Game Theorist

My thoughts on tech & education

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:29:00 +0000

Apple recently got lots of press for its move into textbook publishing, but the attention was secondary to another, more significant, announcement made a few weeks earlier. On January 3, Khan Academy announced that Vi Hart would be moving to Mountain View and joining its team.

The Khan Academy, founded by Salman Khan (a former hedge fund manager), is a not-for-profit, online venture that is currently revolutionizing K-12 education. If you want to know how, here is the obligatory TED video. With over 4 million unique users each month, the Kha Academy is attracting high-profile attention, including funding from the Gates Foundation.

Vi Hart is lesser known but her engaging videos explaining mathematics have been viewed millions of times. Want to get a taste? Check out this story. Hart does not quite do what the Khan Academy does but she operates in the same space. Her interest is not in the standard K-12 curriculum but broader concepts of mathematics; the stuff students rarely see before college.

The fact that these two are getting together demonstrates something important regarding online education. Experiments are happening and the successful ones are complementary to one another. In particular, both Khan and Hart have evolved a particular style of video instruction. It is a style that removes the lecturer from the picture. Previous videos for educative purposes did not do that. Many universities, for example, spent a lot of time recording their lecturers and professors. Sometimes the results are incredible. But more often than not, the format was stale. Part of the reason is that giving a lecture is different from making a video. A lecturer has to have a sense of the room while moving back and forth from PowerPoint slides or a blackboard. It is hard to capture that on a video. Moreover, the same lecture spoken over the top of a slide deck won't quite work on video. To see this, see this example of my own. It is fine, but somehow not very engaging.

The Khan Academy broke through this format issue by not making videos as if the student were sitting in a classroom but as if he or she were sitting next to them at a table. Indeed, that is how Khan started out — tutoring his nieces and nephews over Skype. So it is more personal but, more importantly, it is the sort of thing that is easy to pause, rewind, and review.

Vi Hart's style is different. She is speaking to an audience, but a YouTube audience is not a classroom. What she does cannot be done in a classroom because she has to speed up the images relative to her speech. That takes work and imagination to get right. And Hart is not the only one who has developed this skill. Just take a look at this series of videos by C.G.P. Grey. The underlying technology is PowerPoint but it is accelerated beyond what one could do in a lecture hall. The result is incredibly engaging and compelling. It also manages to explain complex arguments without oversimplifying them.. Finally, 321 FastDraw has made a business out of accelerated doodling.

These developments stand in sharp contrast to what Apple has focused on. Making textbooks more interesting is a noble cause. Making them cheaper is something more important still. But in the examples Apple gave us, the materials were multimedia. The focus was the text, and out of the text lifted pictures, more interaction and videos that were documentary in style. The problem is that the textbook itself embeds a certain style of learning. For one, it is linear. A curriculum is supposed to start at the beginning of the textbook, build on chapter by chapter until the end is reached. The Kahn Academy requires building but does not set out a path that all students must follow. Apple has built note-taking into its software, but when you think about it, when students have to take notes, you've failed to teach them.

But more importantly, the way a textbook is used in the classroom compels standardization in learning rates. All students are supposed to be "on the same page" so that an instructor can give complementary class material. The problem, as Clay Christensen has recently emphasized, is that students rarely learn at the same rate, let alone in the same way. Thus, in designing the interaction between teacher activities and either textual or online learning, the goal is to break free of the strict complementarity that compels step-by-step advancement of the group. Instead, online learning has to provide the means by which students can learn and master at their own pace. The idea is to unbundle the teacher's time from the class. Instead of a teacher's attention being broadcast, it needs to be divided up into smaller packages and doled out as needed by individual students or smaller groups. That is the promise of online or digital learning: allowing teachers' time to become divisible rather than a block.

There are people out there, for the most part far removed from traditional education, who are experimenting and working out how to make modular, compelling content that can free teacher time. They are finding each other and that is great news for the future.

This post was originally published on HBR Blogs (23rd January 2012).

Back on the radio

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:51:00 +0000

It has been a while but I did a radio interview on Parentonomics the other week. It is now posted online and you can listen to it here. I'm on about 3/4 of the way through.

My best line was my last one and it was a little obscured. "I'm wistful for the days you could just change a nappy and the smell would be gone. With a teenager smell removal is much harder."

Seeing through incentives

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:46:00 +0000

As regular readers know, there is nothing more attractive to this blog than a child seeing through incentives. This contribution from FailBlog requires no further explanation.

The Facebook Parents' Dilemma: COPPA and my daughter turn 13

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:11:00 +0000

[Cross posted at Digitopoly]

Recently, I became the proud father of a 13 year old daughter. I can't say it was unexpected (I had a good handle on the notion for about 13 years), it still comes as a shock. The day was greeted, of course, from a letter from the Disney Corporation.

Dear Parent or Guardian of xxxxxxx,
You may recall that your child is registered with the Walt Disney Internet Group ("WDIG") family of sites includingDisney.com, ABCNEWS.com, ABC.com, ESPN.com, FamilyFun.com and many more.

I actually hadn't recalled that but I believe there had been a Club Penguin in our past. It went on:

Based on the date of birth your child provided us during registration, our records indicate that your child has turned 13. As a result, your teen may now participate in additional features of WDIG sites including Public Forums.

