Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Learning and adaptation in the social sciences, in the PNAS

The papers from the Learning and adaptation in the social sciences: NAS Sackler conference, January 10-11 (including my paper with Ido Erev) are now online in the 'early edition' of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS):


Here's the Abstract of that last paper, if you got this far:)

Abstract

The rationality assumption that underlies mainstream economic theory has proved to be a useful approximation, despite the fact that systematic violations to its predictions can be found. That is, the assumption of rational behavior is useful in understanding the ways in which many successful economic institutions function, although it is also true that actual human behavior falls systematically short of perfect rationality. We consider a possible explanation of this apparent inconsistency, suggesting that mechanisms that rest on the rationality assumption are likely to be successful when they create an environment in which the behavior they try to facilitate leads to the best payoff for all agents on average, and most of the time. Review of basic learning research suggests that, under these conditions, people quickly learn to maximize expected return. This review also shows that there are many situations in which experience does not increase maximization. In many cases, experience leads people to underweight rare events. In addition, the current paper suggests that it is convenient to distinguish between two behavioral approaches to improve economic analyses. The first, and more conventional approach among behavioral economists and psychologists interested in judgment and decision making, highlights violations of the rational model and proposes descriptive models that capture these violations. The second approach studies human learning to clarify the conditions under which people quickly learn to maximize expected return. The current review highlights one set of conditions of this type and shows how the understanding of these conditions can facilitate market design.

Monday, July 14, 2014

Two new labor market matching mechanisms in Israel: for psychologists, and doctors

Assaf Romm writes from Israel about the newly instituted stable matching clearinghouse for psychologists, and more briefly about the new match for Israeli doctors.

"Hello Al,

First, it was good seeing you in Israel, and it seems like you were very strategic with choosing the dates for the summer school... We are fine here, even if slightly alarmed by all the alarms. Hopefully we'll reach a cease-fire soon enough.

More market design related, let me tell you about the Israeli psychologists match, which Avinatan Hassidim and I have helped redesigning over the last year. Last Thursday (July 10) was "match day" for the Israeli psychologists match. 970 registered students were matched to 52 MA programs in 12 institutions (universities and "michlalot"). Out of the 970 students that participated, 540 were matched to a program. Out of those, 314 (58.15%) got their first choice, and 518 (95.93%) got their fifth choice or better. From what we heard from programs, they were also very pleased with the process and the results, and would like to continue using the automated matching system for years to come. Furthermore, some of them specifically mentioned that using the new system allowed them stop being strategic, and receiving students that they wouldn't have received otherwise, because they were too much of a long shot (and so, not a good strategic choice under the old system).

---

The Israeli psychology match comes to solve a problem that the psychology departments had when competing over students for clinical psychology studies (in Israel, MA in psychology represent the first step in becoming a psychotherapist). While seats in clinical programs are in very high demand, there are two things that make the process slightly difficult. The first is the restrictions on accepting students (the state enforces quotas), and the second is the competition over top students.

This created in the past a problem of unraveling that was partially solved by a gentlemen agreement among all the psychology departments. The agreement consisted of three scheduled rounds of acceptance and wait listing, such that no department may accept a candidate in any other fashion. This system required the departments to be very strategic in offering acceptances, and often ended with a blitz of calling people from waiting lists before they were being called by others.

---

In May 2013 we approached the heads of the psychology departments, got them to convene and initiated a pilot run for an automated system of admissions for all the MA degrees in psychology in Israel (not including some less competitive programs, and including all the institutions that previously were part of the gentlemen agreement). After a year of designing, implementing, announcing, and finally actually managing the preferences submission process, we finally successfully reached the deadline and the pilot was a great success.

The main obstacles we encountered during the process were:
* Convincing programs that the new matching system will not be biased in favor of large/small programs.
* Convincing applicants that the system is strategyproof, and that it is better for them compared to the old system.
* Dealing with extensive courting behavior (i.e. scholarships being offered under the table, etc.).
* Supporting complicated preferences by the programs (minority quotas, several tracks within the same program).
* Couples (since there aren't many couples, we deferred dealing with couples to next year, and we will implement the algorithm suggested by Ashlagi, Braverman and Hassidim, forthcoming).
* Dealing with politics that have to do with programs approaching candidates and informally "admitting" them prior to the match (in theory, this should have almost zero influence, but in practice it creates a race of arms between the departments).

