the corner office

Friends will be reading the previous post and thinking 'boozing and shagging? ORLY?' I take license, naturally, and even in my day there were people studying themselves into husks trying to get their degrees, people working crazy hours and holding down part time jobs to pay their way, but for the most part, my point stands.

On a serious note, the real issue with online education is credentialling. It's one thing to know postgraduate-level calculus backwards, it's another to get someone reading your CV to know that and believe it. But there's a market for it, this already happens in places, and I have no doubt that more will come.

The other side effect of the widespread availability of knowledge and university-level education online is that the premium on education drops. This ties in with the iPhones in China post from a few days ago: on a planet full of people who've mastered postgraduate calculus, your average graduate just ain't so special anymore. Our kids will have to run a lot further just to stand still.

That's a daunting thought, but I go back to my previous point: the mountains might be higher, but the climbing equipment is a whole lot better. As is the view.

On the one hand: Student outrage as university places are cut by 15,000

On the other hand: Udacity and the future of online universities:

Thrun told the story of his Introduction to Artificial Intelligence class, which ran from October to December last year. It started as a way of putting his Stanford course online - he was going to teach the whole thing, for free, to anybody in the world who wanted it. With quizzes and grades and a final certificate, in parallel with the in-person course he was giving his Stanford undergrad students. He sent out one email to announce the class, and from that one email there was ultimately an enrollment of 160,000 students. Thrun scrambled to put together a website which could scale and support that enrollment, and succeeded spectacularly well.

Just a couple of datapoints from Thrun's talk: there were more students in his course from Lithuania alone than there are students at Stanford altogether. There were students in Afghanistan, exfiltrating war zones to grab an hour of connectivity to finish the homework assignments. There were single mothers keeping the faith and staying with the course even as their families were being hit by tragedy. And when it finished, thousands of students around the world were educated and inspired. Some 248 of them, in total, got a perfect score: they never got a single question wrong, over the entire course of the class. All 248 took the course online; not one was enrolled at Stanford.

I went to university, it was a great experience, and I begrudge it to noone. But let's be honest: even back then, it was one part education and one part middle class rite of passage. I read about Lithuanians and Afghans, hungry and overcoming obstacles and I'm inspired, and I read about whiny Western kids complaining because their lives aren't turning out to be as privileged as their parents', and I'm unmoved.

So good luck to the kids who win the University place lottery, you'll have a ball. But if you don't get in, don't despair. You've lost out on a few years of shagging and boozing at the taxpayers' expense, but you still live in a world where it's easier and cheaper to get an education than ever before.

Makes no diffs to me who wins the US Republican nomination but the news today was all waaah about the fact that Mitt Romney 'only pays 15% tax.'

Not true. I'll just quote a chunk from economist Steve Landsburg (whom I've mentioned before):

To understand Mitt Romney's tax burden, you have to compare him to his doppelganger Timm Romney, who lives on a planet with no taxes. In the year (say) 2000, Mitt and Timm both earned (say) a million dollars. Timm invested his million dollars, saw it double over the past decade or so, and cashed out his investment this year, leaving him with two million dollars. Mitt, by contrast, paid 35% tax in 2000, leaving him with $650,000. He invested it, saw it double, and cashed out last year, paying 15% tax on the $650,000 capital gain. That leaves him $1,202,500, which is about 60% of what Timm's got. In other words, the tax system costs Mitt almost 40% of his income.

By contrast, people on our planet without investment income collect their wages, pay 35% in taxes, and spend what's left. The tax system costs them 35%, while it costs Mitt almost 40%. In other words, people with investment income bear a higher tax burden, as a percentage of their income, than anyone else - and that's before you even start accounting for the taxes on dividends, interest, corporate income and inheritance.

In addition to being a double tax, taxing income on investments effectively punishes people for investing (ie. fewer factories, capital for businesses to start up, etc), and encourages them to blow their (already after tax) money on high living instead. How is this in any way progressive or sensible?

It isn't of course. But it's a great way to get people all worked up, which sells newspapers and wins votes.

(Update: more on the subject from City AM's Allister Heath)

This is an extremely interesting read about why iPhones are made in China (via).

The upshot is that it's not just about cheap labour, it's about scale, and flexibility, and supply chains.

The article focuses on the impact on the 'middle class' in the US but it's equally pertinent (probably more so) to the UK. I've always thought the 'Western Country X needs more manufacturing' mantra is misguided and hopeless, this article goes some way to explaining why.

As an aside, it turns out that iPhone glass is made by the company which, until about 15 years ago, were the people who made Corningware.

Gotta love the UK media. 'Orrid Michael Gove and his yacht suggestion, except everyone seems to have side-stepped this little bit of his suggestion:

I agree, of course, that we should be clear that no public funding is available for the project, as this would not be appropriate in the current financial climate.

I can't see it being appropriate in any bloody climate but I think that about lots of things. Anyway.

I now eagerly look forward to footage emerging of Mr Gove getting all headmasterish with that weird pouty thing he does with his lips and the crazy-eyed 'just you let me get my cane young man' look with a journalist who brings this up. Only a matter of time.

Halfway through January. Thus far:

• I had two weeks of study leave. I'd like to say that the two weeks ended well, but that would be a little bit untrue. Next exam in a few weeks' time, so I'm not free yet.

• we got a new laptop. Finally. What's all the fuss about Windows 7? We eagerly await the arrival of Diablo III.

• I'm trying to make peace with the idea that this winter is going to be snowless. Bastards.

How do you explain to an alien visiting earth that our morality says that if you're at war then it's OK to kill a man, but to take a slash on his corpse, now that's not cricket.

Of course it's abhorrent, and I'm sure the culprits will be held accountable, but our reaction to these things is all a bit messed up, isn't it?

Of course, it's one thing to say that Scotland could keep using the pound, it's another thing to say that they should. Without their own currency they'd be at the mercy of the Bank of England, although arguably that's no different to now. Also the same 'euro is bad' argument applies to the pound, although again, arguably, (only) slightly less so since it's a little closer to home, so to speak.

The interesting question is to apply the same 'euro is bad' thinking to, say, London and the whole of Northern England. That's not a debate too many people care to get into, but the issues are the same.

This is pure scare-mongering with a dash of Torygraph spin for good measure:

Scotland may be forced to join the Euro as the price of independence from the United Kingdom, Downing Street warned today.

Same waffle as Greece being 'forced' to leave the euro. What legal mechanisms exist to prevent another country from using your currency? I guess you can get a bit cross and shout at the ambassador and tell the border guards to be especially nasty but other than that, what can you really do (genuine question) and what do you gain from it?

As I understand it, Salmond and co have said they favour joining the euro anyway. They'd be fools to do it but people were pointing this out 10 years ago and look where we are now.

Well worth a read to see the full argument. Economist Bryan Caplan: How Egalitarianism Increases Inequality:

Lesson: If you really want a materially more equal society, stop beating up on the 1%. Do a complete 180. Smile upon them. Admire them. Praise them. Sing songs about how much good they do for the world. The direct result will be to raise their status. But the indirect result will be to pique the envy of status-conscious people, increasing the competition among the top 1%, and thereby moderating income inequality.

Imagine the headlines if a British politician tried this line of reasoning on a politics show.