Colleges do not card

Thursday, May 7th, 2026

Case Against Education by Bryan Caplan“Higher education is the only product,” Arnold Kling says, “where the consumer tries to get as little out of it as possible.”

In The Case Against Education, Bryan Caplan runs with this idea:

Fact: anyone can study at Princeton for free. While tuition is over $45,000 a year, anyone can show up and start attending classes. No one will stop you. No one will challenge you. No one will make you feel unwelcome. Gorge yourself at Princeton’s all-you-can-eat buffet of the mind. Colleges do not card. I have seen this with my own eyes at schools around the country.

[…]

After four years of “guerrilla education,” there’s only one thing you’ll lack: a diploma. Since you’re not in the system, your performance will be invisible to employers. Not too enticing, is it?

Imagine this stark dilemma: you can have either a Princeton education without a diploma, or a Princeton diploma without an education. Which gets you further on the job market? For a human capital purist, the answer is obvious: four years of training are vastly preferable to a page of paper. But try saying that with a straight face.

[…]

The fact that almost no one grabs a free elite education shows human capital purism is false.

[…]

How would your career have been different if you flunked all the classes you’ve forgotten?

If employers rewarded well-educated workers for skills alone, failing a class and forgetting a class would have identical career consequences. They plainly don’t.

[…]

Failing to learn course material sends a lousy signal: you were lacking in intelligence, conscientiousness, and/ or conformity—and probably still are. Forgetting course material on the other hand, merely signals you lack the superpower of photographic memory.

[…]

Students struggle to win admission to elite schools. Once they arrive, however, they hunt for professors with low expectations.

[…]

Anyone who likes money and dislikes studying has an obvious two-part strategy: choose the best school that admits you so you get a good job after graduation, and choose the easiest professors on campus so you have a good time before graduation.

[…]

Teachers have a foolproof way to make their students cheer: cancel class. If human capital purists are right, such jubilation is bizarre. Since you go to school to acquire job skills, a teacher who cancels class rips you off. You learn less, you’re less employable, yet your school doesn’t refund a dime of tuition.

[…]

By analogy, both sculptors and appraisers have the power to raise the market value of a piece of stone. The sculptor raises the market value of a piece of stone by shaping it. The appraiser raises the market value of a piece of stone by judging it. Teachers need to ask ourselves, “How much of what we do is sculpting, and how much is appraising?” And if we won’t ask ourselves, our alumni need to ask for us.

The Martian sociologist will conclude the typical worker occasionally solves quadratic equations and checks triangles for congruence

Tuesday, May 5th, 2026

Case Against Education by Bryan CaplanIn The Case Against Education, Bryan Caplan asks us to put ourselves in the shoes of a Martian sociologist:

Your mission: given our curriculum, make an educated guess about what our economy looks like. The Martian would plausibly work backward from the premise that the curriculum prepares students to be productive adults. Since students study reading, writing, and math, you would correctly infer that the modern economy requires literacy and numeracy. So far, so good.

From then on, however, the Martian would leap from one erroneous inference to another. Students spend years studying foreign languages, so there must be lots of translators. Teachers emphasize classic literature and poetry. A thriving market in literary criticism is the logical explanation. Every student has to take algebra and geometry. The Martian sociologist will conclude the typical worker occasionally solves quadratic equations and checks triangles for congruence. While we can picture an economy that fits our curriculum like a glove, that economy is out of this world.

We should be equally puzzled, he notes, by the eminently practical subjects students don’t have to study:

Why don’t educators familiarize students with compensation and job satisfaction in common occupations? Strategies for breaking into various industries? Sectors with rapidly changing employment? Why don’t schools make students spend a full year learning how to write a resume or affect a can-do attitude? Dire sins of omission.

There has to be a logical explanation for the effect of Ivory Tower achievement on Real World success, he continues:

The labor market doesn’t pay you for the useless subjects you master; it pays you for the preexisting traits you reveal by mastering them.

Education signals three broad traits: not just intelligence, but conscientiousness and conformity, too:

What are modern model workers like? They’re team players. They’re deferential to superiors, but not slavish. They’re congenial toward coworkers but put business first. They dress and groom conservatively. They say nothing remotely racist or sexist, and they stay a mile away from anything construable as sexual harassment. Perhaps most importantly, they know and do what’s expected, even when articulating social norms is difficult or embarrassing. Employers don’t have to tell a modern model worker what’s socially acceptable case by case.

[…]

An intelligent worker learns quickly and deeply. A conscientious worker labors until the job’s done right. A conformist worker obeys superiors and cooperates with teammates. If you lack the right stuff to succeed in school, you probably lack the right stuff to succeed in the labor market.

Belief effects do have a ceiling

Sunday, May 3rd, 2026

Do Hard Things by Steve MagnessWith Sabastian Sawe breaking the two-hour marathon, Steve Magness notes, we’ve got a new self-help story that will dominate public speaking for decades to come, like Bannister’s breaking the four-minute mile:

After Roger Bannister broke the 4-minute mile barrier, John Landy got under the mark just 46 days later. The next year 3 more men got under. And within 2.5 years, there were 10 runner who were now sub-4 milers.

