Well even drug dealers have a grasp of economics.

Yeah, but they don't know the components of the basic money supply.....

Remember that Ronald Reagan graduated with a degree in economics from that citadel of learning - Eureka College. Nuff' said.

42% competence in balancing a checkbook is not that impressive...

if you believe, like rudy, that cutting taxes raises revenues, then you flunk the "proficiency in economics" test.

More than 99% of all economists have at least a high school education. Sometimes it shows.

Yes, but 1 out of nearly every 5 people don't understand percentages -- whereas 18% of the population struggles with ratios.

Remember that Dilbert cartoon, where the Pointy-haired Boss has just learned that 40% of sick days are taken on Mondays and Fridays? Outrage!

I think they just write that way because they think it makes them sound both smarter and nonwonky, in that smug way journalists have.

Seeing as how 90%+ of practicing "journalists" (and they DO need the practice evidently) couldn`t spot the "Iraq has WMD !" con job I doubt they understand using real numbers instead of cute phrases their editors give them.

I wonder how these "journalists" would score on that economics test (the one w/o the Laffer sillyness)

“You would label it cynicism-as if that proved it wrong.� - Robert A. Heinlein

The question is whether NAEP's standard for proficiency is valid. There have been a lot of stories and commentary about the divergence between state notions of proficiency and NAEP's. But the framing of each story seems to accept the NAEP's notion of proficiency as the gold standard.

There are a lot of problems with this. First, one could argue that NAEP sets the proficiency bar too high. Does any one here have a concrete notion of what proficient on NAEP in 8th grade math means?

I've looked pretty hard at the test site and it seems to me that it's the classic apples and oranges comparison. There 50 ways of measuring standards in this country and the objectives in a given state may or may not match up with the curriculum standards set by NAEP. If the state standards don't match NAEP or if the state assessment hits at a more concrete level of difficulty than NAEP, then that state's students are bound to look substandard.

i think we should object to numeric reporting that does not allow you to understand and/or calculate both the percentage and the magnitude. My gripe is reporting that company profits are up fifty percent. Okay, is that up from 1% to 1.5% ?Or from 12% to 18%. Similarly, it's no good to say the company made profits of $1B. Is that $1B on $100B dollars of capital value - 1%, or on $5B of capital value - 20%. Makes a big difference to how I feel about the situation.

I firmly believe the subject does NOT belong in high schools. After English, Spanish in the US, French in Canada and Math, the rest are just details. History belongs, and the hard sciences too. That's important stuff in a *good* basic education. (Besides, the kids will get some economics in their history classes.)

But the social sciences? I think a solid foundation in languages and math (where applicable) are required before one starts, it belongs in universities and colleges.

Wouldn't it be more helpful (and more accurate) to present all the numerical data the same way so that it's easier to compare?

It would be.

But nearly three-fifths of journalists aren't proficient in statistics.

Hmmm, I suppose if a kid isn't going to pursue post-secondary education, I would revise my point of view. If this is their only opportunity to study economics, I wouldn't deny them the pleasures of x,y,p,q and equilibrium.

But for college prep kids? It's a waste of time, IMO. Wait for it.

I'm willing to bet the average 12th grader has a better understanding of economics than the average right wing radio talker.

But the real question is "Does being proficient in economics mean being proficient in anything with any bearing on the real world?" You can build the most sophisticated of mathematical models on the flimsiest of assumptions (and if the output's what the people with money want...).

And I'm with the Red-Starred Canuck on its place in the high-school curriculum; it doesn't have one.

(Besides, the kids will get some economics in their history classes.)

kinda apropros, I remember John Kenneth Galbraith saying if he could do it all over again, he'd go into economic history instead of economics.

Well, as a current j-school grad student, I offer up the following:

1) Journalists, as a rule, suck at math. Hardcore. I would bet, heavily, that if tested hacks would be worse than the general public at basic statistics and algebra.

