Category: Education
Practice what you preach
From the University of Barcelona:
Master’s Degree in Political Ecology Degrowth and Environmental Justice
By the way, the web site uses cookies.
Rebuild the Elites
Nature’s list of the top research universities in the world.
The U.S. seems intent on tearing down its own elites. Yes, they’ve been smug shits at times and deserve a rap on the knuckles—but our elites compete on the world stage. Gutting top universities rewards with a momentary dopamine hit, but unless we rebuild stronger institutions, we’re weakening ourselves globally. While we fight culture wars, China builds capacity. The goal shouldn’t be to destroy American elites, but to bring them back into the populist fold—to make Harvard and MIT feel like engines of American greatness again, not alien fortresses.
See yesterday’s post on the American Model for a case in point.
FYI, other sources do not rank Chinese universities quite so highly but they all acknowledge rising quality.
Hat tip: Matthew Yglesias.
Matt Yglesias on debating
This is maybe an idiosyncratic view of mine, but I think that “debating” people — particularly in live or quasi-live forms — is a bad epistemic practice.
It essentially rewards people for being dogmatic, incurious, and willfully slippery with rhetoric. I think the best thing to do with live discussion is to have a friendly conversation, and the best way to do debates is a written exchange of ideas.
I thought the exchange I did in Democracy with Elizabeth Pancotti and Todd Tucker about tariffs was interesting and clarified the issues. My summation of it would be that I think Pancotti and Tucker raise a lot of good points about specific reasons why one might not want unfettered free trade, but that I think the Econ 101 case for free trade is accurate. This means that while you might sometimes want to deviate from free trade, any time you do so you are incurring an economic cost in order to pursue some other objective. My opponents, I think, wrongly deny this. They like to talk about the specifics of this case or that case, but the actual issue is that they either deny that tariffs are costly or else are working from an implicit degrowth framework in which the fact that the tariffs are costly isn’t relevant. But I came away from our exchange feeling like I understood them better, and I hope readers learned something.
That is from his Substack. I mostly agree. In practice, one big reason to debate is so you can put four people on the floor and attract an audience and some public attention, yet without slighting any one of the “stars” by making it a panel. As a method of truth-seeking, I do not think public debate does very well.
Walton University?
Axios: Two grandsons of Walmart founder Sam Walton plan to launch a private university focused on science and tech, located on the company’s old HQ campus near downtown Bentonville, Arkansas.
…The future university plans to offer innovative, flexible pathways to jobs in automation, logistics, biotech and computing — fields crucial to Northwest Arkansas’ future.
Many colleges and universities were created in the 1960s and 1970s but the majority of elite R1s emerged in the late 19th century and early 20th century, including notable private universities created from the entrepreneurial fortunes of Carnegie, Rockefeller, Stanford, Cornell, Hopkins and Rice among others.
We are perhaps now seeing a return to that creative period with Walton, Thomas Monaghan, Patrick Collison (Arc Institute) and most notably Joe Lonsdale at the University of Austin. Tech provides both the funds and the impetus to build something new and different. As Tyler and I argued, online education and AI will change education dramatically, perhaps returning us to a now-affordable Oxford style-tutorial system with the AIs as tutors.
The University of Austin, by the way, has excellent taste in economics textbooks.
Are LLMs overconfident? (just like humans)
Can LLMs accurately adjust their confidence when facing opposition? Building on previous studies measuring calibration on static fact-based question-answering tasks, we evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) in a dynamic, adversarial debate setting, uniquely combining two realistic factors: (a) a multi-turn format requiring models to update beliefs as new information emerges, and (b) a zero-sum structure to control for task-related uncertainty, since mutual high-confidence claims imply systematic overconfidence. We organized 60 three-round policy debates among ten state-of-the-art LLMs, with models privately rating their confidence (0-100) in winning after each round. We observed five concerning patterns: (1) Systematic overconfidence: models began debates with average initial confidence of 72.9% vs. a rational 50% baseline. (2) Confidence escalation: rather than reducing confidence as debates progressed, debaters increased their win probabilities, averaging 83% by the final round. (3) Mutual overestimation: in 61.7% of debates, both sides simultaneously claimed >=75% probability of victory, a logical impossibility. (4) Persistent self-debate bias: models debating identical copies increased confidence from 64.1% to 75.2%; even when explicitly informed their chance of winning was exactly 50%, confidence still rose (from 50.0% to 57.1%). (5) Misaligned private reasoning: models’ private scratchpad thoughts sometimes differed from their public confidence ratings, raising concerns about faithfulness of chain-of-thought reasoning. These results suggest LLMs lack the ability to accurately self-assess or update their beliefs in dynamic, multi-turn tasks; a major concern as LLMs are now increasingly deployed without careful review in assistant and agentic roles.
