Who gets into the best colleges and why?
We use anonymized admissions data from several colleges linked to income tax records and SAT and ACT test scores to study the determinants and causal effects of attending Ivy-Plus colleges (Ivy League, Stanford, MIT, Duke, and Chicago). Children from families in the top 1% are more than twice as likely to attend an Ivy-Plus college as those from middle-class families with comparable SAT/ACT scores. Two-thirds of this gap is due to higher admissions rates for students with comparable test scores from high-income families; the remaining third is due to differences in rates of application and matriculation. In contrast, children from high-income families have no admissions advantage at flagship public colleges. The high-income admissions advantage at Ivy-Plus colleges is driven by three factors: (1) preferences for children of alumni, (2) weight placed on non-academic credentials, and (3) athletic recruitment. Using a new research design that isolates idiosyncratic variation in admissions decisions for waitlisted applicants, we show that attending an Ivy-Plus college instead of the average flagship public college increases students’ chances of reaching the top 1% of the earnings distribution by 50%, nearly doubles their chances of attending an elite graduate school, and almost triples their chances of working at a prestigious firm. The three factors that give children from high-income families an admissions advantage are uncorrelated or negatively correlated with post-college outcomes, whereas academic credentials such as SAT/ACT scores are highly predictive of post-college success.
That is from a new paper by Raj Chetty, David J. Deming, and John N. Friedman. One immediate conclusion is that standardized test scores help lower-income groups get into the best schools, compared to the alternatives.
Is it Possible to Raise National Happiness?
That is a new paper by Alberto Prati and Claudia Senik, here is the abstract:
We revisit the famous Easterlin paradox by considering that life evaluation scales refer to a changing context, hence they are regularly reinterpreted. We propose a simple model of rescaling based on both retrospective and current life evaluations, and apply it to unexploited archival data from the USA. When correcting for rescaling, we find that the well-being of Americans has substantially increased, on par with GDP, health, education, and liberal democracy, from the 1950s to the early 2000s. Using several datasets, we shed light on other happiness puzzles, including the apparent stability of life evaluations during COVID-19, why Ukrainians report similar levels of life satisfaction today as before the war, and the absence of parental happiness.
To give some intuition, the authors provide evidence that people are more likely engaging in rescaling than being stuck on a hedonic treadmill. I think they are mostly right.
Via the excellent Kevin Lewis.
Dean Ball on state-level AI laws
He is now out of government and has resumed writing his Substack. Here is one excerpt from his latest:
Several states have banned (see also “regulated,” “put guardrails on” for the polite phraseology) the use of AI for mental health services. Nevada, for example, passed a law (AB 406) that bans schools from “[using] artificial intelligence to perform the functions and duties of a school counselor, school psychologist, or school social worker,” though it indicates that such human employees are free to use AI in the performance of their work provided that they comply with school policies for the use of AI. Some school districts, no doubt, will end up making policies that effectively ban any AI use at all by those employees. If the law stopped here, I’d be fine with it; not supportive, not hopeful about the likely outcomes, but fine nonetheless.
But the Nevada law, and a similar law passed in Illinois, goes further than that. They also impose regulations on AI developers, stating that it is illegal for them to explicitly or implicitly claim of their models that (quoting from the Nevada law):
(a) The artificial intelligence system is capable of providing professional mental or behavioral health care;
(b) A user of the artificial intelligence system may interact with any feature of the artificial intelligence system which simulates human conversation in order to obtain professional mental or behavioral health care; or
(c) The artificial intelligence system, or any component, feature, avatar or embodiment of the artificial intelligence system is a provider of mental or behavioral health care, a therapist, a clinical therapist, a counselor, a psychiatrist, a doctor or any other term commonly used to refer to a provider of professional mental health or behavioral health care.
First there is the fact that the law uses an extremely broad definition of AI that covers a huge swath of modern software. This means that it may become trickier to market older machine learning-based systems that have been used in the provision of mental healthcare, for instance in the detection psychological stress, dementia, intoxication, epilepsy, intellectual disability, or substance abuse (all conditions explicitly included in Nevada’s statutory definition of mental health).
But there is something deeper here, too. Nevada AB 406, and its similar companion in Illinois, deal with AI in mental healthcare by simply pretending it does not exist. “Sure, AI may be a useful tool for organizing information,” these legislators seem to be saying, “but only a human could ever do mental healthcare.”
And then there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans who use chatbots for something that resembles mental healthcare every day. Should those people be using language models in this way? If they cannot afford a therapist, is it better that they talk to a low-cost chatbot, or no one at all? Up to what point of mental distress? What should or could the developers of language models do to ensure that their products do the right thing in mental health-related contexts? What is the right thing to do?
