The cover of next week’s TIME magazine is deeply insulting to hard-working teachers, with its headline, “Rotten Apples” and the claim that it is nearly impossible to fire tenured teachers (but tech millionaires who know nothing about education know how to do it: abolish tenure). As most people in the education field know, about 40% of those who enter teaching leave within five years. More: tenure is due process, the right to a hearing, not a guarantee of a lifetime job. Are there bad apples in teaching? Undoubtedly, just as there are bad apples in medicine, the law, business, and even TIME magazine. There are also bad apples in states where teachers have no tenure. Will abolishing tenure increase the supply of great teachers? Surely we should look to those states where teachers do not have tenure to see how that worked out. Sadly, there is no evidence for the hope, wish, belief, that eliminating due process produces a surge of great teachers.
Jersey Jazzman here begins a series of posts about the TIME article. Some said it wasn’t as inflammatory as the cover. JJ says that may be so, but the article is nonetheless a font of misguided opinion.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Let me add this to the commentary: http://dcgmentor.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/why-parents-should-not-fear-teacher-tenure/
“Undoubtedly, just as there are bad apples in medicine, the law, business, and even TIME magazine.” Zing!
Anytime I have read something in Time over the last year or two about education, I came away thinking they were biased towards reform mindsets.
The AFT has a petition to send to “Time” to ask for an apology. It would be great to flood them with messages from teachers. http://www.aft.org/news/aft-members-respond-en-masse-times-rotten-cover
Teachers could try an old throwback protest:
Burning draft cards. Burning bras. Burning TIME?
It would be a lot bigger fire.
TIME gets tenure wrong because truly bad (harmful) teachers who are few and far between (as in nay profession) do not vet their resumes, they do not interview themselves, they do not hire themselves, they do not observe and evaluate or take note of the countless informal complaints and comments made by others; they do not grant themselves tenure nor due they any number of means behind-closed doors to move themselves elsewhere. This is a management problem, not a teacher problem. And that should have been the gist if TIME’s cover story.
correction: nor do they use any number
NY Teacher: you said what needed to be said.
Amazing that those defending worst business/management practices foist onto their employees/subordinates responsibility for their own mistakes in judgment and behavior.
Thank you for your comments.
😎
I wonder why Time or other magazines captured by the corporate reform ideology don’t take the opportunity do features on “teacher heroes” every time one of these horrific school shootings occur. It is always the case that the instinctive response of teachers is to protect their students and/or stop the shooter from doing more harm. I wonder if Megan Silberberger graduated from one of those “bad” teacher education programs, and how her actions should be factored into her teacher evaluations this year. I know, let’s ask Bill Gates to come down from the Microsoft headquarters and give us some guidance on this question. Richard Ognibene
If “Time” wants to provide a fair and balanced journalistic view of public education, they should not only profile teacher heroes, they should report on the scandalous side of the privatization movement.
Where are the un-rotten apples in Washington, D.C.?
How about Time does a TRUTHFUL story on the Deasy’s of the Broad persuasion and all the harm they have done. How about a TRUTHFUL story on the Broad supers who lie about their doctorates and all the harm they have done. How about one on Cami Anderson who is beneath the law and doing horrible things in the community and to the teachers and the students. How about we forget Time altogether and isn’t there a truthful alternative to it that will put out the truth about reform?
Excellent!
Well, we know whom TIME Magazine and TIME’s editors, and funders hate —
… teachers, particular veteran and/or unionized teachers… the scum of the Earth, apparently…
But whom does TIME and it’s editors/backers admire?
Well, here’s an old post about TIME Magazine’s inclusion of Michelle Rhee on the list of “TIME Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People”, with Davis Guggenheim’s effusive gush-fest praising Rhee in the accompanying profile:
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2066367_2066369_2066128,00.html
The post spotlights TIME’s and writer Davis Guggenheim’s curious omission of Rhee’s sky-high speaking fees and “artist” demands… while both TIME and Davis laud Rhee for being noble, selfless, and for “shunning” money-making opportunities. It also omits her annual salary at STUDENTS FIRST: $350,000.
This is same woman whose $ 50,000/speech speaker’s contract demands “first class round-trip plane ticket”, “first class hotel” of her choosing; a chauffered towncar with a profesional driver, etc.:
Here’s the old post:
—————————————————————
—————————————————————
As a paid speaker, Michelle Rhee makes more in an hour of bashing public school teachers & their unions as the average starting teacher makes in a year—while we have to read the outrageous stuff that her supporters claim about how self-less and noble she is..
