Jay P. Greene's Blog

When behavioral nudges using text messages became the flavor of the month a few years ago I expressed some serious reservations. In general, I was concerned that nudges substitute the preferences of distant experts for those of people who may understand their own situation better, thereby pushing people to do things against their better judgement.  These interventions may appear successful in the short run, especially when we examine near-term outcomes that are over-aligned with the intervention, but they may harm people over the long run.

In particular, I was responding to texting nudges being advocated by Ben Castleman and others to reduce “summer melt” by getting students to complete the FAFSA and enroll in college.  I wrote:

…even if sending text messages is successful at getting more low-income students to complete the FAFSA and enroll in college in the fall, it is unclear whether this ensures a positive outcome. Students who start college but then fail to finish may be hurt by forsaking employment and other training opportunities and taking on significant debt for a credential they never earn. The students who are accepted to college but then decide not to enroll may have just been deterred by an intimidating form, as Castleman suspects, or they may know things about themselves that made them rationally decide not to pursue a degree they are unlikely to complete. The 160-character solution may unwittingly push students into making decisions that are against their better judgment and end up harming them. Castleman has not reported retention and graduation rates from the texting intervention, so we do not know whether this behavioral nudge is helping or hurting students in the long term.

Well, Ben Castleman and Lindsay Page have finally released results on the longer-term effects of their “summer melt” texting nudge and they are pretty clearly negative.  That is, students randomly assigned to receive texts to remind them to complete the FAFSA while they are seniors in high school are significantly less likely to complete an AA or BA degree than those who were not nudged into completing the forms necessary to get financial aid and enroll in college.  As can be seen in Table 10, the treatment group was 1.7 percentage points less likely to complete a BA degree in 4 years (p< .01).  The treatment group was also .8 percentage points less likely to complete an AA degree after 2 years and 1.0 percentage point less likely to complete an AA after 3 years (p < .1).

Castleman and Page then focus on the subset of subjects who were in the uAspire program and for whom they had outcomes after 6 years.  At the end of 6 years the students who were randomly assigned to receive texting nudges were 2 percentage points less likely to have earned an AA degree (p < .1) and they were no more likely to have earned a BA degree. (See Table 12).

Castleman and Page also report results on whether students already enrolled in college are more likely to complete their degrees if they are randomly assigned to receive texts reminding them to renew the FAFSA so they can continue receiving financial assistance.  As shown in Table 18, students reminded to renew the FAFSA are no more likely to complete an AA or BA degree.

So, the longer-term results of these texting nudges are generally null or negative despite initially encouraging results that the intervention got more students to complete a form and enroll in college.  The problem is likely to be exactly what I suspected.  Students were being pushed into doing things that were against their own better judgement.

Researchers and foundation officials may think everyone should enroll in college but they don’t know each student’s circumstances and are very poorly positioned to know what is best for others.  Students and the advisors (family, counselors, educators, etc…) who know them and with whom they have authentic relationships understand the context better and are more likely to make good decisions.  Technocrats are inclined to manage things from afar, but this approach is very likely to end up hurting students.

The early, positive results for texting nudges received an enormous amount of attention, including an endorsement from Bill Gates and being featured on NPR’s Hidden Brain. Given that we now know that this type of nudge intervention may harm students, I hope there is a comparable amount of attention given to the release of the longer-term negative results.  There is no shame inherent in an intervention failing, but there are serious problems if we only tout temporary successes while ignoring long-run damages.

To their credit, Castleman and Page appear to be turning their attention in their newer research to “higher-touch” interventions that may cost more but may also have a better chance of providing guidance better suited to each student’s situation.  Higher-touch interventions also seem to acknowledge that success for students typically requires much more than a reminder or some information.  To succeed students need character traits that will help them make better decisions for themselves over and over as life presents an endless string of challenges.  To shape character requires human interaction and meaningful relationships.  That’s something that a “bot” or text message simply cannot do.

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

The Oklahoman carries my op-ed on why collective bargaining is a bad deal for teachers:

Teachers are like doctors and lawyers. Standardizing the work they do into a one-size-fits-all mold creates major headaches. But collective bargaining demands standardization, so processes and outputs can be negotiated.

The standardization demanded by collective bargaining is a major factor in all the complaints we’re accustomed to hearing from public school teachers — useless paperwork, unreasonable rules, rigid systems, dysfunctional bureaucracy. In a 2009 study of national data from the U.S. Department of Education, I compared public and private school teachers. The difference in teacher working conditions was dramatic.

Remember, you read it here first!

Rick Hess is releasing his EduScholar ranking tomorrow and we should expect a flurry of tweets and even university press releases bragging about people’s position on that measure. Even though Rick’s ranking (for which I serve as a nominating committee member) is a completely made up thing that has never been validated, people within our field act like it is incredibly important and care intensely how they are ranked.  I suspect that Rick knows this and that the ranking is epic-level trolling on his part.