The State of Nevada would prefer not to think about such issues. Instead, they want to deny that they are issues in the first place and instead insist that school employees and occupationally licensed human professionals are the only parties capable of providing mental healthcare services (I wonder what interest groups drove the passage of this law?).
Friday assorted links
1. Short video on the importance of audience quality.
2. The excise tax on share repurchases was not effective in boosting investment.
4. The USA never saw a tourism slump (FT).
5. The EU may proceed with a digital euro after all.
6. Josh Barro, Greg Mankiw, and Betsey Stevenson on the economy (NYT).
7. Do LLMs have good musical taste?
8. Google AI tools for educators.
And Germany now seems to be in recession again, real business cycle theory rising in status.
Cass Sunstein on classical liberalism
Here’s what I want to emphasize. I like Hayek a lot less ambivalently than I once did, and von Mises, who once seemed to me a crude and irascible precursor of Hayek, now seems to me to be (mostly) a shining star (and sometimes fun, not least because of his crudeness and irascibility). The reason is simple: They were apostles of freedom. They believed in freedom from fear.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, I did not see that clearly enough, because they seemed to me to be writing against a background that was sharp and visible to them, but that seemed murky and not so relevant to me — the background set by the 1930s and 1940s, for which Hitler and Stalin were defining. (After all, Hayek helped found the Mont Pelerin Society in 1947.)
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, socialist planning certainly did not seem like a good idea, not at all, but liberalism, as I saw it, had other and newer fish to fry. People like Rawls, Charles Larmore, Edna Ullmann-Margalit (in The Emergence of Norms), Jurgen Habermas (a past and present hero), Amartya Sen (also a past and present hero), Jon Elster (in Sour Grapes and Ulysses and the Sirens), and Susan Okin seemed (to me) to point the way.
I liked their forms of liberalism. Hayek and the Mont Pelerins (and Posner and Epstein) seemed to be fighting old battles, and in important ways to be wrong. With respect to authoritarianism and tyranny, and the power of the state, of course they were right; but still, those battles seemed old.
But those battles never were old. In important ways, Hayek and the Mont Pelerins (and Posner and Epstein, and Becker and Stigler) were right. Liberalism is a big tent. It’s much more than good to see them under it. It’s an honor to be there with them.
Here is the whole Substack, recommended. I am very much in accord with his sentiments here, running in both directions, namely both classical and “more modern” liberalism.
AI-engaged economics papers are growing rapidly
…share of economics papers that is ABOUT or USES AI increased 10X to 5% in 5 years and growth is basically vertical.
Be there or be square!
Here is the tweet, here is the underlying paper by Eamon Duede, et.al. Other science are considered as well, I do not need to tell you the results, they consider philosophy too.
Profile of Joe Liemandt and Alpha School
The one thing Liemandt will talk about for hours on end is Alpha School: the teacherless, homeworkless, K-12 private school in Austin, Texas, where students have been testing in the top 0.1% nationally by self-directing coursework with AI tutoring apps for two hours a day. Alpha students are incentivized to complete coursework to “mastery-level” (i.e., scoring over 90%) in only two hours via a mix of various material and immaterial rewards, including the right to spend the other four hours of the school day in “workshops,” learning things like how to run an Airbnb or food truck, manage a brokerage account or Broadway production, or build a business or drone.
Since the explosive debut of Generative AI in 2022, Liemandt has taken $1 billion out of Trilogy/ESW in order to fund and incubate proprietary AI software products at Alpha School, where he has also served quietly as “product guy,” dean of parents, and principal. After collecting a three-year data stream in these roles, while also working in a nearby stealth lab, Liemandt believes he now has “the single best product I’ve ever built, in four decades, by far.” The product is called Timeback, and its purpose, in essence, is to scale Alpha School’s concepts and results—learn 2x in 2 hours, test in the 99th percentile, and then give students the rest of their childhood back—to a billion kids.
Here is the full story by Jeremy Stern.
The decline in reading for pleasure
We measure reading for pleasure and reading with children from 2003 to 2023, using a nationally representative sample from the American Time Use Survey (n = 236,270). We found marked declines in the proportion of individuals reading for pleasure daily in the US, with decreases of 3% per year (prevalence ratio = 0.97, 95% confidence interval = 0.97, 0.98, p < 0.001). There were disparities across population groups, with widening gaps for those of Black (vs. White) race, with lower education levels and less annual income.
That is from a new paper by Jessica K. Bone, Feifei Bu, Jill Sonke, and Daisy Fancourt. I have not seen any plausible debunkings of this paper or result (which I believe), but if I do I will pass them along. Note by the way that Denmark is abolishing the VAT on books, in an effort to boost reading. It was formerly twenty-five percent, the highest in the world.