Basically, we had reached a legal milestone. Disney etc were now allowed to store information about our child including whatever she might post to public forums. Of course, Disney did give me a chance to impose parental controls to limit this activity. Nonetheless, there was a sense that a new era was amongst us.

So, what's going on here? Well, as articulately explained by my former Microsoft Research colleague, danah boyd, this was all a result of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (or COPPA) that prevents websites from collecting data without parental permission. This Act was, of course, designed to apparently protect parents and their children. The Act has just turned 13. But in administering the Act many websites have decided to prevent children under 13 from joining altogether. That's not true for all. For instance, Disney clearly tried to walk the legal minefield. But when it comes to Facebook, Twitter and any number of social networks, children are talk to move on.

Now, like many parents, I was already quite familiar with COPPA. While it is a US-only Act, Facebook have implemented it world-wide. Now while I have looked, it is unclear if Australia has an equivalent of that Act (I'm sure someone with a legal background can enlighten me). In any case, if I, as a parent, permitted my daughter to sign up to Facebook while in Australia, it required that I lie about her age.

And there are actually many reasons why I would want to allow her to do that. First and foremost, this is the opportunity for me to monitor her interactions on Facebook -- requiring she be a friend at least for a few years. That allows me some access and the ability to educate. Second, all of her friends were on Facebook. This is where tween interactions occur. Finally, I actually think that it is the evolving means of communication between people. To cut off a child from that seems like cutting them off from the future. Some people lament that they don't want their child on Facebook for exactly that reason; if they join they'll miss out on the technology-free social interactions of their youth. I, of course, don't agree with that. I suspect that my own children, when facing this dilemma for their kids, will lament some new technology because they will not be able to experience the wonders of Facebook! But that's me. Other parents may have different views. In any case, officially, Facebook side steps the issue by officially barring those under 13 from joining.

Apparently, there are millions of under 13 year olds on Facebook anyway. This prompted, boyd and her co-authors to study parental choices in a recent paper published in First Monday. It makes for very interesting reading.

From a national sample of 1,007 U.S. parents who have children living with them between the ages of 10-14 conducted July 5-14, 2011, we found:

Although Facebook’s minimum age is 13, parents of 13- and 14-year-olds report that, on average, their child joined Facebook at age 12.

Half (55%) of parents of 12-year-olds report their child has a Facebook account, and most (82%) of these parents knew when their child signed up. Most (76%) also assisted their 12-year old in creating the account.

A third (36%) of all parents surveyed reported that their child joined Facebook before the age of 13, and two-thirds of them (68%) helped their child create the account.

Half (53%) of parents surveyed think Facebook has a minimum age and a third (35%) of these parents think that this is a recommendation and not a requirement.

Most (78%) parents think it is acceptable for their child to violate minimum age restrictions on online services.

The status quo is not working if large numbers of parents are helping their children lie to get access to online services. Parents do appear to be having conversations with their children, as COPPA intended. Yet, what does it mean if they’re doing so in order to violate the restrictions that COPPA engendered?

So, in other words, parents are side stepping Facebook's rules. And they do so knowingly. Well, of course, they do. You have to pick a new age for your child to do it.

By the way, parents might be concerned about picking an older age for their kids. After all, when they get older, they will be presenting themselves as older still on Facebook. It turns out that Facebook allows you to change your birth date once every so often but it does review the process. That is, Facebook have data on how many underage kids were on Facebook because those kids change their birth dates to reflect their true 13 year old age when that occurs. Notice how murky the shroud of ignorance will become if someone in the US challenges Facebook's enforcement of the current law.

The broader point is that the Act is forcing apparently law abiding people into (mild) fraud. And it is doing that in front of their kids. The messages there are just terrible. But the main cost is opportunity for parental guidance in education:

COPPA is a well-intentioned piece of legislation with unintended consequences for parents, educators, and the public writ large. It has stifled innovation for sites focused on children and its implementations have made parenting more challenging. Our data clearly show that parents are concerned about privacy and online safety. Many want the government to help, but they don’t want solutions that unintentionally restrict their children’s access. Instead, they want guidance and recommendations to help them make informed decisions. Parents often want their children to learn how to be responsible digital citizens. Allowing them access is often the first step.

Finally, let me remark on the facts that there are negatives of having your child on Facebook. You'd like to monitor but my observations of teenage conversation is that there is so much I just don't want to know. I had always figured my daughter would unfriend me first but there are days I wonder if it won't be the other way around. Moreover, now I have to think twice about what videos I share on Facebook. Fortunately, I have no concerns about them reading this blog so I can feel quite freely happy to guide you to this amusing but profane video about Siri.

The Third Child

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:32:00 +0000

This weekend I was at a friend's house. We had visited there because they had a baby under one and found it much easier if they could stay put. This was their third child. While for the first two children, the parents would make an effort to get out, by the time the third rocked up, it was apparent that staying put for nursing and sleeping outweighed any benefit that might arise from a few months of extra mobility.

This illustrates lots of things but, importantly, how parental experience changes with the number of children. The same thing happened to us with our third child but it gave rise to an unintended consequence. When Child No.3 was about 14 months, we were out in a park -- having started to venture out again after the winter. She looked up and saw a bird in a tree. Then the bird dropped off the branch. My daughter explained "oh dear!" and then watched in amazement as the bird flew off.

