SF School Board Meeting, Feb 17: new choice system

At the latest public meeting of the San Francisco Board of Education (last night, Wednesday, Feb. 17), the commissioners and the public were engaged in a detailed discussion of the algorithms and priorities being proposed for the new school choice system.

Muriel Niederle explains and answers questions about the new Assignment with Transfers school choice plans being proposed (with variations for elementary school, middle school, and high schools). She comes on just after minute 36 of this video of the 3 hour meeting, and her presentation, interspersed with questions and answers, continues for a little over an hour (to minute 1:39), although she's back answering questions at the end again. Also presenting the general plan and answering questions is Orla O'Keefe, the SFUSD official leading the effort to design the new school choice system.

There's something very encouraging about seeing the public policy discussion focusing on choice systems that are non-wasteful (Pareto efficient, for you economists), strategically simple for parents (so that truthful preference revelation is a dominant strategy), and flexible (so that the school board can tweak the system in years to come without harming the first two properties). The 'political' issues are the priorities that different children have at different schools.

Another attractive aspect of the proposal (discussed by Ms. O'Keefe following Muriel's presentation) is that data would be collected each year for continual monitoring of how the choice and assignment system is working.

The discussion touches on a number of interesting questions. (Even if the algorithm makes truthful preference revelation the best strategy, there are still issues of checking e.g. addresses in any system in which priorities at schools depend on home address...). But it looks like SF is well launched on adopting a sensible, workable, well thought out and flexible framework.

Why isn't the queue longer for deceased donor kidneys?

There are approximately 80,000 people signed up on the waiting list for deceased donor kidneys in the U.S., and this list has been getting longer. We only manage to do about 11,000 deceased donor transplants a year. (There are another approx. 6000 live donor transplants per year).

Kidney exchange and other innovations in transplantation are attempts to make the list shorter.
But a different kind of public health question is, why isn't the list longer? According to the latest Kidney and Urologic Diseases Statistics for the United States, there are presently just over half a million people suffering from End Stage Renal Disease, of whom just over 350,000 are undergoing dialysis. Why aren't all these folks on the deceased donor transplant list?

Some of them may not be in a position to benefit from a transplant, e.g. they may have other critical illnesses, or may not be healthy enough to undergo major surgery. But some of them may just not be getting adequate information about transplantation. Here's a story about that from the St. Louis Post Dispatch: Program touts kidney transplants over dialysis.

"Several years ago, Amy Waterman, assistant professor of medicine and a social psychologist at Washington University, realized that most people with kidney failure go on dialysis and stay on it until they die.

She studied more than 1,000 renal patients and living donors and found that they're often so overwhelmed with information about dialysis, including necessary lifestyle changes, that they're given little or no information on kidney transplants in the crucial months after being diagnosed"
..."But time is of the essence because patients spend an average of four years on transplant waiting lists, yet only about a third of all dialysis patients live more than five years after diagnosis, Waterman says. In comparison, 70 percent to 80 percent of those who get kidney transplants live more than five years."

On a related matter, Dorry Segev of Johns Hopkins is quoted in a press release about a forthcoming article in the AJT suggesting that too few elderly patients are put on the waiting list for extended criteria deceased donor kidneys: Seniors Stymied in Wait for Kidney Transplants

Cat stew

Italian Food TV Host Under Fire For "Succulent" Cat Stew Recommendation (VIDEO)

"Leading Italian food expert, writer and TV host Beppe Bigazzi has been suspended indefinitely from his TV program for curiously recommending a cat stew to viewers, and explaining a rough method of preparation. Bigazzi's spectacle occurred on a recent episode of his midday show, La Prova del Cuoco ("The proof of the cook"), which appears on Italy's main public broadcasting channel, RAI.
Said Bigazzi, as his co-host (and cat-owner) Elisa Isoardi nervously looked on, "I've eaten it myself and it's a lot better than many other animals. Better than chicken, rabbit or pigeon... I've eaten its delicious white meat many times."
Leading animal rights groups in Italy are predictably enraged. The Italian Animal Protection Agency has called for his firing, explaining, "anyone who goes on television to promote the taste of cat meat is guilty of instigating viewers to commit an act of cruelty to animals, a crime punishable by up to 18 months in prison."
Italy's Deputy Health Minister, Francesca Martini, decried Bigazzi's rant as well, saying it was "absolutely unheard of for a public service broadcaster to tell people how delicious cats are to eat" and "offensive to the growing number of people who care about the way we treat animals." She also noted that "cats are pets protected by law [against] cruelty, maltreatment and abandonment."
Bigazzi, previously the author of "Cooking with Common Sense," has since explained that he was joking, although he indeed has enjoyed feasting on cat. "Mind you, I wasn't joking all that much. In the 1930s and 1940s, when I was a boy, people certainly did eat cat in the countryside around Arezzo," he explained. "

