Success and Mediocrity

One frequent request that I receive as feedback from my students in general--and in particular, from the ones in the lowest level courses--is that I work more examples in my lecture classes. They also want an "example test," by which is meant a version of the test to be given out before the test, which differs at most in altering numbers or minor details in the tests. And finally, they want tests which adhere closely to the exact set of examples worked in class, or at most to the exact homework problems assigned. In the labs, they often want to see specific grading rubric for lab reports before handing in the reports. 

I dislike accommodating all of these requests for several reasons: physics is not meant to be reduced to merely copying off the professor's works and calling it one's own--nor should this be the norm of (m)any other academic disciplines. A part of education in general, and the introductory physics courses in particular, is learning how to problem solve, how to think critically, and for that matter how to acquire, evaluate, and even synthesis knowledge. With a lot of work, most students are capable of these things, and a few will actually thrive when pushed to do them.

The lab rubrics are a simple case in point. When I make a rubric, it is for the sake of being consistent in my grading from one report to the next (or from one instructor to the next, as I co-teach some labs). The rubric is based on the instructions for the lab, but it is not meant to be the be-all, end-all of a "good" lab report. In fact, I have read some very mediocre-quality reports which would otherwise excel against any pre-made rubric but for a "catch-all" writing quality/quality of the report grade. The rubric reduces the idea of writing up the methodology and results (and any analysis done upon or conclusions drawn from said results) into a narrow checklist. Yes, the checklist is easier to grade, but the students are able to learn considerably less from it.

Unfortunately, the standards set by acquiescing to these requests--let us see the test before seeing the test, grade the lab before grading the lab--is that while the grades in the class may be higher, they also mean much less than they otherwise would. Our students will be "successful," and yet they will all be mediocre. They will have missed the opportunity to fail and then learn from their failures--some of them don't do this much anyway--and at the same time, the top quartile is then robbed of its opportunity to excel.

---

Image generated by Google's Gemini AI

Tenure Requirements in a Nutshell

"To discover and to teach are distinct functions; they are also distinct gifts, and are not commonly found united in the same person."

So said Bl. John Henry Cardinal Newman, who was perhaps the most brilliant thinker in England of his day. I notice that the modern university demands that its faculty do both, or face termination. Small wonder that so many graduates learn so little from their myriad classes.

More About #BlackLivesMatter Protests

It is beyond me why it is racist to say that "All Lives Matter." In other news, the #BlackLivesMatter protests are (not surprisingly) turning violent, especially against whites (NSFW).

The barbarians have long since breached the gates.

I don't always link to Vox, but when I do, it's because they've posted something worth reading. This is such a time. I love my job in academia, and I especially love teaching (well, except maybe for the physical science classes, which are populated at best by the students who the guy in this article describes). However, I have heard plenty of gloom-and-doom speeches about the state of academia in general--including from the administrators who run my own university. I suspect that there will be a  reckoning in the next few decades, and I hope that I am able to keep my career when that happens.

Today's Physical Science Fueled Rant

There would be many more of these, but the d@--! physical science class uses up almost all of my free time. Really, it's the same 2-3 students who suck up most/all of my time outside of class.

I hold office hours for an hour each day, but what's the point of specifying these? The students just show up whenever they feel like it. Then, they start asking questions. Normally, I would encourage this kind of behavior, but these are not worthwhile questions. They are more akin to, "can you do my homework for me"/"please pre-grade my lab reports"/"please spot-check my work line by line and step by step for me!" questions. This is not a good use of my (or their) time, and it's been this way virtually every afternoon since the stupid class started last week.

I've taken to scheduling made up meetings so that I have an excuse to leave after class, among other times. I'm going to implement a request of my wife that she call me at 5:00 sharp each day so that I have a way of getting out of my office hours then and not at 6:00 or later. Kicking students out or telling them to come back later accomplishes nothing.

Today, I spent two hours explaining to a college student how to add, subtract, multiple, and divide simple fractions. It went something like this:
"What is (1/4)/4?"
"Uh, 1?"
"No."
<proceeds to explain using pictures and pies>
"Oh, so it's must be /16."
"Yes. Let's try another one. What is (1/3)/2?"
"Uh, 2/3?"
"No."
<repeat>.

