These come from the Edelman competition:
Earlier post:
Earlier post:
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
Tuesday, June 12, 2018
Battle over college admission application platforms
CollegeNET, a software vendor to colleges, is suing the Common App., and also providing software support for it's newer competitor, the Coalition for Access, Affordability, and Success.
The Chronicle of Higher Ed has the (gated) story:
How Admissions Competition Brought New Rivalries, Strange Bedfellows, and ‘An Us-Versus-Us Lawsuit’ By Eric Hoover JUNE 03, 2018
"CollegeNET’s complaint claims that the Common Application used unfair tactics to stomp competitors and monopolize the market. It also claims that participating colleges (though not named as defendants) colluded to limit spending on application-processing services, harming other companies as well as applicants. How? By homogenizing the application process and causing "application churn," in which students apply to more and more colleges."
See earlier post:
The Chronicle of Higher Ed has the (gated) story:
How Admissions Competition Brought New Rivalries, Strange Bedfellows, and ‘An Us-Versus-Us Lawsuit’ By Eric Hoover JUNE 03, 2018
"CollegeNET’s complaint claims that the Common Application used unfair tactics to stomp competitors and monopolize the market. It also claims that participating colleges (though not named as defendants) colluded to limit spending on application-processing services, harming other companies as well as applicants. How? By homogenizing the application process and causing "application churn," in which students apply to more and more colleges."
See earlier post:
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Monday, June 11, 2018
The market for blood plasma: different tissues, same issues
I'll be speaking at The Plasma Protein Forum, June 12-13 in Washington D.C., on "REPUGNANT TRANSACTIONS AND FORBIDDEN MARKETS: DIFFERENT TISSUES, SAME ISSUES"
***********
Here are my blog posts on plasma, sorted by date (most recent first), going back to one from 2009.
Here's the whole program:
DAY ONE: JUNE 12, 2018
| 7:00 am–5:30 pm | Registration and Exhibit Hall Open | |||
| 7:00–8:30 am | Breakfast—Available in Exhibit Halls 1 & 2 | |||
| 8:30–8:45 am | WELCOME & “How Is Your Day?”Jan M. Bult, President & CEO, PPTA | |||
| 8:45–9:00 am | CHAIRMAN'S MESSAGE David Bell, Chair, PPTA Global Board of Directors; Executive Vice President & General Counsel, Grifols | |||
| 9:00–10:30 am | PERSPECTIVES: ACCESS TO CARE Moderator: Larisa Cervenakova, M.D., Ph.D., Medical Director, PPTA | |||
Speakers:
| ||||
| 10:30–11:00 am | BREAK | |||
| 11:00 am–12:30 pm | CURRENT INDUSTRY AND REGULATORY INITIATIVES IN THE AREAS OF INSPECTIONS AND DONOR HEALTH Moderator: John Delacourt, Vice President Legal Affairs & Global Operations, PPTA | |||
Speakers:
| ||||
| 12:30–2:00 pm | LUNCH—Buffet Available in Exhibit Halls 1 & 2 Sponsored by:  | |||
| 2:00–4:00 pm | INTERNATIONAL ACCESS TO CARE LANDSCAPE Moderator: Jan M. Bult, President & CEO, PPTA | |||
Speakers:
| ||||
| 4:00 pm | BREAK – Ice cream social | |||
| 4:30 pm | Otto Schwarz Award presentation | |||
| 5:00 pm | REPUGNANT TRANSACTIONS AND FORBIDDEN MARKETS: DIFFERENT TISSUES, SAME ISSUES
| |||
| 5:45 pm | DAY 1 CLOSING ANNOUNCEMENTS | |||
| 5:45–7:30 pm | Reception  | |||
DAY TWO: JUNE 13, 2018
| 7:30 am–1:00 pm | Registration and Exhibit Hall open | |
| 7:30–8:30 am | Breakfast—Available in Exhibit Halls 1 & 2 | |
| 8:30–8:35 am | WELCOME Joshua Penrod, J.D., Ph.D., Vice President, Source & International Affairs, PPTA | |
| 8:35–8:50 am | SOURCE DIVISION OUTLOOK Roger Brinser, Chair, PPTA Source Board of Directors; Director, Regulatory, BioLife Plasma Services/Shire | |
| 8:50–11:00 am | CURRENT CHALLENGES Moderator: Joshua Penrod, J.D., Ph.D., Vice President, Source & International Affairs, PPTA | |
Speakers:
| ||
| 11:00–11:30 am | BREAK | |
| 11:30 am–1:00 pm | CAN COUNTRIES DELIVER ON THEIR OWN? Moderator: Julia Fabens, Senior Manager International Affairs, PPTA | |
Speakers:
| ||
***********
Here are my blog posts on plasma, sorted by date (most recent first), going back to one from 2009.
Sunday, June 10, 2018
Computing fairness
One of the areas in which computer science and economics touch each other more than a bit is in understanding what constitutes a fair way of allocating scarce resources. This was the subject of a recent Northwestern CS workshop:
Quarterly Theory Workshop: Algorithmic Fairness
"Synopsis: As algorithmic systems have increasingly been deployed to make consequential decisions, it is becoming urgent that we grapple with the problem of (un)fairness and discrimination. These are delicate issues — to think rigorously about them, we first need to figure out how to formally define what we want, and then reason about how we might go about achieving our goals algorithmically — and what tradeoffs we will have to manage. This workshop focuses on recent advances in the theory of algorithmic fairness: both on foundational definitional questions, and on algorithmic techniques. The speakers are Nicole Immorlica (MSR), Jon Kleinberg (Cornell), Omer Reingold (Stanford), and Aaron Roth (U. of Pennsylvania).
The technical program of this workshop is organized by Aaron Roth and Jason Hartline."
