HW 9 - Freakonomics Response

Question 3: The people in Freakonomics mostly rely on the evidence in front of them given to them by the kids. Like when they tried to pay kids $50 each month if they were able to pass there classes. It wasn't successful but they still had quite a bit of evidence to test if it was successful of unsuccessful. 5-7 percent of kids passed when they thought they weren't. Some other pieces of evidence they found was they were trying to determine if someone name had determined how there personality was. But it was proved that your name doesn't make up your personality. It was really the neighborhood that you grew up in. If you grew up in a bad neighborhood, then that is what you might become, but if grew up in a good neighborhood then maybe you might turn out better. One more piece of evidence was how when they said when someone is cheating, you can look in the numbers. LIke when sumos fight in like a tournament and there si someone who is 7-6 vs someone who is 6-6 the person who is 7-6 would most of the time lose, but in the next round, 95 percent of the time the person 7-6 would win against the person who beat him last round.


Question 2: The people in Freakonomics had very interesting points.  One of the points they brought up was when there is a white person looking for a job, and a black person looking for a job.  They would send out job applications to people but the outcome wasn't right from my perspective. On the application, the names of the person filling out the application determined how long it would take for a person to take a look at their application.  What they considered a black name like, Deshawn, Tyshawn, etc compared to someone like, Chester, Todd, etc made it easier or difficult to find the same job either race was trying to get.  It could take the white person only 3 weeks to get hired.  Where it takes a black person up to 11 weeks to get hired.