Composition takes place in a cul-de-sac of the customary

June 5th, 2026

Inside the Box by David EpsteinYears ago, Tim Harford’s Cautionary Tales discussed Keith Jarrett’s Köln Concert, David Bowie’s “Heroes”, and Brian Eno’s Music for Airports, in an episode about how staying in your comfort zone isn’t always the best option and that disruption can feed creativity. David Epstein makes those same points in Inside the Box and covers that same concert:

Eighteen-year-old Vera Brandes had not intended to make music history on the night of January 24, 1975. She planned only to put on a sold-out concert at the opera house in Cologne, Germany.

[…]

At seventeen, when she learned that a concert in Cologne featuring a well-known band from America was about to fall through, she stepped in to save it, finalizing contracts, securing a venue, and mustering promotion at the last minute. It played to a sold-out crowd of eight hundred, and thus she became a concert promoter.

Next, Brandes started her own concert series. She called it New Jazz in Cologne.

[…]

She reserved the Cologne Opera House for a Friday night, which meant the concert would be late—eleven p.m.—because it would have to begin after that night’s opera.

To allow anyone interested to attend, she kept the tickets cheap; some went for four deutsche marks, or about $ 1.50. When the day of the show rolled around, all 1,432 seats had been sold.

[…]

Jarrett had performed in Lausanne, Switzerland, the night before, and had to drive the four hundred miles with his producer, Manfred Eicher, overnight to get to Cologne. Neither had slept, and Jarrett was wearing a brace due to persistent back pain.

[…]

They also wanted to check out the piano, which Jarrett had specifically requested: a nine-and-a-half-foot-long Bösendorfer 290 Imperial concert grand piano.

[…]

The piano was sitting on the orchestra lift, a platform in the orchestra pit that can be raised up to the level of the stage. Brandes found someone who could raise the platform, and Jarrett tested a few keys. Then Eicher tested a few keys. Brandes could hear immediately that something was wrong. Eicher walked over and told her that if she couldn’t find another piano, the concert was off.

It wasn’t just that the piano was wildly out of tune. It was the wrong piano. In addition to being two and a half feet shorter than the Bösendorfer Imperial, it actually had fewer keys in the bass range.

There were two Bösendorfer pianos in the arts complex that included the opera house, and a transport company had moved the wrong one.

[…]

The tuner was able to get the middle register in order and the bass register playable, but the upper register was still a problem. The first tinkling notes mimicked the pre-concert bell that ushered the audience to their seats—an unusual start that elicited a giggle from the crowd. Over the next hour of improvisation, Jarrett stuck to the middle of the piano for extended periods. Instead of relying on the full range of notes, he wielded shifts in the loudness and softness of the music to craft an emotional sonic journey, moving between driving rhythms and fragile whispers. He focused on ostinatos, or repetitive patterns of notes, out of which recurring themes blossomed. Combined with steady rhythmic changes, it gave the playing a gorgeous, ethereal quality. In contrast to the sprawling “free jazz” improvisation that was common in Europe at the time, Jarrett spent long stretches playing a few chords with his left hand (one ten-minute span alternates between two adjacent chords, one minor and one major) while his right hand played the part of soloist, improvising groove passages, often in a narrow pitch range but with widely varying rhythms and recurring elements. The smaller piano was not meant to project sound that could reach the balconies, so Jarrett had to press the keys (especially in the bass register) aggressively. He occasionally supplemented that with a novel percussive element: stamping his foot against the pedal without pressing it down. Here and there, he added a well-timed hoot of apparent delight.

[…]

Even after Jarrett had agreed to play, he and Eicher almost dismissed the recording team. But since the sound engineers were already there, they let them proceed, assuming nothing would come of it. Instead, the Cologne performance was released later that year, using the German name of the city in the album title: The Köln Concert. Jarrett’s improvisations that night were too long for radio. But when people heard the album, they loved it. The repetitive elements and anchored improvisations are thrilling but easy to follow, even for a complete novice. It immediately began to spread by word of mouth or by people hearing it played in record stores and asking if they could buy it. It started selling… and selling, and selling, until it had sold millions of copies in all. That recording, of the undersized, partly tuned, sticky-pedaled piano, eventually became the bestselling solo piano album of all time.

[…]

“What happened with this piano was that I was forced to play in what was—at the time—a new way,” he said. “Somehow I felt I had to bring out whatever qualities this instrument had. And that was it.” Decades later, referring to a different performance (his best, he felt), he told Keyboard Magazine: “When I find a piano that has this ‘imperfect’ character, it’s actually much more to deal with—and I mean that in a good sense—than a ‘perfect’ piano.”

Jarrett is hinting at what psychologist Catrinel Tromp has termed the Green Eggs and Ham model of creativity—the paradoxical idea that “working with constraints can yield more creative outputs.” The model gets its name from the origin of the seminal children’s book by Theodor Geisel (aka Dr. Seuss), which began when Bennett Cerf at Random House bet Geisel fifty dollars that he couldn’t write a children’s book using just fifty words.

