Freakonomics Critical Response #3

In Chapter 6 of Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner conclude that a child's name does not matter when considering the child's potential for economic success. According to Levitt and Dubner, people with distinctively black names, on average, have a worse economic outcome in life. However, they say that economic outcome "isn't the fault of their names" (Levitt and Dubner 173).

The core reason people with white names typically have a more successful life than people with distinctively black names starts with the parents. The type of parents who would name their son Jake, versus the type of parents who would name their son DeShawn are vastly different in regards to socioeconomic status. Parents who would name their son Jake would most likely fall in the range of middle to upper class in society whereas parents who would name their son DeShawn are more likely to be in the lower class and impoverished (Levitt and Dubner 173). Levitt and Dubner also conclude that if a boy named Jake were to be born in a poor neighborhood, the same as a DeShawn, "they would likely have similar life outcomes" (Levitt and Dubner 173). Levitt and Dubner have concluded that for the most part a name is more of an indicator for socioeconomic status, not a cause of it.

Considering my name (Joshua), I agree with the author's conclusions about naming. According to the Social Security Administration, Joshua was the fourth most popular name among male newborns in 2007. From my own experience Joshua would seem to be a good indicator of economic success. I grew up in a middle class family and was enrolled in an above average public school system and I encountered many Joshua's that went to my schools. In my senior engineering class alone I was one of three Josh's, all of whom I know went to college after high school. Since there is not a very good way to measure socioeconomic status for a person my age, going to college must be considered the ultimate predictor for economic success.

Discipline and Punishment

The result of the suspensions of school students seem to be increasing the dropout rate of those students and increasing the chances of that child to eventually enter the criminal justice system at some point in his or her life. When students are suspended they may feel like they are failures or may generate a disdain for school. If students are suspended in elementary grades and dislike school when they are younger, by the time they get to high school all they want to do is drop out. The number of students suspended each year is increasing largely as a result of the zero-tolerance policies put in place by the federal government and school systems. The zero-tolerance policies harshly discipline minute infractions that used to get children a slap on the wrist. Instead of a child getting a warning or a detention for flinging spitballs they are being suspended for half a week.

Freakonomics Critical Response #2

A real estate agent uses insider terminology and particular language to describe houses. These terms are all disguised to be interpreted as positive attributes about the home but in reality not all of them actually convey a positive attitude about the house. The terms that are positively correlated to a high sale price of a home are generally not very broad words. Words like "state-of-the-art" and "gourmet", "seem to tell a buyer that a house is, on some level, truly fantastic" (Levitt and Dubner 68). However broad words that have a positive meaning in everyday life, such as "fantastic" and "charming" do not necessarily indicate a spectacular house. The words fantastic and charming especially "seem to be real-estate agent code for a house that doesn't have many specific attributes worth describing" (Levitt and Dubner 68). If the general public possessed this knowledge they may be able to buy a house for cheaper than advertised as they would be able to knowledgably negotiate a deal with the real-estate agent.

Another place where insider terminology is prevalent is Craigslist. When someone chooses to post on Craigslist, they consider how to describe the item they are selling. Whether it is to be completely honest as people usually are with smaller items, or to skirt around some of the major issues and not tell the complete truth as people do quite frequently when they are selling vehicles. Also in consideration is whether or not to post a picture. What you are selling influences both of these factors. One of the biggest issues with Craigslist terminology is in the emails however. Craigslist is filled with scammers who are constantly attempting to pursuade sellers to sell to them. It is easy to decipher a scamming email from a legitimate customers email if you know what to look for. For example, a scammers email first words will usually be "Hello seller,". The rest of the email will include a generic understanding of the item you are selling. The email's rarely request information specific to your item because they are tailored to be a mass response email, not specific in any nature. Scammers usually want to do business through money orders or through fake checks. Witnessing any of these elements listed is usually a dead giveaway of a scammer.

Using and understanding insider language may prove to be tremendously beneficial for anyone involved in an industry where it can be applied. It gives you an advantage over other people, whether it be the real estate agent, or the email scammer from Craigslist.

Freakonomics Critical Response #1

In the introduction of "Freakonomics" the authors establish their ethos through their extensive knowledge of world affairs combined with statistics, quotes and their exceptional writing abilities. The reader is supposed to think "outside the box" as the information from the authors is presented to them. These accumulation of points create a sense of trust and believability among the readers in relation to the authors' credibility.

The authors quickly jump into their first point and argument in the introduction when they introduce the first topic: crime. Crime in the early 1990's was apparently a huge problem and experts were telling the American people that it was only going to get worse. The authors cite Former President Bill Clinton as a person who proclaimed crime would only get worse. The President said "We know we've got about six years to turn this juvenile crime thing around, or our country is going to be living with chaos" (Levitt and Dubner 2). But shortly after, in the mid 90's the crime rates actually began to fall dramatically. Levitt and Dubner's explanation of this was far from the mainstream idea that gun control, improved policing and the economy reversed the spread of crime. They instead chose to highlight the supreme court case, Roe v. Wade which legalized abortion in the United States. Their explanation was that a whole generation of criminals were never born because low income mothers whose children were more susceptible to committing crimes, were no longer having children. While this explanation of events is certainly not the most obvious, it does however make sense in an abstract train of thought.

Another idea of "conventional wisdom" that the authors debunked was that money wins elections. The generalization is that the more money a politician spends on their election campaign, the more likely they are to win. Levitt and Dubner came to a different conclusion through data they attained from elections however. They said that "the amount of money spent by the candidates hardly matters at all. A winning candidate can cut his spending in half and lose only 1 percent of the vote" (Levitt and Dubner 9). Levitt and Dubner said that it's not how much money you spend, it's how appealing you are to voters. The authors also give examples of extremely wealthy individuals who have run for office and did not win such as Malcom Forbes and Arianna Huffington.

Using clever writing techniques and use of real world examples and data, Levitt and Dubner increase their ethos and entice the reader into continuing to read and yearning to learn more. Considering these qualities, the authors are convincing enough to make the reader beleive that they are a reliable source.

About Me

Howdy.

My name is Josh Schmidt and this is my first semester at A&M. I am originally from Omaha, Nebraska but I moved to Austin during the middle of 5th grade and have lived there ever since. So far I like college life but it is a lot different than high school, in a good way though. A&M is an amazing and unique university because of its rich tradition combined with the attitude of the students and teachers. My major right now is general studies but I am pretty sure I will change it to aerospace engineering at the end of the semester.

I am generally easy going but very shy. I watch the news a lot and am very opinionated on subjects like politics and religion. I spend most of my time doing school stuff or hanging out with friends. I also work out 3 to 4 days a week and run other days. When I am not working out or hanging out with friends I love to make and listen to music, it's one of my favorite things to do. I make music on my computer with software like Ableton Live and FL Studio and also some hardware that I have bought. Making music is my escape from stress and helps me to relax.