An interesting survey found via Instapundit: Given a choice between Presidential candidates from the following set of minority groups, which do you think fared best, and which fared worse: Catholics,* Mormons, atheists, people over the age of 72,† Latinos, Blacks, women,‡ or thrice-married people.
The result? At least according to this poll, Americans are most willing to accept a Catholic President, and least willing to accept an atheist. From that, it seems safe to conclude that a candidate's religious identity is of greater importance to the poll respondents than the candidate's race, gender, or personal history.
Somehow, the selection of seven ought of the eight polling criteria does not seem arbitrary. But is there an atheist running for President? If so, he (or she) is well-closeted. (I thought it might be Dennis Kucinich, but no, turns out that he identifies as a Catholic.) But, this supports last year's suggestion that atheists are the least-liked minority group in the U.S. these days. We're not bad people, really! We're just not willing to accept faith in God as a proxy for being morally good -- and for that matter, neither should religious people, but I digress.
The media has been focusing a lot on one candidate's religious identity recently. But while that particular identity is an issue for a lot of people, those people are hardly a majority -- and even they apparently consider it better to be in what they think of as a bizarre not-really-Christian cult than to have no religious identity at all. I'm reminded of that scene in Contact in which Jodie Foster is testifying before Congress, trying to become the person who gets to travel to meet the aliens whose message she was the first to discover, after being forced to reluctantly admit that she is an atheist. Congress decides to give that honor to the slimy, publicity-stealing media-whore instead because he sucks up to the public about believing in God and implying that he was willing to proselytize to aliens of awe-inspiring technological superiority to humanity (although we the audience get the idea that his profession of faith was quite insincere to boot).
Hypothesis: If you say you have faith, that's what seems to count to the American public as a whole. It seems to matter little whether your faith is exactly like the audience's. You can be Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or Mormon. But you've got to be something, apparently; you can't opt out.
The test of this hypothesis would have been if Muslims had been included in the survey.
* Catholics are actually the plurality religious identity within the United States, but there are collectively more Protestants than Catholics. They're just split up amongst a variety of different sects.
† This "group" is not a minority so much as a demographic, drawn to address a potential problem with the candidacy and theoretical service of a specific Presidential candidate. As it turns out, the polling data reveals that this is a bigger problem for voters than a lot of media coverage would seem to indicate.
‡ Women are actually a slim majority of the American population, but they remain a distinct minority within the ranks of holders of substantial amounts of political power. This post is not intended to muse about the reasons why this is the case or to offer a normative evaluations of that state of affairs. Maybe another day.
February 21, 2007
February 20, 2007
A Proposal For Victory: The Giuliani Doctrine
And it was promising to get so interesting. But when RedState starts turning on you, that's a sign that maybe the steak has been cooked all the way through. Not keeping the crowds at home happy is a big problem for any politician. And that's not a problem that only Mitt Romney has. Social conservatives are reconciling themselves to Rudy Giuliani early -- and firmly.
In the meantime, the Democrats seem to have winnowed out everyone but Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. Enough Democrats are still excited by Obama to make this race difficult to call (the election is more than eighteen months away, after all!) but John Edwards is falling by the wayside and no one else seems able to draw any air in a room with Clinton or Obama in it. Right now, I'd give the edge to Clinton; she seems to have more money, more machinery, and enough poise to be confident in her own record. We'll know for sure by April 1, when the first round of fund-raising reports must be filed with the FEC.
But right now it's looking a lot like Giuliani versus Clinton, and it's looking like a one-issue election.
That issue, of course, is the war. Thanks to the gross mismanagement of the war by a White House that seemed oblivious to the fact that there are intractable problems in Iraq until four months ago, the war is going to be a huge obstacle for whoever gets the GOP nomination (read: Giuliani). The Democrats' line (read: Clinton's): "There is no real good solution, so how many of our kids have to die before we accept the inevitable and bail out?"*
The present White House can cry about this sort of talk "emboldening our enemies" and being "defeatism" or "not supporting the troops." But that theme is resonating with the voters and so as a practical matter, the GOP nominee needs to figure out what else we might do aside from sending all the soldiers to the rooftops to wait for the helicopters. In other words, Giuliani needs a better comeback to that proposal than "Hey, quit demoralizing the troops!"