Now, to be fair, I also spent time doing other things. Such as, for example, reading entire passages from the textbook, passages which were assigned reading, because he wanted a verbal statement of Newton's Laws of motion. The reading the passages was when I gave up stating the laws verbally, only to have him say, "Wait, I only wrote down the first three words, what was the next part. Ok, what was that 6th word?"

This character is doing better than most of the others in the class. I fear the blowback from the horrible reviews which I will receive when I fail 2/3 of the class. This is worse still, because if I continually receive bad reviews, I can expect not only to have to explain myself to the tenure committee, among others, but also to lose a lot of money (perhaps $10k or more, if the result is very low enrollment in certain of my classes). Yet, unless the class as a whole improves, failing the lot of them is the right thing to do.

---
To end all of this on a slightly more positive note, I suppose that if mys students finally learn how to do fractions, then they did get something from my course. It's not what they're supposed to get, or what I'm wanting for them to get out of my class. And it's a damning indictment of our pre-college (and frankly, college) level education. Bu I suppose that they will have learned something, and it's better 5 or 10 years (or even 15 year--a lot of these students are non-traditional age-wise) late than never.

What Are Universities For

There seems to be some disagreement about what a university is primarily "for." I say this, having now survived my first year as a visiting professor at a small(ish) teaching-oriented university, and having just inked a contract to start as a tenure-track professor here.

The students and legislators mostly seem to think that the point of a university is to provide an education, or the opportunity for an education, and a degree at the end. Much of the faculty, in particular senior faculty, is willing to go along with this in the form of keeping a full load of teaching classes for each faculty member, barring of course those who have some exemptions (mostly senior, tenured faculty).

But, in talking to quite a few higher-ups (department chairs, deans, tenure and promotion committee members, etc), it would seem that the purpose of a university is also to do publishable research. To the extent that a university offers graduate degrees, these two things are largely intertwined, but to the extent that the bulk of the teaching is often geared to undergraduate non-majors, the two are largely separate.

Problem: the people who pay for the university are largely the students, and to a lesser extent the legislature (via taxpayers), and many of them don't care a bit about research. However, the people who get to decide whether individual faculty members well remain employed at the university care more and more about the research. One tenure and promotion committee member took me aside and told me that the teaching side of things is virtually irrelevant--as is the service to the department, college, and university--unless the requisite number of papers published is met. Since the tenure-and-promotion members are generally elected by the college and by the university, it may be safe to assume that their views are at least somewhat representative of the faculty opinions in general. Therefore, there is some disagreement between the university's patrons and clients, on one hand, and its faculty and especially decision-making faculty, on the other hand, as to what the university's purpose is.

I do not see this ending well for said university. Oh, and one more thing--I've had similar conversations with faculty at a number of other smaller, tier-2 and tier-3 universities.

A UNC Professor's Workload

I see that the North Carolina General Assembly is considering legislation which would require a 4/4 load of all professors in the UNC system. That's 4 courses in the fall, and 4 more in the spring (one would hope that they consider how many credit hours each course is worth, and that they factor for "special courses" like labs).

To put this into some perspective, I work at a mostly 4-year university (we offer a few masters degrees, and one or two Ph.D.'s) whose focus is supposed to be teaching. My load is 4/4. Starting out, this is a heavy load. I am then required to do service to the university (code for doing a bit of extra work outside of teaching and research), plus some research to get tenure. If I do not get tenure, then I get one "grace" year and then get fired.

This is  a pretty heavy load, all things considered. This year I was a visiting professor, meaning that I conducted next to no research. I have been on campus every day between 8:30 and 9:00, and have gone home closer to 7 than 6 most nights. I also come in to work on some Saturdays for a few hours, but as the semester is finally winding down, I am getting to have more weekends to spend time with family. My research starts back up this summer, and unless I teach during the summer, I don't get paid (even if I do work full weeks here on research). I am expecting longer days in the fall semester as a consequence.

I also spent 8 years getting a Ph.D., with my typical work week exceeding 90 hours for the last year and a half or so (and usually over 60 in the years prior to that), while being paid barely enough to make ends meet. My salary now as a professor is well south of 70k per year for all of this, and I live thousands of miles from my family because this is the job which was available. I happen to really like my job, so these are not all complaints, only observations.

My thoughts on the matter are that universities should consider allowing two paths to tenure. The first is the research path, in which the classroom teaching load is lighter (a 2/2 or 3/3 load seems about reasonable), but in which more quality publications are required; this path makes more sense at Ph.D. granting institutions (which should be on the whole less common). The second is a teaching path, in which the professor has a full 4/4 and research is more akin to a hobby, an "extra" thing which he is allowed to do but not expected to do.

