Posts Tagged With: Uncategorized

What’s the benefit of having a low admission rate?

Posted on
All other things being equal, what's the benefit of having a 20% admission rate vs. an admission rate that's 30% or higher? The classic reason I can think of is that selectivity signals a school's quality, but that's poorly correlated to a school's actual quality. 1. The school can be more choosy about removing potential discipline problems, and rejecting marginal students like children of alumni that can't cut it. This is beneficial because these students have spillover effects and bring down the total amount of learning. However, at most selective schools, around 80% of the applicants are academically qualified to do the work. 2. The "school pride" argument - because it was tougher to get in, students feel better about themselves for getting in, and the increased confidence helps them out later in life. Alumni also give more money, which may be linked to better education. Tenuous. 3. The quality of student research, etc. will go up because the students are more talented. This assumes that if a school is more selective, it's because it's getting better quality applicants to apply, not just large numbers of people at the tail end of the distribution. There is a positive spillover effect from being around other talented people, like in Italy in the 1500's. However I assume that if our school didn't admit these talented people, they would be admitted someplace else; they are zero-sum. I'm not terribly convinced. On the flip side, my guess is that a lower admissions rate enforces homogeneity among the student body; the cost of diversity rises when you can admit fewer applicants, and schools can't take as many high-risk, high-reward students on. Am I missing anything? Selectivity may indicate that the economy's doing well, because students can afford application fees and lots of them want to go to higher education. But on the flipside it means more students are not getting into their first choice school. The arguments get more tenuous

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Studying what’s really important

Posted on
It's midterm season at CMC. When teachers ask "Which material would you like me to cover again?" for the review session before the midterm, students choose topics poorly, in my opinion. They want to choose the topic that maximizes the following: Importance of Studying Topic = (Difference between How Much I know & How Much I should Know) * (Proportion of exam score based on this material). Unfortunately in my experience students don't consider the final term, what's likely to be on the exam, and pick only the most difficult or obscure topics to cover in the review, unless they can successfully play the game of "What's going to be on the exam?" and get the teacher to concede that some topics will not be covered (and if you are one of the students who plays this game, know that I despise you). This skews impressions of how hard the class is, students' later perceptions of the class, and also what material students spend their time and energy focusing on (beware teachers!). The key is to maximize the above difference; make sure you know every 20-point question pat on a 100-point exam. The problem is that the teacher is simultaneously trying to maximize total student learning and the differences between students' performance on the exam (for ranking purposes). The weights on these values will determine the ultimate shape of the exam; they probably have big enough incentive to offer one question on a really difficult subject, to differentiate the students. As long as the other students are focusing on the extremes, you are in good shape if you can get the main topics down 100%. Of course if you're going for an A, you need to have a great grasp of everything but if you're shooting for a B you shouldn't be spending much time on the extreme cases.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Entourage Review (SPOILERS)

Posted on
I know that HBO has renewed this for another season but honestly where can the show go from here? The characters aren't that interesting anymore. Eric is a successful agent and getting married (and the whole subplot with Ashley was pretty weak anyway; she wasn't even close to competing with Sloan). Vince has been successful, unsuccessful and back to successful (and we've hardly even seen him this season, as the writers realized that he's not interesting anymore). Drama is retiring from the acting business, after a final up-yours from Hollywood. Ari owns the biggest agency in the city and has already turned down the only position that would make him more powerful. Honestly, the only two characters that are interesting anymore are Lloyd and Turtle, as we saw during this season, because they got more airtime than any other characters. But now their plotlines are resolved: Turtle's done with Jamie Lynn Sigler and Lloyd is working with Ari as an agent. So honestly, where can the show go from here, besides to re-hash material it's already covered? 1. Drama becomes a syndicated chef 2. Turtle uses his business degree to become the biggest drug dealer in Los Angeles, and the show turns into him vs. Mexican gangs in brutal wars for turf (Entourage: The Streets of LA) 3. Eric cheats on Sloan (which he did before, in Season 3, but there is no other way to make a married man interesting) 4. Better yet, Sloan cheats on Eric with one of the other guys on the show. I don't think that the guys in this show have ever competed for women, been jealous, grown apart or tried to steal each other's girlfriends. This is suspicious. 5. Vince wants to start acting in plays, off-Broadway (? Im really struggling for ideas here) 6. Now that Ari owns everything he funds a vanity project featuring a star actor, a hot-shot agent and his entourage, in a meta-meta-Entourage. Anyway, the show will have to go someplace radically different in season 7. I respect shows like Extras and the Wire for ending when they ran out of things to cover. A friend of mine wanted to see a sequel to District 9 but honestly where can that story go? Matrix 2 and 3, anyone? Sometimes it's best just to end things when they reach a natural stopping point.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Terminal 3 at Heathrow