The answer, I think, is for the nominee to propose setting up permanent military bases in Iraq. Our strategy of invasion and setting up a friendly client democracy there would only ever have worked with our military support. Our only successful model for state-building, the Marshall Plan, required substantial U.S. military investment in the formerly hostile nations of Germany and Japan. And those nations, even today, depend on us for military protection (although much less so than even ten years ago).
Ah, but the Marshall Plan only worked because we also had a cold war going on with the Soviets, you say. Well, as it turns out, there is another mysterious, ideological, and dangerous enemy rising -- and right across the border from Iraq, as it turns out, making those permanent bases decidedly convenient and strategically useful. Since invading Iran or even any substantially aggressive military action against it are not practical possibilities for us (sure, let's polarize the Muslim world against us even more than it already is), a strategy of containment and encouraging internal liberalization may well prove better-suited to our long-term geopolitical needs.
And, it's not like Iran is exactly popular with its neighbors. Iran is ruled by a group of people who are considered ethnically different from the elites of every other Muslim nation in central and western Asia. It's well-known that Persians sneer at Arabs. Most of the Arabic nations in the area are Sunni; Iran is Shi'ite. I've long suspected that only the presence of common enemies (e.g., Israelis, Americans) prevents the ethnic and sectarian differences between Iran and its Arab neighbors from boiling over into war. I further suspect that I am far from alone in that suspicion.
A plan of permanent military engagement with Iraq, perhaps withdrawing from the urban chaos that is Baghdad but solidifying our military hold over the countryside and the oil-producing regions of the east and north of the country (as well as the vital port at UmmQasr) would be a prelude to a sort of smaller-scale cold war with Iran -- not a prospect to be met with joy but a geopolitical model from which success has sprung in the past.
So here's a proposal for the Giuliani Doctrine: The Iraqis need to start being responsible for their own internal police matters like quelling riots and preventing car bombs from exploding. That means that the bulk of our troops get out of the Baghdad area. But we will provide substantial strategic military assistance to the fledgling democracy against foreign threats like incursions from Iran, a soft border with Syria, and minimizing smuggling of contraband into Turkey. To do this, we move our troops to rural areas near the borders, oilfields, and strategic chokepoints. Any attempt by foreign powers to detract from the sovereignty of Iraq or any other nation with trade relations to the West will be met with stern reprisals backed up by overwhelming force. In the meantime, we encourage the development of liberal, secular democracy in Iraq and elsewhere through the availability of consumer goods and the proliferation of information via the Internet, radio, and other dimensions of a generally free press. This may not happen very quickly, I realize; it took more than a generation in Eastern Europe. But it did happen.
The Republican candidate (read: Giuliani) who can articulate a plan for success not only in Iraq but also the entire Gulf theater may well get a leg up on the Democratic candidate calling for us to cut our losses (read: Clinton) -- while still demonstrating that the future is not going to look like the present. The American people will accept sacrifices and losses if they believe it is for a good reason. Right now, there is no reason, there is no plan, there is no apparent route to (or even definition of) victory, and as a result there is a sense of despair. This plays into the hands of the party out of power, as was forcefully demonstrated in November. Senator Clinton's likely platform on this issue will not be a plan for winning in any sense of the word; it is a plan for mitigating the damage of another military loss.
Victory is good policy and it's good politics. A vision of getting our troops out of harm's way and into positions where they're going to do us some good could be sold with no small amount of domestic political success and who knows? It might actually be good for us on the international front, too.
* I assume here that the President's idea of a "surge" of 20,000 troops into the Baghdad area will not yield significant progress towards pacifying Iraq. There's no way to know for sure whether this strategy of "the same stuff we've been doing for the past year, only more of it" will produce any different result other than the steady stream of violence and death bringing home too many soldiers in caskets; we can only try it and see if it works. But as far as I can tell, there's no good reason to believe that it will. We've had this many troops in country very recently, and got no good results from it. But, of course, we can hope that there will be some different kinds of tactical operations going on, particularly with new commanders on the scene. Nothing would please me, and the rest of the country, more than seeing some calm descend on Baghdad. So while I really do hope the plan works, I'm still very doubtful about that proposition.
