¡Qué crisis! ¡Esto es un nuevo escenario!

emilieitor escribió:

http://economia.elpais.com/economia/2015/01/31/actualidad/1422727262_607458.html

Pandereta nacional sonando con gran intensidad...

Yoberog escribió:

su empresa (tradelan) vende un generador eléctrico que no necesita combustible de ningún tipo: genera electricidad infinita sin gasto, violando todas las leyes de la física:

http://entangledapples.blogspot.com.es/2015/01/el-motor-de-energia-infinita-de-sigfrid.html?m=1

BassBoy escribió:

Otro dato mas en que España deberia meterse de lleno en las renovables. Seriamos los lideres del mercado energetico renovable en el mundo y cuando llegue el momento los lideres del mercado energetico.

BassBoy escribió:

Pero somos post franquista y no entendemos nada

Alguien escribió:

We live surrounded by inequality. Some have wealth, health, education, satisfying occupations. Others get poverty, ill-health and drudgery. The Conservative reaction, personified by David Cameron, is to promote social mobility and meritocracy.

History shows this will fail to increase mobility rates. Given that social mobility rates are immutable, it is better to reduce the gains people make from having high status, and the penalties from low status.

Why is social mobility so resistant to change? The reason is the strong transmission within families of the attributes that lead to social success. Given this, government policy can do no more than nibble at the fringes of status persistence.

Even more surprising, in the model social democracy of Sweden, social mobility rates again are as slow as in England.

How then can we reduce the inequalities associated with status? There is the obvious mechanism of redistribution through the tax system. Provide minimum levels of consumption to all, funded by transfers from the prosperous.

But also you can create labour market institutions that compress wages and salaries, as in the Nordic societies. In Denmark, for example, workers in fast-food chains such as McDonald’s earn the equivalent of nearly £14 an hour under collective bargaining, more than double the average UK fast-food wage. Economists worry that such interventions in the free market will reduce output. Income per capita in Nordic societies, however, is just as high as in the UK.

Alguien escribió:

In the UK we choose at present to admit to Oxford and Cambridge the top 0.4% of each cohort based on academic performance. This is a highly meritocratic system. But it is also a system that ensures that Oxbridge attendance confers high status. The beneficiaries of this status are mainly the children of the English upper classes, given limited social mobility.

A perfectly feasible alternative would be to define a much larger share of students equally able to benefit from an Oxbridge education – all those with 3 A grades at A-level, for example – and then admit from this pool at random. This system, similar to the one used in Dutch medical schools, would widen the pool from which the Oxbridge elite are drawn to 3% of each cohort.

Alguien escribió:

They do this even though there is zero correlation between the students they like the most and any measurable outcomes. The person they let in off the waiting list is just as likely to be a superstar in life as they one they chose first.

Worth saying again: In admissions, just as in casting or most other forced selection processes, once you get past the selection of people who are good enough, there are few selectors who have a track record of super-sorting successfully. False metrics combined with plenty of posturing leading to lots of drama.

It's all a hoax. A fable we're eager to believe, both as the pickers and the picked (and the rejected).

What would happen if we spent more time on carefully assembling the pool of 'good enough' and then randomly picking the 5%? And of course, putting in the time to make sure that the assortment of people works well together...

klausmaria escribió:

No tengo una opinión formada.

Alguien escribió:

The allocation of places on courses with Numerus Fixus takes place via a centralised or decentralised selection process.

Centralised selection means that places for all courses in the same subject in the Netherlands are allocated by the Dutch government. Places are awarded by a weighted lottery; the best students have the best chance but everyone who meets the minimum standard will be considered.

Alguien escribió:

... ¿a nadie le parece sorprendente?.