Tatyana Deryugina (Twitter: @TDeryugina)

Main » Articles

Posted 29 Apr 10 by Tatyana in News

Yesterday, it was announced that Peter Diamond, a professor of economics at MIT, will be one of the nominees for the Fed. I’m proud to say that I’ve taken his public finance and microeconomics classes (but I don’t think that means I’ll be getting nominated anytime soon).

A lesser known fact is that Peter Diamond also got to throw the first pitch at the Red Sox game on April 20th AND had a concert given in his honor later that week (read about that here).

Congrats, Peter!



Posted 28 Apr 10 by Tatyana in Simply Amusing

A few years ago, I heard someone say that weather forecasters always overstate the chances of rain. The reasoning is that people are REALLY unhappy if it rains when the forecast calls for sun and only slightly unhappy when it doesn’t rain although the forecast says otherwise.

I generally agree with that reasoning, but there is a limit. This week, the Boston forecasters overstepped it. They’ve forecasted rain starting on Sunday morning. There was no rain on Sunday or Monday. In fact, it was quite sunny. I brought my bike inside both nights, silently swearing as I maneuvered it up the stairs while trying to open the three sets of doors between the outdoors and my apartment. To be fair, it did rain Monday night, but by Tuesday morning it was clear again. Yet weather.com relentlessly kept forecasting rain.

Of course, by Tuesday afternoon, I didn’t really care what weather.com said. I decided that my method of looking at the sky in the distance was far more reliable. I jumped on my bike and went to play tennis (indoors, because we thought it was going to rain). As you can guess, when I came outside, the ground was wet and rain was coming down.

I hope these are not the same guys who are in charge of deciding whether or not there’s global warming.



Posted 27 Apr 10 by Tatyana in Simply Amusing

Instead of telling kids that they can be "anything they want to be” (as the US stereotype goes) or to keep their expectations low, people should be telling them to keep things simple. My recent experiences confirm that this is the best attitude to have whether you’re trying to write a dissertation or improve your tennis skills.

I don’t want my dissertation to be simple. I want it to be the ultimate answer to several super important questions. But as it turns out, that’s neither feasible, nor desirable. Trying to answer a lot of general questions has so far led me to no answers. As it also turns out, the people who come up with lots of good answers write a lot of good but specific papers. I may not be exactly like those people, but I can imitate their methods instead of trying to be all I can be.

In an entirely different realm, I finally decided to work on my tennis technique. Following a friend’s advice, I went to yellowtennisballs.com (great site!) and watched some free instructional videos. The forehand basics consist of five parts. I thought that was manageable until I stepped onto the court and realized that I was completely incapable of hitting a ball. So I just decided to focus on parts 1 and 2, which worked pretty damn well.

The point is that you can’t have everything, you can’t be everything, and you shouldn’t keep your expectations low (at least I hope to do slightly better than graduate and master 2/5 components of the forehand). But, in case your mother never told you, you should focus on one thing at a time if you want to get anywhere.



Posted 01 Apr 10 by Tatyana in Simply Amusing

I remember when it was pretty easy to trick people on April Fool’s day. Or maybe I thought it was. The first joke I remember making is telling my mom I was pregnant. I think I was 7 or 8. She didn’t believe me or think it was funny (in retrospect I can see why).

Now it’s much harder to convince people of something ridiculous. If you can make them believe it, it’s usually not funny and if it’s funny, no one will believe you. Even Google’s "joke” of changing its name to Topeka for the day is not really a joke. It’s a really cute response to Topeka changing its name to Google, Kansas for a month. Writing about the pope being sued by Kentucky is a bit too far fetched. Oh, wait, that actually did happen.

I was really hoping something interesting/ridiculous would happen so that I could tell people about it and have them not believe me because it’s April Fool’s. But Wednesdays are just not that exciting. And now I’ll go and cash my $35 million lottery ticket.



