Early in the pandemic, an economist at Brown University named Emily Oster gained extraordinary media attention for the advice she offered. She wrote multiple articles declaring that it was safe to open schools even without the funds needed to pay for extra safety precautions. She wrote, she was written about, she became the go-to person with “evidence” that schools were safe from COVID.
Oster’s research is funded by leading rightwing and libertarian foundations, organizations, and individuals. As the linked article by epidemiologists Abigail Cartus and Justin Feldman explains, Oster’s emphasis on individualism and personal choice ring sweetly in the ears of the rightwing philanthropists.
They write:
Oster’s influence on the discourse around COVID in schools is difficult to overstate. She has been quoted in hundreds of articles about school pandemic precautions and interviewed as a guest on dozens of news shows. Officials from both parties have used her work as justification for lifting public health measures. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis cited her study while announcing an executive order banning school mask mandates, while CDC Director Rochelle Walenksy referenced Oster’s research in anticipation of relaxing classroom social distancing guidelines. Oster also co-authored an influential school reopening guidance document that was released in early 2021.
But despite its prominence, Oster’s work on COVID in schools has attracted little scrutiny—even though it has been funded since last summer by organizations that, without exception, have explicit commitments to opposing teacher’s unions, supporting charter schools, and expanding corporate freedom. In addition to grantsfrom the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the Walton Family Foundation, and Arnold Ventures, Oster has received funding from far-right billionaire Peter Thiel. The Thiel grant awarded to Oster was administered by the Mercatus Center, the think tank founded and financed by the Koch family.
Although she claimed that her work was evidence-based, the authors show that her evidence was never as conclusive as she argued.
Cartus and Feldman draw a straight line between Oster’s views about COVID and the billionaire-funded attack on public schools. It is no accident that the same people who support charter schools and vouchers also support Oster.
What’s in it for the billionaires? Oster spreads the gospel of choice, they write, a philosophy of looking out for #1, and ignoring social responsibility.
They write:
Oster is far from the only person to apply an economic style of reasoning to the U.S. education sector. There exists an entire ecosystem of “education reform” organizations that have spent decades attempting to subject schools to market conditions, promoting “school choice”, (i.e., charter schools, some of which are for-profit). This necessitates, among other stances, taking a harder line against organized labor. When the pandemic arrived, billionaires and right-wing interests invested in neoliberal “education reform” saw an opportunity to advance their interests: breaking unions, promoting charter schools, and undermining public education. Oster’s preference for individualism, the rhetoric of choice, and economic reasoning over structural and collective justice-based conceptions made her—as an impeccably credentialed and high-profile economist prior to the pandemic—a valuable “expert” ally in their crusade to reshape U.S. education. Indeed, when the pandemic began, these groups promptly expressed interest in funding her work on COVID in schools….
Throughout the pandemic, Oster’s advocacy has helped make the “data-driven” case for peeling away successive layers of COVID mitigations: first ending remote instructionin favor of hybrid learning, then ending hybrid learning in favor of a full return to in-person instruction, then eliminating quarantine for those exposed to the virus. The direction of her vision for schooling during the pandemic ultimately involves abandoning universal public health measures altogether, turning masking and vaccination into individual, personal choices that can be decided through cost-benefit calculations.
The irony of the Rightwingers’ support for Oster and her “data-driven” approach to COVID is that it stands in sharp contrast to their total disregard for data or evidence about charter schools and voucher schools. The evidence favoring charter schools over district schools is scanty; the evidence of the failure of vouchers is overwhelming. But the funders don’t care.
The bitter struggle over COVID in schools, conducted with the rhetoric of “choice,” opened up space for an alliance between affluent white liberal parents and a right-wing propaganda infrastructure devoted to destroying unions and public schools. For instance, John Arnold, the former Enron executive behind the eponymous Arnold Ventures (which funds Oster), has used the pandemic to attack teacher’s unions and further his goal of dismantling public pension funding, much of which is allocated to unionized public school teachers. The pandemic also provided an opportunity to increase charter school usageat the expense of public school enrollment. It gave plutocrats like the Waltons yet another chance to attack teachers’ unions by painting their demands for safer working conditions as irrational. By advocating reopening in a seminar at Bellwether Education Partners (another Walton grantee) during a period when the Chicago Teachers Union was campaigning for stronger COVID rules, Oster helped the Waltons do precisely that.
