Latest news with #Freakonomics
Online Citizen
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Online Citizen
Jamus Lim criticises Yale-NUS book disposal as failure of top-down decisions without consultation
Associate Professor Jamus Lim, Workers' Party Member of Parliament for Sengkang GRC, has weighed in on the National University of Singapore's (NUS) attempted disposal of Yale-NUS College library books, describing it as emblematic of the problems with top-down decision-making carried out without meaningful consultation. Lim made the remarks in a Facebook post on 21 May 2025, a day after public criticism erupted over reports that hundreds of books from the Yale-NUS library were being discarded. NUS issued a apology on 21 May, acknowledging the misstep. In comments reported by CNA, University Librarian Associate Professor Natalie Pang called the incident an 'operational lapse'. Lim calls book disposal symbolic of top-down decisions and missed educational opportunities Reflecting on his personal reverence for books, Lim wrote, 'As a child, my mother routinely warned me never to sit on books… they were an embodiment of knowledge.' He noted that both he and his wife, as academics and bibliophiles, have long respected the value of printed knowledge. 'It was somewhat distressing… to hear about how a large number of books—previously housed at the Yale-NUS Library—had been unceremoniously discarded on a sidewalk, before they would then be shredded,' Lim wrote. He commented that this event symbolised the 'clinical manner' in which Yale-NUS College itself was shut down. Lim criticised the missed opportunity, stating that many of the books were in excellent condition and could have been redistributed with 'some advanced planning and consultation'. Lim noted reports that students passing by were prevented from taking any of the books due to concerns over RFID tags still embedded in them. He dismissed this explanation as a technicality, suggesting that such issues were easily surmountable. He cited research on the long-term benefits of book ownership, referencing studies like Freakonomics and a 2018 social science study which indicated that even the presence of books in a home is associated with improved academic outcomes in children. 'The whole sorry episode strikes me as yet another instance of how top-down decisions, made without widespread consultation with diverse stakeholders, can lead to undesirable outcomes,' he stated. Lim emphasised that while democratic processes can be messy, they help avoid 'the most egregious missteps'. Books already destroyed by time NUS intervened, says recycling company On 21 May, Assoc Prof Pang said that although excess books are usually rehomed within the NUS library system or offered to both faculty and students, this time, students were not given that opportunity. 'We understand later that many students were interested in having these books, and we would have usually acceded to their requests,' she said. 'We did not do so on this occasion, and we apologise.' To address the situation, NUS announced it would organise a book giveaway and review its processes to ensure broader access to surplus materials in future. Most of the Yale-NUS library collection had been redistributed to other NUS libraries. However, remaining volumes were offered only to faculty. Books that were not taken were sent for recycling, which Pang said was consistent with standard library practices. The issue escalated when it was revealed that the books had already been destroyed before NUS attempted to intervene. According to an employee from Green Orange Enviro, the recycling company involved, NUS contacted them at about 3pm on 20 May to stop the recycling. By then, the materials had already been processed at Asia Recycling Resources. Students at the scene reported seeing books loaded onto recycling trucks and attempted to intervene. CNA reported that two NUS staff and two employees from the recycling firm stopped them, stating the books were 'slated for disposal' and could not be kept. An NUS librarian told students the disposal had to proceed due to a short clearance timeline set by the NUS Law Faculty and campus infrastructure team. The Straits Times cited a former senior Yale-NUS librarian who estimated the library held 40,000 to 45,000 volumes. Around 8,500 remain available for giveaway. A student-led petition titled Save the Yale-NUS Library Books has called for transparency and accountability. It claimed around 2,000 volumes, valued at over S$100,000, were destroyed, and questioned the decision's alignment with NUS's Sustainability Plan. As of 11.51am on 21 May, the petition had garnered 667 signatures. Yale-NUS College is set to close this year, with its final cohort graduating in May 2025. The NUS Law Faculty, currently based at the Bukit Timah campus, is scheduled to relocate to the Yale-NUS premises later in the year, prompting the need to clear existing facilities.
