今年诺贝尔奖研究：学历和收入到底有多大关系？
来源：帝呱呱星球
10/18/2021
今年诺贝尔奖研究：学历和收入到底有多大关系？
前天揭晓的诺贝尔经济学奖我猜很多家长会感兴趣。
因为他们用自己开创的一个全新的实证研究方法，研究了几个家长颇为关心的话题，比如：
多读一年书到底能带来多少收入？
名校毕业生是否赚的更多？
要不要拼命鸡娃把孩子送入“六小强”这样的重点中学？
哈哈，是不是每一个问题你都想了解？
我朋友调侃说诺奖得主估计也是为娃操碎了心的家长（开个玩笑～）。
不过，诺贝尔奖评委会委员也说了，表彰的是教授们的研究方法，而不为他们的研究结论背书。所以今天这篇文大家除了关注结论之外，重点更应该是他们的研究方式和思维方式。
多读一年书到底能带来多少收入？
在今年诺奖没出来之前，浙江财经大学经济学系教授李井奎在《现代经济学中的因果推断革命》就介绍过获奖人乔舒亚·安格里斯特和克鲁格的研究了。
李井奎在书中说：
2018年深圳市公布的学历工资指导价位：
◆ 研究生（含博士、硕士）学历工资指导价位平均值为12389元/月；
◆ 本科学历工资指导价位平均值为10122元/月；
◆ 专科学历工资指导价位平均值为8059元/月；
◆ 高中学历工资指导价位平均值为5620元/月；
◆ 初中及以下学历工资指导价位平均值为4501元/月。
从这个指导价里，我们可以看到，研究生的工资指导价几乎是初中及以下文化程度的3倍，一个本科生的工资指导价是初中生的2倍。
通常情况下，家长就会说：你看，读书还是有好处的吧，学历高就是挣得多。
可是经济学家就会比普通家长想的更多了，这是因果关系还是相关关系？
是因为高学历导致高工资？
还是因为那些取得了高学历的人，可能他们本身就比较聪明，而不是学历带给了他们更高的收入，是他们自身的聪明才智给他们带来了更多的收入？
大家要记住，因果关系和相关关系，是许多社科类研究必然面对的问题。怎么“干净地”识别因果关系，就是这次诺奖得主得奖的原因。
李井奎在书中写道：
“他们选择了一个神奇的工具变量——一个人的出生季节或月份，可以把多读一年书对未来收入造成的影响，与其他因素的作用区分开，从而干净地识别因果效应。”
来看看这个研究是怎样进行的。
因为教授们都在美国，所以他们发现，美国的义务教育法有这样的规定：
“只要当年年满6岁的儿童，都需要在该年9月份入学。
只有年满16岁，青少年才可以离开学校，辍学回家。”
也就是说，一个孩子如果生日是12月31日，那么，他和生日是1月1日的孩子一样，都需要在当年9月份入学。
平均而言，出生在第一季度的孩子，入学时大约是6.45岁。
而出生在第四季度的孩子，入学时的平均年龄大约是6.07岁。
再根据辍学条件，如果一个人的生日是1月1日，那么，在他16岁到来那一年，过了1月1日就可以辍学去工作了；
而如果他的生日是12月31日，那么，他就需要上完全年的学才能合法地离开学校，离开课堂。
所以教授们就把在16岁辍学的孩子分成了两组：
一组是生日在一年当中比较早的那些孩子，为A组；
一组是生日在一年当中比较晚的孩子，为B组。
由于B组的孩子比A组要多上一段时间的学，所以，对于研究多读一年书所带来的收入差异来说，这就形成了非常好的比对条件，尽可能使因果关系“干净”。
接下来，两位教授分别搜集了美国20世纪20年代、30年代、40年代和50年代出生的孩子在1970年、1980年的收入信息。
他们发现，对于20世纪20年代出生的孩子来说，第一季度出生的人比其他三个季度出生的人少上了0.126年学，教育回报率要低0.7个百分点。
对于20世纪40年代出生的孩子来说，第一季度出生的人比其他三个季度出生的人少上了0.109年学，教育回报率要低1.02个百分点。
通过这样的方式，两位教授就尽量剥离了其他因素的影响，揭示了在没有其他变量影响的情况下，得出结论：
“多上一年学，本身对一个人日后的收入水平就是有正向影响的，这一影响不是由其他因素造成的，而纯粹是由教育带来的回报。
接受12年教育的人比接受11年教育的人的收入增加12%，接受16年教育的人比接受11年教育的人收入高出65%。”
上重点大学是不是比上普通大学，回报更高？
多上一年学本身就对未来的收入有影响，那读北大清华、常青藤这样的名校，是不是比读普通大学有更高的收入影响？
在美国，进入四年制私立大学读书，平均每年要支付3万美元左右的学费；
如果要进入哈佛大学或麻省理工学院这类世界级名校，学费是5万美元左右；