At that moment, it is entirely possible she had not seen a bird in reality. For me, watching her realisation that birds would not fall but fly was amazing.

Now, of course, I can imagine that some reading this would be horrified at this story. Isn't this exactly why you have to get out? I beg to differ. Had she been out and about, birds would have been common place and never amazing. There is surely such a thing as optimal timing for natural experience.

Puss in Boots

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:40:00 +0000

I guess I have been MIA from this blog of late. Moving to Canada has its challenges but after a couple of months normality is resuming. So hopefully I can pop back here more regularly.

Anyhow, yesterday we saw our first family movie for some time, Puss in Boots. This time I actually stayed awake through the movie which is, at least, saying something. Anyhow, this was a Shrek spin-off that built broadly on the theme of fairy tales -- mixing as it were the tales of Puss in Boots, Humpy Dumpty and Jack in the Beanstalk. Suffice it to say, that mix held together more strongly than the Star Wars prequels but that isn't much of a standard to meet.

Puss in Boots was a solid movie peppered with plenty of jokes to keep adults happy and kids unaware. Ultimately, it wasn't a fairy tale but an adventure with flashbacks for character development, betrayal and a satisfying resolution. It's not a classic or a 'must see' but it is 'writhe-free.' That is, you can watch it without recoiling in agony. Basically, if you are engaging in a multi-parent negotiation over who takes which child to what movie over the coming months, this movie is a good one to put your hand up for.

New Blog Digitopoly

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:28:00 +0000

While this may not interest all readers here, I just thought I'd mention a new blog that I am a part of -- Digitopoly. It covers the economics of the digital world.

Hockey without apology or knowledge

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:56:00 +0000

Child No. 1 (daughter who is now 12 -- I know it has been awhile) played her first ice hockey game today. She was playing in a 'mixed team' although, as it turned out, she was the only girl .

As she walked away to get changed into her, how should I put it, armour, an elderly man accosted me in a fashion that would make a great opening scene from a bad sports movie.

"Is that your daughter?"

"Why yes it is."

"It's not right. I've told them. It's not right." [I should add here that I am absolutely not making this conversation up]

"What's not right?"

"She shouldn't be playing. They haven't got what it takes."

"You mean girls?"

"Yes, they should be in their own team. Too timid. Won't stick their nose in."

At this point, I wasn't too sure what it would take to stick her nose in and so was getting a little lost.

"She can take care of herself I think."

"Is she a fast skater?"

"I don't know about that but she does have a black belt in Taekwondo."

He regarded me with an eye that suggested he could tell that this fact was not too relevant and that he resigned himself that I would be unpersuaded of that truth. I bade him goodbye and wondered for a brief moment if the rest of the afternoon might play itself out according to B-movie scripts.

I needn't have bothered. You see, I should also tell you of one other fact. This was her first hockey game. And by first, I mean she hadn't actually even seen one before. If there any nuances, tricks, appreciation of skill or rules about the game, she would go into it blissfully unaware of them.

Their coach told them one thing: stay in your position. As it turns out, this is the one thing that no-one -- except for the goalie -- seems to do. The rest try very hard to get close to the puck in the hopes of -- intentionally or otherwise -- scoring a goal. For that reason, they rotate the players every 90 seconds in the hopes of getting some of them out of the way.

This wasn't my daughter's problem. She was a defender, fullblack, bludger -- I have no idea what the term is. She stayed back, on the left, near the goal. And she did it religiously. Basically, she made a decision that skating anywhere wasn't a good idea but that if anyone came her way she would be unmoved. One large boy from the other team attempted to negotiate that policy and found himself flat on his back. They all avoided her spot after that.

From a spectator's point of view, that meant an hour of watching -- when she was on the ice -- my daughter standing with a good 5 metre birth away from anything that might look like interesting action. You can see what I mean from this picture. She is No.7 in the front of the picture. Suffice it to say, no movie director will be optioning the story anytime soon unless they are interested in ruthless inaction.

And what was the outcome of this whole affair. Her team lost 3 to 9. I guess having that one extra kid up near the front of the line mattered.

The Ex

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 20:19:00 +0000

This weekend we ventured to the Canadian National Exhibition or 'The Ex' as locals call it. I guess some divorced parent gets to say 'the ex took the kids to the ex.' Anyhow what this is is a carnival on a massive scale; similar to the Royal Shows in Australia (e.g., the Royal Easter Show in Sydney or Brisbane's Ecca but without showbags). Nonetheless, it was huge and included a full air show. Quite impressive. It also had the feature that it was a dream to get to by public transport and so we had no trouble finding parking right on the show grounds.

Anyhow, I'm going to focus on the food. We entered the 'Food Hall' expecting to see agricultural exhibits but instead were greeted with the mother of all food courts. The array of foods was impressive but it did err on the 'carnival-side' of the health equation.

So here is exhibit No.1.

This turned out to be both serious and, accurate, in the circumstances. It really was the "healthy choice." Moving on to exhibit No.2.

Yes, it is a 'Mac and Cheesery.' We sampled the deep fried Mac and Cheese which is quite something. This we had to do after opting not to have the 'Mac and Cheeseburger' at the Cheesecake Factory last month. Continuing on the deep fried them, we went for one deep fried Mars Bar shared between us.