To see all the links and read the full article, open the link.
Why is it ok to apply a market based approach to public health care (Medicare, Medicaid and some VA health care), public housing (housing vouchers), the postal service, and thousands of local government services, but not education? I am not advocated for privatization of education, but to simply write off school choice, when choice is the norm in public services all across the country is simply ideological. most kids have no choice, and thousands of those children attend schools that are just not any good. Simply spending more money is not going to make them better. There are so many factors beyong the control of schools that contribute to this, but education is where it matters most.
It is also worth noting that public support for private education is standard throughout most of europe and most OECD nations which routinely outperform the US in standardized testing. As much as standardized testing is a horrible measure, it is the measure everyone looks to for comparison.
Your first sentence begins with the acceptance of a Reagan/Thatcher fallacy. It is not OK. It is an aid to making decisions in certain instances, but does not correspond to any basic supply and demand assumptions. Take healthcare for example. There’s a lot of supply of disease and disability, but zero demand (unless you fall into the cynical trap that providers–insurers, physicians, etc–keep diseases going to make money). Same with education, the postal service, and public housing. In the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, we ought to be able to separate the two concepts and address the vast majority of all issues at stake. We do it for military spending.
yes, we do separate the two concepts and in most cases, we do it very poorly.
MjGB,
I don’t know if you are making false comparisons between Medicare and charters because of your ignorance or just because you are anti-public school.
But please name one privatized medicare health insurance program that is run under the same separate and unequal regulations that charters are run under.
In other words, name a couple private Medicare insurance companies that are allowed to dump any senior citizen that enrolls if that senior citizen isn’t “thriving” — and by thriving I mean that the senior citizen’s health needs are met by the most inexperienced health care providers who follow a rote script of medical attention and if the senior does not get well, that senior is dumped from the health care insurance so that the private health care company can brag that “99% of the seniors who enroll are thriving because of our superior medical professionals”?
Is that how the private Medicare insurance system works? Private medicare insurance companies who are told they must enroll anyone who wants, but they have full freedom to dump any enrollee that they can’t quickly cure and claim that it’s the fault of the enrollee for not trying hard enough and being “bad”? Because surely you agree that would be a terrible thing for Medicare to be like charters.
“Appeals to “following the data” do not always reflect a scientific consensus; rather, “the data” is a rhetorical device used to grant narrative authority to certain quantitative analyses—those that confirm preconceived ideas.”
There is a key problem with deformer research. They start out with a preconceived agenda, in this case an economic perspective with efficiency and cost reduction as a main value, and they draw conclusions based on personal beliefs and values. Health researchers follow the data and do not try to plug the information into their own market based or personal bias.
Oster is gathering information that she widely publishes and promotes, but her work is tainted by being on the payroll of ultra-conservative groups and her training as an economist, She is not an epidemiologist. These scientists make decisions based on facts as well as the professional responsibility to protect community health.
Covid continues to rage on despite our current tendency to ignore its potential dangers. In the US we are averaging 400 to 500 deaths per week. Without mitigation and precautions these figures are bound to increase this winter.
“Why is it ok to apply a market based approach to public health care (Medicare, Medicaid and some VA health care), public housing (housing vouchers), the postal service, and thousands of local government services, but not education?”
Who says it is? Are you not aware that tens of thousands of people a year die from privatized medicine, housing, etc.? Why would you want to inflict the same on education?
And your last paragraph is just nonsensical Europe outperforms the U.S. on what you yourself admit is a “horrible measure” (sic), so the U.S. should follow European models to get ahead on that horrible “measure”? What sense does that make? Assuming you’re even correct about Europe, which I’m not sure you are. Finland, for example, very much discourages private schools and for-profit schools are outlawed, and they routinely top the chart on those “horrible measures”.
Tens of thousands of people die, where is the data the says they die as a result of privatized medicine, housing, etc? There is a reason the Canadian health care system is in disarray and more and more Canadians are looking towards the US for health care (https://ubcmj.med.ubc.ca/past-issues/ubcmj-volume-4-issue-1/healthcare-in-canada-privatization-and-how-to-contain-it/healthcare-in-canada-privatization-and-how-to-contain-it/).