There can also be a change in how tenure and promotion are awarded: begin by promoting to associate professor after 5 years or so, then grant tenure after another 5 years, and finally promotion to full professor another 5-10 years after that (increment size may vary). The requirements for each promotion might be thought to vary somewhat, too, for example by allowing either a very light teaching load to start out along with ht research, or allowing a very light research load but a full teaching load. After all, classes do actually get easier the second time around,  and the third, and so on. But that first time around, they can be a lot more work than you'd guess, and for a young professor who is just starting out, there are many different classes which he will see "first time around."

Bottom line: I have no problem with requiring a 4/4 load out of people (I have such a load right now), or even with requiring this plus research and service (in small quantities). That is, provided that it be made possible to fit all of this activity into the same 40 hour work week that the people who are passing the laws often enjoy, or at least that such work weeks become attainable in short order. A 4/4 is also much easier when you've taught through all courses 2 or 3 times, but if there's also a full research and service (and in many cases, administrative) schedule in place to boot, then those 4 courses are going to start to look very static after the second or third time through.

Remedial Classes and General Education Requirements

My personal rule of thumb, for what little it is worth, is that if the course is being offered and taught at a level that a 9th or 10th grade high school student could pass the exams based only on what he has learned in his high school classes, it shouldn't count towards a degree. This is not to say that it cannot still be required as a remedial class*, because there are plenty of students who set foot in the general level classes (general physics with algebra, pre-calculus, introductory computer science, history of western civilization, introduction to philosophy, etc) without the requisite skill set to succeed in those classes. The school system has largely failed these students--and quite probably their peers--which is a topic for another day. This is something which I have observed having taught in universities in three different states.

The frank solution is to require that all students take (for example) an Algebra-based physics class or a pre-calculus Algebra and trigonometry class--with physical science and lower algebra classes being remedial pre-reqs for those who aren't ready yet for the general physics and pre-calculus math courses. If a student hasn't been properly prepared for college when he arrives on campus, then he should ultimately expect to require some remedial coursework, even if this requires that he take an extra year (or summer) to complete his degree.

He can always opt out of the remedial coursework (or take it at a community college), but in so doing he also loses the right to complain about feeling like he is behind other students in his class. "But I came from Alabama/Mississippi/Arkansas/Inner City New York/rural Oregon, cut me a break." In that case, the remedial courses really may be meant for you. That really is the break which we can cut--lowering our standards only cheapens the value of the degree, and not only for you but for everyone else at your university. That's no less true when everyone else is doing it, too.


*Full disclosure, my salary ultimately depends on my having to teach some of these remedial classes.

Why The Tuition Is Too Damned High

Tuition is too damned high.

The New York Times managed to publish an opinion piece written by somebody other than Ross Douthat which is actually well-written and intelligently thought out. The piece is about the ever-raising costs of tuition at the college level:

"Some of this increased spending in education has been driven by a sharp rise in the percentage of Americans who go to college. While the college-age population has not increased since the tail end of the baby boom, the percentage of the population enrolled in college has risen significantly, especially in the last 20 years. Enrollment in undergraduate, graduate and professional programs has increased by almost 50 percent since 1995. As a consequence, while state legislative appropriations for higher education have risen much faster than inflation, total state appropriations per student are somewhat lower than they were at their peak in 1990. (Appropriations per student are much higher now than they were in the 1960s and 1970s, when tuition was a small fraction of what it is today.)

College tuition has been able to continue rising because college has become the new high school, and is expected (if not actually compulsory) for a much greater number of people than in the past. It has become a necessary though not a sufficient "qualification" for many jobs which frankly do not need a college education to be done well. More on that in a minute, but first:

Interestingly, increased spending has not been going into the pockets of the typical professor. Salaries of full-time faculty members are, on average, barely higher than they were in 1970. Moreover, while 45 years ago 78 percent of college and university professors were full time, today half of postsecondary faculty members are lower-paid part-time employees, meaning that the average salaries of the people who do the teaching in American higher education are actually quite a bit lower than they were in 1970.