2) Nevertheless, the convention of using words to describe percentages instead of the numbers themselves is in place to prevent eye-glaze. It is believed among journos, and taught to us wee wretches, that paragraphs studded with figures are a cue for the reader to stop reading your story and flip to the sports page. Stats are a necessary tool of the trade, but are to be used sparingly, and ought to be sequestered in a pull out box if at all complicated. So strong is this code that AP style requires spelling out the word "percent" never using "%".

In other words, we are terrified of boring y'all, and so we try to hide boring numbers in words, so that they seem more story-like and symbolical and whatnot.

What's wrong - one word, Senate Leahy - that guy can't do anything.

He is the only Senator that would just sit there and let Dick Cheney give him the bird.

Why can't the Dems ask Leahy to get the dime and DO SOMETHING.

But the social sciences? I think a solid foundation in languages and math (where applicable) are required

Yup. And logic and rhetoric, logic and rhetoric, logic and rhetoric. Thinking skills first and the rest follows.

@Snick Snack

The really good economists know their economic history (e.g. de Long did of lot of work on economic history). Anyway, getting a bit OT, but after all the econometrics I had to endure, I sympathize with JKG.

In other words, we are terrified of boring y'all, and so we try to hide boring numbers in words, so that they seem more story-like and symbolical and whatnot and so in the end you end up boring us all.

And I gotta say, the innumeracy of too many journalists astounds. I mean, really astounds. I mean, really, really astounds - did I say I was astounded? Figures too often that can be debunked by a two/three second calculation in your head. Mistakes with orders of magnitude are legion. And I wouldn't let anyone write for me who didn't understand the concept of sig figs. Too a lot of us it looks a lot the same as having a journalist who couldn't spell four and five-letter words correctly (and a copy editor who let this go by).

In less than two hours from now, just under 9 out of ten broken clocks will be 100 percent accurate.

Other time zones? Couldn't say.

And in other economic news:

China threatens 'nuclear option' of dollar sales

Anyone wanna guess how many Senators know that other basic rule of economics:

Don't fuck with your creditor?

but after all the econometrics I had to endure, I sympathize with JKG.

I remember talking a friend at U of T into doing his second-year econometrics course which he was balking at. Afterwards he went on to become chief economist for one of the big banks. He always thanked me for that but really I just talked him into going in the direction he knew he had to go. Myself, I haven't gone beyond second-year math and stat courses.

Question: how can you be "proficient" in economics...

Depends on your definition of "proficient"; see example questions here.

Y'all are really so clever!

Umm...what do you propose to do about this stunning lack of accuracy in our mediaplace?

Rant and rave?

How very effective. Clearly works well. Witness how our administration pays attention.

Rant on....

has407, thanks for that link. I'll doubly stick with my preferring a focus on maths. And that I definitely veer towards the 'thinking skills' and away from the 'national myths' side of the curriculum.

floop, that's a message my bank seems to like to give me... But yeah, the States is increasingly going to have to live with proscriptions, economic and otherwise. Good to see you dropping back in.

The econ questions they asked seemed to be easily handled by recite and drill study techniques.

While I do not know who writes the NAEP test, I do know that most HS econ books I used (I taught it for 12 yrs.) were written so as to treat free trade; low tax; and reduced regulations as the Word of God. So any questions written to support such biases would be easily handled.

Kevin, "more than four out of ten", "close to a quarter", "nearly three-fifths" isn't one-half as dumb as "three times less or fewer". That really makes me scream.

Five out of every four journalists have trouble with statistics.

On a more serious note, I looked at the sample problems that has407 linked to, and it makes absolutely no sense to me that 42% of seniors are proficient in economics. If you've never taken an econ course or spent serious time reading the Business pages, then most of those questions are hard. I would be shocked if a bunch of seniors selected at random would average more than 50% on that test.

I teach at a high school with some of the highest standardized test scores in the country, and fewer than 42% of my students would do well on that test. It's not even close.

Yup, wil, and we should spend every single moment of every single day single-mindedly gunning for your administration and media. I don't think there are magic single bullet solutions here. And don't dis small actions either. Small things effected millions of times over can lead to huge change. You might consider too that there are also real-world dimensions to the posters here and real-world means of influence. Chill.

