That NBER paper on trial representativness is a perfect example of selection bias in action. I've seen similar issus in other fields where the sample population doesn't match the real-world target. The 15% difference in predicted SAE rates between trial enrollees and the actual target population is massive when scaled across millions of patietns.
I’m being treated for Stage IV lung cancer by one of the newer immunotherapy treatments. I presume the voluminous lists of possible side effects that accompany advertising for the drug are compiled from reports gathered during clinical trials. People who have cancer, especially those in advanced stages, have symptoms…regardless of whether they are being treated with useful drugs or placebos. It seems to me that the decision to include or exclude a given patient in the clinical trial has a very substantial effect on the overall results of the trial. I’ve often wondered how they determine if a symptom was caused by progression of the underlying disease or by the treatment.
Interesting stuff today. Do you think the tide is beginning to turn with respect to expectations for America’s universities? I fear it is wishful thinking.
I'll go more with wishful thinking. Instead of real introspection about the critics of college, it seems I see more responses like "this is all political" or "society just doesn't get the value of education." Very little "we can do better."
> It would be nice if this graph was by liberal or conservative women, but it suggests that the attitude of college women that marriage is bad for them changes if they want kids, as they sure seem to prefer being married when having children.
Isn't this kind of obvious? What would be the point of marriage if not to have kids? Also it would be deeply concerning if people wanted to kids out of wedlock.
The IFM graph suggests that married women without kids are happier than unmarried women, so there must be some value to marriage beyond having kids.
Non-college degree holders have chosen to move in the direction of having kids without being married and instead cohabitating. Clearly people don't have to be married to have kids, and I do think the degree-holding left will say you don't need to be married even though they themselves strongly prefer that path.
Males have decreased as college grads and women tend not to marry down. It's hard to argue availability went up. Yet, the marriage rate with kids for college grad women has gone up. Cohabitating is certainly an option but has stayed flat. What has gone down for college women is being single with kids.
Meanwhile, for non-college women, it has largely been a swap from marriage to cohabitating. Good enough to cohabitate yet not good enough for marriage doesn't add up, not for such a big swing.
Probably need on the ground research to find the motivations and constraints. My working assumption is that the men are either too unreliable or unwilling to commit to marriage. My gut says the later.
Maybe. I think it would be interesting to know if the guys won't commit when the women aren't college educated more than if they are. Something cultural has changed, and it is worth trying to find out what that is.
That NBER paper on trial representativness is a perfect example of selection bias in action. I've seen similar issus in other fields where the sample population doesn't match the real-world target. The 15% difference in predicted SAE rates between trial enrollees and the actual target population is massive when scaled across millions of patietns.
I’m being treated for Stage IV lung cancer by one of the newer immunotherapy treatments. I presume the voluminous lists of possible side effects that accompany advertising for the drug are compiled from reports gathered during clinical trials. People who have cancer, especially those in advanced stages, have symptoms…regardless of whether they are being treated with useful drugs or placebos. It seems to me that the decision to include or exclude a given patient in the clinical trial has a very substantial effect on the overall results of the trial. I’ve often wondered how they determine if a symptom was caused by progression of the underlying disease or by the treatment.
Interesting stuff today. Do you think the tide is beginning to turn with respect to expectations for America’s universities? I fear it is wishful thinking.
I'll go more with wishful thinking. Instead of real introspection about the critics of college, it seems I see more responses like "this is all political" or "society just doesn't get the value of education." Very little "we can do better."
This isn't everyone, and there are outliers. One is the Vanderbilt Chancellor. Great 30 minutes listening to him here: https://www.futureupodcast.com/episodes/resist-or-reform-vanderbilts-chancellor-speaks-out/
> It would be nice if this graph was by liberal or conservative women, but it suggests that the attitude of college women that marriage is bad for them changes if they want kids, as they sure seem to prefer being married when having children.
Isn't this kind of obvious? What would be the point of marriage if not to have kids? Also it would be deeply concerning if people wanted to kids out of wedlock.
The IFM graph suggests that married women without kids are happier than unmarried women, so there must be some value to marriage beyond having kids.
Non-college degree holders have chosen to move in the direction of having kids without being married and instead cohabitating. Clearly people don't have to be married to have kids, and I do think the degree-holding left will say you don't need to be married even though they themselves strongly prefer that path.
So the driving factor is not the value system of the different classes of women but the availability of suitable mates that are marriage worthy.
Males have decreased as college grads and women tend not to marry down. It's hard to argue availability went up. Yet, the marriage rate with kids for college grad women has gone up. Cohabitating is certainly an option but has stayed flat. What has gone down for college women is being single with kids.
Meanwhile, for non-college women, it has largely been a swap from marriage to cohabitating. Good enough to cohabitate yet not good enough for marriage doesn't add up, not for such a big swing.
Probably need on the ground research to find the motivations and constraints. My working assumption is that the men are either too unreliable or unwilling to commit to marriage. My gut says the later.
Maybe. I think it would be interesting to know if the guys won't commit when the women aren't college educated more than if they are. Something cultural has changed, and it is worth trying to find out what that is.
Going from personal experience, the constraint on hook-ups are women and the constraint in marriages are men.