In the meantime, the Democrats seem to have winnowed out everyone but Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. Enough Democrats are still excited by Obama to make this race difficult to call (the election is more than eighteen months away, after all!) but John Edwards is falling by the wayside and no one else seems able to draw any air in a room with Clinton or Obama in it. Right now, I'd give the edge to Clinton; she seems to have more money, more machinery, and enough poise to be confident in her own record. We'll know for sure by April 1, when the first round of fund-raising reports must be filed with the FEC.
But right now it's looking a lot like Giuliani versus Clinton, and it's looking like a one-issue election.
That issue, of course, is the war. Thanks to the gross mismanagement of the war by a White House that seemed oblivious to the fact that there are intractable problems in Iraq until four months ago, the war is going to be a huge obstacle for whoever gets the GOP nomination (read: Giuliani). The Democrats' line (read: Clinton's): "There is no real good solution, so how many of our kids have to die before we accept the inevitable and bail out?"*
The present White House can cry about this sort of talk "emboldening our enemies" and being "defeatism" or "not supporting the troops." But that theme is resonating with the voters and so as a practical matter, the GOP nominee needs to figure out what else we might do aside from sending all the soldiers to the rooftops to wait for the helicopters. In other words, Giuliani needs a better comeback to that proposal than "Hey, quit demoralizing the troops!"
The answer, I think, is for the nominee to propose setting up permanent military bases in Iraq. Our strategy of invasion and setting up a friendly client democracy there would only ever have worked with our military support. Our only successful model for state-building, the Marshall Plan, required substantial U.S. military investment in the formerly hostile nations of Germany and Japan. And those nations, even today, depend on us for military protection (although much less so than even ten years ago).
Ah, but the Marshall Plan only worked because we also had a cold war going on with the Soviets, you say. Well, as it turns out, there is another mysterious, ideological, and dangerous enemy rising -- and right across the border from Iraq, as it turns out, making those permanent bases decidedly convenient and strategically useful. Since invading Iran or even any substantially aggressive military action against it are not practical possibilities for us (sure, let's polarize the Muslim world against us even more than it already is), a strategy of containment and encouraging internal liberalization may well prove better-suited to our long-term geopolitical needs.
And, it's not like Iran is exactly popular with its neighbors. Iran is ruled by a group of people who are considered ethnically different from the elites of every other Muslim nation in central and western Asia. It's well-known that Persians sneer at Arabs. Most of the Arabic nations in the area are Sunni; Iran is Shi'ite. I've long suspected that only the presence of common enemies (e.g., Israelis, Americans) prevents the ethnic and sectarian differences between Iran and its Arab neighbors from boiling over into war. I further suspect that I am far from alone in that suspicion.
A plan of permanent military engagement with Iraq, perhaps withdrawing from the urban chaos that is Baghdad but solidifying our military hold over the countryside and the oil-producing regions of the east and north of the country (as well as the vital port at UmmQasr) would be a prelude to a sort of smaller-scale cold war with Iran -- not a prospect to be met with joy but a geopolitical model from which success has sprung in the past.
So here's a proposal for the Giuliani Doctrine: The Iraqis need to start being responsible for their own internal police matters like quelling riots and preventing car bombs from exploding. That means that the bulk of our troops get out of the Baghdad area. But we will provide substantial strategic military assistance to the fledgling democracy against foreign threats like incursions from Iran, a soft border with Syria, and minimizing smuggling of contraband into Turkey. To do this, we move our troops to rural areas near the borders, oilfields, and strategic chokepoints. Any attempt by foreign powers to detract from the sovereignty of Iraq or any other nation with trade relations to the West will be met with stern reprisals backed up by overwhelming force. In the meantime, we encourage the development of liberal, secular democracy in Iraq and elsewhere through the availability of consumer goods and the proliferation of information via the Internet, radio, and other dimensions of a generally free press. This may not happen very quickly, I realize; it took more than a generation in Eastern Europe. But it did happen.