These were the talks:
Quarterly Theory Workshop: Algorithmic Fairness
"Synopsis: As algorithmic systems have increasingly been deployed to make consequential decisions, it is becoming urgent that we grapple with the problem of (un)fairness and discrimination. These are delicate issues — to think rigorously about them, we first need to figure out how to formally define what we want, and then reason about how we might go about achieving our goals algorithmically — and what tradeoffs we will have to manage. This workshop focuses on recent advances in the theory of algorithmic fairness: both on foundational definitional questions, and on algorithmic techniques. The speakers are Nicole Immorlica (MSR), Jon Kleinberg (Cornell), Omer Reingold (Stanford), and Aaron Roth (U. of Pennsylvania).
The technical program of this workshop is organized by Aaron Roth and Jason Hartline."
These were the talks:
Speaker: Jon Kleinberg
Title: Algorithmic Fairness Criteria for Evaluating Individuals and Sets
Abstract: Recent discussion in the public sphere about classification by algorithms has involved tension between competing notions of what it means for such a classification to be fair to different groups. We consider several of the key fairness conditions that lie at the heart of these debates, and discuss recent research establishing inherent trade-offs between these conditions. We also consider a variety of methods for promoting fairness and related notions for classification and selection problems that involve sets rather than just individuals.
Title: Algorithmic Fairness Criteria for Evaluating Individuals and Sets
Abstract: Recent discussion in the public sphere about classification by algorithms has involved tension between competing notions of what it means for such a classification to be fair to different groups. We consider several of the key fairness conditions that lie at the heart of these debates, and discuss recent research establishing inherent trade-offs between these conditions. We also consider a variety of methods for promoting fairness and related notions for classification and selection problems that involve sets rather than just individuals.
This talk is based on joint work with Sendhil Mullainathan, Manish Raghavan, and Maithra Raghu.
Speaker: Aaron Roth
Title: Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering in Machine Learning
Title: Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering in Machine Learning
Abstract: The most prevalent notions of fairness in machine learning are statistical notions: they fix a small collection of high-level, pre-defined groups (such as race or gender), and then ask for approximate parity of some statistic of the classifier (like positive classification rate or false positive rate) across these groups. Constraints of this form are susceptible to (intentional or inadvertent) fairness gerrymandering, in which a classifier appears to be fair on each individual group, but badly violates the fairness constraint on one or more structured subgroups defined over the protected attributes (such as certain combinations of protected attribute values). Individual notions of fairness avoid this problem, but at the cost of needing to make often unrealistic assumptions about the setting. We propose instead to demand statistical notions of fairness across exponentially (or infinitely) many subgroups, defined by a structured class of functions over the protected attributes. We will show how to achieve this in polynomial time, under the assumption that we are given oracles for solving the unconstrained learning problems (for both the set of classifiers to be learned, and the set of subgroups to be protected). Our algorithm casts the problem as solving for an equilibrium in a zero sum game, and observes that learning oracles are enough to efficiently play no-regret learning dynamics. We then demonstrate experimentally that our proposed algorithms are practical, by investigating their performance on several real datasets when instantiated with learning heuristics in place of oracles.
This talk is based on joint work with Michael Kearns, Seth Neel, and Steven Wu.
Speaker: Omer Reingold
Title: On Algorithmic Fairness Between Groups and Individuals
Abstract: As algorithms increasingly inform and influence decisions made about individuals, it is increasingly important to address concerns that these algorithms might be discriminatory. Historically, definitions of fairness fell into one of two extremes: (1) broad-strokes statistical guarantees; (2) individual-level protections. Statistical guarantees tend to be much easier to satisfy (information and complexity theoretically), but tend to be much weaker in the protections they provide. We will discuss two recent works towards bridging the gap between statistical and individual protections. These works provide efficient learning algorithms that also ensure every subpopulation within some rich class is protected (according to some fairness notion).
Title: On Algorithmic Fairness Between Groups and Individuals
Abstract: As algorithms increasingly inform and influence decisions made about individuals, it is increasingly important to address concerns that these algorithms might be discriminatory. Historically, definitions of fairness fell into one of two extremes: (1) broad-strokes statistical guarantees; (2) individual-level protections. Statistical guarantees tend to be much easier to satisfy (information and complexity theoretically), but tend to be much weaker in the protections they provide. We will discuss two recent works towards bridging the gap between statistical and individual protections. These works provide efficient learning algorithms that also ensure every subpopulation within some rich class is protected (according to some fairness notion).
One of the notions we will discuss is that of multicalibration — a new measure of algorithmic fairness that aims to mitigate concerns about discrimination that is introduced in the process of learning a predictor from data. The second notion studies fair classification within the versatile framework of Dwork et al. [ITCS 2012], which assumes the existence of a metric that measures similarity between pairs of individuals. Unlike previous works on metric-based fairness, we study the setting where a learning algorithm does not know the entire metric, but can query similarities between particular pairs of individuals a bounded number of times. We note that we do not make any assumption on the metric and are still able to obtain meaningful protection from systemic discrimination that we refer to as “metric multifairness.”
The talk will be focused on the various ways in which algorithmic fairness can be defined but will also elude to some of the ways in which it can be obtained. It is based on joint works with Úrsula Hébert-Johnson, Michael P. Kim and Guy Rothblum.
Speaker: Nicole Immorlica
Title: Fair Classification and Learning
Abstract: Classification, learning, and optimization algorithms are increasingly used to make decisions of social consequence. An automated resume reader classifies applicants, deciding which are worth interviewing. A learning algorithm estimates the impact of a drug on health outcomes. A facility location algorithm chooses where to locate new warehouses. For these algorithms to be useful, practitioners strive to maximize their accuracy and optimality. However, this can result in differential treatment across population subgroups, resulting in a sense of inequity. Fairness metrics are used to measure the degree of inequity. In this talk, we explore how to jointly optimize fairness and accuracy using, as a black box, existing algorithms that optimize accuracy or optimality. Our first solution is tailored to classification tasks and proposes decoupling the classification task, using different classifiers for each subgroup. Our second solution can optimize any smooth and continuous function of accuracy and fairness in classification, learning, and optimization settings. It further has the advantage that subgroup membership, while used to train, is not used at run time. This additional power comes with the cost of added computational complexity in training.
