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.

Strippers make great pedagogues

Comment on Once a Sex Worker, Always a Sex Worker | Good.is at 6/22/2010 3:37 PM EST

I wish that we lived in a world where sex work did not carry the same stigma, but such a world would probably not serve the workers as it does today. Ms. Petro made lots of money in the trade because of the stigma, and it's hard to imagine jobs and wages as good as they are without the majority of sexy youths shunning the industry.

I cannot however say that I would ever allow my own children to be taught by a teacher who has worked as a stripper or prostitute. Former pro athletes and models would also be simply unacceptable. Like others in rich nations who fall into sex work, Petro describes herself as "a product of a broken, working-class household." I don't stand for undue elitism, but that's not the kind of person who should be in a teaching position. Let's admit, the middle class is gone, and people today grow up rich or poor. Thousands of years of academic progress simply cannot be well introduced by someone without economic opportunities early on. That is not the same person who chooses (or is victimized) by the sex industry.

Before you go ape, please think a moment on the context of my opinion. Teaching builds on social psychology, human development, and expert knowledge in their subject areas. We are talking about a rare and cultured individual. Plato ring a bell?

My point is that many people in the teaching profession (and most in elementary education) are glorified baby sitters. Children can learn from them, but don't expect anything more than any literate parent could provide themselves. Nothing short of violent crime should bar a good-willed person from that kind of job. But I would be irresponsible in ignoring an indicator like sex work if I were hiring a real teacher. Standards for our intellectual leaders should be high, and a candidate like Ms. Petro (through no fault of her own) would never qualify.

Book Day!

Who says news is only in the news media?

Amazon customer, Robert "Rob" Richards from San Antonio, Texas was one of many frustratingly dangerous half-apes who loved the book, A Jealous God. His review on Amazon drew my response. You have it here:

Fella, the fuss is generated by people who don't understand the science and never will, like you and your author.

I grew up surrounded by many religions and cultures - and was offended by this book's characterization. If you need to demonize the only positive social force in the last 200 years to justify your religious beliefs, then they probably weren't based on the most solid ground.

"Finally, a book filled with fact and measured analysis, not empty rhetoric."

Yes... I'd hate to make a religious argument based on empty rhetoric and ritual symbolism.

People can be bad, yes. And with science they can certainly take advantage of naive people, yes. But if you can't understand the difference between science and religion, you'd be forgiven for mistaking a weapon for a soldier. One is a tool - the other is a self-righteous person who would kill anyone who is not on their 'side'. Clear things up?

Religion is under attack - from within. For centuries, this con was run by the most cutthroat, ambitious leaders in the world - and it held up. Now that there are greater profits in business and the non-denominational public world, is it really such a surprise that the business of organized religions is crumbling under it's own incompetence?

PS. Why do this book's author, and all its readers insist on labeling everything a crusade? Is is to sell tickets for the big fight?

Download A Jealous God on the kindle today for $14.29.
Or have it shipped for $2.98 new, and $0.14 used.

Commenting is Closed

Comment on: The Big Lie About the 'Life of the Mind' on 2/8/2010

The Chronicle of Higher Education may have closed the door on commenting after 202 lengthy additions - but if you're anything like me, that won't stop you from further discussing this controversial article. We're talking about advanced study in the humanities - one of the more attractive fields to idealistic youth. We're also talking about the Dream, the American Dream, and what it means to sacrifice for it.

The New York Times

Comment on: Seeing Red Over R-Rated Trailers on 3/26/2010

It's been over a year since the Halicarnassian has seen daylight long enough to get a message out - but a new epoch has arrived, knowledge is still power, and the future still needs us to channel our history.

Today's commentary is on a bit of filler news: the debate over mainstream movie trailer on the internet. A self-regulated industry, arguing over Hollywood decency standards is irrelevant at best - but telling in this case.

The man at the forefront of the argument for increased controls (supposedly for viewer age) is John Aristotle Phillips. The kind soul who forwarded the article my way was able to dig up more relevant facts that the paper of record did not see 'fit to print' - about the man who's company (Aristotle, Inc.) stands to gain most.

The casual reader would assume that as CEO, Mr. Phillips is a business-minded purveyor of social technology, albeit technology that restricts access to information and media. But Aristotle, Inc.'s core business is political data, and perhaps because it is decidedly non-partisan it does not seem to be choosy about its clients or mission. Can web viewers at regulated sites like MySpace really expect the company to put aside the interests of the politicos in pushing solutions on internet distributors? Do MySpace and others have any reason to believe that more invasive age verification will benefit their audience and the business model?

I cannot definitively say more. But consider that behind closed doors, high profile content providers will ask Mr. Phillips more about who wants tough age verification and why. If the MySpaces of the United States do move to tighten the reins, we can expect that they found allies worth the insult to visitors.