Another day, another highly-touted matched comparison group study with completely implausible and misleading “causal” findings. 🙄😫
It’s research malpractice, y’all.
Should I make this a thread of “what not to do” papers?
I’m gonna make this a thread. Please share it with your students as a cautionary tale: matching isn’t magic.
Another day, another highly-touted matched comparison group study with completely implausible and misleading “causal” findings. 🙄😫
@verainstitute just released this study of a college-in-prison education program in NY, funded by the Manhattan DA's Criminal Justice Investment Initiative. Researchers compared people who chose to enroll in the program with similar-looking people who chose not to. This does not isolate the treatment effect of the education program. It is very likely that those who enrolled were more motivated to change, and/or more able to focus on their goals. This pre-existing difference in motivation & focus likely caused both the difference in enrollment in the program and the subsequent difference in recidivism across groups.
This report provides no useful information about whether this NY program is having beneficial effects.
Yes, employment rates for people with criminal records are extremely low. But this group was employed at low rates *even before* they were convicted of a crime.
https://t.co/kHiEfUOpLDirs.gov/pub/irs-soi/22…
So, while we know employers are reluctant to hire people w records, & that makes the problem worse, other forms of disadvantage (poverty, low education, untreated mental illness, substance use, emotional trauma) also play a role. We need to tackle those issues head-on!
I promised myself when I got my PhD that I was done paying my dues, and that from then on I would do work I found interesting and fulfilling. We invest for years in building skills & credentials but life is short - at some point you have to cash in and live the life you want.
I spent my 1st year as an asst prof making friends in my new city & building a strong support network. Spent my pre-tenure sabbatical year at a think tank learning how to write op-eds (& had fun in DC). Throughout, I was loud in faculty meetings & stood up for what I believed in.
Absolutely no regrets on any of the above. Especially in econ, there are a million jobs we could all do that are interesting & rewarding, in & out of academia. If you live the life you want and don't get tenure in a particular place, that just means you're not a good fit there!
#SEA2022 was very fun, but it was also a chance for many people to pull me aside and tell me stories about times they have been harassed or assaulted by fellow economists, or to ask me advice about what friends of theirs who were recently victimized can do. #EconMeToo
Two things:
1. It might seem that the public momentum for change has died down but I assure you there are lots of powerful people working behind the scenes right now to make change happen. I am in close contact w many of them. Send us your creative/crazy ideas! #EconMeToo
2. I continue to believe that journalists are our best allies. We need to publicly embarrass institutions that fail to protect students & employees. I have a list of reporters who are eager to investigate bad actors. Contact me for their info. #EconMeToo
False and defamatory claims about the AEA DeAngelo investigation are being circulated online by anonymous accounts.
If our institutions aren’t going to protect us, we have to protect ourselves. Time to set the record straight.
There was a Title IX complaint filed at CGU before the AEA complaint. This is the AEA investigative report’s summary of that Title IX complaint:
Although the AEA investigation was not as thorough as I had hoped, it is not true that it found “no victims, no witnesses.” Here are 3 findings from the AEA investigative report: