设为首页收藏本站

爱吱声

 找回密码
 注册
搜索
查看: 18316|回复: 128
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[科教沙龙] 教育对提高收入有作用吗

  [复制链接]

该用户从未签到

楼主
发表于 2011-5-31 02:11:52 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 老马丁 于 2011-5-31 02:37 编辑
2 e' ], ~. U: ]; l1 n/ a6 K! C& [# B# s4 s. s
回复 万里风中虎 的帖子
0 w3 L  x  j/ _) J7 `: T6 e5 T( a  J. f9 I0 C+ E3 Q: c
Return to schooling。经济学家永恒的话题。
3 z, E/ F1 d' a, l: c4 i2 l, {% b, t

点评

再聊聊  发表于 2011-5-31 18:03
聊聊?  发表于 2011-5-31 02:35

该用户从未签到

沙发
发表于 2011-5-31 02:45:38 | 显示全部楼层
回复 万里风中虎 的帖子
8 m* |# h. J! p3 O& s" I" q/ |
3 r8 F4 a& m3 D: K4 _) d- G在西西河发过一个相关的帖。小议成功公式! V$ u" f/ `0 q4 e
6 }! L6 C$ ?0 @
先从定义开始。我定义成功为在25-40岁左右取得一定社会地位,拥有一定经济实力,不用担心人的最基本需求和次基本需求的状态,并且这种状态是可以中长期持续,而且维持这种状态不需要付出更多。4 _9 {0 C3 O" y/ i, q
5 h! I  {" {! F  v8 ?
把上面的抽象定义转换成一个个具体的数字是一个很复杂的问题。比如说,在中国年收入多少才能符合上面的定义?这种状态要维持多久?20年还是直到去世?拥有房产能否算做条件?又比如说,作为基本需求的交通需求,一个一个在岳阳有车的是不是一定比在魔都没车的更成功?性需求上,没老婆的或没有固定性伴侣的都不能算成功?既然如此,与其数字化一个普遍的成功标准,还不如做主观的个案分析。我们可以用上面的抽象定义对某人做一个大致的判断,虽然这种判断由于主观性不具有太多的比较意义。大家可以把河里的被曝光的大牛一个个抽出来分析。" j& B2 o! I" `
6 I$ k& |1 f4 c2 J" r! Z- A2 I. w
接着小议成功的因素。把上面那个抽象的定义当作产出或者目标,放在左边,我们可以列一个公式* m. v+ B, y  z5 H+ z. [. P* k
9 q# X7 d2 t' S9 k$ W0 Z2 G
成功 = f (智力,财富, 努力,关系,习惯, 个性,健康,地域,其他|社会)% f4 [6 M/ z9 b
) {, J5 k' `* O$ M! g
这种公式般的写法在经济学中很常见。右边的智力,财富,努力,关系,习惯,个性等是我认为影响成功的最关键的个人因素,这些因素是因人而异的变量。社会指大环境包括时代,和个人因素无关,不被个人所改变,个人只能被动接受,所以用“|” 来指明。其他因素包括未提及的偶然因素等完全不受个人和社会影响的因素和目前不为人所知的个人因素等。这些是最次要的因素,下面不再提及。
2 `. G4 y( p3 M6 p. T' O& _3 |, g# C5 J* u! F
这些个人因素里面,智力为基因决定,同时受后天的教育影响,所以智力也包括了教育水平。创造力其实也是智力的一部分。财富决定了成功的起点,也影响了教育的质量。努力,关系不用多说。健康和智力相似,都受先天遗传和后天活动的影响。地域因素很清楚,上海的成功机会就是比上饶多,也不用多解释,下面我们主要谈谈智力,努力和财富的关系。# J) d  R- t4 P. j

8 f; b* ~; ~# M  j# Q0 u0 R, e- W传统的中国成功学最强调的是智力(聪明+教育)和努力。有些智力不如人的,强调情商(个性)。其实绝对聪明的成功者,情商都不高,个性也不好。还有人强调关系,大有轻轻一牵线,四两拨千斤的感觉。这些都是对传统成功公式的有益补充。而现在的趋势,我感觉是智力+家庭。这是我个人的观点,欢迎大家讨论。家庭这个因素上面没有列出呀?其实,家庭是通过财富和关系体现出来的(大家想是不是?)。
& S# R3 l% S3 z9 m1 U# A% ]/ f; I) D2 W& w
列出因素后,我们下面讨论因素的作用方式,这也是成功公式中 f 的函数形式。& g8 g7 i; C  M6 V1 a