Now I had thought this was an Australian invention but had never tried it until now. It is a once in a lifetime experience and that is what it will stay.

Finally, and when you see Exhibit No.4 you will understand why the first aid tent was located next to the Food Hall was this ...

The thing next to it I had seen before but this was combinatorial innovation never before imagined. You just know that more foods await us. Suffice to say, this one would have to wait. The queue was too long and we didn't go there. There is always next year.

Spy Kids (with Smell-o-scope)

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 20:03:00 +0000

We have been doing some travelling and so our movie going activities have been slim this summer. For some reason we caught, Glee: The 3D Movie, in Australia; one advantage, we had the whole theatre to ourselves -- a private showing. That said, we paid too much for it.

Today, we went to our first movie here in Toronto. Unlike the previous experience it was packed. I have no idea why as the weather wasn't too bad but I guess summer is officially over. The movie we saw was Spy Kids: All the Time in the World. It turns out that this is actually the fourth movie in a series that I dimly remember seeing the first of. Suffice it to say, the kids in that movie were no longer kids so they had to focus on two new ones. Same basic plot: kids think parent is lame -- in this case, a step-mother -- until she turns out to be a spy and is in need of help. We, the audience, know she is a spy right from the beginning as she goes into labour (being 9 months pregnant) and still manages to catch the bad guy. Then, with baby in tow, she sticks around the home for a year or so under the cover of being an interior decorator. The house comically breaks her cover -- or does it -- hard to know with artists.

Anyhow, she is brought back into duty as something happens to time. What happens is an opportunity for the script writers to engage in cliche and puns on a scale never before seen in movies. Think of all the "time" and "clock" puns out there and you'll get the picture. I, for one, was thinking that I really shouldn't be spending time in this movie and the time could be better used. Apparently, that was a theme for the parents in the movie too which I guess made me wonder about the overall irony of the situation.

But I digress. The other feature of this movie -- if the obligatory third dimension wasn't enough -- was a fourth dimension, smell. This movie included 'Smell-o-scope.' Now, it used to be the case that when you advertised that a theatre would smell that was a problem for the theatre. Well some marketing geniuses have made lemonade out of lemons and sold the smells as a feature rather than a bug. Of course, if you were expecting some technology -- pumped into the theatre or integrated into the obvious place on the 3D glasses -- you would be disappointed. They just handed you a card with numbers that you scratched to reveal a smell with the numbers carefully integrated into the movie.

Anyhow, I had to admit that the movie producers did not seize this opportunity. With 3D they throw stuff at you to cause fear. The same was clearly possible here. They had a baby appear in the first five minutes. If you can't make a fearful smell out of that, you are not trying.

Then again, it would have been just an amusement factor for us parents or, as it was in actuality, a lot of sniffing what seemed to me to smell like cardboard. I think that fourth dimension isn't going to take off.

Now I'd like to give you more insight into the plot of the movie, how it turned out, was it suitable for kids and all that. But I can't. Somewhere around smell number 5 I feel asleep and didn't wake up until the closing credits. I was surprisingly refreshed. Hey, what do you know, I did end up using the time well. (Note to movie-makers: the 4th dimension in children's movies is to provide an environment where parents can have an afternoon nap. That is something we will pay for.)

Economic meaning in children's books

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:31:00 +0000

In the NYT today, an article about economic meaning substituting for moral teachings in children books. To say that this is a new trend seems way overstated. Even in the article most of the books cited are old. Moreover, it seems to me that the best books about economics are those that go alongside numeracy (e.g., this).

One point struck me as wrong.

One of the most common themes in books for young people reflects parents’ fears that their children will become “bad” consumers, said Marah Gubar, director of the children’s literature program at the University of Pittsburgh.

That often means rampant consumers are cast as villains, or at least losers. Take Roald Dahl’s “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” in which Augustus Gloop and Veruca Salt are spoiled brats whose parents buy them whatever they want. And even in “Harry Potter,” Ms. Gubar noted, the appalling Dursleys shower their son, Dudley, with presents, a pointed symptom of the family’s wickedness.

First of all, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is teeming with economics beyond annoying, spoilt kids. The whole plot is one of innovator rights and the use of trade secrecy as a means of intellectual property protection. And, by the way, the moral message on that is in favour of such protection. Second, Harry Potter is unabashedly the Magical World of Monopolies. Almost every significant economic good or service is provided by a single provider from banking to wands to books and, finally, to school. The only exception is the entrepreneurial entry by the Weasley brothers into an existing but clearly underserved market. One suspects had Voldemort gone after the monopoly businesses rather than the government he may have been more successful in his evil ways.

Worst parenting mistakes

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:30:00 +0000

What are the worst parenting moves economists have made? Head over to Freakonomics to find out. Bruce Sacerdote almost killed his children sailing. Steve Levitt almost killed his children losing control of a stroller. Justin Wolfers is killing himself with a new puppy + ignorance (he should have talked to me!). And Bryan Caplan has apparently made no mistakes except not to have more kids and to sound continually like a broken record.

I'm there too with some terrorising of a one year old, incentive debacles and mistaken punishment.

My English language test for Canada

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:04:00 +0000

It has been suggested that readers of this blog may like my post from last week from Core Economics on my English test. While I'm at it, you might also be interested in my Harvard Business Review blog posts.

Anyhow here is the post ...

