On Harm, Damage, and Policy

I noted with interest some of the criticism and critique that came out this weekend against a new project of my colleagues. Essentially, some of the arguments posted were "this data/site doesn't do X, therefore, it shouldn't exist" or "this data harms Y, therefore it shouldn't exist." Of course, the data is helpful in other ways, allowing limited comparisons, but it's rare to see a comment saying "this looks pretty good, ok." So instead, the comments are all "THIS IS AMAZING" vs "THIS SUCKS" and whatever the product is, it feels like a dystopia where completely opposite conclusions are possible.

So it goes with many political and legal policies.

If you experience a crime and the law is such that the criminal is not found guilty, the law feels far too soft. If you are falsely accused and your life is severely harmed, the law feels far too hard. This is the nature of political compromise - some times different interests each have valid perspectives and the right answer does involve weighing them and coming down somewhere in the middle.

In the area of rape and sexual assault, where hard evidence is often extraordinarily difficult to come by (and where I volunteered for years in college), there is no policy that will prevent horrible outcomes - either for survivors that can't get justice or for the falsely accused. I've seen several stories in recent years with long, personal profiles of people on both sides of this equation, and I've realized that no matter how bad the stories are, the overall data is much more important when it comes to identifying the best policy. To some extent, policy making means ignoring single trees to see the dynamic of the forest, but that also feels a little harsh and cold (and to be clear, this is the wrong answer when it comes to supporting anyone who has been through trauma). I'll be looking for examples of leaders and people who walked this line well.
Published: 9/14/2015 01:47:00 AM 0 comments

Rankings and Inputs

I've written before about higher ed data and ranking, and its worth revisiting that subject today on the heels of a large data release by the Department of Education (along with a website my wonderful colleagues in various government offices helped to create). I should also note that I am only speaking in my individual capacity. None of the words in this post represent the views of 18F, the General Services Administration, or the United States Government.

Data releases are wonderful because they give true information about a topic, often replacing anecdotal evidence that depends more on who we know than the true state of a Thing. My thoughts on financial success after college depend partly on if I hung out with aspiring educators vs management consultants, for example. Hearing that one of your friends had a great experience at College X might lead you to recommend it, but there's a chance that your friend's experience was one of the rare positive ones. I am all for releasing data.

However, in looking at data, we still need to apply context and analysis. Data depends on a varsity of factors, such as the group being examined or the method used to collect it. College ranking data is especially scary when used long-term because the selective colleges being examined have a lot of control, though their admissions and administrative processes, over some of the data inputs. For example, US News looks at the % of classes with under 20 students - and I'm not sure its a coincidence that some college cap certain classes at exactly 19 students.

In a world without manipulation, the US News datapoint could be used to interpolate a bell curve of class sizes. Instead, I suspect that colleges work to shove as many classes as possible under that 19-person cap - meaning that a college with a mix of 10 person and 15 person classes ends up looking equivalent to a college full of 19 person classes, even though the 10 person experience is much more rewarding (in my anecdotal experience).

Example of a bell curve with a spike at one level

The worst implication of using and relying on data like this is that the attributes that make a strong college cohort may end up producing data that looks "worse" than other cohorts - meaning that colleges that seek to do the best job possible have an incentive to manipulate their incoming classes to have stronger data.

For example, a college that wants to produce graduates with higher incomes after 10 years might have an incentive to take more students interested in economics, technology, or engineering - disadvantaging those interested in other fields. Colleges interested in keeping a higher graduation rate might shy away from admitting anyone with mental health struggles or other risk factors that could lead them not to graduate - regardless of a college's strength. Finally, colleges interested in reporting a high amount of average aid could seek more students who are extremely poor (who need more aid) and disadvantage those from middle class families that need a small amount of aid, but not much.

That last paragraph describes the three primary data points used by the college scorecard. That doesn't make the data that was used bad, but it does mean that we should pay attention to the incentives that we create in rating systems and how to actively counter act them. For example, colleges could get "credits" on their graduation rates by admitting more students with active risk factors, or by being able to report different data about why students don't complete a degree. Average earning data should take into account the earnings of a student's parents and seek to remove that variable, since a college is more important for the change it makes to a student.

In the end, a college isn't everything in a student's future. We shouldn't make schools own outcomes that depend on the students they choose to admit - instead we should look at how a college bends an incoming class's future toward job satisfaction, strong connections with peers, impact towards social good, and ultimate life happiness. Is that data available, truly? I doubt it.
Published: 9/12/2015 11:27:00 AM 0 comments

6 months in DC

It's hard to believe that I've been in DC for six months - the time has flown by, and I've learned more about my skills and abilities here than in the last 18 months at my old job. I don't intend to write anythjng official here about my work, but my professional happiness has bueyed my personal happiness.
Published: 9/05/2015 01:03:00 PM 0 comments

Music and links from a random weekend

New readers: note that a regular feed of things I think are interesting can be found at this link.