Yahoo
14-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Let's take ‘Sesame Street' out of the equation for PBS funding
As Congress threatens to defund public broadcasting, the defenders of PBS and NPR keep defending themselves by pointing to the importance of their longstanding signature program: 'Sesame Street.' At a recent fiery House Oversight hearing, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green denounced public media as 'radical left-wing echo chambers.' The response by Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) was to urge his colleagues to 'fire Elon Musk, save Elmo,' while displaying a full-sized image of the iconic puppet. But making 'Sesame Street' the foundation of their defense is a dated and suspect tactic for the defenders of public broadcasting — and not only because Bert and Ernie's home has long since migrated to HBO, nor even because newer, commercially produced children's programming such as the 'Octonauts' (ecology and sea life) and 'Bluey' (creative solutions to problems) clearly have educational dimensions once confined to 'Sesame Street.' The limits of using 'Sesame Street' as the justification for public broadcasting goes back further. It can be found in the single best (and under-appreciated) evaluation of the program's impact on young children, a 2015 National Economics Journal paper by economist Melissa Kearney and Philip Levine, 'Early Childhood Education by Television: Lessons from Sesame Street.' In a clever analysis reminiscent of Freakonomics, Kearney and Levine examined the effect of this show in its early days by using a long-forgotten aspect of television technology. Since many households were unable to receive PBS if they lacked Ultra High Frequency (UHF) televisions in the pre-cable era, it was possible to compare education effects in areas where 'Sesame Street' was available and where it was not. It was what the economists call a natural experiment. On one level, the impact of the program was strikingly positive. It did a good job of preparing young children to be ready for school and to start their education at 'grade-level.' According to Kearney and Levine, exposure to 'Sesame Street' in the early 1970s 'led to positive impacts on the educational performance of the generation of children who experienced their preschool years when Sesame Street was introduced in areas with greater broadcast coverage.' That's exactly the sort of finding PBS likes to promote. But the Kearney-Levine paper also reached a less positive conclusion: that the positive impact of 'Sesame Street' was not sustained. Indeed, the data can be interpreted, they say, to conclude that 'any effect of the show on either academic achievement or socio-emotional development had completely faded by the time a child reached the latter stages of his or her high school career.' No one who has followed the decline of student proficiency in recent years should be surprised by that result. Nor can we even be certain that 'Sesame Street' caused the positive results in the analysis. Numerous studies have found that parental involvement with children, whether through shared activities, reading aloud or homework help, is the secret sauce in promoting success in school. A Journal of Educational Psychology study concludes that 'family involvement in school should be a central aim of practice and policy solutions to the achievement gap between lower and higher income children.' A study in the journal Family Issues found that parental involvement led to 'positive growth in children's attention, persistence, motivation to learn, and receptive vocabulary; and decreased problem behaviors.' Even a more recent study done for PBS made clear that the goal of a math education through 'family engagement' was key to any positive impact. 'Sesame Street' was a bona fide phenomenon when it was introduced in 1969. There is every reason to believe that parents were inspired to watch it with their kids — in other words, it sparked parental involvement. Indeed, it may be that watching almost any age-appropriate program with an 'involved adult' would be a boost. For example, my wife and I found that explaining the cultural references in 'The Simpsons' was a great way to teach American history at home. In that context, it's worth noting that Kearney, the MIT-trained economist who co-authored the 'Sesame Street' study, has attracted far more attention of late for her new book. In it she writes that 'the decline in marriage and the corresponding rise in one-parent homes has widened the gap in opportunities and outcomes for children of different backgrounds and today poses economic and social challenges we cannot afford to ignore.' Parental involvement is inevitably less likely when there is only one parent at home. This is not a 'Sesame Street' message, it is worth noting. A segment titled, 'It Takes a Street' features a video montage of various types of families, with a background song proclaiming that 'people living together, loving each other, that's what makes a family.' There may be reasons not to defund PBS and NPR. But 'Sesame Street' is not one of them. Howard Husock is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
14-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Let's take ‘Sesame Street' out of the equation for PBS funding
As Congress threatens to defund public broadcasting, the defenders of PBS and NPR keep defending themselves by pointing to the importance of their longstanding signature program: 'Sesame Street.' At a recent fiery House Oversight hearing, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green denounced public media as 'radical left-wing echo chambers.' The response by Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) was to urge his colleagues to 'fire Elon Musk, save Elmo,' while displaying a full-sized image of the iconic puppet. But making 'Sesame Street' the foundation of their defense is a dated and suspect tactic for the defenders of public broadcasting — and not only because Bert and Ernie's home has long since migrated to HBO, nor even because newer, commercially produced children's programming such as the 'Octonauts' (ecology and sea life) and ' Bluey' (creative solutions to problems) clearly have educational dimensions once confined to 'Sesame Street.' The limits of using 'Sesame Street' as the justification for public broadcasting goes back further. It can be found in the single best (and under-appreciated) evaluation of the program's impact on young children, a 2015 National Economics Journal