2 ]. O$ w; Q6 @% k% jf 可为加法,也可为乘法。举个例子,国内人常说,爱迪生说过:天才是99%的汗水加1%的灵感。如果被人公认天才是成功,那么爱某的这句话说的是加法:智力+努力。可是国内引用的这话不完整,爱迪生还有半句“但那1%的灵感是最重要的,甚至比那99%的汗水都要重要”这就是乘法了:智力×努力。, I1 V! P6 D. d) b6 h% `8 C3 Q
+ Q5 p6 H' v3 w5 S
如果f是做加法,那是不错的公式。因为某个因素不足,别的因素可以补:勤补拙,努力可以积累财富,去创造更多的财富。做加法的成功公式,特别是把智力和努力放在加号后的公式,是我喜欢的公式(比如下面这个):
: k( N# N) n7 L9 X' `* N
+ u6 e4 r4 o( _% s成功 =智力+ 努力+g(关系,习惯, 个性,健康,地域|社会)
* ~5 e& O* E3 |! v
) R0 v& s) V% k2 E这个公式定义下的成功,让出生贫寒的天才,天资平平的勤奋人都能达到自己的目标。美国梦的后面不就是这样一个由智力+努力主导的公式吗?
6 f$ H( b, S# G$ _* }8 u
; Q/ Z$ A5 {$ i  q如果f是乘法,那么最坏的情况是
) |: z' j$ ]& e/ ^: |6 I6 N. n3 P
3 L) w1 k/ f! @6 P% n# B! ~5 u$ M成功 =财富×g(智力,努力,关系,习惯,个性,健康,地域|社会)
5 q2 O, B7 M9 C8 A9 l! p9 [6 k( m* x+ ~4 c
或者
; [2 G' G  w8 c
. ^$ ~! \. o. V; b( a- g7 R! o成功 =关系×g(智力, 努力,财富,习惯,个性,健康,地域|社会)
! o; M- o  d2 o1 k! B8 v4 N
6 p4 p1 t2 F3 g' _' @8 Z前者财富为零,成功无望,给资本太多的权力;后者让关系坐大,压抑努力鼓励投机取巧和寻租。) p8 v0 U8 U, A7 T

" q; s  w7 a5 Q* s, q8 p很多时候,这个f是既有也有加法和乘法:比如说
" U3 L* ^% x9 O) J! F3 C& C) M& I7 [4 v+ H
成功 =(智力+ 努力)×g(关系,习惯,财富,个性,健康,地域|社会)
/ l% S! U2 C5 C0 u: W/ d& m+ |$ l5 H) u, B6 _  o$ z* [( c
或者3 w' Z+ g9 Y- y) [3 w, X- `

& C! T" K' ]+ q+ [# h! A+ `成功 =(智力+财富)×g(关系,习惯,财富,个性,健康,地域|社会)
- `! g) F( }; X6 N6 U" {. x) d, v. b) L; Z- V. T) n+ f$ {
根据我了解的朋友,我试着写两类
; y( C# S' a8 G! g$ B/ q  G: F7 }9 Y. v2 ^( S/ f+ A
医药代表:  M. q$ I5 h5 |3 t4 m- g$ U0 i

: M+ W( ^0 \. H( ]" u成功 =(关系+个性)×g(智力,习惯,健康|社会)7 g9 ?# V9 E" G; o+ W% C; m1 M

& s* }9 K0 A9 F9 f5 l4 Z) M  x6 T8 k. K大学教授:
) F8 B8 x6 p& N% O: B1 X( U4 i; W
成功 =(智力+ 努力+习惯)×g(关系,个性,健康,地域|社会)
  |" j; B7 A/ ^0 @" n$ c# ]4 [$ o( G; x2 L" T0 J
而且同样的因素,同样的职业,不同的人的成功公式也不同。那么你的成功公式是什么?
1 S2 ~. I2 d1 c+ J" l4 n' Z& y+ [4 T  }8 {# j  }6 h
制度和政策应该鼓励智力和努力作为加法项,抑制财富和关系作为乘法项。最后一点,社会这个环境因素会改变成功公式,在当前这是我最担心的。执政者应该有充分的认识。

点评

让我想起一句话:勤奋决定人生下限,天分决定人生上限  发表于 2014-2-2 02:44
好  发表于 2011-5-31 18:04
run regression!!!  发表于 2011-5-31 14:21