[…]

In the mid-1950s, the typical reading primer for children was, as the journalist and novelist John Hersey wrote after serving on a school-study council: an “antiseptic little sugar-book showing how Tom and Betty have fun at home and school… uniform, bland, idealized and terribly literal.” With that in mind, the head of Houghton Mifflin’s education division invited Geisel to dinner. He gave Geisel a list of vocabulary words for kids and asked him to write a book for six-and seven-year-olds using no more than 225 words from the list.

[…]

The list exasperated Geisel. “There are no adjectives!” he complained to his wife. In fine Seussian form, he compared it to “trying to make a strudel without any strudels.” So he looked over the list again, and decided that the first two rhyming words he found would form the title of the book, and he’d proceed from there. Thus, The Cat in the Hat was born, transforming contemporary children’s literature. Like Jarrett, Geisel was given limited sounds to work with, so he had to focus more intently on exploring rhythm, quickening the words as the plot quickened. He found it extremely difficult, but also extremely generative.

[…]

As a prominent creativity study put it, given complete freedom, our very strong urge is to follow the “path of least resistance.”

[…]

A related phenomenon is known as the Einstellung effect, a psychology term for the instinct of problem solvers to employ only familiar methods even if better ones are available. “Without constraints,” as one creativity researcher eloquently put it, “composition takes place in a cul-de-sac of the customary.”

Messy by Tim HarfordI should probably read Tim Harford’s Messy, on this subject. He shares some of his sources:

Paul Trynka’s biography of David Bowie is Starman. Sasha Frere-Jones has a fine profile of Brian Eno in the New Yorker, but my main source is my own discussions with Brian.

Brian Eno and Peter Schmidt printed their collection of oblique strategies — aphorisms for creativity — on cards in 1975.

Most academic classes amount to vocational training for ultrarare vocations

June 4th, 2026

Case Against Education by Bryan Caplan The objection that the vocational track teaches students specific skills they need for their first job, while the academic track teaches students general skills they need for every job, is confused, Bryan Caplan argues (in The Case Against Education):

While literacy and numeracy are genuinely general skills, most academic classes amount to vocational training for ultrarare vocations.

[…]

“Traditionalists” want to train everyone for long-shot, prestigious careers like author, historian, political scientist, translator, physicist, and mathematician. So-called vocationalists want to train students for careers they’re likely to enter. The traditional route is painless for educators: teach your students whatever your teachers taught you. The vocational route is painful for educators: to follow it, we must keep tabs on student aptitudes and the job market.

[…]

What’s the point of prepping students for the economy of 2015, when they’ll be employed in the economy of 2025 or 2050? Fair enough, but this is no argument for old-school academics. Ignorance of the future is no excuse for preparing students for occupations they almost surely won’t have. And if we know anything about the future of work, we know that demand for authors, historians, political scientists, translators, physicists, and mathematicians will stay low.

The crowd-pleasing objection to vocationalism, though, is not epistemic, but egalitarian. Placing everyone on the academic track seems more equal than sorting children by “aptitude” and assigning them to “suitable” training. You could say equality is already an illusion; despite the fiction of college prep for all, colleges count only honors and A.P. as the genuine article.

[…]

Keeping bored, resentful kids on the academic track backfires. Instead of “downshifting” to vocational training, they settle for unskilled labor—or worse. Remember: about 20% of Americans never earn a standard high school diploma.

[…]

Historically, teachers trained students for three specific professions: the clergy, law, and medicine. The modern curriculum is more versatile but has changed far less than educators like to think. Today’s schools prepare students for careers as authors, poets, mathematicians, scientists, artists, musicians, historians, translators, and professional athletes. Yet the fraction of students who enter these occupations is trivial. Contrary to popular proeducation rhetoric, schools devote little time to “general skills.” Instead, students spend their days training for jobs few want and even fewer get.

The brain is not designed for thinking

June 3rd, 2026

Inside the Box by David EpsteinAs a pair of psychologists first put it in the 1980s, David Epstein explains (in Inside the Box), humans are “cognitive misers”:

With our limited cognitive resources, it is efficient to reach for solutions that are easy and intuitive. Given complete freedom, we tend to default to simple solutions, not because they are good, but because they are familiar.

[…]

Because we are cognitive misers, breakthrough creativity happens when the easy and intuitive path is blocked—by choice or by force.

[…]

As the cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham has written: “Contrary to popular belief, the brain is not designed for thinking. It’s designed to save you from having to think.” Because the brain is naturally inclined to avoid effortful thinking and to rely instead on familiar patterns, complete freedom tends to lead to unoriginal ideas, simply repeating what is known. Constraints push the brain beyond its default tendencies, forcing it to engage in deeper problem-solving. Total freedom, then, is the enemy of creativity, and constraint its companion.