As a tenure-track college professor, I can vouch for this. Most contracts are not full-year, but mine would in principle pay me the same rate for the summer as for the months on contract; in total, my base salary under those conditions would fall closer to 50k/year than 100k/year. To get this job, I spent 4 years as an undergraduate, then another 8 years as a graduate student (barely making ends meet with my TA/RA/AI stipends). I am the lucky one in that I did not spend 2-5 years as a postdoc (typical salary in academia: ~40k/year in my field, which is relatively well-paid) or visiting professor/lecturer (typical salary 40-50k/year).

By contrast, a major factor driving increasing costs is the constant expansion of university administration. According to the Department of Education data, administrative positions at colleges and universities grew by 60 percent between 1993 and 2009, which Bloomberg reported was 10 times the rate of growth of tenured faculty positions.

Both schools likely made money off of this game.

Administration is one reason for high costs of education. It is tempting to blame athletics as another, though many schools either rake in a net profit from athletics (my alma mater) or have little or no school-funded athletics programs (many smaller schools, including state schools); tuition at these schools has basically kept pace with everywhere else.

So athletics programs cannot really be blamed entirely for the rising cost of a college degree, nor the cheapening value of the education that the degree supposedly represents.

Rather, the problem lies with the fact that so many people are attempting to enroll in college. We have a surplus of students (though most smaller colleges, including the one which I work for, would claim that this is a good thing), which in turn means that colleges can get away with charging more and offering less. And, of course, because college loans are a particularly profitable form of usury, the banks are all-too-happy to comply with supplying the money for students to attend in the short term.

Furthermore, because many of these students don't actually want (or need) to be enrolled in college, they tend not to be particularly studious--but at the same time few want to do badly in the class. There is therefore an overwhelming pressure on teachers to "dumb-down" the material, and even to offer whole classes which are not college-level by their nature. Physical science, college pre-algebra, and computer information systems courses which teach the basics of typing and how to open word or excel files and make basic powerpoint presentations stand out to me as especially being remedial level classes. Practically every department has some "service" classes which meet a general education requirement and which probably shouldn't count toward the general requirements of a college degree, and yet which does. This is perhaps in part because every department needs to attract more students to get funding, but that's an issue for another day.

And yes, administration does siphon off a large chunk of change. So does playing the game of "keeping up with the Joneses," in which every state school attempts to add frivolous bells-and-whistles to attract more students, in a scramble to make MOAR PROFITS!!!. As a case-in-point: the small state university for whom I work is planning to open some more student housing--not necessarily a bad thing given that there is actually a shortage of student housing here. These new dorms include separate rooms for every student, each room coming furnished with a variety of amenities, including large-screen plasma TVs. Meanwhile, we have a shortage of space for classrooms, and a demand that all faculty at this small teaching university do research and write papers (=needing research lab space...).

The university at which I did my graduate degree seemed to be raising one new large building per year, some to replace functional if older buildings to do it. This was a very well-funded university, and many of the buildings were paid for in part by donations, so they could probably afford it. But the various smaller universities cannot, and they feel the need to be actively recruiting new students, which they do in part by attempting to keep up with the larger universities. These expenses are (not surprisingly) passed down to students in the form of higher tuition. Is it any wonder, then, that tuition has gone through the roof?

Presidential PeDegree

Scott Walker is one of the possible Republican candidates for President in 2016. Actually, he's currently one of the leading potential candidates. Therefore, much is being made of his lack of credentials, by which I mean a college degree.

I think there have been maybe two Republicans to be elected president without earning a degree: William McKinley and Abraham Lincoln. Both died in office, so I suppose it's nice of Walker's political rivals to be so concerned with his health. Except, well, that's not why they want to keep him far away from the White House.

Honestly, though, we've had a few Presidents who did not graduate from college, including both Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. Every President since Reagan has been a graduate of Harvard or Yale (though I'll take the Eureka College Alum over any of his successors).

To be honest, I'd take Washington, Lincoln, Monroe, or even Truman over any president since the 1990's: degrees be damned. And lest the rejoinder be, "oh, but education nowadays isn't what it used to be...", let us not forget which side has been running the education system for the last several decades.

Archbishop Cordileone Nails It

His Excellency the Archbishop of San Francisco has come under fire recently for a set of proposed morality clauses to be used in employment contracts at the Catholic schools in his diocese. There is little surprise as to what the morality clauses contain, and perhaps even less as to what the reaction is from the Left. And to nobody's further surprise, several lawmakers have gotten involved, mostly by sending him a "disapproving" letter.