Up until now we only received a handful of emails from students who participated in the match, and it seems that in retrospect they understood the advantages of a fast and automated system, even if it wasn't clear to them in advance why they now have to submit their preferences without knowing where they were accepted. We plan on sending surveys soon to get a better feeling of the students' experience throughout this process, and possibly we will send a similar survey to the departments that participated.

---

This successful redesign is the second in Israel to happen this year. Earlier this year we (Slava Bronfman and Avinatan Hassidim being the main protagonists, with Arnon Afek, the current director-general of the ministry of health, and myself as side-kicks) have finished redesigning the Israeli medical internship match. If you are interested, I will write a different email explaining the details of that other match, and specifically the theoretical problems we have encountered and how we solved them."

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Unraveling of private equity recruiting

Can competition by speed play a big role in a market in which there's also a lot of competition by price? You bet it can. The NY Times has the story: A Mad Scramble for Young Bankers Wall Street Banks and Private Equity Firms Compete for Young Talent

"A battle is raging on Wall Street as never before, with powerful factions scrambling for control of a precious resource.
On one side are the giant investment banks, with names like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. Lined up against them, but also warring among themselves, are the giants of private equity — Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, Apollo Global Management and the Blackstone Group, to name just three. And the private-equity firms just happen to be the banks’ clients.
The prize they are fighting for is young talent.
This summer, dozens of junior bankers in their early to mid-20s will start jobs in private equity after spending their first two years out of college working at investment banks. Private-equity firms use billions of dollars of cash and plenty of debt to buy entire companies. They are seen by many young strivers as the next rung on an elite career ladder, promising higher status and more pay — around $300,000 a year, including salary and bonus, roughly double what a second-year banker might earn at Goldman.
But for junior bankers, who are known as analysts, securing such a job means stepping into the middle of a Wall Street struggle that has intensified since the financial crisis.
The whirlwind process of interviews, which this year started in February, far earlier than many in private equity had expected, requires analysts to sneak around and often miss work. It bears little resemblance to the orderly on-campus career fairs they attended in college.
...
To recruit young talent today, the private-equity firms make offers as long as 18 months before a job begins.
This timing is repellent to many bank executives, and not only because their workers are being poached. Promising to take a job with a particular firm can create a conflict of interest for an investment bank analyst, especially one assigned to work with private-equity firms on deals, bankers say.
Goldman Sachs, for example, requires junior workers to resign soon after accepting a job at a private-equity firm. Such a rule is at odds with private equity’s recruiting timeline, leaving many junior bankers to ignore it. And the recruiting process, despite a recent attempt to change it, has grown only more frenzied.
This year, on a Thursday night in February, a handful of investment bank analysts saw their cellphones light up. Amity Search Partners, a major recruiter, told the analysts to prepare to interview the next morning, for jobs that would start in summer 2015.
Already, these analysts — fresh graduates of elite universities who were only about six months into their first jobs on Wall Street — had attended cocktail events and breakfasts sponsored by private-equity firms. But now it had emerged that smaller firms were already interviewing. So one of the biggest players in private equity, Apollo Global Management, which had hired Amity, was quietly taking its own process to the next level, weeks earlier than its rivals had expected. (Representatives of Apollo and Amity declined to comment.)
Word spread quickly, sending other recruiters into strategy sessions that stretched into the wee hours. Recruiters are often paid fees equivalent to about a third of the first-year compensation of workers they place.
One private-equity firm, Silver Lake, scrambled to set up interviews for that afternoon. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts scheduled interviews for that Saturday.Bain Capital, which had planned a preliminary get-to-know-us event for Friday evening, received a number of cancellations from analysts already interviewing elsewhere.
The machine was in motion — a situation that made hardly anyone happy.
...
“It’s bad for the candidates because they have to make decisions really early,” Mr. Sheyner said. “It’s really bad for the banks. They just hired those people a few months ago. And it’s bad for private equity because they don’t have a track record to go on.”
...
Wall Street has tried before to bring some order to private-equity recruiting. The six major private-equity firms, after years of interviewing candidates far in advance, decided two years ago to wait.
The companies — Apollo, Bain, K.K.R., the Blackstone Group, TPG and the Carlyle Group — all chose to wait until January 2013 to recruit the workers who would start that summer, according to two people with direct knowledge of the situation, who would discuss private business matters only on condition of anonymity.
But the détente soon fell apart. Smaller private-equity firms had done their recruiting on the earlier schedule. The giants grew concerned that they might be missing out on the most desirable candidates.
...
In April 2013, the six biggest companies returned to their early schedules, and the next cycle began, with junior bankers getting offers to start in the summer of 2014.
...
Such policies have pushed recruiting further into the shadows. At Goldman, analysts whisper about the time in 2012 when the firm cracked down.
That year, certain analysts, whom Goldman believed had job offers from private-equity firms or hedge funds, were pulled into conference rooms and asked, point blank, about their employment plans, according to an analyst in that class and another person briefed on the matter.
“The majority of us lied,” the analyst said, insisting on anonymity so as not to damage his relationship with Goldman.
Goldman ended up dismissing several analysts who acknowledged they had accepted offers, sending ripples of anxiety through Wall Street’s junior ranks. The financial gossip blog Dealbreaker ran a post with the headline, “Goldman Sachs Does Not Look Kindly Upon First Year Analysts Who Plan In Advance.”