Daniel Willingham is the author of Why Don’t Students Like School? and Outsmart Your Brain and the “Ask the Cognitive Scientist” column in American Educator magazine.

School is not vocational education’s only venue

June 2nd, 2026

Case Against Education by Bryan CaplanSchool is not vocational education’s only venue, Bryan Caplan points out (in The Case Against Education):

If learning job skills in the school is good, wouldn’t learning job skills on the job be better? Unfortunately, we have an innocuous yet infamous label for kids learning job skills on the job: “child labor.”

Civilized adults recoil at the name. Children with joy in their hearts don’t belong in gray workshops, toiling all day long, cogs in the machine. They’re kids, not robots! Well, unless the gray workshop is called a “school” and the cogs earn zero wages.

[…]

Federal regulations do more than exclude minors from dangerous jobs. Outside of family businesses, farming, newspaper delivery, and performing arts, work for kids under 14 is all but prohibited. U.S. federal law caps 14-and 15-year-olds’ work at three hours a day on school days and eighteen hours a week on school weeks. Plenty of states have stricter regulations. Under California law, 16-and 17-year-olds may not work without school permission or more than four hours on a school day.

When children languish in school, adults rush to rationalize. Making kids sit at desks doing boring busywork may seem cruel, but their pain trains them for the future. Why then is child labor so reviled? Toil may not be fun, but it too trains kids for their future.

[…]

The silliest objection is that businesses “exploit” our children, handing them a pittance for their toil. No one expects schools to pay their students; the training kids receive is payment enough. Why hold firms to a higher standard? College students ferociously compete for unpaid internships because training is valuable compensation—and total compensation, not cash alone, is what counts.

[…]

When researchers compare working students to comparable nonworking students, work has a clear upside and no clear downside. Early job experience has durable dividends, boosting postgraduation earnings by 5, 10, or even 20% for at least a decade.

[…]

Since the minimum wage doesn’t vary by age or experience, we shouldn’t worry that youths will be “exploited.” We should worry that youths—especially Poor Students—won’t be hired at all. Under current law, untrained workers must produce the cost of their training plus $7.25 an hour to be profitably employed. Quite a catch-22, especially for slow learners: you need training to become a productive worker, but firms won’t train you unless you already are a productive worker.

[…]

Unpaid internships survive because authorities hypocritically fail to enforce the letter of the law. As long as interns are college students or recent college grads learning a college-like job, government turns a blind eye. If McDonald’s hired unpaid trainees, prosecution would be swift. Unlike orthodox observers, I hasten to add, I say we need more hypocrisy. Instead of ending the unofficial exemption for college interns, we should grant it to everyone.

What else should policy makers do? Deregulate and destigmatize child labor. Early jobs are good for kids and good for society. Parental oversight isn’t a perfect way to root out abuses, but we rely on it in virtually every other sphere of life. Parents can make their kids devote their childhoods to sports and music—no matter how much they hate playing. Parents can sign their kids up for mountain climbing. Parents can take their kids to dangerous countries. Holding nonfamilial employment to stricter standards than mountain climbing is senseless.

[…]

What about setting up a formal apprenticeship system? The best regimes are jewels, but they’re notoriously difficult to emulate. Most countries can’t be Germany.

[…]

Before using taxpayer dollars to jumpstart apprenticeships, government should get out of the way and take stock of all the opportunities the labor market provides.

General Magic had a right to any IP developed by employees

June 1st, 2026

Inside the Box by David EpsteinGeneral Magic was already in trouble, David Epstein explains (in Inside the Box), when a tech-support guy named Pierre Omidyar used his free time and personal website to start AuctionWeb:

General Magic had a right to any IP developed by employees, so Omidyar dutifully showed the company’s lawyer that his site was generating traffic, connecting people, and facilitating commerce. Isn’t that what General Magic wanted to do? But they were already too committed to the partners of the gigantic Alliance and to a proprietary e-commerce network to change direction, even though the explosion of the internet should have completely altered their plans. General Magic passed on AuctionWeb. Omidyar, who didn’t have a business bank account and had been collecting checks in a pile at his desk, kept it going. He left General Magic, and changed the name of his site to eBay.

Vocational ed stands out because it prepares students for common jobs

May 31st, 2026

Case Against Education by Bryan CaplanBryan Caplan explains (in The Case Against Education) why vocational education rules:

In proponents’ eyes, vocational education raises pay, reduces un­employment, and increases high school completion. Research, though a bit sparse, supports proponents on all counts. Core insight: vocational students are typically “academic underachievers” before entering the vocational track. The right metric isn’t, “How do vocational students compare to average students?” but rather, “How do vocational students compare to comparable students who didn’t study a trade?” Vocational ed fares well by this metric. It raises pay more than academic coursework. It reduces unemployment more than academic coursework. It even boosts high school graduation: the academically uninclined are less prone to quit school when they don’t detest all their classes. Vocational education even seems to deter crime. Those who search for the most lucrative mix of academic and vocational education normally discover students are too academic for their own good. Most will earn more if they replace some—but not all—of their standard courses with vocational alternatives.