HT: Bettina Klaus

Matrimony and dating sites with attitude

The NY Times reports on the market for online dating and marriage sites that have ideas about who should be matched with whom: Better Loving Through Chemistry.

"Now, a handful of dating Web sites are competing to impose some science, or at least some structure, on the quest for love by using different kinds of tests to winnow the selection process. In short, each of these sites is aiming to be the Netflix of love.
Instead of using a proprietary algorithm to recommend movies you might enjoy, based on your past choices, however, these dating sites offer you a list of romantic candidates whose selection is based on proprietary analyses of personality characteristics or biological markers.

Consider ScientificMatch.com, founded about two years ago, which aims to create romantic chemistry via genetic testing. The site, which matches people based on certain genetic markers for the immune system, takes its cue from studies showing that women are more attracted to the smell of men who have very different immune systems from their own. The site charges $1,995.95 for a lifetime membership — the lofty fee includes a cheek swabbing kit, DNA processing, a criminal and bankruptcy background check, as well as verification of age and marital status, the site says.
Then there’s Chemistry.com, started in 2006 by the dating giant Match.com. Helen Fisher, the biological anthropologist who developed Chemistry.com’s questionnaire, says the site is designed to predict compatibility based on traits of temperament like adventurousness, decisiveness or empathy. And it charges a premium for its services: about $50 for a one-month membership, compared with about $35 for Match.com.
But both ScientificMatch.com and Chemistry.com are refinements of an idea originally developed by eHarmony.com. "

..."Online dating is a $976 million annual industry in the United States, according to estimates from Marketdata Enterprises, a research firm. So, to stand out among hundreds of mass-market, open-community sites that attract everyone from people trolling for quick hookups to those headed for holy matrimony, a few services offer more elaborate mate-finding methods.
They build brand identity when they “target people who are looking for relationships rather than just dating,” says John LaRosa, the research director at Marketdata Enterprises. That means matchmaking sites with fewer users can charge more per subscriber than larger sites that list online personals.
Match.com, with an estimated 1.2 million paid subscribers, had revenue of about $365 million in 2008, Mr. LaRosa estimates. EHarmony, meanwhile, with about 656,000 paid members, had estimated revenue of $216 million that year, he says. "

Girls and the Little League

An obituary of Judge Sylvia Pressler reminds us of some recent history: NJ Judge Who Opened Little League to Girls Dies

"While serving as a hearing examiner with New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights, Pressler ruled that a 12-year-old northern New Jersey girl should have been allowed to play on a Little League team.
''The institution of Little League is as American as the hot dog and apple pie,'' Pressler wrote in a sharply worded opinion. ''There is no reason why that part of Americana should be withheld from girls.''
The ruling was decried by Little League as ''conceived in vindictive and prejudicial fashion of the worst kind,'' but it was upheld on appeal, and New Jersey became the first state to bar sex discrimination in Little League.
By the following year, Little League amended its charter to allow girls and also created a softball division."
...
"The Little League case reached Pressler in 1973. Maria Pepe, a 12-year-old Hoboken resident, had played three games for her Little League team the year before but stopped when Little League's national office threatened to revoke the league's charter. The National Organization for Women filed a lawsuit on her behalf.
Pressler said his wife didn't consider the Little League case one of her more difficult decisions, despite its ramifications and the publicity surrounding it.
''It was an important case because of its timing,'' he said. ''But it was perfectly obvious to her that they were completely cockeyed in barring girls if they were physically able.'' "

Ending "Don't ask don't tell" in the US military

The day when gay and lesbian soldiers, sailors and airmen will be able to serve openly is coming closer, and Admiral Mike Mullen has called for an end to the makeshift compromise under which they presently serve. In the NY Times, Frank Rich notes that this has become politically feasible as the country's mood has shifted: Smoke the Bigots Out of the Closet

