Idea: Pay Students to go to school.

[BvBPL]

I disagree with your statement that Fryer's research was not science and that the research was not worth doing because the hypothesis was proven to be invalid.

The inverse would be to say that research that does not lead to positive support of a hypothesis isn't worth doing. Which would be absurd because researchers can't know the result of their studies prior to conducting them.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Only I stated that economics wasn't science after you claimed to disagree.

I also did not state that this project should not have been done, much less for the reason you stated. Now did I? I stated that the results weren't surprising.

And economics isn't science, regardless of what some economists and others wish to believe.

It’s easy to understand why economics might be mistaken for science. It uses quantitative expression in mathematics and the succinct statement of its theories in axioms and derived “theorems,” so economics looks a lot like the models of science we are familiar with from physics. Its approach to economic outcomes — determined from the choices of a large number of “atomic” individuals — recalls the way atomic theory explains chemical reactions. Economics employs partial differential equations like those in a Black-Scholes account of derivatives markets, equations that look remarkably like ones familiar from physics. The trouble with economics is that it lacks the most important of science’s characteristics — a record of improvement in predictive range and accuracy.

This is what makes economics a subject of special interest among philosophers of science. None of our models of science really fit economics at all.

But economics has never been able to show the record of improvement in predictive successes that physical science has shown through its use of harmless idealizations. In fact, when it comes to economic theory’s track record, there isn’t much predictive success to speak of at all.

Moreover, many economists don’t seem troubled when they make predictions that go wrong. Readers of Paul Krugman and other like-minded commentators are familiar with their repeated complaints about the refusal of economists to revise their theories in the face of recalcitrant facts. Philosophers of science are puzzled by the same question. What is economics up to if it isn’t interested enough in predictive success to adjust its theories the way a science does when its predictions go wrong?

Unlike the physical world, the domain of economics includes a wide range of social “constructions” — institutions like markets and objects like currency and stock shares — that even when idealized don’t behave uniformly. They are made up of unrecognized but artificial conventions that people persistently change and even destroy in ways that no social scientist can really anticipate. We can exploit gravity, but we can’t change it or destroy it. No one can say the same for the socially constructed causes and effects of our choices that economics deals with.

For the foreseeable future economic theory should be understood more on the model of music theory than Newtonian theory. The Fed chairman must, like a first violinist tuning the orchestra, have the rare ear to fine-tune complexity (probably a Keynesian ability to fine-tune at that). Like musicians’, economists’ expertise is still a matter of craft. They must avoid the hubris of thinking their theory is perfectly suited to the task, while employing it wisely enough to produce some harmony amid the cacophony.

 

[BvBPL]

A clearly labeled opinion piece from some professor is hardly a "legitimate news source".

...or for that matter, a definitive statement on the nature of a discipline.

The reader will note that the Rosenberg op-ed cited above is principally focused on the macroeconomic predictive power of the dismal science. This clearly contrasts with the pedagogical research conducted by Fryer. Whether or not any failure on the macroeconomic side of economics necessarily impeaches the application of the discipline to pedagogical questions is a decision left to the reader.

In considering that question, I suggest that Rosenberg has misidentified the core essence of science. Rosenberg focuses on the predictive powers of science, but science is not prognostication. Science instead is a system of how to ask questions. In science a question, or hypothesis, is posed and it is challenged by research designed to answer that question. That's the essential element to science, the scientific method. While science may be used to make predictions, it is not the essential premise of that system. Here, Fryer used rigorous controls and tests to ensure that his study meet with the standards established by the scientific method.

In some disciplines, such as Newtonian physics as pointed out by Rosenberg, continued research utilizing the scientific method results in a body of knowledge capable of making accurate predictions. The application of the scientific method to other disciplines results in a weaker ability to make predictions, but this in no way makes the application of the scientific method less valid nor the research less scientific.

Furthermore, I remind the reader that the predictive power of early and preliminary research is limited. Early research into a topic cannot be expected to develop a hearty and indefeasible predictive model. Instead, early research into a topic is more frequently used to raise interesting questions and provide a body of work from which future robust predictive theories can be built. Newtonian physics is predictable in part because there is a healthy body of previous research. The reader may find that Fryer's research was a just such a preliminary study.

As a post script, readers may be interested to know that I am not alone in believing that Rosenberg's view of science may not be in line with that of the population, general, intelligentsia, or academic.

 

[Kyriakos]

Hm...