Title: Fair Classification and Learning
Abstract: Classification, learning, and optimization algorithms are increasingly used to make decisions of social consequence. An automated resume reader classifies applicants, deciding which are worth interviewing. A learning algorithm estimates the impact of a drug on health outcomes. A facility location algorithm chooses where to locate new warehouses. For these algorithms to be useful, practitioners strive to maximize their accuracy and optimality. However, this can result in differential treatment across population subgroups, resulting in a sense of inequity. Fairness metrics are used to measure the degree of inequity. In this talk, we explore how to jointly optimize fairness and accuracy using, as a black box, existing algorithms that optimize accuracy or optimality. Our first solution is tailored to classification tasks and proposes decoupling the classification task, using different classifiers for each subgroup. Our second solution can optimize any smooth and continuous function of accuracy and fairness in classification, learning, and optimization settings. It further has the advantage that subgroup membership, while used to train, is not used at run time. This additional power comes with the cost of added computational complexity in training.
Saturday, June 9, 2018
Gaming the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
One of the big lessons of market design is that participants have big strategy sets. Here's a new paper that explores some of what that has implied about how the Affordable Care Act is gamed by some participants.
Take-Up, Drop-Out, and Spending in ACA Marketplaces
Rebecca Diamond, Michael J. Dickstein, Timothy McQuade, Petra Persson
NBER Working Paper No. 24668
Issued in May 2018
NBER Program(s):Health Care, Public Economics, Industrial Organization
Issued in May 2018
NBER Program(s):Health Care, Public Economics, Industrial Organization
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) established health insurance marketplaces where consumers can buy individual coverage. Leveraging novel credit card and bank account micro-data, we identify new enrollees in the California marketplace and measure their health spending and premium payments. Following enrollment, we observe dramatic spikes in individuals' health care consumption. We also document widespread attrition, with more than half of all new enrollees dropping coverage before the end of the plan year. Enrollees who drop out re-time health spending to the months of insurance coverage. This drop-out behavior generates a new type of adverse selection: insurers face high costs relative to the premiums collected when they enroll strategic consumers. We show that the pattern of attrition undermines market stability and can drive insurers to exit, even absent differences in enrollees' underlying health risks. Further, using data on plan price increases, we show that insurers largely shift the costs of attrition to non-drop-out enrollees, whose inertia generates low price sensitivity. Our results suggest that campaigns to improve use of social insurance may be more efficient when they jointly target take-up and attrition.
Friday, June 8, 2018
Parag Pathak interview on designing theories for the real world
Here's the introduction, click on the link to read more, or to hear the audio recording.
Designing theories for the real world
The AEA interviews 2018 John Bates Clark Medalist Parag Pathak.
by Chris Fleisher
Designing theories for the real world
The AEA interviews 2018 John Bates Clark Medalist Parag Pathak.
by Chris Fleisher
He’s been hailed for pushing the boundaries of market design theory while making it practical to real-world situations.
Parag Pathak is this year’s winner of the John Bates Clark Medal. The 37-year-old MIT professor has worked to improve the assignment of students to public schools, notably in Boston, and also evaluated the impacts of school choice systems on student outcomes.
And while his theoretical work has won him widespread praise, he says his engineering-oriented approach to economics has helped him figure out which problems are of greatest practical importance.
The AEA spoke with Pathak about his research, the influence of his mentor and former AEA president Al Roth, the criticisms against economic theorists, and the opportunities to shape public policy.
An edited transcript follows and the full-length interview can be heard by clicking on the media player..."
Thursday, June 7, 2018
Salaries of new lawyers at big law firms are on the move
After a long period of stagnation, salaries of lawyers in associate positions at large law firms recently started to move, and are climbing (probably in lockstep) once again.
Above the Law has the story:
New York To $190K — No, Cravath Didn’t Make The First Move
The next associate salary war is beginning.
and here:
Salary Wars Scorecard: Which Firms Have Announced Raises? (2018)
and here
See earlier posts:
Above the Law has the story:
New York To $190K — No, Cravath Didn’t Make The First Move
The next associate salary war is beginning.
and here:
Salary Wars Scorecard: Which Firms Have Announced Raises? (2018)
and here
The Billion-Dollar Biglaw Firms That Have NOT Raised Associate Salaries
See earlier posts:
Sunday, July 3, 2016
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
Repugnant markets: listen to my Philosophy Talk chat with Ken Taylor and Debra Satz
Below is a link to the audio recording of my Sunday radio chat on Philosophy Talk:
Repugnant Markets: Should Everything Be For Sale?
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
Airbnb in Paris
The FT has an informative story about Airbnb's large footprint in Paris, the nuanced effects this has on the city, and French attempts at regulation:
Airbnb: ‘It’s a cash machine. It’s magical. You are paid to go on holiday’
"The home-sharing site’s number one destination is Paris, where it stands accused of driving up rents and house prices"
Airbnb: ‘It’s a cash machine. It’s magical. You are paid to go on holiday’
"The home-sharing site’s number one destination is Paris, where it stands accused of driving up rents and house prices"
Monday, June 4, 2018
The job market(s) for professional psychologists: history and current issues
Various parts of the psychology job market resolved problems of thickness, congestion and incentives by adopting centralized clearinghouses. For other parts of the job market, those issues persist. Here's a recent article, and some snippets from it regarding this history.