[…]

What fraction of vocational ed’s selfish benefits stem from signaling? The lowest estimates, strangely, come from vocational education’s critics. Many inadvertently set its signaling share below zero. How so? Critics fear that vocational education bears a stigma.

[…]

In this scenario, vocational education enriches society more than it enriches vocational students. Society gains the extra productivity, but students capture the extra productivity less the stigma.

[…]

Vocational ed stands out because it prepares students for common jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the United States has roughly 900,000 carpenters, 700,000 auto mechanics, and 400,000 plumbers. Classic college-prep classes like literature, foreign language, and history fall short because they prepare students for rare jobs. The whole U.S. employs only 129,000 writers, 64,000 translators, and 3,800 historians.

[…]

Conventional education mostly helps students by raising their status, but average status cannot rise. Vocational education mostly helps students by building their skills—and average skill can rise.

Businesspeople weren’t going to use the Newton unless it included a phone

May 30th, 2026

Inside the Box by David EpsteinLarry Tesler, who was leading Apple’s Newton group, hired an anthropologist named Eleanor Wynn, David Epstein explains (in Inside the Box), to test the theory behind their business plan:

Wynn reported back that business­people weren’t going to use the Newton unless it included a phone. But adding a phone at that point (as General Magic was busy learning the hard way) was unreasonable. In that case, Wynn reported, the market will be workers who already carry separate pieces of communication equipment, like police officers and firefighters. In an oral history interview for the Computer History Museum, Tesler recalled Apple CEO John Sculley’s response:

Sculley is deflated, “I thought my market was CEOs, like me. Not firemen.” And “No, no, no, we don’t want that. That answer is not acceptable.”

So they went hunting for another answer, using what Tesler called the “famous fake focus group.” Tesler was told that the supposed focus group would be in Minnesota, because people in the Bay Area were too tech savvy, and neither he nor Wynn were invited, and unfortunately there would be no recording of it they could watch. The focus-group team came back with a message: “We’re building the exact right product.” Apple plowed ahead, and the Newton flopped spectacularly.

Lower attendance is what we’re going for

May 29th, 2026

Case Against Education by Bryan CaplanWhen he argues that education is largely wasteful signaling, Bryan Caplan notes (in The Case Against Education), most listeners yield:

Popular resistance doesn’t kick in until I add, “Let’s waste less by cutting government spending on education.”

[…]

The typical reaction is to confidently state, “Education budgets should be redirected, not reduced.”

[…]

Prudence dictates a two-step response. Step 1: Stop wasting the resources. Step 2: Save those resources until you discover a good way to spend them. Not wasting resources is simple and speedy. Don’t just stand there; do it. Finding good ways to use resources is complex and slow. Don’t just do it; think it through. Remember: you can apply saved resources anywhere. Time and money wasted on education could pave roads, cure cancer, cut taxes, subsidize childbearing, pay down government debt before our Fiscal Day of Reckoning, or allow taxpayers to buy better homes, cars, meals, and vacations.

[…]

The signaling model highlights two desirable forms of educational austerity. The first: cutting fat from the curriculum. The second: cutting subsidies for tuition.

[…]

Anyone who scrutinizes modern schools with a mildly cynical eye witnesses piles of material students are laughably unlikely to use in adulthood. The fat emerges in kindergarten: history, social studies, art, music, foreign language. By high school, as we’ve seen, students spend at least half their time on fat. In college, many majors are made of fat: think history, communications, or “interdisciplinary studies.” About 40% of graduates earn degrees in comically—or tragicomically—useless subjects. Even the hardest majors burn ample time on high theory and breadth requirements.

[…]

Return the hours we seize from the young at great taxpayer expense. When they’re too little to release on their own recognizance, schools can still save a bundle by giving students more active time on the playground or more quiet time in the library. Once they no longer need babysitting, society can save even more by ending the school day the minute useful learning is done.

A moderate reform is to stop requiring useless coursework. Make history, social studies, art, music, and foreign language optional. The main problem with this moderation: pursuing material you’re allowed to skip sends a favorable signal. Many students—urged on by their parents—will leap to outshine their peers. To defuse this wasteful arms race, we must do more than make armaments optional. We must constrain opportunities for combat.

[…]

The cleanest approach, naturally, is to discontinue classes that teach impractical material at taxpayer expense. There really is no need for K–12 to teach history, social studies, art, music, or foreign languages. This is especially clear if you recall how much students forget: despite years of schoolwork, American adults can’t date the Civil War, name their congressman, draw, sing, or speak French.

[…]

Why should taxpayers fund the option to study fine arts at public expense? Instead, shut down the impractical departments at public colleges, and make impractical majors at private colleges ineligible for government grants and loans. Deprived of impractical options, some students will switch to practical subjects.

