Re: 一篇好玩的調查(關于經濟學PhD對機會成本的理解)

看板Economics (經濟學)作者ninmit (silent all the years)時間16年前 (2008/05/23 21:14)推噓23(23推 0噓 5→)

留言28則, 21人參與討論串2/3 (看更多)

我把這篇翻了出來, 原因是, 我也答錯了. XD! (所以我是經濟第一弱者這點一定是不用做假設檢定的. ) 我把翻譯的原文大概說一下... (摘自 The economic Naturalist: in Search of Explanations for Everyday Engimas. by Robert Frank. 手上的是簡體中文, 書名是牛奶可樂經濟學, 中國人民大學出版社. ) (又, 我不會在這裡說答案, 或許各位先進板友有興趣的話可以推文選一下. 或者, 辦個投票? XD! ) 題目是: 假設你贏了一張美國歌星 Eric Clapton (註: Tears in Heaven, 可能是比較出名的) 今晚演唱會的免費門票. 注意, 你不能轉售. 可另一美國歌星 Bob Dylan (註: Blowin' In the Wind, 可能是比較出名的) 今晚也在開演唱會, 你也很想去. Dylan 演唱會的票價是 40 元. 當然, 你不去看他的演出也行, 但你的心理承受價格是 50 元. 換言之, 如果 Dylan 的票價高過 50 元, 你就情願不看了, 那怕你沒有別的事情要做. 除此之外, 看兩人的演出沒有其他成本. 試問你去看 Clapton 的機會成本是多少錢? (1) 0 (2) 10 (3) 40 (4) 50 === 分隔線 === 曾如 D 兄所提及的文獻指出: 270名上過經濟學課程的人只有 7.4% 選擇正確答案. 88名從沒上過經濟學課程的人有 17.2% 選擇正確答案. 199名專業經濟學者 (2005年美國經濟學協會年會) 21.6% 選擇正確答案. 問題是: 如果隨便亂猜的話, 也該會有 25.0% 的人會選到正確答案呀... 所以, 先進板友不妨想想看答案... 我承認我是錯的... XD! ※ 引述《DarthRaider (龍非池中物)》之銘言： ※ [本文轉錄自 DarthRaider 信箱] 作者: DarthRaider.bbs@ptt2.cc (DarthRaider.bbs@ptt2.cc) 標題: 一篇好玩的調查(關于經濟學PhD對機會成本的理解) 時間: Fri Aug 17 06:10:50 2007 作者: DarthRaider (龍非池中物) 看板: BBMak 標題: 一篇好玩的調查(關于經濟學PhD對機會成本的理解) 時間: Fri Aug 17 05:48:16 2007 <Do Economists Recognize an Opportunity Cost When They See One? A Dismal Performance from the Dismal Science> by Paul J. Ferraro & Laura O. Taylor http://epp.gsu.edu/pferraro/docs/ferrarotaylorbep.pdf [Abstract] One expects people with graduate training in economics to have a deeper understanding of economic processes and reasoning than people without such training. However, as others have noted over the past 25 years, modern graduate education may emphasize mathematics and technique to the detriment of economic reasoning. One of the most important contributions economics has to offer as a discipline is the understanding of opportunity cost and how to apply this concept to all forms of decision making. We examine how PhD economists answer an introductory economics textbook question that requires identifying the relevant opportunity cost of an action. The results are not consistent with our expectation that graduate training leads to a deeper understanding of the concept. We explore the implications of our results for the relevance of economists in policy, research, and teaching. Submitted: June 27, 2005 ﹒ Accepted: August 2, 2005 ﹒ Published: September 9, 2005 Originally published in Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy. -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 58.38.172.90

→

ninmit

05/23 21:27, , 1^F

05/23 21:27, 1^F

推

ashugh

05/23 21:30, , 2^F

05/23 21:30, 2^F

推

LitterC

05/23 23:25, , 3^F

05/23 23:25, 3^F