A Broken Visa System



        A recent article in The Economist argues that our current visa system is in desperate need of reform. Year after year, the government receives far more applications for H1B visas than the 65,000 that are allotted to American business. As The Economist notes, in 2007 the government exceeded the limit in one day and a year later it only took two days. This year, the government is expected to exceed it’s limit on April 5th, five days after the start of the new fiscal year.
The author argues that the cap on visas is potentially hurting the economy since U.S. corporations are not able to fill jobs if their potential new employees are denied visas. Although those who oppose raising the cap on visas claim these foreign workers are stealing American jobs, Michael Clemens, who is an economist and currently works at the Centre for Global Development, notes that given the high cost and time consuming process of acquiring a visa, most companies would prefer to hire a U.S. citizen but often cannot find one that has the necessary job skills.
        Thus, the visa system must be reformed in order to accommodate U.S. businesses. Among the possible proposals, raising the cap from 65,000 H1B visas to 195,000 could help boost the economy. The government should also make reforms to the visa system that enable college students graduating with degrees pertaining to the sciences, engineering field, or mathematics to remain in the United States to work. And lastly, similar to programs already introduced in Canada, the United States should extend more visas to foreign entrepreneurs who have the necessary funds to start a business here in America. Perhaps such a program could combat the 10% decline in new businesses started in Silicon Valley.

Integrating Data Analysis into the Community College Curriculum

Join us for a Webinar on November 19
Space is limited.
Reserve your Webinar seat now at:
https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/770576698
Join Kathy Rowell, Professor of Sociology at Sinclair Community College, for a discussion of "lessons learned" about integrating data analysis into the community college curriculum.  Kathy has been instrumental in the Integrating Data Analysis (IDA) initiative of the American Sociological Association and the Social Science Data Analysis Network since its inception in the early 1990s.  She will share her favorite resources and sample activities, tips from her own classroom, and briefly address the challenges faced by community college faculty when bringing data into the classroom.
Title:Integrating Data Analysis into the Community College Curriculum
Date:Monday, November 19, 2012
Time:1:00 PM - 2:00 PM EST
After registering you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the Webinar.
System Requirements
PC-based attendees
Required: Windows® 7, Vista, XP or 2003 Server
Mac®-based attendees
Required: Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer
Mobile attendees
Required: iPhone®, iPad®, Android™ phone or Android tablet

UPDATE: Webinar on using Quantitative Data in the Classroom today at *1 pm*

On Wednesday, June 27, at *1 pm*, EDT, ICPSR and the Social Science Data Analysis Network (SSDAN) will host the third webinar in a series aimed at integrating quantitative data analysis into substantive undergraduate social sciences courses. This webinar will feature Dr. Jill Bouma, Associate Professor of Sociology at Berea College in Berea, KY, and Dr. Dana Greene, Research Fellow, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who will discuss how they challenge their students in lower-division courses to define and describe stratification in the U.S. and the world today.
Participants will learn how Dr. Bouma and Dr. Greene successfully lead their students through the investigation of topics such as income inequality, housing segregation, race, and gender using quantitative data and methods. In addition to promoting a deeper understanding of the content, students taught with these methods improve critical thinking skills and develop a greater appreciation of the social sciences. Viewers will also learn where they can access some of Dr. Bouma and Dr. Greene's teaching materials to adapt for their own use.
Pre-registration is not required. To view the webinar, visit https://www3.gotomeeting.com/join/978777294 a few minutes before *1 p.m.* on Wednesday, June 27.

Webinar on teaching quantitative data analysis to undergraduates set for June 27

On Wednesday, June 27, at 2 pm, EDT, ICPSR and the Social Science Data Analysis Network (SSDAN) will host the third webinar in a series aimed at integrating quantitative data analysis into substantive undergraduate social sciences courses. This webinar will feature Dr. Jill Bouma, Associate Professor of Sociology at Berea College in Berea, KY, and Dr. Dana Greene, Research Fellow, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who will discuss how they challenge their students in lower-division courses to define and describe stratification in the U.S. and the world today.


Participants will learn how Dr. Bouma and Dr. Greene successfully lead their students through the investigation of topics such as income inequality, housing segregation, race, and gender using quantitative data and methods. In addition to promoting a deeper understanding of the content, students taught with these methods improve critical thinking skills and develop a greater appreciation of the social sciences. Viewers will also learn where they can access some of Dr. Bouma and Dr. Greene's teaching materials to adapt for their own use.