The Republican candidate (read: Giuliani) who can articulate a plan for success not only in Iraq but also the entire Gulf theater may well get a leg up on the Democratic candidate calling for us to cut our losses (read: Clinton) -- while still demonstrating that the future is not going to look like the present. The American people will accept sacrifices and losses if they believe it is for a good reason. Right now, there is no reason, there is no plan, there is no apparent route to (or even definition of) victory, and as a result there is a sense of despair. This plays into the hands of the party out of power, as was forcefully demonstrated in November. Senator Clinton's likely platform on this issue will not be a plan for winning in any sense of the word; it is a plan for mitigating the damage of another military loss.
Victory is good policy and it's good politics. A vision of getting our troops out of harm's way and into positions where they're going to do us some good could be sold with no small amount of domestic political success and who knows? It might actually be good for us on the international front, too.
* I assume here that the President's idea of a "surge" of 20,000 troops into the Baghdad area will not yield significant progress towards pacifying Iraq. There's no way to know for sure whether this strategy of "the same stuff we've been doing for the past year, only more of it" will produce any different result other than the steady stream of violence and death bringing home too many soldiers in caskets; we can only try it and see if it works. But as far as I can tell, there's no good reason to believe that it will. We've had this many troops in country very recently, and got no good results from it. But, of course, we can hope that there will be some different kinds of tactical operations going on, particularly with new commanders on the scene. Nothing would please me, and the rest of the country, more than seeing some calm descend on Baghdad. So while I really do hope the plan works, I'm still very doubtful about that proposition.
February 19, 2007
Extremes
It was a day of extreme weather today in the desert. It's rare that the weather is so interesting here. Eight months out of the year, it's warm and dry in the morning, then hot and windy in the afternoon, and then warm and really windy in the evening. But not today.
In the morning, it was cold and cloudy. When the clouds burned off, they revealed snow on the mountains, down to about 4,000 feet -- some in the hills just above the floor of the Antelope Valley; even the tops of Tenhi Mountain and Mount Emma, which flank the freeway going to Los Angeles, were dusted. No snow reached down to the populated areas, but there was what seemed like an awful lot of rain and nearly every street was flooded out in the morning.
The temperature rose to the mid-fifties in the afternoon and my jacket felt uncomfortably warm when we came back from lunch. All the snow on the lower levels of the mountains was gone; the snowline had retreated back to something like 6,000 feet. Then the wind blew again. Now, it's down to 38 degrees again and will probably freeze overnight.
In the morning, it was cold and cloudy. When the clouds burned off, they revealed snow on the mountains, down to about 4,000 feet -- some in the hills just above the floor of the Antelope Valley; even the tops of Tenhi Mountain and Mount Emma, which flank the freeway going to Los Angeles, were dusted. No snow reached down to the populated areas, but there was what seemed like an awful lot of rain and nearly every street was flooded out in the morning.
The temperature rose to the mid-fifties in the afternoon and my jacket felt uncomfortably warm when we came back from lunch. All the snow on the lower levels of the mountains was gone; the snowline had retreated back to something like 6,000 feet. Then the wind blew again. Now, it's down to 38 degrees again and will probably freeze overnight.
Labels:
California,
Talking About The Weather
Celebrating George
The Wife and I watched a series of programs over the weekend about the Presidents on the History Channel. It went from Washington to FDR. Then today, I see a poll on CNN asking for the best President in history. These are the results:
Abraham Lincoln: 18%
Ronald Reagan: 16%
John Kennedy: 14%
Bill Clinton: 13%
Franklin Roosevelt: 9%
George Washington: 7%
Harry Truman: 3%
George W. Bush: 2%
Theodore Roosevelt: 2%
Dwight Eisenhower: 2%
Thomas Jefferson: 2%
Jimmy Carter: 2%
Gerald Ford: 1%
George Bush, Sr.: 1%
George W. Bush outpolls Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt? As apt a demonstration as I can think of as proof that if George W. Bush slit some guy's throat on live television in the Rose Garden, he would still have uncritical supporters who would insist that he's the best leader humanity has known since Jesus himself. Pass the Kool-Aid!
