There is a finite number of college-ready grads

Comment on: Higher-Education and School Leaders Meet to Work on Common Goals | Chronicle.com at 9/17/2008 9:03 AM EDT

3. quicksilver - July 19, 2010 at 09:22 am
The issue here has nothing to do with the increased number of unprepared high school graduates. It has to do with the increased number of said students colleges are ADMITTING. There is a finite number of college-ready grads. If colleges want to admit beyond that number, they and their faculties will have to confront the academic horrors that accompany remediation.
[quicksilver kicked off the debate]

#1 & #2 are correct to note that there are serious problems with the way secondary education is carried out: teacher training, isolated learning, bureaucratic mandates, et cetera. Most teens would be better off at home rather than suffer through the over-politicized system. NCLB was the straw that broke the camel's back - but even if your child makes it to college with a good head on their shoulders, they will not be in a position to benefit unless they get into an elite school.

I just had to sign in to write in quicksilver's defense. What hasn't been mentioned in this debate is the reason for the enormous growth in college admissions. Sure the GI bill got us started, but it has been the advent of sophisticated (and dangerous) consumer credit markets that has gotten every HS grad a spot nicely reserved at some large institution.

Universities have also adapted to their new PR role sustaining a democratic global empire, which ironically seems to have had a decidedly undemocratic effect on human development as the proportion of students actually benefiting from the experience drops.

I'll just point to two of the ways that large enrollments destroy quality. (a) social learning loses value as students learn from barely literate peers (verbally, quantitatively, scientifically, culturally); (b) years diverted from the 'real world' loses value as matriculated students prioritize work, finances, and social lives over reading, coursework, and self-investment.

So yes, the solution is to shrink the size of 'higher' education by an enormous factor - at least in terms of degree granting programs. The current technologies available will surely cause a sudden implosion of the higher ed. market if consumers can just get around the perceived need for a degree award. Certifications could be the answer, but as has been pointed out - the problem has become cultural and not merely structural. I'm not saying that those in higher education should pack their bags; just consider how much better it is to replace yourself than to be replaced by the market.

If you read this far, you either hate or love what I have to say. As a teacher who is often disappointed by how little guidance counselors care about reality, let me give you some advice on the education market.
(1) If at all possible, homeschool your children. It's the greatest value option available (unless the child can get a scholarship in 9th grade to study at one of the great rich kid schools.
(2) Create as much time for your child to work towards long-term interests and goals. With the internet, there's no reason not to have little Suzy research her dream career - and take her first college-level courses online FOR FREE! No one will encourage you, rate you, and certify you without asking for money; but the information and the people are out there.
(3) Apply only to globally known university brands. For undergraduate, several of the best endowed will pay for practically all your tuition these days. If a school doesn't offer enough special incentive, don't go. Be firm. Visit financial aid in person and politely let them know you won't be able to afford the tuition. If you don't get in, don't give up. Try again next year. Figure out what you did wrong. Do not go to a less prestigious program.

(*) I surely sound like a pompous windbag by now. If I rant, it's only because the US government paid for my private childhood education AND my professional education. I'm quite passionate about the big picture of American schools, and especially now after teaching math and languages around the world only to return home to see the public institutions here in far worse shape. Thanks for reading.

Online Boycotting

Comment on 'Climategate', 'Amazongate' - when will the truth be told? | Telegraph.co.uk at 7/7/2010 9:17AM EST

I couldn't bring myself to link directly to Mr. CB's 'news' article... at least not until I've had my say. The links above go to George Monbiot's response.

Climate change denialism is as meaningful and serious a scam as any you'll find. It's an advertisement for a whole lifestyle; a mission to replicate the materialism of 20th Century America. Why? Because the most powerful, wealthy nation of equals has been brought to its knees, one naive customer at a time. This isn't the first ideological battle that goes below the belt and it won't be the last. Remembering hardly a thing before WWII, we have a tendency to think that only governments can release propaganda, but this is an old business with many patrons.

I've had quite enough. My social animal instinct is working strongly when I read the well-published lies of dangerous people; they must go. One can sympathize with the many idealists throughout history who have turned to violence. But we are not merely animals, and history shows that it rarely does good to attack our enemies directly (especially public ones). So how should we respond to liars in the media? Is there a way to hold them accountable? Is there a way to encourage and reward good behavior?

Many of us have seen little 'flag' links on all sorts of web content. Readers can flag posts as inappropriate or spam, the result being that a small group of civic-minded persons can save the majority from reading tripe. On a site like Craigslist, this quietly and rightly protects others from potential con artists and others who break the social contract. It's not perfect, but it brings scammers to the bottom of the pyramid rather than the top.

News sites are hardly likely to let readers flag dishonest articles. Our only choice seems to be to complain loudly and risk legitimizing the liar's position. Can't we find a way to flag their content?

Yes... we... could. Here's an idea: when you're insulted by someone's web page, click an ad - then don't buy anything. You may have just paid out a few cents to the liar, but you also made it seem like their readers are less valuable on average. If you let the advertiser know why you didn't buy anything (and will be less likely to in the future), it's an even more significant attack on the liar's revenue. The next time you write an irate email/letter, tell publishers why you clicked the ads. Let advertisers know why you didn't buy.

As with the printing press, new technologies have momentarily brought new players to the table for a new struggle of ideas. When this war was fought with speeches and physical books, containment was the key strategy in PR for incumbent powers (i.e. monopolize the pulpit and ban the wrong texts). It didn't work because ordinary people never lost the incentive to take a risk for valuable information. Too many well written ideas delivered on their promise to improve lives and illuminate the universe. Today as the cost of information distribution approaches zero, the weapon of choice has become volume rather than quality - a strategy that is far more dangerous, yet not without it's weaknesses.

The cost of publishing is not zero - and it never actually will be. Your click has a cost, however low. Click an ad. Ctrl+Click it a few dozen times. However crazy they think you are, the marketing department will remember where you clicked from.

At this point if you'd like to see the lie that started this whole rant, be my guest:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7856474/Amazongate-the-missing-evidence.html
It was published by this guy:

PS. This image of the author is served from the Telegraph's site. If they don't like paying for you to see it here, they can block hot-linking. But to the same effect (since I promise not to bother wasting more time on this) they can equally easily remove, rename or replace the file with something less off-putting than CB's disingenuous face.

Pros do it safer

Comment on Disease risk higher for swingers than prostitutes | Reuters.com at 6/24/2010 3:40PM EST

binethere222 is absolutely right (and hilarious) to point out the PR win for the Amsterdam red light district. Try this study in any other country, and you will not find these results (shame on the headline writer; if one were not educated about the situation in the Netherlands, one could draw the wrong conclusion about swingers, and prostitutes).

Of course if you go where prostitutes have really high rates of STI, and scientists will never get access to the sex workers. But even here in the US where violence against sex workers is relatively moderate, I'd wager that 45+ y.o. swingers have lower rates than rookie year hookers even. One simply does not sell sex illegally if one is long-term minded.

Short of having only one or no partners - it seems legal prostitution is the safest way to plan your sex life.