Recruitment and selection in health service psychology postdoctoral training: A review of the history and current issues.
Bodin, Doug; Schmidt, Joel P.; Lemle, Russell B.; Roper, Brad L.; Goldberg, Robert W.; Hill, Kimberly R.; Perry-Parrish, Carisa; Williams, Sharon E.; Kuemmel, Angela; Siegel, Wayne.
Training and Education in Professional Psychology © 2017 American Psychological Association
2018, Vol. 12, No. 2, 74 – 81
"Pursuing a career in health service psychology involves navigating three broad stages of training: graduate school, doctoral internship, and postdoctoral training. Each stage involves distinct procedures for recruitment and selection. The purpose of this article is to review the history of and current issues involved in the recruitment and selection process for postdoctoral training in health service psychology. In this review, we will discuss the specialty of clinical neuropsychology separately as that specialty has a formal computerized match and therefore faces subsequent challenges that are distinct from, but in some ways mirror, the faced broadly by health service psychology postdoctoral training programs.
...
"The current computerized matching psychology internship selection process began in 1998–1999, 10 years after an earlier trial, rejection, and reintroduction (Keilin, 2000). Prior to the introduction of computerized matching, the internship selection process relied on the “uniform notification day” (UND) system for more than 25 years. This process of internship offers and acceptances shortened from an initial offer and acceptance period of 9 days to 4 hours (Keilin, 1998). In 1988–1989, there was a trial period to evaluate the effectiveness of a computer-based algorithm match process. Although the outcomes showed a significant improvement over the UND, there was a lack of full participation by internship sites that appeared to have a detrimental impact on the outcomes observed (Keilin, 1998). Recurrent discussion within the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers (APPIC) reflected gradually shifting approval, from a vote of 55% to 45% to retain the UND in 1990, to 77% approval to move to a computer-based match system by May 1998 for immediate implementation for the 1998–1999 recruitment year.
...
"There were wide-spread reports of both applicants and programs accepting less preferred choices due to the fear of not securing or filling a position within the UND window. APPIC responded by clarifying the rules with a prohibition against sites soliciting rank information (Constantine & Keilin, 1996). APPIC voted to proceed with a computer-based match process in 1998 using a match algorithm similar to the National Residency Match Program (Roth & Peranson, 1999). The computer-match system transcends difficulties on both sides by providing an equitable solution designed to provide the best possible match for all parties involved (Keilin, 1998). This solution reduces the pressure associated with short decision-making times and has the benefit of reducing the gridlock associated with UND (Roth & Xing, 1997).
...
"The computerized match has been used every year since, and it is now widely considered the optimal process for doctoral internship selection.
"The recruitment and selection process at the postdoctoral level remains in an evolutionary stage at the present time. Coordination of the psychology postdoctoral selection market is complicated by the fact that it is actually made up of multiple submarkets. Psychology interns may consider several options for their next professional experience, including an entry-level job, a research fellowship, a general clinical psychology fellowship, or a postdoctoral fellowship in a specialty practice area (e.g., neuropsychology, health psychology, clinical child psychology, or forensic psychology). Several of these submarkets have different timelines. For example, entry-level jobs and research fellowships are dependent on idiosyncratic funding streams and employment needs and, as such, may not realistically be expected to adhere to a coordinated timeline.
...
"In 2003, there was renewed effort to establish more systemization to protect applicants from being forced into making decisions about early offers that did not reflect their true preferences.
...
"As part of a 2009 APPIC biennial conference presentation, Lemle proposed a modified selection process with an additional feature intended to make participation more attractive to programs. The additional feature would allow applicants who received an early offer from a nonparticipating site to contact a preferred program to pledge they would accept a “reciprocal offer” should one be extended. A UND with reciprocal offer option (UNDr) assured programs that their top applicants who also wished to come to their site would not be lost to competing offers.
...
" Beginning in Fall, 2016, the APPIC postdoctoral workgroup took strides to address several proximal recommendations borne in the summit. First, the workgroup further refined the Postdoctoral Selection Guidelines (PSG) for positions starting in 2017–2018 as a step toward developing a clear and transparent system that would allow applicants sufficient time to consider offers (applicants were allowed 24 hr to consider offers) and allow programs the time needed to interview applicants. A primary aim of the PSG is to decrease the significant stress on both applicants and training directors. The PSG address multiple stages of the selection process impacting trainees including reasonable interview notification timing, consideration of remote interview formats, postponing offers until the UND, and proper use of the reciprocal offer option (UNDr).
...
"The APPIC postdoctoral workgroup also followed the summit recommendation to spearhead the development of a centralized listing of postdoctoral positions, the Universal Psychology Postdoctoral Directory (UPPD), that is free for both APPIC and non-APPIC member programs.
...
"Clinical neuropsychology has a distinct history that is informative when considering the issues discussed in this article. Most notably, there is currently a formal computerized match for postdoctoral selection in clinical neuropsychology (Belanger et al., 2013; Bodin, Roper, O’Toole, & Haines, 2016). Prior to 1994, there was no organized process for recruitment and selection in clinical neuropsychology.
...
"In 2001, APPCN partnered with NMS to conduct a computerized match for postdoctoral selection in clinical neuropsychology that has continued to the present day. The APPCN match employs the same algorithm used for the psychology internship match, but dissimilarities across the two recruiting environments have contributed to differences in the success of the two systems over the years. Since its inception, the internship match has enjoyed virtually universal participation by programs. Importantly, the APPCN match was introduced without a clear understanding of the total universe of positions being offered by neuropsychology postdoctoral programs, and those outside of APPCN were not a part of an organized group interested in centralized recruitment. Years later, Belanger et al. (2013) estimated that roughly two thirds of available positions were offered in the APPCN match. Withdrawal rates for applicants initially registering for the APPCN match have ranged from 26% to 37% over the past 10 years and have been stable from 34 and 36% for the last five years. Although some applicants withdraw for personal reasons, the most common reason has been to accept offers from independent programs prior to the rank-order list (ROL) deadline for the APPCN match.