But perhaps most interesting is that of the first five men to break 4 minutes for the mile, three were British. And they all shared a coach: Franz Stampfl. A year after Bannister broke the barrier, Stampfl’s athletes Chris Chattaway and Brian Hewson would become the 4th and 5th men to go sub-4. Chattaway was actually one of the original pacers in Bannister’s attempt. The other pace and training partner, Chris Brasher, went on to win Gold at the 1956 Olympics in the steeplechase.

For a belief effect to take hold, it has to feel real.

When we see someone we train with (or have competed against) who isn’t too dissimilar from us do something that once seemed crazy, we start to think, “If he or she can, why not me?” Famed psychologist Albert Bandura spent his career studying a type of inner confidence he called self-efficacy. The most powerful contributor was what he called mastery experiences, where you go into the arena and do the thing. You gain experience through the work, and that experience gives you evidence that you have a shot.

[…]

Most people get this backwards. They wait until they feel sure before they act. But confidence isn’t something you summon. It’s something you accumulate. The more reps you put in, the more faith you gain in your respective craft, and in yourself. It is not blind or delusional faith. It is faith based on a concrete body of evidence—and it’s the only kind that holds up when it matters.

Another major contributor to self-efficacy is vicarious experience. It occurs when you watch someone like you attain your goal successfully. Bandura emphasized that the impact depends heavily on perceived similarity. It’s the Bannister effect to a T. His training partners saw what he did every day and thought, “We’re keeping up with him… maybe we can do it too.”

Bannister’s coach Franz Stampfl put it this way, “Effort is really a mental image. The basis of athletic coaching must be to make the state of mind so strong that a world record performance is reduced to the level of instinct.” While the trio of marathoners (Sawe, Kejelcha, and Kiplimo) who smashed records on Sunday weren’t training partners, they had raced each other numerous times. In fact, Kejelcha had a 2-1 lead over Sawe in the half-marathon. And Kiplimo had finished 2nd to Sawe at last year’s London marathon. So if someone you’ve competed with closely is going for it, you say “I’ve run with them before, so why not.” And this explains how you get three guys breaking a world-record in one race.

[…]

Research? shows that role models can either inspire or discourage us. The difference comes from whether you see a role model or worthy rival’s success as achievable. Meaning, the more a role model or worthy rival seems like you (or perhaps comes from a background that allows you to say “this could be me”), the more likely that role model or worthy rival inspires. If, however, the role model or worthy rival is too distant, we create all sorts of reasons for why that couldn’t be us, and we psych ourselves out.

[…]

Belief effects do have a ceiling. We can’t just wish or manifest our way to crazy performance, despite what some in the self-help world may say. In a fascinating study on cyclists who were deceived while doing a time trial, the researchers put a fake avatar and racing splits as being 2% faster than their personal best. They beat their own personal bests. But when they bumped that up to 5%, their performance crashed. It was too far of a stretch. The brain unlocks reserves up to a believable margin and shuts down past it.

There’s one other separate mechanism that plays a role here that goes deeper than belief. Henk Aarts and Peter Gollwitzer’s research on goal contagion found that watching someone pursue a goal makes you automatically adopt it yourself, often without realizing it. Goal contagion is the unconscious cousin to belief effects. And just like its close relative, it also runs on proximity. The closer the model of the goal, the stronger the pull. If you watch a random stranger run hard, you might catch a tiny bit of contagion. But if you watch your training partner go to the well in a workout, the contagion is massive. The brain adopts the goals of people it considers “us,” which is the exact biological mechanism behind why training groups elevate individual performance.

[…]

Find the people doing what you want to do. Get close enough to feel it. The “impossible” becomes more possible when it’s standing next to you. And then give yourself the personal evidence—from practice, from prior experiences—that you can make the jump if things come together.

You don’t need to feel ready. What you need is a body of evidence: your own hard work and people around you who show you’ve got a chance.

Education technology is widely used, but growth in achievement has not followed

Saturday, May 2nd, 2026

Do online math programs work?

In August 2022, three researchers at Khan Academy, a popular math practice website, published the results of a massive, 99-district study of students. It showed an effect size of 0.26 standard deviations (SD) — equivalent to several months of additional schooling — for students who used the program as recommended.

A 2016 Harvard study of DreamBox, a competing mathematics platform, though without the benefit of Sal Khan’s satin voiceover, found an effect size of 0.20 SD for students who used the program as recommended. A 2019 study of i-Ready, a similar program, reported an effect size in math of 0.22 SD — again for students who used the program as recommended. And in 2023 IXL, yet another online mathematics program, reported an effect size of 0.14 SD for students who used the program as designed.

Those gains, and many others like them reported each year, are impressive. Since use of these tools is widespread, one could be forgiven for asking why American students are not making impressive gains in math achievement. John Gabrieli, an MIT neuroscientist, declares himself “impressed how education technology has had no effect on…outcomes.” He was talking about reading but could equally have called out mathematics, the other big area in which education technology is widely used but growth in achievement has not followed.

