Category: Education

Does studying economics and business make students more conservative?

College education is a key determinant of political attitudes in the United States and other countries. This paper highlights an important source of variation among college graduates: studying different academic fields has sizable effects on their political attitudes. Using surveys of about 300,000 students across 500 U.S. colleges, we find several results. First, relative to natural sciences, studying social sciences and humanities makes students more left-leaning, whereas studying economics and business makes them more right-leaning. Second, the rightward effects of economics and business are driven by positions on economic issues, whereas the leftward effects of humanities and social sciences are driven by cultural ones. Third, these effects extend to behavior: humanities and social sciences increase activism, while economics and business increase the emphasis on financial success. Fourth, the effects operate through academic content and teaching rather than socialization or earnings expectations. Finally, the implications are substantial. If all students majored in economics or business, the college–noncollege ideological gap would shrink by about one-third. A uniform-major scenario, in which everyone studies the same field, would reduce ideological variance and the gender gap. Together, the results show that academic fields shape students’ attitudes and that field specialization contributes to political fragmentation.

That is a recent paper from Yoav Goldstein and Matan Kolerman.  Here is a thread on the paper.

Two things that really matter

When analyzing the macro situations of countries or regions, I place more stress than many people do on the following two factors:

1. Human capital: How much active, ambitious talent is there?  And how high are the averages and medians?

2. Matching market demands: Are you geared up to produce what the market really wants, export markets or otherwise?

Those may sound trivial, but in relative terms they remain undervalued.  They are, for instance, the biggest reasons why I do not buy “the housing theory of everything.”

They are also, in my view, the biggest reasons why the UK currently is in economic trouble.  Both #1 (brain drain) and #2 have taken a hit in recent times.  The UK continues to deindustrialize, business consulting is not the future, and London as a financial centre was hurt by 2008, Brexit, and superior innovations elsewhere.  More and more smart Brits are leaving for the US or Dubai.

You also will notice that #1 and #2, when they are in trouble, are not always easily fixed.  That is why reforms, while often a good idea, are by no means an easy or automatic way out of trouble.

These two factors also are consistent with the stylized fact that growth rates from the previous decade are not so predictive of growth rates for the next decades.  Human capital often drives levels more than growth rates.  And matching market demands often has to do with luck, or with shifting patterns of demand that the supplying country simply cannot match.  Once people abandon Toyotas for Chinese electric cars, Japan does not have an easy pivot to make up the loss.

Most other theories of growth rates, for instance those that assign a predominant weight to institutions, predict much more serial correlation of growth rates than we find in the data.  That said, institutions do indeed matter, and in addition to their usual effects they will shape both #1 and #2 over the longer run.

Overall, I believe conclusions would be less pat and economic understandings would be more effective if people paid greater attention to these factors #1 and #2.  Not putting enough weight on #1 and #2 is one of the biggest mistakes I see smart people — and indeed very smart people — making.

Addendum: You will note the contributions of Fischer Black here.  Apart from his contributions to options pricing theory, which are widely known, he remains one of the most underrated modern economists.

Emergent Ventures winners, 50th cohort

Geby Jaff, Berkeley, publication medium for AI-generated science.

Laura Ryan, London, data for the AIs.

Tara Rezaei, MIT, general career support/AI/o1.

Mihir Rao, Princeton, bio and AI.

Lorna MacLean, London, AI medical diagnosis of endometriosis.

David Yu, Waterloo, Ontario/Taiwan, fellowship program for agentic Taiwanese college students.

Aniket Panjwani, Lombard, Illinois, EconNow, AI-based software for economics.

Zixuan (Eric) Ma, GMU, to write about China.

Ivan Khalamendyk, Lviv, “I’m an independent Ukrainian physicist developing a ψ-field model of the universe – a single real wave ψ(x,t) that reproduces quantum matter, forces and gravity.”

José Luis Sabau, Mexico City, Perpetuo, Substack for Mexico.

Soleil Wizman, Yale University, longevity.