But the field’s over-reaction to this unimportant ranking is a sign of its obsession with celebrity-worship. Even though almost no one outside of a few hundred people within our field cares about who we are or what we do, the folks within the field are crazed with a desire to have status and power in this universe that no one else even notices.  It’s as if we are in high school and everyone is obsessed with being accepted by the small circle of cool kids.  No one outside of your high school knows or cares who the cool kids are, but to those in the high school it feels like the most important thing in the world.  This is pretty much what education policy and other social sciences look like.

This excessive concern with status within our field is both the result of and contributor to a series of problems.  In economics, which seems the most afflicted with celebrity-worship, we see power and status concentrated in a small number of people within a small number of departments.  That small clique effectively controls the top journals in the field, dominates the main professional association, and has disproportionate influence over who is hired and tenured at those few departments.

Not surprisingly, this concentration of unchecked power leads to a variety of abusive behaviors.  People at the top of this status system can more easily maintain their power and help their friends, which is not only grossly unfair but also hinders a truly meritocratic pursuit of the best people, ideas, and research.  In addition, because those at the top are predominantly white and male, this strict status system excludes women, minorities, and all other newcomers who may differ from those with greater power.  And this concentration of unchecked power has also likely contributed to sexual harassment, intellectual theft, exploitation, and generally rude behavior.

Many people are beginning to speak out about these abusive behaviors.  There were several panels at the most recent ASSA meeting to document these issues and discuss what to do about them.  While this is all very encouraging, I fear that people may be missing what I suspect is the heart of the problem.  We can’t fix abusive and anti-intellectual behavior in social science by replacing a male-dominated status hierarchy with a more gender balanced system that still concentrates status and power so severely.  We suffer under a good old boy system, but we would continue to suffer even if they thought they were good, were women, and much younger.  The problem is the unchecked concentration of power and status.

I think we would be much better off if control over the main journals and professional associations was dispersed outside of a small number of people at a small number of institutions.  Boards for journals and professional associations tend to be self-replicating bodies that draw from the same incestuous pool.  They should consider adopting by-laws or at least norms that push them to consider finding new members outside of their familiar, friend and colleague circles.  It would also be helpful for professional associations and journals to adopt real grievance procedures so that intellectually dishonest or personally abusive behavior could be considered with due process and treated with appropriate sanctions.  My personal experience is that this is not happening.

But even more important than changing association and journal rules and procedures, we need to abandon the culture of celebrity worship.  No one in education policy or other social sciences is actually that important.  At most they are King of the Lilliputians.  At worst they are folks who were excluded from the in-groups in high school now taking their revenge by terrorizing those beneath them.  For the most part, no one in the outside world cares about who we are, what journals we publish in, what rankings we get, etc…  None of us are celebrities.

People at the top of our status system only have power because we have given it to them by acting like they are celebrities and that their position really matters.  The solution is the same as when we were in high school.  The only way to avoid being terrorized by the in-group is to stop caring about the in-group.  They just don’t matter.  Form your own chess club, play D&D, and ignore the football team and cheerleaders.

So when Rick’s ranking comes out, have a good laugh and think about how much those who are striving to be at the top of some silly list are wasting their lives. When high school is finished no one will remember or care that they were once really cool.

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

OCPA carries my article on why collective bargaining hasn’t been a good bargain for K-12 teachers:

I’m not against unions. My wife worked for a union for years, volunteering long hours as an employee advocate in company dispute resolution. She signed up to work for the union when she saw managers mistreating workers, and the company violating its contractual obligations to them. The union was the only effective protection those workers had.

But collective bargaining and representation simply isn’t a good fit for K-12 teachers. Not all types of workers are well-served by unionizing. Doctors and lawyers don’t unionize. The nature of the work they do just doesn’t permit the standardization, controlled processes, and highly specified work outputs that are necessary for collective bargaining to be effective.

Let me know what you think!

Update: Also worth noticing: “our regression results indicate that unionization has a powerful negative influence on educational outcomes.”

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

OCPA carries my article on racism in public schools:

Robinson’s case attracted wider attention, threatening to make the system look bad. So, Robinson was able to get permission from the guardians of the government school monopoly to transfer her grandchildren out of Edmond North.

But most cases of racism, harassment, and bullying don’t make media headlines. Those families are stuck. They have to keep sending their children to school to be preyed upon, day after day.

Don’t listen to me, listen to Robinson: “The students still there, they feel helpless, they feel like their hands are tied and they just have to tough this out,” she told KFOR. “No kid should have to tough it out.”

This is just one of many reasons all parents ought to have school choice:

America continues the struggle to build a genuinely pluralistic society. That means overthrowing the continuing power of racism, our great national original sin. To pursue the American principles of equality and freedom, we must labor diligently to dismantle the structures of racial oppression.

The government school monopoly was created in the 19th century to consolidate the power of social elites. They wanted to homogenize what was, in their eyes, an unacceptably diverse population. A society where differences are valued can only emerge when the monopoly they built is broken.

Let me know what you think!

The blog has been a little empty lately and your shopping carts may be too full, so I thought I would share some songs you might like that you’ve probably never heard before.  Consider it my gift to you.