A clue is in those wiggle words “students who used the program as recommended.” Just how many students do use these programs as recommended — at least 30 minutes per week in the case of Khan Academy? The answer is usually buried in a footnote, if it’s reported at all. In the case of the Khan study, it is 4.7 percent of students. The percentage of students using the other products as prescribed is similarly low.

This falling back process is termed retardation

Friday, May 1st, 2026

Pamela Hobart recently noted that grade levels never worked, citing Laggards in our Schools: A Study of Retardation and Elimination In City School Systems, a 1909 book by Leonard P. Ayres for the Russell Sage Foundation. The introduction, by Luther Halsey Gulick, is delightfully of its time:

During the past decade it has been increasingly realized that the education of children who are defective in body, mind, or morals is a matter of great importance to the future of the state. Extensive studies carried on in Great Britain have shown an alarming amount of degeneration. Definite and extensive steps looking toward the care of defective children have been taken in many civilized countries; but the crux of the matter does not lie in the care of these unfortunates. At most they do not constitute more than from one to two per cent of the school population, and it does not appear that any considerable fraction of them can ever be educated so as to become independent members of the community.

The great problem lies in the very much larger class of those who, while they are not defective, do not keep up with their fellows. These, constituting from five to fifty per cent of our school population, can become either failures or successes in life, according to the influences that are brought to bear upon them during their early years.

About this large group we need facts. Are they in their present condition largely because of removable physical disabilities, such as hypertrophied tonsils or adenoids, defective vision or hearing, or malnutrition? Do they drop behind in their school life because of illness? Are they behind because of late entrance into the schools? To what extent is irregularity of attendance a factor in delayed progress? Is compulsory labor after school hours an important factor? When do they drop out of school, and for what reasons? Are there any schools that succeed in educating an appreciably larger per cent of these children than do others? If so, how is it done?

Data with which to answer these questions were not in existence. Application was therefore made to the Russell Sage Foundation for a modest grant with which to make a preliminary survey that might

(1) Put together useful material bearing on these topics;

(2) Develop a mode of attack on the problem;

(3) Analyze a sufficiently large number of cases to demonstrate the utility of the method and give answers of at least a provisional nature to some of the questions.

The grant was allowed in the fall of 1907.

[…]

The most significant of the findings of the investigation are:

(1) That the most important causes of retardation of school children can be removed;

(2) That the old-fashioned virtues of regularity of attendance and faithfulness are major elements of success;

(3) That some cities are already accomplishing excellent results by measures that can be adopted by all;

(4) That relatively few children are so defective as to prevent success in school or in life.

LUTHER H. GULICK

So, our concern is with students who, while not defective, do not keep up with their fellows:

In his report for 1904 Dr. William H. Maxwell, City Superintendent of Schools of New York, called attention to the fact that a large number of pupils (39 per cent in the elementary grades) were shown by his tables to be above the normal age for the grades they were in. In each annual report since then he has regularly published similar tables. Concerning the condition thus disclosed there has been much discussion, and more than one school evil has been unhesitatingly labeled a consequence of “retardation,” as the circumstance of mal-adjustment between the ages and grades of school children came to be termed.

Many causes were assigned in explanation of the conditions revealed. Among these some of the more prominent were the constant influx of non-English speaking children, the enrolling of children in the first grade at a comparatively advanced age, the slow progress of children on account of physical defects or weaknesses, inefficient teaching, unsuitable courses of study, and the shifting of children from school to school by reason of the frequent changes of residence of their families.

[…]

The object of the investigation was to study the problem of the progress of school children through the grades. Its interest was not in the individual, sub-normal, or atypical child but rather in that large class, varying with local conditions from 5 to 75 percent of all the children in our schools, who are older than they should be for the grades they are in.

[…]

In every school there are found some children who are older than they should be for the grades they are in. These children constitute serious problems for the teachers. They are misfits in the classes, require special attention if they are to do satisfactory work and render more difficult the work with the other children. These children are known as over-age or retarded children. They are found in all school systems but are by no means equally common in all systems. In this regard there is an enormous variability among cities. In Medford, Massachusetts, only 7 per cent of the children are retarded according to the standard adopted, while in Memphis, Tennessee, among the colored children 75 per cent are retarded. All of the other cities studied fall between these two extremes. On the average about 33 per cent of all of the pupils in our public schools belong to the class “retarded.” This gives an idea of the magnitude of the problem with which we are dealing. It is not at all a problem concerning a few under-developed or feeble minded children. It is one affecting most intimately perhaps 6,000,000 children in the United States.