I'd be interested in seeing the contents of their test, to see how much of "proficient in economics" means "believes neoliberal propaganda" and how much has any real validity.

C.: paragraphs studded with figures are a cue for the reader to stop reading your story and flip to the sports page

Ironic, as the sports pages (especially baseball) are loaded with statistics.

Keith G: most HS econ books I used (I taught it for 12 yrs.) were written so as to treat free trade; low tax; and reduced regulations as the Word of God

Same as most introductory college econ courses. Damn the assumptions and the empirical verification (or lack thereof), just promote the ideology.

snicker-snack - "Small things effected millions of times over can lead to huge change."

My point, exactly.

Please name one "small thing" you did today.

I'm waiting to be proved incorrect on my estimation of what posters here are actually doing.

Rant on...

Good to see someone practicing what they preach.

I'm waiting to be proved incorrect on my estimation of what posters here are actually doing.

What, instead of actually doing something yourself?

You go right on doing that, brother.

floopmeister - And your contribution to the cause today was _____?

I drop in here once in a while to see if anything's changed.

Apparently not.

Interesting that no one has asked me the same question.

Frankly, as Brett said to Scarlet: I don't give a damn.

Y'all seem to be just so about hot air.

Economics itself is only 34% proficient. Not a well enough developed discipline to be taken seriously.

from the article: Most students understood that if the going rate for babysitting increased, people would spend more time babysitting

If the going rate increased due to an upward shift in the demand curve, yes. Due to an upward shift in the supply curve, no, quite the opposite.

I'm not being pedantic - it's a fundamental point.

And your contribution to the cause today was _____?

I'm sure I can do a lot to change US politics from here in Australia. You're right - I must start collecting for the Democrats in Wagga Wagga immediately.

Seriously mate, y'all need to get off your high horse pronto.

from the article: about half can tell you that the cost of imported goods would probably decrease without trade restrictions

In the short term, yes. Now, the important follow-up question: what happens when a country runs very large trade deficits for a long time? If your answer is "the currency may crash", what does that do to the price of imported goods?

Also, if other countries reduce their import restrictions, what happens to the price of goods that we export? (answer: they go up).

Yes, I'm probably getting too fancy for a HS class, but limiting it to "reduced trade restrictions = lower prices" is indoctrination, not education.

As a newspaper editor, I normally use exact numbers and percentages for stuff like this.

floopmeister: I must start collecting for the Democrats in Wagga Wagga immediately.

Anybody that lives in a country with a place named "Wagga Wagga" is hereby exempt from anything but the urgent need to keep from laughing uncontrollably. Here in America places have dignified names like Oshkosh and Sheboygan (and it gets even better outside of Wisconsin).

floopmeister -

You sell yourself short.

Just because you're Down Under doesn't mean you can skip out of responsibility.

My "high horse" is just a Pony Express. I'm only the messenger. Don't blame me if you aren't doing anything.

Just because you're Down Under doesn't mean you can skip out of responsibility.

Who said I was?

I'm just not spending my time posting comments on a blog accusing others of doing nothing but posting comments on a blog...

If you get my drift.

alex: wagga Wagga isn't the half of it. You should visit Cape Desperation, Snob’s Creek, Woy Woy, Dogswamp, Innaloo, Warracknabeal, Sperm’s Head or Nagambie

wileycat -- Not to go OT, but does a debating or speaking group produce much more than hot air? No. Are they still valuable? Yes. (Although I'll admit most blogs are notoriously self-selecting in the perspectives offered.)

As a once-upon-a-time low level (but very active) Democratic apparatchik, I can only say that this is generally more interesting, and much more useful in honing thoughts and obtaining different perspectives, than what I participated in and witnessed 40+ years ago.

Take this for what it is--an "organic sounding board", if you will--and don't try to make it into something it's not, and never will be... some post to blow off steam, some to hear themselves talk, some to see what reaction they can gemerate, and some use it as a stone to help hone their thoughts.

one-half as dumb as "three times less or fewer". That really makes me scream.