Recruitment and selection in health service psychology postdoctoral training: A review of the history and current issues.
Bodin, Doug; Schmidt, Joel P.; Lemle, Russell B.; Roper, Brad L.; Goldberg, Robert W.; Hill, Kimberly R.; Perry-Parrish, Carisa; Williams, Sharon E.; Kuemmel, Angela; Siegel, Wayne.
Training and Education in Professional Psychology © 2017 American Psychological Association
2018, Vol. 12, No. 2, 74 – 81
"Pursuing a career in health service psychology involves navigating three broad stages of training: graduate school, doctoral internship, and postdoctoral training. Each stage involves distinct procedures for recruitment and selection. The purpose of this article is to review the history of and current issues involved in the recruitment and selection process for postdoctoral training in health service psychology. In this review, we will discuss the specialty of clinical neuropsychology separately as that specialty has a formal computerized match and therefore faces subsequent challenges that are distinct from, but in some ways mirror, the faced broadly by health service psychology postdoctoral training programs.
...
"The current computerized matching psychology internship selection process began in 1998–1999, 10 years after an earlier trial, rejection, and reintroduction (Keilin, 2000). Prior to the introduction of computerized matching, the internship selection process relied on the “uniform notification day” (UND) system for more than 25 years. This process of internship offers and acceptances shortened from an initial offer and acceptance period of 9 days to 4 hours (Keilin, 1998). In 1988–1989, there was a trial period to evaluate the effectiveness of a computer-based algorithm match process. Although the outcomes showed a significant improvement over the UND, there was a lack of full participation by internship sites that appeared to have a detrimental impact on the outcomes observed (Keilin, 1998). Recurrent discussion within the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers (APPIC) reflected gradually shifting approval, from a vote of 55% to 45% to retain the UND in 1990, to 77% approval to move to a computer-based match system by May 1998 for immediate implementation for the 1998–1999 recruitment year.
...
"There were wide-spread reports of both applicants and programs accepting less preferred choices due to the fear of not securing or filling a position within the UND window. APPIC responded by clarifying the rules with a prohibition against sites soliciting rank information (Constantine & Keilin, 1996). APPIC voted to proceed with a computer-based match process in 1998 using a match algorithm similar to the National Residency Match Program (Roth & Peranson, 1999). The computer-match system transcends difficulties on both sides by providing an equitable solution designed to provide the best possible match for all parties involved (Keilin, 1998). This solution reduces the pressure associated with short decision-making times and has the benefit of reducing the gridlock associated with UND (Roth & Xing, 1997).
...
"The computerized match has been used every year since, and it is now widely considered the optimal process for doctoral internship selection.
"The recruitment and selection process at the postdoctoral level remains in an evolutionary stage at the present time. Coordination of the psychology postdoctoral selection market is complicated by the fact that it is actually made up of multiple submarkets. Psychology interns may consider several options for their next professional experience, including an entry-level job, a research fellowship, a general clinical psychology fellowship, or a postdoctoral fellowship in a specialty practice area (e.g., neuropsychology, health psychology, clinical child psychology, or forensic psychology). Several of these submarkets have different timelines. For example, entry-level jobs and research fellowships are dependent on idiosyncratic funding streams and employment needs and, as such, may not realistically be expected to adhere to a coordinated timeline.
...
"In 2003, there was renewed effort to establish more systemization to protect applicants from being forced into making decisions about early offers that did not reflect their true preferences.
...
"As part of a 2009 APPIC biennial conference presentation, Lemle proposed a modified selection process with an additional feature intended to make participation more attractive to programs. The additional feature would allow applicants who received an early offer from a nonparticipating site to contact a preferred program to pledge they would accept a “reciprocal offer” should one be extended. A UND with reciprocal offer option (UNDr) assured programs that their top applicants who also wished to come to their site would not be lost to competing offers.
...
" Beginning in Fall, 2016, the APPIC postdoctoral workgroup took strides to address several proximal recommendations borne in the summit. First, the workgroup further refined the Postdoctoral Selection Guidelines (PSG) for positions starting in 2017–2018 as a step toward developing a clear and transparent system that would allow applicants sufficient time to consider offers (applicants were allowed 24 hr to consider offers) and allow programs the time needed to interview applicants. A primary aim of the PSG is to decrease the significant stress on both applicants and training directors. The PSG address multiple stages of the selection process impacting trainees including reasonable interview notification timing, consideration of remote interview formats, postponing offers until the UND, and proper use of the reciprocal offer option (UNDr).
...
"The APPIC postdoctoral workgroup also followed the summit recommendation to spearhead the development of a centralized listing of postdoctoral positions, the Universal Psychology Postdoctoral Directory (UPPD), that is free for both APPIC and non-APPIC member programs.
...
"Clinical neuropsychology has a distinct history that is informative when considering the issues discussed in this article. Most notably, there is currently a formal computerized match for postdoctoral selection in clinical neuropsychology (Belanger et al., 2013; Bodin, Roper, O’Toole, & Haines, 2016). Prior to 1994, there was no organized process for recruitment and selection in clinical neuropsychology.
...
