Archive
Expensive “Free” part 2
By James H. Choi
http://Column.SabioAcademy.com
Source URL
In the last article, I discussed how pricing something as free when demand exceeds supply not only benefits unintended beneficiaries but also shifts where the money ultimately goes—and, in the end, the consumer will pay for it somewhere, somehow.
But what about the digital economy, where supply is infinite? In that case, prices truly are free. Engineering courses at MIT and philosophy courses at Harvard are available for free on edX, and you can read encyclopedias at no cost on Wikipedia. Beyond that, there are free products of all kinds, from the most basic operating system, Linux, to word processors and spreadsheets. Today, you can accomplish almost anything using free software.
You might be wondering, “Why pay for something when you can get it for free?” But all free things come with distortions. For example, if you donate large quantities of wheat, bicycles, or shoes to a poor neighborhood, the local wheat seller, bike shop, or shoe store will go bankrupt and may struggle to restart their business. Likewise, when an expert donates their talent for free, others with similar skills—or those aspiring to enter the field—are affected. This effect is especially pronounced in the digital economy, where products are infinitely replicable. Unlike wheat, bicycles, or shoes, a single digital contribution can be used and reused globally, amplifying its impact.
Consider word processors as an example. Currently, Microsoft Word is the only widely recognized paid word processor. Beyond that, many excellent word processors are available for free. While this benefits consumers, it also raises questions about the future. If our children, who will one day need to work and contribute to the economy, aspire to make money from word processing software, that path is already closed. If they insist on staying in that field, their only option is to join volunteer teams contributing to the improvement of free alternatives. Of course, the software world is vast, but nearly every type of software now has a free counterpart. Just think about how many paid apps you have on your smartphone—if you’re like me, you likely use free versions. In today’s world, the only way to succeed is to create a paid product that surpasses its free competitors.
Of course, one can contribute to humanity without prioritizing financial gain, offering their work for free. But to do that, one must first secure an income. Take Wikipedia, for example. We admire the contributors who write and share knowledge, but behind the scenes, financial support is always present—whether through direct sponsorships or through employers who pay these contributors enough in their regular jobs to afford working on Wikipedia without financial strain.
If a company were to offer its products for free, as Wikipedia or edX do, competitors worldwide would protest, and courts would likely rule it as dumping. Yet, when knowledge and talent are “dumped” in this way, they are praised rather than condemned. Regardless of whether it is praised or criticized, the economic effect remains the same. For instance, a professor at a second-tier university might find themselves at odds with administrators who would rather stream recorded lectures from Harvard professors than pay for local instruction. The current generation may fight to hold onto their positions until retirement, but for the next generation, opportunities are shrinking, and barriers to entry are already high. Of course, one can also take advantage of this landscape. In fact, success depends on doing so. Nearly all the necessary server software, databases, and programming languages are now free, meaning what once required a $100,000 investment in the early 2000s can now be accessed for just $50 a month. While the barriers to entry have risen for the average student, for those who understand this new infrastructure, know how to utilize it, and have innovative ideas, the world has opened up to unprecedented opportunities. Barriers and opportunities create polarization, and I hope, dear reader, that you will prepare yourself for this new economic era—so that you can position yourself on the favorable side
Expensive “Free” part 1
By James H. Choi
http://Column.SabioAcademy.com
Source URL
The concept of “free” or “freebie” has the power to distort reality. After all, there’s no escaping the fact that someone has to pay for something somewhere. Making something artificially free has unintended consequences—someone must cover the difference or incur a loss. In particular, if the person receiving the free benefits has more power than the one bearing the losses, this distortion becomes entrenched.
A representative example is the “free college” system. In Korea, there was once a “half-price tuition” movement, while in Brazil, they went a step further—state universities (which include most of the country’s top institutions) are legally required to provide free education. In other words, a system has been in place for decades where students can attend the best universities for free, as long as they study hard, regardless of their family’s financial circumstances.
What is the result? Children from wealthy families monopolize free college, while students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds either attend expensive private universities or give up on college altogether. In the end, the poor end up paying taxes to fund the college education of the wealthy, allowing them to maintain their social superiority.
