Employing a pair of randomized evaluations of computer use in classrooms in Gujarat, India, Linden found that computers improve learning outcomes when they are used as a complement to the normal curriculum, rather than as a replacement for the standard offering. He also found that the weakest students benefitted most, as the computers allowed for further practice of material already covered in the classroom. Finally, Linden also found that the computers were about as cost-effective an intervention as girls scholarship programs, cash incentives for teachers, and textbooks.

These results seem almost too commonsensical to have required the expense of randomized evaluations, but I think it's important to remember claims that have been made that programs like OLPC would completely revolutionize the classroom. It seems that technology can bring improvements, but they are incremental and not revolutionary.

Update: I should add that Linden's study was funded by infoDev, which houses an impressive collection of literature on ICT and education. Thanks to Ana Carrasco for alerting me to this.

In any case, while looks obviously matter in the adult entertainment industry, how much looks matter for the rest of us has been open to speculation. Now, at least according to some critics, it appears the High Court of India has decided to enforce the beauty premium as a matter of law. The High Court recently ruled in favor of Air India, which limited overweight staff to working on the ground. Writing in an op-ed in Ethical Corporation, Mallen Baker had harsh words for the decision:

I am not one of those who argues that fat is the new thin, and everybody should just be encouraged to feel great about themselves whatever size they are. If you are overweight, there are good reasons why you should do something about it. Health-wise it is better, most importantly.

But I am just not convinced that the Air India action in this case is anything other than a variant of the “young and pretty” stewardess argument. It is discrimination, plain and simple.

While it may or may not be the case that this is simple discrimination, there is a lot of evidence that attractiveness does play a significant role in earnings and career success. In an earlier blog post, Stephen Dubner discusses some of the research documenting the existence of a beauty premium. Although the research is not all unequivocal, it looks like tall people and those with whiter teeth earn more. Surveys in countries around the world have also found evidence that attractive people earn more.

So here's my (really unserious) question. Let's assume for a second that discrimation against the unattractive is regressive. If the result is greater inequality, does this then call for some kind of progressive policy to mitigate this inequality? Hopefully, pondering that will help keep you occupied for the weekend.