[…]

As fat disappears from the curriculum, students will inevitably find other ways to signal excellence to the labor market. Does this make curriculum reform self-defeating? No, because some forms of signaling are less socially wasteful than others.

[…]

Raise tuition for public colleges. Cut subsidies. Turn grants into loans. Charge borrowers market interest rates. Impose at least some tuition for public high school. From a normal perspective, such proposals provoke the horrified reaction, “Attendance could fall!” From a signaling perspective, the right response is, “Lower attendance is what we’re going for.”

[…]

The more attendance falls, the scarcer educated labor becomes, and the pricier it gets. Owing to signaling, the social benefit rises less than the selfish benefit, but social and selfish benefits still move in tandem. At some point, the education premium gets high enough to transform the marginal student into a good social investment.

[…]

If we’re not getting good value for our educational investments, we shouldn’t call deep cuts “draconian.” We should call the status quo “profligate.”

[…]

The trillions we spend boring youths might cure cancer, buy driverless cars, or end world hunger. Collective complacency seems harmless, but it kills by omission.

[…]

Contrary to populists, student loan programs are one of the least dysfunctional parts of the status quo. Subsidized loans definitely encourage college attendance, but subsidies are too low to encourage it much. Compared to overall taxpayer support for education, loan programs are a rounding error—in part, no doubt, because student debt survives bankruptcy.

More headline-worthy results followed

May 28th, 2026

Inside the Box by David EpsteinBetween 1970 and 1999, David Epstein explains (in Inside the Box), the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) funded thirty large clinical trials that tested drugs or dietary supplements for the treatment or prevention of cardiovascular disease:

While more than half of the studies published before 2000 found a benefit, only two out of twenty-five published early in the twenty-first century did. It was as if some millennium bug had struck, and medicine stopped working.

[…]

Beginning in 2000, “authors face greater constraints in reporting the results of their studies.” They had to restrict what has come to be known as “researcher degrees of freedom,” and that restriction caused a shift from mostly positive drug-trial results to mostly negative results.

[…]

Wansink was a scientific star, making headlines and influencing policy—until a well-intended blog post he wrote in the fall of 2016 abruptly ended his academic career. It was titled: “The Grad Student Who Never Said ‘No.’ ”

[…]

At the start of the post, Wansink mentioned a study in which diners at an all-you-can-eat buffet were charged different prices. He was disappointed that the study had “failed”—that is, had not supported whatever hypothesis he started with. But along came the industrious graduate student. Wansink handed her the data and told her to start looking for positive results. “There’s got to be something here we can salvage,” he told her.

[…]

As Wansink wrote in his blog post: “Eventually we started discovering solutions that held up.”

[…]

Because the grad student was doing such a good job at finding positive results, Wansink gave her data from other samples to work with. More headline-worthy results followed.

[…]

Wansink’s blog post was openly explaining how he had encouraged the graduate student to do what is known as “HARKing”: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known.

[…]

Since the year after his blog post, eighteen of Wansink’s studies have been retracted from scientific journals. In 2018, he resigned from Cornell.

Wansink’s work received coverage in the New York Times (and one of your favorite blogs).

Every government on earth supports education.

May 27th, 2026

Case Against Education by Bryan CaplanEvery government on earth supports education., Bryan Caplan notes (in The Case Against Education):

They support it rhetorically with high praise, and financially with tax dollars. The ideal of “free and compulsory education”—schooling kids free of charge whether they like it or not—spans the globe.

[…]

In a major international survey, clear majorities in every country favor bigger education budgets.

[…]

In the General Social Survey, 74% favor more education funding, 21% favor the status quo, and only 5% favor cuts. Education enjoys bipartisan allegiance.

[…]

Avowed opponents of Big Government make an exception for education: 60% of strong Republicans hew to the conventional pro-spending wisdom, and only 12% are contrarian enough to claim we overspend.

Even my fellow education critics normally argue against spending more, not for spending less.

[…]

“We need to invest in people!” (Reply: We usually rely on the free market to provide crucial investments. We can do the same for education.) “Nothing is more important than education!” (Reply: Food’s more important, and we rely on the free market for that.) “Government has to make sure even the poorest children receive a good education!” (Reply: Means-tested vouchers can cheaply handle this problem. There’s no need for government to run schools or subsidize tuition for kids who aren’t poor.) Laymen’s arguments almost never confront the question, “At what point would education spending be excessive?” “We’ve done enough for education” is as heretical as “We’ve done enough for paralyzed veterans.”

[…]

The Onion, the best parody site ever, once ran an article titled, “U.S. Government to Discontinue Long-Term, Low-Yield Investment in Nation’s Youth.”

[…]

Since no government leaves education to the free market, there is no straightforward way to evaluate the case for the very existence of pro-education policies.