No, I do not beleive standardized testing is a good model, but PISA, and similar national testing programs are what is used to measure comparative performance. Most OECD nations measure success within country through inspectorate systems similar to higher education accreditation in the US. That is the system the US shoudl adopt for K-12. So yes, adopted the European model of inspections is the proper path, not standardized testing. It is a less competitive model. schools are not compared to each other, but against a standard of excellence.
Privatization serves those with money and those who fit the norm. Those who can’t afford the service go without. In the case of healthcare, that leads to death. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/07/americans-healthcare-medical-costs
Those who can’t afford privatized education may not directly die, but they get inferior education which has lasting negative impact throughout their life. Also, those whose educational needs don’t fit the norm do not get educational services under privatization unless they can afford astronomical fees.
Diane has numerous article on this blog about the dangers of privatization of education. Happy reading.
“Most OECD nations measure success within country through inspectorate systems similar to higher education accreditation in the US.”
That was the system before NCLB. Ever hear of North Central Association, disbanded in 2014? Our five year review used to be a long process of inspection, review, conversations of what was actually happening in a school/district . . . and then NCLB and the states took over.
And never once was it any kind of measurement. Assessment, evaluation, judgement no doubt but never a measurement. (see my next response)
“I do not beleive standardized testing is a good model, but PISA, and similar national testing programs are what is used to measure comparative performance.”
No, those tests do not “measure comparative performance”! They don’t measure anything.
The most misleading concept/term in education is “measuring student achievement” or “measuring student learning”. The concept has been misleading educators into deluding themselves that the teaching and learning process can be analyzed/assessed using “scientific” methods which are actually pseudo-scientific at best and at worst a complete bastardization of rationo-logical thinking and language usage.
There never has been and never will be any “measuring” of the teaching and learning process and what each individual student learns in their schooling. There is and always has been assessing, evaluating, judging of what students learn but never a true “measuring” of it.
But, but, but, you’re trying to tell me that the supposedly august and venerable APA, AERA and/or the NCME have been wrong for more than the last 50 years, disseminating falsehoods and chimeras??
Who are you to question the authorities in testing???
Yes, they have been wrong and I (and many others, Wilson, Hoffman etc. . . ) question those authorities and challenge them (or any of you other advocates of the malpractices that are standards and testing) to answer to the following onto-epistemological analysis:
The TESTS MEASURE NOTHING, quite literally when you realize what is actually happening with them. Richard Phelps, a staunch standardized test proponent (he has written at least two books defending the standardized testing malpractices) in the introduction to “Correcting Fallacies About Educational and Psychological Testing” unwittingly lets the cat out of the bag with this statement:
“Physical tests, such as those conducted by engineers, can be standardized, of course [why of course of course], but in this volume , we focus on the measurement of latent (i.e., nonobservable) mental, and not physical, traits.” [my addition]
Notice how he is trying to assert by proximity that educational standardized testing and the testing done by engineers are basically the same, in other words a “truly scientific endeavor”. The same by proximity is not a good rhetorical/debating technique.
Since there is no agreement on a standard unit of learning, there is no exemplar of that standard unit and there is no measuring device calibrated against said non-existent standard unit, how is it possible to “measure the nonobservable”?
THE TESTS MEASURE NOTHING for how is it possible to “measure” the nonobservable with a non-existing measuring device that is not calibrated against a non-existing standard unit of learning?????
PURE LOGICAL INSANITY!
The basic fallacy of this is the confusing and conflating metrological (metrology is the scientific study of measurement) measuring and measuring that connotes assessing, evaluating and judging. The two meanings are not the same and confusing and conflating them is a very easy way to make it appear that standards and standardized testing are “scientific endeavors”-objective and not subjective like assessing, evaluating and judging.
That supposedly objective results are used to justify discrimination against many students for their life circumstances and inherent intellectual traits.
Duane,
Accredition like through North Central is the way to go, but they are mostly not mandatory and are mostly done by the state government. NCA and similar accreditation programs are mostly optional, especially for public schools.
