California Fires
The descriptions of the California fires remind me of the 1993 flooding on the Missouri and Mississippi rivers. (see here too) Each kind of disaster is different (just as each incidents of disaster is different from one another), but cross disaster commonalities do exist. Tornadoes, the more common Missouri disaster, are instantaenous, more like earthquakes. One takes cover and then cleans up. Fires and floods involve armies of defenders going out to meet the disaster, have much longer durations than most other disasters, and produce the long period of displacement that delays clean-up until after the disaster. Tornado and earthquake clean-up generally takes place within 24 hours. According to the National Weather Service, The Missouri River was above flood stage for 62 days in Jefferson City, Mo., where I was living at the time. Grafton, Ill., recorded flooding for 195 days. That's a long time to wait to get back to your home and see what is left. The flood did tend to rise and fall, even while remaining above flood stage, so some cleanup was possible, only to be halted again by rising water.
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
Monday, October 20, 2003
Swiss Elections indicatates polarization
The Neue Zürcher Zeitung has a story on the elections. The Swiss People’s Party (SVP) is now the leading party, jumping ahead of the Social Democrats. The main losers seem to have been the center right parties, the Christian Democrats and the Radicals. Another big winner was the Green Party. Does this result indicate a more bitter factionalization in Swiss politics, or strategic blundering by the cenetr-right. The Christian Democrats tries to possition itself as less Catholic. The Radicals, a pro-business party, advocated raising the retirement age all the while its party leadership had to re-shuffle because of a business scandal. Utimatly this question will only be answered by the next elections to see whether the center can recapture its possition against the poles.
The Neue Zürcher Zeitung has a story on the elections. The Swiss People’s Party (SVP) is now the leading party, jumping ahead of the Social Democrats. The main losers seem to have been the center right parties, the Christian Democrats and the Radicals. Another big winner was the Green Party. Does this result indicate a more bitter factionalization in Swiss politics, or strategic blundering by the cenetr-right. The Christian Democrats tries to possition itself as less Catholic. The Radicals, a pro-business party, advocated raising the retirement age all the while its party leadership had to re-shuffle because of a business scandal. Utimatly this question will only be answered by the next elections to see whether the center can recapture its possition against the poles.
Saturday, October 18, 2003
Matt has the failure analysis
See my brother's blog for keen insight in very few words for the Cubs getting no farther than Central Division.
See my brother's blog for keen insight in very few words for the Cubs getting no farther than Central Division.
The Primacy of foreign Policy
I know that I am a distinct minority prioritize foreign policy above economic and social issues, but I am not alone. A really good article from 1996 by Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol makes a strong case not only for the importance of foreign policy, but a neo-conservative one at that. Its certainly an interesting read in this post-9/11, post Gulf War II world. I find that it's advice not only remains sound, but would have made the past several years much easier to navigate had it been better heeded.
I know that I am a distinct minority prioritize foreign policy above economic and social issues, but I am not alone. A really good article from 1996 by Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol makes a strong case not only for the importance of foreign policy, but a neo-conservative one at that. Its certainly an interesting read in this post-9/11, post Gulf War II world. I find that it's advice not only remains sound, but would have made the past several years much easier to navigate had it been better heeded.
Self Esteem: too often misunderstood
I am a strong proponent of Douglas McGregor and Abraham Maslow. Reading McGregor is like reading a revelation dropped down from heaven. He is famous for his Theory Y of management, but he has quite a lot more to offer as well. He takes Maslow very seriously, and so do I, and independently of McGregor. As someone who takes Maslow seriously I find myself in that condition so familiar to intellectual historians: finding error in a practice because its practitioners have substituted a misreading of the master for right practice. Schools today are committed to high self-esteem, often in priority to other things, like performance. While its true that Maslow argued that many Americans were beyond physiological and safety needs and were working through belonging, esteem, and actualization needs, hence the primacy of esteem, it is not true that students (as opposed to Americans as a group) have resolved safety or belonging needs and are actually dealing with esteem needs. If students feel intimidated by bullies, crime, or other dangers they are working on their safety needs and will not benefit from working on esteem. For students in poverty, this is especially likely. Many students will still be wrestling with belonging needs, indeed the teen years are famous for this struggle, regardless of class. Further, in order to mistakenly aid the esteem of the worst performing students, esteem opportunities are withdrawn from the students most liable to benefit from them, those most likely to be class leaders in performance.
Indeed, the old style linking of performance and esteem was more appropriate and beneficial than any of the approaches which have replaced it. Those who perform well deserve esteem and the achievement of success and esteem in tandem is healthy. It encourages further success while satisfying fundamental needs. This is something that someone like Alfie Kohn doesn't get. Withdrawing esteem from those who perform is withholding esteem from those most liable to be working at or near that level of Maslow's hierarchy. Giving esteem to those who lack performance has several ill effects.
When students are given esteem without performance, they are given satisfaction for a need they are not necessarily working on, especially when their performance is undermined by safety, belonging, or even physiological needs (inadequate sleep, hunger, more profound needs) giving them esteem doesn't satisfy them because what they need lays elsewhere. When students can tell that they esteem is not tied to performance they detect its patronizing nature, its falsity, and since undeserved attention is better than no attention they will absorb it, it is not helping them meet their esteem needs. Its like eating non-nutritive foods. It fills the stomach without feeding the body. Since teachers are already selling candy and pop to students, this may not bother them. Students, because of brain development better explained by Piaget, are going to be egocentric. Whether this egocentrism is an obstacle to transcend or develops into the personality flaw known as narcissism depends on how they achieve esteem. If they achieve esteem without merit, they will demand esteem in the future without the expectation of performance. They believe they deserve esteem because they are good not because they have done good. This becomes especially challenging when they do ill and expect esteem from teachers, parents, and other adults because its their expectation regarding esteem. Why act right or avoid wrong action if esteem is forthcoming in any event?
Avoiding these errors would be less pernicious if teachers where not so poorly educated themselves.
I am a strong proponent of Douglas McGregor and Abraham Maslow. Reading McGregor is like reading a revelation dropped down from heaven. He is famous for his Theory Y of management, but he has quite a lot more to offer as well. He takes Maslow very seriously, and so do I, and independently of McGregor. As someone who takes Maslow seriously I find myself in that condition so familiar to intellectual historians: finding error in a practice because its practitioners have substituted a misreading of the master for right practice. Schools today are committed to high self-esteem, often in priority to other things, like performance. While its true that Maslow argued that many Americans were beyond physiological and safety needs and were working through belonging, esteem, and actualization needs, hence the primacy of esteem, it is not true that students (as opposed to Americans as a group) have resolved safety or belonging needs and are actually dealing with esteem needs. If students feel intimidated by bullies, crime, or other dangers they are working on their safety needs and will not benefit from working on esteem. For students in poverty, this is especially likely. Many students will still be wrestling with belonging needs, indeed the teen years are famous for this struggle, regardless of class. Further, in order to mistakenly aid the esteem of the worst performing students, esteem opportunities are withdrawn from the students most liable to benefit from them, those most likely to be class leaders in performance.