I've been pre-qualified for a line of credit of up to $5,000 or more. Really, that's what it says.

Have I mentioned "The Marching Morons" by C.M. Kornbluth lately?

You should visit Cape Desperation, Snob's Creek, Woy Woy, Dogswamp, Innaloo, Warracknabeal, Sperm's Head or Nagambie

Yeah, but you don't have a Heads Smashed In Buffalo Jump or Dildo, do you now?

No we don't...

...sniffs in wounded nationalistic pride...

thersites: Have I mentioned "The Marching Morons" by C.M. Kornbluth lately?

No, but good call. Read it eons ago. While the details are fuzzy, what's always stuck in my memory is the scene involving cars' wind/noise generators. I think that it stuck because at a relatively tender age, for some inexplicable reason, I associated it with Whitehouse press briefings.

floopmeister, snicker-snack:

We've got Bird-In-Hand, Pennsylvania. Top that, you silly furriners!

To answer Kevin's last question, most people under 40 don't know what a percent is. They need the "almost 4 in every 10" kind of formulation. If I don't do that in my classes, they have no idea. Really.

They are completely literal and at the same time don't understand that "percent" is "in every hundred." But that's because they're so literal they can't translate from the first to the second. It's how they've been taught.

Here in PA we have Nanty Glo, Bird in Hand, Stoystown, and the indispensable Intercourse. So there.

I also like Flin Flon, but that's in Manitoba. Neither here nor there, as it were--

Thersites: sorry, I was writing while you were posting--

We've got Bird-In-Hand, Pennsylvania. Top that, you silly furriners!

Ah, but do you have Two-in-Bush as well?

Anaheim, Azuza, and Cucamonga. And I don't take that statistic seriously because I don't think that ten out of twenty-five college seniors understand economics. For one thing, it really helps to have a feel for basic math if you want to have a feel for a quantitative subject like economics.

Gotta run, but I'll throw in a final 'Tittybong'.

In fact, just north of Melbourne you can drive along the 'Cokum to Tittybong road'.

Not sure if it beats 'Intercourse' (there's a single entendre name if I ever heard one!) but it's the best I got...

;)

Well, to depart from the scintillating percentage/Wagga Wagga debate: at my high school, which is in a fairly middling-class city in upstate New York, seniors are required to take a semester's worth of econ to graduate. Being seniors, few people give it much attention (I certainly didn't). The Honors-level class, which I took, was so basic that I doubt the kids who took the lower Regents-level course would be able to pass for proficient under NAEP standards. But I suppose, having graduated couple months ago, I have a decently thorough grounding in (to throw some terms out there) elasticity, externalities, interest rates, any kind of curve you care to talk about (including Laffer), the stock market, wealth inequality and Gini indexing, equilibria, taxation systems, and I suppose most of the other stuff covered in standard college-level intro courses (I was able to get college credit for taking it).

I'm convinced that most economists don't understand economics.

I also like Flin Flon, but that's in Manitoba.

...but with a strong PA connection in the form of Mr. Bobby Clarke of the Broad Street Bullies.

Hey, don't dis Eureka.

Anyhow, it's funny how we always have these study results, and yet the answer always is 'well our HS grads must pass a test so it must not be ours that failed!' from each state.

*sigh*

The thing is, you can't just lay student achievement only on the school - and academic achievement will never amount to much in a society that doesn't actually care about it.

'Is our students learnin?'

Proficiency is one of the most widely used and least understood concepts in education. There is no inherent "proficiency." Proficiency is a matter of judgment. Panels of judges examine test questions and estimate whether a hypothetical "proficient" student should be able to answer them correctly. Each test is judged separately, so proficiency on one does not correlate with another.

To me, one of the more interesting findings from the economics test is that students who took AP economics performed only slightly better than those who took no economics at all. What's up with that?

Kevin, thank you for validating my own annoyance with the convention of styling percentages with phrases rather than numbers.

To make it worse, if there are many references to numbers in an article the style varies from phrase to number, making it very inconsistent and hard to compare the numbers.