而如果在所在州读公立大学，所支付的学费每年大概不到1万美元。
读名校的花费明显更高，那是不是回报也会更高？
这是教授们研究的另一个问题。
首先，我们要知道，不能直接把上过常春藤盟校的毕业生，与公立大学的毕业生在毕业20年后挣取的收入进行比较，这也会犯因果关系不干净的错误。
最好的办法是让同样一个人在这两种状态下进行比较，一种状态是上常春藤盟校，一种状态是上所在州的公立大学，然后比较在这两种状态下20年后的平均收入水平。
但是，用脚趾头也想的出来，这种研究不现实。
那两位经济学家是怎么做的呢？
他们是这样进行的：
他们选取那些都参加了美国的高考，在数学和阅读方面的成绩（SAT）都是1400，都向哈佛大学和州立大学提交了入学申请，都被这两所学校录取的幸运儿。
然而，他们中有一些因为各方面的原因没有去哈佛（比如州立大学提供了更诱人的奖学金，或者州立大学离家更近等等），去了更便宜的州立大学。
而有一些选择去读更昂贵的哈佛大学。
这两组就是非常好的比对对象。
当然了，教授们还剥离了一些其他的变量，这个研究过程比较复杂，就不介绍了。
最终两位教授的研究结果表明：
给定学生的大学申请数量以及所申请大学的选拔水平，同时控制其他一些反映个人能力和家庭背景的控制变量，选择藤校或公立大学的学生在未来收入上并无显著的差别。
所以，如果你曾经有可能上北大清华，但因为各种原因只去了普通大学，大可不必后悔自己错过了很多，也许你什么都没有错过，错过的仅仅是自己的不甘心而已。继续昂扬斗志去生活吧。
上重点中学，是不是比上普通中学，回报更高？
双减之前，大家见过太多海淀疯狂鸡娃家长的文章了，疯狂的博主会拿上早培、早早培的孩子标准，来给普通孩子设定达标线，什么PET，什么各种奥数杯赛全部上阵。
理由当然就一个，上海淀六小强，肯定比上普通学校好。
那我们继续来看诺奖得主的研究。
美国也有名校痴迷征。在波士顿和纽约的公立学校系统中，同样有一些类似于海淀六小强的精英学校。
与大多数其他美国公立学校不同，精英学校的申请者要根据竞争性的考试成绩来进行选拔。为进入这些中学就读，美国的孩子一样要经历激烈的竞争，才能有机会获得有限的入学名额。
所以，全世界有存在一样的鸡娃。
经过残酷的选拔才能进入波士顿和纽约精英高中的学生，在美国的大学入学资格考试成绩方面表现向来不俗，远远高于普通的公立高中，这就好比海淀六小强的学生一半以上去清华北大一样，让家长们趋之若鹜。
是重点中学的教学方式很好，导致了大学考试的高分？
还是这些能够进入精英中学学习的孩子们，本来就天资聪颖，如果把他们放在普通的公立中学，他们未必就比现在的表现差？
这就是前面说的因果关系“不干净”了。
教授们是这样做研究的，他们使用的一种方法叫做“断点回归”，什么意思呢？
为了让大家更理解，我拿中国的情况来打比方：
教授们把中考中，比六小强招生分数录取线刚刚高出几分以内的学生，和刚刚低出几分以内的考生挑出来，分成两组，那么，这个录取分数线就是一个断点。
在断点回归方法研究下，诺奖得主研究得到的发现是：
进入这些精英中学学习，相比于在普通公立高中学习，并没有使学生取得更为优秀的大学入学资格考试成绩。
也就是说，如果你的孩子因为几分之差没去六小强，最终去了普通中学，你大可不必过于惋惜孩子错过了逆天改命的机会，因为那些仅以数分之差而进入精英高中学习的学生，相比于仅以几分之差名落孙山而进入普通公立学校学习的学生，在考大学的时候，他们丝毫没有表现出更加出色。
读书和教育，本身就是目的
其实教授们的三个研究又回归到了一个最本质的问题，也是我经常和大家聊的：
读书本身，对提高一个人的见识、格局，有极大的帮助。而当一个人的见识、格局提高了，还愁赚不到钱吗？
别说学生时代在学校里多接受一年教育，会对未来的收入水平有提高，
即便人到中年，多看几本好书的带来的愉悦也会比刷抖音看奶头乐的短视频更高。
但是，别忘了读书和教育本身的初衷是培养一个健全人格的人，培养一个享受知识带来的最单纯愉悦的人，对于这样的人来说，名和利，不需要费尽心思的去追逐，而是顺带手自然而然的事情。
或者，我们应该这样说，读书和教育，他们本身就是目的，如果我们在教育孩子的过程中，始终就秉持着这样的初心，而不是被各种外在的标准所绑架，
也许，孩子会更容易接近幸福、自由和成功。
三名经济学家分享2021年诺贝尔经济学奖
文 / 潘万莉
10/11/2021