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Assisted suicide and the Church of England: signs of dissent

Lord Carey: I support assisted dying--The intervention of the former Archbishop of Canterbury is a dramatic departure from the official line of the Church of England

"Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, is supporting moves to legalise assisted dying, it has emerged.
His intervention is a dramatic breach with the official line of the Church of England. It comes days before the House of Lords considers a Bill tabled by Lord Falconer allowing doctors to prescribe terminally ill patients a lethal dose of drugs.
Lord Carey argues that upholding the sanctity of human life without regard to suffering caused in the process could go against the spirit of Christian teaching.
He will point to the fact that Christians already rely on the ethical principle of “double effect” to justify giving terminally ill patients doses of painkillers which will ultimately kill them.
In an article last night, he said that advancing medical technology posed a “ethical turning point” and he believed that showing mercy and dignity in death should be “enshrined in law”, adding: “The fact is that I have changed my mind. The old philosophical certainties have collapsed in the face of the reality of needless suffering.”
...
"Opponents of the Bill said they were “flabbergasted” at Lord Carey’s change of position. Dr Peter Saunders, of the Christian Medical Fellowship, said: “There is no biblical precedent or justification for compassionate killing.
“There is a world of difference – ethically, legally, philosophically and theologically – between helping someone to kill themselves with a lethal drug on the one hand and proportionate pain relief or withdrawal of meddlesome treatment on the other.” Bishop Michael Nazir Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, and a friend of Lord Carey, said: “We must not assume that we know when people are going to die. Lord Carey himself knows of individuals, that I also know of, who were given six months to live and lived for years afterwards.”
A spokesman for the Church of England said: “The Church of England is opposed to assisted suicide.” He said that the General Synod passed a motion in February 2012 which “expresses its support for the current law on assisted suicide as a mean of contributing to a just and compassionate society in which vulnerable people are protected”.
*********
Update:
Church of England calls for review on assisted dying
Church's unprecedented stance comes after former Archbishop of Canterbury backs change in the law to allow assisted dying
"The Church of England has taken the unprecedented step of calling for a major review on whether to allow assisted dying after Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, stunned senior bishops by declaring his support for a change in the law.
In the wake of Lord Carey’s dramatic intervention, the Bishop of Carlisle, the Rt Rev James Newcome, said that the Church would now back a royal commission to re-examine the issue.
Bishop Newcome, who speaks for the Church in the Lords on health issues, said that while bishops had been “surprised” by the content and timing of the former Archbishop’s article, it had highlighted “just what an important issue this is”.