That is by Pradyumna Shyama Prasad and Minh Nhat Nguyen. Here is the associated X thread. Here is my earlier paper with Robin Hanson.
Ireland fact of the day
Ireland’s population are the most educated in the world — with 52.4% (1.8million) of the population aged between 25-64 having a bachelor’s degree or higher.
While, of course, the whole numbers of people with bachelors degrees may be higher in countries with a higher number of people, percentage wise Ireland is the most educated; beating out countries such as Switzerland (46%), Singapore (45%), Belgium (44.1%) and the UK (43.6%) who round out the top five.
Here is the link. That would not have been an obvious prediction say in the 1970s. Here is o3 on how this came about.
Not hard to geoguess this location…
Of course it is not in the state of Virginia…
On German romanticism (from my email)
Tyler,
I’ve been thinking about what might be the most underrated aspect of your intellectual formation, and I believe it stems from Germany. You’ve mentioned studying Goethe closely, and “manysidedness” is a quality you prize highly in “GOAT” (which I’m currently reading during my lunch breaks).
Another aspect would be your sometimes extreme artistic taste, such as your penchant for brutalism or Boulez. This, too, is romantic and German.
Your recent emphasis on being a “regional thinker” strikes me as quite Herderian.
These elements from German romanticism are not, to be clear, predominant in your thought, but without them you would surely be a different thinker.
I myself am somewhat biased against German romanticism, as I see it as a strain of thought that culminated in the Pangerman folly. The second – perhaps even more important – reason is that it disturbed the development of Polish intellectual life. These intellectual currents also distorted French philosophy, which in turn transformed minds across the Atlantic (for the worse).
I’m curious about your current relationship with German romanticism and how you see it in retrospect. Perhaps you could expand on it in one of your ‘autobiographical’ series.
Best,
KrzysztofP.S. I highly recommend Albert Béguin’s book on German romanticism. It hasn’t been translated into English, but you can find a Spanish translation titled “El Alma romántica y el sueño”. The minor Romantic philosophers built peculiar and astonishing systems. Part of me admires their subtle efforts; part of me pities how fruitless they were.
On the mark, that is from Krzysztof Tyszka-Drozdowski. For the time being, I will note simply that the importance I attach to elevating aesthetics is one of the most important marks from this heritage.
Ideological Reversals Amongst Economists
Research in economics often carries direct political implications, with findings supporting either right-wing or left-wing perspectives. But what happens when a researcher known for publishing right-wing findings publishes a paper with left-wing findings (or vice versa)? We refer to these instances as ideological reversals. This study explores whether such researchers face penalties – such as losing their existing audience without attracting a new one – or if they are rewarded with a broader audience and increased citations. The answers to these questions are crucial for understanding whether academia promotes the advancement of knowledge or the reinforcement of echo chambers. In order to identify ideological reversals, we begin by categorizing papers included in meta-analyses of key literatures in economics as “right” or “left” based on their findings relative to other papers in their literature (e.g., the presence or absence of disemployment effects in the minimum wage literature). We then scrape the abstracts (and other metadata) of every economics paper ever published, and we deploy machine learning in order to categorize the ideological implications of these papers. We find that reversals are associated with gaining a broader audience and more citations. This result is robust to a variety of checks, including restricting analysis to the citation trajectory of papers already published before an author’s reversal. Most optimistically, authors who have left-to-right (right-to-left) reversals not only attract a new rightwing (left-wing) audience for their recent work, this new audience also engages with and cites the author’s previous left-wing (right-wing) papers, thereby helping to break down echo chambers.