The Dells add to Trump Accounts

I wrote that Trump Accounts Are A Big Deal. These accounts give U.S. citizen’s born between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028, $1000 invested in a low-cost, diversified U.S. stock index fund. Well, the accounts just got bigger. Michael and Susan Dell are donating $6.25 billion to seed accounts with $250 for children born before Jan. 2025, up to ten years of age:

The Dells have committed to seed Trump accounts with $250 for children who are 10 or under who were born before Jan. 1, 2025. According to Invest America, the pledged funds will cover 25 million children age 10 and under in ZIP codes with a median income of $150,000 or less.

“We want to help the children that weren’t part of the government program,” Dell said.

Emergent Ventures Africa and the Caribbean, 7th cohort

Leila Character, Assistant Prof. at Texas A&M, for a project using hyperspectral-imaging drones for archaeological research in Belize.

Nour Bou Malhab, Lebanon, for promoting classical liberal thought throughout Lebanon and across the Maghreb.

Isaac Akintaro, Nigeria/England, computer science PhD Candidate, for travel to San Francisco

Nikita Greenidge, St. Lucia/England, PhD in Surgical Robotics, for a startup using AI to improve surgical techniques in the Caribbean.

Michael Konu, Ghana/USA, for bioengineering research on virtual cells and for career development.

Waldo Krugell, South Africa, Prof. at North West University, for a project improving economics education for South African high-school students.

Edmund Trueman, to develop a digital archive to showcase Congolese comics.

 Justin Sooknanan, Trinidad & Tobago, undergrad electrical engineering, travel grant to UK and for career development.

Temitope Johnson, Nigeria/South Africa, for designing a phototherapy device for neonatal jaundice treatment.Mmesomachi Nwachukwu, Nigeria, for running a national training program preparing students for the International Mathematical Olympiad.

Jibrin Jaafaru, Nigeria, PhD candidate,  for travel to the United States to pursue a bioinformatics fellowship

Ollie Sayeed, PhD UPenn, historical linguist, for research evaluating the effectiveness of malaria interventions in Africa

Shreya Hegde, for drone-mapping and route-optimization work in Kenya.

Jan Grzymski, Assistant Professor at Lazarski University, to run a summer program introducing Caribbean scholars to Poland’s transition from communist rule to a market-driven economy.

Arun Shanmuganathan, Rwanda, to support mathematics training at the African Olympiad Academy.

Samiya Allen, Barbados, undergrad electronics, travel grant to UK for robotics training and career development.

Rose Mutiso, Kenya, PhD UPenn in materials science, to create the African Tech Futures Lab, to improve policymaking on energy technologies.

Darren Ramsook, Trinidad & Tobago, Postdoc at Trinity College Dublin, for research on AI-driven video compression.

Cheyenne Polius, St. Lucia, for work on astro-tourism and space education in the Caribbean.

I thank Rasheed Griffith for his excellent work on this, and again Nabeel has created excellent software to help organize the list of winners, using AI.

Those unfamiliar with Emergent Ventures can learn more here and here. The EV African and the Caribbean announcement is here and you can see previous cohorts here. If you are interested in supporting this tranche of Emergent Ventures, please write to me or to Rasheed.

Education Signaling and Employer Learning Heterogeneity

An interesting paper based on an idea:

We investigate the implications of heterogeneous employer learning on education signaling and workers sorting across industries. In the equilibrium of our model, higher-ability workers join industries with faster employer learning speeds, resulting in a matching distortion of workers and industries. In addition, our results are robust to varying degrees of asymmetric employer learning, and establish that industry choice itself serves as a signal of worker ability. Finally, our theoretical approach suggests a novel perspective on a heretofore neglected labor market puzzle, i.e., why few of the richest individuals have obtained higher degrees of education.

That is from Yuhan Chen, Thomas Jungbauer, and Michael Waldman.  Via the excellent Kevin Lewis.

Against We

The excellent Hollis Robbins:

I propose a moratorium on the generalized first-person plural for all blog posts, social media comments, opinion writing, headline writers, for all of December. No “we, “us,” or “our,” unless the “we” is made explicit.

No more “we’re living in a golden age,” “we need to talk about,” “we can’t stop talking about,” “we need to wise up.” They’re endless. “We’ve never seen numbers like this.” “We are not likely to forget.” “We need not mourn for the past.” “What exactly are we trying to fix?” “How are we raising our children?” “I hate that these are our choices.”

…“We” is what linguists call a deictic word. It has no meaning without context. It is a pointer. If I say “here,” it means nothing unless you can see where I am standing. If I say “we,” it means nothing unless you know who is standing next to me.

