CAR VOUCHER anche SAGGIO

Car Voucher

“Ecco la tua nuova Ford Focus!”

 

“Che cosa? Non ho chiesto niente del genere. Restituisco subito al mittente”

 

“Non si puo fare. Già pagata. ”

 

“Beh, non è un mio problema.”

 

“Lo è sicuramente: lo stato ha tassato parte del tuo reddito per pagarti la Focus color cacchetta”

 

“Ma è ridicolo, perché non posso comprare l’auto che credo sia più adatta alle esigenze della mia famiglia? Io, per esempio, preferisco di gran lunga la Kia: più efficiente nei consumi e con un livello di sicurezza più alto”.

 

“Scusa, forse non hai capito, non è così che funziona il sistema. Puoi personalizzare alcune funzioni se vuoi, ma il governo ha stabilito che ogni famiglia nella tua zona residenziale si becca una Ford Focus e filare”.

 

“Ma se l’auto è una ciofega, posso almeno chiederne un’altra, vero?”

 

“No. Ti becchi quel che arriva, non importa se funzioni o meno. Lamentati pure con la direzione della Ford, ma francamente non sono sicuro di quanto prenderanno in considerazione le tue rimostranze. Non penso proprio che la tua insoddisfazione influirà sulla loro linea di fondo: prenderanno i tuoi soldi che ti piacciano o meno le loro macchine. Certo, potresti sempre trasferirti nel quartiere di fronte, lì danno le BMW. Quelle macchine sono davvero belle, ma devo avvertirti, le case in quella zona costano un botto”.

 

“È un po’ irragionevole, non credi?”

 

“Bè, un’altra opzione sarebbe quella di acquistare una macchina per conto tuo a titolo definitivo”

 

“Ah, ok, in questo caso rinuncio alla mia Focus, non chiedo altro”.

 

“Tu non rinunci a un bel niente, forse non mi sono spiegato, la Focus la devi acquistare, se poi proprio non ti piace ti compri ANCHE una BMW o una Kia per conto tuo”.

 

“Due auto? Non posso permettermele! Come è possibile che io debba comprare due auto per poi usarne una sola?

 

“Il sistema è questo.”

 

“Quindi le persone con mezzi modesti come me si beccano la Focus e chi si è visto si è visto, non importa quanto siano inadatte per loro quelle carrette o quanto male funzionino? Che sistema del cazzo!… scusa eh”.

 

“È strano, lo ammetto. Ma se ti permettiamo di comprare un Kia, danneggerai chi lavora alla Ford”.

 

“E allora? Se Kia fa un lavoro migliore premiare i suoi lavoratori rispetto a quelli della Ford è una virtù, non un vizio da rimproverarmi! D’altronde, i dipendenti della Ford possono sempre trovare lavoro presso Kia”.

 

“Prendere o lasciare”.

 

“Ma scusa, non potremmo usare per le auto lo stesso metodo in vigore he per le scuole?: ognuno si sceglie e si paga quella di suo gradimento, con, al limite, i benestanti che aiutano i bisognosi. Mi sembra una soluzione di buon senso”.

 

“Ma non ti accorgi di quanto i due beni siano differenti? È facile comprendere che la scuola possa essere legata ad esigenze particolari dei genitori, in quel caso è inevitabile una libertá di scelta, se non ci fosse la gente insorgerebbe e farebbe bene a farlo; ma un’automobile? Un’automobile! che cavolo di esigenze particolari può far sorgere nel suo possessore? Una vale l’altra, l’importante e che cammini!”

https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2019/03/school-choice-and-car-choice-whats-the-difference/

La nostra scuola è costruita per i ritardati o i geni?

http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/09/04/acc-entry-does-the-education-system-adequately-serve-advanced-students/

la situazione

Pretend you’re a teacher. With 25 students, who gets your attention during class? There’s the kid who ask for it, whose hand is constantly up. There’s also the quiet kid in the corner who never says a word... Finally, there’s the kid who finishes everything quickly. She’s looking around and wondering, what am I supposed to do now?...