Pre-registration is not required. To view the webinar, visit https://www3.gotomeeting.com/join/978777294 a few minutes before 2 p.m. on Wednesday, June 27 to join in.

ICPSR announces summer internships

ICPSR is pleased to announce the participants in the 8th year of the ICPSR Summer Internship Program for undergraduates, supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation. We received more than 250 applications for the program, and selected six interns:
  • Jane Oliphant of the University of Portland (Ore.) will work with Sara Lazaroff of the ICPSR Education Archive
  • Jeffrey Berg of Carleton College will work with Doctor Ashe in the Members Archive
  • Joshua Goode of the University of Colorado-Denver and Red Rocks Community College will work with Tannaz Sabet in the Data Sharing for Demographic Research archive
  • Rosa Rincon of California State University-Northridge and Pasadena City College will work with Justin Noble in the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data
  • Thomas Hegland of St. Olaf College will work with Kevin Kapalla in the Members Archive
  • Tori Thomas of Georgia State University will work with Abayomi Israel of the Resource Center for Minority Data
The interns will spend 10 weeks at ICPSR in Ann Arbor, and will gain experience processing data and learning statistical software packages; complete a research project resulting in conference-ready posters; and attend courses in the ICPSR Summer Program.

The goal of the program is to promote the effective use of social science research data among undergraduate students, and to encourage participants to pursue a career in the social or behavioral sciences. Abayomi Israel and John Garcia of the Resource Center for Minority Data are the projct managers, and Lynette Hoelter, ICPSR's Director of Instructional Resources, serves as the Co-Principal Investigator.

Videos of last year's interns describing their projects can be viewed on the ICPSR YouTube channel.