Today was an interesting day for me: I took an English language test. This was a test designed to see whether I could function in English speaking countries -- in my case, Canada. It is a requirement for permanent residency and is, indeed, something required of people coming to work in Australia and also the UK. I queried this requirement as to why it applied to everyone and they said, "it even is a requirement for people from the United States." Well, I guess there is no higher gold standard on English language proficiency than that!

To my keen economics mind, I immediately hypothesised that the International English Language Testing folks had some pretty good lobbyists but in actually, I guess immigration people just got sick of arguing with people over why they had to take the test. "Yes, I know you are an English literature professor going to teach at the Australian National University but you are an Indian citizen, etc ..." It was probably easier just to force everyone to do it.

Now this test was no "walk in the park." It was a 4 hours experience designed to probe the intricacies and subtleties of the English language and all without the help of the spell check feature that I used right now for intricacies and subtleties that regular readers will be surprised to learn actually improves language and exposition in this blog.

The first part was a speaking test. This is where a tester sat across from you and carried on the most unlikely conversation for someone you just met. He read a scripted piece which I filled in the other side of the conversation from. It started off standard and friendly enough with some exchange of basic information before he somewhat ominously decided to put a question to me where I would be allowed some "thinking time" before I answered. The question was to describe a job that I believed helped the world and to explain why I thought that. Of course, my first thought was "well, not your job because this is clearly a waste time in some broad sense." But as I was the only person in our family required to take this test, I had been ordered to be on good behaviour. So I went with scientists and put in a solid discussion of the microfoundations of endogenous growth theory for a minute. I don't think he was that intrigued because when my minute was up he cut me off mid-word -- apparently more desperate to be free of this than I was. He then decided to provoke me by asking whether I thought that "industry destroyed the environment." I said I thought that by definition all human activity, including industry, destroyed the environment, what of it? We then meandered back into whether technology was making people's lives more enjoyable (I said, "it is me! I have an iPad") but before I could get onto the Easterlin Paradox, my time was done.

It was then time for the listening part of the test. This turned out to be a rather difficult 30 minutes. The first conversation I was forced to parse was a discussion of the hotel, travel and accommodation needs of a marketing professor visiting some random university. Suffice it to say, I have been expertly trained to filter out all detail from such conversations which was exactly the handicap I did not need for this exam. It was hard work. But not as hard as the next part of working out the fishing license requirements in some random English village and then on to a request by a student -- and I am not making this up -- for help in understanding the bureaucratic requirements of an upcoming overseas field trip. To say it was a struggle is an understatement. I had to work with every inch of my attention to concentrate on this. That said, the field trip -- if you are one of the marine biology, 3rd year undergraduates eligible to take it without the express written permission of your BIOL724 tutor -- did sound cool.

Next came reading. This was an hour long one. Well, I spent 30 minutes at a slow pace on it. But it had to do with Australia. Yes, indeed, our local testing facilities were hard at work here. First, I had to understand the entry requirements on what is the back of form you fill out when you come to visit Australia. It is harder than you think and let me tell you, canned goods have to be declared! Then I had to understand the various things to do in Macarthur in NSW which, by the way, was an important link in the intercontinental telegraph system at one point before turning on to -- again, I am not making this up -- industrial relations. Namely, I had to read through the Sigma Pharmaceuticals (an actual company) guidelines on working from home -- did you know you had to have your own private insurance if you bring a computer home? -- before turning to the grievance manual at I think the same company.

And as I sat bored for the remainder of the test I realised what an opportunity had been lost. My guess is that a good share of people taking these tests are dealing with Universities. Universities in turn have all manner of procedures and manuals they want new-comers to read. This test was the opportunity to do that. Instead of trying to understand Sigma Pharmaceutical's procedures I could have been handed the University of Toronto's. There is no other way I was going to read that. There is a real economy to be had here.

The final part of the test was writing. You know I hadn't taken a test for 20 years and I pretty much hadn't hand-written anything for that same period of time. It was only like four pages but it was hard going. What a stupid way of testing people that is in this day and age? Anyhow, the written part asked me first to write a letter to a local community organisation helping the elderly to offer my free services. I decided to make up "Grey Power Button" whose motto as "we'll find that damn power button." I had to explain how I heard about it (answer: overhearing and Apple store conversation with an elderly gentlemen whose cable modem was clearly unplugged) and why I thought they would be useful (answer: because people need to make sure that when they download adult material using their neighbour's wifi their grandkids broke into, they need to close their browser afterwards -- or something to that effect). The final task was to explain why some people like to live in big cities and others like to live in small towns and who was right.

The answer, of course, was no-one and if everyone acted on some universal preference they would destroy the very thing they liked about where they lived and so should just shut up about it. Hey, it was the end of a long day, my hand was tired and I was in the mood for rant.

Anyhow, I cannot recommend against doing this enough. There has got to be a better and quicker way to assess language -- maybe some two step procedure. I'm glad it is over -- assuming I pass that is. If I don't pass, it will turn out I am not recognisably proficient in any language!

[Update: Eric Crampton observes that New Zealand has it right.]

The Cartoon Introduction to Economics

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 18:42:00 +0000

My 10 year old son discovered The Cartoon Introduction to Economics: Volume One Microeconomics by Grady Klein and Yoram Bauman lying around the house and couldn't put it down. Here is his review ...