It might be a good idea, but obviously things are running to the entirely opposite direction (eg uni fees in England started to exist in 1998- first year of my studies - and at the time they were around 1000 pounds/year, which is not that little, but not that much either (for example a small studio apartment in a good area in London would easily cost a bit over 700 pounds per month).

By now iirc the uni fees in England are up to nearly 10.000 pounds/year. So yeah, the situation is getting horrible. There were large student riots when the new increases were put to law, a couple of years ago.

 

[forcedalt]

I kind of like the idea , but , the world might not be ready for it. The United States was being thought of in this. I am just going to come out and say it : not every parent in the U.S was actually cut out to be a parent. I don't know where it comes from , but , you see a lot of people with kids that : really don't want kids ,and , seem like : they never wanted kids. An odd paradox for sure , considering the mass prevalence and awareness of birth control/abortions , but , i digest.
I think the cases of parents keeping (stealing?) the money would be way more common than the OP implies , and , in these cases , the parent(s) might be making more frivolous purchases than : their children would. It might even backfire in that : children might under perform at school to spite their parent(s) for spending their stipend on mobile apps ,and , candy bars.
While its true $50bil has been blown on worse ideas than this : there are still better places that $50bil could be sunk into. Its being downplayed more so than a few years ago , but : unemployment/underemployment/homelessness are still rampant. If an extra $50bil was just laying around (which , it really isn't) it could go to better use helping some adults improve their dire situations.
All my griping aside , i could still get behind this if : the dollar amounts were seriously reduced. Lets say : $10 per month for grades 6-8 ,and $20 for 9-12, making the amount just piddly enough that its "more under the radar" and , less tempting for a parent to justify confiscating the stipend , but , still enough where : a kid could get something cool if : they saved it up through a school year ,which : could also get them thinking of a long term goal. Saved through an entire year , it could be enough for : a gaming system , or , folding money for "summer pimpin" ,but , if they fall off during the year , it could derail those plans , causing them to : make a better go of it the next.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

I do not agree.

1. That is a lot of money, and that is not government's role. We already cannot afford what the government is spending - it is not "free money" as alleged above.
2. If kids are not motivated to do well in school by themselves and parents, all they are going to do is sit in the classroom and take the money, and/or take easy classes/teachers to get better grades.

I have a high school son. It is MY job to provide proper encouragement for him, not the government.

 

[Whomp]

Hmm toto
With two kids in selective enrollment programs in Chicago public schools I can tell you neither has any interest in money as a motivator. However, give them two extra hours away from homework(or video lectures on khan academy at home and instruction/homework in class) and they would be "all in".

 

[Hygro]

We already cannot afford what the government is spending

That's an astonishing claim. You can try to prove it here.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=520826

edit: unless you mean local government specifically.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

As a nation, you cannot continue to mount debt on our future generations, and hope it will work out in the end. Personally, I own three businesses, and making ends meet is not easy. Also, as I said, it is not the job of the government to motivate students - that is the job of their family.

Besides, the effect of this plan is not necessarily positive. Two examples:

1. I coach youth sports. I had a player, who by age 12, had a business cleaning yards and doing chores. By the time he is 18, he likely will have a permanent sucessful business.
2. I know someone who by age 20, while in school, had a business building and repairing computers.

Neither of them would be helped by this plan.

 

[Tahuti]

As a nation, you cannot continue to mount debt on our future generations, and hope it will work out in the end. Personally, I own three businesses, and making ends meet is not easy. Also, as I said, it is not the job of the government to motivate students - that is the job of their family.

It is true for local governments, though debt works differently for governments with monetary policy powers than individuals and governments that lack this kind of power.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

They may have different monetary options, but that does not mean that debt can be magically wiped away. Leverage is not infinite.

 

[Hygro]

As a nation, you cannot continue to mount debt on our future generations, and hope it will work out in the end.

We 're having a whole thread about it. Go there and make your case, BDB!

 

[Bulldog Bats]

It certainly is one the issues:

1. Is it the government's job?
2. Assuming it is, is there a way to do it that will not create more/worse problems?
3. Will it work?

Unless the answer to all three questions are, without dispute, a yes, then it is a lousy idea.

 

[Hygro]

Sure, but you're also claiming that there's a scarcity of money which is a very curious claim indeed, one that could sidetrack the entire thread into a discussion of the nature of money and sovereign debt. Good thing we have such a thread, still active, in the link provided.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

Well, I am still waiting for someone to show me where in the Constitution it gives the government that authority, as well as my claim as to whether it would work.

