The Rude Tourist Effect

Which country exports the worst tourists? Although you might not like to admit it, you probably have an answer to this question, and it’s likely based on your personal experiences of travelling. Luckily, statisticians have conducted the polls, crunched the numbers, and come to the shocking conclusion: there is no consensus (although Japanese tourists appear to be overwhelmingly well-liked). In South-East Asia, Chinese and Australian tourists have the worst reputation. But Chinese tourists are relatively well liked in Europe, where it’s the Russians who are most disliked. Germans also hate the British, while the British intriguingly rate other Brits as the worst. In South America, it’s the Americans who are loathed. On a more positive note, this BBC article from 2009 suggests that Canadians are some of the best tourists. Yes, it’s more than a decade old and the data is probably unreliable, but I’ll lean into my patriotism and claim that this study is undeniably accurate.

A well-travelled reader might notice that tourists seem to be most unpopular in countries where they are numerous. There’s probably something to this, although I don’t have any hard evidence. It makes sense. Opinions of tourists are probably based primarily on a few, well publicized negative events, and more tourists means a greater chance that there will be some idiot who does something improper.

Read more

Values in the News: Cuts to Gifted Education (Part 3)

This is the final article in a three-part exploration of the values that underpin support for gifted education and other forms of streaming students (and the fierce resistance to it).

Over the past two weeks, I delved into recent efforts to cut gifted education programs and other methods of streaming students into academic and non-academic tracks. My first article demonstrated how an exclusive focus on the costs and benefits of gifted education is not particularly fruitful for a policy analyst. There are few costs (and few benefits), so this lens provides little insight into the importance of these programs to students, parents, and educators.

In my second article, I outlined how considerations of fairness are a more useful way to understand the moral underpinnings of gifted education. Importantly, the meaning of “fairness” differs defending on your worldview, and gifted education serves as an excellent example of the two main expressions of fairness: some people on the left define fairness as equity (i.e. everyone is treated in the same way), while the bulk of the political spectrum – the entire right and a large proportion of the left – view fairness as a question of proportionality (i.e. people get what they deserve). Consequently, since gifted programs are inherently inequitable, opposition from certain left-wing groups would be expected. However, gifted programs resonate with the proportionality values of a broader subsection of the population, so any effort to shrink or cut gifted programs is likely to confront fierce opposition. Overall, I argue that proponents and opponents of gifted education fundamentally disagree over the fairness of the programs, not their effectiveness.

Read more

Values in the News: Cuts to Gifted Education (Part 2)

This is the second article in a three-part exploration of the values that underpin support for gifted education and other forms of streaming students (and the fierce resistance to it). Read the first article here.

Last week, I opened a discussion on the costs and benefits of streaming students into academic and non-academic tracks, such as through gifted education programs. Despite the rancorous debate about the merits of these initiatives, there is little evidence that they make a difference in academic outcomes for students in either Canada or the United States. In other words, students in gifted education programs don’t perform much better than similarly intelligent students in ordinary schools. At the same time though, and there is little evidence that gifted programs are using disproportionate resources that could otherwise be used to improve the educations of a broader subset of the population. In sum, gifted education introduces few measurable costs and benefits.

This leaves us with a puzzle: if gifted programs don’t matter, why are they so contentious? Why did protesters almost come to blows when the mayor of New York tried to widen the eligibility requirements for specialized high schools (a form of gifted education)? Certainly, there is a perception that gifted education programs are superior, so maybe that explains why parents are so invested. But policymakers should know better. Why not let sleeping dogs lie and just leave gifted programs alone?

Read more

Values in the News: Cuts to Gifted Education (Part 1)

This is the first article in a three-part exploration of the values that underpin support for gifted education and other forms of streaming students (and the fierce resistance to it).

About two years ago, it was almost impossible to open the New York Times without finding an article about streaming in the education system. Streaming (or tracking) is the practice of separating students into different classes based on academic performance and/or capacity. Streaming can occur in two main ways: between schools through the creation of specialized schools that have academic requirements for entrance (e.g. science-focused schools, sports schools, gifted schools, etc.) or within schools by offering differing course streams based on academic ability (e.g. pure vs. applied math, Advanced Placement courses).

In the past several years, backlash against student streaming has intensified, sparking intense debate over the practice. The most widely debated effort was probably mayor Bill de Blasio’s attempt to scrap the SHSAT, an standardized exam that regulates admission to eight selective high schools in New York that serve as a feeder system to the most prestigious universities in the U.S. This step was intended to reduce (primarily racial) discrepancies between the students admitted to these high schools and the broader population of New York. After fierce public resistance, led primarily by Asian-American families (who are disproportionately admitted to these schools), de Blasio’s effort failed.

Read more

Values in Policy Analysis

In 2018, the Indian ascetic G.D. Agrawal died on the 111th day of a hunger strike protesting the continued pollution of the Ganges River. Mr. Agrawal had subsisted for over one hundred days on only honey, lemon, and water, and in his final week of life he gave up all sustenance, including water. Although hunger strikes are a common part of public life in India, deaths are relatively rare, a fact that illustrates G. D. Agrawal’s intense commitment to his goal.

Mr. Agrawal certainly had a point. The Ganges is one of the most polluted rivers in the world, and this has direct negative impacts on the health and safety of the millions of Indians who depend on the river. The water is filled with dangerous bacteria that kill thousands of Indians a year, and water-borne diseases in the Ganges river-basin cost Indian families an estimated $4 billion a year. Even worse, the bacteria are becoming resistant to standard anti-biotics. Anti-microbial resistance, as this phenomenon is known, has been called a slow-motion pandemic, with the potential to cause 10 million deaths by 2050. The next global health disaster could be evolving in the polluted Ganges right now.

Read more

Values in the News: The Government of Alberta’s $100 Giveaway

I’m now going to demonstrate why values analysis (using the moral foundations “tool”) is useful for policymaking by looking at a news event: the Government of Alberta’s decision in late 2021 to provide a $100 incentive to newly vaccinated Albertans. Values analysis can help explain the controversy surrounding this decision in a systematic way.

Background

In early September 2021, COVID-19 cases in Alberta surged beyond 1000 per day, overwhelming hospitals and emergency rooms across the province. No doubt, this was related to Alberta’s relatively low vaccination rate. As of September 4, only about 60.2% of Albertans were fully vaccinated, ahead of only Saskatchewan (59%) and far behind Ontario (68.1%), Quebec (71%), and the Canadian leader Yukon Territory (73%). You go Yukon!

Read more