Brain matters

Saying that education strengths economic growth sounds good old common sense. But proving and measuring this relation is not immediate and therefore interesting. A reasearch, published last year, does it. Eric Hanushek, Dean T. Jamison, Eliot A. Jamison and Ludger Woessmann estimate that

each additional year of average schooling in a country increased the average 40-year growth rate in GDP by about 0.37 percentage points. That may not seem like much, but consider the fact that since World War II, the world economic growth rate has been around 2 to 3 percent of GDP annually. Lifting it by 0.37 percentage points is a boost to annual growth rates of more than 10 percent of what would otherwise have occurred, a significant amount.

Nonetheless, the research suggests that what really matters for economic growth is the quality of education. In other words it is not enough to send children to school: you have to teach them something. Using test-score performances around the world to measure the cognitive skills of students appears

that countries with higher test scores experienced far higher growth rates. If one country’s test-score performance was 0.5 standard deviations higher than another country during the 1960s (…) the first country’s growth rate was, on average, one full percentage point higher annually over the following 40-year period than the second country’s growth rate. Further, once the impact of higher levels of cognitive skills are taken into account, the significance for economic growth of school attainment, i.e., additional years of schooling, dwindles to nothing. A country benefits from asking its students to remain in school for a longer period of time only if the students are learning something as a consequence.

These results are extremely important especially for the countries of the Bottom Billion. What they are saying is that it is better to invest on the quality of the education (where rate of return is much higher) rather than spending to keep students in schools longer.

Tuesday, 17 March 2009

tweets


Twitter: frbailo

links


blogroll


RSS r-bloggers.com

RSS Simply Statistics

RSS Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science

  • The behavioral economists’ researcher degree of freedom
    A few years ago we talked about the two modes of pop-microeconomics: 1. People are rational and respond to incentives. Behavior that looks irrational is actually completely rational once you think like an economist. 2. People are irrational and they … Continue reading →
  • Beverly Cleary is winner in third iteration of Greatest Seminar Speaker competition
    Our third seminar speaker competition has come to an end, with the final round pitting Beverly “Ramona” Cleary against Laura “Ingalls” Wilder. Before going on, I’d like to say that Alison Bechdel is the “Veronica Geng” of this particular competition, … Continue reading →
  • Replacing the “zoo of named tests” by linear models
    Gregory Gilderman writes: The semi-viral tweet thread by Jonas Lindeløv linked below advocates abandoning the “zoo of named tests” for Stats 101 in favor of mathematically equivalent (I believe this is the argument) varieties of linear regression: As an adult … Continue reading →