[…]

A classic bumper sticker muses, “It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.” By most measures, this great day arrived in the United States long ago. The air force may not hold bake sales, but total education spending far surpasses total military spending. For the 2010–11 school year, education was 7.5% of the American economy, versus 4.7% for defense. Spending came to over $1.1 trillion on education, and a bit over $700 billion on defense. Schools overtook the military back in 1972 and sharply widened their lead after the Cold War.

[…]

$1.1 trillion a year is a royal sum—$1,100,000,000,000 in longhand. That’s nearly $3,600 for every person in America—not every student, mind you, but every person. Chanting “investment” doesn’t make it so. If half is wasteful signaling, we’re wasting over half a trillion dollars a year. And that’s only budgetary cost. A full damage report would include tens of billions of emotionally taxing, socially fruitless classroom hours.

[…]

Like a rich uncle, government helps us waste. Whenever we can’t or won’t waste our own money on schooling, federal, state, and local governments are standing by to waste taxpayers’ money on our behalf.

[…]

Direct federal education spending is hard to pin down, but probably small enough to ignore. Federal assistance to individuals, in contrast, exceeds $100 billion. Main complication: the federal government chiefly offers loans, not grants. If it charged market interest rates, you could claim student loans cost taxpayers nothing. Yet despite loud complaints about usury, even “unsubsidized” student rates are well below market. Loan guarantees have no visible upfront cost, but you probably don’t want to cosign my personal loans for free. The Congressional Budget Office finds an average subsidy rate of 12%: every dollar of student “loan” contains a hidden taxpayer gift of 12 cents.

[…]

Many Americans imagine public education operates on a shoestring budget. Private education, in contrast, looks so pricey it’s implausible government does much to make it affordable. Both perceptions are wildly at odds with the facts.

[…]

Government provides more than four-fifths of all education spending. Government support for education comfortably exceeds notoriously bloated defense spending. Even at the height of the War on Terror, there was more government money for education than the military. Government spending on education is about 6% of the whole economy.

[…]

In 2010–11, government spent at least $565 billion on K through 12—that’s 87% of the total—and at least $317 billion on higher education—67% of the total.

For every person who needs more freedom, there are ten people who need more help in finding their way

May 26th, 2026

Inside the Box by David EpsteinBell Labs is often remembered as the epitome of unfettered exploration, David Epstein explains (in Inside the Box), but that framing misses a crucial point:

Eric Gilliam, who studies and writes about innovation history, coined the beautiful phrase “long leash, narrow fence” to describe the ethos at Bell Labs in its heyday. New researchers were given extraordinary latitude in determining what to work on, but were expected to interact with engineers and manufacturing facilities to identify specific problems that needed solving.

[…]

John R. Pierce, a Bell Labs scientist and “father of the communications satellite,” recalled in an oral history: “Too much freedom is horrible. It’s like telling a young child, ‘Do whatever you want to.’… It’s certainly bad to be directed to do things very, very narrowly and with no freedom. It’s my guess that for every person who needs more freedom, there are ten people who need more help in finding their way.” What they had at Bell Labs, as another famous scientist put it, was “circumscribed freedom”—freedom within a framework.

Gilliam shares just an excerpt from an interview with Pierce, from 1979, after he had earned acclaim as the father of the communications satellite:

LYLE: I want to talk about research in the Bell Labs and how that’s done. That is, when you first started there, you were working with vacuum tubes. Who decides what problems will be worked on?

PIERCE: That’s very different then and now. I was told to do research on vacuum tubes. People sort of just left me alone. They did suggest that I go and see Philo Farnsworth, who was working on electron multipliers and television pick-up tubes, but I was left pretty much to myself. This was very, very confusing to me. I didn’t know what to do.

LYLE: Were you doing it alone?

PIERCE: Yes.

LYLE: Did they say, “So-and-so has been doing this and this is where he left off”?

PIERCE: No. I was just supposed to plan something to do and do it. I think that is close to cruel and unusual punishment.

LYLE: And full of anxiety, I’m sure.

PIERCE: Yes, but I didn’t know enough to be unhappy. I did crazy things. I did some useful things. I invented an electron multiplier. I was greatly helped at this point, but not so much by the people who were close to such work. I felt a certain secretiveness in the people who were working near to me. They were doing their own thing, and I was doing other things. Heaven knows how I found anything useful to do. I was exposed to things by some of the people who were less secretive. I was very much helped by Bill Shockley, who came to Bell Laboratories about the same time I did. He had been an undergraduate at Caltech but did his graduate work at MIT. He was a very sympathetic person, and taught me a good deal. Somehow I hit on things that were worth working on — electron multipliers and the question of noise in electron multipliers, and later trying to make high transconductance vacuum tubes.

Then, as the war came, I was drawn into microwave tube work, and the outcome of that was a little bit by accident. First, I tried to make klystron amplifiers—I’d heard about klystron. Then I stumbled onto reflex klystrons, which was not a new idea, but I stumbled onto it independently. Gerry [William Gerald] Shepherd, who’s now at the University of Minnesota, and I made some klystrons that were in all American microwave radar receivers. The magnetron was the big thing of the day, but we made these beating oscillators for receivers instead.