Here's a sampling of what I got into this past weekend, after a wonderful but intense-for-my-introvert-self week:


Here are other videos from the same event - the quality live was really something, though I'm sure the official track was heavily mastered:


In the category of things that are unfortunate:
We can’t completely undo the financial obstacles younger Americans face, such as their weak earnings. But we can start to put in place policies that will ease their burden. First and foremost would be to get the nation’s economy onto a stronger growth trajectory. That’s a daunting challenge that would require revamping federal outlays to emphasize areas like education, infrastructure and research and development. Spending more on these areas would require higher taxes on my generation, which is getting a lot more from government than we are paying into it.
Published: 8/03/2015 09:30:00 AM Labels: , , 0 comments

My fav kind of mashup

Published: 7/27/2015 01:04:00 AM Labels: , 0 comments

Clouds

On December 6, 2012, during Ryan & Shannon's KS95 for Kids Radiothon, KS95 debuted a song by Zach Sobiech, a teen with cancer, called "Clouds." Zach and the song became a worldwide sensation, touching the hearts of millions. One year later 5,000 fans gathered at Mall Of America for KS95′s Ryan & Shannon's Largest Clouds Choir to remember Zach, who passed away in May of 2013.
Published: 7/13/2015 11:30:00 PM 0 comments

Two Youtube Videos, played together, as one song

Published: 7/08/2015 12:56:00 AM 0 comments

Madison Singing

I miss these jokesters.


"Call Me Maybe"Watch in HD!!
Posted by Fong Fan on Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Published: 6/17/2015 10:24:00 PM Labels: , 0 comments

Pi Music

Published: 6/13/2015 07:29:00 PM Labels: , 0 comments

For American pundits, China isn’t a country. It’s a fantasyland. - The Washington Post

For American pundits, China isn’t a country. It’s a fantasyland. - The Washington Post: And because China is so vast, its successes can be attributed to whatever your pet cause is. Do you oppose free markets and privatization, like John Ross, former economic policy adviser for the city of London? Then China’s success is because of the role of the state. Do you favor free markets, like the libertarian Cato Institute? Then China’s success is because of its opening up. Are you an environmentalist? China is working on huge green-energy projects. Are you an energy lobbyist? China’s building gigantic pipeline projects. Are you an enthusiast for the Protestant work ethic, like historian Niall Ferguson, who describes it as one of his “killer apps” for civilizations? Then credit China’s manufacturing boom to its 40 million Protestants — even though they’re less than 5 percent of its 1.3 billion people.
Published: 6/02/2015 08:08:00 PM 0 comments

Commute Metrics

Previous Commute:
  • 2 minute walk to bus
  • 22 min bus ride
  • 14 minute walk to office
New Commute Day 1 (saving 4:30):
  • 4:30 walk to bus (iterating to best path)
  • 25 min bus ride
  • 1 minute walk to office
  • 2 minutes walking inside GSA
New Commute Day 2:
  • 2 min walk to bus (iterating to best path)
  • 18 min bus ride
  • 7 minute walk to office
  • 2 walk inside GSA
More importantly, my new commute will involve less exposure on really hot days. :)
Published: 6/01/2015 10:10:00 AM 0 comments

Tips for an Epic Interview

A friend of a friend is calling me today for advice about an interview he has with Epic. I've done a few general calls about Epic since departing my job for civil service, but since this one is specifically about tips and advice, I wanted to make my thoughts available publicly. Connections like these are great, but many people who might want a job at Epic don't have them.

So here's my advice, which applies to all phone screens. I am being deliberately vague about the questions because I think that would be against the spirit of Epic and the trust given to employees - something I greatly admire. I am also omitting the suggestion to do research on Epic, since you've found this post (and are therefore doing research!)
  1. Take care of the basics. Your phone should have sufficient charge and you should be in a place with signal. (I wouldn't be saying this if I hadn't noticed an issue here)
  2. Remember that your screener has an agenda of things to get through. Long-winded answers will rush things for both of you
  3. You should have an elevator story about yourself, covering pieces like - who are you? What do you know about? Why do you know about it? What are you looking for in your career, both presently and in the future? This is your arsenal for the questions you will be asked - as long as you've thought through these sorts of questions, biographical questions shouldn't surprise you.
  4. You should bear this quote (slightly dated) in mind: "The firm makes about 1,500 hires annually and goes through about 150,000 resumes."
  5. If you have weak points on your resume, this is the time to make additional mitigating statements about them.
Published: 5/31/2015 06:55:00 PM 0 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)