After reading this article on education policy, I decided to subscribe to American magazine. About 40% through the article, I thought I’d share it, but I didn’t love it. Once it challenged vouchers, I felt my viewpoints changing. My takeaway: minimizing risk by centralized control has the same costs in education that it does in other parts of society. I’ve liked their writing so much that I will make this offer: if you are a friend of mine and would appreciate a subscription, I will gladly pay for 8 months for you.
Two small posts into one:
- An exchange about health care from Marginal Revolution. I haven’t seen it addressed from quite this angle.
- The Dems move left from NYT via Mankiw. I wish the NYT piece would give more space to the critics of the move, because those are the voices I want to hear (want heard).
- Democrats and trade Not as interesting as the previous, but still saddening to me.
This was the beginning of the post:
Democracy in America would be a lot better if it included the entire article in their feed. They do make catchy headlines and I couldn’t resist a few. I’ll try to give you better summaries than they do me.
- McCain’s Problem McCain is more of a maverick now than he was in 2000, and while that makes him unpopular, It’s refreshing.
Meta-post:I wrote the part above before realizing I didn’t want to pass on any of the other 4 posts that seemed appealing, thus confirming my wish that they gave more information about the post in the feed.
Over at Freakonomics, they discuss how different their viewpoints on the world are. I used to read both. Then I started doing other things with my time, like reading Freakonomics Blog.
P.S. I just caught up on blogs (marked half of them as read, so here begins a torrent of short posts)
Here is a long, interesting article about the SAT. It is so long because it is a well presented argument, I believe. Thus it is hard for me to give you any sort of summary. I found it convincing, but then again, I find lots of things convincing. Your thoughts? I’ll leave you with an interesting aside paragraph in the article:
The cognitive stratification of American society—for that’s what we’re talking about—was not a problem 100 years ago. Many affluent people were smart in 1907, but there were not enough jobs in which high intellectual ability brought high incomes or status to affect more than a fraction of really smart people, and most of the really smart people were prevented from getting those jobs anyway by economic and social circumstances (consider that in 1907 roughly half the adults with high intelligence were housewives).
It’s been a long absence, but we’ll have to test title’s hypothesis at a later date. I’ve had a busy summer. As an aside, I’m close to the 29th person to come up with this title. We’ll start back up with a little Mankiw. He’s got an article in the New York Times tomorrow about the progressiveness of the tax code. It’s a lot like his original post about Warren Buffet saying he doesn’t pay enough taxes.