With technology, old ways of doing things give way to simply better alternatives. We no longer need to pick up a phone to buy a plane ticket or hail a cab. We no longer need to carry cash around to pay for most things. Soon, students may not need to listen to traditional lectures to learn science and math because technology can make most STEM lessons participatory. But will the new model of instruction be as effective as traditional lecturing? In what its authors call “the largest and most comprehensive meta-analysis of undergraduate STEM education published to date”, the answer seems to be yes.
It has come to our attention that a number of papers, all making similar points have been produced at about the same time. Here they are.
A new paper by Juemin Xu and Nigel Harvey called “Carry on winning: The gamblers’ fallacy creates hot hand effects in online gambling” is fascinating.
Preston McAfee, decade-long editor of the American Economic Review, Caltech professor, and all around economist extraordinaire starts today as Chief Economist of Microsoft.
When hiring or making admissions decisions, impressions of a person from an interview are close to worthless. Hire on the most objective data you have.
The Society for Judgment and Decision Making is inviting submissions for the Hillel Einhorn New Investigator Award.
Do non-compete agreements result in worse work?
A rough guide to spotting bad science
If you take a light gloss over the literature, you would think that people are overly attracted to the lump sum, that is, they discount the future too much. One recent paper, however, finds that the appeal of the annuity has much to do with the amount. Small annuity payments are quite unattractive, but large annuity payments become surprisingly attractive.
The publishers Springer and IEEE are removing more than 120 papers from their subscription services after a French researcher discovered that the works were computer-generated nonsense.