Also, even among the few states that do have some sort of accreditation process, they generally focus on state-based testing and do not look at the broader educational system. There are exceptions, but they are few and far between.
I agree with you that standardized testing does not measure school performance, and should not be the primary measure, BUT it is what everyone focuses on (parents, media, many ed. experts who feel they are a poor measure still talk about them all the time.), and they are used for comparison purposes. Schools, including traditional public schools that perform well, promote their scores and use them as a competitive advantage.
I don’t find it surprising that viruses of a feather stick together.
Covid and Capitalists sitting in a tree, K I L L I N G.
In her parenting books, she has advocated that pregnant women ignore the advice of their obstetrician regarding alcohol and Listeria. Unfortunately she has a big following among white left of center parents.
That is terrifying!
She’s an idiot.
But unfortunately there are a lot of idiots that hang on her every word because she tells them what they want to hear:
I posted a response from a fetal alcohol syndrome expert to Oster’s claims about “drinking during pregnancy”a couple years ago.
There is a recurring theme, no matter what the issue. Oster is has far more certainty about things than the data warrant.
https://dianeravitch.net/2020/10/10/emily-oster-schools-are-not-superspeaders-of-covid/#comment-3121823
Oster should not be allowed anywhere near public health issues.
A report about a MRI study of fetal brains was featured in a AAAS Eureka Alert on the first of December 2021. Gregor Kasprian MD is one of the researchers (Medical University of Austria). The pregnant women had been referred for MRI for clinical reasons . The study measured changes in the fetal brains.
When I have pasted in links previously in the relies on this site, the post was blocked. Sorry to not post link, but the title is “MRI reveals altered brain structure in fetuses exposed to alcohol “ which should help in a search for it.
Unfortunately, the mainstream media in America love and give a prominent platform to contrarians and various and sundry other nitwiits who claim to be data driven, but in reality are actually driving the data where they (the nitwits, not the data) wish to go.
Data Driven
When data are driven —
Along for the ride —
They never are given
A chance to decide
When Oster first surfaced as an “influencer”, let’s say, on covid, I posted this letter from Susan Astley Ph.D., a professor of Epidemiology and Pediatrics at the University of Washington and director of the Washington State FAS Diagnostic & Prevention Network of clinics (fasdpn.org) to the blog.
Here it is again. Oster was wrong in 2013 about pregnancy and alcohol. She was told as much by an expert in the field, but her book on the topic remains popular. I was horrified to find my daughter was reading her advice while she was pregnant a year ago. I did ban that book!
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Oster reports “When I looked at the data from hundreds of studies, I found, basically, no credible evidence that low levels of drinking (a glass of wine or so a day) have any impact on your baby’s cognitive development”. She goes on to report “The key to good decision making is evaluating the available information—the data—and combining it with your own estimates of pluses and minuses. As an economist, I do this every day.” Well, as a Professor of Epidemiology and Pediatrics, director of an FAS diagnostic clinic that has diagnosed over 2,550 individuals with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD) over 20 years, and creator of one of the largest FASD databases, I too do this every day. As an economist, Dr. Oster concludes a drink a day during pregnancy is safe. As a pediatric epidemiologist, I conclude a drink a day is not safe. So which of us is correct?
Click to access astley-oster2013.pdf
Christine
That’s the same piece from the Fetal alcohol expert that I also posted and linked to.
And everyone should read that because it tells you a lot.
Ah, great minds!
The real issue involved here is scientific uncertainty. It is simply not possible to say with absolute certainty that “”a small amount of alcohol during pregnancy will do no harm to the developing fetus”
And given the potential consequences and how easy it is for a pregnant mother simply to forgo alcohol entirely for nine months, there is absolutely no justification for suggesting it’s OK for pregnant women to drink, not even if it’s just a little bit.
Not incidentally, the failure to understand and take into account scientific uncertainty is also the basis of Oster’s conclusions (very early on, I might add) about C OVID and kids.
A source of Listeria contamination of cold cuts is improper or inadequate cleaning of the deli slicer. Saying that one variety of lunch meat is dangerous but not anything else is inconsistent with the dangers of contamination from deli slicers that cut everything.