paper by economist Melissa Kearney and Philip Levine, 'Early Childhood Education by Television: Lessons from Sesame Street.' In a clever analysis reminiscent of Freakonomics, Kearney and Levine examined the effect of this show in its early days by using a long-forgotten aspect of television technology. Since many households were unable to receive PBS if they lacked Ultra High Frequency (UHF) televisions in the pre-cable era, it was possible to compare education effects in areas where 'Sesame Street' was available and where it was not. It was what the economists call a natural experiment. On one level, the impact of the program was strikingly positive. It did a good job of preparing young children to be ready for school and to start their education at 'grade-level.' According to Kearney and Levine, exposure to 'Sesame Street' in the early 1970s 'led to positive impacts on the educational performance of the generation of children who experienced their preschool years when Sesame Street was introduced in areas with greater broadcast coverage.' That's exactly the sort of finding PBS likes to promote. But the Kearney-Levine paper also reached a less positive conclusion: that the positive impact of 'Sesame Street' was not sustained. Indeed, the data can be interpreted, they say, to conclude that 'any effect of the show on either academic achievement or socio-emotional development had completely faded by the time a child reached the latter stages of his or her high school career.' No one who has followed the decline of student proficiency in recent years should be surprised by that result. Nor can we even be certain that 'Sesame Street' caused the positive results in the analysis. Numerous studies have found that parental involvement with children, whether through shared activities, reading aloud or homework help, is the secret sauce in promoting success in school. A Journal of Educational Psychology study concludes that 'family involvement in school should be a central aim of practice and policy solutions to the achievement gap between lower and higher income children.' A study in the journal Family Issues found that parental involvement led to 'positive growth in children's attention, persistence, motivation to learn, and receptive vocabulary; and decreased problem behaviors.' Even a more recent study done for PBS made clear that the goal of a math education through 'family engagement' was key to any positive impact. 'Sesame Street' was a bona fide phenomenon when it was introduced in 1969. There is every reason to believe that parents were inspired to watch it with their kids — in other words, it sparked parental involvement. Indeed, it may be that watching almost any age-appropriate program with an 'involved adult' would be a boost. For example, my wife and I found that explaining the cultural references in 'The Simpsons' was a great way to teach American history at home. In that context, it's worth noting that Kearney, the MIT-trained economist who co-authored the 'Sesame Street' study, has attracted far more attention of late for her new book. In it she writes that 'the decline in marriage and the corresponding rise in one-parent homes has widened the gap in opportunities and outcomes for children of different backgrounds and today poses economic and social challenges we cannot afford to ignore.' Parental involvement is inevitably less likely when there is only one parent at home. This is not a 'Sesame Street' message, it is worth noting. A segment titled, 'It Takes a Street' features a video montage of various types of families, with a background song proclaiming that 'people living together, loving each other, that's what makes a family.' There may be reasons not to defund PBS and NPR. But 'Sesame Street' is not one of them.
Express Tribune
15-02-2025
- Entertainment
- Express Tribune
Justin Baldoni fires back after Ari Emanuel mocks him and takes Blake Lively's side in legal battle
Justin Baldoni has fired back at the Hollywood power agent representing Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds, who not only took a dig at him but also claimed responsibility for his removal from It Ends With Us amid the ongoing legal battle surrounding the film. Ari Emanuel, CEO of WME's parent company Endeavor, made the remarks during a live recording of the Freakonomics podcast. He discussed his personal connection with Lively, 37, and Reynolds, 48, just days after reports surfaced that Lively had subpoenaed cell carriers to obtain more evidence for her legal case. Speaking at the Wilshire Ebell Theatre in Los Angeles, Emanuel mocked Baldoni's last name, calling him "bologna" during the show, prompting a response from the actor. Baldoni's attorney, Bryan Freedman, told * on Friday: "Mr. Ari Emanuel is notably one of the best agents, and clearly the most loyal, in Hollywood. "As I understand it, Justin hasn't been called 'Bologna' since the fifth grade. Perhaps Ari's perspective would be different if they had ever met in the half decade they were clients of his agency." Baldoni was dropped by WME on December 21, the same day reports emerged that Lively had sued him for sexual harassment and accused him of orchestrating a smear campaign against her. During the podcast, Emanuel made a bold statement, saying, "I fired him," and reaffirmed his support for Lively and Reynolds, declaring, "I am a ride-or-die." Earlier in the conversation, the Chicago-born businessman praised the couple, emphasizing that he had worked with them for over ten years and describing them as "really incredible people." Emanuel stated, "They've never had any bad mojo out there or treated people badly." He added that if Lively's allegations against Baldoni are accurate, those responsible are "really bad people." Continuing his praise for the couple, Emanuel said, "These are good people who have been in the business for decades and have never had any bad press about them. And all the people they've worked with like them." This comes just days after reports revealed that Lively had subpoenaed cell carriers AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon in search of additional evidence to support her claims against Baldoni. She is looking for proof that Baldoni, who directed and co-starred with her in the romantic drama, was behind an alleged smear campaign targeting her. Her legal team also issued subpoenas to internet service providers Cloudflare and AOL, along with Jed Wallace, a crisis consultant accused of launching a "digital army" against her on Baldoni's behalf.
