cognitive capital

以前和朋友聊天時，共同的感覺是55 歲左右最可能被公司"嫌棄"。最近看到一篇美國聯邦政府的研究報告(如附圖)，一個人在經驗增加，但分析能力降低(從20歲起，每年降1%)的相互影響下, 綜合能力在50-60歲達到高峰(不考慮薪水因素)。這似乎也驗證55歲左右是"很危險"的年紀。如果再加上越來越聰明的電腦競爭，情形更不樂觀。

High development cost to justify failure

USD $2.6B cost for average new drug development? That is the number in a new study to "justify" the exorbitant price tag of brand-name drugs. However, other independent study estimated the development cost less than $0.5B. The stiff price tag for brand-name drug is sometimes intimidating. For example, Baraclude sold in Taiwan is NT$210/pill but at a gouging price of NT$1,050/pill elsewhere.
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21635005-startling-new-cost-estimate-new-medicines-met-scepticism-price-failure

Shale oil boom is not that rosy

Beholden to the surging US shale oil production, Brent crude oil price tumbled to below $73/barrel today. There is always a downside for this boom: for every 1 barrel of shale oil produced, 1.4 barrels of toxic brine is generated. Scores of inferno and serious oil spillage in North Dakota in the last two years. Shale oil production needs yet to be proved as a sustainable shot-in-the-arm for US economic development.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/23/us/north-dakota-oil-boom-downside.html?_r=0

ethnic diversification

Healthy ethnic diversification or victim under the justifiable race-conscious admission policy?

WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) school?

In the last 20 years, admission rate for Asian Americans has stayed flat, between 15% and 18%, though college-age population of Asian Americans has doubled. Affirmative action in favor of disadvantaged minorities stacks up against the dismissal of academic achievements in Asian students. However, it is also unapologetically and unfortunately true that there is no financial or institutional incentive for elite schools to admit Asian Americans who don't fall emphatically into the categories "wealthy, cultured and connected."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/opinion/is-harvard-unfair-to-asian-americans.html?_r=0

education and income inequality

最近法國經濟學家 Piketty 在台灣演講，引起教育和貧富不均關係的熱烈討論。實際上，Piketty 在他書中並没有太多對教育的著墨。倒是一個月前，廣受尊敬的美國聯準會主席(相當中央銀行總裁) Janet Yellen 在波士頓的演講, http://www.federalreserve.gov/newseve…/…/yellen20141017a.htm，對教育和貧富不均的關係，有較深的描述。她指出創造"經濟機會"有四大因素。前兩項是她稱之為最重要奠基石，也和教育有關。第一是兒童可以擁有的資源，二是可負擔的高等教育。其他兩項則較人驚呀，一是 business ownership，二是繼承。家庭經濟狀況，必然對兒童教育有些影響。至於高等教育的負擔，大學教育在台灣真的很便宜(見附圖). 美國窮人的小孩子，只要非常努力，資質夠好，仍有很大的翻身機會。世界排名第一第二的普林斯頓和哈佛大學，學生百分之六十有獎助金，平均每人每年的 grant 超過四萬美金。哈佛大學更是家庭年收入少於六萬美金的學生，學費全免。但是不幸地仍有很多用功但貧窮的小孩遭受挫折的報導 http://www.nytimes.com/…/poor-students-struggle-as-class-pl…&

Moore's law vs. Eroom's law

For semiconductor companies, it is Moore' law (transistor count doubles for every 2 years). For pharmaceutical companies, it is Eroom's law (drug approved decreases by half for every 9 years). One of the reasons for Eroom's law: Pharmaceutical companies depend on the newfangled target-based genomics rather than the old-fashioned and laborious trial-and-error method.