However, before considering her sky-high speaking fees,
First read as one of her backers blathers about how Rhee is
now “shunning high salaries” to “improve the lot of our nation’s
students,” and how she was targeted and victimized in D.C. because she
“put students first.”
Check out what WAITING FOR SUPERMAN director Davis Guggenheim wrote in his blurb accompanying her page in TIME Magazine’s “100 Most Important People” list:
(CAPS are mine… Jack… it’s in the last paragraph)
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2066367_2066369_2066128,00.html
—————————————
——————————————————————
DAVIS GUGGENHEIM:
“She (Michelle Rhee) SET A GOAL TO IMPROVE THE LOT OF THE NATION’S STUDENTS, and she has stuck to that. And she PAID DEARLY FOR IT, stepping down from her D.C. post in 2010 after Mayor Adrian Fenty lost his bid for re-election, a public rejection that some saw as A REPUDIATION OF THE TOUGH STEPS to raise the standards of the city’s public schools.
“Subsequently, SHE SHUNNED ANY HIGH-SALARY OFFERS that resulted from her high-profile tenure and INSTEAD FOUNDED HER OWN ORGANIZATION.
” ‘PUTTING KIDS FIRST’ could be a pithy slogan. For many it is.FOR RHEE, IT’S A LIFELONG COMMITMENT.”
—————————————
———————————————-
Hey Davis, you know who else has to “pay dearly”? The folks who have to pay to have this woman speak for an hour or two!
Ms. Rhee may have “shunned any high salary offers” after the voters
of D.C. ran her out of town, but she sure isn’t shy about lapping up her
$50K / hour speaking fees!
(NOTE: her 2013 STUDENTS FIRST tax forms indicate she currently makes $350,000 annually… isn’t that “a high salary”, the kind that Guggenheim claims that Rhee “shuns”?)
It’s nice that her “lifelong commitment” to “putting kids first” pays so well.
Here’s Hollywood agency CAA’s promo blurb for her:
http://caaspeakers.com/michelle-rhee/
——————————————————————-
“In the ever-evolving landscape of education in America, Michelle
Rhee has been working tirelessly for the past two decades to give
children the skills and knowledge they will need to compete in a
changing world.
“From adding instructional time after school and visiting students’
homes as a third grade teacher in Baltimore, to hosting hundreds of
community meetings and creating a Youth Cabinet to bring students’
voices into reforming the DC Public Schools, Michelle has always been
guided by one core principle: put students first.”
——————————————————————
Wow, Rhee has “been guided by one core principle: put students first.”
How touching and noble of her? Given that moving statement, I’m sure that—like, say, Dr. Diane Ravitch—Ms. Rhee probably donates her time to give speeches and make appearances… at most only asking to have her expenses covered.
Wait a sec. I just found something on-line. It says that… Ms. Rhee… NO, I DON’T BELIEVE IT… SOMEBODY’S LYING OR MAKING THIS UP TO HARM HER REPUTATION…
No… it says that… she actually CHARGES MONEY (???!!!) for her speeches?
Say it ain’t so!
And that, when giving speeches, she is represented by the top Hollywood agency C.A.A., Creative Artists Agency?
Well, I’m sure her pay is just a small honorarium… as, like you, Dr.
Ravitch, her true motives are to improve the educational lives of
children, and to make sure every child has a great teacher at the front
of his or her classroom, and, as Davis Guggenheim puts it, her mission
to “put students first,” while “shunning high salaries.”
What’s that? It’s NOT just a token honorarium. Let me guess…
$1,000?
$2,000?
Higher? You gotta be kidding!
$5,000?
$10,000?
Get outta town!
$15,000?
$20,000?
What? She gets more than that just for an hour or two of speaking and answering questions?
Really? It’s actually higher?
$25,000?
$30,000?
Okay, someone’s just winding me up here. There’s NO WAY she charges more than THAT!!!
$50,000!
BINGO!!!!!
$50,000???!!! I don’t believe it.
Somebody’s gotta be making that up to discredit Ms. Rhee. It’s probably some evil, corrupt defenders-of-a-failed-status-quo teachers union thugs who put adult teachers’ interests ahead of children/students’ interest that hacked into C.A.A.’s website and created… yeah, it’s probably them who are making up and spreading these lies in an effort to harm Ms. Rhee’s reputation, and protect those teachers’ own selfish interest and cushy jobs-for-life.
Apparently not.
Some enterprising writer named Molly Bloom at the on-line publication
STATE IMPACT actually got a copy of the contract that Rhee uses for her
personal appearances and posted it on-line.
