The New York Times reports on two economists’ efforts to measure the impact of home computers on the education of schoolchildren in low-income households. University of Chicago economist Ofer Malamud and Columbia University economist Cristian Pop-Eleches measured little or no benefits from the computers.

Worsening matters, Malamud and Pop-Eleches found that computers seem to have even lowered the test scores of low-income children in Romania, where they conducted their research.

“We found a negative effect on academic achievement,” Malamud told the New York Times. “I was surprised, but as we presented our findings at various seminars, people in the audience said they weren’t surprised, given their own experiences with their school-age children.”

The two professors report finding “strong evidence that children in households who won a voucher received significantly lower school grades in math, English and Romanian.” The single positive effect was that students improved their computer skills.

Don’t think this is just a Romanian result though:

The state of Texas recently completed a four-year experiment in “technology immersion.” The project spent $20 million in federal money on laptops distributed to 21 middle schools whose students were permitted to take the machines home. Another 21 schools that did not receive funds for laptops were designated as control schools.

At the conclusion, a report prepared by the Texas Center for Educational Research tried to make the case that test scores in some academic subjects improved slightly at participating schools over those of the control schools. But the differences were mixed and included lower scores for writing among the students at schools “immersed” in technology.

Just over a month ago, I posted on an interesting study reviewing the effects of visa restrictions on higher education in the US. In short, the study found that a “restrictive immigration policy has had an adverse impact on the quality of prospective international applicants” because it “disproportionately discourages high-ability international students from attending US schools.”

I recently found a new paper that studies fluctuations in the admissions levels of H-1B visa holders influences US patenting. The study suggests that “higher H-1B admissions increased US innovation through the direct contributions of the immigrants without crowding out those of natives.”

The figure below illustrates the evolution of the H-1B visa cap and an estimate of the H-1B population:

Results have been largely positive:

Indeed, there have been more than 3000 news articles since 1995 about the visa. Executives of high-tech firms often argue that higher H-1B admissions are necessary to keep US businesses competitive, to spur innovation and growth, and to keep firms from shifting their operations abroad.

Most opponents of the H-1B immigration visa have argued that skilled immigrants displace American workers, what economists call “crowding out.” There is little empirical evidence supporting such views. In fact, most of the evidence supports a crowding-in effect for native workers.

The evidence does not support crowding-out theories, and there is suggestive support for small crowding-in effects. Overall, a 10% growth in the H-1B population corresponded with a 0.3%-0.7% increase in total invention for each standard deviation growth in city dependency.

Using 2000 US Census data, Brighita Negrusa and Sonia Oreffice analyze how sexual orientation is related to household savings. They find that “gay and lesbian couples own significantly more retirement income than heterosexuals, while cohabiting heterosexuals save more than their married counterparts.” Since homosexual couples are far less likely to raise children, they are left with more income to save for retirement.

[W]e find that homosexuals own $5,785 more annual retirement and social security income than the average married couple, who in turn saves $2,442 less annually than the average heterosexual cohabiting couple.

…This evidence is consistent with our interpretation that homosexuals save more than heterosexual individuals since over their lifetime they have much fewer children

(Play all five videos)

Einstein’s Theory of Relativity says that time travel is perfectly possible — if you’re going forward. Finding a way to travel backwards requires breaking the speed of light, which so far seems impossible. But now, strange-but-true phenomena such as quantum nonlocality, where particles instantly teleport across vast distances, may give us a way to make the dream of traveling back and forth through time a reality.

Step into a time machine and rewrite history, bring loved ones back to life, control our destinies. But if we succeed, what are the consequences of such freedom? Will we get trapped in a plethora of paradoxes and multiple universes that will destroy the fabric of the universe?

The attorney general says at least 24,800 people have been killed in drug-gang violence since [Mexican President Felipe] Calderon launched his military-led offensive in 2006.

From an AP article on the first time use of a car bomb by a Mexican drug cartel. If the cartels aren’t too careful, Mexico will deal them their ultimate blow: legalization. Just kidding. I wish I wasn’t though.