But seriously, I’m wary of ranking post-war Presidents along with the more historical figures, because we lack sufficient historical perspective to really evaluate them. Still, I’m a fan of Reagan, for the same reason I’m a fan of James K. Polk and William Howard Taft – all approached their tasks with specific goals in mind and focused their energies on successfully accomplishing those goals. Polk and Taft? Yes. Even though both were one-termers, they made very significant contributions to America and demonstrated substantial leadership during their Presidencies.
James K. Polk fulfilled the promise of westward expansion, creating the modern boundaries of the United States (excepting Alaska and Hawaii) and had the grace to leave office after the conclusion of that mission – some say that the White House broke him; he died just over three months after leaving office. A flawed man, to be sure, particularly with regards to slavery. But he deserves as much mention for his expansion of the country as does his more public relations-friendly slaveholding predecessor, Thomas Jefferson. Trivia: Polk was the only Speaker of the House to ever become President.
William Howard Taft created the modern legal system that governs our country; he, more than anyone else, is responsible for the way law is practiced and organized today. The importance of those reforms echoes through almost every aspect of American society to this day. Taft considered being President less important than serving on the Supreme Court, and he was appointed Chief Justice by President Harding, serving with distinction until shortly before his death in 1930. Perhaps I admire Chief Justice Taft more than I do President Taft, but his leadership on legal reform was critical during his Presidency too.
But I’ve got to give the top nod to George Washington, who transformed himself from a revolutionary war hero into a statesman and the architect of government in a modern liberal democracy. This is not to diminish the achievements of James Madison or Thomas Jefferson or John Adams in creating the overall structure of our government – but the question is who was the best President, and Washington breathed life into the body that Madison and his colleagues created. Without Washington, Mr. Madison’s Constitution would have made a very interesting theoretical construct. With him, Americans bought in to the idea of a strong, central, divided, and federalized government.
We owe it all to George Washington. CNN readers only give him 7%? That’s a rip-off, big time.
Abraham Lincoln: 18%Ronald Reagan: 16%
John Kennedy: 14%
Bill Clinton: 13%
Franklin Roosevelt: 9%
George Washington: 7%
Harry Truman: 3%
George W. Bush: 2%
Theodore Roosevelt: 2%
Dwight Eisenhower: 2%
Thomas Jefferson: 2%
Jimmy Carter: 2%
Gerald Ford: 1%
George Bush, Sr.: 1%
George W. Bush outpolls Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt? As apt a demonstration as I can think of as proof that if George W. Bush slit some guy's throat on live television in the Rose Garden, he would still have uncritical supporters who would insist that he's the best leader humanity has known since Jesus himself. Pass the Kool-Aid!
But seriously, I’m wary of ranking post-war Presidents along with the more historical figures, because we lack sufficient historical perspective to really evaluate them. Still, I’m a fan of Reagan, for the same reason I’m a fan of James K. Polk and William Howard Taft – all approached their tasks with specific goals in mind and focused their energies on successfully accomplishing those goals. Polk and Taft? Yes. Even though both were one-termers, they made very significant contributions to America and demonstrated substantial leadership during their Presidencies.
James K. Polk fulfilled the promise of westward expansion, creating the modern boundaries of the United States (excepting Alaska and Hawaii) and had the grace to leave office after the conclusion of that mission – some say that the White House broke him; he died just over three months after leaving office. A flawed man, to be sure, particularly with regards to slavery. But he deserves as much mention for his expansion of the country as does his more public relations-friendly slaveholding predecessor, Thomas Jefferson. Trivia: Polk was the only Speaker of the House to ever become President.
William Howard Taft created the modern legal system that governs our country; he, more than anyone else, is responsible for the way law is practiced and organized today. The importance of those reforms echoes through almost every aspect of American society to this day. Taft considered being President less important than serving on the Supreme Court, and he was appointed Chief Justice by President Harding, serving with distinction until shortly before his death in 1930. Perhaps I admire Chief Justice Taft more than I do President Taft, but his leadership on legal reform was critical during his Presidency too.
