By Bryan Caplan
First, let me join the rest of EconLog in welcoming guest blogger Art Carden.
Third, let me join the vast majority of mankind in refusing Art’s proposed bet. As phrased, he’s very likely to win. The main problem: He probably needs to make the terms less favorable and less ambiguous to attract noteworthy opponents. As minimum, Art should replace the following passage:
“Negative and statistically significant” can still count as neutral if
the negative effect is small enough to still pass a cost/benefit
analysis that we can agree is reasonable.
“Negative and statistically significant” counts as a negative effect.
To be operational, though, Art should probably also (a) list all the outcomes he’s betting on, and (b) name an arbiter or arbiters to judge the 2033 state of scholarly research on the treatment effect of homeschooling. I’d suggest soliciting researchers under the age of 45 who are currently on the editorial boards of top economics, education, psychology, and sociology journals. Perhaps Art could get five or ten prominent names to agree to participate, then let each opponent select three names from the list?