Indeed, the old style linking of performance and esteem was more appropriate and beneficial than any of the approaches which have replaced it. Those who perform well deserve esteem and the achievement of success and esteem in tandem is healthy. It encourages further success while satisfying fundamental needs. This is something that someone like Alfie Kohn doesn't get. Withdrawing esteem from those who perform is withholding esteem from those most liable to be working at or near that level of Maslow's hierarchy. Giving esteem to those who lack performance has several ill effects.
When students are given esteem without performance, they are given satisfaction for a need they are not necessarily working on, especially when their performance is undermined by safety, belonging, or even physiological needs (inadequate sleep, hunger, more profound needs) giving them esteem doesn't satisfy them because what they need lays elsewhere. When students can tell that they esteem is not tied to performance they detect its patronizing nature, its falsity, and since undeserved attention is better than no attention they will absorb it, it is not helping them meet their esteem needs. Its like eating non-nutritive foods. It fills the stomach without feeding the body. Since teachers are already selling candy and pop to students, this may not bother them. Students, because of brain development better explained by Piaget, are going to be egocentric. Whether this egocentrism is an obstacle to transcend or develops into the personality flaw known as narcissism depends on how they achieve esteem. If they achieve esteem without merit, they will demand esteem in the future without the expectation of performance. They believe they deserve esteem because they are good not because they have done good. This becomes especially challenging when they do ill and expect esteem from teachers, parents, and other adults because its their expectation regarding esteem. Why act right or avoid wrong action if esteem is forthcoming in any event?
Avoiding these errors would be less pernicious if teachers where not so poorly educated themselves.
Friday, October 17, 2003
Bureaucrats once again defy common sense
German student Ralf Bader graduated at the top of his class at a private high school in England. Education bureaucrats in Baden-Württemberg checked his file and found no exam demonstrating a proficency in English (or any other second language). The fact that he graduated from a British high school at the top of his class with straight A's was not enough to prove his English language proficiency, the officials claimed. Bader took them to court and won. So to simplify this for the bureaucrats, boy goes to school in foriegn country where they use a different language, he gets top marks, hence he probabaly speaks the language pretty well. Go ahead next time and recognize the graduation certificate. This story was in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
German student Ralf Bader graduated at the top of his class at a private high school in England. Education bureaucrats in Baden-Württemberg checked his file and found no exam demonstrating a proficency in English (or any other second language). The fact that he graduated from a British high school at the top of his class with straight A's was not enough to prove his English language proficiency, the officials claimed. Bader took them to court and won. So to simplify this for the bureaucrats, boy goes to school in foriegn country where they use a different language, he gets top marks, hence he probabaly speaks the language pretty well. Go ahead next time and recognize the graduation certificate. This story was in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
Thursday, October 16, 2003
Luther the liberator
Saw Luther tonight, and was struck by how modern, progressive teachers are in the role of the Catholic Church denying students direct access to knowledge because it will bore them, or some other variation of "they can't handle it", while Luther represents the faith that they can.
My own hostility to progressivism is rooted to the simple fact that I don't worry about the students who are unprepared for school and so find academics difficult. Everyone else is worried about them. As a contrarian, I see the bright and talented students whose school has been dumbed down, and so are performing much worse than they should. Too few teachers are concerned with excellence and the place of our bright and talented students, and the fact that given high standards, the students who lie in between these extremes are capable of the high standards. That, and it will prepare them for college.
One of the things that so disturbs me about progressivism is the sense that students who aren't prepared for school are incapable of making use of the liberal arts. Like the Cardinals from the movie they had no faith in, or feared, the liberating power of knowledge. Rather than making the effort to sell the artes liberales and then teach it, they feed their students pablum. At one point one of the cardinals argues that the scripture was too difficult for most priests, and my own view of teachers is that they are very probabaly not prepared to handle the liberal arts either. So what that leaves us with is high stakes testing to compel a liberal arts curriculum by an obstructionist teaching profession who would rather not teach much of anything.
Saw Luther tonight, and was struck by how modern, progressive teachers are in the role of the Catholic Church denying students direct access to knowledge because it will bore them, or some other variation of "they can't handle it", while Luther represents the faith that they can.
My own hostility to progressivism is rooted to the simple fact that I don't worry about the students who are unprepared for school and so find academics difficult. Everyone else is worried about them. As a contrarian, I see the bright and talented students whose school has been dumbed down, and so are performing much worse than they should. Too few teachers are concerned with excellence and the place of our bright and talented students, and the fact that given high standards, the students who lie in between these extremes are capable of the high standards. That, and it will prepare them for college.
One of the things that so disturbs me about progressivism is the sense that students who aren't prepared for school are incapable of making use of the liberal arts. Like the Cardinals from the movie they had no faith in, or feared, the liberating power of knowledge. Rather than making the effort to sell the artes liberales and then teach it, they feed their students pablum. At one point one of the cardinals argues that the scripture was too difficult for most priests, and my own view of teachers is that they are very probabaly not prepared to handle the liberal arts either. So what that leaves us with is high stakes testing to compel a liberal arts curriculum by an obstructionist teaching profession who would rather not teach much of anything.
Democratic Divide
Peter Beinart, whose work in the New Republic I generally like, has an excellent article (subscription required) on how the real divide in the Democratic party isn't ideological, its class. He argues the middle class reformers reject machine politics, favor campaign finance reform, are fiscally conservative, and particularly dovish (though dovishness also correlates well to geography). The working class democrats see machines as their defenders, regard reform with suspicion, receive a disproportionate share of entitlements, and are hawkish (again geography needs to be consulted). Dean is the darling of the middle class reformers and Gephardt is the champion of the working class traditionalists. Kerry has displeased both, and no one else is poised to grab either of these key constituencies.
Looked at this way, Gephardt is the stronger candidate in the national election, since its much more likely that Dean would lose culturally conservative, gun-loving, hawkish labor to Bush than it is than Gephardt would lose the middle class reformers, who would certainly defect to a Republican like McCain, but not Bush.
The thing is, I just don't see Gephardt getting the nomination. Its Dean's to lose, and such a loss might resurrect Kerry. However, nationally, Dean will hemorage culturally conservative, gun-loving, hawkish labor to Bush. How badly will depend upon how well Dean can woo labor. Dean is already shifting his candidacy towards frontrunner geniallity towards fellow dems and moderating certain views. Our system of primary-national election always forces candidates to run away from the center and then back toward it. Both to unify their wing of the electorate as well as appealing to independents. As I say, its Deans to lose.
Peter Beinart, whose work in the New Republic I generally like, has an excellent article (subscription required) on how the real divide in the Democratic party isn't ideological, its class. He argues the middle class reformers reject machine politics, favor campaign finance reform, are fiscally conservative, and particularly dovish (though dovishness also correlates well to geography). The working class democrats see machines as their defenders, regard reform with suspicion, receive a disproportionate share of entitlements, and are hawkish (again geography needs to be consulted). Dean is the darling of the middle class reformers and Gephardt is the champion of the working class traditionalists. Kerry has displeased both, and no one else is poised to grab either of these key constituencies.