But I’ve got to give the top nod to George Washington, who transformed himself from a revolutionary war hero into a statesman and the architect of government in a modern liberal democracy. This is not to diminish the achievements of James Madison or Thomas Jefferson or John Adams in creating the overall structure of our government – but the question is who was the best President, and Washington breathed life into the body that Madison and his colleagues created. Without Washington, Mr. Madison’s Constitution would have made a very interesting theoretical construct. With him, Americans bought in to the idea of a strong, central, divided, and federalized government.
We owe it all to George Washington. CNN readers only give him 7%? That’s a rip-off, big time.
Labels:
Domestic Politics,
History
Asses in Classes
A Gray Lady article about UoP reveals this criticism: "According to federal statistics and government audits, the university relies more on part-time instructors than all but a few other postsecondary institutions, and its accelerated academic schedule races students through course work in about half the time of traditional universities." This should come as a surprise to exactly no one. That is the University of Phoenix's explicitly-stated faculty model. I am one of those part-time instructors, but I have little doubt that I am well-qualified to teach a subject in which I hold an advanced degree and practice professionally every day.
The Times further reports that "The university says that its graduation rate, using the federal standard, is 16 percent, which is among the nation’s lowest, according to Department of Education data. But the university has dozens of campuses, and at many, the rate is even lower." In response, Phoenix's president writes "The federal standard used to calculate graduation rates is biased, requiring universities to report only on the students with no prior college experience. Such a standard excludes 93 percent of our student population." Certainly, anyone can lie with statistics, and it's usually a good idea to look at numbers like this from multiple angles.
The more valid complaint from the Times is my constant gripe: "instructional shortcuts, unqualified professors and recruiting abuses." I get too many students who are intellectually unprepared for collegiate-level work and who claim to have had instructors before me who let them get away with a lot of shoddy work. Half of them couldn't write their way out of a paper bag if I gave them scissors, and they resent being asked to produce high-quality writing in term papers.
It got so bad after my last class that I simply abandonded having papers at all; now all of my student evaluation is based on objective testing. I fret that I am guilty of committing what the Times called an "instructional shortcut" but the fact of the matter is that the school doesn't care. I use their selected textbook's bank of test questions and select the more difficult among the questions available. If this does not meet their criteria for rigor, they can tell me to change my instruction plan. But I've been audited by the administration twice in nearly three years of
teaching, so there does not seem to be any interest in committing resources to keeping academic standards high.
Nor are there incentives for me to do so; and substantial disincentives, in the form of extra hours of work for the same low pay if I take the time to educate my students about the importance of good writing and suggest ways that they can improve. If some of my fellow instructors do not provide high levels of service, this is not a surprise to me; there is no good reason for them to do so if they are not internally motivated to do a good job teaching anyway. From discussions on the online faculty lounge, I'm impressed that there are so many instructors who do care at all. Sure, I like the extra money I get when UoP pays me, but it's not enough for me to keep on doing this. I do it because it's supposed to be enjoyable, too. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
A significant reason that traditional four-year universities produce high graduation rates and (theoretically) higher-quality graduates is that a four-year university exercises competitive selection from amongst its applicant pool, and traditionally takes a young student with little non-academic experience. University of Phoenix exercises a single selection criteria, ability to pay, and then skews that criteria by offering financial aid to increase the number of people who can become students. The typical student is a working adult in mid-career, who needs a degree to advance. As a result, the amount of time and mental focus such a student can devote to the class, as well as the amount of intellectual resources available to devote in the first place, are both less than what you would find among undergraduate students at UCLA or Georgetown. That's the reality of it, whether the Times or UoP's president is offering the more accurate take on the statistics.
But, and here's the part where I sound tough and unsympathetic, not everyone should get a college degree. A college degree is supposed to represent a higher level of knowledge, education, and intellectual ability. It is supposed to be above average, and by definition, not everyone is above average. Not everyone is going to have the ability to complete a program or get all "A's." The marketing department of UoP is, in my opinion, guilty of overpromising academic success and the rewards that go along with it to students who have not demonstrated the potential to achieve that success. The result is that not all of my students get A's and many leave my classes mad at me, and at the school, as a result of it.