该用户从未签到

板凳
发表于 2011-5-31 16:45:57 | 显示全部楼层
回复 万里风中虎 的帖子- _7 F4 i) d% n* {. U# p

" X2 `) G; y+ C! N4 K5 o0 B( w曼昆上周对此有个相关的讨论
9 D+ N' t+ |, W' B3 S0 z' `我贴过来,以免国内的朋友看不见。
  ?" r: u4 [$ D9 `3 O$ M6 I
Random Observations for Students of Economics; v0 a5 l+ B" ~! o1 W5 F
Wednesday, May 25, 2011* d* |+ K: H$ ~2 r9 `$ e/ b
A regression I would like to see9 v; o5 k  B$ N  [8 e
In his column today, David Leonhardt writes the following about college admissions:3 K1 \% Y' S" V  Y& ~- M
* t6 A* R+ V) n* K& W& m7 w
    But all else equal, a low-income applicant was no more likely to get in than a high-income applicant with the same SAT score. It’s pretty hard to call that meritocracy.$ _- g" Y3 {( V, \9 k& M$ p' q% t

9 o' H3 F  N& [$ H( w+ n6 G
! F9 Z+ e: ?7 F0 B; gWhen I first read this pair of sentences, they struck me as odd. But in the context of the whole article, they have some logic. David suggests that high-income applicants' SAT scores are, in some sense, an overstated measure of ability, because these applicants have the benefit of tutors, mulitiple testing opportunities, and so on. As a result, he says that we should correct for this by giving a preference to lower-income applicants.8 ]( K, e# ^# x& ^6 F; t( ]- g% E

/ n& ?% H( F1 pMaybe David is right, but to convince me, here is what I would like to see.  Regress some measure of college success (such as GPA) on SAT scores and the student's family income.  If David is right, then the coefficient on family income should be negative.  That is, a lower-income student should do better in college, holding reported SAT score constant, because he managed to get that SAT score without all those extra benefits.  This is a regression that some enterprising college admissions committee could easily do.  (Maybe someone has already done it, and I am just not aware of the study.)2 M& \3 ^) S2 M) H% N. C
, V+ J! q8 J) z& c" @3 J. P
If the coefficient does turn out to be significantly negative, that finding would provide strong evidence for the thesis of David's article.  Right now, I would venture to guess that the data would not support David's story, but I am always ready to be proven wrong.
( K7 s% v% Y. i5 i( P& c" p( D. Z. n5 w  h) D% f
Update:Todd Stinebrickner, an economist at The University of Western Ontario, emails me this comment:2 |3 z7 T* S" V" O2 x
/ ?: E6 ]: J( [. z) r9 h( c7 e( \
    It does seem reasonable to believe that, if a low income student and a high income student have the same SAT scores at the time of college entrance, the low income student was probably born with higher "inherent" ability.  At the same time, SAT scores may not capture all of the educational benefits of being from a high income family that may continue to matter in college. For example, a student's score on the Math SAT may not capture whether the student had the opportunity to take a Calculus course in high school.  This suggests that, from a theoretical standpoint, the effect of family income on college grades conditional on SAT scores is ambiguous.  As part of an ongoing in-depth case study at one particular school (motivated particularly by an interest in college dropout), we discuss this issue and run the type of regression you suggest in Table 3 of a 2003 JHR paper "Understanding educational outcomes of students from low-income families."  It is worth noting that everyone in our sample is of moderate or low family income. Regardless, within the income groups we examine, students from higher income backgrounds have significantly higher grades throughout college conditional on college entrance exam (ACT) scores.6 p; P' t! i$ h: S+ }/ m' {

2 |. @) b5 o/ N" ^! LThe finding in the last sentence (which I put in bold) is the opposite of what the Leonhardt story suggests. What this means is that if you are a college admissions officer trying to identify the students who will do best in college, as measured by grades, you would give positive rather than negative weight on family income. I am not proposing that they should do this, as colleges have many goals when putting together a class. But it does seem that the hypothesis implicit in Leonhardt's article is not supported by the data.

点评

作用不同,而家庭收入可能家庭环境,内在能力都有关(这两个因素也影响大学成绩),这个研究结果就错了。不过看到曼昆谈微观,很有趣。  发表于 2011-5-31 18:49
有意思,这里要控制的因素太多,以至于光是高中成绩,大学成绩和家庭收入三者之间的关系难以说明问题,比如说,如果家庭收入在高中和大学起的  发表于 2011-5-31 18:44

手机版|小黑屋|Archiver|网站错误报告|爱吱声   

GMT+8, 2024-6-18 11:11 , Processed in 0.041873 second(s), 18 queries , Gzip On.

Powered by Discuz! X3.2

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表