Oh, will you just shut up and gimme that link!
http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2011/10/10/michelle-rhee-to-speak-at-kent-statestark-prompts-faculty-to-organize-counter-event/
What’s that? Just scroll down and you can see
a scanned copy of Rhee’s boilerplate contract? Hmmm….
Yep! There it is… In the contract posted, $35,000 is indeed what
she’s getting paid to speak at Kent State, plus a bunch o’ FIRST CLASS
expenses. .. (She claims here that she was discounting her usual $50,000
/ hour fee because the venue, Kent State, was “a school.)
The contract posted is the actual one used for Ms. Rhee’s appearance at at Kent State University,
Why, that’s SECOND worst atrocity ever associated with that school’s
history. (“Tin soldiers and Nixon’s coming… Four dead in O – hi – o… “)”
(Watch this whole video… it’s pretty well done!)
I like how the “Purchaser”—the entity or person who hires her— sends the payment to:
“Rhee Enterprises, LLC” (PAGE 2)
Helping improve the education of children and “putting students first” is a lucrative Big Business, apparently.
There’s more on PAGE 3:
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
“a. Purchaser shall provide the Artist with one (1) First Class
round-trip, unrestricted, fully-refundable airplane tickets, or cash
equivalent, at Artist’s election;
“b. Purchaser shall one (1) VIP hotel suite; Purchaser to make and
confirm reservations in consultation with the Artist; Artist reserves
the right to choose hotel;
“c. Purchaser to provide the Artist with meals and all reasonable incidentals;
“d. Purchase shall provide Artist with a towncar and Professional
Driver for round-trip transportation from the Artist’s home to the
airport, airport to hotel, hotel to engagement, or any combination
thereof;”
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Yes, that’s right… Rhee demands not just a hotel room, but a “VIP
hotel suite” at a hotel approved by her, as well as a towncar with a
chauffer to drive her around???!!!
Come one. Be fair. Don’t beat up on Rhee because of this. You need all that if you’re going to be “putting students first.”
Item 6 is telling. Michelle or her agent crosses out the following:
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
(CROSSED OUT WITH A PEN)
“6. RESPONSIBILITY for EVENT-RELATED TAXES. Purchase agrees to pay
any and all local, State, and/or Federal rental, amusement, sales or
other taxes as required by law.”
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Next to the crossing out, Michelle or her agent scrawls,
“TAX EXEMPT”…
… as Students First is a non-profit organization.
Awww, that’s too bad. That money would have gone to the state’s
general fund for education, as Ohio schools are hurting for cash right
now.
Item 9 is interesting:
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
“9. ARTIST’S MERCHANDISING RIGHTS. Artist shall have the right, but
not the obligation, to sell souvenir programs and other merchandising
items on the premises on the place of the presentation without
participation by the Purchaser, subject to local venue’s contract
requirements, if any, of which the Artist is notified in writing.”
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
(INSERT JOKE HERE… it’s too easy… i.e. Michelle Rhee T-shirts, action figures, etc.)
There’s also a pay-or-play clause, which means that if the event is
cancelled for any reason, you have to pay Michelle her $35K anyway
(or $50 K, which is her regular quote… she charged just $35 K in this case because Kent State is “an educational institution.”)
Reading this I feel like I’m watching a final scene of “THE WOLF OF
WALL STREET”, where the slimebucket and convicted Wall Street felon
Jordan Belfort now makes a cushy living as a “motivational speaker.”
God save us all!
Did you notice on the cover of TIME how the gavel of justice is poised to smash a perfectly fine, blemish free, shiny, healthy apple? not a bad apple! How is that for symbolism?
Almost as appropriate as Michelle Rhee and a broomstick (a witch herself on a witch hunt for teachers).
Touché!
Well that would be its Freudian slip, right? They don’t Rheely believe what they write–they just rinse and repeat it, because that is the stand of the magazine’s owner, backed by a billionaire. It must be nice to rule the world. I would like to think if I had a lot of money, I would do good with it and not let my ego get in the way. I don’t have money, and I do good with it, without letting my ego get in the way. Maybe a lot of little people like me can make a difference working together for the better good.
I believe this would be a “Fruitian slip”
TAGO, Some DAM Poet. You really have a way with words!!
Momma Bear, Great observation.