That's not to say that there is no hope for a working adult who needs to complete their degree to advance in their career. UoP can be a rigorous learning environment and its degree can be a meaningful reflection of knowledge and increased intellectual skills. It can also be a reflection of good attendance. It's really up to the student as to which it will be. I can't fault UoP for not providing a real educational opportunity for its students. The accelerated class format is not for everyone, but it can and will work for some students (the self-motivated ones who would find a way to make most formats work, mainly).
I can fault UoP for not selecting students who will take advantage of the opportunity provided. Simply put, UoP needs to start exercising a little bit of selectivity in its student selection process. There is more to education than putting asses in classes.
The Times further reports that "The university says that its graduation rate, using the federal standard, is 16 percent, which is among the nation’s lowest, according to Department of Education data. But the university has dozens of campuses, and at many, the rate is even lower." In response, Phoenix's president writes "The federal standard used to calculate graduation rates is biased, requiring universities to report only on the students with no prior college experience. Such a standard excludes 93 percent of our student population." Certainly, anyone can lie with statistics, and it's usually a good idea to look at numbers like this from multiple angles.
The more valid complaint from the Times is my constant gripe: "instructional shortcuts, unqualified professors and recruiting abuses." I get too many students who are intellectually unprepared for collegiate-level work and who claim to have had instructors before me who let them get away with a lot of shoddy work. Half of them couldn't write their way out of a paper bag if I gave them scissors, and they resent being asked to produce high-quality writing in term papers.
It got so bad after my last class that I simply abandonded having papers at all; now all of my student evaluation is based on objective testing. I fret that I am guilty of committing what the Times called an "instructional shortcut" but the fact of the matter is that the school doesn't care. I use their selected textbook's bank of test questions and select the more difficult among the questions available. If this does not meet their criteria for rigor, they can tell me to change my instruction plan. But I've been audited by the administration twice in nearly three years of
teaching, so there does not seem to be any interest in committing resources to keeping academic standards high.
Nor are there incentives for me to do so; and substantial disincentives, in the form of extra hours of work for the same low pay if I take the time to educate my students about the importance of good writing and suggest ways that they can improve. If some of my fellow instructors do not provide high levels of service, this is not a surprise to me; there is no good reason for them to do so if they are not internally motivated to do a good job teaching anyway. From discussions on the online faculty lounge, I'm impressed that there are so many instructors who do care at all. Sure, I like the extra money I get when UoP pays me, but it's not enough for me to keep on doing this. I do it because it's supposed to be enjoyable, too. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
A significant reason that traditional four-year universities produce high graduation rates and (theoretically) higher-quality graduates is that a four-year university exercises competitive selection from amongst its applicant pool, and traditionally takes a young student with little non-academic experience. University of Phoenix exercises a single selection criteria, ability to pay, and then skews that criteria by offering financial aid to increase the number of people who can become students. The typical student is a working adult in mid-career, who needs a degree to advance. As a result, the amount of time and mental focus such a student can devote to the class, as well as the amount of intellectual resources available to devote in the first place, are both less than what you would find among undergraduate students at UCLA or Georgetown. That's the reality of it, whether the Times or UoP's president is offering the more accurate take on the statistics.
But, and here's the part where I sound tough and unsympathetic, not everyone should get a college degree. A college degree is supposed to represent a higher level of knowledge, education, and intellectual ability. It is supposed to be above average, and by definition, not everyone is above average. Not everyone is going to have the ability to complete a program or get all "A's." The marketing department of UoP is, in my opinion, guilty of overpromising academic success and the rewards that go along with it to students who have not demonstrated the potential to achieve that success. The result is that not all of my students get A's and many leave my classes mad at me, and at the school, as a result of it.