sondaggi

In a survey of teachers from 2008, just 23% reported that advanced students were a top priority for them, while 63% reported giving struggling students in their classes the most attention

la logica a cui molti si rifanno

Gifted children, on the other hand — they’re on the way to becoming gifted adults. They can take care of themselves, for a minute, the logic goes

e poi... a fronte di molti ritardatari

advanced students are only a small percent of each student body,

3 ipotesi di rimedio soluzione per tutti 

• Grouping students of the same age in classes according to their abilities, i.e. tracking (National Association for Gifted Children)
• Accelerating students through the curriculum according to their readiness, ignoring age or grade level (A Nation Deceived)
• Using personalization software to replace a human tutor (How Khan Academy Will Help Find The Next Einstein)

la ricerca di bob salvin sul grouping

In the late ’80s and early ’90s, Slavin performed a series of meta-analyses of the existing literature on tracking and between-class ability grouping. Overall, he found no significant benefits from ability grouping, even for “top track” students across elementary, middle, and high schools... But the other surprising finding of Slavin’s was that nobody was academically hurt by ability grouping — not even the lowest track students. Slavin argued that when you consider all the non-academic concerns, the scales weigh in favor of detracking, i.e. avoiding ability grouping.

inconveniente del grouping

“Ability grouping plans in all forms are repugnant to many educators, who feel uncomfortable making decisions about elementary-aged students that could have long-term effects on their self-esteem and life chances. In desegregated schools, the possibility that ability grouping may create racially identifiable groups or classes is of great concern.” (p.327)

tutti d'accordo sul pericolo delle classi separate. dove le opinioni divergono è sull'efficienza:

The main controversy surrounds Slavin’s claims about the academic impact of ability grouping. His meta-analyses were part of an extended back-and-forth with Chen-Lin & James Kulik, who wrote several competing analyses on the ability grouping literature. Slavin and the Kuliks each criticized the other’s methodology, but the core point the Kuliks made was that ability grouping did have positive effects...Slavin states that he is philosophically opposed to tracking, regarding it as inegalitarian and anti-democratic. Unless schools can demonstrate that tracking helps someone, Slavin reasons, they should quit using it. Kulik’s position is that since tracking benefits high achieving students and harms no one, its abolition would be a mistake (p.17)...

posizioni varie... come al solito in questo campo ce n'è per tuttii gusti

Just to mess with everybody, Figlio and Page argue that by attracting stronger students to the school (because parents seek tracking) students in low-tracks benefit, secondarily.

ma una cosa è certa

At the end of the day, all academic impacts of tracking are mediated by teaching and the curriculum. If a teacher doesn’t change what they teach or how they teach it, no grouping decision will help or hurt a student academically in a significant way. Tracking only could benefit gifted students if it came with some sort of curricular modification.

altri modi per aiutare il dotato

A kid can skip a full grade, or several grades in extreme cases. They can stay in their grade for some classes, but join higher grade levels for some parts of the day. They might be assigned to two classes in one year (e.g. Algebra 1 and Geometry). Or, in some cases, a young student might start school at an even younger age than is typical.

oppure

Acceleration is also not the only option. There is much more to learn than is taught in regular courses. Even in a normal class, a well-designed curriculum or an experienced teacher can create “extensions” to the main activity, so that students who are ready for more have something valuable to engage with

altro modo per aiutare il dotato: tutoring. ma forse è troppo costoso per una scuola

altra soluzione Personalization Software

dubbio efficientista

Through acceleration, tutoring, or ability grouping, some kids could learn more. Why aren’t schools aggressively pursuing that? Shouldn’t they be working to teach kids as much as possible? Isn’t that what a school supposed to do? That educators are skeptical of ability grouping or acceleration can be maddening from the perspective of learning maximization: Why are schools leaving learning on the table?

la risposta è semplice: le scuole non massimizzano la conoscenza, hanno molti obbiettivi in conflitto tra loro. esempio

• democratic equality (“education as a mechanism for producing capable citizens”)
• social efficiency (“education as a mechanism for developing productive workers”)
• social mobility (“education as a way for individuals to reinforce or improve their social position”)

prima conclusione

 if a child wants to be accelerated and seems academically prepared for it, acceleration will usually help them...sempre tenendo conto che Most schools aren’t in the business of maximizing learning for every student, and in particular they tend to be skeptical of acceleration.

altra conclusione: agire solo con chi è a disagio

if you think your kid needs to be challenged more and your kid is perfectly happy in school, try really hard not to be a nudge... all'insegnante: If a child is bored in your class and knows the material, they probably shouldn’t be in your class.

tenere presente che

Gifted kids are usually not equally talented in all fields.

discussione spesso equivoca

People almost only talk about educational efficacy. But don’t be fooled — educational debates are only sometimes about what works, and frequently about what we value.

naturalmente, poi, c'è la soluzione voucher

Subjective Well‐Being and Income: Is There Any Evidence of Satiation? Wolfers, Justin Stevenson, Betsey

Subjective Well‐Being and Income: Is There Any Evidence of Satiation?