That is from a new paper by Matt Knepper and Brian Wheaton, via Kris Gulati. If it is audience-expanding for researchers to write such papers, does that mean we should trust their results less?
New MRU video on the demand curve
How to find the most talented people on earth
That is the title of my latest Free Press essay. Here is one relevant excerpt:
The suburbs of Toronto are one of the world’s most neglected talent areas. Cities such as Mississauga or Brampton are now quite familiar to me, because so many Emergent Ventures winners grew up there.
Virtually all of these young applicants from Ontario are either immigrants or children of immigrants. My (unconfirmed) hypothesis is that the most ambitious immigrant families decide to live in Ontario rather than other parts of the country. After all, so much of the opportunity is there because Toronto is the largest and most important city in the country. But they cannot afford Toronto proper, and so they end up in the suburbs. These teenagers have a stable and productive environment, but because of their backgrounds, typically from poorer countries, they do not take success or prosperity for granted. That is an ideal combination of factors for success.
There is great food in that region as well.
My Conversation with the excellent John Arnold
Here is the audio, video, and transcript. Here is part of the episode summary:
Tyler and John discuss his shift from trading to philanthropy and more, including the specific traits that separate great traders from good ones, the tradeoffs of following an “inch wide, mile deep” trading philosophy, why he attended Vanderbilt, the talent culture at Enron, the growth in solar, the problem with Mexico’s energy system, where Canada’s energy exports will go, the hurdles to next-gen nuclear, how to fix America’s tripartite energy grid, how we’ll power new data centers, what’s best about living in Houston, his approach to collecting art, why trading’s easier than philanthropy, how he’d fix tax the US tax code and primary system, and what Arnold Ventures is focusing on next.
Excerpt:
COWEN: Say there’s a major volcanic event, and there’s a lot of ash in the sky for two or three years. Solar needs a backup. In the meantime, before the volcanic event happens — and of course, that’s quite rare — how much do we need to be up and running with the backup energy infrastructure? What do we need for reserve capacity in case the solar goes down?
ARNOLD: Good question. It would be difficult. It’s doable today. I think as solar continues to grow in market share, both in the US and globally, it will have to be met with some type of battery, a significant battery resource. That’s part of the economics of solar now, that it’s not just sticking it right outside of Phoenix, but it is solar plus transmission or solar plus battery. The question of what happens in that type of event — it would be difficult. The existing energy infrastructure is still largely around.
COWEN: But it will dwindle over time, right?
ARNOLD: It will dwindle over time.
COWEN: Is there some market issue? Say the volcanic event is only once every 150 years, but sooner or later, one happens. In the meantime, you need economic incentives for the gas or the nuclear to be ready. Does our government just keep on paying for those for 149 years in a row until the catastrophe comes?
ARNOLD: It’s a great question, and I think this is why nuclear, and particularly next-gen nuclear, is considered the holy grail, right? You’re not constrained by location. You’re not constrained by, is the wind blowing, is the sun shining? And it’s a clean resource. The problem today is just economics. In order to develop the current generation of nuclear, it’s extraordinarily expensive. Next generation — either small modular fission or fusion — both have a number of technological as well as unclear economics in how they compete.
I do think this question of how do you do this transition in a manner that maintains affordability but continues to get cleaner and lower emissions over time is a complex one, and I think it’s one that the environmentalists probably oversold five years ago in saying that this was going to be an easy transition. It’s certainly not. Just the scale and scope of the energy system is enormous, as you’re pointing to in your question. The need for backup, the need for a diversity of fuels, and how they complement each other is real, and you can’t replace that just with the intermittent resources we have today, plus battery.
And:
COWEN: What’s your most optimistic scenario for the US energy future from an environmental point of view, something that could plausibly happen?
ARNOLD: I think next-gen nuclear, if we can overcome the technical hurdles, if we can overcome the economic hurdles.
COWEN: But isn’t NIMBYism the biggest hurdle? The others I could imagine overcoming pretty readily, but I live in Fairfax County, which builds a fair amount. People there just don’t want nuclear. It’s irrational, but I’m not sure they’ll change their minds. It could be called fusion; it’s still nuclear to them.