More information on the student participants follows:
  • Jane Oliphant of the University of Portland is a triple major in Social Work, Psychology, and Sociology graduating in 2013. After graduation, she would like to attend graduate school in the social sciences or Public Policy and possibly pursue a career in research. Jane has experience working with SPSS and has already identified a number of datasets that she would like to work with this summer: the Head Start Family and Child Survey (Faces) Series, the Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) Policies Database, and the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) 2004 Panel, just to name a few. Since 2010, Jane has served as a Resident Assistant and has worked as the Service and Justice Coordinator at her university. In 2011, she gained experience as a Camp Counselor at the Cascades Camp and Conference Center. Jane is also very active in her campus community where she plays various intramural sports and volunteers in a number of committees. In 2010, Jane worked as a Social Justice Intern at the Macdonald Center - an organization that serves the low-income population in downtown Portland. Jane's most recent research project examined the relationship between self-concept and observer ratings. This summer she would like to focus on the question of how a person's access to resources in their childhood influenced their later life outcomes, more specifically, research that examines inner-generational poverty. 
  • Jeffrey Berg of Carleton College is a double major in Political Science/International Relations and Psychology/Cognitive Science graduating in 2014. Jeffery is most interested in the evidential side of social science: specifically, data analysis, and survey design - with the hope to one day pursue a career in research. He has worked as a Research Assistant for his college's Political Science department where his work focused on the nature of political advertisements during the 2008 political campaigns. In addition, during the spring of 2012, Jeffery interned at the National Archives under the supervision of the External Affairs Liaison. Although only a sophomore, Jeffery has already gained experience with SPSS, TIBCO Spotfire, and S-plus. In addition, he has working knowledge in the Python programming language and is fluent in Spanish. Outside of the classroom, Jeffery has served as the General Editor of The Echo Newspaper and Chief Editor of the Literary Journal at Wheaton Academy, and is currently the Photographer and Editor for Media Relations at his college and Ice Hockey Statistician at the Advanced Ice Arenas.
  • Joshua Goode of the University of Colorado is a Sociology major and Demography minor graduating in 2013 with an interest in becoming a Sociology professor one day. Specifically, he hope is to pursue a research career in the area of family demography. In 2011, Joshua worked as a Research Assistant for two different professors where he learned about working with both qualitative and quantitative data. In terms of experience with data, Joshua has worked with Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Birth Cohort (ECLSB) data, as well as the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) data from the United Kingdom. His senior thesis on the educational aspirations and expectations of minority youth utilizes the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) and he has experience with SPSS, STATA and Mplus. In 2011, Joshua has also given two conference presentations; the first was at the National Council on Family Relations Meeting in Orlando Florida, and the other at the National Center for Family & Marriage Research Counting Couples, Counting Families Conference in Bethesda Maryland. Joshua serves as president of the Students of Sociology Club and vice-president of the Alpha Kappa Delta, the international Sociology honor society.
  • Rosa of California State University-Northridge is a junior Sociology and Criminology major with an Associates of Arts Degree in Sociology from Pasadena City College. After graduation she plans to attend graduate school in either Sociology or Criminology with the hope of one of two career trajectories - an analyst in the criminal justice system for city or state government or a Sociology professor at a community college. Rosa has worked with a number of large data sets, including the General Social Survey and the National Longitudinal Surveys, and has experience in SPSS. She has worked as a Youth Leader at the Pasadena Unified School District, and has served as the Community Representative for Puente Club. Rosa is bilingual and uses her fluency in Spanish and English when volunteering as a tutor at the Senior Center and at El Centro de Accion Social. As a first-generation college student, Rosa hopes that the ICPSR Summer Internship will give her greater experience in statistical methods and social research as to prepare her for the next steps in her career.
  • Thomas Hegland of St. Olaf College is a double major in Mathematics and Economics with an emphasis on Public Policy and a concentration in Statistics graduating in 2013. After graduation, Thomas plans on pursuing a graduate degree in Economics with the hope of one day becoming an economist. Through his wide range of experiences, Thomas has acquired a wide range of technical skills; this includes experience in the use of the R statistical computing language, Linux/Unix environments, SAS, STATA and EViews. He has also worked with a number of large data sets such as the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) and the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). His main research interest is urban poverty as he believes that it is tied to many other questions relating not just to Economics but also to the broader social structure. In addition, some of his academic achievements include studying Number Theory in Hungary in 2011, the Buntrock Academic Scholarship, a publication in the Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Sciences, and a number of presentations including his most recent at the National Conference on Undergraduate Research. From 2010 to the present, Thomas has worked as an Undergraduate Research Fellow for the NSF supported Center for Interdisciplinary Research. He also serves as member and coach of the debate team, member of the Math team, class representative for the Mathematical Association of America and the vice president of his college's chapter of Omicron Delta Epsilon, the national Economics honor society. Currently he serves on the Student Government as the Chief Financial Officer of the political Awareness Committee.
  • Tori Thomas of Georgia State University is a Sociology major and African American Studies minor graduating in 2013. After graduation, she would like to participate in the Teach for America Program with the ultimate goal of attending graduate school in either Sociology or Education. Tori is a Ronald McNair scholar and has been awarded a number of accolades including the Margaret Andersen Award for outstanding performance in Sociology. In addition, she has received the Georgia Hope scholarship, the Horatio Alger Scholarship and the Next Generation Award Scholarship. Tori has experience in both SPSS and SAS and has worked as a Research Assistant and Intern in the McNair Post Baccalaureate Achievement Program and the NSF/NIH funded Public Housing Study respectively. Through these programs, Tori has developed an interest in studying how relocation out of public housing affected educational opportunities in minority communities. In 2010, Tori also served as the Statistics and Measurement Intern for The Georgia Center for Nonprofits and has continued to be a very active member of her community. She is currently a member of the Theta Nu Xi Multicultural Sorority Incorporated, served as a First Year Mentor and Service Ambassador at her university and is a Junior Achievement Volunteer responsible for teaching financial literacy at elementary and middle schools.

Research paper competition winners announced

ICPSR is pleased to announce the winners of our 2012 Research Paper Competitions.

Quentin Karpilow of Kenyon College won the Undergraduate Competition with his paper
"Racial and Ethnic Threats in Pretrial Release Processing." The paper used State Court Processing Statistics, 1990-2006, County Characteristics (2000-2007), 1998 and 2000 Uniform Crime Reports, and the 1999 National Jail Census to examine pretrial release outcomes for adult defendants charged with drug felonies according to their racial or ethnic backgrounds and various community and incarceration settings. Karpilow was a 2011 ICPSR Summer Intern and has earned a B.A. in Mathematics and Economics. This paper was selected as the second-place winner of the 2012 North Central Sociological Association Student Paper Competition for Undergraduates.

Zornitsa Kalibatseva of Michigan State University won the Master's Competition with her paper
"A Symptom Profile Analysis of Depression in a Nationally Representative Sample of Asian Americans." The study uses the National Comorbidity Survey to examine the differences in symptoms of depression between Asian Americans and European Americans.

