December 14th, 2012
Election season is a great time to witness the continuing American struggle with probabilities. All too often people will see odds or a prediction for a particular event and when the outcome of lower probability comes true, they will say the prediction was “wrong”. Of course this is an inaccurate conclusion considering there was still a probability for the less likely option to happen. Unfortunately, a lot of the populous does not seem to realize this despite it being useful knowledge well beyond just election forecasts.
Probability is of course everywhere. It is involved in everyone’s lives from determining the potential consequences of our actions to being better informed about taking risks. Understanding it can lead to much better decisions about practically everything if the right information is available. This includes understanding scientific findings, something that will likely be of tremendous growing importance going forward (and already is).
Given the widespread applicability of probability and all the facts and figures out there, a better systemic understanding of probability has the potential to drastically improve outcomes. And once more it is a relatively small cost at the school level to emphasize probability and statistics more than it currently is. American schoolchildren are infamous for their distaste of fractions, but it is time to make sure they not only know how to use them but to apply them by the time they graduate high school. A dedicated statistics class in high school could potentially do the country a lot of good. Furthermore, integrating the meaning of various statistics in other classes from government to biology is easily done and could help reinforce the understanding of probabilities. A simple change that I think is worth the risk to pursue.
This is the third post in a series about relatively simple changes to education curriculums that could have tremendous long-term benefits to the country. See my first idea here and my second here.
November 23rd, 2012
Health literacy, or the ability to understand and act on basic health-related information, is terribly low in the United States (and most of the world). Only 12% of Americans scored proficiently in a national test according to the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. This has a tremendous impact on the healthcare system and general wellness of the country. It not only leads to poorer health outcomes, but notably raises healthcare costs. Health outcomes worsen as patients misunderstand what providers tell them and do not adequately understand the advice that they are given. Lower health literacy has been linked to lower knowledge of disease states, higher rates of chronic diseases, higher hospitalization rates, and practicing fewer preventive measures for common diseases.
While there is a growing push for providers to improve their effectiveness of communicating with patients, there are still those who slip through the cracks and will likely continue to do so as the reality of an overburdened healthcare system continues. There are, however, other proactive solutions that can be put in place along with improving healthcare communication. One of these, is to implement health literacy coursework in high schools across the country.
A class in which students could be taught about simple nutrition, basic medical terminology, common diagnostic tests, and explanations on why different patients and drugs have different dosing schedules could really go a long way in my opinion. It would help bridge the knowledge gap that is often so disastrous later in life and it might even lead to positive proactive health decisions early on. It is a relatively low cost solution to a major problem and one that does not take Federal reform, making it something that has to be looked at.
This is the second post in a series about relatively simple changes to education curriculums that could have tremendous long-term benefits to the country. See my first idea here.
November 21st, 2012
As the country continues to look towards reforming complex systems from healthcare to taxes to education, there is still some low-hanging fruit that can be picked at low cost to produce high returns. Some of these opportunities are at local and state levels with education curriculum changes (especially for high school students) where I believe some cost-neutral and relatively small changes could have huge long-term impacts. I intended to share several of these curriculum changes in one post, but realized I had a lot more to say, so I will split the posts up into a series, with each post focusing on one change. First up is a greater emphasis on the scientific method:
Scientific literacy in this country (and generally in the world) is still quite low. As scientific fields become more complex and specialized, a higher level of understanding is needed to keep up with even the basics. Too many people still do not understand even the basic procedure through which scientific progress is made, making it quite difficult for them to understand the complex answers that result from that process. And despite that, we are all encouraged to make informed and rational choices. Without understanding science, it is hard to do that in many aspects of life from dealing with one’s healthcare to voting based on the facts. When people cannot differentiate between the thought processes of science and belief, it leads to an electorate that cannot differentiate between fact and fiction. We already see it today with the evolution deniers, climate change skeptics, etc.