I have noticed this not only in article, but particularly in polling reports. Look at a summary by Gallup or Zogby, and there is often no consistency to how they refer to percentages.

I find this maddening and very difficult to follow.

This may have been covered in earlier comments, but I suspect it is an editorial style, like spelling out numbers under ten, but using numbers above ten, or using synonyms to avoid repeating a word in a paragraph.

Is this coverd in the AP, NY Times, or other style guides?

I just read the psot by C above, and he answered my question.

It is an editorial style designed to keep readers from getting bored.

I was talking with a journalist friend just yesterday who said that they are taught to write everything to a 5th grade level.

WTF!?

Aren't newspaper readers higher educated than the general population?

So journalism would rather take a chance of infuriating their reader than bore them?!

Maybe this is why the MSM has done such a poor job of reporting on the obvious outrages of the past few years, when you dumb down the words to a 5th grade level it simplifies the ideas too.

I really despise this kind of lowest-common-denominator thinking.

Am I the only person driven up a tree by newspaper reporters who insist on using "more than four out of ten," "close to a quarter," "nearly three-fifths," and so forth when they write stories like this? I mean, is that even remotely helpful? Is there anyone on the planet who's going to understand terms like that who doesn't also understand a simple percentage?

Uh, yes. Most school curricula have students working with fractions (especially simple fractions with small denominators) substantially before percentages, and probably plenty of people who can work with percentages in the abstract get the significance of them by converting from percentages into terms like the ones you point to, so presenting them directly like this gets the import across to the lowest-common-denominator reader that newspapers generally target.

I like fractions. And I think many people, like me, look at 65% and say, "Hmmm ..., about two thirds."

Which makes me one of the people (and in my case, a former math major) whom cmdicely describes.

I was talking with a journalist friend just yesterday who said that they are taught to write everything to a 5th grade level.

~20 years ago I remember being told the rule of thumb being 6th grade level. Clearly the standards are dropping.

WTF!?

Aren't newspaper readers higher educated than the general population?

Certainly, the hope of newspaper companies is that they aren't. The news in newspapers is simply the hook to get people to read the ads which is the real source of revenue, and (except for a few more narrowly targetted newspapers aiming for a specific demographic) most newspapers aim to be mass-market advertising vehicles.

Of course, most are failing to do that which is one reason why newspapers across the country are dying; it might be more intelligent for them to target people who are actually inclined to read rather than the lowest common denominator, rather than trying to reach people who are never going to be interested while alienating the people who might be by insulting them.

I firmly believe the subject does NOT belong in high schools. After English, Spanish in the US, French in Canada and Math, the rest are just details. History belongs, and the hard sciences too. That's important stuff in a *good* basic education. (Besides, the kids will get some economics in their history classes.)

But the social sciences?

Arguably, a grasp of social science is more important for responsible citizenship in a democracy than a grasp of the hard sciences. They are also arguably more broadly useful, particularly economics. So, if anything, I'd say its more important to cover them in school.

Frankly, I think history is less important than either kind of science (at least, as history is often taught in high school: a sequence of events and personages in chronological and geographical chunks without much broader connection to processes), presenting several years of that (including classes like "world civilizations" which tend to be brief cuts of history with brief cuts of cultural details, again with shallow context) with maybe one year of something approaching social science (a semester of political science focussing on US government with a a couple weeks of comparative government and a semester of economics seems typical) would seem to me reversed priorities. It's like teaching years of physical science data and personage (on XX date, Dr. So-and-so measured the conductivity of unobtainium as thus-and-so, etc.) with a semester each of physical and biological science in the senior year being the only broad overview of processes and systems.

But, anyhow, I don't think we're teaching too much in schools so much as teaching it too poorly, so I don't think we need to be focussing on what to cut out of the curriculum so much as how to better teach what is in the curriculum.

I'm convinced that most economists don't understand economics.

I don't think that's fair.

I just think that the economists that become popular and get mass media exposure tend, more often than not, to be the ones that have an active personal (usually political and/or financial) interest in having other people not understand economics.