"In 2001, APPCN partnered with NMS to conduct a computerized match for postdoctoral selection in clinical neuropsychology that has continued to the present day. The APPCN match employs the same algorithm used for the psychology internship match, but dissimilarities across the two recruiting environments have contributed to differences in the success of the two systems over the years. Since its inception, the internship match has enjoyed virtually universal participation by programs. Importantly, the APPCN match was introduced without a clear understanding of the total universe of positions being offered by neuropsychology postdoctoral programs, and those outside of APPCN were not a part of an organized group interested in centralized recruitment. Years later, Belanger et al. (2013) estimated that roughly two thirds of available positions were offered in the APPCN match. Withdrawal rates for applicants initially registering for the APPCN match have ranged from 26% to 37% over the past 10 years and have been stable from 34 and 36% for the last five years. Although some applicants withdraw for personal reasons, the most common reason has been to accept offers from independent programs prior to the rank-order list (ROL) deadline for the APPCN match.
Sunday, June 3, 2018
Repugnant markets on the radio
Repugnant Markets on the radio: I'll join Ken Taylor and Debra Satz on Philosophy Talk today, June 3
"We might ban buying or selling horse meat in the US not for the protection of horses, but because we find it morally repugnant. Yet this moral repugnance is clearly not universal, and on some level may even be arbitrary, given France's attitude toward horse meat. What role, if any, should moral repugnance play in determining the rules of our marketplaces? Even if we want to eliminate the influence of moral repugnance, can we? Debra and Ken hold their noses with Al Roth from Stanford University, author of Who Gets What ― and Why: The New Economics of Matchmaking and Market Design."
Get Philosophy Talk
Radio
Sunday at 11am (pacific) on KALW 91.7 FM Local Public Radio, San Francisc
REPUGNANT MARKETS, Ken Taylor
*************
Update: and here we are at KALW:
 |
| Ken Taylor, Debra Satz, and Al Roth in the studio at Philosophy Talk https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeyV20-VQAAApPH.jpg |
Repugnant markets: listen to my Philosophy Talk chat with Ken Taylor and Debra Satz
Saturday, June 2, 2018
The Economist on blood plasma
The Economist comments on Canada's repugnance towards paying Canadians to donate blood plasma (when you can buy as much as you need from U.S. donors..see previous posts.)
Vital fluids
America’s booming blood-plasma industry
Paid-for plasma is both less exploitative than often recognised, and invaluable
"The World Health Organisation lists immunoglobulins and coagulation factors—both plasma-derived products—as essential medicines. Yet poor countries are often desperate for them and rich countries rely on American imports. Without financial incentives, supplies are hard to come by. “It’s not in people’s nature”, says Mr From, “to let a phlebotomist poke a needle in your arm and suck your blood out.”
**********
Vein attempts
Bans on paying for human blood distort a vital global market
The market in life-saving blood-plasma products depends on Americans who are paid for it
"The global demand for plasma is growing, and cannot be met through altruistic donations alone. Global plasma exports were worth $126bn in 2016—more than exports of aeroplanes. But paid plasma raises ethical, social and medical concerns: that it will lead to health catastrophes, as in the 1980s when tainted blood spread HIV and hepatitis; that it exploits the poor; and that it reduces the supply of “whole” blood, which is almost all donated voluntarily.
"None of these worries is well-founded. But Canadian reservations about paid plasma are shared across most of the world. America, China, parts of Canada and some European countries are among the few places that permit it. Those countries are extremely effective in securing supplies: three-quarters are collected in America alone, and another 10% in China, Germany, Hungary and Austria, where payment is also allowed. Of over 1,000 plasma-collection centres worldwide, 700 are in America. Jan Bult, head of a trade association representing companies that manufacture more than half of the world’s plasma products, says none collects plasma in countries that have banned compensation.
"Only countries that pay for plasma are self-sufficient in it. (Italy, where donors are given time off work, is close to self-sufficiency.) Half of America’s plasma is shipped to Europe—20m contributions-worth. Canada imports 80% of its plasma products from America. Australia imports 40% of its plasma products, too.
"Drug firms from countries that have banned pay-for-plasma do much of their collection in America. Three of the largest collection companies are European: Grifols of Spain, Shire of Ireland and Octapharma of Switzerland. The parent company of another big collector, CSL Behring, is Australian. Together these four firms run nearly eight out of ten plasma-collection centres. Some of their manufacturing capacity is in America, but much is located elsewhere. Switzerland, which collects very little plasma, exported $26bn-worth of plasma products in 2016.
...
It remains legal to pay for whole-blood donation in America today. But hospitals refuse to accept it. Today’s plasma, however, is safe from the contamination risks of the past. Modern screening and sanitisation are extremely effective. Graham Sher, chief executive of Canadian Blood Services, a non-profit, says plasma products from paid donors are “as safe as those from our unpaid donors”.
Other prejudices against pay-for-plasma are equally deep-seated. Some data, for example, lend weight to the suspicion that it preys on the poor. American plasma centres are concentrated in less well-off bits of the country. Typically they are in postal districts where 27.4% of the population are poor, according to The Economist’s analysis of census data. This is much higher than the average American poverty rate of 16.5%.
The other worry, shared by Dr Sher, is that paying for plasma may lead to a reduction in whole-blood donation. But, if that were true, the problem would be intensifying, as pay-for-plasma centres have nearly doubled worldwide in the past five years. But Peter Jaworski, of Georgetown University, is sceptical, suggesting that, anecdotes aside, the evidence shows paid plasma donation “does not crowd out voluntary blood-donation”. Americans, for example, continue to donate as much voluntary blood per head as do Canadians.
The aversion to paid-for plasma carries its own risks. According to Grifols, the geographic imbalance puts supplies of plasma products at risk. At the plasma industry’s main annual conference, held this year in Budapest in March, over-reliance on imports from America was a hot topic. Representatives from several countries (including Canada) recognised they must do more to diversify their supplies. Making it legal to pay for plasma is an obvious first step."
This article appeared in the International section of the print edition under the headline "Thicker than water"
Print edition | International
May 10th 2018
*************
And here's a letter to the editor https://www.economist.com/letters/2018/06/02/letters-to-the-editor. (The highlighted sentence seems to reflect that the editor who decides what letters to publish is a different person than the economics editor who writes that I study repugnance only to dismiss it, and whose views I remarked on here and here.)
