Economist Emily Oster’s Data Driven Advice That Led to Her Being Both a ‘Hero’ and a ‘Villain’

Dr. Oster claims to base all of her opinions and advice on concrete data, and while some, specifically the upper-middle class, have taken her words as absolute truths, others claim her guidance is incorrect and even dangerous.

She has used her capabilities to become a wildly successful author, with a huge social media presence, to “[create] a world of more relaxed pregnant women and parents.”

And while she has been a popular source of information for parents for some time, it was her response to the COVID-19 pandemic that really put Dr. Oster on the map.

Her main points were that keeping children out of school would have several negative side effects for their education as well as for their parents, and that, according to the statistics, putting them back in school wasn’t nearly as dangerous as people thought.

Many agreed with her stance, but others argued that returning to school would only benefit the upper-middle-class and private schools, not low-income families or public schools, which were at a higher risk for contracting the virus.

They argued that as a wealthy mother who didn’t attend public school or even send her kids to one, Oster certainly does not understand what it means to work in the public education system. One teacher, Maya Chavez, told The New York Times, “There is a serious disconnect between her idea of what school looks like and the reality.”

But her naysayers claim that it’s not all about the data; in fact, when it comes to parenting, most people decide what’s best for their family with emotional responses.

Since she took her stance fighting for schools to open, she has met with Hilary Clinton and Michelle Obama, as well as hosted several other big names in politics and education on her podcast.

Time called the economist “a savior for whipsawed mothers,” and gave her essentially a rave review for how she was able to help parents feel educated and in control throughout the year.

Oster also mentioned that she could have done things a little differently, or even better. She said, “I had maybe somewhat of a naïve approach,” and, “I didn’t stress that the situation is different for higher-risk children, or emphasize the importance of equitable vaccine distribution.”

She continues to focus on explaining the confusing health information circulating the internet for pregnancy and children in a clear and direct way.

Her followers consider her to be a hero and some even call her their own personal CDC. It seems that in a world of varying opinions, parents want the data she provides. Though some might not like what she finds.