The reason lies in the entrance exam. The University of São Paulo (Universidade de São Paulo, USP), considered the best university in South America, selects students through a highly competitive entrance exam. To pass, students must undergo rigorous preparation, which often requires attending an expensive private high school. The high school I attended was particularly well-known for sending many students to USP. As the entrance exam approached, large private institutes would visit our school, offering free review course certificates in exchange for our names. (I even sold my name to give to a friend.) These institutes would then use our names in newspaper advertisements and promotional materials as “lists of successful applicants,” creating the illusion of a high acceptance rate.
The problem was that students who couldn’t afford private high schools were often misled by these advertisements. Believing they had a real chance, they would spend large sums on “short-term intensive courses”—only to suffer significant financial loss.
From a Korean perspective, one might assume that even financially disadvantaged families would send their children to expensive private schools, struggling to secure a place at the University of São Paulo. However, in reality, such cases were rare—only my Korean friend’s family and mine did so. Most of my Brazilian friends came from financially well-off families.
Why has this flawed free college education system, which all Brazilians recognize and criticize, been maintained for decades? Because those who benefit hold power, while those who are harmed remain indifferent or have low voter turnout.
The same is true in the United States. On the surface, the American public high school system, which is almost “free,” gives the impression that every student can receive a quality education regardless of their family’s income. However, in reality, school districts manipulate local real estate prices, creating a system where only those who can afford to buy property gain access to excellent public education.
Until 2008, this was a privileged package that combined “free education” with “real estate investment profits.” High schools like New Trier, located in affluent areas, were highlighted in Savage Inequalities—a book criticizing educational inequality in the U.S.—as a prime example of privileged schooling.
About 10 years ago, District 211 in Schaumburg voted to raise property taxes to increase school operating expenses. The notices sent to residents at the time included the statement: “If your school fails to offer AP classes and other programs, the quality of your home will decline, and so will its value.” This felt more like a threat than a notice, and residents ultimately approved the tax increase.
The same pattern applies to public high schools that select students through entrance exams. Almost without exception, the list of successful applicants is dominated by students whose families have invested heavily in exam preparation. Ultimately, the conclusion is clear: in the United States, receiving a good public education largely depends on coming from a wealthy family.
This kind of distortion isn’t limited to education. At a popular singer’s concert, the real value of a seat is determined independently of the ticket price. Even if the concert is free, ticket prices skyrocket to market value through the black market. In other words, whether an event is free or paid, the final cost to the audience remains similar—it’s just the channel through which the money flows that changes.
The same applies to religious events. When Pope Benedict visited New York, free tickets to his Mass at a baseball stadium were distributed exclusively to Catholic church members in the city. However, those tickets soon appeared on the black market, selling for around $200 each.
This principle also extends to various rapidly growing free services, such as online university courses, Wikipedia, and open-source programming languages. These services have the power to distort markets, benefiting some while disadvantaging others. And the people who will be most directly affected by these shifts are our children, who are just beginning their journey into society.
A deeper analysis of this issue will be covered in Part 2.
Math That Video Games Can’t Teach You
By James H. Choi
http://Column.SabioAcademy.com
Source URL
Many families experience conflicts due to computer games. The obsession with games is mainly seen in male students, and even in the case of the students I teach, their research progress is often delayed for no particular reason. In most cases, they are so absorbed in the game that they neglect the work they should be doing.
There seems to be no clear answer as to how to solve this. Korea once implemented the “Cinderella Law,” which prohibited minors from playing online games after midnight. (On the other hand, the United States tends to leave it to the individual’s responsibility and leave it alone, as is typical of the United States.)
There are many articles and news articles about introducing various systems and providing addiction treatment, but there is no news of actual solutions. This is similar to the phenomenon of a new “miracle weight loss method” appearing every week. Numerous solutions appear and become popular, but the problem is getting deeper and deeper.
I don’t know how to solve this problem either. However, I am writing this article to inform you that one proposed method is not the right answer.
There is an idea of “teaching math through games” based on the plausible-sounding principle of “taking advantage of the enemy’s strength to attack” or “fighting with fire.” Even I think it sounds plausible. Even leaders of Tesla like Elon Musk, who should know everything about what math and what a game are, or economist Steve Levitt, author of “Freakonomics,” have said in interviews, “My child only studies for a short time, but he can play games indefinitely, so it would be good to teach him to study through games.” And there have been many companies that claim to “teach through games” before.
But I think they’re getting it all wrong. First of all, there is math that can be taught with games and math that cannot.