Miscarriage from Listeria is even worse than fetal alcohol syndrome.
So much for scholarly disinterest (and integrity).
Oster’s trajectory is emblematic
of the way a failure
in schooling continues.
“Rather than preparing citizens
for ethical participation
in society, schools cultivate
passive pupils via insistence
upon mastery of facts and
disciplining of bodies.
Rather than preparing students
to be reflective, autonomous
and ethical beings capable
of arriving at social truths
through critical and
intersubjective discourse,
schools prepare students
for docile compliance with
authoritarian work and
political structures,
discourage the pursuit of
individual and communal inquiry.
Education stifles individual
autonomy when learners
are taught that knowledge
is transmitted in one
direction, from the expert
to the learner.”
This is another issue that I want to thank the folks on this blog for helping to educate me. My initial response to her studies was open-mindedness to see if she had something to say. Time has demonstrated that she does not and that it’s part of an agenda, not academic inquiry. Many of you figured that out quite quickly. It took this old geezer a little while longer to get it.
Anything from the deform crowd is generally a large confirmation bias loop instead of an objective study.
Not sure open mindedness and economist discussing medicine belong in the same sentence together. I’m comfortable putting people like Emily Oster and “Dr” Oz in the same sentence together, though. Emily is to doctors as Dr Dre is to doctors.
Aunty Emily and Dr. Oz
As you may recall, the Wizard of Oz was actually an Elixir Doctor (aka Snake oil Salesman) back in Kansas.
Excellent point.
Further proof, as if any were needed, that Milton Friedman should have been throttled in his crib.
These are the people who gave us the likes of John Lott, and they populate modern economic thinking like flies populate garbage pails.
Whenever I hear someone say “It’s really very simple”, I wish I had a gun handy.
Steve Levitt is another one cut from the same Chicago Boys cloth.
Emily is just one of the boys.
These folks love to be contrarians, even if it means making total folks of themselves.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/
Total fools
Economists tend to believe they have the answer to everything even though they are wearing blinders and don’t have expertise in the area they are addressing. Teachers do not tell economists how to run the economy, and economists should stay out of education.
NOT just Education.
They weigh in on all sorts of stuff outside of economics: epidemiology, climate change and even physics (see the link above)
In psychology, there is a term for the observation that those who have the most confidence in their abilities are often the least knowledgeable and least competent. It’s called the Dunning Kruger effect.
And the irony is that they are not even very good at economics.
Of course, maybe that’s because they spend so much time speculating snd pontificating about stuff outside their own field.
John Thompson has Oster’s number.
https://networkforpubliceducation.org/blog-content/john-thompson-emily-oster-and-the-confidence-of-non-experts/
Emily Oster is the product of the blending of Economics with Actuarial “Science”. Most people aren’t smart enough to get a degree in Actuarial “science” since it involves very complex math/systems, but most people are able to understand the general concepts of Economics. People like Oster are in the business of pushing SIB (social impact bonds) for the donor class and its pursuit of a privatized system siphoning tax dollars.
why is it that many here who disagree with what some say, immediately jump to name calling and threats?? Doesn’t suggesting a baby by murdered get you banned on places like twitter or FB?
I think people can recognize hyperbole in the service of humor.
Then again, common sense is called common because it’s so rare.
If you’re refering to the comment about throttling Milton Friedman in his crib, read up on the havoc the Chicago Boys have created under Pinochet in Chile and other places around the world. People have literally lost their lives due to his influence.
Civility”
Civil gist?
Or civil buzz?
Civil is
As civil does
Counterfactuals
If Hitler had been choked
While sleeping in his crib
He never could have smoked
The millions that he did
But let me point out that this is not actually a “threat” for two reasons
1) Hitler is dead (or at least, I’m pretty sure he is)
2) Even if he is not dead, he is certainly not a baby, so it would simply not be possible to choke him in his crib even if someone desired to do so. So, even if “if Hitler had been choked” were not written in the past tense, it could not be a threat because everything about Hitler being in his crib IS in the past.
And it can’t be about suggesting that a baby today should be choked in his crib because there is no way anyone could know that that that baby would grow up to be Bolted.
Hope that clarifies.
