You mean... with a time machine and no other adjustements? 2026 beats 1987 between 6 and 10 to 0. One only needs to watch an old game: incredibly slow (both because of differences in conditioning, but also skating technique), little regard for puck possession, overall skill level much lower.
One other thing I will add is that I am not claiming this is some universal rule of tracking. It might depend on who the teachers target and how other resources are allocated.
You're right, one does not necessarily imply the other; was running out of characters. Here'a link to my JMP, which I framed as being about school choice and sorting, but is also about tracking (across schools). We don't have a WP for the classroom tracking yet. Link to my JMP (accepted at ReStat):
Shameless plug: I studied tracking across schools in Romania in my jmp and now across classes with my coauthors (no WP yet, but soonish hopefully). At least in that context, the takeaway seems to be: no or modest effect on means, large increases on variance. So, low-achievers lose out.
Sure. I'm just saying it would be nice to have a meaningful debate about these things. The level of the debate is so low. On a separate note, I think journalists are partially to blame. Reporting on "the cost of living crisis", "labor shortages", etc. tends to be so incredibly lazy.
My point is this is a transfer from new homeowners to existing homeowners and/or developers.
Don't forget that the equity of current homeowners also increased, so I don't see why you would want to compensate homebuyers by taxing int'l students.
But in any case, it would have been nice to see this kind of debate instead of the complete populist slop we've been exposed to over the last few years from both sides of the political spectrum.
The benefits are also much larger than the direct effects. They help cross-subsidize local students and so allow us to have a more educated workforce at lower costs, with productivity and tax revenue increases from earnings during the entire working lives of these people.
Youth unemployment is about the same level it's always been. Also, int'l students are down A LOT and rents continue to increase in Montreal, for example.
There are other papers that look at general population shocks on rents. Saiz 2007 finds that a 1% increase in pop. due to immigration tends to increase housing costs by 1%. I just don't see how a student's impact on prices can be in the same ballpark as what they pay into the education system.
For example: "The Impact of International Students on Housing Markets" in the Canadian Journal of Economics. They find that the int'l student boom in US college towns increased rents by about 1%-2%.
Sorry, this is not the way to measure this. The areas you are talking about also tend to be downtown areas of cities. Papers who seriously try to estimate the effects on rents due to int'l students by using different kind of exogenous shocks find modest effects.
I don't think this is true. If you look at Stats Can's numbers, temp work permit holders only increased from 600k to 1.5M during 2020-2024. Study permits increased from 400k to just under 700k. (There is a smaller number of work and study permit holders that increased a lot in % terms.)
Let me put it another way. Each int'l student is paying tens of thousand of dollars per year into our education system. Each student also increases avg. rents in a very specific area by an average of what, a few dollars? There seems to be a pretty low-hanging taxation fruit to pick here without caps
For example, a tax charged to int'l students that gets paid back to renters in some areas, or to create affordable housing. There was no attempt to find a solution in my opinion.
Let's be honest, int'l students got swept up in the anti-immigration outrage caused by the increases in temp migration.
I think this is nothing compared to how generally dumb the entire policy is Canada-wide. Let's throw out the baby with the bathwater because *checks notes*: 1) students become PRs, 2) students increase living costs for others, and 3) of some bad actors, instead of fixing those particular issues.
As a Montrealer, where this has been tried before: this doesn't work, for free rider problem reasons.
In short, our results identify a strategy to promote STEM higher education and careers while also highlighting potential trade-offs.
4/ Assignment to STEM is risky for low-achieving kids: STEM classes require more time and are graded more harshly. Hence, doing STEM reduces low-achieving kids’ chances of passing a high school exit exam and enrolling in college.
3/ Curricula affect political preferences: STEM makes boys more conservative, while shifting some of girls' views to the left. Humanities foster kids’ inclination to read, to have female friends, and to be empathetic.
2/ Assignment changes beliefs/preferences: Students who study STEM come to believe they are good at STEM; those who study Humanities come to feel they are strong in Humanities. Preferences for coursework follow similarly. This holds regardless of gender or initial achievement.
1/ Assignment to STEM vs. humanities affects what students do: for example, students who study STEM in high school are 25 percentage points more likely to also do it in college (with symmetrical effects for Humanities).
What is the impact of studying STEM vs. Humanities? We consider this in Romanian high schools, where otherwise identical kids can be assigned to STEM-focused or Humanities-focused curricula. Our key finding is that kids are malleable to what they study. This happens on 4 fronts:
Check out our new NBER working paper on the link between ethnic self-identification in official records and education - and what this implies for official statistics, policy, and stereotype formation.
In Moldova, a pro-EU and pro-NATO party has taken an outright majority of the seats in parliament, allowing them to consolidate their control over the country. Russia's sustained campaign to influence the elections was a failure. www.lemonde.fr/internationa...
cont'd from before (kulaks): I think viewing exam success as meritocratic is embedded in the mentality and will be difficult to dislodge. Whenever I talk to Romanians, they find the current system "fair".
A thought: a really nice book I read "Peasants under siege" made the case that the Romanian peasant mentality (and let's be honest, we were a country of peasants until recently) is that hard work = success. Outrage at kulaks didn't really work in Romania.
That's a very good and tough question. I am leaning towards "by chance", because this system has been in place in times when studying abroad was either 1. impossible, or 2. was not as difficult as today.
I had to look up the "Magurele laser", I have to admit. The name is so good, it sounds made up. It almost sounds like "Falansterul de la Scăieni", or something like that.