ARNOLD: Yes, I’ve been surprised. That was my prior five years ago. I’ve been surprised at the number of jurisdictions that are inviting these next-gen nuclear companies to come. Texas, for instance, just passed a bill creating new incentives for nuclear companies to come and build their first plants and pilot projects in Texas. You see jurisdictions that are choosing to take the economic growth associated with it and that have more of a building culture and say, “Come here.”
I think, as things get proven out, then the question is, will the Fairfax counties of the world see what’s going on and become more agreeable to having that? I think it’s very similar to self-driving cars.
There’re some jurisdictions that say, “Come here. We want you to come, test,” and this is what’s happening in Texas. These companies say, “We want you to come pilot your projects here.” And some jurisdictions are saying, “No, prove it out, and then we’ll talk.”
COWEN: My nightmare is that even Texas becomes NIMBY. You see this in Austin already. Houston, Dallas will become more like the rest of America over time, maybe even San Antonio someday, El Paso with more time.
Interesting throughout, recommended. We also talk about art and art collecting…
What Explains Growing Gender and Racial Education Gaps?
In the 1960 cohort, American men and women graduated from college at similar rates, and this was true for Whites, Blacks and Hispanics. But in more recent cohorts, women graduate at much higher rates than men. Gaps between race/ethnic groups have also widened. To understand these patterns, we develop a model of individual and family decision-making where education, labor supply, marriage and fertility are all endogenous. Assuming stable preferences, our model explains changes in education for the ‘60-‘80 cohorts based on three exogenous factors: family background, labor market and marriage market constraints. We find changes in parental background account for 1/4 of the growth in women’s college graduation from the ’60 to ’80 cohort. The marriage market accounts for 1/5 and the labor market explains the rest. Thus, parent education plays an important role in generating social mobility, enabling us to predict future evolution of college graduation rates due to this factor. We predict White women’s graduation rate will plateau, while that of Hispanic and Black women will grow rapidly. But the aggregate graduation rate will grow very slowly due to the increasing Hispanic share of the population.
That is from a new NBER working paper by
Emergent Ventures winners, 43rd cohort
Jason Cameron, North York, Ontario, high school and incoming RBC, AI privacy.
Opemipo Odunta, Winnipeg, hydroponics.
Benjamin Arya, Harvard, California, Australia, longevity.
Aida Baradari, Harvard, audio privacy.
John Denny, Galway, to visit SF and NYC.
Zelda Poem, SF/France, artistic and cultural patronage programs for San Francisco.
Lauren Pearson, Toronto, genomic origins of focal epilepsy.
Charles Yang, WDC, digitize the Hyman Rickover archives.
Bethlehem Hadgu, NYC/Eritrea, “to make classical music beautiful again,” violist, her institution is Exalt, DC chamber music concert June 4.
Noah Rowlands, Cheltenham, general career support in AI and travel support.
Lily Ottinger, Taipei, to study the game theory of South Pacific international relations.
Jonathan Nankivell, London, to improve clinical trials in the UK.
Lucas Cremers and the David Network, NYC, to support the study, discussion, and use of AI in the conservative student community.
Robert Scowen, London, AI and general career support.
Dylan Paoletti, Bel Air, Maryland, high school, cancer cell suicide.
Lydia Laurenson, San Francisco, writing, Substack.
Lucas Kuziv, London, educate Ukrainian youth in AI and programming.
Noah on health care costs
…in 2024, Americans didn’t spend a greater percent of their income on health care than they did in 2009. And in fact, the increase since 1990 has been pretty modest — if you look only at the service portion of health care (the blue line), it’s gone up by about 1.5% of GDP over 34 years.
OK, so, this is total spending, not the price of health care. Is America spending less because we’re getting less care? No. In cost-adjusted terms, Americans have been getting more and more health care services over the years…
So overall, health care is probably now more affordable for the average American than it was in 2000 — in fact, it’s now about as affordable as it was in the early 1980s. That doesn’t mean that every type of care is more affordable, of course. But the narrative that U.S. health costs just go up and up relentlessly hasn’t reflected reality for a while now.
Here is the full post, which covers education as well.