（早报讯）瑞典皇家科学院周一（10月11日）在斯德哥尔摩宣布，将2021年诺贝尔经济学奖授予三名经济学家卡德（David Card）、安格里斯特（Joshua Angrist）和因本斯（Guido Imbens），以表彰他们在劳动经济学与实证方法研究领域作出的突出贡献。
三位获奖者研究的关键，是把全球贫困问题分解为更小、更精确的问题。例如，为了找到提高儿童健康水平的方法，可以针对教育方法、医疗卫生系统、获得信贷的途径等方面设计实验，证实干预效用。
Three economists win Nobel for their research on how real life events impact society
By SCOTT HORSLEY
10/11/2021
Jacquelyn Martin/AP
Three U.S.-based economists will share this year’s Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for their innovative work with “natural experiments” – events or policy changes in real life that allow researchers to analyze their impact on society.
David Card of the University of California at Berkeley will receive half the prize, worth 10 million Swedish kronor, or about $1.1 million, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said on Monday. Joshua Angrist of the Masschusetts Institute of Technology and Guido Imbens of Stanford University will share the other half.
Controlled experiments are common in science and medicine: they allow, for example, to test new drugs by carefully selecting participants and controlling vital aspects to ensure objectivity.
But they are harder in social sciences where it can often be impractical or unethical to conduct randomized trials – unless a real-life event or policy change happens that allow researchers to conduct what are called “natural experiments.”
“Natural experiments are everywhere,” said Eva Mork, a member of the prize committee. “Thanks to the contributions of the laureates, we researchers are today able to answer key questions for economic and social policy. And thereby the laureates work has greatly benefited society at large.”
Claudio Bresciani/TT News Agency/AFP via Getty Images
The impact of the minimum wage
Card was recognized in part for his groundbreaking work in the early 1990s with the late Princeton economist Alan Krueger, which challenged conventional wisdom about minimum wages.