Looked at this way, Gephardt is the stronger candidate in the national election, since its much more likely that Dean would lose culturally conservative, gun-loving, hawkish labor to Bush than it is than Gephardt would lose the middle class reformers, who would certainly defect to a Republican like McCain, but not Bush.
The thing is, I just don't see Gephardt getting the nomination. Its Dean's to lose, and such a loss might resurrect Kerry. However, nationally, Dean will hemorage culturally conservative, gun-loving, hawkish labor to Bush. How badly will depend upon how well Dean can woo labor. Dean is already shifting his candidacy towards frontrunner geniallity towards fellow dems and moderating certain views. Our system of primary-national election always forces candidates to run away from the center and then back toward it. Both to unify their wing of the electorate as well as appealing to independents. As I say, its Deans to lose.
The one virtuous institution in American society
Dennis Prager had an embeded journalist, Karl Zinsmeister, who has written the book Boots on the Ground on the show today. Once again it reinforced my old solider's notion that the only truly viruous institution in America is the Army. I suppose the other services are also virtuous, but my own affection is for the infantry. Compared to other institutions, the press, the university, the congress, even the church, the Army is most virtuous.
Dennis Prager had an embeded journalist, Karl Zinsmeister, who has written the book Boots on the Ground on the show today. Once again it reinforced my old solider's notion that the only truly viruous institution in America is the Army. I suppose the other services are also virtuous, but my own affection is for the infantry. Compared to other institutions, the press, the university, the congress, even the church, the Army is most virtuous.
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
Lies, lies, and more lies
I am sick of the lies comming out of my Geography prof. Tomorrow I act to get some alternative grading. Its bad enough that he lies about population distribution in England. There, he's just wrong, and I don't see any harm beyond the fact that its simply not true. That is bad enough, because error is sufficient to warrent condemnation. But some of his lies are insidious in their subversive intent. This is error in the service of harm. He claims that Soviet indoctrination was very much like American indocrtrination. I suppose that's true, except for the secret police, the gulags, the state control of speech, and the other forms of repression. Then again a dog is very like a fish, except for the fins, scales, gills, and other characteristics of underwater habitation. He argues that cars in 1970 cost $2500 and that similar cars cost $15,000 today and that this is largely the product of our economic disfunction. Never mind that the value of the dollar has changed by a factor of four, so that in real terms that 1970 car costs more like $10,000 today and that the items he did list as differences (mostly safety and convienience features) account for the remaining $5k. Why send students out into the world suspicious of corporations, believeing that their system was corrupted and broken by greed, and that is fundamentally disfunctioinal? Could it be any of a variety of left-wing ideologies? The fact that this professor is a leftie is not the problem. He can embrace anarchy, communism, fasicism, or idiotarianism for all I care. Further, if he can get a faculty to hire him, he should be able to teach from his perspective. But to lie to people to get them to embrace this doctrine is a cancer on the professoriate. I mentioned 3 lies, and this one clearly slides over into incompitance rather than the other. He argued that when we refer to devolution (such as the formation of a Scottish Parliament) that it connects to some evolutionary concept of greater complexity, rather than the more literal sense of falling down.
By the way, this caltalogue of lies are all taken from an hour of class today. He has a previous catalogue of lies, but today was the straw that broke the camel's back.
I am sick of the lies comming out of my Geography prof. Tomorrow I act to get some alternative grading. Its bad enough that he lies about population distribution in England. There, he's just wrong, and I don't see any harm beyond the fact that its simply not true. That is bad enough, because error is sufficient to warrent condemnation. But some of his lies are insidious in their subversive intent. This is error in the service of harm. He claims that Soviet indoctrination was very much like American indocrtrination. I suppose that's true, except for the secret police, the gulags, the state control of speech, and the other forms of repression. Then again a dog is very like a fish, except for the fins, scales, gills, and other characteristics of underwater habitation. He argues that cars in 1970 cost $2500 and that similar cars cost $15,000 today and that this is largely the product of our economic disfunction. Never mind that the value of the dollar has changed by a factor of four, so that in real terms that 1970 car costs more like $10,000 today and that the items he did list as differences (mostly safety and convienience features) account for the remaining $5k. Why send students out into the world suspicious of corporations, believeing that their system was corrupted and broken by greed, and that is fundamentally disfunctioinal? Could it be any of a variety of left-wing ideologies? The fact that this professor is a leftie is not the problem. He can embrace anarchy, communism, fasicism, or idiotarianism for all I care. Further, if he can get a faculty to hire him, he should be able to teach from his perspective. But to lie to people to get them to embrace this doctrine is a cancer on the professoriate. I mentioned 3 lies, and this one clearly slides over into incompitance rather than the other. He argued that when we refer to devolution (such as the formation of a Scottish Parliament) that it connects to some evolutionary concept of greater complexity, rather than the more literal sense of falling down.
By the way, this caltalogue of lies are all taken from an hour of class today. He has a previous catalogue of lies, but today was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Talk Radio having a hard time talking about Rush
Hugh Hewitt confined himself to taking callers from people with some experience with addiction, either as addicts or care-givers. Micheal Medved has waded a little more deeply into the stormy waters of Rush's problems, but has balanced the collegial respect with a frank acknowledgement that its not something to just sweep under the rug. Some other hosts, Mike Gallagher for instance, have attacked callers for being disappointed with Rush for failing to live up to his own standards. Its Gallagher's possition that Rush has had a possitive influence and therefore shouldn't be criticized. Presumably there is a balance test here in which Rush's positive influence outweighs the disappointment. That's all well and good for an assesment of Rush the person. But whatever standard we apply has to make sence when we look at other celebrities and non-celebrities. Matthew Perry had a very similar problem, in which a medical condition produced a pain-killer addiction. There is the well publicised problems of Robert Downey Jr and Charlie Sheen. (Sheen's story is second, scroll down.)
Martin Sheen turned his son, Charlie, into the judge overseeing his probation from previous run-ins. The elder Sheen praised the effect of the legal system on putting leverage on people with a problem. Too often, especially where well-liked celebs are concerned, we greet such news with a wink, and that's no sign that anyone needs to get their life in order. The fact that there is going to be some criticism and that Rush's repuation will in part depend on how he deals with this, can play the role of valuable leverage in helping Rush to commit himself to resolving his addiction once and for good. If we are harder or easier on Rush because of politics than we would be on Perry, Downey, Sheen, Darryl Strawberry, or anyone else who becomes addicted (and the difference between becoming addicted because of recreational or pain-management is only a part of the issue, I don't think it makes all the difference) then we're just using our politics as a shield to avoid discussing the actual case at hand.
Personally I have always regarded addiction itself as the real evil, and don't think Rush did anything worse getting addicted and not taking the steps neccesary to fix it before now. Before we assume that Rush is a hypocrite, I'd like to see what he had to say about 1) cases like Matthew Perry in which someone else got addicted to pain meds, and 2) addiction itself, not the recreational use that can be one road to addiction. I think one can support Rush's position and still condemn recreational drug use that leads to addiction and other negative consequences.
