Is the following a correct restatement of your point?
Somewhat. I’m not saying that lessons should be standardized in the same way that textbooks and exams are currently standardized. I don’t think enough resources are being applied towards textbooks and exams (considering how widely used they are, even a small improvement would have a big effect because it’d be multiplied by the amount of people it touches).
My central point is, “I sense that there is a more abstract economic principle behind what I’m trying to say. Can anyone help me to articulate/understand it?”.
That would not be very efficient, because 100 employees...
You’re right. The 100 employees example was bad.
On the other hand, a teacher needs to adapt the lesson to the class.
I agree. I don’t think that lessons can be so good that we don’t need teachers (yet). I think that there will still be holes in the students’ knowledge after/while going through the lesson, and the most efficient way (right now) to identify and address these holes is to use a human.
Thank you! I think that’s getting closer to what I’m thinking. But it isn’t quite the same thing.
The superstar effect seems to be explaining a phenomena, whereas I’m trying to make an argument as to how resources can be allocated most efficiently. The superstar effect says, “you see these high salaries among, say singers, because technology has enabled them to reach large audiences, and technology has enabled consumers to easily listen to the best singers” (please correct me if my understanding is flawed).
I’m trying to do something similar, but from what I understand, slightly different. I’m trying to answer the question, “Why is this more efficient? Why is there an opportunity for firms to create and capture value?”.
I sense that equilibrium is a relevant concept. You invest in the resource until the marginal benefit is ⇐ the marginal cost. Investing into a resource that serves a large market has a large marginal benefit because the effects are multiplied by the size of the market.
Edit: I spent the whole day thinking about it and at some point the thoughts started flowing, so I wrote up a post. Thanks again for referring me to The Superstar Effect!
Somewhat. I’m not saying that lessons should be standardized in the same way that textbooks and exams are currently standardized. I don’t think enough resources are being applied towards textbooks and exams (considering how widely used they are, even a small improvement would have a big effect because it’d be multiplied by the amount of people it touches).
My central point is, “I sense that there is a more abstract economic principle behind what I’m trying to say. Can anyone help me to articulate/understand it?”.
You’re right. The 100 employees example was bad.
I agree. I don’t think that lessons can be so good that we don’t need teachers (yet). I think that there will still be holes in the students’ knowledge after/while going through the lesson, and the most efficient way (right now) to identify and address these holes is to use a human.
It looks like your point could be summarized, in economics jargon, as: education is now a field where the superstar effect should apply.
Thank you! I think that’s getting closer to what I’m thinking. But it isn’t quite the same thing.
The superstar effect seems to be explaining a phenomena, whereas I’m trying to make an argument as to how resources can be allocated most efficiently. The superstar effect says, “you see these high salaries among, say singers, because technology has enabled them to reach large audiences, and technology has enabled consumers to easily listen to the best singers” (please correct me if my understanding is flawed).
I’m trying to do something similar, but from what I understand, slightly different. I’m trying to answer the question, “Why is this more efficient? Why is there an opportunity for firms to create and capture value?”.
I sense that equilibrium is a relevant concept. You invest in the resource until the marginal benefit is ⇐ the marginal cost. Investing into a resource that serves a large market has a large marginal benefit because the effects are multiplied by the size of the market.
Edit: I spent the whole day thinking about it and at some point the thoughts started flowing, so I wrote up a post. Thanks again for referring me to The Superstar Effect!