There are people who desperately want this to be untrueđź§µ
One example of this came up earlier this year, when a "Professor of Public Policy and Governance" accused other people of being ignorant about SAT scores because, he alleged, high schools predicted college grades better.
The thread in question was, ironically, full of irrelevant points that seemed intended to mislead, accompanied by very obvious statistical errors.
For example, one post in it received a Community Note for conditioning on a collider.
But let's ignore the obvious things. I want to focus on this one: the idea that high schools explain more of student achievement than SATs
The evidence for this? The increase in R^2 going from a model without to a model with high school fixed effects
This interpretation is bad.
The R^2 of the overall model did not increase because high schools are more important determinants of student achievement. This result cannot be interpreted to mean that your zip code is more important than your gumption and effort in school.
If we open the report, we see this:
Students from elite high schools and from disadvantaged ones receive similar results when it comes to SATs predicting achievement. If high schools really explained a lot, this wouldn't be the case.
What we're seeing is a case where R^2 was misinterpreted.
The reason the model R^2 blew up was because there's a fixed effect for every high school mentioned in this national-level dataset
That means that all the little differences between high schools are controlled—a lot of variation!—so the model is overfit, explaining the high R^2
This professor should've known better for many reasons.
For example, we know there's more variation between classrooms than between school districts when it comes to student achievement.
Using data from almost 14 million young people in England, they found that COVID—but not COVID vaccination—was broadly associated with heart problems.
The myocarditis bump (which is milder than real myocarditis) was also small.
This study also provides more to differentiate viral myocarditis from vaccine """myocarditis""", which again, is mild, resolves quickly, etc., unlike real myocarditis.
To see what it is, first look at this plot, showing COVID infection risks by time since diagnosis:
Now look at risks since injection.
See the difference?
The risks related to infection hold up for a year or more. The risks related to injection, by contrast, are short-term.
This analysis falls flat when you look into these people or think about how so many other "vons" were not as brilliant.
Von Neumann's brilliance preceded formal education and any tutoring. His advanced math tutor noted that he was smarter than him from their first meeting!
First thing's first: Most studies agree that rent controlled units have lower rents, but also the supply of rentable units goes down and un-controlled units see their rents increase.
Uh-oh!
Rent control also means that fewer homes get built, and it means that housing quality drops.
After all, if you can't raise the rent, what incentive do you have to make everything sparkly and neat?
Rent control lowers residential mobility, meaning people stay put longer
That's not good because it causes misallocation
Consider an elderly family whose kids left the nest. They should move to a smaller place, but rent control keeps them in place, so new families can't move in
I have actually had people thank me for getting them on this stuff precisely because they had inflammation issues that these drugs *immediately* solved for them.
Here's an example I've posted before: this man's back pain was cured!