The Book "A Cartoon Introduction to Economics, volume one" was really helpful. Before I read the book I would always look at my Dad's computer and all I could see was a meaningless combination of numbers, letters, and symbols a few of which I had never seen before. I only knew one thing, this had something to do with economics. The book made me see what all this gibberish was supposed to mean. Instead of describing "The Invisible hand" and "Pareto improvements" in Economic um... language, it describes Microeconomics in casual English. Although I still don't know what ¬8=ƒ^!+$∂% means (it probably doesn't mean anything, I just typed in random things*), I have a small understanding what it could mean. I also bet that (keep in mind that I'm risk-neutral, so I don't mean it literally) other 10 year olds would also understand Microeconomics after reading the book.

*I know what it means! It means $6%+f^!=¬(2+0.5+4+1.47+0.03)!

Suffice it to say, he can't wait for Macroeconomics which he believes will surely be bigger and better.

Work at home

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 23:45:00 +0000

In the New York Times today, I participate in a "room for debate" 'debate' about getting fathers to do more at home. I conveniently side-step the whole issue of what I do -- I think there is a general consensus around here, at least, that in my case, it is above average (for men) but not enough -- and instead focus on the baseline economics and remind everyone that societal change is hard. You can't nudge people to equality.

Reading the other discussions it seemed to me that there wasn't as much room for debate as one might have thought.

Toontastic Animation Contest

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:49:00 +0000

Toontastic is a terrific iPad app that allows kids to make animated stories. It is currently only $0.99 at the iTunes App Store so it is a no brainer if you have an iPad plus a minimum of one child. We bought it when it was $2.99 and haven't regretted it one bit. I reviewed it a few months back here.

Anyhow, Toontastic are having a Summer Animation Contest asking kids to animate a favourite storybook. My 10 year old son immediately took up the challenge and animated The Giving Tree. You can see the result here. The amazing thing is that he did it from heart as we don't have the book itself here in the US.

Cars 2

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 23:42:00 +0000

Cars was a good movie. I had to pop back to my review to remember that I thought that at the time. Pixar have been so successful that we rely on them to produce the best animated feature of the year. They may do so with Cars 2 but it will be with their worst ever movie. More disturbingly, it was a movie that did not at all justify a G-rating.

While Cars was a maverick needs a lesson in humility type tale, Cars 2 was a spy thriller in the mode of the Pink Panther. The main character switches from Lightning McQueen to Mater and as Mater is an innocent soul, there isn't much to work with in terms of character growth -- perhaps a little confidence although that is a stretch. Mater is a comical character but the movie fails in comedy. It is visually spectacular and the plot isn't awful and mostly makes some sense but what it lacks is 'investment.' You don't become invested in this movie the way Pixar normally does. And at almost 2 hours in length, that was a shame. It also meant that it wasn't that entertaining for the kids. I wonder if this is the first Pixar casualty of Steve Jobs' illness.

But strangely the movie was given a G-rating. It was not a G-rating. As my son pointed out it had both the suspense associated with death and death itself. It was gruesome. Cars -- admittedly bad guys -- were meeting terrible fates all over the place. Maybe because it was cars, it met some violence threshold. But really? Something was amiss here. There was also no reason for it. Let's face it, a cars spy thriller doesn't have to be 'realistic'.

The best part was the Toy Story short at the beginning. That was more like what we were expecting.

Pixar have had a strike. I guess it was coming. Hopefully, they can get back on track.

Summer Camps and Freakonomics

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 18:22:00 +0000

I drop up to New Hampshire today to deposit Child No.1 at summer camp. She had such a good time last year that this time around she will be away for 4 weeks. As with all pre-teens she was able to put on a good performance over the last week minimising our expectations of missing her.

Anyhow on our long drive, I selected some podcasts to listen to. Last year we had much success with This American Life's Summer Camp episode which actually was first aired before she was born. This year, I had saved up some of the old Freakonomics radio podcasts. Of course, the first we listened to was about the economics of parenting. Then this story came on:

We would go to the park and our child, this is our then-eldest child was probably around four, would invariably not want to leave. So, we would have this big song and dance about, we have to go now, you can’t keep on playing, she’d run off, you know it would be costly, let me put it that way. So what we did one day we were sitting there and she was doing it yet. Again and we said, you know, we keep threatening that we’ll just leave, why don’t we get in the car and just leave? And so we said, you know, you come or we’re going to go and we’re going to get in the car and drive off, and that is actually what we did in front of a full park, other parents as well, we had a screaming child running after us going, you know, no, don’t leave me, exactly to get that message across. Now, to be short, you know, while that might not have been obvious to the other parents standing there, I tell you, it was a tough thing for us to do, there was another family at the park that was going to at least watch out that she didn’t do something silly as a result of this like run on to the road or something like that. So, we weren’t totally crazy, but then again, we did drive off leaving our child thinking she’d been left behind.

She asked "which child was that?" "It was you." Suffice it to say, no lasting trauma there but also a prime on why she shouldn't miss us too much; not that she needs many more reasons.

Anyhow, she came out of it thinking that she would probably prefer Bryan Caplan as a parent (mostly for this):

People call them electronic babysitters as if it’s a bad thing. But babysitters are good, and nothing wrong with being electronic. So, I mean the idea that there’s some awful harm done when you’re children watch TV or play video games, there’s no evidence of that.