"In your series of articles advocating for payments to plasma donors, you stress the positive supply effects that payments may have. Appeals to increased efficiency, however important, are unlikely to persuade politicians and the public when the opposition to payments resides in deep-rooted ethical concerns. Starting with the seminal work of Nobel laureate Alvin Roth, economists have begun to seriously consider how to design effective market mechanisms while respecting moral beliefs, in order to reach a virtuous balance in the trade-offs between morality and efficiency.
"Based also on our own research on ethically contentious transactions, we would suggest that policymakers collect two types of evidence before adopting extreme policies such as outright bans. First, pilot projects would help assessing the impact of various policy options. Second, policymakers should inform the public about this evidence, and take into account the ensuing prevailing opinions and ethical concerns in the population, instead of being based on pressures (in one direction or the other) from vocal but often scarcely representative groups.
NICOLA LACETERA
University of Toronto
MARIO MACIS
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland
Vital fluids
America’s booming blood-plasma industry
Paid-for plasma is both less exploitative than often recognised, and invaluable
"The World Health Organisation lists immunoglobulins and coagulation factors—both plasma-derived products—as essential medicines. Yet poor countries are often desperate for them and rich countries rely on American imports. Without financial incentives, supplies are hard to come by. “It’s not in people’s nature”, says Mr From, “to let a phlebotomist poke a needle in your arm and suck your blood out.”
**********
Vein attempts
Bans on paying for human blood distort a vital global market
The market in life-saving blood-plasma products depends on Americans who are paid for it
"The global demand for plasma is growing, and cannot be met through altruistic donations alone. Global plasma exports were worth $126bn in 2016—more than exports of aeroplanes. But paid plasma raises ethical, social and medical concerns: that it will lead to health catastrophes, as in the 1980s when tainted blood spread HIV and hepatitis; that it exploits the poor; and that it reduces the supply of “whole” blood, which is almost all donated voluntarily.
"None of these worries is well-founded. But Canadian reservations about paid plasma are shared across most of the world. America, China, parts of Canada and some European countries are among the few places that permit it. Those countries are extremely effective in securing supplies: three-quarters are collected in America alone, and another 10% in China, Germany, Hungary and Austria, where payment is also allowed. Of over 1,000 plasma-collection centres worldwide, 700 are in America. Jan Bult, head of a trade association representing companies that manufacture more than half of the world’s plasma products, says none collects plasma in countries that have banned compensation.
"Only countries that pay for plasma are self-sufficient in it. (Italy, where donors are given time off work, is close to self-sufficiency.) Half of America’s plasma is shipped to Europe—20m contributions-worth. Canada imports 80% of its plasma products from America. Australia imports 40% of its plasma products, too.
"Drug firms from countries that have banned pay-for-plasma do much of their collection in America. Three of the largest collection companies are European: Grifols of Spain, Shire of Ireland and Octapharma of Switzerland. The parent company of another big collector, CSL Behring, is Australian. Together these four firms run nearly eight out of ten plasma-collection centres. Some of their manufacturing capacity is in America, but much is located elsewhere. Switzerland, which collects very little plasma, exported $26bn-worth of plasma products in 2016.
...
It remains legal to pay for whole-blood donation in America today. But hospitals refuse to accept it. Today’s plasma, however, is safe from the contamination risks of the past. Modern screening and sanitisation are extremely effective. Graham Sher, chief executive of Canadian Blood Services, a non-profit, says plasma products from paid donors are “as safe as those from our unpaid donors”.
Other prejudices against pay-for-plasma are equally deep-seated. Some data, for example, lend weight to the suspicion that it preys on the poor. American plasma centres are concentrated in less well-off bits of the country. Typically they are in postal districts where 27.4% of the population are poor, according to The Economist’s analysis of census data. This is much higher than the average American poverty rate of 16.5%.
The other worry, shared by Dr Sher, is that paying for plasma may lead to a reduction in whole-blood donation. But, if that were true, the problem would be intensifying, as pay-for-plasma centres have nearly doubled worldwide in the past five years. But Peter Jaworski, of Georgetown University, is sceptical, suggesting that, anecdotes aside, the evidence shows paid plasma donation “does not crowd out voluntary blood-donation”. Americans, for example, continue to donate as much voluntary blood per head as do Canadians.
The aversion to paid-for plasma carries its own risks. According to Grifols, the geographic imbalance puts supplies of plasma products at risk. At the plasma industry’s main annual conference, held this year in Budapest in March, over-reliance on imports from America was a hot topic. Representatives from several countries (including Canada) recognised they must do more to diversify their supplies. Making it legal to pay for plasma is an obvious first step."
This article appeared in the International section of the print edition under the headline "Thicker than water"
Print edition | International
May 10th 2018
*************
And here's a letter to the editor https://www.economist.com/letters/2018/06/02/letters-to-the-editor. (The highlighted sentence seems to reflect that the editor who decides what letters to publish is a different person than the economics editor who writes that I study repugnance only to dismiss it, and whose views I remarked on here and here.)
"In your series of articles advocating for payments to plasma donors, you stress the positive supply effects that payments may have. Appeals to increased efficiency, however important, are unlikely to persuade politicians and the public when the opposition to payments resides in deep-rooted ethical concerns. Starting with the seminal work of Nobel laureate Alvin Roth, economists have begun to seriously consider how to design effective market mechanisms while respecting moral beliefs, in order to reach a virtuous balance in the trade-offs between morality and efficiency.
"Based also on our own research on ethically contentious transactions, we would suggest that policymakers collect two types of evidence before adopting extreme policies such as outright bans. First, pilot projects would help assessing the impact of various policy options. Second, policymakers should inform the public about this evidence, and take into account the ensuing prevailing opinions and ethical concerns in the population, instead of being based on pressures (in one direction or the other) from vocal but often scarcely representative groups.