…in a headline like “Do we need to ban phones in schools?” the “we” is slippery. The linguist Norman Fairclough called this way of speaking to a mass audience as if they were close friends synthetic personalization. The “we” creates fake intimacy and fake equality.

Nietzsche thought a lot about how language is psychology. He would look askance at the “we” in posts like “should we ban ugly buildings?” He might ask: who are you that you do not put yourself in the role of the doer or the doing? Are you a lion or a lamb?

Perhaps you are simply a coward hiding in the herd, Martin Heidegger might say, with das Man. Don’t be an LLM. Be like Carol!

Hannah Arendt would say you’re dodging the blame. “Where all are guilty, nobody is.” Did you have a hand in the policy you are now critiquing? Own up to your role.

Perhaps you are confusing your privileged perch with the broader human condition. Roland Barthes called this ex-nomination. You don’t really want to admit that you are in a distinct pundit class, so you see your views as universal laws.

Adorno would say you are selling a fake membership with your “jargon of authenticity,” offering the reader membership in your club. As E. Nelson Bridwell in the old Mad Magazine had it: What do you mean We?

…If you are speaking for a very specific we, then say so. As Mark Twain is said to have said, “only presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms ought to have the right to use we.”

I could go on. But you get the drift. The bottom line is that “we” is squishy. I is the brave pronoun. I is the hardier pronoun. I is the—dare I say it—manly pronoun.

I agree.

My excellent Conversation with Cass Sunstein

Cass was in top form, and so we went on for almost two hours.  In his Substack he described it as “The most fun interview I have ever done.”  Here is the audio, video, and transcript.  Here is part of the episode summary:

Tyler and Cass discuss whether liberalism is self-undermining or simply vulnerable to illiberal forces, the tensions in how a liberal immigration regime would work, whether new generations of liberal thinkers are emerging, if Derek Parfit counts as a liberal, Mill’s liberal wokeism, the allure of Mises’ “cranky enthusiasm for freedom,” whether the central claim of The Road to Serfdom holds up, how to blend indigenous rights with liberal thought, whether AIs should have First Amendment protections, the argument for establishing a right not to be manipulated, better remedies for low-grade libel, whether we should have trials run by AI, how Bob Dylan embodies liberal freedom, Cass’ next book about animal rights, and more.

I will reproduce the section Cass pulled for his own Substack:

COWEN: Now, we started with the topic of liberalism. How is it you think about or characterize the liberalism of Bob Dylan?

SUNSTEIN: Bob Dylan is a liberal. His liberalism is captured in the line, “He not busy being born is busy dying.” I hope he’s immortal, but if anything is on his epigraph, that would be a good candidate.

The notion of self-invention, of freedom, is central to basically everything. His refusal to keep singing the same song — you can hear him talking about it in some of the interviews. He said, “I could do that. I could just do that forever. I knew how they’d react.” He said, “What’s that about?” He said, “I needed to do something else.” But of course, the line, “I needed to do something else” — that’s my line. How he would put it would be much more vivid and surprising than that.

His “Like a Rolling Stone” is an anthem of freedom. I heard it, actually, in concert a few years ago. It was a great performance. It wasn’t young, but it was a great performance. The audience went wild when he did “Like a Rolling Stone.” That was the final song. It was the encore. It wasn’t just because it was the greatest rock song ever written. It was because of how he did it. I thought, “What’s going on in this song? Why is everyone exhilarated?” The song, which he described when he wrote it as vomit, hatred directed at somewhere that was real — it wasn’t that, or it was a little bit that, but it was a song of liberty.

“How does it feel to be on your own with no direction home, like a complete unknown, like a rolling stone?” Everyone felt like they were flying. He makes that — “Like a Rolling Stone” — be a song of freedom. If you look at his angry songs — “Positively 4th Street” — there’s a freedom in being, of course, uninhibited, able to say things, but also a freedom of disconnection.

When he’s asked why did he change his name, I have an account of why he actually did. I think he gave it exactly once, but in his more characteristic way, he said, “This is America. You can change your name.” Then he said, “I was born. I didn’t think I was born with the right name. I could make it up. I could say that sounds more like I was.”

