I’ve done some work in Education Faculties once or twice, and it may be that the particular backgrounds of education academics don’t lend themselves readily to using statistical methods to inform policy debates – ie educational psychologists tend to focus on micro-problems (and that’s not a criticism), while some of the policy folk have come out of a teaching and administration background and don’t have a lot of training in higher-end stats. Some projects I’m aware of have in effect bought in statistical expertise, but maybe we’re back at the desirability of collaboration point here!

Kim, you point out (correctly) that educationalists do use social science techniques. But I attended an interesting lecture a couple of years ago by William Becker – an editor of the Journal of Education Economics – that bemoaned the low standard of technique used, and the subsequent prevalence of results that are simply wrong but which have entered into educationalists’ conventional wisdom. Now Becker may or may not be right (he had an entertaining range of horror stories to cite), but it seems to me that confidence in this sort of “wisdom” does benefit from scrutiny from expert people outside the field. Both statisticians and social psychologists have done a lot of that in economics, f’rexample, with considerable effect.

And yes, Tom N. is right. Non-economists consistently underestimate the methodological (not just econometric) sophistication of good economists. Maybe because economics is a field almost as ill-served by its popularisers as evolutionary biology.

Riverview obviously did a wonderful job on People Skills Abbott.

Private schools pride themselves on forming rounded and civilized citizens.

This is something I think seems to have been forgotten in much of the education debate. The valuable role of education in forming a civilized society, and that education is more than just preparing people for the next step in life. Primary school focuses on preparing students for secondary school, secondary school focuses on tertiary education; and university focuses on creating graduates that industry are looking for. Like many other facets of life in today’s world the focus has become about the next few years at the cost of greater value over the long term. Moving towards a systematic rating of teacher performance will focus on what is easily measurable, the distinct and immediate improvements in students abilities, at the cost of the long term investment of a broad and quality education.

I’m troubled by the ever-earlier ages at which kids are forced to specialize (now barely halfway through secondary education).

I don’t know that it’s ever-earlier. Perhaps it got later and then got earlier again. But I was forced by the system to make an absolutely clear-cut Arts/Sciences choice at fifteen, at the end of what’s now Year Ten; that was in 1968/9, and it was the same for everyone. And I have regretted it ever since.

Physicists and their unions will rant and rail that astrological tools are applied to their discipline but, let’s face it, they lack the mathematical skills of astrologers.

1. Like that other great science, economics, astrology created its own prize, called it a Nobel and encouraged everyone to treat it as a genuine Nobel Prize.

Contary to the glowing endorsements by the usual LP suspects in the comments thread, this post is a simplistic rant that reflects a deep ignorance of the subject being attacked.

They [astrologers] don’t seem ever to stop and pause to think that – maybe, just maybe – the real world might be stickier and messier than astrological charts suggest.

Really? Any evidence or relevant experience? As an astrologer, my extensive experience is that we think about this sort of thing consistently when preparing charts and/or interpreting chart results.

Or that people who’ve worked in this field might have produced insights that complicate the important task of reducing everything to planetary movements. Or that their baseline assumptions which shape the hypotheses they formulate might be open to disputation if viewed from another perspective.

Again, any evidence or experience? In asking this, please don’t presume that astrologers not taking on board the findings of other researchers or perspectives is the same thing as astrologers not considering the merits of those findings or perspectives. As an astrologer, I have often consider the merits of viewpoints put by, for instance, psychics and numerologists on matters I’ve worked on. Its just that they’re not always particularly pertinent, enlightening or convincing.

For instance, the unquestioned assumptions that Venus exerts a generally benign influence on individual destiny…

This is not an assumption of astrology, questioned or otherwise. Ever heard of “Venus in Scorpio” for instance, which you’ll find discussed in any first year astrology text?

Occasionally there might be a minor tack to the left when the good ship astrology collides with the shoals of, you know, reality, but no amount of wind will shake her off her true course.

Whether that is the case or not, Kim has certainly demonstrated enough ignorance about astrology to indicate that her view on this matter is not credible.

Turning to Dave’s point about forced specialization: I don’t know about his specific proposals, but I do think there has to be away for people of intelligence and goodwill to engage in a cross-disciplinary fashion – without spouting rot. I’m thinking here of Robert Manne writing an entire book (Shutdown) on economic policy when he clearly knew nothing about said economic policy. Economics is not particularly hard, although mathematical/statistical facility clearly helps. It’s certainly not rocket science or epidemiology.

I didn’t (and still don’t) know much about sociology, but I’ve picked Mark’s brains at various times for reading material and learned a great deal. Surely Dave’s right that a good quality general tertiary education will – if you’re patient – allow you to learn about other disciplines and appreciate their particular strengths an weaknesses. That said, David Zyngier’s comments about Andrew Leigh’s research betray a worrying inability to grasp even the basics of what Andrew’s trying to achieve. So maybe not.

Contary to the glowing endorsements by the usual LP suspects in the comments thread, this post is a simplistic rant that reflects a deep ignorance of the subject being attacked.

They [economists] don’t seem ever to stop and pause to think that – maybe, just maybe – the real world might be stickier and messier than shiny statistical modelling suggests.

Really? Any evidence or relevant experience? As an economist, my extensive experience is that we think about this sort of thing consistently when doing modelling and/or interpreting modelling results.

Or that people who’ve worked in this field might have produced insights that complicate the important task of reducing everything to numbers. Or that their baseline assumptions which shape the hypotheses they formulate might be open to disputation if viewed from another perspective.

Again, any evidence or experience? In asking this, please don’t presume that economists not taking on board the findings of other researchers or perspectives is the same thing as economists not considering the merits of those findings or perspectives. As an economist, I have often consider the merits of viewpoints put by, for instance, sociologists and demographers on matters I’ve worked on. Its just that they’re not always particularly pertinent, enlightening or convincing.