“Rotten to the Core”
American schools are rotten
Rotten to the Core
The rotting Core is Common
And becoming even more
make that “rotten at the Core”
Whether or not the actual article is as inflammatory as the cover is not the point. The TIME cover is not filling seats to a movie. It is intended to draw readers in to editorial. While it is understandable to tease the story, it’s irresponsible to make inflated claims. Leave that to the advertisers. Oh wait, the deformers ARE advertisers. Now it makes sense. The cover was sold.
FWIW, I changed my FB profile pic today to a mock-up parody of the Time cover. Check me out on facebook under Leigh Bucci, tap profile pic a couple of times to get a look at it.
Agreed 100%. This continues a sad American obsession making policy based on the exceptions. Whether it’s the story of a welfare scam used to justify cutbacks that hurt millions of the innocent or setting educational policy based on the few bad apples, it’s sad and destructive – exceptionally harmful.
The US MUST figure out how to avoid policy by anecdote.
The cover is inflammatory–not doubt about it.
Yesterday a first-year teacher put her life on the line when she confronted the Washington high school shooter. She was originally identified as “the lunch lady”. Teachers are more than test score. We are there for our students first. We are first responders who will put our lives on the line. Instead the media continues to disparage our profession.
Interesting that Diane chose the word “surge” to speak of the fantasy that eliminating due process will somehow attract great teachers to the field. The corporate reformers are engaging in a “Shock and Awe” campaign that has attacked public education from without and within. Teachers are so blind-sided by this relentless campaign of blame, attack, and reform, they don’t know if they are coming or going. Sadly, many dedicated teachers are going–they are leaving the profession.
The Time magazine cover is truly atrocious, and irresponsible as journalism.
The article within, by Haley Sweetland Edwards, was not as bad, though it was indeed, flawed. Edwards didn’t do her homework. She doesn’t really get to the meat of Judge Rolf Treu’s decision in the Vergara case, and its flimsy legal reasoning. That would have been a good place to start.
As I’ve noted before, Treu is a conservative Republican who has been characterized as being irascible. He’s been criticized for letting “his personal political agenda control his behavior and decisions” and for doing the entire “legal system an injustice.”
And while Edwards does note that VAM teacher evaluations are deeply flawed, she fails to point out that Treu’s decision is based entirely on VAM. Treu was influenced heavily by the Chetty-Friedman-Rockoff study that Edwards cites in her article, but she doesn’t really discuss that study much at all. You have to wonder why.
The Chetty-Friedman-Rockoff study is a good example of economists –– and the mainstream press – making causal inferences based on small correlative measures. It is much ado about nothing. It’s essential finding makes little if any sense.
The essential finding of the study is this: a high-quality teacher creates “more than a quarter of a million dollars” in higher earnings per CLASSROOM of students.
If there are an average of 30 students in these urban classrooms, that amounts to $8,333 per student over a life-time of employment. If that employment career lasts 30 years, then that’s about $278 extra a year, or $23 a month, or a bit over 5 bucks a week. And to get that result, the “researchers” had to rely on statistical modeling that has very severe limitations.
Toward the end of her article, Haley Sweetland Edwards does discuss problems with VAM, citing cautionary statements by the American Statistical Association, the American Educational Research Association, and the Department of Education, but she did NOT delve into what those statements actually said, and more importantly, what they meant. In effect, she failed to do her homework, and so she misreported the real gist of the story.
The statements – and research underpinnings – from ASA, AERA, and DOE pull the rug out from under value-added modeling (VAM) and hence, from Judge Treu’s ruling and from the the whole intoxicated legal “theory” on which Vergara was based. Thus, the corporate-style-bilionare-boy “reformers” –– the people Edwards refers to as “Silicon Valley business types” –– have no “reform” leg on which to stand.
The ASA said that “Ranking teachers by their VAM scores can have unintended consequences that reduce quality.” The ASA pointed out that VAMs are based on tests (flawed, and with error) that measure only a portion of learning, and that scores from those tests only predict (and do so poorly) “performance on the test.” More importantly, the ASA makes very clear that
“aspects of educational effectiveness that are measurable and within teacher control represent a small part of the total variation in student test scores or growth…The majority of the variation in test scores is attributable to factors outside of the teacher’s control such as student and family background, poverty, curriculum, and unmeasured influences.”
But Edwards doesn’t go there.
The American Educational Research Association says this: “New research published online today in Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (EEPA), a peer-reviewed journal of the American Educational Research Association, finds weak to nonexistent relationships between state-administered value-added model (VAM) measures of teacher performance and the content or quality of teachers’ instruction.” Edwards referred to the “weak to nonexistent” VAM correlations as “surprisingly weak.”