This leads me to believe that Bryan Caplan, who wants to make more kids, should actually want to liberate more kids. That way he can export his cool parenting style without increasing population. Or maybe he should just open up a Summer Camp. It seems to me that that is where the people who like parenting end up. All to the good.

The Wizarding World of Harry Potter

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 14:04:00 +0000

Last weekend, Child No.1 and I went to Orlando Florida to visit the Wizarding World of Harry Potter at Universal Studios. It turns out that the HP part is in one of two parks there called "Islands of Adventure." It had more adventure than islands which was just fine.

We actually started out by going to other non-HP Universal park. This was the park based on movies and it was very similar to the one we visited in LA last year. The shining light of that park is The Simpson's ride. It is basically a short episode that starts in the queue and ends with one of those simulated roller coasters. It is just great -- true to the series without any gratuitous things. It demonstrates that rides need good writing and production. We did a ton of other rides including the now, getting old, ET ride and the Twister ride which was very cool (you got to kind of experience a tornado) but let's face it, was based on a movie that died 15 years ago.

But the main deal for us was the next day with Harry Potter. Because it was just the two of us, I splurged on the VIP experience so as to avoid all queues and make sure we saw everything. I wouldn't recommend this for families with young children but between the 12 year old and myself, it was well worth it. Basically, we had a guide for about 5 hours who took us past all lines and also through bits and pieces ordinary souls couldn't reach. That meant my daughter could ride the Hulk to her hearts content and I could sit in the shade and watch. It also meant we got to see behind the scenes at the Spiderman experience -- first going on a ride, then getting the inside tour and then going back for another ride to appreciate some of the technical details. For instance, the designers thumbed their noses at Orlando inspectors requiring an "Exit" sign in the ride with a "This is not an exit" sign hidden comically within.

This park was apparently based on books rather than movies. So there was a Dr Seuss world that was very well done, plenty of comics -- including an entire 'Toon Lagon' devoted to comic strips that even I was too young for! I guess they are targeting the resident Florida demographics with that one. There was Jurassic Park although the ride seemed more movie than book based. And finally there was Harry Potter.

I would not say that Universal have gone all out with Harry Potter but, as these things go, it is best practice. They have recreated the village of Hogsmeade set below a clearly not to scale but impressive nonetheless, Hogwarts. Hogsmeade has the Three Broomsticks restaurant as well as the Hogshead bar where you can get yourself a butterbeer -- it's good but sweet. There is an overpriced candy store -- consistent with the monopolistic retail practices set in motion of JK Rowling. And there is Olivanders selling wands. Now as any self respecting fan will tell you, Olivanders is in Diagon Alley not Hogsmeade but there it was. You go into that and you get a little show and then they stiff you for some wands. Suffice it say, they do a roaring trade in wands converting what must be a $5 top cost toy at $40 a pop. They also outfit kids in robes which many of them wear for the remainder of their visit in the Florida heat -- thereby causing a virtuous Butterbeer payment cycle. We didn't go that route but my daughter, who always saves and never spends, cleared out her deposits with a ton of T-shirts, Quidditch equipment and a couple of wands. Which wand? The elder wand of course.

There are a couple of gratuitous roller-coasters based on Harry Potter. The best part of them are the queues which take you inside bits and pieces of Hogwarts. Of course, the best queue which we experienced at leisure rather than by waiting was for the main Harry Potter experience ride. That queue had a moving portrait gallery and Dumbledore's office. But it was the ride itself that was fantastic. It was another one of these immersive rides but where you sit with feet dangling apparently like riding a broom. Broom riding isn't smooth especially when you are chased by ever single villan in Harry Potter in the space of six minutes including pretty darn large spiders. But it was good and it would be one of those rides well worth the 90 minute usual wait.

If there is a sad part to this, it is clear how much more they could do with Harry Potter to make it a bigger experience. For instance, really creating Hogwarts and other common scenes. But I guess it would just cost too much and they are getting as many visitors as they are going to get anyway. I suspect that when the crowds die down, some expansions may occur to get them back. For the moment, if you are going to DisneyWorld it is worth siphoning off one day to go to Harry Potter as well.

The sadness around a Tiger child

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:43:00 +0000

My son has a friend at school who for the better part of a year has been at the top of his list for playdates. But we have been told that this boy isn't allowed on playdates. We tried but his parents were adamant. When my son's birthday came around, we invited him to the party but he wasn't allowed to go to parties. This was important to our son but our efforts failed.

I've seen this kid and my son together. They get along very well. He hangs around a little after school so they can spend a little more time together. A few minutes late getting home is something he doesn't get in trouble for; so we hope. I watched them today at an end-of-year in-class event. They are inseparable at least at school. A rare connection.

It is readily apparent that this kid is a Tiger child (and yes, he is of Asian decent but that it isn't something that exclusively defines this parenting style). He gets great grades and plays the violin exceptionally well. The whole Tiger parenting debate has focussed on various elements -- from self-esteem, to discipline, to free choice and then to social isolation. It is the multi-dimensional nature of this one dimensional term that makes it difficult to disentangle. Each parent is attracted or repelled by one or more dimensions.