Thursday assorted links
Data on the effects of censorship in early modern England
We use a panel-data framework to study the effects of print censorship on early-modern England’s cultural production. Doing so requires distilling dispersed qualitative information into quantitative data. Integrating the historical record implicit in a large language model (LLM) with facts from secondary sources, we generate an annual index of print censorship. Applying a machine-learning (ML) algorithm to a major corpus, we construct document-level measures of the innovativeness (quality) and volume (quantity) of cultural production. We use pre-existing topic-model estimates to apportion each document among distinct cultural themes-three affected by censorship and five unaffected. We thereby assemble a yearly theme-level panel for 1525-1700. We use local projections to estimate censorship’s dynamic effects. Paradoxically, censorship raises the level of innovativeness in censorship-affected themes relative to non-affected themes. Censorship has a temporary chilling effect on the quantity of cultural production, with output recovering within a decade. Our findings are robust to the use of an instrumental-variable approach addressing the endogeneity of censorship. Our findings are unchanged when using three alternative LLMs to produce the censorship index. Using LLMs and ML to measure hard-to-quantify phenomena like censorship and cultural production, we provide new insights into the drivers of cultural evolution.
Here is the full paper by Peter Murrell and Peter Grajzl. Via the excellent Kevin Lewis.
My Conversation with David Brooks
Held live at the 92nd St. Y, here is the video, audio, and transcript. Here is the episode summary:
David Brooks returns to the show with a stark diagnosis of American culture. Having evolved from a Democratic socialist to a neoconservative to what he now calls “the rightward edge of the leftward tendency,” Brooks argues that America’s core problems aren’t economic but sociological—rooted in the destruction of our “secure base” of family, community, and moral order that once gave people existential security.
Tyler and David cover why young people are simultaneously the most rejected and most productive generation, smartphones and sex, the persuasiveness of AI vs novels, the loss of audacity, what made William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman great mentors, why academics should embrace the epistemology of the interview, the evolving status of neoconservatism, what Trump gets right, whether only war or mass movements can revive the American psyche, what will end the fertility crisis, the subject of his book, listener questions, and much more.
Excerpt:
COWEN: Now, you mentioned the Tanenhaus book. It’s striking because you appear as a character in the book. I know you haven’t gotten to that part yet, but surely you remember the reality that William F. Buckley was considering making you editor of National Review. What would your life have been like if you had received that offer? Would you have even taken it? What does that alternate universe look like?
BROOKS: The American conservative movement is going from strength to strength. Donald Trump is a failed real estate developer somewhere.
COWEN: [laughs]
BROOKS: I was never an orthodox National Review person, that kind of conservative. I was a neoconservative, which was different. Basically, you can tell what kind of conservative a person is by what year they want to go back to.
I’ve learned, especially from this Tanenhaus biography, that a lot of the old right National Review people wanted to go back to the 19th century. They were pre-New Deal. I never had a problem with the New Deal. I had some problems with some of the policies of the 1960s, and I was an urban kid. I was a New Yorker, and I was a Jew, and the magazine was Catholic. I’ve been told that one of the reasons I didn’t get the job was that reason.
COWEN: Tanenhaus says this.
BROOKS: Oh, does he?
COWEN: Yes.
BROOKS: Buckley was my mentor. We can tell that story, how that happened. I worked at National Review, and then I worked at the Wall Street Journal editorial page. I went from being an old right to being a free market, Wall Street Journal sort of person. I never had the opportunity to think for myself until I left those places and went to a place called the Weekly Standard. Suddenly, I could think for myself. It was funny how long — because I was in my 30s — before I really thought, “What do I believe?” Not how do I argue for the Wall Street Journal position on this, or the National Review position.
When I did that, I found I had two heroes. One was Edmund Burke, whose main idea is epistemological modesty. Change is really complicated, and we should be really cautious about what we think we can know about reality. The second was Alexander Hamilton, who’s a Puerto Rican hip-hop star from Washington Heights. Hamilton’s belief was using government in limited but energetic ways to create a dynamic country where poor boys and girls like him could rise and succeed.
That involves a lot more state intervention than National Review would be comfortable with. So, I became sort of a John McCain Republican. Now, another one of my other heroes is this guy named Isaiah Berlin, and toward the end of his life, Berlin said, “I’m very happy to be on the rightward edge of the leftward tendency.” That’s where I found myself today, as a conservative Democrat. I would not have fit in at National Review because I didn’t really hew to the gospel.
And:
COWEN: If you think about Buckley, where you disagree with him, and I don’t mean on particular issues — I feel I know that — but his method of thought, what is there in his method of thought where you would say, “I, David Brooks, diverge from Buckley in a fundamental way”?
BROOKS: His gift and his curse was that he couldn’t slow down his thinking. I would see him write a column in 20 minutes, and if he wrote it for an hour, it would get no better. He just moved at that speed. It takes me two days to write a column. It takes me 14, 20 hours. That’s one thing.