Posted on
heathrow A captive audience is valuable; firms and shop owners around the globe work desperately to get people to give them "just 10 seconds." This is why Super Bowl commercials are so pricey; they're shown to a huge audience of captive viewers. That said, Terminal 3 at Heathrow Airport takes the cake for the biggest consumer trap in the world. If Swoopo.com is in the lowest circle of rent-seeking hell, Terminal 3 is in the one just above it. It's the only airport terminal I've ever seen where the rents are so high that even McDonald's can't compete. Terminal 3 does one simple thing that I've never seen at any other airport: they don't tell you what gate your flight leaves from until a few minutes before you're supposed to board. The passengers have to sit in the terminal lobby, in front of all the duty free shops, until their plane's ready (for me, this was 4 hours). And these are rich, international passengers, Saudi oil princes and high-power business executives, in the world's busiest layover. There's nothing to do in this lounge that doesn't involve spending money, besides using the bathroom. People are generally ready to spend money in airports; Terminal 3 has all of the popular upscale Western brands (all the alcohol you want, D&G, Burberry etc), and travelers might have forgotten to get gifts while abroad. Furthermore, the "duty free" tag is a popular lure, even though the pound and the high rents pretty much eliminate any savings from buying there. I'm surprised, and grateful, that this business model hasn't spread to other airports.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

The benefits of smoking and prostitution

Posted on
Monogamy may not be the most natural arrangement of man and woman. Sebastian Horsley slept with over 1300 prostitutes, and finds the arrangement satisfactory:
The great thing about sex with whores is the excitement and variety. If you say you’re enjoying sex with the same person after a couple of years, you’re either a liar or on something. Of all the sexual perversions, monogamy is the most unnatural. Most of our affairs run the usual course. Fever. Boredom. Trapped. This explains much of the friction in our lives—love being the delusion that one woman differs from another. But with brothels there is always the exhilaration of not knowing what you’re going to get. The problem with normal sex is that it leads to kissing and pretty soon you’ve got to talk to them. Once you know someone well the last thing you want to do is screw them...What I hate are meaningless and heartless one-night stands where you tell all sorts of lies to get into bed with a woman you don’t care for. The worst things in life are free. Value seems to need a price tag. How can we respect a woman who doesn’t value herself? When I was young I used to think it wasn’t who you wanted to have sex with that was important, but who you were comfortable with socially and spiritually. Now I know that’s rubbish. It’s who you want to have sex with that’s important. In the past I have deceived the women I have been with. You lie to two people in your life; your partner and the police. Everyone else gets the truth. [...] Having an instinctive sympathy for those condemned by conventional society, I wanted to cross the line myself. To pay for sex is to strip away the veneer of artifice and civilisation and connect with the true animal nature of man. Some men proudly proclaim that they have never paid for it. Are they saying that money is more sacred than sex? But one of the main reasons I enjoy prostitutes is because I enjoy breaking the law—another reason I don’t want brothels made legal. There is a charm about the forbidden that makes it desirable. When I have dinner every evening in Soho I always think: isn’t scampi delicious—what a pity it isn’t illegal. I’m sure I am not alone in this. Even Adam himself did not want the apple for the apple’s sake; he wanted it only because it was forbidden.
Then, Michael Skapinker writes about the social (and economic) benefits of cigarettes:
But I have not been able to track down any research on one of the most striking aspects of workplace smoking groups: their heterogeneous make-up. Companies spend money on activities such as Outward Bound adventures and cookery classes, hoping to encourage bonding between different departments. Smokers already cross those boundaries. Look at any group congregating for a cigarette: you will see senior executives and security guards, marketing and IT support. Does smoking produce business benefits? "There's no doubt in my mind that it inspires cross-departmental collaboration," one FT commercial manager (and smoker) told me. "You get to know people who you otherwise wouldn't, and get a feel for what they do. If you've half a spark of creativity about you you'll doubtless stumble across an idea you hadn't thought of before. It also allows for the 'off the record' conversations between departments that grease the wheels of business. I'd be pretty lost without them."
Smoking is also an excellent social bonding tool - you consume the cigarette for a fixed amount of time, but unlike a drink there's a culture of borrowing and lending smokes and a lighter. Furthermore, it gives you something to do while you talk, which is important for guys. If you drink all the time while you talk your drink is done within about five minutes. In foreign countries, try to find a friend who smokes (who can introduce you) although expect dirty looks when women realize that you yourself don't indulge. We should probably take pause before judging or condemning those who smoke or frequent the whorehouse.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Links for the day