The AERA researchers asked an important question: “If VAMs are not meaningfully associated with either the content or quality of instruction, what are they measuring?”
Edwards made no note of it.
Department of Education research found not only that VAM scores fluctuated wildly with high error rates, but also that to gain MORE precision, there would need to be in place a “performance measure system” with a “multitude of comparisons” that collected scores over a long period (10 years) of time. And even then, that kind of system would “lead to higher overall Type I error rates than those identified by our analyses, which ignore multiple comparisons issues.”
Additionally – and significantly – DOE researchers concluded that “more than 90 percent of the variation in student gain scores is due to the variation in student-level factors that are not under control of the teacher.”
But again, Edwards made no mention of any of that.
Here’s the bottom line. The research cited by Haley Edwards (Chetty) in the Time magazine article in support of VAM is bogus. And the research that Edwards glosses over pulls the plug completely on VAM “reformers” (note to Kathleen Sullivan: you should be ashamed). That should be the real story, and one that remains largely unreported.
Edwards gets a C. Her content was lacking, but she writes well.
Tine magazine gets an F. Utter, epic failure. Irresponsible “journalism.” But they get a B+ for marketing, and that’s surely what the cover was all about.
And that dear citizens, is the state of mainstream education reporting in the U.S.
Take anonymous comments about judges with a lump of salt. Judges are to lawyers and litigants what teachers are to students, except judges are far more powerful and make more enemies. And “irascible” is par for the course.
And that’s the extent of your comment?
It’s certainly the extent of what I typed. I’m not competent to debate the methodology of VAM or its application. I would note, however, that you’re still misunderstanding Chetty’s earnings estimate. I explained this to you in some detail a while back in a comment on another thread, but it looks like you just ignored it.
Scary thing is Ohio elects it judges. I doubt most voters bother to look at judepedia or Google past decisions.
@ FLERP:
I don’t think I’m “misunderstanding” anything about the Chetty study.
I know you don’t. But you are. Chetty forecast future earnings of $1.4 million per classroom, not $250,000. The $250,000 figure is the net present value of the future $1.4 million. Bruce Baker initially got this wrong, too, although he admitted the error when Chetty’s co-author pointed it out. Note that getting this correct wouldn’t prevent you from making your same argument. It would also show that you listen to criticism and care about being accurate. On the downside, it would require you to rewrite one of your boilerplate paragraphs, as well as read the Chetty report (assuming that you didn’t just take my word for it, which you shouldn’t).
@ FLERP.
YOU may not be “competent” to debate VAM,. but I’d suggest the American Statistical Association has quite a bit of expertise in that area. AERA too. And DOE researchers find it very problematic.
Yet you sweep all that aside and focus on “irascibility.” Or say the Chetty study has been misunderstood.
Sorry. That doesn’t cut it.
Let me reiterate:
The ASA pointed out that VAMs are based on tests (flawed, and with error) that measure only a portion of learning, and that scores from those tests only predict (and do so poorly) “performance on the test.” More importantly, the ASA makes very clear that,
“aspects of educational effectiveness that are measurable and within teacher control represent a small part of the total variation in student test scores or growth…The majority of the variation in test scores is attributable to factors outside of the teacher’s control such as student and family background, poverty, curriculum, and unmeasured influences.”
The American Educational Research Association says this: “New research published online today in Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (EEPA), a peer-reviewed journal of the American Educational Research Association, finds weak to nonexistent relationships between state-administered value-added model (VAM) measures of teacher performance and the content or quality of teachers’ instruction.”
Department of Education research found not only that VAM scores fluctuated wildly with high error rates, but also that to gain MORE precision, there would need to be in place a “performance measure system” with a “multitude of comparisons” that collected scores over a long period (10 years) of time. And even then, that kind of system would “lead to higher overall Type I error rates than those identified by our analyses, which ignore multiple comparisons issues.”
Additionally – and significantly – DOE researchers concluded that “more than 90 percent of the variation in student gain scores is due to the variation in student-level factors that are not under control of the teacher.”
Now, who is that “misunderstands?”
democracy, I’m not defending VAM (although you appear to want me to defend it). I’m pointing out a couple things that I know that you apparently do not. Why? Because I’m a petty pedant. Anyway, take those points into consideration if you wish. If not, plow ahead.
As Tina Turner once wisely asked:
What’s stats got to do, got to do with it?
What’s stats, but a moldy old mathy notion?
What’s stats got to do, got to do with it?
Who needs the stats when the stats can be broken?