Posted 30 Mar 10 by Tatyana in Writing
 As I was editing my paper draft, I realized something which was probably told to me a long time ago: every time I use the phrase "Z is interesting”, I have no ideawhy it’s interesting, much less important. "Interesting” is a cop-out for when I have no idea why you should care about Z. So I’m forcing myself to take all the instances of that word out of the paper and replace it with something more meaningful. If I find a place where it actually is appropriate, I’ll let you know. But I doubt it.  


Posted 29 Mar 10 by Tatyana in Books

I just finished reading "Big Bang” by Simon Singh. It’s a fascinating account of the history of astronomy/cosmology, starting from the days people believed the sun revolved around the Earth. The book is a great combination of amusing anecdotes about the scientists themselves, easy-to-understand description of the major theories, the scientific methods used to arrive at the theories, and (best of all) thoughtful commentary on how science progresses.

This made me think of the progress of economics (mostly because everything makes me think of economics these days) and whether it is or will ever become a science in the standard sense. I think it definitely has the potential to be even more rigorous. Unfortunately, no one is giving economists billions of dollars or approval for large scale experiments. Imagine how much economists could do if we got as much funding as the collider…by the way, I do recommend "Big Bang”!



Posted 14 Mar 10 by Tatyana in Musings on Economics

Today’s post on Mankiw’s blog alerted me to a ranking of econ departments that I’ve never seen before. Notice that Mankiw lists this ranking first, followed by US News ranking, which focuses on graduate programs specifically, as opposed to departments in general.

Here are the top 10 according to IDEAS (and their score)...



Posted 08 Mar 10 by Tatyana in News

American Express sent me a notice today about the credit card reform bill and how it may affect my account. For the most part, this legislation looks welfare enhancing; most of the changes are meant to make sure people are provided with enough information (e.g. are aware of finance and interest charges) and that companies can’t manipulate people into paying late by playing around with the due date or refusing to send you a reminder to pay a few days before the payment is due. You can read American Express’s explanation of the changes here.

Unfortunately for me, I was already aware of the charges. I’m paranoid about paying off all my balance on time every month, and I’ve never been close to going over my limit. People like me will somehow be hurt by this reform (maybe there will be fewer rewards or higher merchant fees that will raise prices). But as a good citizen, I’m happy that the credit card system has been made somewhat more transparent.



Posted 04 Mar 10 by Tatyana in Simply Amusing

Although Google has perfected the search engine (or at least made it very very very good at finding exactly what you need), it’s still far from being able to suggest relevant ads on Gmail. I constantly see links inviting me to get a PhD online or to evaluate my chances of getting into MIT. Note that Gmail knows I have an MIT email address and my signature contains the words "PhD student”. Maybe they’re afraid of using that information for privacy concerns?

Also, I’ve been getting links to recipes using Spam (the meat) for a long time. I could not figure out why. I thought maybe Spam was launching some advertising campaign and paying Google tons of money to put links on Gmail. It’s only a few days ago that I realized the Spam recipes come up when I check the message in my spam folder. Really, Gmail? Really?



Posted 01 Mar 10 by Tatyana in Science

A recent Scientific American article (you need to be a subscriber to read it though) demonstrated one of my favorite caveats about inferring whether something is good or bad for you by giving huge doses of it to lab rats (e.g. saccharin, which allegedly causes cancer, and tannins, which allegedly are good for you). As it turns out, hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen oxide, and carbon monoxide, which are all normally considered poisonous, play a vital role in regulating dilation in blood vessels, among other things.

The human body contains (and needs) trace amounts of gold and other things that in large quantities would kill us. What people are doing when they claim something is bad or good based on large amounts of a substance is assuming that the effect is linear (or at least monotonic). However, it seems that lots of things are bad in large amounts but good or necessary in small amounts. Something could also be bad (or neutral) in small amounts but good in larger doses, although it’s not as easy to think of an example. The key point is that it’s important to test comparable dosages.



1-10 11-20 ... 81-90 91-100 101-110 111-120 121-130 131-140 141-145

Total entries in catalog: 145
Shown entries: 101-110
Pages: « 1 2 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 »