Alex Usher starts this article extolling the virtues of "trying to start a tradition of evidence-based research in Canadian higher education." And while I am the last person to argue against evidence, or against good scientific practice in general, this article also highlights the dangers of such advocacy. It comes when a commentator trots out an argument consisting of one study focused on students in one province (specifically, New Brunswick), to make a general claim such this: "the touted benefits of grants or lowering tuition... is that lower net costs will help students work less and study more. Nuh-uh. Turns out students' drive for a better material standard of living outweighs the drive to study." Well yeah. Having lived in the low-income job-scarce province of New Brunswick for 17 years, I could have told you that nobody in the province is going to give up a job simply because they received $8000. But the main lesson here is this: one or two studies in very limited circumstances focusing on very specialized outcomes tell us less than nothing about policy impact. Usher, a statistician, should know better to peddle such nonsense under the guise of 'evidence-based research'.
Today: 4 Total: 4 [Direct link] [Share]