Wherever we find that the retarded children constitute a large part of all of the school membership we find that many of the children do not stay in the schools until they complete the elementary course. Children who are backward in their studies and reach the age of fourteen (which is generally the end of the compulsory attendance period) when they are in the fifth or sixth grade instead of in the eighth, rarely stay to graduate. They drop out without finishing. The educational importance of this fact is great. We are apt to think of the common school course as representing the least amount of schooling that should be permitted to anyone, but the fact remains that a large part of all of our children are not completing it. As retardation is a condition affecting all of our schools to some extent, so too elimination, or the falling out of pupils before completing the course, is an evil found everywhere but varying greatly in degree in different localities. In Quincy, Massachusetts, of every hundred children who start in the first grade eighty-two continue to the final grade. In Camden, New Jersey, of every hundred who start only seventeen finish. The other eighty-three fall by the wayside. The general tendency of American cities is to carry all of their children through the fifth grade, to take one-half of them to the eighth grade and one in ten through the high school.

[…]

The contention that the children who make slow progress are in a measure counterbalanced by a substantially equal number who make rapid progress is found to rest on an even slighter basis of fact. Taking the average of the conditions found in our city schools the figures show that for every child who is making more than normally rapid progress there are from eight to ten children making abnormally slow progress. In the lower grades, before the process of elimination enters to remove the badly retarded children, the average progress of the pupils is at the rate of eight grades in ten years. These conditions mean that our courses of study as at present constituted are fitted not to the slow child or to the average child but to the unusually bright one.

If the lower grades of our schools contain many children who are not going ahead at the normal rate, this means that there are large numbers of pupils who are doing the work of the grades they are in for the second or third time. These children are repeaters. The study of the figures from different cities reveals the importance of this class from both the educational and economic view points. The computations show that in the schools of Somerville a little more than 6 per cent of the children are repeaters. From this figure the records of the cities range upwards until we reach Camden, New Jersey, with 30 per cent of the children in the repeating class. The average percentage is a little over 16. This means that in the country as a whole about one-sixth of all of the children are repeating and we are annually spending about $27,000,000 in this wasteful process of repetition in our cities alone.

[…]

In general there is little relation between the percentage of foreigners in the different cities and the amount of retardation found in their schools. Some of our most foreign cities make very good records, while in some of our most American cities school conditions are very bad indeed. In the country as a whole there are more illiterates proportionately among native whites of native parents than among native whites of foreign parents and school attendance is more general among the latter than among the former.

In the New York investigation it was shown that there are decided differences between the different races in the matter of school progress. There the Germans made the best records, followed by Americans, Russians, English, Irish and Italians in that order. Everywhere that investigations have been made it has been conclusively shown that ignorance of the English language is a handicap that is quickly and easily overcome and has little influence on retardation.

[…]

Perhaps no more important set of facts has been brought to light than those relating to the relative standing of the two sexes. We have always known that fewer boys than girls go to the high school but we have not before known that there is 13 per cent more retardation among boys than among girls and 13 per cent more repeaters among boys than among girls, or that the percentage of girls who complete the common school course is 17 per cent greater than the percentage of boys. These facts mean that our schools as at present constituted are far better fitted to the needs of the girls than they are to those of the boys.

There is another thing that has been proved; namely, that these conditions which have been discussed are neither of recent origin nor are they growing worse. Conditions are slowly improving in most places but not in all and not rapidly. They are not improving so rapidly that we have any grounds for feeling that if let alone they will care for themselves.

[…]

If children are to progress regularly through the grades they must be present in the schools. This means that we must have better compulsory attendance laws and better provision for their enforcement. If we are to enforce the attendance laws we must know where the children of school age are. Therefore, we must have better laws for taking the school census and better methods for utilizing the returns. If we are to have all of our children complete the common school course we must have an agreement which is now commonly lacking between the length of the school course and the length of the compulsory attendance period. It is a curious anomaly that we commonly have school courses eight or nine years in length and compel attendance for six years only.

[…]

In our city school systems most of the children enter the first grade at the age of six or seven. Some of them are promoted each year and reach the eighth grade at fourteen or fifteen years of age. Others are not regularly promoted from grade to grade. They fall behind and at the age of fourteen they find themselves, not in the eighth grade, but in the fifth or sixth. This falling back process is termed retardation.

The retarded pupil finds himself in the same class with much younger companions. His age and size are a continual reproach to him. He begins to resent the maternalistic atmosphere of the lower grammar grades. He becomes discouraged through his lack of success and, when he has passed the compulsory attendance age, he leaves school. This dropping out process is termed elimination. It is with these two processes — retardation and elimination — that this volume has to deal.

[…]

We have always known that in our general educational system, the high schools occupy a somewhat privileged position, in that they deal with selected and not with average pupils. Few of the pupils of the common schools continue their work until they reach this institution of secondary instruction. But we have not known, or if we have known, we have failed to realize it, that large numbers of the children who enter the public schools never complete the work of the common schools.

[…]

The significance of the problem is attested by the utterances of educators of national prominence like Commissioner Andrew S. Draper of New York state and students of such distinction as Professor Edward L. Thorndike of Teachers College of Columbia University. In his report published in 1908, Dr. Draper says:

“I have assumed that practically all of the children who do not go to the high schools do finish the elementary schools. That is not the fact. I confess that it startles me to find that certainly not more than two-fifths and undoubtedly not more than a third of the children who enter our elementary schools ever finish them, and that not more than one-half of them go beyond the fifth or sixth grade.”