"Mullen’s heartfelt, plain-spoken testimony gave perfect expression to the nation’s own slow but inexorable progress on the issue. He said he had “served with homosexuals since 1968” and that his views had evolved “cumulatively” and “personally” ever since. So it has gone for many other Americans in all walks of life. As more gay people have come out — a process that accelerated once the modern gay rights movement emerged from the Stonewall riots of 1969 — so more heterosexuals have learned that they have gay relatives, friends, neighbors, teachers and co-workers. It is hard to deny our own fundamental rights to those we know, admire and love.
But that’s not the whole explanation for the scant pushback in Washington to Mullen and his partner in change, Defense Secretary Robert Gates. There is also a potent political subtext. To a degree unimaginable as recently as 2004 — when Karl Rove and George W. Bush ran a national campaign exploiting fear of gay people — there is now little political advantage to spewing homophobia. Indeed, anti-gay animus is far more likely to repel voters than attract them. "

This of course parallels the slow shift in attitude towards slavery and, presently, same sex marriage. I'm reminded of the 2004 New Yorker cartoon in which a wife is pictured, suitcase in hand, leaving her husband and explaining "There's nothing wrong with our marriage, but the spectre of gay marriage has hopelessly eroded the institution."

Update: today's NY Times also has a column on the complex relationship of women in the military, who presently aren't allowed to have combat specialties: Women's Work
"While it may be a D.O.D. policy to keep women out of combat, the reality doesn’t match the policy. Right now, a plan is being formulated to phase out “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,”, so that openly homosexual soldiers can serve in the military. If all goes according to plan, gay men will be able to serve in both combat and support units, depending on their chosen M.O.S. They will have to adhere to the same performance standards as straight male soldiers. So while we’re at it, can we phase out the policy of underestimating women? If Israel did it, why not the U.S.? Legislation like the Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act, which aims to make sure women veterans get the services they need at home, is a step in the right direction, but it only addresses a symptom of the inequality women face in the active military. In reality, American women do engage in combat, so it’s probably time to make it a written policy. If the policy changes, maybe attitudes will too."

Changes in repugnant transactions are sometimes gradual

Years from now we may look back on the gradual change in the status of same sex marriage , for example, or the ability of gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, and be puzzled at what took so long. But it's useful to look back on the abolition of slavery to get some perspective.
In 1780, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania passed An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery, starting with children born in Pennsylvania following the passage of the act, but not altering the status of slaves owned by Pennsylvanians at the time of the act.

It took another 85 years before the 13th Amendment to the Constitution declared that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." The 13th Amendment was passed by the Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the states on December 6, 1865.


HT: Volokh conspiracy

Ten at one blow

One further thought on National Donor Day. The famous fairy tale "Seven at one blow" reminds us of the power of a succinct summary.

So I was moved by this Australian white paper on organ transplantation, which highlights the phrase

"One donor can save the lives of up to ten people."

Since the paper talks about both deceased donation (of multiple organs) and live kidney donation and kidney exchange, that could refer to several things. I suspect they are thinking of deceased donors of multiple organs. But (and this is what first caught my eye), they could also be referring to the first non-simultaneous extended altruistic donor chain, organized by Mike Rees (see this post too), which accomplished ten transplants (here are the pictures of the donors and recipients from People magazine). Since then, long, non-simultaneous chains have started to become a common form of kidney exchange.

Today is (also) National Donor Day

Happy Valentine's Day! Isn't it good to love and be loved?

Food for thought: Today is also National Donor Day.

"February 14 is the 10th National Donor Day -- a day to give the gift of life.
Fill out an organ and tissue donation card, register with your State Donor Registry and make sure your family knows you want to be a donor.
Join the National Registry of potential volunteer marrow and blood stem cell donors.
Learn how you can donate your baby's umbilical cord blood stem cells at birth.
Donate blood.
Why be a Donor?
The need is great and growing.
Almost 95,000 people are in need of an organ for transplant.
Approximately 35,000 children and adults in our country have life-threatening blood diseases that could be treated by a marrow/blood stem cell or cord blood transplant.
Every two seconds someone in America needs blood, more than 39,000 units each day, according to the American Red Cross.
Why do it Today?
Valentine's Day is the day of love and donation is the gift of life. Can you think of a more loving gesture than making February 14 the day you join thousands of Americans in making the donation decision?