For instance, the unquestioned assumptions that competition is a good…

This is not an assumption of economics, questioned or otherwise. Ever heard of “wasteful competition” for instance, which you’ll find discussed in any first year economics text?

Occasionally there might be a minor tack to the left when the good ship Economics collides with the shoals of, you know, reality, but no amount of wind will shake her off her true course.

Whether that is the case or not, Kim has certainly demonstrated enough ignorance about economics to indicate that her view on this matter is not credible.

a powerful argument in favour of better attention to in-depth, multi-disciplinary education

Three cheers from me!!!

I’m troubled by the ever-earlier ages at which kids are forced to specialize (now barely halfway through secondary education). Thankfully, I was at a school where most of the better science/maths students were almost all pushed to Latin and/or French, although by year 12 I was hauled before the principal who wanted me to choose between arts and sciences. He shut up when I said “Private schools pride themselves on forming rounded and civilized citizens. You should be pleased I’m both”.

Personally, I’d argue that an extra year (or two) of secondary education before university is necessary to provide an in-depth, multi-disciplinary education. Fat chance that’ll happen though.

I very much doubt Dr Leigh believes in the kind of magic you are talking about.

“The problem Dr Leigh is going to have – and one he seems to be beginning to understand with his worry that his writing gets attacked – is that he doesn’t have enough friends.” “…if you can’t actually get the huge machine of schooling working for you, your econometrics don’t count.”

If that is truly your view, then why so much attention?

IMO, Dr Leigh is doing exactly what more economists (and academics from other disciplines for that matter) should be doing – getting their research out into the public domain and encouraging discussion. Not everyone is going to agree with that research, but isn’t that precisely the point?

“Do economists have some additional insight those who’ve actually laboured in the fields to which they turn their gaze don’t?”

Well, no. And yes. Conventional wisdom from within a field is conventional for reasons other than truth or accuracy. Sometimes the objectives with those inside a field are not perfectly aligned with the wider world. Opinions based on research from experts in other fields should be encouraged. Where the conventional wisdom turns out to be correct, such outside opinions can serve to firm conventions up. Where it is wrong, it can be further challenged and changed.

However, you have made arguments that there will be health implications from timeshifting these pre-scheduled birth interventions. Those arguments simply do not stand up. The ease with which pre-scheduled birth interventions can be delayed indicates that they are routinely performed needlessly early, and the speculation that delaying birth interventions will lead to “overcooked” babies is simply embryologically unfounded.

We’d be happy to continue debating this with you in the appropriate thread over at Hoyden, as this thread was going in very interesting directions about education, and it shouldn’t be derailed.

My guess is that the specific issue with tigtog and laurelhed has more to do with form than substance.

Coming from someone who just lectured me by email about “politeness”, this is astonishingly, colossally rude. I have put an enourmous amount of substantive, informed reasoning and data to you, at length, and you have waved the lot away and dismissed it as being all about me being “cross” and “impolite”, and now as being all about “form”?

Wow. Just wow.

Less I be misconstrued as advocating ‘throw more money it’ I support the notion that increased spending on education should be rationally and strategically directed. That would also apply to the public education bureacracy with its penchant for new and improved TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms) with every change of Minister which chew up increasing amounts of resources in wheel-reinvention and red-tape box-ticking.

However, it is obvious that the public system has been systematically starved for more than a decade, and as with starvation, some immediate relief is required as well as longer term strategies for sustainable food production. Paying teachers more to attract and keep the best and brightest, and upgrading buildings and equipment are no brainers hardly requiring extensive academic and economic analyses. We need to at least establish a sustainable baseline for ongoing viability.

A fully competitive free market approach to education can only produce winners and losers – the best teachers and resources go to the private sector, further entrenching advantage and disadvantage. As a nation and civil society we need to do better than that, both in terms of social equity and bottom-line economic well-being.

What should be our approach to the early years development of our children?

What can be done to reduce the wide variations in outcomes and school effectiveness?

What should the “public commitment” to education be? Can “public” education only be delivered through “public” schools?

What can we do to ensure the highest quality teachers at all stages of the system, and for all subjects?

What can be done to extend participation in adult learning to those with the greatest learning needs and lowest participation rates?

What options are there for funding the education system, given the complexities of federalism?

How does an economy with low private investment in research and development innovate?

What can be done to ensure that Australia attracts and retains the most talented, creative and highly skilled people?

What can be done to foster innovation in the workplace and encourage the transfer of ideas across businesses?

What kinds of collaboration can best connect scientists to others in the economy?

What kinds of differences could the developing digital economy make right across the education lifecycle?

How can we continue to improve student retention rates at secondary school?

* I’d like to think I’m not all that easy to pin down ideologically on education. I do think we should run randomised trials of merit pay schemes, but I’m not 100% sure it’ll work. Similarly, I’d advocate some ideas traditionally associated with the left: raise the compulsory school leaving age to 17, give more funding to ensure low-SES schools can hire great teachers, and pay Indigenous kids a weekly stipend to attend school (or at least trial it). Oh, and I spent a week last year arguing the left-wing perspective on private schools in a 2007 debate with Andrew Norton. A major part of my research is on inequality, and it’s really what animates my thinking about schools.

* Ed Sector, my favourite US education thinktank, recently ran a conference on the role of teacher unions in education reform. I’d like to do something similar in Australia at some point. We’re not going to achieve anything significant in Australian education without getting union leaders, and members, on board.

* My guess is that the specific issue with tigtog and laurelhed has more to do with form than substance. I’m pleased that my coauthor Joshua Gans was able to do a better job than me in engaging with their comments, and hopefully the next time we cross swords, I’ll end up being more persuasive.