In the bulletin issued by the Bureau of Education in February, 1908, Prof. Thorndike states the following conclusions:

“At least 25 out of 100 children of the white population of our country who enter school stay only long enough to learn to read simple English, write such words as they commonly use, and perform the four operations for integers without serious errors. A fifth of the children (white) entering city schools stay only to the fifth grade.”

This is a clear example of Seeing Like a State.

Real expertise versus bogus expertise

Thursday, April 30th, 2026

Dominic Cummings contrasts fields dominated by real expertise (like fighting and physics) and fields dominated by bogus expertise (like macroeconomic forecasting, politics/punditry, active fund management):

Fundamental to real expertise is 1) whether the informational structure of the environment is sufficiently regular that it’s possible to make good predictions and 2) does it allow high quality feedback and therefore error-correction. Physics and fighting: Yes. Predicting recessions, forex trading and politics: not so much. I’ll look at studies comparing expert performance in different fields and the superior performance of relatively very simple models over human experts in many fields.

This is useful background to consider a question I spend a lot of time thinking about: how to integrate a) ancient insights and modern case studies about high performance with b) new technology and tools in order to improve the quality of individual, team, and institutional decision-making in politics and government.

I think that fixing the deepest problems of politics and government requires a more general and abstract approach to principles of effective action than is usually considered in political discussion and such an approach could see solutions to specific problems almost magically appear, just as you see happen in a very small number of organisations — e.g Mueller’s Apollo program (man on the moon), PARC (interactive computing), Berkshire Hathaway (most successful investors in history), all of which have delivered what seems almost magical performance because they embody a few simple, powerful, but largely unrecognised principles. There is no ‘solution’ to the fundamental human problem of decision-making amid extreme complexity and uncertainty but we know a) there are ways to do things much better and b) governments mostly ignore them, so there is extremely valuable low-hanging fruit if, but it’s a big if, we can partially overcome the huge meta-problem that governments tend to resist the institutional changes needed to become a learning system.

[…]

The faster the feedback cycle, the more likely you are to develop a qualitative improvement in speed that destroys an opponent’s decision-making cycle. If you can reorient yourself faster to the ever-changing environment than your opponent, then you operate inside their ‘OODA loop’ (Observe-Orient-Decide-Act) and the opponent’s performance can quickly degrade and collapse.

This lesson is vital in politics. You can read it in Sun Tzu and see it with Alexander the Great. Everybody can read such lessons and most people will nod along. But it is very hard to apply because most political/government organisations are programmed by their incentives to prioritise seniority, process and prestige over high performance and this slows and degrades decisions. Most organisations don’t do it. Further, political organisations tend to make too slowly those decisions that should be fast and too quickly those decisions that should be slow — they are simultaneously both too sluggish and too impetuous, which closes off favourable branching histories of the future.

[…]

Our culture treats expertise/high performance in fields like sport and music very differently to maths/science education and politics/government. As Alan Kay observes, music and sport expertise is embedded in the broader culture. Millions of children spend large amounts of time practising hard skills. Attacks on them as ‘elitist’ don’t get the same damaging purchase as in other fields and the public don’t mind about elite selection for sports teams or orchestras.

[…]

Discussion of politics and government almost totally ignores the concept of training people to update their opinions in response to new evidence — i.e adapt to feedback. The ‘rationalist community’ — people like Scott Alexander who wrote this fantastic essay (Moloch) about why so much goes wrong, or the recent essays by Eliezer Yudkowsky — are ignored at the apex of power.

[…]

Instead of training people like Cameron and Adonis to bluff with PPE, we need courses that combine rational thinking with practical training in managing complex projects. We need people who practice really hard making predictions in ways we know work well (cf. Tetlock) then update in response to errors.

[…]

Almost all analysis of politics and government considers relatively surface phenomena. For example, the media briefly blasts headlines about Carillion’s collapse or our comical aircraft carriers but there is almost no consideration of the deep reasons for such failures and therefore nothing tends to happen — the media caravan moves on and the officials and ministers keep failing in the same ways. This is why, for example, the predicted abject failure of the traditional Westminster machinery to cope with Brexit negotiations has not led to self-examination and learning but, instead, mostly to a visible determination across both sides of the Brexit divide in SW1 to double down on long-held delusions.

Progress requires attacking the ‘system of systems’ problem at the right ‘level’. Attacking the problems directly — let’s improve policy X and Y, let’s swap ‘incompetent’ A for ‘competent’ B — cannot touch the core problems, particularly the hardest meta-problem that government systems bitterly fight improvement. Solving the explicit surface problems of politics and government is best approached by a more general focus on applying abstract principles of effective action. We need to surround relatively specific problems with a more general approach. Attack at the right level will see specific solutions automatically ‘pop out’ of the system. One of the most powerful simplicities in all conflict (almost always unrecognised) is: ‘winning without fighting is the highest form of war’. If we approach the problem of government performance at the right level of generality then we have a chance to solve specific problems ‘without fighting’ — or, rather, without fighting nearly so much and the fighting will be more fruitful.