The math that can be taught with games is simple math. In the U.S., we have a win-win education policy of using calculators in the early grades to 1. increase the profits of calculator companies, 2. minimize the effort of teachers to teach students who make math mistakes, and 3. make students confident in math, all at the expense of students’ math skills. (People say “math doesn’t matter because it’s the computer age,” but that’s because people who have already mastered math are instinctively used to reaping the benefits and don’t recognize the spillover effects of weak math skills.) In short, the argument is that playing games will “naturally” make up for this math skill, which is true in theory. However, in practice, the question is, do students who are hooked on games want to play cumbersome games that require them to do this math over and over again? Especially when there are so many more fun games out there for free that don’t require math. And what top-notch game developer would want to get a bad reputation by polluting their work with math problems?
Even if you can somehow make math into a game, the next level of math cannot be packaged as a game. The reason we teach math as a compulsory subject to students is not to compete with computers in computational speed, but to dominate them: to understand the principles of the universe and human psychology so that computers can make decisions and predict the future. This is not the kind of math that can be learned or solved by reflex. It’s math that requires hours, days, or even years of thought, so how can you pack it into a game? It’s the same idea as teaching “meditation” or “patience” in a game, and you can predict a similar effect.
In any field, money can influence “scientific research”. In the 60s, there were advertisements for “doctors’ favorite cigarettes” and scientific studies showing that “cigarettes are good for you.” It hasn’t changed since then, and nowadays, we are being bombarded with “scientific studies” about the benefits of these games, but parents should be wise enough to recognize what can and cannot be taught by games.
How to Read Educational Statistic
By James H. Choi
http://Column.SabioAcademy.com
Source URL
When we read about education, we come across many statistics. However, we can rarely take them at face value. For example, if a college has a 10% acceptance rate, that would suggest that 9 out of 10 students must reapply the following year—but have you ever actually seen that happen? In reality, because each student applies to multiple colleges, their overall chances of getting accepted somewhere are much higher. The true acceptance rate is much closer to 100%, but no one tells you that.
To get to the truth behind these education statistics, we need to understand statistics. There’s an American proverb that says, “There are lies in the world, and then there are damned lies, and then there are statistics.” Statistics are based on the intent of the person who wrote them. Statistics can be morphed into an infinite number of things depending on the intent of the person quoting them. For example, a statistic might conclude that “single people eat more candy than married people” because it counts “kids” as “single”. It’s ridiculous, but kids are technically single. You can only blame yourself for being fooled, so as the saying goes, when you see a “statistic,” you should consider it a “sophisticated lie,” and check it out before you believe it.
Even if you’re armed with entirely true facts, some statistics can still be misleading and work against you. For example, if you’re recommending a risky surgery with a 20% failure rate, framing it as an “80% success rate” can significantly influence the patient’s decision. Similarly, a high school where 490 out of 500 graduates fail to get into a top-tier university may seem like a poor-performing school with a 98% failure rate. However, it can still attract parents by highlighting its achievement of sending “10 students to Ivy League schools every year!” In Korea, there are currently discussions about schools and institutions trying to regulate banners that proclaim, “XX student got into YY university.” I propose a system where institutions must either publish all students’ results, remain silent, or do both. This approach would uphold free speech while encouraging voluntary restraint. After all, no school or institution would dare to publish a list of rejected students stretching to the horizon just to celebrate a handful of successful ones.
A statistic is a number used to represent a complex whole in a simple number. So a statistic of 90% success only makes sense when looking at the whole from above, but for each individual participant, there are only 100% and 0% outcomes, no in-betweens. Since education involves students from different backgrounds and with different levels of preparation, every outcome is dependent on which students participated. Therefore, statistics related to education should be viewed as Bayesian Probability. Bayesian Probability is simply the concept of “yes”. It’s about whether this statistic is true for me. In education, for example, just because the math team at Q High School wins championships year after year doesn’t mean you’ll be good at math if you go there, because if all of the members of the math team at Q High School are international students from Korea (a real-life example of a prestigious boarding school in the East), the math reputation of the school is not “true” for other students because the finished product was imported, not taught at the school. In another example, many parents decide to send their child to High School A based on the statistic “more graduates of High School A are accepted to University H”, but before accepting this statistic, they need to determine whether it is true for all students at High School Q, or only for students at High School Q whose grandfather’s name is on the campus of University H. To make a sound decision, they need to determine whether the statistic is true for all students at High School Q, or only for students at High School Q whose grandfather’s name is on the campus of University H. Then they can use Bayesian Probability.