The first-place award in the
Resource Center for Minority Data Paper Competition was won by Amanda Mireles of Princeton University for her paper "Cultural Capital Investments: Concerted Cultivation and the Academic Achievement of Hispanic Kindergarten Students." Mireles analyzed data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study to measure academic achievement of Hispanic students. She earned a B.A. with High Honors in Sociology, received Certificates of Proficiency in African American Studies and Latino Studies, and is the recipient of the 2011 Isidore Brown Thesis Award for this paper.

Second-place in the RMCD competition went to Danae Ross of Wayne State University for her paper
"Black Feminism and Hip Hop: A Cross-Generational Disconnect." The paper used the 1993 National Black Politics Study to investigate the impact of a strong feminist perspective on the likelihood of listening to rap music among black women. Ross is a McNair Scholar, has earned a B.A. with High Honors in English and Sociology, and has been accepted in the Ph.D. program in African Diaspora Studies at the University of California at Berkeley. This paper was selected as the third-place winner for the 2012 North Central Sociological Association Student Paper Competition for Undergraduates.

The first-place winners received $1,000; the second-place prize is $750. All the papers used data from the ICPSR or RCMD archive.

ICPSR is holding
three competitions this year:
All competitions are open to undergraduate and master's students, and recent graduates. See the competition Web site for details. Deadline for submissions is January 31, 2013.

Scientists, experts and lay public

Blogger Sean on Discover Magazine compares various types of experts.  Specifically, he answers the question why people trust opinion of experts in physics and do not trust economists.

This is a simple question if to separate firm scientific knowledge and scientific hypothesis.  People do trust well established physical knowledge like mechanics, and thus, they trust physicists in every day activity. For example, aircrafts, ships, satellites, buildings in seismic zones, TV, mobile telephony, etc. is the materialized scientific knowledge. It is beyond discussion of experts and lay public that numerous physical laws deserve absolute trust. (Imagine an expert discussion on the impossibility of mobile telephony as based on the absence of electro-magnetic waves. A hundred and fifty years ago such a discussion would be absolutely reasonable.)   All these physics (or scientific in a broader notation) laws are almost fully justified by laboratory experiments and other types of measurements. Because these laws are now an indispensible part of every day life people forget that this was and is the essence of scientific knowledge. 

However, there are scientific topics which have no reliable scientific solutions (yet or forever) and are characterized by a higher uncertainty in both theories and experiments. In my view, these new horizons in the hard sciences, which are formulated as hypothesis, should not be presented for the broader audience (lay public) as robust scientific knowledge. They do not have robust solutions or materializations yet. When positioned as well established scientific knowledge these hypothesis ignite severe discussion between experts and lay public. They use the uncertainty gaps in experimental justification and put forward own interpretations with various applications in real life.

I would treat “global warming” (as induced by human activity) as one of such hypothesis which should be better experimentally justified. There are so many gaps in  the estimates of major sinks and sources of greenhouse gases that the relative inputs in the final balance is not clear yet. Notice, I do not say that this hypothesis is not scientifically void. I just say that a Nobel Prize for it was a premature and political decision which has changed the terms of the scientific discussion.    

Now we come to economics and economic experts. It is well known that economics (I do not include finances, business, etc.) is a science without experimental or observational justification. When one judges by the prediction of large scale outcomes like recessions economics does not show any result at all. (Many economists are proud of that, however.) It is in drastic contrast to the predictions of the hard sciences - we foresee that our airplane will land with a very high probability in line with actions of many physical laws, staring with Bernoulli one, which creates the lifting force. Otherwise we would never use the plane.  Here the term “economic experts” comes. These are people who discuss measured macroeconomic values without any quantitative justification.  That’s why I do not like the term “expert” as applied to physicists. When I hear it I usually see a round table with several economic experts discussing a problem without any solution in scientific terms. As a rule, they can explain any process or phenomena with the same words and arguments they used to explain the opposite process and phenomena two years ago. For me its enough to decide that they are worth nothing together with their words. Economic experts use a very limited agrument base to explain everything.

In turn, the possibility to explain everything attracts the lay public. People like the illusion of understanding. In many economic blogs one can observe how readers repeat the arguments from economic experts without understanding that these experts have explained nothing. Emotionally, it is better to trust experts than scientists, who usuall do not have ready answers to all questions.