As a side note, the comments on John Kerry's web site have been pretty sympathetic. I think that's a good sign that Dems (or at least Kerry supporters) are able to look past the politics to a degree.
Hugh Hewitt confined himself to taking callers from people with some experience with addiction, either as addicts or care-givers. Micheal Medved has waded a little more deeply into the stormy waters of Rush's problems, but has balanced the collegial respect with a frank acknowledgement that its not something to just sweep under the rug. Some other hosts, Mike Gallagher for instance, have attacked callers for being disappointed with Rush for failing to live up to his own standards. Its Gallagher's possition that Rush has had a possitive influence and therefore shouldn't be criticized. Presumably there is a balance test here in which Rush's positive influence outweighs the disappointment. That's all well and good for an assesment of Rush the person. But whatever standard we apply has to make sence when we look at other celebrities and non-celebrities. Matthew Perry had a very similar problem, in which a medical condition produced a pain-killer addiction. There is the well publicised problems of Robert Downey Jr and Charlie Sheen. (Sheen's story is second, scroll down.)
Martin Sheen turned his son, Charlie, into the judge overseeing his probation from previous run-ins. The elder Sheen praised the effect of the legal system on putting leverage on people with a problem. Too often, especially where well-liked celebs are concerned, we greet such news with a wink, and that's no sign that anyone needs to get their life in order. The fact that there is going to be some criticism and that Rush's repuation will in part depend on how he deals with this, can play the role of valuable leverage in helping Rush to commit himself to resolving his addiction once and for good. If we are harder or easier on Rush because of politics than we would be on Perry, Downey, Sheen, Darryl Strawberry, or anyone else who becomes addicted (and the difference between becoming addicted because of recreational or pain-management is only a part of the issue, I don't think it makes all the difference) then we're just using our politics as a shield to avoid discussing the actual case at hand.
Personally I have always regarded addiction itself as the real evil, and don't think Rush did anything worse getting addicted and not taking the steps neccesary to fix it before now. Before we assume that Rush is a hypocrite, I'd like to see what he had to say about 1) cases like Matthew Perry in which someone else got addicted to pain meds, and 2) addiction itself, not the recreational use that can be one road to addiction. I think one can support Rush's position and still condemn recreational drug use that leads to addiction and other negative consequences.
As a side note, the comments on John Kerry's web site have been pretty sympathetic. I think that's a good sign that Dems (or at least Kerry supporters) are able to look past the politics to a degree.
Sunday, October 12, 2003
I know the future
In a fit of prescience, yesterday I posted about how America borrows the knowledge creation of other countries to deploy for itself, rather than creating nearly as much as it might otherwise appear. Today I look upon the NYTimes and Tom Wolfe re-tells the story of Gropius and Mies van der Rohe arriving in America (also as refuges just like the others) in the 30's and transfering the creative knowledge of their European home here for us to deploy. This story, for those looking for more than the 3 pages on-line at the NYTimes, should look to Wolfe's book From Bauhaus to Your House, in which he related the whole tale, including the fate of actual American knowledge creator, Frank Lloyd Wright . By the way, it is the dominance of the Bauhaus aesthetic which Virgina Postrel attacks in her new book. Its well worth a read, as Wolfe always is.
In a fit of prescience, yesterday I posted about how America borrows the knowledge creation of other countries to deploy for itself, rather than creating nearly as much as it might otherwise appear. Today I look upon the NYTimes and Tom Wolfe re-tells the story of Gropius and Mies van der Rohe arriving in America (also as refuges just like the others) in the 30's and transfering the creative knowledge of their European home here for us to deploy. This story, for those looking for more than the 3 pages on-line at the NYTimes, should look to Wolfe's book From Bauhaus to Your House, in which he related the whole tale, including the fate of actual American knowledge creator, Frank Lloyd Wright . By the way, it is the dominance of the Bauhaus aesthetic which Virgina Postrel attacks in her new book. Its well worth a read, as Wolfe always is.
Saturday, October 11, 2003
Quiz was a breeze
By the way, the quiz I took this 9AM was a breeze, despite the presence of plenty of Excel questions I had to reason through. I actually learned some neat tricks for Excel. I am entirely self-taught in Excel, and use it for the most rudamentary functions. The number of advanced OS questions was troublingly small. There was one question that touched on routine maintenence and one on computer security, though one other question did mention a firewall incidentally. Personally I would reduce the number of sophisticated Excel questions and put a bit more emphisis on maintaining and protecting your computer. Obviously this applies to the class I waivered as well as the test. The number of computers brought down by the latest round of viruses because so many had failed to install Microsoft updates was a clear wake up call as well as a slap across the face of a sleeping American computer user.
By the way, the quiz I took this 9AM was a breeze, despite the presence of plenty of Excel questions I had to reason through. I actually learned some neat tricks for Excel. I am entirely self-taught in Excel, and use it for the most rudamentary functions. The number of advanced OS questions was troublingly small. There was one question that touched on routine maintenence and one on computer security, though one other question did mention a firewall incidentally. Personally I would reduce the number of sophisticated Excel questions and put a bit more emphisis on maintaining and protecting your computer. Obviously this applies to the class I waivered as well as the test. The number of computers brought down by the latest round of viruses because so many had failed to install Microsoft updates was a clear wake up call as well as a slap across the face of a sleeping American computer user.
Does the U.S. create knowledge?
I recently read chapter 7 "Skills" of Lester Thurow's book Building Wealth. (See the Prologue to the book) Thurow talks about knowledge deployment (making good use of knowledge economically by workers in the form of skills) and knowledge creation (inventing new products, proceedures, and ideas) and observes that relative to the size of the country, the US is much better at knowledge deployment than it is at knowledge creation. He observes that German in the first half the the 20th century was the leader in knowledge creation. I point you to the Nobel site. Note how many of the prizes go to Germany. Also note the large number England got. Two of the great discoveries of the 20th century, nuclear and space science, America owes a huge debt to Germany. On the one hand, Jewish scientists fled the Nazi's and brought their nuclear physics to the US, and in the second case, we made off with Germany's rocket scientists after the war. When you figure how many discoveries are derivative of the nuclear and space programs, all of which ultimatly are founded on German educative capital, not American. That we could have the Sputnik crisis in American education when we did, points to the reliance on German, not American know how. Looking at the recent decade of nobel laureates, we have gained a recent boon from the Russian brain drain. Our science relies on the desirability of immigrating to the U.S. The search in Asia for computer science types is well known. Our university system attracts students who didn't come up through the American public school system.
I recently read chapter 7 "Skills" of Lester Thurow's book Building Wealth. (See the Prologue to the book) Thurow talks about knowledge deployment (making good use of knowledge economically by workers in the form of skills) and knowledge creation (inventing new products, proceedures, and ideas) and observes that relative to the size of the country, the US is much better at knowledge deployment than it is at knowledge creation. He observes that German in the first half the the 20th century was the leader in knowledge creation. I point you to the Nobel site. Note how many of the prizes go to Germany. Also note the large number England got. Two of the great discoveries of the 20th century, nuclear and space science, America owes a huge debt to Germany. On the one hand, Jewish scientists fled the Nazi's and brought their nuclear physics to the US, and in the second case, we made off with Germany's rocket scientists after the war. When you figure how many discoveries are derivative of the nuclear and space programs, all of which ultimatly are founded on German educative capital, not American. That we could have the Sputnik crisis in American education when we did, points to the reliance on German, not American know how. Looking at the recent decade of nobel laureates, we have gained a recent boon from the Russian brain drain. Our science relies on the desirability of immigrating to the U.S. The search in Asia for computer science types is well known. Our university system attracts students who didn't come up through the American public school system.