So, how do you use Bayesian Probability to create an educational strategy? While gathering official information, you must also seek the experience of someone who is similar to you, i.e., a mentor who can give you the backstory, the inside scoop, and the experience. The more similar this mentor’s personality/conditions/goals are to yours, the more likely it is that all the fuzzy probabilities of your path will become clear and sharp, and you’ll be able to make an informed judgment. If you’re a unique student and you can’t find a senior to look up to, another option is to seek advice from a professional who has experience guiding similar students, especially if they’ve been there, done that, and know “it”. This mentor’s advice, combined with the official information on the school’s website, will help you see the road ahead clearly, and you’ll be able to formulate the most ambitious and most solid strategy.
Science Fair Judging Procedure
By James H. Choi
http://Column.SabioAcademy.com
Source URL
Note: This is a column I wrote for the Chicago Tribune. Although it mentions a specific region by name, the process is similar in other regions, so I thought it would be helpful for all readers.
The science fair judging process varies from region to region, but Illinois Region 6, which covers Evanston to Barrington, has a three-step process for selecting students to advance to the International Science Fair (ISEF).
Some schools hold an in-school science fair to select their representative for external competitions. Schools like Niles North, Niles West, and Stevenson, which are very active in science research, have their own qualifying processes. You should check with your teacher to understand the specific procedures at your school.
For students at schools that do not prioritize science fairs, it may still be possible to compete as an individual without going through a qualification process, provided all procedures are followed and the science teacher approves.
Most public high schools in Region 6 (including Barrington, District 211, New Trier, Glenbrook North/South, etc.) do not allow students to represent their school in these competitions. However, there are opportunities to compete independently for students passionate about science, and we can provide more information on how to proceed.
In Virginia, many high schools require all Honors-level and advanced students to engage in science research. These students often participate in intramural qualifiers, which are highly competitive, before advancing to regional science competitions.
The students who make it to the regional competitions are judged in three stages.
The first type of judge is the Floor Judge, who interviews students on-site in front of their posters. Their primary role is to ensure that everything is in order, verify that the student understands the principles of scientific research, and evaluate the quality of the project. If the Floor Judge considers the project flawless and of a high standard, they will take on of the student’s reports. However, if the report is not taken, the student will not be eligible to receive any awards.
Floor Judges come from a variety of backgrounds, which can greatly influence the evaluation process. In some regions of the United States, Floor Judges may include university professors, while in others, they might be non-scientific volunteers. In Illinois Region 6, for example, Floor Judges are typically parents and middle or high school teachers.
This diversity in judging backgrounds means that evaluations can vary widely, especially for students conducting advanced research. A judge without a strong scientific background may not fully grasp the complexities of high-level projects. In such cases, evaluations may focus on more accessible factors, such as the student’s ability to clearly explain his/her work, the thoroughness of the research, and the overall impression the project leaves. This highlights the importance of presenting research in a way that is both thorough and easy to understand for a broad audience.
The second stage is the Best of Category judging, which is mainly composed of school teachers. There are three or four judges per category, and since there are more than ten categories, there are dozens of them. They sit around a table per category and read the reports in turn, selecting the two best students in each category. At first, we wait for the floor judges to send in their reports, and then they start coming in one by one, and then we start working. There are many ways to do this, but for me, I just picked the two best reports that I received and then when a new report came in, we discussed whether it was better than the previous two to determine the top two. It is important to note that these Best of Category judges do not meet the student, which means that no matter how well prepared your presentation is and how complete your poster is, it will only be seen by the Floor Judge, and from this point on, you will be judged 100% on the report.
The third and final step is the selection of students for ISEF. This year, we decided to invite only Ph.D.s in science and engineering, so we asked local universities to help us, but they only sent one professor each from the University of Chicago and Northwestern University, so we ended up with four people, including me. How many students are selected depends on the budget. ISEF does not allow students to compete at their own expense, so they must apply at local science fairs. This year, we sent five researchers. This step is also done without meeting the students, but by reading their reports. Each discipline sends two Best of Category reports, which is more than 20 copies. If you do the math, you can imagine how fast-paced the process is, as we have to read and discuss these reports within two hours to select the best students. Therefore, when writing your report, you should take that into account and try to make it as easy to understand as possible by using shapes for every concept so that the judges can understand it at a glance.
Sabio Column 