Grow up to be Hitler
Perhaps some day we will be able to read a baby’s mind and determine whether they will grow up to be a mass murderer.
Hitler may have already been planning his
whole dastardly plot in his crib, but there would be no way of knowing that, not even with today’s technology.
But we can’t get do it.
Not that I am aware, at least.
Bill Gates might be working on the mind reading project,
I’m seem to break hearing something about that, but csnt be sure.
to Jsrtheta – yes common sense is rare, again look at twitter and fb for evidence of that. And, you prove my point, the ‘common’ response here all too often seems to be to resort to name calling and threats against those you disagree with (much like twitter, fb and others).
To POET – Isn’t that one of the great moral debates… do you kill baby Hitler if you knew what he would become? First off.. you can’t know what he would become, and second are you really comparing Hitler to one of the leading economists of the 20th century? You don’t have to agree with him, but I do not think that is a reasonable comparison.
Milton Freedman worked with and thereby facilitated the policies of Pinochet, who was also a mass murderer.
And I actually made a pointed out that we can not know a baby will grow up to be a mass murderer.
That’s why suggesting as much can not be a threat, as you suggested.
But you obviously missed that.
You are also getting far more indignant about a counterfactual than the reality behind Milton Friedmans policies and “collaborations”.
Civil is as civil does.
That’s why suggested that a baby might have been throttled in his crib can not be a threat, as you suggested.
A counterfactual can simply not be a threat. It’s impossible.
Who decides who the greatest economists are?
A Swedish bank?
The so called Economics Nobel Prize is not a real Novel Prize and Friedman was one of the first to be the beneficiary of what was nothing more than a PR campaign by a Swedish bank to give economists and economics prestige.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-economics-nobel-isnt-really-a-nobel/
I made clear why the counterfactual about throttling can not possibly be a threat here
https://dianeravitch.net/2023/01/04/why-do-rightwing-foundations-fund-emily-osters-work-on-covid-and-parenting/comment-page-1/#comment-3444130
But you obviously didn’t read it
It’s actually very funny that one of the deadliest recipients of the Swedish Bank Fake Nobel , Friedrich Hayek actually said the following in his acceptance speech
“The Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess,”
He didn’t acknowledge that it was a fake Nobel, which jt is, but he did point out the central problem with the fake Prize.
Ha ha ha
Self correct changed “earliest” to “deadliest”
It’s actually very ironic that Hayek himself benefitted greatly from precisely what he pointed out.
Before he got the fake Nobel , his career was going nowhere.
And afterward, he had the ear of power brokers everywhere.
Hayek knew that his influence was not justified but nonetheless leveraged it.
They makes him a hypocrite.
I think every member of ALEC, and anyone else that funds this kind of crap should be given an injection that includes lethal doses of live viruses for: polio, chicken pox, measles, COVID, et al.
This article is excellent, but it doesn’t address the elephant in the room (unless I missed it):
Emily Oster has a HISTORY of hyping her shoddy research (with help from Steve Levitt) and vehemently rejecting any criticism of her shoddy research and the way she hypes it. It was made clear to me from Oster’s response to her earlier fiasco — where as a young academic, her dissertation made outrageously unfounded claims based on what Oster claimed was unimpeachable data. Oster didn’t listen to the criticism of the far superior academics who tried to get her to understand the huge flaws in the “data-driven results” she was hyping – I have no doubt if that criticism had come from elite academics in a position to help her career, she would have paid attention.
Years later — TOO MANY years later — Emily Oster finally admitted she was wrong. Remember when Nicole Hannah-Jones was excoriated for putting too much weight on the influence of slavery during a particular period of US history, and she immediately made a minor change to address that minor issue and the critics still attacked her for making even a minor error (one that is still arguable since that supposed “error” of overemphasizing one influence is from Harvard scholar Jill Lepore’s book “These Truths”, which was never attacked in the same way as Nicole Hannah-Jones was).
Well, when you are an overprivileged white woman like Emily Oster with parents in academia and fawning writers like Steve Levitt on your side, you can make a HUGE mistake and completely mis-use data to come up with a conclusion that is obscenely wrong, and you can then insult your critics for years instead of considering whether your critics have a point, and if years later you finally decide to acknowledge that your critics are right, you get praise from writers for acknowledging your error instead of fired for spending years denying that your critics’ points were worth considering.