Matt has Wrigley pics
Check out Matt's blog for Wrigley pics from some time in early October. This must the very last games of the regular season. Sister just got back from Chi yesterday (then ran off to KC for a Rennaisance Fair). I might get Matt to put up her pics at his blog and link to them.
Check out Matt's blog for Wrigley pics from some time in early October. This must the very last games of the regular season. Sister just got back from Chi yesterday (then ran off to KC for a Rennaisance Fair). I might get Matt to put up her pics at his blog and link to them.
Religion Quiz
NRO also included a Religion Quiz. (See down two entries). I took the quiz and scored 100% Mainline to Liberal Protestant, 97% non-theist, 82% Secular Humanist, 77% Mainline to Conservative Protestant, and so on down the list and I bottom out at 33% Orthodox Quaker. I only score 51% with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. So either I am an non-theist/Secular Humanist who can pass for a Mainline Protestant or I am a Mainline Protestant who can pass for a non-theist/Secular Humanist. An interesting proposition.
NRO also included a Religion Quiz. (See down two entries). I took the quiz and scored 100% Mainline to Liberal Protestant, 97% non-theist, 82% Secular Humanist, 77% Mainline to Conservative Protestant, and so on down the list and I bottom out at 33% Orthodox Quaker. I only score 51% with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. So either I am an non-theist/Secular Humanist who can pass for a Mainline Protestant or I am a Mainline Protestant who can pass for a non-theist/Secular Humanist. An interesting proposition.
Computer Exam
My mother often said that getting through school is just jumping through hoops. There is much to recomend that theory (it helps that she was smart enough that the academics were not an obstacle to her). Today I take a test that illustrates this principle. Despite the fact that I have two PC's networked together running a host of software, not to mention this blog, my computer sales in Oakbrook Il, my data entry in Chicago, and well over 15 years of PC ownership, I have to take a test to get out of Computer Science 101. Also, I should mention that I already took a higher level class that required this as a prerequisite. We grad students can do that, I took Psych 603 last year having never taken a psych class ever before - got an A, see grad students know how to do school. Its also a testament to a good liberal education. Nevertheless in 90 minutes I take a test to demonstrate I know how to open a file, cut and paste, and presumably avoid formatting my hard-drive inadvertetly. I was just unable to sleep last night so at 4:30 I finally got out of bed put some coffee on and I'll be going in 19 hours without sleep. Like I don't have plenty of experience operating a computer past 16 hours. Frankly I don't know anyone who has significant computer experience who doesn't have plenty of post-16 hours logged. A real test would require we stay up all night and would involve installing a new game that requires exotic drivers to run. Then we write a reveiw in a Unix based word prcocessor. That would seperate the A's from the B's, let me tell you. Seperating the A+'s would require installing some hardware, I suppose. I asked if I could submit a request for a waiver for both the course and the exam which waives the course on Powerpoint, but they want me to take the test. I suppose I need to get over to campus today anyway and print some things out on their fine laser printers.
My mother often said that getting through school is just jumping through hoops. There is much to recomend that theory (it helps that she was smart enough that the academics were not an obstacle to her). Today I take a test that illustrates this principle. Despite the fact that I have two PC's networked together running a host of software, not to mention this blog, my computer sales in Oakbrook Il, my data entry in Chicago, and well over 15 years of PC ownership, I have to take a test to get out of Computer Science 101. Also, I should mention that I already took a higher level class that required this as a prerequisite. We grad students can do that, I took Psych 603 last year having never taken a psych class ever before - got an A, see grad students know how to do school. Its also a testament to a good liberal education. Nevertheless in 90 minutes I take a test to demonstrate I know how to open a file, cut and paste, and presumably avoid formatting my hard-drive inadvertetly. I was just unable to sleep last night so at 4:30 I finally got out of bed put some coffee on and I'll be going in 19 hours without sleep. Like I don't have plenty of experience operating a computer past 16 hours. Frankly I don't know anyone who has significant computer experience who doesn't have plenty of post-16 hours logged. A real test would require we stay up all night and would involve installing a new game that requires exotic drivers to run. Then we write a reveiw in a Unix based word prcocessor. That would seperate the A's from the B's, let me tell you. Seperating the A+'s would require installing some hardware, I suppose. I asked if I could submit a request for a waiver for both the course and the exam which waives the course on Powerpoint, but they want me to take the test. I suppose I need to get over to campus today anyway and print some things out on their fine laser printers.
Philosophy Quiz
I was digging up dirt on Nel Noddings (education author) and her named popped on an a National Review page, so I clicked right to it. Why, it turns out Jonah Goldberg and Rod Dreher took a philosophy quiz, so I did too. Interesting results. Aristotle 100%, Hume 91%, Aquinas 86%, Rand, Nietzsche, Sartre in the 80%'s, Plato 71%, Hobbes 62%, Stoics 57%, Cynics 51%, Noddings 31%, Kant 24%, Prescriptivism 8%. Jonah Goldberg scored high in Aristotle and Aquinas, and low in Sartre, Prescriptivism, and Noddings. Rod Dreher scored high in Augustine and Aquinas, mid-range for Plato and Aristotle, and low for Nietzsche, Noddings, Epicurians, and Hobbes.
Apparently neo-cons are all over Aquinas, and either back him up with Augustine or Aristotle; apparently the Thomist synthesis of Aristotle and Catholicism can still be teased apart. All of us rejected Noddings- surprise. Her book The Challenge to Care in Schools is a prescription for a drift towards totalitarianism, IMO. Social Reconstructionist, indeed. I was surprised how low I scored as a Stoic, but apparently when they conflict with Aristotle, Zeno takes a back seat. Fair enough. The questions which would have boosted my Cynic score I answered to the contrary because of the way they were worded. Personally I am an ascetic, but I don't think its neccesary for ethical living. I recject the accumulation of stuff, but regard it as a choice that's right for me, not an imperative. I subscribe to the Postral thesis on such matters, despite my own personal lack of a designer toilet bowl brush.
Now we just need to get Hugh Hewitt to take the quiz.
I was digging up dirt on Nel Noddings (education author) and her named popped on an a National Review page, so I clicked right to it. Why, it turns out Jonah Goldberg and Rod Dreher took a philosophy quiz, so I did too. Interesting results. Aristotle 100%, Hume 91%, Aquinas 86%, Rand, Nietzsche, Sartre in the 80%'s, Plato 71%, Hobbes 62%, Stoics 57%, Cynics 51%, Noddings 31%, Kant 24%, Prescriptivism 8%. Jonah Goldberg scored high in Aristotle and Aquinas, and low in Sartre, Prescriptivism, and Noddings. Rod Dreher scored high in Augustine and Aquinas, mid-range for Plato and Aristotle, and low for Nietzsche, Noddings, Epicurians, and Hobbes.