This is not a theoretical argument. If you look carefully at ancient texts and modern case studies, you see that applying a small number of very simple, powerful, but largely unrecognised principles (that are very hard for organisations to operationalise) can produce extremely surprising results.

Grade levels never worked

Monday, April 27th, 2026

When Pamela Hobart started discovering how broken age-based grade levels were, she assumed something must have gone wrong:

An astounding 1909 book by Leonard Ayres for the Russell Sage Foundation tells all: Laggards In Our Schools: A Study of Retardation and Elimination In City School Systems.

At this time, teachers were not pressured to “socially promote” students who had not learned that year’s material. Instead, they faced classes with huge age disparities that often resolved by the “overaged” students dropping out (“elimination”) rather than ever catching up to grade level expectations.

For instance, consider New York City in 1906, where “of every 100 children entering the first grade, only 24 are found in the eighth grade at the end of eight years. The remainder have either dropped out or are still repeating the lower grades.”

This state of affairs was typical for the time. Across Boston, Philadelphia, Camden, Kansas City, plus New York, “one-fourth to one-half of the pupils are repeating their work, and that the proportion varies little from city to city.” In other words, we’re talking about 30-50% of students being at least one year older than expected for their grade.

Despite the magnitude of the problem, there appears to have been no real mechanism for catching anyone up once they’d fallen behind. As a result, these cities had 7-26% of students lingering 2 or more years behind age level in their work (and as many as 13% of students 3 years behind!)

Grade level reorganization, then, never really delivered efficiency.

Their primary limitation is not an inability to seize the day

Tuesday, March 31st, 2026

Elizabeth Grace Matthew makes the case against Dead Poets Society:

Still, as anyone who has spent any time around teenagers (especially teenage boys) knows, their primary limitation is not an inability to seize the day; it is an inability to plan for the future. Indeed, teens’ impulsivity and recklessness is best met with exactly the kind of regimentation, order and authority that Welton as a whole was attempting to provide.

This is the same kind of regimentation, order and authority with which adults of every race, religion and class engaged with teenagers until the 1960s. And, of course, it sometimes had its excesses. Any claim to mathematically measure the “greatness” of poems is self-evidently asinine. More important, a father’s attempt to make significant life decisions for his healthy and self-aware teenage son, without his input, was bound to be counterproductive in every possible way.

But these excesses of the 1950s educational order, as depicted in “Dead Poets Society,” are made-up exceptions that prove the overwhelming rule: Healthy teens need order if they are to court and create developmentally healthy disorder. Being without boundaries to push and structures to push against leads to exactly the type of solipsistic, faux introspection that gives rise to the existential angst for which teens have been known ever since we accepted as a cultural rule that, in the words of Bob Dylan, “mothers and fathers throughout the land” should not “criticize what you can’t understand.”

But, of course, mothers and fathers can understand just fine. The only thing more anti-intellectual than some self-important college professor presuming to quantify the greatness of Shakespeare is some self-important English teacher presuming to teach impressionable boys to think for themselves by using them to unquestioningly validate his own credulous and oversimplified relationship to romantic verse. Keating demanded, remember, that his students rip out “Understanding Poetry” by the fictional foil, Pritchard—not that they develop arguments for refuting it or, forbid the thought, for agreeing with it. Keating does not want the boys to think for themselves—not really. He does not want them to think at all, in fact. He wants them to feel as he does.

When Keating is confronted by Welton’s headmaster, Mr. Nolan, and questioned about his unorthodox teaching methods, he replies that he “always thought the idea of educating was to learn to think for yourself.” What Nolan says in response includes what are meant to be the most villainous and regressive lines of the film: “At these boys’ ages! Not on your life. Tradition, John. Discipline. Prepare them for college, and the rest will take care of itself.”

All reductions to absurdity and excesses notwithstanding, the fictional Nolan has it right.

Almost everyone scored well on the interviews

Monday, March 23rd, 2026

The extremely costly practice of interviewing college applicants prior to acceptance actually makes sense, Zachary Bartsch explains:

Initially, my university did not interview standard applicants. Our aid packages were poorly designed because applicants tend to look similar on paper. There was a pooling equilibrium at the application stage. As a result, we accepted a high proportion and offered some generous aid packages to students who were not good mission fits and we neglected some who were. Aid packages are scarce resources, and we didn’t have enough information to economize on them well.

The situation was impossible for the admissions team. The amount of aid that they could award was endogenous to the number of applicant deposits because student attendance drives revenue. But, the deposits were endogenous to the aid packages offered! There was a separating equilibrium where some good students attended along with some students who were a poor fit and were over-awarded aid. The latter attended one or two semesters before departing the university, harming retention and revenues. Great but under-awarded students tended not to attend our university. Student morale was also low due to poor fits and their friends leaving.

