subjective, then someone says "there is an objective racially disparate impact on protected class of blacks/Hispanics", and you have no way to rebut the claim because your standards are subjective, so legally the inference is that you must be discriminating.

3. is incredibly funny to me. "Hulk fists"!

But, funny or not, those teachers really have got to be fired.

According to the article, they were fired. That the government chose not to prosecute them is mind boggling. Even if they only got a slap on the wrist, this seems like the kind of act that should get someone a record.

Gotta admit, as the father of three kids, there are times when I tell them "Fine, fight it out." And it's hilarious--both the complete ineptness and the surprising efficacy! To be honest, I'd be okay with signing a document saying that if my kid and another are in conflict I'm fine with them putting on appropriate gear and fighting under appropriate supervision. It's quick, effective, the kids work out the problems themselves, and in most cases where I've seen this happen (including a case where my son was being bullied) it led to the two kids being, if not friends, than at least cheerfully friendly to each other.

The idea that fighting is intrinsically wrong is simply wrong. Fighting has a time and place. It's fantastic exercise, good for mental development (you learn to think on your feet, as it were), good for building bonds between people. You just need to do it in the proper manner. Karate, grav maga, European martial arts, boxing, wrestling...Even track and field has its origins in war, and football and chess are nothing more than war on a small scale with fewer injuries.

That said, you need parental permission first. And preschool is a TAD young for this!

Yep, I got in a few fights as a kid and ended up friends with the other kid

#7Maybe Americans should not support Sausi terrorism.

Thanks for the link. Not sure exactly what "consolidated" means here. Our text is pretty standard in structure, albeit a bit shorter than some of our competitors, and much shorter than Hubbard and O'Brien, another text with lots of real world business examples.

Do you cover IS/LM AD/AS?

Are you a horizontalist or a verticalist in the LM line of the IS/LM model? (see:

Bonus trivia: the Sloman 10th ed. of Economics replaces the IS/LM model with the IS/MP model. Don't ask me why, I've been known to (temporarily) confuse IS/LM with AD/AS (they do seem related).

That is what we literally an activity in gym class when I was growing up (minus the hulk gloves)...I'm 39 btw..

"Harvard was forced to turn over 90,000 pages on its tightly guarded admissions process. "

I think I spotted The Great Stagnation.

Harvard is a private institution and they should just openly declare that their admission process is designed to create a student population that reflects the ethnic makeup of the country. You can justify that for the reason that their goal isn't just to educate the smartest individuals, but to develop inter-ethnic social cohesion in the class of future leaders.

".. is designed to create a student population that reflects the ethnic makeup of the country".

They can't do that without increasing White admissions.They implicitly want less Whites than both the general population and the qualified admissions pool would provide. Furthermore, they want Asians, but not too many more.

This is very similar to Abbot Lowell around a century ago. Jews went from 10% to 20% of the class. He tried to set a quota of 15%. Even the 10% number far exceeded the actual population numbers.

Asians are the new Jews. And Harvard doesn't want too many of those kind of people.

Some Jews in WWII went to Shanghai, China and today their descendants are Asian Jews. Imagine them trying to get into Harvard!

Bonus trivia: according to my mom's side, I'm a Greek Jew from Salonika. But they converted to Orthodox Christian well before the Holocaust (90% of Greek Jews were wiped out). I thought about getting an Israeli passport, since I would qualify, but could not find enough documetation to prove the above.

They aren't that far off, percentage wise, if you go by age group. it's about 50% "white", not accounting for "asians" and "hispanics" who might re-identify as "white" in other circumstances.

"They aren't that far off, percentage wise"

Nor will they ever. After all, rich white liberals have kids and of course, their kids should go to the best schools.

Harvard needs to maintain certain illusions in order maintain power and influence. Another way of saying "inter-ethnic social cohesion" is "international plutocratic and nepotistic elite looking out for itself and the expense of everyone else."

Also, if Harvards goals violates the laws of the country, then it doesn't much matter what its goals are.

Those are two orthogonal concepts that are probably in tension actually. I'm just saying Harvard could just come out and say that it's going to use quotas and give reasons. I'm sure that they will continue to try to get the children of the wealthy, irregardless of whether racial quotas are involved. But they could actually make a decent case FOR having racial quotas on the grounds that there is some social benefit to doing so.

That's a policy argument, not a legal one. The problem is that racial quotas, whether public or private, are specifically illegal under both the Equal Protection Clause and the Civil Rights Act. Maybe they will get the Civil Rights Act amended to allow for certain classes of citizens to have quotas in their favor, but until then the law's the law.

In the meantime, Harvard would have to pay millions (perhaps billions) in speculative damages to people whose civil rights were violated under the quota system.

They can do that.

And between current laws and the Supreme Court precedent in the Bob Jones case, Harvard would both become ineligible for Federal funding (direct and indirect, including eligibility of students for Federally-insured student loans) and lose its tax-exempt status.

Certainly Harvard could survive that, but how much of its prestige would it lose as it made the dramatic budget cuts necessary?

#7. A progressive's head almost exploded until he/she/ze saved him/her/zirself by surmising that the Kochs' must have large investments in Yemen that they're trying to protect.

Card is a great pick for Harvards stat guy.

Card is the 'Mariel boatlift' guy, the study saying that large numbers of low skilled immigrants don't affect wage rates. I think that he has also done some work on how minimum wage laws don't affect employment rates. So per him, the labor demand curve is a horizontal line and a vertical line at the same time. Sounds like economic quantum mechanics, economics professors are known to have physics envy.

Card's work is quite silly, but Card is a somewhat respected professor for doing all this. It seems that getting others to accept statistical work that is really bad, stupid and wrong is where Card's talents lie. Given that at least from afar, Harvard seems to have by a weaker case, Card is exactly the sort of guy that they should hire.

#3 is very upsetting to me. Nurture may not matter that much when raising a kid but trauma sure does. And those teachers just saw it as a lark.

Number #3. What kind of people would let that......


That Economist quote is pure BS. It's like saying, the fact that Harvard doesn't admit blacks in proportion to their number in the population is biased, and if you bring up academic rankings, well, those are correlated with race. The question is whether the personal ranking measures something important, or is just a cover for rejecting Asian-Americans to balance a quota. The alumni rankings effectively make the case that the personal ranking system is not reflective of actual personality.

Here is another new principles book, macro and international economics, with a global focus. By yours truly:

err.. It helps if I add the name of the book. Economics of Global Business (MIT Press). Hopefully the new standard in teaching macro and international econ to non-economists. On Amazon at:

line break test


Comments for this post are closed