Apparently neo-cons are all over Aquinas, and either back him up with Augustine or Aristotle; apparently the Thomist synthesis of Aristotle and Catholicism can still be teased apart. All of us rejected Noddings- surprise. Her book The Challenge to Care in Schools is a prescription for a drift towards totalitarianism, IMO. Social Reconstructionist, indeed. I was surprised how low I scored as a Stoic, but apparently when they conflict with Aristotle, Zeno takes a back seat. Fair enough. The questions which would have boosted my Cynic score I answered to the contrary because of the way they were worded. Personally I am an ascetic, but I don't think its neccesary for ethical living. I recject the accumulation of stuff, but regard it as a choice that's right for me, not an imperative. I subscribe to the Postral thesis on such matters, despite my own personal lack of a designer toilet bowl brush.
Now we just need to get Hugh Hewitt to take the quiz.
Thursday, October 09, 2003
Social Conservatives don't appear to get it
Looking at the responce before and after the California recall, and seeing the numbers that Tom McClintok polled, Social Conservatives don't understand that they can't win elections by themselves. I guess (with some evidence) that Social Conservatives number about 1 in 6 Americans, and a Pepperdine prof recently put their numbers at closer to 1 in 8 Californians. You can't win elections with those numbers. You have to attract someone else. The current alignment of party politics makes it much easier for you to attract Republicans who are Fiscally Conservative and Republicans who are foriegn policy Hawks than most other kinds of voters. In some states, like Missouri, its still possible to run as a Socially Conservative Democrat, but this works better in the South and West than it does anywhere else.
Tom McClintok was both a Social and a Fiscal Conservative, and this expands the base of support he can draw from. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Social Liberal and a Fiscal Conservative. Since Schwarzenegger took moderatly liberal views (yes on abortion, but also yes on parental notification and no on late term abortions; yes on civil unions but no to gay marriage) he put himself in a possition to attract all the voters who were no committed to one of the polar possitions on social issues. Conservatives could see him as better than Davis, and knew that there were lines he wouldn't cross, and liberals could see him as someone who might not advance their agenda, but wouldn't threaten it either.
As a Republican who is socially liberal (in terms of policy), fiscally conservative, and most importantly as far as I am concerned, commited to a strong foriegn policy, I don't like social conservatives. I was poised to vote for Mel Carnahan over John Ashcroft in 2000 for the Missouri Senate seat because of Ashcroft's conservatism. I turned out to be the reverse of many voters, because far from casting a sympathy vote for the deceased Carnahan, I could not vote for someone who could not serve, and certainly didn't want to give the Democratic governor a blank check to name anyone. So I voted for Ashcroft and held my breath. His appointment as AG, and the fact that his tenure has been dominated by security issues rather than social issues has made him perfectly palatable to me, where things could have been far less happy.
I prefer to vote for a candidate who will support strength in the world, because the surest route to peace is strength. Weakness invites attack. If the candiates are equally good, bad, or the office isn't one with any foriegn policy role, I look to the more pro-business candiate. Since social issues come third, I generally only consider them if they are either radically left or right. Personally, I probabaly am fairly socially conservative, but the last thing I want is the government imposing a social policy agenda. I especially recoil from one that has the absolutist authority of revealed religion. Wars have been fought over consubstantiation vs transubstantiation. The Founders wisely sought to remove the state from these debates.
Hence, Social Conservaties must realize they must form a coallition with other voters, and that means comprimise. In traditional races, its easier, because you just need to avoid nominating a candiate who frightens the rest of the coalition. In open multi-candidate elections like the CA recall, its harder because if you are voting for a candiate less likely to form a coaliton than another candidate is, you will lose. Victory goes to the candidate with the biggest tent.
Looking at the responce before and after the California recall, and seeing the numbers that Tom McClintok polled, Social Conservatives don't understand that they can't win elections by themselves. I guess (with some evidence) that Social Conservatives number about 1 in 6 Americans, and a Pepperdine prof recently put their numbers at closer to 1 in 8 Californians. You can't win elections with those numbers. You have to attract someone else. The current alignment of party politics makes it much easier for you to attract Republicans who are Fiscally Conservative and Republicans who are foriegn policy Hawks than most other kinds of voters. In some states, like Missouri, its still possible to run as a Socially Conservative Democrat, but this works better in the South and West than it does anywhere else.
Tom McClintok was both a Social and a Fiscal Conservative, and this expands the base of support he can draw from. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Social Liberal and a Fiscal Conservative. Since Schwarzenegger took moderatly liberal views (yes on abortion, but also yes on parental notification and no on late term abortions; yes on civil unions but no to gay marriage) he put himself in a possition to attract all the voters who were no committed to one of the polar possitions on social issues. Conservatives could see him as better than Davis, and knew that there were lines he wouldn't cross, and liberals could see him as someone who might not advance their agenda, but wouldn't threaten it either.
As a Republican who is socially liberal (in terms of policy), fiscally conservative, and most importantly as far as I am concerned, commited to a strong foriegn policy, I don't like social conservatives. I was poised to vote for Mel Carnahan over John Ashcroft in 2000 for the Missouri Senate seat because of Ashcroft's conservatism. I turned out to be the reverse of many voters, because far from casting a sympathy vote for the deceased Carnahan, I could not vote for someone who could not serve, and certainly didn't want to give the Democratic governor a blank check to name anyone. So I voted for Ashcroft and held my breath. His appointment as AG, and the fact that his tenure has been dominated by security issues rather than social issues has made him perfectly palatable to me, where things could have been far less happy.
I prefer to vote for a candidate who will support strength in the world, because the surest route to peace is strength. Weakness invites attack. If the candiates are equally good, bad, or the office isn't one with any foriegn policy role, I look to the more pro-business candiate. Since social issues come third, I generally only consider them if they are either radically left or right. Personally, I probabaly am fairly socially conservative, but the last thing I want is the government imposing a social policy agenda. I especially recoil from one that has the absolutist authority of revealed religion. Wars have been fought over consubstantiation vs transubstantiation. The Founders wisely sought to remove the state from these debates.
Hence, Social Conservaties must realize they must form a coallition with other voters, and that means comprimise. In traditional races, its easier, because you just need to avoid nominating a candiate who frightens the rest of the coalition. In open multi-candidate elections like the CA recall, its harder because if you are voting for a candiate less likely to form a coaliton than another candidate is, you will lose. Victory goes to the candidate with the biggest tent.
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Arnold and harrasment
Susan Estrich has this LA Times commentary on the pre-election stories in the LA Times about Schwarzenegger's alleged behavior. I also saw her on Fox on Saterday. Fox also had an NOW representative in California on. Both agreed in general that Arnold's behavior was bad, acknowledged that people make mistakes, and approved of a quick appology. The NOW rep mentioned she would be voting for Arnold and Estrich lamented that a strong Demacrat like Dianne Feinstein wasn't an option.