National Donor Day was started in 1998 by the Saturn Corporation and its United Auto Workers partners with the support of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and many nonprofit health organizations. "

Bioethics and bioethicists

Sally Satel on bioethicists:

"Ask almost any hospital physician about bioethicists and you will get, in reliable sequence, an eye roll, a sigh, and then an earful of anecdotes about swaggering cowboys posing as arbiters of right and wrong (“Wizards of Oughts,” as one critic put it). In the media, the coverage of almost any biomedical controversy is sure to contain a quotation from a bioethicist with oracular pretensions. The unmistakable message of ethics punditry is clear: anyone who disagrees with us is thoughtless or unethical.
Such arrogance discomfits some bioethicists..."

From The Right (and Wrong) Answers, her book review of Observing Bioethics by Renee C. Fox and Judith P. Swazey

And here: The Limits of Bioethics

Cheating on CS homeworks, and social pressure

The Temptation to Cheat in Computer Science Classes at Stanford is apparently great (just cut and paste some code if your assignment isn't running as the deadline nears), but the tools for catching this kind of cheating are also effectively automated.

"The number of honor code violations have prompted Professor Roberts to implement a new system. Describing this method as a “collective incentive” for students to maintain academic standards, the professor said he will add 5 percent for every honor-code violation in his class to the weight of the final exam, which is currently 15 percent of the class grade.
In other words, if one person cheats, the whole class will face more pressure on the final exam, because it will make up a greater portion of a person’s grade. Whether the scorn of fellow students is a bigger deterrent to cheating than being personally disciplined by the university remains to be seen."

Experiments on moral intuitions

As I'm not at all sure what is involved in judgments of repugnance, I follow various lines of work, including the very interesting intersection between psychology and philosophy that involves peoples' moral intuitions.

Here's a review of a book that interviews some of the researchers about their work:

Review - A Very Bad Wizard Morality Behind the Curtain by Tamler Review by Joshua May

"The distinguished interviewees are Galen Strawson, Philip Zimbardo, Franz De Waal, Michael Ruse, Joseph Henrich, Joshua Greene, Liane Young, Jonathan Haidt, Stephen Stich, and William Ian Miller.

Anti-social claiming of parking spots in South Boston (before snow has started)

A social norm in South Boston that allows people to reserve public parking spots that they have dug out of the snow is unraveling, the Globe reports: Claiming a spot before shoveling? That’s not Southie

"The trash barrels, plastic crates, and lawn chairs lining the streets of South Boston yesterday morning were hardly unusual in a neighborhood famous for its you-shovel-it, you-own-it moral code in claiming curbside parking in snow storms. But there was a difference yesterday: The place-holders were out before a flake had fallen.
Even though commuters woke up hearing forecasts for up to a foot of snow during the day, the fact that so many had staked out spots without earning them by shoveling first was too much for some longtime residents.
“That was not the original idea,’’ said Kelly Watts, a 40-year-old lifelong resident, as she frowned at a wicker stool saving a spot of dry pavement on Emerson Street near Tynan Elementary School. “We would never have done that growing up. Claiming a spot you haven’t even dug out? That’s just lazy.’’
Laying claim to curbside parking is practiced around the city, but in Southie, where residents defied mayoral orders to stop - and an army of garbage trucks he sent to dispose of place-holders - it’s considered a birthright.
Protocol has long held that shoveling is a required down payment, but increasingly drivers are snatching up spaces in advance, knowing they will be harder to come by after the snow falls. Residents say the preemptive strikes are exposing rifts.
“Whoever did this is new Southie,’’ said Eddie Phillips as he walked his dog past a claimed spot on N Street near East Broadway shortly after noon.
By then, a gallery of household items lined the streets - a plastic recylcing bin on N Street, a turned-over trash can on P, lawn chairs weighted with bricks on West Ninth.
Each makeshift marker rested on bare asphalt, untouched save a preventive dusting of salt. The anticipated storm hadn’t arrived.
“You would never have seen this in the old days. Not in a million years,’’ said Phillips, a 66-year-old who said neighbors used to stick together, not selfishly scramble to get theirs. “Back in the day, you’d shovel your spot out, then you’d shovel your neighbor’s out, then you’d save it for him so he’d have it when he got home. That’s old Southie.’’ "
...
"When she first arrived in South Boston, she respected the sanctity of parking barrels and paint cans. But then people started stealing her hard-dug spot, so she took someone else’s. Retribution was swift.
“My car got boxed in so badly I couldn’t wedge out,’’ the 49-year-old recalled with a sigh. “I went back to following the rules.’’
Paybacks like the kind Medina got led Mayor Thomas M. Menino in 2005 to declare war on the claiming of parking spaces, and he ordered city workers to remove all the markers. Furious South Boston residents, led by the late Councilor James M. Kelly, revolted.
Menino compromised, with a rule that allowed the practice as long as the markers were cleared from the street 48 hours after the end of a snow emergency.
Even with many residents dismayed now at the claiming of spots before snow has fallen, the deck furniture and picnic coolers that show up on the street go undisturbed.
“You move it, you might find it tossed through your windshield,’’ said Kevin Watts, 38."