So how do you explain to your child why he can't see his friend outside of school? We tell him the truth: that it is a parenting choice of how they want their child to spend their time and efforts but one that we think is misguided; at least on the social dimension. But to him it doesn't add up. "So he can't play because he has to work? But why then does he get to see movies and do other things?" And he is right, it doesn't add up. And to those concerned, this kid is not a social misfit. At school, you wouldn't pick that he is isolated outside of it.

We tend to think of parenting choices as a private one impacting only upon the families concerned. In this particular instance it spreads beyond. My son is missing out on having a friend outside of school and when we move to Toronto the same factors will likely mean that he misses out on having a life long friend.

The Long Freakonomics Parenting Show

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:03:00 +0000

The Freakonomics podcast, “The Economist’s Guide to Parenting” is out. It is an hour long tour of economists and their views on parenting. I'm there worrying people about the sanity of economists among other things. Suffice it to say, if readers of this blog were going to listen to one podcast this year, I am guessing that this would be it.

Freakonomics Podcast: A First Taste

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 23:49:00 +0000

This week the Freakonomics podcast delves into fatherhood. They put in a bit from a longer interview with me that will be part of a longer special on the economics of parenting. You can listen to this initial one here. The theme of the podcast is lessons from fathers. My lesson was apparently about what you can learn through discipline. From that story you'll imagine that Father's Day may not be a big deal in our household. (And yes the story is absolutely true). But Steve Levitt and Stephen Dubner contribute the main stories.

The Franklin Park Zoo

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 21:13:00 +0000

The upcoming movie -- Zookeeper -- prompted us to finally visit Boston's Franklin Park Zoo where the movie is supposedly set. Now you would think that this type of thing would be a boon to a zoo. A major kids movie released all about talking animals in a zoo at your zoo. It would be time to roll out all stops, spruce it all up and prepare for the hoards. Alas, that was not the case and so begins this blog post which is designed to ward all and sundry away from this particular zoo. If you live in Boston or are visiting Boston and are thinking of making the Franklin Park Zoo a stop because you may see or (if you read this in a month or so) have seen this movie, don't.

The movie's premise is that the animals talk. But the fantasy is that the Franklin Park Zoo is anything like what is in the movie. It isn't. It is large enough to be sure but you can map the budget cuts. The first obvious cut is clearly in gardening. Very little attempt has been made there and the whole set-up in a mess. The next obvious cut is in the animal environment. There aren't any elephants that appear to feature prominently in the movie. And many of the habitats look depressing. There were zebras sitting there seemingly desperate for someone to let loose a lion into their area just for some excitement. But then if you look at the lions, it was pretty clear that in that event there would not be much excitement provided. Yes I know the whole zoo -- animals in cages and whatnot -- may never be appealing on lots of levels. But the more successful zoos at least make some attempt to ensure an illusion of contentment in the air. What else? Oh yes, don't eat anything. These attractions are pretty dodgy at the best of times but this one was far from what you want.

But it wasn't all bad. For starters, there was ample parking and nothing was crowded.

And there was a tropical pavilion that was quite good, if a bit old. The gorillas and monkeys were out and about and so that provided something you may not see everyday. There was also an 'Aussie Aviary' with a whole lot of budgies, some cockatoos and a kookaburra or two. Of course, as Australians know, that means you are mainly concerned about being pooped on. Then again, it was not like we were going to be eating soon.

To my mind, what was offensive is that nothing had been done to leverage the movie. The movie clearly is set in some different and more interesting zoo. But that shouldn't have stopped some marketing person at the actual Franklin Park Zoo from cashing in. Try to make it all look like the movie and lavish the park with movie references. Instead, there was the same small Kevin James poster on the light posts but that was it. No attempt to pretend animals were talking or anything. Here was opportunity to get a faded glory back on track and it was passing them by. And surely there was something coming from the use of the whole name in the movie? Where is all that going? A bad look for the actual Franklin Park Zoo is a bad look for the movie too. The complementarity runs both ways and so Hollywood would pay for the Zoo's poor showing. None of my kids wanted to see the movie anymore after visiting the zoo.

Straight A reward at DisneyWorld hotel

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 13:14:00 +0000

From GeekMom,

Walt Disney World’s Swan and Dolphin Hotels offer a little-known perk just for smart kids: The Straight A Club.

Kids who show a straight A report card at check-in get a souvenir hat as well as a voucher for a free cup or cone of ice cream at the hotel’s ice cream parlor.

This makes some sense as there are likely quite a few kids who are getting DisneyWorld as a report card reward. I wonder if some enterprising hotel will offer a similar thing for kids who can prove they toilet trained.

Next week, I'm taking Child No.1 to Harry Potter world in Orlando. That isn't a report card reward but some compensation because we are uprooting from Boston to Toronto. That is, it is literally a guilt trip.

Disneyland = Price of Toilet Training

noreply@blogger.com (Joshua Gans) — Tue, 31 May 2011 13:25:00 +0000

[HT: Freakonomics] That is according to economist John List.

List believes so strongly in incentives that he offers his own children lottery tickets to do extra math homework, he says. He promised a daughter a trip to Disney World in exchange for her becoming potty trained. The day he made the offer, she used the toilet and was trained, he says.

OK so having investigated this, I'd say a trip to Disney World is going to cost you between $1500 and $3000 depending on how you do it. I think List overpaid.