As a remark. Some physicists propose a scientific revolution in economics (Bouchaud, J.-P., (2008). Economics needs scientific revolution, Nature, v.455, 30 October 2008). I would start with a simple data analysis in line with classical mechanics (Ivan O. Kitov, 2009. “Does economics need a scientific revolution?, Quantitative Finance Papers 0904.0729, arXiv.org). Actually, economic data do not match even basic requirements of physics. They are usually incompatible over time. One needs lots of efforts to recover major time series like inflation, GDP per capita, rate of unemployment, etc. (http://themostsearched.blogspot.com/).

Therefore, a researcher in the hard sciences is hardly an expert explaining all observations and usually knows what s/he knows and what s/he does not know. The latter is the matter to investigate. When a researcher works as an expert and brings to the unprepared audience (almost any place except specialed seminars, workshops, conferences, etc.) some hypothesis with a large uncertainty it usually has a negative result. At best, nobody understands and forgets.
The worst case, politicians use one of many possibilities under the higher uncertainty for their dirty profit. As an example, I recall a long discussion in the USSR about the necessity to turn nothern rivers to the Caspian sea, which had been losing water and thus area before the 1970s. The reason is clear – money and resources, i.e. power, and this project was supported by many (specially selected) experts who forecasted the sea to disapper according to their linear models. The Soviet government was ready to start. In terms of long term observations, for an inner lake oscillations is a natural regime (as was argued by many scientists, chiefly, physicists) and the Caspian sea has been growing since the 1970s and has already inundated many small villages. The conclusion - do not give any chance to politicians to use your knowledge in their interests. In other words, do not be “experts”.

In reality, it was not the strong scientific opinion but the disintegration of the Soviet Union that stopped the project. Nobody is able to stop the greater political project “global warming”.

Is the mainstream economics a science?

I like to collect citations from well-known economists. They actually think that economics is a hard science and they are scientists in terms of methodology.  Sometimes they give direct examples and compare economics with some hard sciences. This is one of examples from R.Schiller who compares economics and medicine:
Imagine how the medical profession would view one of its members who recommended to the general public some therapy that had not yet passed scrutiny from the appropriate authorities. Medical professionals know how often seemingly promising new therapies turn out, after careful study, not to work, or even to be harmful. There is a rigorous process of scholarly review of proposed new therapies, associated with professional journals that uphold high research standards. Circumventing that process and promoting new, untested ideas to the general public is unprofessional.
By irony, Robert explains the difference between the medical profession and economists in the very beginning of his post:
... An apparent paradox emerged from the discussion: the boom in popular economics comes at a time when the general public seems to have lost faith in professional economists, because almost all of us failed to predict, or even warn of, the current economic crisis, the biggest since the Great Depression.

Imagine now that the medical profession has the same "success" in the main fields of research. Would anybody go to a  doctor at all?  What were the criteria of " ... scrutiny from the appropriate authorities"  in the economics profession?

Please, do not steal from the hard sciences the merits economics does not deserve. There is no scientific methodology in the current economic knowledge because economits explicitly deny the necessity to compare observations and predictions. This is the core of medical scrutiny.  If to compare an economist and a doctor, the former should never approach the patient.

As Shuttle Program Nears End, Majority of Americans See U.S. Leadership in Space as Essential

A timely survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press shows that 58% of Americans believe it is essential that the U.S. continues to be a leader in space exploration. The U.S. space shuttle program begins its final mission today, thirty years after the first shuttle, Columbia, was sent out in 1981. A majority of those polled (55%) say the shuttle program was a good investment, a healthy percentage but lower than figures in the 1980s, when sixty percent or more believed it was a good investment.Majorities across demographic groups believe continued U.S. space exploration is essential. This holds true for partisan groups as well, although a higher percentage of Republicans (67%) believe it is essential, as compared with independents (57%) and Democrats (54%).
Those with a higher level of education are more likely to view the space shuttle program as a good investment. Approximately two-thirds of college graduates (66%) say it was a good investment, along with 57% of Americans with some college education. The percentage drops among those with lower levels of education, with 47% of Americans with no college education saying the program was a good investment, as compared with 43% who say it was not.

Wealthier families--those with annual incomes of $75,000 or more--are more likely to evaluate the program favorably: 67% of those families say it was a good investment, compared with only 27% who say it was not. Families with incomes under $30,000 per year are more divided in their evaluations, with 44% viewing the program favorably and 47% unfavorably.And while large majorities say the space shuttle program "helped encourage interest in science, led to scientific advances and contributed to feelings of patriotism...no more than about four-in-ten say that the program has contributed 'a lot' in any of these areas."

NH cf

Blog Archive