Yahoo
15-02-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Why Justin Baldoni's Former Agency Is Urging Him To 'Just Stop' Attacking Blake Lively
The talent agency executive who allegedly made the decision to remove from its roster believes the "It Ends with Us" director should allow the legal 'process play out' in his ongoing dispute with Ari Emmanuel, the head of talent agency WME, confirmed that his firm dropped Baldoni as a client in December, shortly after Lively filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against him and his "It Ends with Us" co-producers. Speaking during a live "Freakonomics" podcast appearance in Los Angeles on Thursday, February 13, Emmanuel reaffirmed his support for Blake Lively and her husband, , amid their legal battle with Justin Baldoni. 'Social media is a really good thing at times because it lets stars connect with their fans, but these two guys used it in an evil way, if that's true,' Emmanuel said, seemingly referring to Baldoni and Jamey Heath, Baldoni's co-producer and the CEO of Wayfarer Studios. Both men were named in Lively's lawsuit, which accuses them of sexual harassment and orchestrating a coordinated online campaign to tarnish her reputation. 'We just have to be cognizant that they should no longer be out there intimidating people, using social media to try to hurt them,' Emmanuel added. 'And using what they had been doing prior to it now to go against them. They should just stop. If they think they're innocent, they should let the process play itself out.' Emmanuel's agency represents both Lively and Reynolds, making the legal conflict even more high-profile. Baldoni's legal team previously named Reynolds in a $400 million lawsuit filed in January, accusing the couple and their publicist, Leslie Sloane, of extortion, defamation, and other claims. Defending Lively and Reynolds, Emmanuel remarked, 'These are good people who have been in the business for decades and have never had any bad press about them. And all the people they've worked with like them.' When asked directly about Baldoni, Emmanuel did not hesitate to confirm, 'I fired him,' adding, 'I am a ride-or-die.' The legal dispute between Baldoni and Lively has continued to attract public scrutiny. In late January, Baldoni's attorneys launched a website titled Lawsuit Info, linking to his amended complaint filed in court on January 31. Currently, the website features two key links: The Amended Complaint, a full legal document filed by Baldoni and his production studio against Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds, which outlines his allegations of defamation, extortion, and false accusations; and The Case Timeline, a chronological breakdown of key events, including when Baldoni first acquired the rights to "It Ends with Us" and the developments leading up to Lively's accusations. Baldoni's legal team, led by renowned attorney Bryan Freedman, informed TMZ that the website will be regularly updated to present a transparent and factual timeline of events. The objective is to give the public access to the evidence, allowing them to draw their own conclusions. With millions of dollars, reputations, and careers hanging in the balance, the legal dispute between Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively is far from settled. Now, the battle is unfolding not only in the courtroom but also in the public eye. During a pre-trial hearing in early February, a judge urged both parties to refrain from publicly litigating the case after Lively's legal team requested a potential gag order in response to Baldoni's website, leaked behind-the-scenes footage from "It Ends with Us," and statements made by his attorneys. Lively first filed a lawsuit against Baldoni, his production company, and others in New York in late December, alleging sexual harassment and reputational harm while seeking unspecified damages. Baldoni responded with a countersuit, accusing Lively and Reynolds of defamation and extortion. He is seeking a minimum of $400 million in damages. Despite ongoing tensions, both sides appear prepared to move forward with a trial. In a letter filed in New York federal court on February 13, attorneys for both parties stated that engaging in settlement talks at this point would be 'inappropriate' and 'premature.' As it stands, Lively and Baldoni are scheduled to face off in a civil trial beginning on March 9, 2026.