And the fact that you have a history of this kind of shoddy research disappears even from these critics’ writing about how Emily Oster basically seems to be repeating her pattern of hyping shoddy research to get attention for her “data-driven” research where the only data that she considers worthwhile is the data that promotes her view, and her own career that is helped by the fact that rich and powerful people are very pleased with the conclusions she hypes based on her shoddy data research.
I can’t post links but if you google Emily Oster and Hepatitis B, you will find plenty of overviews of the fiasco, including the fawning praise when Oster – years later – finally admitted the conclusions she hyped were wrong.
There is a good overview of Oster’s shoddy research and embarassingly wrong-headed defense in a Canadian academic site published September 2010, written by Frances Woolley:
“When academic publishing goes wrong: the case of missing women and Hepatitis B
This is a story about how something that turns out to be wrong can be published in a top journal, and what happens next.
The Freakonomics team tell good stories, so I’ll let them begin. In 2005, they wrote an article in Slate magazine lavishly praising the work of a young economist called Emily Oster.
You can read the whole story here. I’ve condensed it a little. Dubner and Levitt start with Amartya Sen’s “incendiary argument” that there were 100 million missing women in Asia:
She found that:
Oster’s work resonated with Dubner and Levitt because it supported two of economists’ most cherished beliefs:
Individuals making rational choices will usually produce good outcomes. This is why economists generally believe in the efficiency of markets and a limited role for government.
If individuals making rational choices decide to, say, abort female fetuses, it’s hard to believe that freedom of choice leads to good outcomes. If, instead, skewed sex ratios are caused by Hepatitis B, our faith in individual choice is unscathed.
Economists are smart. Smarter than other people who are easily swayed by incendiary arguments. Levitt and Dubner put it a little more tactfully in Freakonomics when they say “the conventional wisdom is often wrong.”
There’s just one problem with this whole heart-warming story. Oster’s analysis, as published in the Journal of Political Economy (editor: Steven Levitt) [ungated], was wrong. Studies of thousands of people with and without Hepatitis B infections find that the virus causes only a very small change in the probability of having a boy. Lin and Luoh published a rebuttal in the American Economic Review. Earlier this year, Oster, Chen, Yu and Lin published a paper acknowledging Hepatitis B does not explain male-biased sex ratios in China.
Emily Oster, after all of this, remains a respected economist. Her creativity and intelligence is evidenced by her other work, for example, her recent paper arguing that cable television has improved women’s status in India (now that’s a cool paper). Creative people tend to come up with lots of ideas – not every one works out.
But Levitt’s reaction to the whole affair was somewhat lacking in introspection. He praised Oster: “She also has done something incredibly rare for an academic economist: she has admitted she was wrong.”
Someone arguing in Levitt’s defence might say “well, no one could have known that Oster’s hypothesis would turn out to be wrong.” Could they? In 2005, the year that Oster’s paper appeared in the JPE, Monica Das Gupta published a rebuttal in the Population and Development Review. She describes the results of a 1993 paper by Zeng et al, one cited by Oster:
…the sex ratio at birth varies sharply by the sex composition of the living children the woman already has…. Zeng et al. show that the sex ratio at birth was normal (1.056) for first births. For second births, it was strikingly different depending on whether the first child was male or female: women whose first child was a son had a low sex ratio (1.014) for the second child, while those whose first child was a daughter had a very high sex ratio (1.494) for the second child.
To produce a pattern like that, Hep B has to be one heck of a smart virus. So the first point is: anyone with even a passing familiarity with the literature would know there was something suspicious about the Oster results.
Second, Oster’s evidence was, by generally accepted research standards, weak. Basically the paper took a bunch of different countries, and looked at the relationship between the ratio of boys to girls in the population and the prevalence of Hepatitis B. It just happens to be the case that countries with high rates of Hep B – China, for example – also have skewed gender ratios. If you had replicated Oster’s methodology and substituted “percentage of calories coming from rice” for “Hep B prevalence” you might have found that rice consumption causes missing women. Cross-country studies are particularly subject to this kind of problem, so many researchers (rightly) view them with suspicion.