Oh, but the good bishop has written a response to the lawmakers. And it is quite good. After noting that there is a bit of misinformation concerning this morality clause--such as "the falsehood that the morality clauses apply to the teachers’ private life"--he writes that

The next thing I would like to mention is actually a question: would you hire a campaign manager who advocates policies contrary to those that you stand for, and who shows disrespect toward you and the Democratic Party in general? On the other hand, if you Letter to Legislators knew a brilliant campaign manager who, although a Republican, was willing to work for you and not speak or act in public contrary to you or your party – would you hire such a person? If your answer to the first question is “no,” and to the second question is “yes,” then we are actually in agreement on the principal point in debate here.

Now let’s say that this campaign manager you hired, despite promises to the contrary, starts speaking critically of your party and favorably of your running opponent, and so you decide to fire the person. Would you have done this because you hate all Republicans outright, or because this individual, who happens to be a Republican, violated the trust given to you and acted contrary to your mission? If the latter, then we are again in agreement on this principle.

Yes, this is all quite reasonable, and so I suspect that much of it will be lost on both the lawmakers and the general public, including dissident catholics and busy-body non-Catholics alike.

On Victim-Blaming

I suppose this is not entirely unrelated to the insanity at Ferguson, but it is a sort of different topic: it is intellectually dishonest to dismiss precautions, warnings, and (after the fact) lesson-drawing from one's misfortunes as "blaming the victim." Here is Dr. Budziszewski breaking down the intellectual and moral silliness which pervades most cries of "blaming the victim":

Why is it so difficult to make a few simple distinctions? The perpetrator is entirely to blame for robbery and assault. But the victim in this case is to blame for foolhardiness and indiscretion. The victim’s foolishness does not mitigate the perpetrator’s guilt for his crime. But the perpetrator’s guilt does not mitigate the victim’s blame for his folly. The perpetrator deserves our reprobation, and should suffer the full penalty of law. But the victim, who has already suffered the penalty of natural consequences, deserves our pity -- and a stern talking-to.

In his postscript, the good professor addresses what might be called the opposite fallacy, which is when the victim blames himself for something which actually might not be his fault. Actually, his advice is good general advice to at least a substantial minority, if not an outright majority, of college students today: drop out of college, get a blue collar job for a few years, and then when you have learned what you can form the school of hard knocks, return to the academy ready to earn and education of the sort attainable there.

When Children Belong to the State

There is a rather alarmist column at National Review--but its alarmist tone does not mean we should dismiss it as entirely unfounded. The proposition is to target homeschooling children, because, of course, homeschooling and guns are the things to blame for Adam Lanza's shooting spree. It couldn't be, for example, the fault of the various state-run public schools (half prison, half re-education camp) where all of these shootings occur.

But children belong to the state, after all, or so the progressive line goes.

Western Civ and the University: a Postscript

At my boss' request, I attended the committee meeting about the proposed changes to the general education requirements at my university. I attended as a visitor, meaning that I was basically an observer and was not there to speak. Actually, thanks to the heated exchanges with a few history professors, the two admins running the meeting asked visitors to please refrain from making remarks until the end, if there was time then.

Actually, it was this heated exchange which is probably of most interest to readers here. Big Wig Number 1 (a vice Provost of some sort) began to explain that the reason why Western Civilization (history) was being removed from the required history courses and being made into and "elective" (meaning that it fulfills a requirement, but is one of several ways of fulfilling that requirement) is that is is "too Euro-centric." To be fair, ours is a fairly global campus, but given that we are situated in the US and hence in Western civilization, this really shouldn't be a problem.

And, true to form, the three history professors who attended (two as visitors, one as an actual committee member) shouted in unison that this wasn't a good reason to remove it. And then the heated exchange began, not because the history professors (all of whom teach Western Civ, non of whom were among the colleagues whom I mentioned previously) were standing up for the value of a student's learning the history of his culture. Oh, no. Their defense was rather that the charge* of being "Euro-centric" was simply inaccurate as applied to Western Civ. 

This is why I can't bring myself to write a rousing defense for Western Civ.'s being a required course, even though I firmly believe that it is probably the single most important history course (as pertains to what it should be teaching) which might be offered under the heading of "general education." I wonder what course a student would take if that student actually wanted to learn about European history. Once that would have been titled "Western Civ" (with some appropriate course designation).