I taught high school economics a few years back, and while my students' relatively poor math skills yielded a lot of incorrect answers on tests, I found that they did not have too much difficulty grasping basic economic concepts.

Actually understanding and using economic data correctly was very difficult for them, however, because they kept on making computational errors.

So understanding economic concepts and being proficient at them are two very different things, with profecieincy, in my opinion, being much more related to mathematical ability than having an understanding of economic concepts.

You've probably complained about this all the time, or 100%.

Much worse is the media's proclivity to report unsubstatiated annonymous claims claims, i.e. from Michael Gordon:

'BAGHDAD, Aug. 7 — Attacks on American-led forces using a lethal type of roadside bomb said to be supplied by Iran reached a new high in July, according to the American military.'

"Said to be supplied by Iran"? Said??? Anyone can "say" anything they want (especially annonymously!) I thought the job of journalists was to report facts!

I know, I'm such a Luddite...

My pet peeve is when people talk about the stock market.

The market (meaning the Dow) today was down MORE than 3 points.

Less often but just as stupid is:
The market was down LESS than 200 points.

Is it me or doesn't 'more than' mean more than a significant amount and 'less than' is less than a significant amount?

Of course, politcal polls are absurd when they talk about 'within the margin of error'. If you are up by 3% (or 4%) and the margin of error is 3.5% then it probably isn't a tie in one case and a significant lead in the other. It probably means that you are winning, in one case with about a 75% degree of confindence and about 96% in the other.

With regards to the "nearly 3/5" complaint, my guess is that it has to do with making the writing more exciting. And, when I write "writing," that's specifically what I mean. That is, not "reading." I write government reports and most of the actual writing involves summarizing graphs. I do things like that because otherwise I feel like I'm writing the same sentence over and over again and, frankly, my job is boring enough. I've got to take excitement anywhere I can find it.

Geez. I need to get a life.

I'm suprised anyone takes the results of tests seriously from high school students when it doesn't count for their grade. If it didn't count for a grade, how hard would you study for a test? How hard would you try to do the test? If you didn't care about your grade in class anyway, would you try hard?
Using the results of these test to assess anything is probably not realistic.

Recent Tim McCarver quote:

"Folks, we don't want to throw a lot of numbers at you, but this year, 39% of leadoff walks have scored. That's about 40% of the time."

Tim McCarver is a fucking idiot. Trust me. I know him well.

Theoretical macroeconomics is not reality based in its conception or purported implementation.

Kevin, when I went through math back in the dark ages I was taught that, yes, there was an important difference between one-fourth and 25% - if you said "25%" you meant "more than 24.5% and less than 25.5%", while if you said "one-fourth" you meant "less than one-third and more than one-fifth"; error bars 13 times as large. And given that one-in-a-hundred accuracy is in practical terms much higher than I would expect of almost any claim in public life I rather prefer the laxer format. The use of percentages seems calculated to attach an unfounded aura of scientificity - as in last night's TV, an ad claiming "seventy percent of Australians are affected by cholesterol"

I recall a study that demonstrated that most people understand '60 in 100' far more easily than '60%' and, what is more, they think that 60 in 100 is a greater proportion than 60%. The conclusion was that it is better to use the more concrete expression when addressing the average audience. I also recall that a major Canadian bank offered remedial mathematics for its senior officers and middle management. The press is correct to talk down.

has407 --

This will probably scroll off before I post this response -- sorry, I've been away from internet access and am just catching up.

Thank you for your thoughtful observation. It's comforting to hear from others who've been there. Your assesment of what this site is about, and what it might accomplish, is reasoned and realistic.

My frustration arises from a feeling that's new to me -- after more than 50 years in the strategic planning/public policy field:

I'm worried. Very worried.

I fear for our country. I fear that we may not be able to rise to this occasion, in sharp contrast to what we've always done before.

Thank you for the reality-check. This isn't the place for Paul Revere to sound the alarm. (Oops, there I go again -- Everybody: I'm no Paul Revere!) Please!