@ FLERP:
Here’s what Chetty et al say in their study:
““We estimate that replacing a teacher whose current VA (value-added) is in the bottom 5 percent with an average teacher would increase mean present value of student’s lifetime income by $250,000 per classroom over a teacher’s career…”
Later they add this:
“The average present value gain…based on VA …is approximately $250,000 per classroom. This corresponds to an undiscounted lifetime earnings gain per classroom of students of approximately $1.4 million.”
So, if we use current discounted dollars, the figures I cited are correct.
As to the $1.4 million…..Chetty admit that these are projections (estimates) and all of that data could be thrown off if wages are driven down…which by the way, is exactly what many advocates of Common Core (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, tech companies) would prefer to do.
Not to mention the data “cherry-picking” Chetty et al have been accused of…..
“Irascible”? Mother Jones provides evidence, in the newest issue, that judges are bought.
In West Va., the judge who cast the deciding vote to overturn a $50 mil. verdict against an energy company, had received a $3 mil. campaign donation from the energy company’s CEO.
Thanks.
“that dear citizens, is the state of mainstream
educationreporting in the U.S.”I expect outlets like TIME magazine, Fox and NPR to produce propaganda, but when is someone in a non-mainstream news outlet going to report on this stuff?
There are several great blogs (eg, Gary Rubinstein, Mercedes Schneider, and this one) that have covered this issue, but organizations like Democracy Now! have been completely silent on the Vergara decision and what went into it (VAM).
It’s like what is happening to American public education does not even matter, when the reality is that it matters far more than the “Bogeyman of the Week” (TM) in Iraq, Syria, or anywhere else.
“5 bucks a week. And to get that result, the “researchers” had to rely on statistical modeling that has very severe limitations.”
There are severe limitations to the real statistics, but Chetty more than makes up for it with Chetty picking* (as pointed out by Moshe Adler and others). No limitations there. The sky’s the limit.
*For examples of Chetty picking, see here (Chetty study number 2)
“Of Cherries and Queries”
To bake a cherry pie
You pick the ripest cherries
Which makes the public buy
“The Chetty Data Queries”
@ Poet:
The crux of Moshe Adler’s criticism of the Chetty study is this:
“The only valid conclusion from this study is the opposite
of what’s been reported and trumpeted: that teacher value-added scores have NOT BEEN SHOWN to have a long-term impact on income.” [emphasis mine]
And yes, it appears that Chetty et al did cherrypick to get what they wanted.
@ FLERP:
I don’t WANT you to defend VAM, though when you defend the Chetty study that’s exactly what you’re doing.
And I am puzzled: what exactly is it that you’ve pointed out?
democracy,
I agree that Chetty did not show what he thinks he showed.
It’s not just the chetty-picking alone that is the problem, but that he used the chetty-picked income estimate to extrapolate faaaar into the future, which renders the cumulative lifetime estimate completely meaningless. Bogus, really.
Extrapolation is notoriously unreliable even when one has many years of data points to “fit a curve” with, but what Chetty has done is actually laughable.
Math is obviously not Chetty’s thing or he would realize how ridiculous what he has claimed is.
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
When is time magazine going to publish a cover, with a gavel falling on hedge funds? When is Chetty going to compare the huge economic costs of an unproductive financial sector to the infinitesimally small costs, of a small number of teachers, intermittently failing to operate at maximum effectiveness and efficiency?
maybe this will help to answer your question:
As bank fraud expert William Black has said (The Perversity of Economics’ Culture of fraud)
“I have often written about economists’ tribal taboo on taking fraud seriously or even using the “f-word.” (For economists, it’s like saying “Voldemort” out loud.) It is one of the leading shapers of the intensely criminogenic environments that create the perverse incentives that drive our recurrent, intensifying financial crises”
“Economists do not study fraud. They have a primitive tribal taboo against using the word. This, of course, is because economics is assuredly not “firmly grounded in fact.” Ignoring fraud is a pure ideological construct that requires economists to ignore fraud, particularly private-sector “control fraud.” Economists do not study the criminology literature on elite white-collar crimes. Economists do not study and do not understand sophisticated financial fraud schemes.” — from Economics could be a Science if More Economists were Scientists
Thanks Poet. It does provide enlightenment.
What a convenient taboo to enable economists, to selectively pursue avenues of research that receive lucrative funding, and to, construct bizarre permutations to support pro-oligarch notions and to, dismiss evidence, unappealing to their wealthy benefactors
and to do it, without arousing the economists’ logic or conscience.