Having spent all of my formal education years (minus pre-kindergarten schooling) in public schools in New York and Maryland and having had many scientific discussions in my personal (both formally in school and outside it) and online lives, I can safely say that a lot of people still do not grasp the essence of science. This is not a criticism of teachers though- it was some of my high school teachers that inspired me to pursue a career in a scientific field and who helped shape me to be the person I am today. This is a greater criticism of the system in general; in particular, a system that might have students memorize the various generalized aspects of the scientific method (hypothesis, methods, results, analysis, conclusion, etc.) without actually making sure they understand it. It is a system that insists on memorizing a lot of scientific facts without making sure the student has even the slightest clue as to how those facts were established.
Teaching the scientific method and the stringent process through which science is conducted could have a tremendous boost in the long-term intellect and understanding of the electorate. It might even lead to more students choosing STEM career paths, something that the United States could really use. And best of all, it does not take much, if any, money to implement this change.
November 20th, 2012
A stark dichotomy exists with the United States’ fiscal situation today. As we try to hang by the hairs of sustainable recovery, we are running towards what could be an inescapable abyss of debt. Letting go means we might avoid the abyss, but also might lose the prospects of what might be a quicker recovery. Losing that hope might throw us into a greater downturn and in turn, could push us towards the abyss once more. This is the anomaly of the fiscal cliff.
The problem is not an awfully difficult one to navigate though because the two risks have very different probabilities. All signs point to there still being a while to go until we hit the point where the debt is too much to overcome. For one, the Treasury is still selling bonds at near-record lows. Furthermore, relative to other currencies, there is still strong demand for the USD. I see no reason to throw away this recovery based on the numbers.
That being said, there is certainly a need to cut back on fiscal expenditures at some point, but that does not have to happen overnight or any one given night, like December 31st, 2012. What instead would be much safer for the recovery is to gradually make the cuts (and/or raise taxes) over a longer period of time, effectively molding the fiscal “cliff” into a fiscal ramp. This is the solution I believe DC should be working towards instead of partisan bickering over tax rates for the rich. Of course politics has motives other than what is sensible though and we will likely see this game of chicken continue into December and possibly beyond. And as that happens, the role monetary policy could play in all this will likely be ignored in the equation as usual (on Capitol Hill)…
October 3rd, 2012
As the debate progressed tonight and online discussions continue well after it ended, everyone once more has something to say. No problem there, the expression of ideas is crucial to furthering our knowledge and spurring innovation. Unfortunately, a large portion of the people discussing those things are doing so in a completely partisan manner with little to no regard for intellectual integrity. They went in supporting one team on every issue and came out the same. Again, probably no surprise there. A lot of this has to do with a lack of education on proper analytical methods and just simple misrepresentation by the political machines.
What did get me a bit upset was this same trend in a group of people who should really know better- many of the economists, statisticians, analysts, and even healthcare professionals that I follow on Twitter. And I do not think my relatively small “following” base is a bad measure for the overall population of such experts because I do follow people in a very diverse set of fields and with leanings on both sides of the political aisle. That being said, I do not quite understand how so many people who have studied and utilize the scientific method in their professional work can resort to silly insults, slurs, and flat out anti-intellectualism. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but to be so partisan is just not conducive to conducting good science.
Renowned physicist Richard Feynman, considered one of the greatest minds since Einstein, often spoke of how mother nature [or the truth] would come out as she was whether or not we liked it and that as scientists we should seek to only figure out what her characteristics were. Feynman was not a big fan of politics and although I am not sure of the exact reasons, I would imagine the tendency in politics to pick “teams” even in fact-based issues was one of them.
Economics tends to be connected to politics for a variety of reasons, but it is dishonest to go into an issue with such favoritism for one outcome and to bash other opinions without the proper facts to support it (which we really do not have on a lot of plans just because it is hard to test so many of them). It has been 400 years and sometimes I feel like we are still figuring out the scientific method…
Miraj Patel is currently a pharmacy student at the UMES School of Pharmacy. He is an alumni of the University of Maryland where he completed his Bachelor of Science in physiology and neurobiology. Miraj blogs about economics and society as an enthusiast and a student.