Making rootlessness not be a curse, but instead something that is . . . the word joy is too clichéd for Dylan. If you look at his love songs, like “If You See Her, Say Hello,” which isn’t one of my favorites, but it’s good. There’s a connection with the one he loved, who got away, but you can feel the sense of freedom.

COWEN: “Visions of Johanna”?

SUNSTEIN: Yes, completely. He’s torn. That has the great opening line. “Ain’t it just like the night to play tricks When you’re trying to be so quiet?” Did Yeats write better lines than that? Probably, but he was Yeats.

COWEN: Blood on the Tracks — a liberal album?

SUNSTEIN: Oh, yes.

COWEN: How would you express that?

SUNSTEIN: Well, I’m thinking “Buckets of Rain” is the closing song. Right before that, there’s a song, “You’re Gonna Make Me Lonesome When You Go.” That’s it, which is, I think, one of his greatest songs. That’s a liberal song of freedom and separation, that she’s going, but he’s going to see her everywhere, and there’s smiling at impermanence. That is a big liberal theme — smiling at impermanence — because impermanence makes things not routine and also makes for freedom.

COWEN: “Idiot Wind” is the angry song of the batch, right?

SUNSTEIN: Yes, it’s pretty mad. He said about that song, “I don’t know why people like it. There’s so much sadness and distress in it.”

COWEN: Do you see your own liberalism or just yourself in the liberalism of Bob Dylan?

SUNSTEIN: I think so.

COWEN: Reinventing yourself, not quite wanting to be pinned down, doing a lot of stuff.

SUNSTEIN: He likes, I think, abandoning and going on to something that’s very different. I wish I’d gone electric or had some equivalent of that. But doing something quite different — I do share a little bit with him. I like it when I think something I thought was wrong. I now am very enthusiastic about the Austrian economists and Hayek. I’ve always admired them, of course, but I didn’t feel that they were on my team. Now I feel I’ve gone to their team. I don’t feel ashamed that I was wrong before. I feel excited that I’m less wrong now.

Definitely recommended, I could have pulled out many other parts as well.  Again, I am happy to recommend Cass’s new book Liberalism: In Defense of Freedom.

Why are Mormons so Libertarian?

Connor Hansen has a very good essay on Why Are Latter-day Saints So Libertarian? It serves both as an introduction to LDS theology and as an explanation for why that theology resonates with classical liberal ideas. I’ll summarize, with the caveat that I may get a few theological details wrong.

LDS metaphysics posits a universe governed by eternal law. God works with and within the laws of the universe–the same laws that humans can discover with reason and science.

This puts Latter-day Saint cosmology in conversation with the Enlightenment conviction that nature operates predictably and can be studied systematically. A theology where God organizes matter according to eternal law opens space for both scientific inquiry and mystical experience—the careful observation of natural law and the direct encounter with divine love operating through that law.

LDS epistemology is strikingly pro-reason. Even Ayn Rand would approve:

Latter-day Saint theology holds that human beings possess eternal “intelligence”—a term meaning something like personhood, consciousness, or rational capacity—that exists independent of creation. This intelligence is inherent, not granted, and it survives death.

Paired with this is the doctrine of agency: humans are genuinely free moral agents, not puppets or broken remnants after a fall. We’re capable of reason, judgment, and meaningful choice.

This creates an unusually optimistic anthropology. Human reason isn’t fundamentally corrupted or unreliable. It’s a divine gift and a core feature of identity. That lines up neatly with the Enlightenment belief that people can use reason to understand the world, improve their lives, and govern themselves effectively.

In ethics, agency is arguably the most libertarian strand in LDS theology. Free to choose is literally at the center of both divine nature and moral responsibility.

According to Latter-day Saint belief, God proposed a plan for human existence in which individuals would receive genuine agency—the ability to choose, make mistakes, learn, change, and ultimately progress toward becoming like God.

One figure, identified as Satan, rejected that plan and proposed an alternative: eliminate agency, guarantee universal salvation through compulsion, and claim God’s glory in the process.

The disagreement escalated into conflict. In Latter-day Saint scripture, Satan and those who followed him were cast out. The ones who chose agency—who chose freedom with its attendant risks—became mortal humans.