Dispute resolution by kidnapping in Yemen

Al Jazeera reports: Abductions rife in lawless Yemen

"The government of Yemen has had to deal with years of severe internal conflicts in the north and south, crippling it from implementing an effective legal system throughout the country.
As a result, the people of Yemen have developed the practice of taking the law into their own hands.
For numerous tribes - the ancient old method of abduction - especially of children - continues to be a common way to settle disputes among one another.
Some Yemenis even accuse the government of being guilty of the same practice."

Iran's nuclear program, and incentives

A new paper argues that Iran's leaders have succeeded in making Iran's nuclear program a protected transaction, that may not respond well to ordinary incentives:
Emerging sacred values: Iran’s nuclear program by Morteza Dehghani, Rumen Iliev, Sonya Sachdeva, Scott Atran, Jeremy Ginges and Douglas Medin, Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 4, No. 7, December 2009, pp. 930–933

In a small survey, they find that Iranians who don't think Iran should give up its nuclear program "no matter how great the benefits" react more negatively to deals that involve monetary incentives.

HT: Luke Coffman

Job search in Japan

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports: In Bleak Economy, Japanese Students Grow Frustrated With Endless Job Hunt (subscription required)

"The recruiting system, which began in the early 1950s as a response to labor shortages, has caused years of tension between corporations and universities, which complain that it disrupts study."
...
"Japan is not unique in effectively forcing college students to look for jobs before graduation, but Mr. Slater says the system does demand that they start early. "They must begin figuring out what they want to do by second year," he says, "and it becomes really heavy-duty in third."
A voluntary code adopted by Japan's largest business lobbying group, the Keidanren, in 2007 does not allow companies to start recruiting graduates before October, but the code is widely flouted, say critics, with recruitment beginning as early as the summer before students' senior year."
...
"Recruitment is being pushed back earlier into the third and even the second year, says Mr. Hori, the Waseda student. "I'm as afraid as anyone of not being able to get work, but university just becomes a waste of time."
Those who miss out on recruitment the first time around are instantly relegated to the back of the pack, students agree. "You don't belong anywhere if you don't get a job straight after you graduate," says Yumi Nishikawa, also a fourth-year student at Sophia. "If you fail, you're stigmatized." "

For some background on this market, apparently not yet out of date, see

Roth, A.E. and X. Xing, "Jumping the Gun: Imperfections and Institutions Related to the Timing of Market Transactions," American Economic Review, 84, September, 1994, 992-1044.(the section on the Japanese market, focusing on the period 1970-1990 is also here.)

The market for lawyers, a modest proposal

Ashish Nanda at the Harvard Law School has a modest proposal for how the jobmarket for new associates at large law firms should be organized, particularly in light of some of the problems that have been exposed in the current recession: Lawyers Should Be Recruited Like Doctors

"The current oversupply of new associates has sent law firms scrambling to implement short-term adjustments, such as secondments and deferrals. But the legal profession needs more than temporary half-measures. The new-associate recruitment market is fundamentally broken, and it has been for some time. Incremental changes are not going to address its underlying problems. The market needs a structural fix -- a centralized matching authority, like the one that the medical profession has been using for more than half a century. "

HT: Guhan Subramanian

Jerusalem summer school in economic theory

The 21st Jerusalem Summer School in Economic Theory will be on market design writ large, namely Political Economy, from June 25-July 6, with an all star cast of lecturers.