Economists had long assumed that there was a tradeoff between higher wages and jobs. If the minimum wage went up, it was thought, some workers would get higher pay but others would be laid off.
But when Card and Krueger looked at the actual effect of higher wages on fast food workers, they found no significant drop in employment.
They reached this conclusion by comparing fast food restaurants in New Jersey, which raised its minimum wage, with restaurants in neighboring Pennsylvania, which did not.
Brandon Bell/Getty Images
Studying cause-and-effect in real life
Meanwhile, Angrist and Imbens were recognized for methodological research that helps tease out cause and effect from these accidental case studies.
During the pandemic, natural experiments have allowed researchers to study the effects of mask mandates, social distancing policies, and supplemental unemployment benefits.
Imbens said he was “stunned” to get the congratulatory wake-up call at about 2 a.m. in California.
“I was absolutely thrilled to hear the news,” Imbens told reporters. “In particular hearing that I got to share this with Josh Angrist and David Card, who are both very good friends of mine.”
He noted that Angrist was best man at his wedding.
Imbens said he had no idea how he would spend his share of the prize money.
Tel: 551-580-4856 | Email: F.WINNIE.S@GMAIL.COM
诚招美国和加拿大法律服务代理
因公司发展需要，诚招美国和加拿大法律服务代理。
要求：
懂英语、或西班牙语、或法语。
能合法工作有社安号或工号。
无需改行， 可以兼职。
大学生和有销售经验优先考虑。
自雇生意公司发美国报税1099，加拿大T4A
有意了解详情， 请扫码加微信， 非诚勿扰！
美德两学者夺诺贝尔化学奖
文 / 潘万莉
10/06/2021
（早报讯）瑞典皇家科学院周三（10月6日）宣布，将2021年诺贝尔化学奖授予德国化学家本亚明·利斯特和美国科学家大卫·麦克米兰，以表彰他们在发展不对称有机催化中的贡献。
53岁的利斯特曾在柏林自由大学攻读化学，并于1997年在法兰克福大学取得博士学位。他测试一种名为“脯胺酸”（proline）的氨基酸，检验是否能够催化化学反应，果然有效发挥作用。此发现有助于不对称有机催化的发展。
53岁的麦克米兰则是美国普林斯顿大学的化学教授，2010年至2015年还曾担任化学系系主任。麦克米兰曾经研究能够容易被水分破坏的金属催化剂，成功使用简单的有机分子，研发出一种更耐用的催化剂。
麦克米兰在格拉斯哥大学获得化学学士学位。1990年，他离开英国，在加州大学尔湾分校奥弗曼教授的指导下进行博士研究。
本届诺贝尔颁奖典礼以实体、线上混合的方式进行，获奖者将获得奖牌、证书以及1000万瑞典克朗（约154万新元）奖金。
Nobel Prize in chemistry awarded for ‘simple’ yet ‘ingenious’ discovery
By Rob Picheta and Katie Hunt, CNN
10/06/2021
The Nobel Prize in chemistry has been awarded to Benjamin List and David W.C. MacMillan, two scientists honored for creating “an ingenious tool for building molecules” that has helped develop new drugs and make chemistry greener.
The pair were announced as the prize winners in Stockholm, Sweden, on Wednesday, for the development of asymmetric organocatalysis. Their discoveries “initiated a totally new way of thinking for how to put together chemical molecules,” said Pernilla Wittung-Stafshede, a member of the chemistry Nobel committee.”
This new toolbox is used widely today, for example in drug discovery, and in fine chemicals production and is already benefiting humankind greatly,” Wittung-Stafshede added.
List, a German scientist who is professor at and director of the Max Planck Institute for Coal Research, and Scotland-born chemist MacMillan, now a US-based professor at Princeton University, worked independently of each other but share the prize, the third Nobel award to be handed out this week.
