A few days ago, I wrote on BloggingStocks about a new study suggesting that most high school students don't know much about economics. Here's what I wrote:

What's a shame is that I really believe that economics could be made into the most interesting high school class if it was approached with creatitivity. In recent years, there have been a slew of amazing books on economics: Freakonomics, The Undercover Economist, Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy, etc.

I bet that if schools ditched traditional textbooks and adopted a more user-friendly format, we would see these numbers skyrocket. People learn better when they're not bored.

Now The New York Times's Robert Frank seems to agree, in a great column called "The Dismal Science, Dismally Taught." He refers to studies suggesting that students fare no better on a basic economic literacy after taking a course than those who don't, and discusses an interesting method for teaching economics that he refers to as "economic naturalism," which seems very freakonomical.

Take a look at the column, and give a copy to every economics teacher you know.

Why aren't economics classes more freakonomical? originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 15:10:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Some economists, including ones cited in a recent story by the New York Times and the authors of "Freakonomics," don't have much use for realtors.

Research cited by the Times showed that people who sold their homes through realtors didn't get a higher price than those who sold it themselves, although agents sold homes faster. Though the researchers caution against extrapolating their data to a nationwide trend, it's likely going to happen. Of course, the National Association of Realtors has its own studies showing the exact opposite conclusion.

The growth of sale-by-owner homes would seem to be an inevitable consequence of the housing slump since people are going to try and squeeze every last dollar of profit from the sale of what is likely their most valuable asset. But realtors don't seem to be suffering.

In fact, they are making higher commissions, according to writer Kenneth Hamey of the Washington Post Writers Group, writing for Realtors Magazine Online.

Properties simply need more marketing muscle to sell, which means that real estate practitioners must work harder and spend more money in order to help the sellers get top dollar," he writes. "Some agents also are adding services, such as staging or professional photography, to get the listings noticed in markets where inventory is supple."

Maybe there are different methodologies in the studies done by economists and the industry. Regardless, I don't think the job of the realtor will ever go away completely. Buying a home is pretty scary, particularly if it's your first time, and it can be comforting to have someone guide you through the process. Plus, there are thousands of details that are too much bother for many people.

Even so, I'll sell my home myself if my wife and I ever decide to move. The economics are just too compelling to ignore.

Who needs realtors? originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:45:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.