The market for history professors

Robert Townsend of the American Historical Association reports on A Grim Year on the Academic Job Market for Historians.

"The number of job openings in history plummeted last year, even as the number of new history PhDs soared. As a result, it appears the discipline is entering one of the most difficult academic job markets for historians in more than 15 years."

Townsend concludes:

"While it is small comfort to candidates on the current job market, it is worth noting that the near perpetual sense of crisis in history employment over the past 20 years had very little to do with a diminishing number of jobs, or even the growing use of part-time and contingent faculty.
More than half of the full-time history faculty in U.S. colleges and universities have retired and been replaced over the past 20 years, while the number of full-time faculty employed in history has grown steadily.
Among the 604 departments that were listed in the Directory in 2000 as well as in 2009, the number of full-time history faculty (at the assistant, associate, or full professor level) grew by 7.6 percent—from 8,772 to 9,436 over the decade. Other federal surveys conducted over the past two decades have shown similar growth in the number of full-time jobs for historians in academia as a whole, at both two- and four-year colleges and universities.
This hiring has been buoyed by significant growth in the number of undergraduate students taking history classes. According to the most recent figures from the federal government, the number of new bachelor’s degrees in the discipline recently reached the highest point in 35 years.3
The use of part-time and adjunct faculty in the discipline undoubtedly siphoned off some potential full-time job lines for historians, but that does not appear to be the most important causative factor for the problems of the history job market. The primary problem today, as it was a decade ago, seems to lie on the supply side of the market—in the number of doctoral students being trained, and in the skills and expectations those students develop in the course of their training."

For a dissenting view on this latter paragraph, see Marc Bosquet's column: At the AHA: Huh?

Bosquet, the author of How the University Works (here is the introductory chapter) advocates more stringent licensing of who can teach history to undergraduates, to increase the demand for Ph.D.s in full time positions, by displacing graduate student teaching fellows and part time faculty.

As an economist, I was struck by several things about Bosquet's book, the first of which was in the foreword by AAUP president Cary Nelson. Nelson speaks of the need for theory to help understand the situation of university employees: "There is no escaping the great challenge...to bring theory to bear on the thirty-five-year employment crisis that has defined professional life for so many humanities graduate employees and Ph.D.s."
He then enumerates the failure to do so of "Every body of theory with broad implications for understanding our own practices...", naming each such body of theory in turn "Psychoanalytic criticism...Marxist theory...feminist theory," concluding "The one institutional site where one might have hoped for a theorized account of the job system was the Modern Language Association."

It's humbling (and perhaps illuminating) to note that nowhere do these scholars look to economics for a theory of employment...

Sex ratio and competition, in China and American colleges

With more than 120 boys born for every 100 girls in China, parents of boys know that their sons will face a competitive marriage market. Shang-Jin Wei of Columbia and Xiaobo Zhang of the International Food Policy Research Institute argue that this accounts for a substantial portion of the high savings rate in China, as parents anticiipate that wealthier sons will marry more successfully, and that this spills over to the general economy:

The Competitive Saving Motive: Evidence from Rising Sex Ratios and Savings Rates in China
NBER Working Paper No. 15093 June 2009

Abstract: While the high savings rate in China has global impact, existing explanations are incomplete. This paper proposes a competitive saving motive as a new explanation: as the country experiences a rising sex ratio imbalance, the increased competition in the marriage market has induced the Chinese, especially parents with a son, to postpone consumption in favor of wealth accumulation. The pressure on savings spills over to other households through higher costs of house purchases. Both cross-regional and household-level evidence supports this hypothesis. This factor can potentially account for about half of the actual increase in the household savings rate during 1990-2007.

And here's a summary by Wei at VOX: The mystery of Chinese savings

In the meantime, there's a shortage of boys on many American college campuses: this NY Times report suggests that this has changed the dating equilibrium in ways that concern not only savings behavior, but also sex . (The story doesn't explicitly mention savings behavior, the Times is a family newspaper): The New Math on Campus