Sometimes mistakes don’t matter. Earlier this year I speculated that income inequality might by correlated with adultery. I was probably wrong, but I doubt anyone signed up for AshleyMadison.com after reading the blog.
But Oster’s mistake had – and still has – the potential to do real harm. Type “missing women” into http://scholar.google.com. When I did that just now, the number four hit was to Oster’s 2005 JPE article attributing 75 percent of China’s gender imbalance to Hepatitis B.”
END OF EXCERPTS
In short, Emily Oster hyped her shoddy graduate student research — with the help of powerful folks with an agenda — just like she hyped her school reopening research with the help of powerful folks with an agenda. Like many “respected” right wing Republicans funded by the same right wing billionaires who fund her research, Oster’s past history of pushing false narratives and doubling down on those false narratives when getting caught, vanishes from history. Her attacks on her critics instead of LISTENING to them make her indistinguishable from most right wing Republicans.
It is very possible that in a few years, once she has parlayed her shoddy research conclusions into an even more lucrative career, Oster will correct her unwarranted conclusions. It’s even possible that more real data might show that at least some of the shoddy data conclusions she is hyping as absolutely unimpeachable will turn out to be true.
But that doesn’t make what she does truly abhorrent. Hyping a conclusion based on shoddy, lazy data as unimpeachable and data driven has real world consequences. Oster denies her culpability by claiming she isn’t responsible for the hype. But she is the most complicit of all, because all it would do take to stop the hype was for her to speak out to correct the record. But she PERSONALLY benefits from the hype (hey those people who like it fund her research!) just like she benefited enormously when she was an unknown (but very connected and privileged) graduate student when Steve Levitt liked the completely false conclusion she made in her shoddy research about Hepatitis B.
I copy and paste this again, because while this sentence is about Oster’s PREVIOUS unforced error based on her shoddy research, it could be applied to Oster today:
“Someone arguing in Levitt’s defence might say “well, no one could have known that Oster’s hypothesis would turn out to be wrong.” Could they? In 2005, the year that Oster’s paper appeared in the JPE, Monica Das Gupta published a rebuttal in the Population and Development Review. She describes the results of a 1993 paper by Zeng et al, one cited by Oster:
…the sex ratio at birth varies sharply by the sex composition of the living children the woman already has…. Zeng et al. show that the sex ratio at birth was normal (1.056) for first births. For second births, it was strikingly different depending on whether the first child was male or female: women whose first child was a son had a low sex ratio (1.014) for the second child, while those whose first child was a daughter had a very high sex ratio (1.494) for the second child.
To produce a pattern like that, Hep B has to be one heck of a smart virus. So the first point is: anyone with even a passing familiarity with the literature would know there was something suspicious about the Oster results.
Second, Oster’s evidence was, by generally accepted research standards, weak. Basically the paper took a bunch of different countries, and looked at the relationship between the ratio of boys to girls in the population and the prevalence of Hepatitis B. It just happens to be the case that countries with high rates of Hep B – China, for example – also have skewed gender ratios. If you had replicated Oster’s methodology and substituted “percentage of calories coming from rice” for “Hep B prevalence” you might have found that rice consumption causes missing women. Cross-country studies are particularly subject to this kind of problem, so many researchers (rightly) view them with suspicion.”
So, yes, there is a good reason to say that Oster’s hyped conclusions are not warranted by the data. But that hasn’t stopped her from hyping them from early on as if they were already unimpeachable.
Interesting read. Rational people should make good choices, but the term “rational” is often a subjective, not objective term. I’m sure Putin believes he is rational and so did Milton Friedman, but lots of people would have a differing point of view.
Some people cook their data. Others osterize it.
Oster sized”
Oster’s head
Is ostrichwise
Really should
Be ostracized
But instead
She’s Oster sized
Ostersized
Oster’s head
is poster sized
But
Disregard the last 4 lines
“Oster sized”(take 2)
Oster’s head
Is ostrichwise
Really should
Be ostracized
But instead
It’s Oster sized
(It, meaning her head)
Is, she has a big head — thinks she knows everything
Poster sized ” also works