I have been displeased with the number of outlets that have reported that Schwarzenegger appologized for what the LA Times reported he had done. Arnold contends that some of the stories are exagerations and at least one is totally false (and a woman from his camp who witnessed the occasion has told her story) and the way he structured his statements about the stories, he said that while these stories are not accurate, he could not claim to be innocent of the general charge of friskiness. I am especially unimpressed by the charges that date to the 70's. A sexual revolution had occured, boundaries were being broken, and a sense of promiscuity was all over. To think that a young man in California should have been playing by the old rules or should have known what the rules would later turn out to be is asking a bit much. Given what is sometimes said about politicians, Arnold's real mistake was that he he was "playful" out in the open with random people, rather than people whose lives he could ruin.
Susan Estrich has this LA Times commentary on the pre-election stories in the LA Times about Schwarzenegger's alleged behavior. I also saw her on Fox on Saterday. Fox also had an NOW representative in California on. Both agreed in general that Arnold's behavior was bad, acknowledged that people make mistakes, and approved of a quick appology. The NOW rep mentioned she would be voting for Arnold and Estrich lamented that a strong Demacrat like Dianne Feinstein wasn't an option.
I have been displeased with the number of outlets that have reported that Schwarzenegger appologized for what the LA Times reported he had done. Arnold contends that some of the stories are exagerations and at least one is totally false (and a woman from his camp who witnessed the occasion has told her story) and the way he structured his statements about the stories, he said that while these stories are not accurate, he could not claim to be innocent of the general charge of friskiness. I am especially unimpressed by the charges that date to the 70's. A sexual revolution had occured, boundaries were being broken, and a sense of promiscuity was all over. To think that a young man in California should have been playing by the old rules or should have known what the rules would later turn out to be is asking a bit much. Given what is sometimes said about politicians, Arnold's real mistake was that he he was "playful" out in the open with random people, rather than people whose lives he could ruin.
Changing Menu Configurations
I am irked by the way drive through menus move their items around so you can never rely that a given item will remain in the same place over a period of time. I drove out of a resturant today because I could not find what I was looking for in a quick second. I knew where it used to be, wasn't there, must have moved, they lost my business. I just have zero tolerance for playing location games when ordering food. I don't want to figure out where the french fries are.
I am irked by the way drive through menus move their items around so you can never rely that a given item will remain in the same place over a period of time. I drove out of a resturant today because I could not find what I was looking for in a quick second. I knew where it used to be, wasn't there, must have moved, they lost my business. I just have zero tolerance for playing location games when ordering food. I don't want to figure out where the french fries are.
Saturday, October 04, 2003
Substitute Teaching back to normal
The last two weeks in September were really busy, but the pace has fallen back to normal. Normally the sub racket is not very busy during the begining and end of semesters, since teachers have more desire to be there and less cause to be away (both push and pull factors at work). Now that its October, I expect the pace to be pretty quick and increasing slightly as we get on to November. After the first week of December it will basically fall off the table unless there is flu going around.
The last two weeks in September were really busy, but the pace has fallen back to normal. Normally the sub racket is not very busy during the begining and end of semesters, since teachers have more desire to be there and less cause to be away (both push and pull factors at work). Now that its October, I expect the pace to be pretty quick and increasing slightly as we get on to November. After the first week of December it will basically fall off the table unless there is flu going around.
Friday, October 03, 2003
Matt's Journal has moved
As Matt wrote in his last entry at the old address, its like breaking up moving to a new address and format, but he has done so. The new address, as listed over to the side in "preffered" is also here. Keen followers of this site (as if there were any, ROFL) will notice that I have also added Lilek's Bleat (easy enough to navigate back to the less frequently updated goodies) and Hugh Hewitt's home page.
As Matt wrote in his last entry at the old address, its like breaking up moving to a new address and format, but he has done so. The new address, as listed over to the side in "preffered" is also here. Keen followers of this site (as if there were any, ROFL) will notice that I have also added Lilek's Bleat (easy enough to navigate back to the less frequently updated goodies) and Hugh Hewitt's home page.
Clark is a Media phenomenon, nothing else
A Fearful Symmetry puts Gen. Clark in the first rank of Dem candidates. I must disagree. Clark is a media phenomena with no grass roots support. Its an entirely top down candidacy. Kerry and Gephardt attract core constituancies of the Dems, but you have to draw more than a few core groups. Dean is the only one with broad appeal among the Dem base, and because of that and the fact that he's the only one (other than Edwards, I guess) with charisma, Dean will be the nominee. Barring of course a bolt from the blue. Clark's candidacy is to possition him to be a Cheney-like VP/key foriegn policy advisor. There's nothing else to it.
A Fearful Symmetry puts Gen. Clark in the first rank of Dem candidates. I must disagree. Clark is a media phenomena with no grass roots support. Its an entirely top down candidacy. Kerry and Gephardt attract core constituancies of the Dems, but you have to draw more than a few core groups. Dean is the only one with broad appeal among the Dem base, and because of that and the fact that he's the only one (other than Edwards, I guess) with charisma, Dean will be the nominee. Barring of course a bolt from the blue. Clark's candidacy is to possition him to be a Cheney-like VP/key foriegn policy advisor. There's nothing else to it.
Reflections on The Case Against Standardized Testing
Alfie Kohn's book, The Case Against Standardized Testing opposes choice and judgment in education with the special concern that judgment will promote choosing, and choosing will lead to markets. Kohn also opposes judgment because he believes that differences are false. Kohn is a Marxist who masquerades as someone concerned about standardized testing, but his real concern is that testing will promote market forces in the schools.
Kohn erects a straw man for privatization, attacking the profit motive, even though private schools are longer lived in America than public education. John's hostility to profit is not just that he fears it will crowd out other values in private education, he is hostile to all forms if incentive. His 1993 book, Punished by Rewards, has the subtitle: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes. Indeed, in 2000 and again in 2001 he got an article published advising parents to stop telling thier children "good job". Praise, we find, creates praise seeking behavior. Isn't that the point? Just two weeks ago Education Week published The Folly of Merit Pay. Evidence of the Marxist fetish of labor unmotivated by incentive is well documented. Productivity falls. Lenin's own response to this problem was to reintroduce incentive, Stalin, Mao, and a host of imitators preferred repression. The resurgence of the Liu party in China, and relaxing of the prohibition of private ownership and profit has produced tremendous growth in China, growth long delayed. Kohn hopes to introduce this failed practice into the American schools.
The great danger of the market is not just profit and incentives, since many privatized schools might well remain publicly funded and chartered, funded through public vouchers, or endowed. The great danger is the market itself. The freedom to choose to abandon a school that is failing or one where the school's philosophy was not appreciated by parents. Such an event would make education free in the sense of Austrian economics. (see here and here) School rankings and teacher rankings, something natural in our Consumer Reports society, would promote consumer choice in student placement. If such were the case, the social reconstructionist program Kohn would favor would lose its captive audience. So his opposition to school testing is his Berlin Wall.