In 2000, the two researchers uncovered a third kind of catalyst — a substance which brings about a chemical reaction — called asymmetric organocatalysis. Scientists had previously believed that there were just two types of catalysts: metals and enzymes. Enzymes contain hundreds of amino acids or proteins, but the winners were able to demonstrate that a single organic molecule can act as a catalyst.
“This concept for catalysis is as simple as it is ingenious, and the fact is that many people have wondered why we didn’t think of it earlier,” said Johan Åqvist, chair of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry.
The new catalysts have been used in a number of ways in the past two decades, including for creating new pharmaceuticals and building molecules that capture light in solar cells. The committee credited them with “bringing the greatest benefit to humankind.”
The work of List and MacMillan has helped develop a drug to treat high blood pressure and streamline the production of drugs like paroxetine (Seroxat), which treats depression, and oseltamivir — better known as Tamiflu — which is used to treat respiratory infections.”
I hope I live up to this recognition and continue discovering amazing things,” List told reporters after being announced as a winner.
List said he was having a coffee with his wife when he got the call from the Nobel Committee. “Sweden appears on my phone, and I look at her, she looks at me and I run out of the coffee shop to the street and, you know, that was amazing. It was very special. I will never forget,” he said.
‘Fantastically important’
The organocatalysis process developed by the winners is called “asymmetric” because they were able to pinpoint which molecule to use as a catalyst. During chemical construction, a situation often arises where two molecules can form, which — just like our hands — are each other’s mirror image, the Nobel Committee explained. Chemists often just want one of these mirror images, particularly when producing pharmaceuticals, but it has been difficult to find efficient methods for doing this.”
This is a fantastically important piece of chemistry and these two are undoubtedly leaders in that field,” Phillip Broadwith, business editor of Chemistry World magazine, told CNN after the announcement was made.”
This is very fundamental chemistry,” Broadwith added. “In its essence, it’s about making molecules and it’s about making them more efficiently, using less energy and without metal catalysts, which are problematic if they end up in pharmaceuticals.”
H.N. Cheng, the president of the American Chemical Society, said the award was a “fitting recognition” for “a major accomplishment.”
“As chemists we love to do reactions and reactions are a key part of our work, and the reactions frequently are unfortunately not as desired — they can be slow, they can be nonspecific they may not go the way we wanted,” he told CNN. “Catalysis is one way whereby we can actually help the reaction and make reactions go better or generate new reactions that could not be done before.”
Cheng likened it to making food. “If you’re cooking a dish, you’re actually doing a chemical reaction. So say it takes 10 minutes to produce a steak. If I can do it in 10 seconds, that’d be much better. Customers would like it, the chef would like it. And that’s exactly what catalysis is doing now. The cooking is much better, much faster, much cheaper.”
On Monday, David Julius and Ardem Patapoutian won the Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine for their discoveries of receptors for temperature and touch. And on Tuesday, they were joined by three winners of the prize for physics — Syukuro Manabe, Klaus Hasselmann and Giorgio Parisi.
All male lineup
Wednesday’s award adds two further Nobel laureates. But for the second time in three years, no women were recognized in the scientific awards.”
We don’t have any direct discussions with other committees about who wins the prize, but we do have discussions about how to support and increase women and it’s also important to support geographic diversity,” said Claes Gustafsson, a professor in medical biochemistry at the University of Gothenburg and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science.”
We are inviting more women to be nominators and so on. It’s a long and strategic work,” he told CNN. “We were very happy to have two women (win the chemistry prize) last year and for sure we will have many women in the years to come. It’s a very high priority for us.”
In 2019, the Nobel Committee asked nominators to consider diversity in gender, geography and field, but that year only men were among the winners for the science Nobels. In 2020, three women in science were given Nobel recognition.
Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna jointly won the 2020 Nobel Prize in chemistry, while Andrea Ghez was one of three winners of the physics prize.
The prizes for literature and peace will be announced later this week, before the economics award concludes the annual festivities on Monday.