Part way through an admissions cycle, we universally instituted scheduled mission fitness interviews after the online application form was completed. The interviewer would rate the applicant on multiple margins. The interview was a prerequisite to receiving an aid offer. Suddenly, we had our separating equilibrium. Low-desire students would not bother with the interview scheduling. High desire students would! Almost everyone scored well on the interviews because the filter was, mostly, scheduling the interview itself! The university could now target aid packages much better and attract higher quality students of good mission fitness. Retention and revenue improved along with student morale. Over time, our reputation improved, increasing the number of high desire and high stat students that apply, interview, and end up attending.

So, for my university, interviewing applicants was relatively cheap given that 1) the subset of mission fit students overwhelmingly self-selected to be interviewed while the poor mission fit students didn’t bother to interview and 2) the interview solicited useful information to help allocate scarce tuition aid dollars. This alone paid for the cost of the interviews. But the downstream effects on retention, revenue, and morale made the interviews a permanent part of our admissions process.

In the realm of strategy, generals are just as much amateurs as heads of state

Monday, March 9th, 2026

No two heads of state could be more dissimilar in ambitions or temperament than Abraham Lincoln and Louis XIV, but when it came to the conduct of their wars, they shared much in common:

Both kept their generals on a tight leash, spending many hours a day in correspondence directing operations: Louis at his writing desk, Lincoln in the telegraph office. They paid especial attention to the theaters closest to their capitals — the Low Countries and northern Virginia, respectively (Louis established a courier service so efficient that a message sent in the morning could receive a reply that evening).

Neither man had experience commanding troops in the field, and both made serious mistakes as a result of their micro-management. Yet they also had good reason to take the approach they did. Fighting a war is very different from winning it, and their generals — though professionals in tactics and operational art — did not always see the larger picture. Domestic political constraints, economic factors, and foreign relations had just as much an effect on the course of the war as battlefield victories. In the realm of strategy, the generals were just as much amateurs as the heads of state.

In all of warfare, the leap from operational art to strategy is the hardest to make. Whereas operational art is in many ways an extension of tactics, dealing with the same sorts of considerations, strategy is different in both kind and scale. The problems it seeks to address are of a fundamentally different nature, as are the tools to effect it — yet by the very nature of the problem, it is almost impossible to train anyone to practice good strategy.

In its broadest sense, strategy is the art of accomplishing major national objectives. This encompasses far more than military force alone: it extends to industrial production, economics, diplomatic relations, domestic politics, and so forth. It is the logical extension of synergistic cooperation in warfare, from combined-arms tactics, to joint operations, to whole-of-government strategy. Good strategy is therefore a collaboration of a broad base of subject-matter experts.

Yet unlike other levels of warfare, nothing prepares practitioners from these separate fields to work together. An infantryman is not trained in the specifics of artillery employment, but is trained from the very beginning to fight as part of a combined-arms team. Junior officers frequently gain experience working alongside other services well before they are expected to plan or conduct joint operations. By contrast, there are far, far fewer opportunities for a military officer to work with industrial policy, economic warfare, or diplomacy before he reaches the three- or four-star level.

The implied average causal returns to an extra year of schooling will be only in the range 0%–3%

Tuesday, February 10th, 2026

There have been many studies estimating the causal effect of an additional year of education on earnings, Gregory Clark and Christian Alexander Abildgaard Nielsen note:

The majority employ administrative changes in the minimum school-leaving age as the mechanism allowing identification. Here, we survey 79 such estimates. However, remarkably, while the majority of these studies find substantial gains from education, a number of well-grounded studies find no effect. The average return from these studies still implies substantial average gains from an extra year of education: an average of 8.2%. But the pattern of reported returns shows clear evidence of publication biases: omission of studies where the return was not statistically significantly above 0, and where the estimated return was negative. Correcting for these omitted studies, the implied average causal returns to an extra year of schooling will be only in the range 0%–3%.

The greatest lie that textbooks teach is that the hard part is coming up with an answer

Thursday, January 15th, 2026

How to Solve It by George PolyaSome problems come to us demanding to be solved, John Psmith notes, like an invading army or a looming bankruptcy:

But others we go hunting for because they are economically or intellectually valuable. Or for sport. An entrepreneur and an academic are both a kind of truffle-pig for good problems, and it pays to develop a nose for them. Eventually you learn to notice its spoor, the rank taste in the air, “a problem has passed by this way, moving downwind, two days ago.” One of the many ways school fails us is by actively harming this capacity, it lies and lies to us for decades, teaching us that good problems will be delivered on a silver platter. This is why so many people who do well in school never amount to anything. They never develop a taste for the hunt, never learn that this, actually, is the most important part of the entire site survey: “is this problem worth solving by anybody?”, “am I uniquely well-positioned to solve it?”, “can I amass the resources to solve it?”, “do I have any chance of success?”, “is there some other problem that it is more valuable for me to solve?” The greatest lie that textbooks teach is that the hard part is coming up with an answer. No, the hard part is usually coming up with a worthwhile question.