---

*Some specific context is warranted here. Big Wig Number 1 was not complaining that "Western Civ" ignores contributions from (say) Egypt, or Russia, or Babylon, or Israel. One might argue that these shouldn't really be included anyway, as they are more-or-less precursors to Western Civ, and that Western Civ should include Greece, Rome, and the various states and empires which grew from the fall of Rome. This is not his line of argument. Rather, his protests was that there wasn't enough about Asia, and that we in America should look across both oceans. Point well taken, at least in our present millieu, but canning Western Civ is not the way to do this.

Western Civilization and the University

So my boss sent me the proposed changes to the general requirements curriculum. This is largely because eh wants me to go to the hearing/planning meeting tomorrow and fight for keeping the 8 hours of science as being 4 hours each in two separate categories, to prevent students from just taking 8 hours of biology and skipping chemistry, physics, earth science, and physical sciences (all of which are in our department) altogether. FWIW, I think we should require 12 hours, with a sequence of 8 and then one more out of that sequence, but that's just me (and many other universities), but the next best option is to have two separate 4 hour sequences.

The biology department seems to have a desire to outright require a two-hour sequence.  This would virtually eliminate the chemistry/physics cashcows of physical science (and to a lesser extent, earth sciences) since neither class currently exists as a two-semester sequence, and most students would prefer the relatively easy intro biology courses to the relatively more difficult chemistry, physics, or even physical science counterparts. Such is inter-departmental politics.

Moving on, I noticed that among proposed changes was this gem: "3. Removal of Western Civilization as a history option in the required slot for General Studies Program; move Western Civilization to the elective area." As I understand it, this makes Western Civ an optional history class as opposed to a required one, albeit one which does still fill a requirement There is, after all, the requirement of "Any 1000-2000 level courses from the following Social Science disciplines: Anthropology, Economics, Geography, History, Leadership, Interdisciplinary Studies, Political Science, Psychology, Religion, Sociology or other Social Science areas: 9 hours" with  6 of those 9 hours being either a six-hour sequence in literature or a 6-hour sequence in history. US or World history is its own 3 hour category.

Under different circumstances, I would consider protesting this change. I think that the single most important course in history for a student to take is that of Western Civ, which is not generally covered in much depth once one enters post-secondary school. American History, or the History of the US, and World History are probably next, but the former at least has been covered (in theory) by the high schools. To banish Western Civ. to the lost realm of "electives,' even "elective which fulfill a requirement," is to deprive a great many students of their cultural heritage.

With that said, I know a number of the newer history profs and lecturers: one specialized in race relations in the south, and another in Middle Eastern History*. The former currently teaches Western Civ and frequently remarks that she is having to learn it all over again, having not really studied it much in the course of gaining a doctorate in history focusing on the history of the United States. Such is not an uncommon occurrence in history or really any field. Based on her conversations with me, she is doing a reasonably good job of trying to teach the material objectively, but then again she has mostly covered Egypt, Greece, and (pre-Constantine) Rome to this point. I can only hope that the attempts at a fair presentation continue through the medieval period. The Middle Eastern History specialist remarked to me that he did not even bother to apply to any school whose mascot was "the crusaders" or "the knights" or "the templars" or (gasp) "the saints," because they would obviously have a wrongheaded approach to teaching history in general and Middle Eastern, Islamic history in particular. This latter man is actually Jewish, but decidedly un-Western, perhaps even anti-Western** (though I suppose that any course he teaches about world history outside of the west is probably a thing of beauty, as he does put lots of effort into the preparation).

Being as I am at a state (read: secular) university, and being as these are the kinds of professors who largely work here, we may be doing the poor students a favor by sparing them a cynically taught version of Western Civ. Utter ignorance of one's cultural heritage is probably preferable to complete disdain of that heritage, especially if it is manufactured disdain.


-----
*A third one is actually a convert to Catholicism, and wrote his dissertation on anti-Catholicism in the US, particularly during the mid 19th century ("Know Nothings" featured prominently). He would probably do a nice job of teaching Western Civ.

**But still a colleague and perhaps a friend no less.

Commencement

No, not mine, though my name was listed among those graduating form the department. If all goes well, then I will this summer. No, I'm thinking of commencement speeches, most of which are actually pretty banal.