Posted on
Why the 24-hour media cycle is rewarding outrageous, dumb comments by politicians. WashPo wants average people to write short opinion pieces, and put the winning entry on its opinion page. Or the writers could, you know, start blogs. I hope Jim Henley's entry wins. Costco's focus on providing excellent products at low prices, explained. Which city will win the Olympics? I use "win" loosely - it's an expensive boondoggle that most residents can't afford. After Cash for Clunkers ran out, auto sales fell off a cliff.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Dan Brown dominates the field

Posted on
From the Guardian, Dan Brown's new book sold 550,000 copies last week. The next best hardcover fiction book sold shy of 7,000. I read the Da Vinci code in about four hours; if I read it any slower, I would start thinking about it, and that's a bad thing. I figure the optimal time for reading a complete Dan Brown book is around two hours.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Can we please stop talking about Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh?

Posted on
Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are not worth getting fired up about. They are not even worth a post saying "Look at the latest outrage from these two." Because it's their job to do outrageous stuff. As I've said before it's not their job to find the Truth, or argue fairly, or have a consistent set of beliefs, or even represent conservative views. Their job is to make money by attracting as many viewers or listeners as they can. And they've found a very successful formula for doing this; tell a story of fear, communism, and populist economics that has little base in reality, and which gives people a warped view of the world. While I can't blame people for wanting to be entertained, and feel a little better about their political group at the expense of another group, it's a shame that people fit the opinions espoused by Beck and Limbaugh into their worldview. But when Megan McArdle, Ezra Klein or Andrew Sullivan post about the latest outrage by these guys, I don't believe that they are helping anything. The people who already follow Beck and Limbaugh aren't going to be swayed, and for everyone else you're merely preaching to the choir. I am surprised that they seem surprised by the antics of Limbaugh, Beck and the rest of the Fox News crew. Beck et al. boil frogs on live TV because they want attention; the antics drive viewers, and profits, to their shows (and that's what they are - "shows"). The problem goes deeper than the pair of talkers; for the majority of people in the United States, politics are a form of entertainment; there's no money riding on false, or hurtful beliefs. That is, people have no incentive to believe in policies that work. We're not going to change that, or the ability of the Becks & Limbaughs to thrive unless something happens that changes politics as entertainment. Update: Limbaugh's response to David Brooks's critical column, "You're jealous," pretty much sums it up.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

The NFL: The not-so-rosy view from the top

Posted on
Athletes spend their whole lives working out and trying to make it to the big leagues; what happens when they do? Over 78% of NFL players are bankrupt two years after leaving the NFL. Furthermore, having spent their whole lives having things handed to them on a silver plate they're unprepared to work in other careers. How do they go bankrupt? Bill Simmons knows, in my favorite column that he wrote.
"Wait, how can a dude making $8-10 million a year live paycheck to paycheck?" Easy. First, he's only banking 40 percent once the IRS and agents are done with him. Second, he's probably overpaying for multiple houses and luxury cars just to keep up with everyone else. Third, he's buying expensive clothes and dinners, chartering planes, buying expensive TVs, going to casinos, and paying for friends and family at every turn. Fourth, there's a decent chance he's supporting a bunch of people back home -- family and extended family -- and not just that, but he might have gotten roped into funding at least one dumb "investment" by a loser family member. ("Uncle Lenny, I thought you told me this nightclub couldn't miss?") Fifth, he is, um, "dating" frequently -- even if he's married -- and if you "date" frequently, mistakes might happen that lead to hospital bills and child support payments. (If you catch my drift.) And sixth, he's not adding these numbers up in his head because he's thinking, "I don't need to worry about money, I'm making $10 mil a year!" I know it sounds farfetched, but I've heard the Inexplicable Tale Of Financial Woe with NBA stars too many times to count … and that doesn't include stars such as Scottie Pippen who were screwed by their financial advisers.
The flipside is that thousands of people cheer for you, and you have had everything handed to you up until the point you leave the league. After that, good luck with the concussions, lack of education and financial troubles. Hope you don't end up like Lenny Dykstra.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.