Second, he grew out of such a different background. His dad, as we know from this book, was an old right America Firster. My parents were Lower East Side New York intellectual progressives. I always felt at home in a diverse America, in a regular working-class America that was light years away from the world he inhabited.
COWEN: Your difference with Milton Friedman, again, not on specific issues such as the New Deal, but conceptually, how is it that you think differently from how Milton did?
BROOKS: Friedman — his great gift — and I think this is a libertarian gift — is that once you get inside their logical system, within their assumptive models, there’s no arguing with them. It all fits together. I don’t believe in assumptive models. I’m much less rational. I think human beings are much less rational than needed. I think they obviously respond to incentives in some ways, but often respond to incentives in no rational way. I’m, again, being more neoconservative than conservative, or more whatever you want to call it, a Humean.
I really do believe that David Hume’s famous sentence that reason is and ought to follow the passions — I believe that’s true, that our passions are wiser than our reasonable mind, and that our emotions, when well trained, are much more supple and much more responsible for the way we think. Again, I may be caricaturing, but the rational school of economics thought, well, you see the world, that simple process of looking, and then weigh costs and benefits about the world, and then you make a decision about the world, I don’t believe that’s the way thinking works.
Self-recommending!
Wednesday assorted links
2. The new Austin Vernon solar start-up.
3. Turn your research paper into a music video.
4. European freedom of speech increasingly in danger. Article from The Atlantic is here.
Bad news, Mises vindicated!
U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is looking into the federal government taking equity stakes in computer chip manufacturers that receive CHIPS Act funding to build factories in the country, two sources said.
Expanding on a plan to receive an equity stake in Intel (INTC.O), in exchange for cash grants, a White House official and a person familiar with the situation said Lutnick is exploring how the U.S. can receive equity stakes in exchange for CHIPS Act funding for companies such as Micron (MU.O), Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (2330.TW), and Samsung (005930.KS). Much of the funding has not yet been dispersed.
Here is more from Reuters. It was bad to do this with General Motors, and bad when many of you, way back when, suggested doing this with the bailed out banks. It is still bad, and getting worse.
The Garbage Cafe
Every day, hungry people arrive at this cafe in Ambikapur, a city in the state of Chhattisgarh in central India, in the hope of getting a hot meal. But they don’t pay for their food with money – instead, they hand over bundles of plastic such as old carrier bags, food wrappers and water bottles.
People can trade a kilogram (2.2lb) of plastic waste for a full meal that includes rice, two vegetable curries, dal, roti, salad and pickles, says Vinod Kumar Patel, who runs the cafe on behalf of the Ambikapur Municipal Corporation (AMC), the public body which manages the city’s infrastructure and services. “For half a kilogram of plastic, they get breakfast like samosas or vada pav.”
…”I’ve been doing this work for years,” Mondal says, looking at the small pile of plastic she has gathered. Previously, Mondal used to sell the plastic she collected to local scrap dealers for just 10 Indian rupees (£0.09/$0.12) per kilogram – barely enough to survive on. “But now, I can get food for my family in exchange for the plastic I collect. It makes all the difference in our lives.”
Here is the full story. The Cafe is supported through public funds.
Why is choral music harder to appreciate?
It has struck me that most recommenders and lovers of choral music and themselves singers (or conductors) of choral music. It helps a great deal to be right there. So it occurred to me there are a few reasons why choral music is harder to appreciate than say either symphonies or chamber music:
1. Mixtures of voices do not translate onto recordings as well as do most symphony orchestra instrumental blends. For one thing, the different voices are harder to sort out. They are best understood when you are singing in the midst of the action.
2. A good deal of choral music is sung in a different language, and so most listeners do not understand the words.
3. A good deal of quality choral music has a background religious context. Most listeners have only a modest knowledge of this background context. For instance, how many people know that Elgar’s Dream of Gerontius is about purgatory, and that this was highly controversial in Elgar’s time, as it was viewed as a very Catholic concept?
3b. 6. Choral works may depend on church acoustics, or the surrounding church aura, but we go to church less often these days.
4. A lot of choral music sounds pious, and indeed may be pious. At the very least they tend to be serious. (How many comic choral pieces can you think of from the classical repertoire? Or even comic moments?) That seriousness of mood may appeal less to contemporary listeners.
5. Star vocalists drive a reasonable percentage of classical music sales. But most choral works have a strong collective element, and they may not be set up to showcase soloists. So the celebrity-driven appeal of choral forms can be relatively weak.
6. Many of the best-known choral works are quite long. That may place them at a relative disadvantage.
7. Opera arguably has grown in relative popularity, and that may be serious competition for choral works because it can serve as a substitute.
What else?