All enterprise software sellers today speak a common vocabulary, and that vocabulary was invented by John McMahon

Saturday, January 10th, 2026

Qualified Sales Leader by John McMahonIt’s interesting to consider which professions obsess over lineages, John Psmith says:

For instance an academic philosopher and a Brazilian Ju-Jitsu fighter may not have much in common, but they can both tell you not just who their teacher-mentor was, but who that guy’s teacher-mentor was, and so on, sometimes going back centuries.1 This is not true in most fields, but you may be surprised to learn that it is true in B2B enterprise software sales. Talk to a successful sales guy, and he will find a way to slip into the conversation that he came up under so-and-so, and that so-and-so worked for the legendary Mark Cranney (Ben Horowitz’s head of sales). But talk to enough of them, and you will start to notice that a huge proportion of their lineages all converge back on a single guy named John McMahon.

You may never have heard of John McMahon, but he’s one of the most influential people alive today (there are many such people, because the world is fractally interesting). American economic growth is increasingly dominated by a handful of companies that sell software subscriptions at eye-watering margins to other large companies, and most such companies are run by John McMahon’s disciples. All enterprise software sellers today speak a common vocabulary, and that vocabulary was invented by John McMahon. Enterprise software sellers, like all professions, have weird feuds and religious disputes about what exactly the letters in various acronyms should stand for, but the acronyms were invented by John McMahon. The rival factions and schools in enterprise software sales mostly argue about the correct way to interpret John McMahon’s thought, because he is the great teacher and systematizer who laid down the laws of their world.

The reason certain fields care about lineages is that they are dominated by process knowledge that cannot be written down, so the best signal of quality is not some credential, but rather which master you trained under. Imagine how silly it would be to think that you could read a book about martial arts, and then you would know as much as the person who had written it. Some things can only be learned through grueling practice, preferably grueling practice under the observation of somebody who notices all the tiny little indescribable things you get wrong, and shows you how to do them right instead.

[…]

Selling software (really, selling anything) is another such activity. And while John McMahon is the guy who has done the most to change it from an art into a science, he is acutely aware that nothing he writes down in a book can help you unless you already understand the thing that he is trying to say. So like all good religious teachers, he speaks mostly in koans and riddles and parables. It worked for the Zen masters, it worked for Nietzsche, it worked for Jesus Christ, so why wouldn’t it work for John McMahon? The whole book is an extended allegory in which John McMahon is called in to advise a failing software sales team, notices the defects in their technique, and says or does something, at which point they are enlightened.

(Hat tip to Byrne Hobart.)

Self-help books for women vs. men aren’t selling the same story

Thursday, December 18th, 2025

Self-help books for women vs. men aren’t selling the same story, Rob Henderson notes:

If you walk through the self-help section and compare the books marketed to men with those aimed at women, the contrast is striking. The books for men tend to emphasize stoicism, discipline, and self-sufficiency: become more focused, toughen up, don’t let the world knock you off your path, no one is coming to save you. The message is essentially that you need to strengthen yourself and earn your way forward.

The books for women, by contrast, rarely begin with the idea that you’re lacking something that needs to be built. Instead, the theme is closer to: you’re already great, but you keep getting in your own way. The world hasn’t recognized your value because you haven’t fully accepted it yourself. The promise is that once you stop beating yourself up and embrace who you already are, others will see it too.

Two very different messages — one built around improvement, the other around affirmation.

We just want every child to reach their full potential

Monday, December 8th, 2025

Freddie deBoer is exasperated with anti-hereditarians who talk as though Blank-Slatism is some reviled niche perspective, when in fact the blank slate represents the bipartisan and cross-ideological assumption that has dominated debate in education policy since before he was born:

Perhaps the reason I am so regularly exasperated with people like Hoel or Eric Turkheimer or any number of others in this conversation is because I have been marinated in the ed policy world for a long, long time, and in that world there is no debate at all: every child is capable of any academic outcome. There is no limit to what education can do. Go to your average charter school conference and the idea that individual students have any inherent or intrinsic academic tendency isn’t just unpopular, it will get you shouted out of the room. Try being a public school teacher of a 25th percentile student, telling his parents that it’s not realistic to hope to turn him into a 90th percentile student, and see how that goes for you professionally. Even if you can get people to concede that our goal shouldn’t be equality of educational outcomes, or even that students perhaps don’t all have perfectly equal potentials, such concessions will remain in the realm of the vague and the general.

(When I ask people if they think we should try to establish summative educational equality of outcomes, they say of course not, that’s a straw man, we just want every child to reach their full potential. When I ask if they think it would be alright if, say, 15% of students were a full standard deviation or more below the mean, they say that’s outrageous, we should never condone that level of failure! And it’s like, guys….)

The two most important American educational bills in the 21st century have been No Child Left Behind (bipartisan, signed by a Republican president) and the Every Student Succeeds Act (bipartisan, signed by a Democratic president). Those names are not coincidental or empty; they express exactly what the politicians who drafted them believed was possible. They reflect a cross-ideological and remarkably durable assumption in our education politics that all students can be pushed through the college-to-affluence pipeline. I wish people on the genetics research side of this debate would stop talking as though there’s some rigid hereditarian consensus when, in the ed policy world, there is in fact the exact opposite.