Too much freedom is horrible. It’s like telling a young child, “Do whatever you want to.” You’ve heard this story. There are various outcomes. One is, “Do I have to do what I want to?” Complete freedom is not very helpful to a person who is inexperienced in the world. It’s certainly bad to be directed to do things very, very narrowly and with no freedom. It’s my guess that for every person who needs more freedom, there are ten people who need more help in finding their way.

LYLE: So, did they tell you why they wanted the vacuum tubes, when you started off?

PIERCE: Not really. I found out some way, inadvertently. Some people were working on electron multipliers, and I made some improvements on them. It became clear that people needed better vacuum tubes for building negative feedback amplifiers, and I worked on that. I don’t think I was told this formally; I just found out by talking to people. Then, as the war approached and we got into war, it became apparent that microwave radar was very, very important, and I worked on tubes for radar. It was a process of osmosis rather than direction that led me into these things, as I remember it.

LYLE: How was the research tied in with the general business of Bell Telephone? kind of a relationship exists between these two parts of the company?
That is, what kind of a relationship exists between these two parts of the company?

PIERCE: It’s a very important relationship. The Bell System has AT&T, which is sort of a holding company, but it also runs the long lines that provide long distance telephone service. It establishes engineering practices for the Bell System. It owns Western Electric, which is a manufacturing organization, and it also owns, together with Western Electric, the Bell Telephone Laboratories.

I remember that during the war we saw a good deal of people from Western Electric, who were going to manufacture the things that we devised. Because all of these people were engaged in telephony, or during the war because they were all engaged in radar and other military things, you got to talk to people who were engaged in the operation of things, who were engaged in the manufacture of things, and you got a picture of the rest of the world which certainly influenced what research you did.

I can understand a university, which does teaching and research. But the idea of a research institute without ties to either teaching or to manufacturing or operational organization seems a terribly sterile idea. You see that in the Soviet Union; there’s a lot of good activity that never results in anything. When they want to build automobiles, they hire Fiat to build an automobile plant, instead of relying on what they have learned.

Trying a year of school never ensures success

May 25th, 2026

Case Against Education by Bryan CaplanTrying a year of school never ensures success, Bryan Caplan explains (in The Case Against Education):

Students can and do pay tuition, kill a year, and flunk their finals. A small risk of failing a year of school, like a small risk of defaulting on a loan, sharply depresses education’s return. Any respectable estimate of the return to education must account for these academic “bankruptcies.”

[…]

Of course, schools often allow students to repeat a failed year, but this gives students who waste a year’s time and tuition only the chance to gamble another year’s time and tuition. Every casino offers the same deal.

Unreflective researchers naturally overlook noncompletion because it falls far outside their personal experience. The researchers finished their degrees. So did almost everyone they personally know. How bad can attrition be? Dismal. Overall dropout or “noncompletion” rates are high at all levels of American education. About 25% of high school students fail to finish in four years. About 60% of full-time college students fail to finish in four years. Half of advanced degree students never finish at all.

[…]

After reviewing available evidence, the Technical Appendix ends up assigning Good Students the following probabilities: 92.3% to finish high school in four years, 43.5% to finish a bachelor’s degree in four years, and 32.7% to finish a master’s in two years.

[…]

In terms of measured cognitive ability, Excellent Students are around the 82nd percentile, Good Students the 73rd, Fair Students the 41st, and Poor Students the 24th.

[…]

Results closely match common sense. High school is lucrative for all four archetypes. Even Poor Students can reasonably expect the resources they invest in high school to out-perform high-yield bonds. College, in contrast, is a solid deal only for Excellent and Good Students. Largely owing to their high failure rate, Fair Students who start college should foresee a low 2.3% return on their investment. For Poor Students, it’s a paltry 1%. Master’s degrees, finally, are a so-so deal for Excellent Students, a bad deal for Good Students, and a money pit for Fair and Poor Students.

[…]

The results are parental wisdom incarnate. The electrical engineering degree pays very well, especially for stronger students. The fine arts degree pays very poorly, especially for weaker students. Remember: zero and negative returns don’t mean fine arts degrees are worthless in the labor market. A fine art degree raises expected income over 20%. What zero and negative returns mean, rather, is that capturing that raise is more trouble for Fair and Poor Students than it’s worth.

[…]

Measured by Barron’s ratings or average SAT scores, many public schools—such as UC Berkeley, the University of Virginia, and the University of Michigan—approach the top of the pecking order. As long as your state’s best public school admits you, there’s no solid reason to pay more.

Not too much time, not too much money, and not too many people on the team

May 24th, 2026

Inside the Box by David EpsteinPrior to his This American Life experience, David Epstein explains (in Inside the Box), he was apt to think of freedom as an absence of editing:

It seems silly to me in retrospect, but it’s the same kind of “no limits” thinking that animated General Magic, and its failure left a powerful impression on those who lived it.

