Teenagers With Better Childhoods Drink Less and Do Drugs Less

If we structured a system where there was less poverty and despair, more people would have better childhoods, and less people would end up with damaging drug addictions.

*****

Teenagers with happy childhood memories are likely to drink less, take fewer drugs and enjoy learning, according to research published in the peer-reviewed journal Addiction Research & Theory.

The findings, based on data from nearly 2,000 US high school students, show a link between how pupils feel about the past, present and future and their classroom behavior. This in turn influences their grades and risk of substance misuse, according to the study.

The authors say action is needed now because Covid-19 has left many teenagers struggling with online study, suffering mentally and turning to drink and drugs.

They are calling on teachers — and parents — to help students develop more positive mindsets and become motivated to learn so they are less likely to binge drink or use marijuana.

“School often seems a source of stress and anxiety to students,” says John Mark Froiland from Purdue University in Indiana, US.

“This puts them at greater risk of not participating in lessons, getting lower grades and of substance misuse.

“Many teenagers also aren’t engaging with online learning during Covid or have lower engagement levels.

“But they’re more likely to be enthusiastic learners and not use drink and drugs if teachers take time to build more positive relationships with them. They can help students see that everything they’re learning is truly valuable. Parents have a role to play too.”

Teenagers with a balanced attitude towards their childhoods and other time periods have already been shown by studies to be more likely to abstain from drink and drugs and achieve academically. This is compared to those with a pessimistic outlook.

The aim of this study was to establish how substance misuse and behaviors towards learning are affected by students’ feelings about the past, present and future.

The data was based on assessments and questionnaires completed by 1,961 students at a high school in the San Francisco Bay Area. More than half (53%) of the pupils included in the study were female.

The study authors looked at responses from pupils where they rated how nostalgic they were towards their childhood, current happiness levels in life and how much they look forward to future happiness.

They also analysed marijuana and alcohol habits over the past 30 days including binge drinking, and average academic grades. They analysed motivation levels, and behavior in lessons such as how much teenagers paid attention and listened.

Statistical techniques were used by the researchers to assess the associations between all these different factors and establish the key predictors for alcohol and marijuana misuse.

In general, the study found that positive attitudes towards the past, present and future put adolescents at lower risk for alcohol use, binge drinking, and marijuana.

The opposite was true for those displaying pessimistic or negative ways of thinking or feeling about their life in the past, now or ahead of them.

The reason for this was that a content and optimistic outlook increased the likelihood they would be motivated and behave in a focused way on the chance to learn.

Other findings include girls having stronger levels of behavioral engagement than boys, and students who drank being most likely to use cannabis.

The Failed Investments of Ivy League Schools and the Future of Hedge Funds

If the elite universities had simply invested in index funds that matched the stock market average instead of hedge funds, there would be much more money to grant to disadvantaged youth and to valuable research initiatives. Those universities have all that prestige and influence, and they even have a tax exempt status — and pound for pound they still did worse than a good average investor would have.

The New York Times highlighted the findings of a remarkable study last week. The study, by Markov Processes International, examined the 10-year returns of the endowments of the 8 Ivy League schools. The study found that all 8 endowments had lower returns than a simple mix of 60 percent stock index funds and 40 percent bonds. In some cases, the gap was substantial. Harvard set the mark with its annual returns lagging a simple 60-40 portfolio by more than 3.0 percentage points.

[…]

And, just to be clear, the Markov comparison was overly generous to the universities. Their benchmark comparison of a portfolio of 60 percent stock and 40 percent bonds is in fact far safer than the alternative investments they hold. If they actually equalized risk, the comparison portfolio might be 80 percent or even 90 stock, making the Ivy league endowment returns look even worse.

The Ivy League schools are not the only big institutional investors who are turning to alternative investments. State and local pension funds also play this game in a big way. The beneficiaries are more often private equity partners, but the basic story is the same: people who make themselves very rich by playing financial games. And, as with the hedge fund folks and the Ivies, they do not provide the promised returns.

And, there is considerably more money at stake with public pension funds. The cumulative size of the Ivy League endowments is just under $140 billion. While this is hardly chump change, state and local government pension funds have more than $8 trillion in assets. Most of this money is not in alternative investments, but if just 10 percent were placed with private equity funds and other alternatives, it would come to $800 billion.

There is much to dislike about the behavior of these financial actors. They routinely play games with the tax code and bankruptcy law to increase returns. It is standard practice for private equity funds to leverage their companies as much as possible to take advantage of the deduction for interest on corporate income taxes.[1]

They also strip valuable assets, such as the real estate on which stores and restaurants sit, so that they can book a quick profit while leaving the companies they control more vulnerable to a business downturn. Bankruptcy is a common tool, which they use to get out of not only interest payments on debt (presumably lenders knew the risks they were taking), but also pension and health care obligations to workers, and payments to suppliers.

[…]

In terms of inertia, people can point back to a period where the hedge funds did produce outsized returns, as did the private equity funds. People can think that the last decade or so is just an aberration, and that the good times will return.

While I can’t predict the future, there is a simple story that would imply the opposite. Both hedge funds and private equity funds prospered by finding seriously under-valued assets and then leveraging heavily to maximize their return. When there were few actors in the field, it was possible for some number of funds to make large returns this way. But now that there are many actors, with trillions of dollars to invest, seriously under-valued assets are few and far between.

This means that most hedge funds and private equity funds won’t be able to make outsized returns going forward. The high fees to the fund managers are a direct drain on returns that would otherwise more or less match the market average.

And just to be clear, we are talking about a 10-year period in which hedge funds have failed to match the market average. (It’s a similar story with private equity.) This is a long period, it’s not just a case of these funds having a bad year or two.

Yale University Research: Majorities in Every U.S. County Support Teaching Children About Climate Change

The massive corporate propaganda effort in the U.S. has lead to the country being off the international spectrum in illogical climate denialism. Still, it’s encouraging to see this sort of evidence as the threat of climate change hangs over humanity.

2018_TeachGW_counties

The fact that climate change is happening and human-caused is not a matter of scientific debate: many studies have examined climate scientists’ conclusions about global warming and have found scientific agreement similar to the level of consensus that smoking causes cancer (i.e., above 95%).

[…]

Many teachers, however, need training and support to implement climate change science standards in their classrooms. Recent research published in Science found that many teachers are themselves not certain about climate change. For example, only 30% of middle school and 45% of high school science teachers understand the extent of the scientific consensus. Furthermore, of the educators who do teach climate change, many suggest the cause is ambiguous or uncertain to their students, while 30% actually incorrectly teach that global warming is naturally caused. Correcting the misperception about the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and human-caused is a key educational challenge for both teachers and students.