Wolfers, Justin Stevenson, Betsey

Citation (APA): Wolfers, J. S. (2014). Subjective Well‐Being and Income: Is There Any Evidence of Satiation? [Kindle Android version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com

---

Parte introduttiva

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 7

once “basic needs” have been met, higher income is no longer associated with higher in subjective well-being.

Nota - Posizione 8

LA TESI DI MOLTI

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 10

we find no support for this claim.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 11

In 1974 Richard Easterlin

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 11

increasing average income did not raise average well-being,

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 12

Easterlin Paradox.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 12

new and more comprehensive data

Nota - Posizione 12

ORA

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 13

robust positive relationship between well-being and income across countries and over time (Deaton, 2008; Stevenson and Wolfers, 2008; Sacks, Stevenson, and Wolfers, 2013).

Nota - Posizione 14

x ESITO DEI NUOVI STUDI

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 15

researchers have argued for a modified version of Easterlin’s hypothesis,

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 16

claiming that beyond a certain income threshold, further income is unrelated to well-being.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 18

Diener and Seligman (2004, p.5) state that “there are only small increases in well-being” above some threshold.

Nota - Posizione 18

x SELIGMAN

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 19

Clark, Frijters and Shields (2008, p.123) state more starkly that “greater economic prosperity at some point ceases to buy more happiness,” a similar claim is made by Di Tella and MacCulloch (2008, p.17): “once basic needs have been satisfied, there is full adaptation to further economic growth.”

Nota - Posizione 21

ALTRI AUTORI

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 22

Layard (2003, p.17) argues that “once a country has over $15,000 per head, its level of happiness appears to be independent of its income;” while in subsequent work he argued for a $20,000 threshold (Layard, 2005 p.32-33). Frey and Stutzer (2002, p.416) claim that “income provides happiness at low levels of development but once a threshold (around $10,000) is reached, the average income level in a country has little effect on average subjective well-being.”

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 27

graphs show clearly that increasing income yields diminishing marginal gains

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 27

this relationship need not reach a point of nirvana beyond which further gains in well-being are absent.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 30

there is no satiation point.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 39

we find no evidence of a satiation point.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 42

I. Cross-Country Comparisons

Nota - Posizione 42

t

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 43

evaluating whether countries at different levels of economic development have different average levels of subjective well-being.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 44

log of real GDP per capita,

Nota - Posizione 44

RICCHEZZA

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 44

purchasing power parity.4

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 55

two measures of life satisfaction drawn from the Gallup World Poll:

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 56

“ladder of life”

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 57

question about overall life

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 57

data are drawn from the five waves of the Gallup World Poll run between 2008 and 2012 and GDP per capita, plotted on a log scale. We have data on 155 countries, which account for over 95% of the world’s population, across the spectrum of levels of economic development. Each of these measures of subjective well-being is highly correlation with GDP per capita ( 0.79 for the 155 countries in the upper panel, and 0.85 for the 86 countries in the lower panel) .

Nota - Posizione 60

DATI

Nota - Posizione 67

ALTRA FONTE

Nota - Posizione 68

ALTRA FONTE

Nota - Posizione 69

ALTRA FONTE

Nota - Posizione 82

g

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 87

Pew Global Attitudes studies, which posed the satisfaction ladder question in 44 countries in 2002, 47 countries in 2007, and 22 countries in 2010,

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 88

Social Survey Program, which asked a consistent happiness question in 1991, 1998, 2001, 2007 and 2008

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 89

Each of these datasets strongly reject the null that 0.

Nota - Posizione 90

...

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 93

In Table 2 we consider alternative thresholds for “poor” and “rich”.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 99

the well-being–income relationship observed among poor countries holds in at least equal measure among rich countries.