 

[Formaldehyde]

As a post script, readers may be interested to know that I am not alone in believing that Rosenberg's view of science may not be in line with that of the population, general, intelligentsia, or academic.

Nope. You are certainly not alone in not understanding the difference between science and economics. The reluctance of the latter to give up their pet theories even when faced with overwhelming evidence they are completely false puts much of it into the realm of fantasy more suited to phrenology, tarot cards, and horoscopes. Many people have the very same false impressions based on their lack of understanding of science and the scientific method.

This is a common problem which is quite deliberately exacerbated. Many different academic disciplines try to give the false impression that what they do is science, instead of mere speculation on their part to try to give their work more credibility. But those who study the philosophy of science are not so easily fooled, as the article I posted makes quite clear.

Here is an article which is probably more suited to the layman:

10 reasons why economics is an art, not a science

“Why did God invent economists?”

“To make weathermen feel good about themselves.”

That’s a quip from David Rosenberg, former chief economist at Merrill Lynch who is now working at Gluskin Sheff, the wealth management shop. He delivered it during a meteorological presentation to a room full of asset economists during the annual Shadow Federal Reserve and Fishing Trip, where I was last week. David Kotok hosts this shindig every year at Leen’s Lodge in Grand Lake Stream, Maine. Known informally as Camp Kotok, it runs during the weeks before the Fed’s big Jackson Hole conclave.

As an investor, I spent much of this time seeing what I could learn from these students of the economy. The good news is that economists are intelligent, engaging and often charming folks. The bad news is their work is often of little use to investors.

Longtime readers know this is an area of interest to me. Way back in 2009, I gave 10 reasons why economists missed the crises. In the intervening years, I have watched the field of economics with a growing skepticism.

Perhaps one day the answer to the question “Why did God invent economists?” will be: “To help us stop making so many bad financial decisions.”

 

[Bulldog Bats]

And I am still waiting for an answer to the constitutional issue - what gives the federal government the power to do this?

 

[BvBPL]

The Department of Education Organization Act says the D of E was established to promote the general welfare. So the enabling act would arguably extend to such a program under the promotion of general welfare.

That said, promoting general welfare generally falls under a state's police powers and there is not general police power granted to the federal gov't. As such, an alternative justification would need to be found.

Such justification may be found in the Commerce Power to the extent that the education of various students throughout the nation has a cumulative effect upon the general interstate commerce and economy. Which it certainly does. Indeed, the fact that we are talking about disbursement of funds certainly would be bring it under the commerce power as the effect of giving students cash would certainly have an effect on interstate commerce.

That said, primary and secondary education has largely been treated as a local issue. If such a plan were to be rolled out, it would likely need to be a on state by state and locality by locality basis. That would probably do more to the tradition of education being a local issue than an inability of the federal government to act. As such, the ultimate barrier to a federal program would be more tradition than a lack of authority.

Nope. You are certainly not alone in not understanding the difference between science and economics.

The fact that I have a different opinion than you in no way impeaches my ability to understand the issue. I find your statement that I do not comprehend the relationship of science and economics to be unwarranted and offensive.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

I would think the tenth amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people) is certainly more relevant. If not, then the Dept. of Education could do anything under the guise of "promoting the general welfare" - mandate uniforms, mandate prayer, mandate every student take auto shop.

And yes, the Commerce Clause has been abused in that way before, but our job is not to torture the language of the Constitution to address a perceived wrong. What today DOESN'T affect interstate commerce? Going to a restaurant results in trucks bringing food to the restaurant over the interstate highways, so my choice of dinner is subject to federal control?

 

[KmDubya]

Motivating student to do well in school is the responsibility of parents not the government.

I believe that you could get much better results in education if you allowed schools to maintain discipline in the classroom and removed unruly students from the environment. Put all of the bad apples in the same basket where they would not degrade the education of the rest of the class. You could then implement different protocols with the unruly and try and change their behavior. If they were unreachable then at least the number of educational failures would be decreased.

On the constitutionality of giving the government the power to do this that ship sailed a long time ago. The constitution says whatever someone wants it to say. With the commerce clause and promoting general welfare anything and everything is allowed. The ability to expand power and authority by the central government was written into the document, the whole limited government bit was a lie. There was a reason the Jefferson was sent away to France while the constitution was being drafted.