The one P.J. O'Rourke would give for Rutgers isn't, however:

What intrigues me is that there are 31.1 million Americans between 18 and 24, and 21.8 million of you—70 percent—are going to college. It is not possible that 70 percent of you are among the 50 percent of you who are above-average in intelligence....

What constitutes a “college education”?

You need to study history, so that it doesn’t come around again and, per Santayana, bite you in the Ukraine. You’re thinking, “Santayana—historically great guitar player.”

You need philosophy, not the modern bull session kind but the Socratic method of “What the hell am I thinking?” And what the hell were you thinking, majoring in History of Film? At least you got to see So-crates in action in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure.

You need literature and the arts so you can read something longer than a Beyoncé tweet and throw Bartok into the iPod mix and hear what Jay Z is up against experimenting with music.
A general understanding of science is necessary. You don’t have to learn how to cure cancer. You just have to learn that the guy my age with what’s left of his hair tied in a ponytail who works at the organic locavore shop and talks about the healing properties of crystals and magnetic fields is crazy.

The same goes for mathematics and economics. You should be able to do the math—if you’re still repaying your student loans when you’re 50, college education probably wasn’t a good investment....

Eight or so subjects to get a college education. Think you could find 100 wonderful experts in each of these, 800 professors, for $1.4 billion? That’s $1.75 million a year apiece. There would be applicants. You could hold classes in the Moose Lodge or at the Y. Classes would be large. So was the agora where Socrates taught. But there’s no free WiFi in the Moose Lodge.  And this kind of college education sounds like work.  Which is something you’ll be looking hard for, starting tomorrow.

Go read the whole thing.

Three Culture War Links: A Brave New World

Here are three quick links pertaining to the culture wars: I leave it as an exercise to the reader to see how they are related to each other.

First, on rights, responsibilities, and the idol of the idle.

Second, this post by Ross Douthat, which I am still working through myself. I do not agree entirely with Mr Douthat's assessment, by the way, but he raises a number of good points.

Third, this post about propaganda for the sexual revolution on Matt Walsh's blog (caution: some graphic content, NSFW). A key quote:

The results (of the social engineering in Huxley's Brave New World) were a society where people learned discipline and self-control. But tyrants do not want a citizenry with these kinds of characteristics. That’s one of the central themes in Huxley’s novel.

It’s terrifying to think of all the modern progressives who read this excerpt and nod their head in agreement with the Director. Huxley wrote Brave New World to be a nightmarish vision of a Dystopian future – they read it like a practical outline of their domestic agenda.

That’s why I chuckle whenever a radical progressive professes to have read and loved this book. It’s like they don’t realize that the entire thing is one long, stinging, merciless indictment against their ideology and worldview.

Such is where we are heading.

The Purpose of Public Schools

Once upon a time, public schools were established to ensure that we would have something resembling and educated populace. Increasingly, they are being used as just another laboratory in which to inflict the state- or union-approved ideology on students. The school may not be free, but they can ensure its free of education (with a few notable exceptions).

If that's not reason enough to make parents look for alternative option, a school in Wisconsin has come up with a new reason to homeschool. Children may have an older brother, but there's no Big Brother present:

A middle school in Marinette, Wisconsin got a group of 5th-8th graders together and organized a really fun game that asked students to step forward to answer “yes” to a series of highly personal questions...

I think we can all see how easily this could go sideways. This collection of information from unwitting children could be used to instigate social services investigations, to find out which parents are using their 2nd amendment right to own firearms, whether they’ve complied with Obamacare, what their lifestyle choices are, how they practice their religious beliefs, what the family’s political beliefs are, or to single out kids for forced medical or mental health treatment against the wishes of their parents. We need only look at all of the zero tolerance hysteria to see how quickly this could get out of hand.

Most kids don’t understand the greater ramifications of sharing this type of information, and that is exactly what the administrators are counting on. They are taking advantage of a relationship of trust between students and faculty, and exploiting that for their own purposes. So many things are illegal or illicit now that it’s impossible for a child to judge whether what he or she is saying will get someone into trouble.

I would ask "What could go wrong?," but that question only works if the possibility of something going wrong isn't at least a little intentional.

Georgetown Shocker

It's nice to see an ostensibly Catholic university actually do something to promote its Catholic identity. There is no space for a "pro-choice" group on a Catholic campus, "diversity" be damned. Those who don't like it should consider going to a secular university where that kind of thing is not only tolerated but openly celebrated and even to some extent worshiped.