Nota - Posizione 100

ACONC

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 100

Our larger datasets emphatically reject the weak and strong forms of the modified-Easterlin hypothesis,

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 102

II. Within-Country Cross-Sectional Comparisons

Nota - Posizione 102

t

Segnalibro - Posizione 103

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 103

comparing rich and poor people within a country.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 103

We begin by analyzing data from the United States,

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 108

we find no evidence of a significant break in either the happiness-income relationship, nor in the life satisfactionincome relationship,

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 110

This finding contrasts with a claim made by Frey and Stutzer (2002, p.409)

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 131

III. Conclusions

Nota - Posizione 131

t

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 131

While the idea that there is some critical level of income beyond which income no longer impacts well-being is intuitively appealing, it is at odds with the data.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 132

there is no major well-being dataset that supports this commonly made claim.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 133

evaluative measures of life satisfaction and happiness

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 135

Kahneman and Deaton (2010) have shown that in the United States, people earning above $75,000 do not appear to enjoy either more positive affect nor less negative affect

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 136

they are based on very different measures of well-being,

Segnalibro - Posizione 137

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 137

Indeed, those authors also find no satiation point for evaluative measures of well-being.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 138

Stevenson and Wolfers' Flawed Happiness Research eric falkenstein

Nota - Posizione 139

t

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 141

Richard Easterlin found that within a given country people with higher incomes were more likely to report being happy. However, between developed countries, the average reported level of happiness did not vary much with national income per person.

Nota - Posizione 143

X EASYERLIN

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 143

although income per person rose steadily in the United States between 1946 and 1970, average reported happiness showed no long-term trend and declined between 1960 and 1970.

Nota - Posizione 144

c

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 146

the relative-status utility function is the key

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 149

evolution favors a relative utility function

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 150

Economists from Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Thorstein Veblen, and even Keynes focused on status, the societal relative

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 162

they find that the income-happiness effect is at least twice as strong among richer

Nota - Posizione 162

RISULT W

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 163

further using one set of data the effect of income on happiness is negative.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 163

authors note, however, that this is merely because of one country, the Phillipines.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 167

Their second set of findings concern cross-sectional data within a country. Easterlin did not dispute this, however.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 167

Given positional goods like mates and lakefront property, relative wealth should matter.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 186

the biggest problem with the Sacks, Stevenson and Wolfers analysis is that they estimate a short-term relationship between life satisfaction and GDP, rather than the long-term relationship.

Nota - Posizione 187

X BIG PROBKEM

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 187

over an economic cycle,

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 189

people who aren't fighting for basic necessities are focused primarily on status

Segnalibro - Posizione 200

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 202

Crude Materialism versus the Wolfers Equation Bryan Caplan

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 210

Happiness (in Standard Deviations) = a + .35 * ln(income)

Nota - Posizione 210

EQ WOLFER

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 211

Most people interpret Wolfers' findings as a shocking refutation of everyone who thinks that money has little effect

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 213

I think not. If you picture a continuum with Epicureanism at 0, and crude materialism at 1, Wolfers stands at .24.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 214

effect of income on happiness, though positive, is small.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 216

if you currently earn $50,000, Wolfers' coefficient implies you'd need an extra $820,585 per year to durably increase your happiness by one lousy standard deviation. In math, that's not "zero effect of income on happiness." But in English, it basically is.

Nota - Posizione 218

x IN ALTRE PAROLE

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 218

Wolfers deliberately refrains from controlling for confounding variables,

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 219

true effect of income on happiness is almost certainly even smaller

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 220

it goes against first-hand experience, the wisdom of the ages, and the rightly interpreted empirical evidence.

Nota - Posizione 221

L EFFETTO

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 222

Wolfers Responds on Happiness

Nota - Posizione 222

t

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 226

I actually think 0.35 is pretty big.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 231

if there exist massive disparatives in income, then a small coefficient can have a big effect.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 242

The Happiness of the Richest Bryan Caplan

Nota - Posizione 242

t

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 244

100% of the richest people were "very happy."

Nota - Posizione 244

DATO INCREDIBILE

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 246

respondents with family income over half a million a year

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 246

And in the same survey, happiness was virtually flat from $30k to $150k

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 247

Extreme Epiricureanism is both demonstrably false and approximately true.

Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 252

the small effect of income/wealth on happiness throughout the income distribution remains ideologically inconvenient for free-market economists. A free-market economy is a fantastic tool for making people rich, but making people rich is a mediocre tool for making people happy.

Nota - Posizione 254

X FELICITÀ E MERCATO