This matters politically because it means that in Latter-day Saint theology, coercion is not merely misguided policy or poor governance. It is literally Satanic. The negation of agency, forced conformity, compulsory salvation—these align with the devil’s rebellion against God’s plan.

Now add to this a 19th century belief in progress and abundance amped up by theology:

Humanity isn’t hopelessly corrupt. Instead, individuals are expected to learn, improve, innovate, and help build better societies.

But here’s where it gets radical: Latter-day Saints believe in the doctrine of eternal progression—the teaching that human beings can, over infinite time and through divine grace, become as God is. Not metaphorically. Actually.

If you believe humans possess infinite potential to rise, become, and progress eternally—literally without bound—then political systems that constrain, manage, or limit human aspiration start to feel spiritually suspect.

Finally, the actually history of the LDS church–expulsions from Missouri and Illinois, Joseph Smith’s violent death, the migration to the Great Basin, the creation of a quasi-independent society–is one of resistance to centralized government power. Limited government and local autonomy come to feel like lessons learned through lived experience. Likewise, the modern LDS welfare system is a working demonstration of how voluntary, covenant-based mutual aid can deliver real social support without coercion. This real-world model strengthens the intuition that social goods need not rely on compulsory state systems, and that voluntary institutions can often be more humane and effective.

To which I say, amen brother! Read the whole essay for more.

See also the book, Latter-day Liberty: A Gospel Approach to Government and Politics, with an introduction by the excellent Mark Skousen.

Hat tip: Gale.

What should I ask Arthur C. Brooks?

Yes I will be doing a Conversation with him.  Here is Wikipedia:

Since 2019, Brooks has served as the Parker Gilbert Montgomery Professor of the Practice of Nonprofit and Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School and at the Harvard Business School as a Professor of Management Practice and Faculty Fellow.[2] Previously, Brooks served as the 11th President of the American Enterprise Institute. He is the author of thirteen books, including Build the Life You Want: The Art and Science of Getting Happier with co-author Oprah Winfrey (2023), From Strength to Strength: Finding Success, Happiness and Deep Purpose in the Second Half of Life (2022), Love Your Enemies (2019), The Conservative Heart (2015), and The Road to Freedom (2012). Since 2020, he has written the Atlantic’s How to Build a Life column on happiness.

Do not forget Arthur started as a professional French hornist, and also was well known in the cultural economics field during his Syracuse University days.  And more.  So what should I ask him?

Emergent Ventures winners, 49th cohort

David Yang, 14, Vancouver, robotics.

Alex Araki, London, to improve clinical trials.

Ivan Skripnik, Moldova/LA, physics and the nature of space.

Mihai Codreanu, Stanford economics Ph.D, industrial parks and the origins of innovation.

Salvador Duarte, Lisbon/Nebraska, 17, podcast in economics and philosophy.

Aras Zirgulis, Vilnius, short economics videos.

Ava McGurk, 17, Belfast, therapy and other services company and general career support.

Anusha Agarwal, Thomas Jefferson High School, NoVa, space/Orbitum.

Cohen Pert, 16, Sewanee, Georgia, running several businesses.

Jin Wang, University of Arizona, Economics Ph.D, AI and the history of Chinese economic growth.

Janelle Yapp, high school senior, KL Malaysia, general career support.

Justin Kuiper, Bay Area, Progress Studies ideas for video.

Mariia ]Masha] Baidachna, Glasgow/Ukraine, quantum computing.

Beatriz Gietner, Dublin, Substack on econometrics.

Roman Lopatynskyi, Kyiv, romantic piano music.

Eric Hanushek on the import of schooling quality declines

 My recent research at Stanford University translates the achievement declines into implications for future economic impacts. Past evidence shows clearly that people who know more earn more. When accounting for the impact of higher achievement historically on salaries, the lifetime earnings of today’s average student will be an estimated 8 percent lower than that of students in 2013. Because long-term economic growth depends on the quality of a nation’s labor force, the achievement declines translate into an average of 6 percent lower gross domestic product for the remainder of the century. The dollar value of this lower growth is over 15 times the total economic costs of the 2008 recession.

Here is the full Op-Ed, noting that Eric compares this decline to the effects of an eight percent income tax surcharge.  I have not read through this work, though I suspect these estimates will prove controversial when it comes to causality.  In any case, file this under “big if true,” if only in expected value terms.