Laura Narefsky and Abby Grace, the president and vice president of H*yas for Choice, respectively, write that they now feel unwanted on campus.  “Instead of being recognized as a contribution to a campus that strives for diversity, we are treated like a nuisance that undermines the university’s image,” they write.

Georgetown has apparently done the right thing here, even if only in a rather bizarre context. They still have a ways to go if they host a free-speech zone in which condoms may be distributed. Condoms are not free speech, and they are not a celebration of "diversity." Nor, for that matter, are private institutions such as Georgetown under any particular obligation to respect "diverse" groups whose purpose is the perpetuation of one of the greatest of evils, and which further exists to undermine the Catholic identity of the institution (however weak or tenuous the university has allowed that identity to become).

GoldieBlox and the Three Mares

When I first saw the GoldieBlox "Princess Machine" ad, my initial reaction was, I'm not going to buy anything from these guys for my daughter. This is because I saw the original version with the parody of Beastie Boys "Girls". This version has disappeared, apparently because the Beastie Boys began inquiring as to why their material was used without their permission. Meanwhile, GoldieBlox reaction has been to sue Beastie Boys over this inquiry.

This is all basically in the background of my mind, actually. It's a bit classless for GoldieBlox to go about it this way, but that's not really where my complaints lay. Rather, I took exception to the parody lyrics (and their implications--I've empasized some):

Girls. You think you know what we want, girls

Pink and pretty it’s girls.

Just like the 50’s it’s girls.

You like to buy us pink toys

And everything else is for boy

And you can always get us dolls

And we’ll grow up like them... false.

It’s time to change.

We deserve to see a range.

‘Cause all our toys look just the same

And we would like to use our brains.

We are all more than princess maids.

Girls to build the spaceship,

Girls to code the new app,

Girls to grow up knowing

That they can engineer that.Girls.

That’s all we really need is Girls.

To bring us up to speed it’s Girls.

Our opportunity is Girls.

Don’t underestimate Girls.

For crying out loud, I know that these lyrics are making fun of a song about girls being treated as nothing more than "maids", though they're really also making fun of housewives, stay-at-home moms, home-makers.
Girls!
You deserve better
Girls!
Than thinly veiled whining
Girls!
About the old patriarchy
Girls!
And an imagined glass ceiling.

Note the insinuation, "That's all we really need is Girls." Boys are not needed, we can dispense with men. This may not be the intention of the company or the ad, but in a society which is saturated with this message, that is what comes across. The further insinuation that women who choose not to pursue engineering careers--or really any careers--but rather to embrace the vocation of home-maker and mother to the exclusion of other careers don't use their brains is, well, demeaning to say the least.

The commercial itself was really not too bad, though. With the lyrics removed, it's actually pretty well-done, and exactly the kind of thing I'd like to do with my children when they are old enough to appreciate it:




Well, other than perhaps the fact that all three girls look very bored with their pretty-princess show. That kind of thing would probably bore some girls. Others really like it--and it's not a matter of just "gender-socializing" or some other psycho-babble nonsense. Indeed, my (rather progressive) sister once commented to me that her daughters had socialized themselves to like the whole Cinderella/Disney-princess/dolls thing. Actually, the look of the three girls at the beginning is less bored than angry, which I suppose fits the attitude of feminists the world over.

It's just unfortunate that the approach to this is, "We don't need boys!" which reads a lot like "Up with womyn, down with men!" in our cultural milieu. Similarly with the attitude that traditional "girl toys" (and by extension, feminine gender roles) do not require a functioning brain. There are no "mere" housewives, and nobody is "just a mother."

Anyway, my children currently consist of a baby daughter. She's not old enough to play with these kinds of things (they tend to present a choking hazard at her age), but I have big plans for science/engineering exploration with her (her mother, on the other hand, plans to do the same with music). The fact that this company felt the need to turn me off to its products would seem to be rather unfortunate for them, and it unfortunate for us too. I like the idea of my little girls getting into engineering and science (more fun for me, too!), but not at the expense of their femininity. Certainly, not at the price of having some chip on her shoulder against the men in her field, if she does some day decide to go the STE route. To be blunt, that's a true mark of equality between the sexes: when women can enter the field without having a chip of their shoulders against their male colleagues--and when men can look at these women as partners and not merely rivals. Ads like the one first put forth by GoldieBlox do not help to accomplish this.