Tony Fadell came away from the General Magic experience obsessed with constraints. “If you don’t have constraints, then make up constraints!” he told me the first time we spoke.

[…]

After General Magic, Fadell joined Philips as a twenty-five-year-old chief technology officer, where initially he “swung the pendulum too far the other way,” he said, and fell into micromanaging.

[…]

He got the initial call from Apple in January 2001. In March, he showed Steve Jobs a Styrofoam model of a music player and got the green light. He wasn’t given a deadline to ship a first version, but Fadell insisted on setting one linked to an external beacon, “so that everybody has an understanding of what it looks like, and it isn’t just the boss cracking the whip.” He chose Christmas. It meant that rather than building the giant from the toes up like at General Magic, the team had to use existing technology resourcefully. Their soon-to-be famous scroll wheel, for instance, was inspired by the wheel on a Danish cordless phone that a team member brought to a meeting. The first iPod shipped that November.

Fadell eventually moved on to the iPhone, where the team set internal deadlines for experimental prototypes. Fadell refers to those deadlines as “heartbeats,” because they determine the rhythm of work from the inside. They gave themselves just ten weeks to make a first basic version of an iPod-plus-phone, during which time they learned that the wheel would take up too much space. They allotted five months for a second version, and learned that more of their assumptions were wrong; an antenna and speaker couldn’t be as close together as they’d wanted. The third version worked, enough. The internal deadlines (or heartbeats) weren’t for finishing the entire project; they were signals for everyone to pause, collect lessons, and regroup.

Fadell later wrote: “We would have never reached that third design if we hadn’t given ourselves hard deadlines with the first two — if we hadn’t cut ourselves off after a few months, reset, and moved on. We forced as many constraints on ourselves as possible: not too much time, not too much money, and not too many people on the team.”

A child of privilege can easily consume a half million dollars of education before landing their first job

May 23rd, 2026

Case Against Education by Bryan Caplan Elites pay shocking sums for education, Bryan Caplan explains (in The Case Against Education):

Annual tuition and fees for high school students at Phillips Exeter Academy now run $37,000. Harvard University’s list price exceeds $45,000 a year. Students who live on campus pay even more. A child of privilege can easily consume a half million dollars of education before landing their first job.

The cost for a Good Student, who by assumption attends nearby public schools, is drastically lower. Instead of $37,000 a year for Exeter, he attends high school free of charge. Instead of $45,000 a year for Harvard, he pays in-state tuition at his local college—and unlike the elite, receives a lot of financial aid. For the bottom line, turn to the College Board’s annual Trends in College Pricing. This report tabulates the list price of college, then subtracts average financial aid to yield “net tuition.” For our Good Student, the final numbers are shockingly affordable. The out-of-pocket cost of a year of four-year college—tuition, fees, books, and supplies minus aid—sums to $3,662.59

[…]

If you’re elite or near-elite, $3,662 per year for college sounds like con artistry. You might scoff, “I don’t know anyone who paid that.” Rather than dismiss the numbers, though, know you live in a bubble. When folks like you go to public universities, you pay close to list price. That doesn’t stop other kids from getting four-year degrees for less than the cost of a semester at Harvard.

In print, the audience could slow down, or reread

May 22nd, 2026

Inside the Box by David EpsteinDavid Epstein explains (in Inside the Box) how he pitched a story to NPR’s This American Life:

I had no experience writing to a time limit, only a word limit, so the draft was seven minutes over the allotted time. And while listeners around the table loved the concept, they were confused. The medical-mystery story was filled with detailed explanations of genetic tests and esoteric diseases. I had a tendency to pack magazine articles with scientific details I found fascinating. In print, the audience could slow down, or reread. In an audio story, as information whizzed by, my proclivity for the written version of “featuritis” was a fatal flaw. But This American Life had a process that fixed my weakness.

Just as with Pixar’s Braintrust meetings, the read-through listeners pointed out moments in the story that left them confused, but did not prescribe how to fix them. And just as at Pixar, Miki and I were required to address the problems but were left to our own ingenuity to decide how. We were given clear problem boundaries, not solutions.

[…]

This cycle repeated several more times.

[…]

Finally, we finished a read-through in which the new person had nothing to highlight. The system had titrated out confusion.

Only once that process was done did Ira Glass commence intense, hands-on editing. The listening sessions and iterations had been the “think slow”; now came “act fast.”

[…]

In less than an hour, Ira and Miki corrected the volume of a few interview clips, picked from various takes of my narration, adjusted the entry points of background music, and finalized Ira’s introduction to the segment. And out the episode went. It was a beautiful example of “think slow, act fast.”

[…]

In short order, the process made a first-time scriptwriter and narrator seem like a seasoned pro, and all without anyone ever telling me explicitly what to do. That, I think, is a special kind of freedom.