First up, we have this beautiful song by the Vulgar Boatmen.  I wrote a blog post before about how great this band is (was), but I didn’t mention this gem.  It’s called There’s a Family.  Here is the studio version:

Here is a live version from a club concert in the early 90s.  I’m not sure which version I enjoy more.

Next we have the “Twee” band Allo Darlin’.  It’s probably that I’m getting old, but I don’t mind a sweet pop song, especially these vulnerable and heartfelt pieces:

You’ve probably heard the Kinks’ song, Strangers, but I bet you haven’t heard this cover by Lucius before:

This Tiny Desk Concert by Lucius is also pretty amazing.  I especially enjoy around the 12 minute mark when they are asked if they would play one more song and they then scavenge through the desks to find items to use for percussion while playing Genevieve.

These aren’t quite Matt’s punk or heavy metal covers, but I hope you enjoy them anyway.

It was a very crowded field of excellent nominees for this year’s Al Copeland Humanitarian Award. In total there were 8 nominees (two of whom shared the honor): Leo Moracchioli, Richard Garfield, Elizabeth Vandiver, Eric Lundgren, Adam Butler and Autumn Thomasson, George Henry Thomas, and Joy Morton.

Of all of these worthy individuals, Joy Morton best exemplifies the way in which Al Copeland improved the human condition.  Morton, like Copeland, promoted good by doing well.  As Collin noted in his post, Morton sought a competitive advantage for his salt company by adding iodine and advertising the health benefits of doing so.  It was known at the time that small amounts of iodine could prevent goiters, which were a widespread and damaging problem throughout America’s heartland. But no one was doing anything about this until Morton saw a way to make money from adding iodine to people’s diet.

It was later learned that iodine is crucial to healthy brain development.  By adding iodine to salt, Morton reduced cognitive disabilities among those with the lowest access to iodine in their diet, raising IQs by one full standard deviation in that population. Collin emphasized how much good Morton achieved through his profit-seeking enterprise relative to what has been achieved by billions in non-profit expenditures:

One. Standard. Deviation. Countless foundations have invested countless dollars to achieve impacts a fraction of that size in [a] tiny fraction of the population – and most have failed. Morton accomplished it all with table salt.

Al Copeland similarly improved the human condition through a profit-seeking enterprise.  Rather than prevent goiters and raise IQs, Copeland satisfied our desire for spicy chicken.  And both efforts have in common a significant reliance on salt.

Leo Moracchioli shares with Morton and Copeland the fact that he makes money from his humanitarian activities.  Making heavy metal covers on Youtube brings plenty of joy to his followers as well as money to his pocket.  And Matt was right to note the importance of “disintermediation” in producing this and other positive developments.  But it is hard for fun music to compare with preventing goiters and raising IQs let alone to providing spicy chicken.

Ben Ladner’s personal and well-written nomination of Magic: The Gathering’s creator, Richard Garfield  was also compelling.  But like my previous nomination of D&D promoter, Gary Gygax, Garfield falls short.  As much as I identify with and root for the Geek tribe, their amusement and acts of solidarity do not rise to the level of improving the human condition like spicy chicken does.

My nomination of Elizabeth Vandiver also falls short.  Promoting awareness of human nature through understanding of Classical Mythology is enormously important work, but Vandiver reaches too few people to make enough of a difference.  If only our schools thought this was an important part of their job and made use of Vandiver’s materials, it might be a different story.

Greg had several nominees.  We may have to consider a rule regarding whether an individual can have multiple nominees in a single year and whether multiple people can share a nomination.  In any event, Greg’s nomination of Eric Lundgren was excellent but it felt more like a Higgy nomination for Bill Gates. Making use of old computer parts is indeed noble, but the way Microsoft sought to block it shows that profit-seeking enterprises can also promote bad while doing well.  The nomination of Adam Butler and Autumn Thomasson for providing legal assistance to lemonade stands while also making a profit selling lemonade also sounds like a Higgy nomination for the PLDDs who seek to shut those stands down. Lastly, George Henry Thomas is also a very worthy nominee for his demonstration of true patriotism and understanding that victory can only be achieved when one’s opponent admits defeat.  Thomas’ example is actually in keeping with Daniel Pipes’ more recent promotion of the Israel Victory Project.  While victory can only be achieved by the admission of defeat by one’s opponent, Thomas actually failed at achieving that, as Greg concedes.  Some Southerners continue “The Cause” to this day, so it is now our responsibility to complete what Thomas started.

Fortunately, because we are goiter-free and enjoy elevated IQs we are now positioned to pursue the total defeat of The Cause, rocking on YouTube, playing games with other Geeks, understanding human nature, and fighting PLDDers of all sorts.  For this we owe a debt of gratitude to Joy Morton and award him the 2018 Al Copleand Humanitarian Award.

We had so many excellent nominees for The Al this year that I need some extra time to select the winner.

Our nominees include Leo Moracchioli, Richard Garfield, Elizabeth Vandiver, Eric Lundgren, Adam Butler and Autumn Thomasson, George Henry Thomas, and Joy Morton.

As you enjoy your candy you can review all of these nominees and await the announced winner tomorrow.