Preventing choice requires that Kohn dismiss the possible of judgment. If we have no basis upon which to judge, how can we make an informed decision as consumers? How can we tell whether to cast aside the statist public school system for a market based public system? Kohn argues that judgment is impossible because its technically impossible, that is we can't get accurate enough, and that there really is nothing to judge because we are all the same in quality, though we may possess different strengths and weaknesses. Part of this can be seen as the traditional struggle in America between the meritocracy and the egalitarians. Kohn, however is a radical egalitarian and rejects any concessions to the meritocratic position. He argues that differences between schools, teachers,and students are imagined (or one might presume are the result of capitalist externalities like inequalities in wealth) and therefore judgment which purports to rank, grade, evaluate, or otherwise privledge students is false.
Not content to make the egalitarian case, Kohn also attacks the meritocratic case, by far the bulk of the text, by attacking the mechanism of judgment new to education: standardized testing. Elsewhere he has attacked grades, but John's publishing suggests he would build momentum in attacking testing which could then be applied to grades and all forms of evaluation and incentive.
This then is John's program. He is a radical egalitarian with a hostility to markets and incentives like profit, hence a Marxist, who seeks to preserve the bastion of social reconstructionist and progressive education against essentialists and perennialists by preventing parents and other observers from seeing outcomes of the different approaches to education side by side. No doubt he knows that like residents of East Germany before the Berlin Wall, parents would vote with their feet for a kind of education he rejects.
Alfie Kohn's book, The Case Against Standardized Testing opposes choice and judgment in education with the special concern that judgment will promote choosing, and choosing will lead to markets. Kohn also opposes judgment because he believes that differences are false. Kohn is a Marxist who masquerades as someone concerned about standardized testing, but his real concern is that testing will promote market forces in the schools.
Kohn erects a straw man for privatization, attacking the profit motive, even though private schools are longer lived in America than public education. John's hostility to profit is not just that he fears it will crowd out other values in private education, he is hostile to all forms if incentive. His 1993 book, Punished by Rewards, has the subtitle: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes. Indeed, in 2000 and again in 2001 he got an article published advising parents to stop telling thier children "good job". Praise, we find, creates praise seeking behavior. Isn't that the point? Just two weeks ago Education Week published The Folly of Merit Pay. Evidence of the Marxist fetish of labor unmotivated by incentive is well documented. Productivity falls. Lenin's own response to this problem was to reintroduce incentive, Stalin, Mao, and a host of imitators preferred repression. The resurgence of the Liu party in China, and relaxing of the prohibition of private ownership and profit has produced tremendous growth in China, growth long delayed. Kohn hopes to introduce this failed practice into the American schools.
The great danger of the market is not just profit and incentives, since many privatized schools might well remain publicly funded and chartered, funded through public vouchers, or endowed. The great danger is the market itself. The freedom to choose to abandon a school that is failing or one where the school's philosophy was not appreciated by parents. Such an event would make education free in the sense of Austrian economics. (see here and here) School rankings and teacher rankings, something natural in our Consumer Reports society, would promote consumer choice in student placement. If such were the case, the social reconstructionist program Kohn would favor would lose its captive audience. So his opposition to school testing is his Berlin Wall.
Preventing choice requires that Kohn dismiss the possible of judgment. If we have no basis upon which to judge, how can we make an informed decision as consumers? How can we tell whether to cast aside the statist public school system for a market based public system? Kohn argues that judgment is impossible because its technically impossible, that is we can't get accurate enough, and that there really is nothing to judge because we are all the same in quality, though we may possess different strengths and weaknesses. Part of this can be seen as the traditional struggle in America between the meritocracy and the egalitarians. Kohn, however is a radical egalitarian and rejects any concessions to the meritocratic position. He argues that differences between schools, teachers,and students are imagined (or one might presume are the result of capitalist externalities like inequalities in wealth) and therefore judgment which purports to rank, grade, evaluate, or otherwise privledge students is false.
Not content to make the egalitarian case, Kohn also attacks the meritocratic case, by far the bulk of the text, by attacking the mechanism of judgment new to education: standardized testing. Elsewhere he has attacked grades, but John's publishing suggests he would build momentum in attacking testing which could then be applied to grades and all forms of evaluation and incentive.
This then is John's program. He is a radical egalitarian with a hostility to markets and incentives like profit, hence a Marxist, who seeks to preserve the bastion of social reconstructionist and progressive education against essentialists and perennialists by preventing parents and other observers from seeing outcomes of the different approaches to education side by side. No doubt he knows that like residents of East Germany before the Berlin Wall, parents would vote with their feet for a kind of education he rejects.
Thursday, October 02, 2003
The New Republic laments the fall of the old elites and the rise of democractic politics
Franklin Foer writes about C. Boyden Gray in the latest issue of the New Republic. He laments the decline of the old country club republican for a republican politics driven by participatory politics, itself driven by the reforms the weakened the role of the party in favor of more voter participation (you know, democracy) and the politicians who capitalized on voter dissatisfaction with what the elites were producing. I'll write this off to a nostaligia for a kinder, gentler Republican party on the part of democrats in general and the writers of TNR in particular. After all, last week's cover story discussed the current Bush hatred of Jonathan Chait. As a center right Republican I share some identifican with Nelson Rockafeller, and I too can pine for the days of Dems like John Kennedy and Harry S Truman. But, I know that those days were the days of elite party control on the one hand, and a strong consensus nationally produced by the Great Depression and the Second World War. When a generation came of age that had experienced neither of those, the consensus began to collapse. Its collapse was aided by a more participatory politics that gave voice to factions of the parties (and other places) that were not in control of the parties and so had little influence until the reforms that weakened the parties in the 50's and 60's. So, this nostalgia, while pleasing to the center left and the center right, is based on form of elitism we probabaly don't want back, and could never get back if we did want it, and by a consensus produced by 12 years of crisis and war. I don't think we want to pay for a new consensus, either.
Franklin Foer writes about C. Boyden Gray in the latest issue of the New Republic. He laments the decline of the old country club republican for a republican politics driven by participatory politics, itself driven by the reforms the weakened the role of the party in favor of more voter participation (you know, democracy) and the politicians who capitalized on voter dissatisfaction with what the elites were producing. I'll write this off to a nostaligia for a kinder, gentler Republican party on the part of democrats in general and the writers of TNR in particular. After all, last week's cover story discussed the current Bush hatred of Jonathan Chait. As a center right Republican I share some identifican with Nelson Rockafeller, and I too can pine for the days of Dems like John Kennedy and Harry S Truman. But, I know that those days were the days of elite party control on the one hand, and a strong consensus nationally produced by the Great Depression and the Second World War. When a generation came of age that had experienced neither of those, the consensus began to collapse. Its collapse was aided by a more participatory politics that gave voice to factions of the parties (and other places) that were not in control of the parties and so had little influence until the reforms that weakened the parties in the 50's and 60's. So, this nostalgia, while pleasing to the center left and the center right, is based on form of elitism we probabaly don't want back, and could never get back if we did want it, and by a consensus produced by 12 years of crisis and war. I don't think we want to pay for a new consensus, either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)