NICOLA LACETERA
University of Toronto
MARIO MACIS
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland
Friday, June 1, 2018
Gratitude for an organ donation
Only a curmudgeon (and I know some) would think of this as (illegal) donor compensation.
Here's a story from the Greeley, Colorado Tribune
Labor of Love: Husband of former city councilwoman works to restore old car for kidney donor
Here's a story from the Greeley, Colorado Tribune
Labor of Love: Husband of former city councilwoman works to restore old car for kidney donor
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Kidney exchange takes another step forward in Mexico: Pro-Renal
My recent visit was to speak about kidney transplantation in Mexico, and to raise awareness of and support for the new kidney exchange network, Pro-Renal, which has already collaborated successfully with the Alliance for Paired Donation (APD).
Kidney exchange (and international cooperation for global kidney exchange) received a lot of favorable press, here are some reports.
In Forbes Mexico:
Cada año mueren 7 millones por falta de un trasplante de riñón: Alvin E. Roth
Para el Premio Nobel, las barreras que impiden un trasplante renal deberían ser derribadas, porque los tratamientos más costosos son también los que rezagan los mejores resultados.
Jessica Martínez, mayo 23, 2018
[Google Translate: Every year 7 million die in the absence of a kidney transplant: Alvin E. Roth ... the barriers that prevent a kidney transplant should be demolished, because the most expensive treatments are also those that lag behind the best results."
***********
Anuncian campaña para duplicar el número de trasplantes renales en México
mayo 24, 2018
Kidney exchange (and international cooperation for global kidney exchange) received a lot of favorable press, here are some reports.
In Forbes Mexico:
Cada año mueren 7 millones por falta de un trasplante de riñón: Alvin E. Roth
Para el Premio Nobel, las barreras que impiden un trasplante renal deberían ser derribadas, porque los tratamientos más costosos son también los que rezagan los mejores resultados.
Jessica Martínez, mayo 23, 2018
[Google Translate: Every year 7 million die in the absence of a kidney transplant: Alvin E. Roth ... the barriers that prevent a kidney transplant should be demolished, because the most expensive treatments are also those that lag behind the best results."
***********
Anuncian campaña para duplicar el número de trasplantes renales en México
mayo 24, 2018
 |
| Rafael Pardo, Mike Rees, Al Roth, Marisol Robles, Arturo Dib Kuri |
************
Llega a Mexico la nonacion renal pareada [Paired renal donation arrives in Mexico]
*************
Llega a Mexico la nonacion renal pareada [Paired renal donation arrives in Mexico]
*************
**********
Un algoritmo, para salvar vidas [An algorithm to save lives...]
***********
Aplicarán algoritmo en México para hallar donantes de riñón
25/05/2018 05:31 XIMENA MEJÍA
*********
Aplicarán algoritmo en México para hallar donantes de riñón
25/05/2018 05:31 XIMENA MEJÍA
*********
***************
Buscan salvar vidas con algoritmo para trasplantes [They seek to save lives with an algorithm for transplants]
En México, con algorismos de compatibilidad se buscará donación de riñones
********
mayo 28, 2018
*********
México ya tiene su ‘tinder’ para riñones BÁRBARA ANDERSON 08.06.2018
*****************
*********
México ya tiene su ‘tinder’ para riñones BÁRBARA ANDERSON 08.06.2018
*****************
**********
Update: here's a story from an interview that must have been conducted during that visit that came out only in September:
ENTREVISTADOS • SEPTIEMBRE 17, 2018
Alvin Roth, Premio Nobel de Economía 2012
photos: Bruno Sánchez
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Martine Quinzii, RIP
This sad news about Martine Quinzii comes from the Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory.
In Memoriam: Martine Quinzii
"Our friend and colleague passed away on May 25, 2018 after a long illness that she faced with both courage and dignity.
"Our friend and colleague passed away on May 25, 2018 after a long illness that she faced with both courage and dignity.
She was a central figure of the Mathematical Economics community, inspiring us by her powerful intellectual agenda, sharp presence in academic gatherings, and irresistible enthusiasm for the reach of General Equilibrium analysis. Her PhD thesis on the core in production economies and its decentralization by marginal cost pricing attracted early attention, and her 1984 analysis of assignment economies is the first general existence result in economies with indivisible goods and money. But her most influential contribution is to the analysis of financial markets, to which, with her husband Michael Magill, she devoted a quarter century of her immense energy. This culminated in their 2008 book on the theory of Incomplete Markets, which is widely acknowledged as the best reference on the topic. The book combines mathematical rigor, formal elegance and accessibility to non-specialists. The most recent of Martine and Michael’s important contribution improves our understanding of the role of money in general equilibrium models with financial frictions. She was also a very talented lecturer and she had the ability to communicate complex ideas with passion, rigor, and clarity.
Martine studied at the Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris. She obtained her PhD in Mathematical Economics in 1986 and her Habilitation in 1988 at the University of Paris. Before her departure to the US in 1986, she taught in Aix, Marseille, and Paris and was Research Associate at the Ecole Polytechnique. In the US part of her career, she taught at the University of Southern California from 1986 to 1995 and at UC Davis from 1995 to her retirement in 2016, and she chaired the Economics Department there from 1995 to 1999.
She was a Fellow of the Econometric Society since 2000, and an Economic Theory Fellow since 2011. She served as an Associate Editor of Econometrica, Economic Theory, Journal of Mathematical Economics, and several other academic journals.
We already miss her and our thoughts go to her family and to Michael Magill, her long term partner in economics and life.
May 29, 2018
Bernard Cornet, Hervé Moulin, and Jean-Charles Rochet"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