That's not to say that there is no hope for a working adult who needs to complete their degree to advance in their career. UoP can be a rigorous learning environment and its degree can be a meaningful reflection of knowledge and increased intellectual skills. It can also be a reflection of good attendance. It's really up to the student as to which it will be. I can't fault UoP for not providing a real educational opportunity for its students. The accelerated class format is not for everyone, but it can and will work for some students (the self-motivated ones who would find a way to make most formats work, mainly).
I can fault UoP for not selecting students who will take advantage of the opportunity provided. Simply put, UoP needs to start exercising a little bit of selectivity in its student selection process. There is more to education than putting asses in classes.
Labels:
Teaching,
University of Phoenix
February 17, 2007
Playing Soldier
Young boys like to play soldier. I think that's a good thing, most of the time. It's a good thing when they get to hear about real war from real soldiers, too.
Labels:
History
February 16, 2007
A Swing And A Miss
Contrary to some popular media conceptions, conservatives can be quite funny. Every issue of National Review includes a collection of assorted one-liners, quips, and anectodes, some of which are laugh-out-loud funny and most of the rest least invoke chuckles that fall somewhere in between "wry" and "witty."
Faux News' parody of the Daily Show, however, is not funny. Here's an example:
Deconstructing humor is also not funny, but useful to understand why something can miss so badly. A friend, who is both conservative and quite funny (he's done standup, with some success) had this to say in response to the clip: "This falls into my 'Funny [Fill In The Blank]' theory - that you aren't funny if the emphasis is on the noun rather than the adjective."
And lest you all think I would leave you without an example to prove my proposition that conservatives can indeed be funny, here's Senator John McCain, who is certainly a lot more right-wing than, say, Dennis Kucinich:
See, now that's funny. Funnier than contemplating the truth in Grover Norquist's condemnation of what's happened to the conservative movement.
Faux News' parody of the Daily Show, however, is not funny. Here's an example:
Deconstructing humor is also not funny, but useful to understand why something can miss so badly. A friend, who is both conservative and quite funny (he's done standup, with some success) had this to say in response to the clip: "This falls into my 'Funny [Fill In The Blank]' theory - that you aren't funny if the emphasis is on the noun rather than the adjective."
And lest you all think I would leave you without an example to prove my proposition that conservatives can indeed be funny, here's Senator John McCain, who is certainly a lot more right-wing than, say, Dennis Kucinich:
See, now that's funny. Funnier than contemplating the truth in Grover Norquist's condemnation of what's happened to the conservative movement.
Labels:
Friends and Family,
John McCain,
News
Decidedly Confused Thinking
A lot of you Loyal Readers may question why I crusade against the contamination of science with befuddled religious thinking and intellectual laziness. This is a good example of how the confusion of science, religion, and prejudice can be dangerous -- the politicians who circulated these memos hold positions of some power within their Legislatures.
Particularly disturbing are the themes of anti-Semitism and deliberate ignorance of relatively basic scientific learning (like the idea that the Earth revolves around its axis) in favor of religious doctrine. If these guys had their way, they would be teaching schoolchildren that the international Zionist conspiracy created the lie of Copernican heliocentrism (the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun rather than the Sun around the Earth) in order to subvert the teachings of the Old Testament. Absolute nonsense, of course, and rightly condemned by both advocates of science and clear-headed Christians.
Links by way of Rightwing Nuthouse and Talking Points Memo.
Particularly disturbing are the themes of anti-Semitism and deliberate ignorance of relatively basic scientific learning (like the idea that the Earth revolves around its axis) in favor of religious doctrine. If these guys had their way, they would be teaching schoolchildren that the international Zionist conspiracy created the lie of Copernican heliocentrism (the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun rather than the Sun around the Earth) in order to subvert the teachings of the Old Testament. Absolute nonsense, of course, and rightly condemned by both advocates of science and clear-headed Christians.
Links by way of Rightwing Nuthouse and Talking Points Memo.
Labels:
Antiscience,
Domestic Politics
Elephants Getting In Line
The Giuliani campaign website made two significant announcements yesterday while I was at judge school downtown. First, a “Massachusetts Leadership Team” was announced with a bunch of prominent-seeming Republicans including a majority of the Republicans in the Massachusetts State Senate. This is a huge early swipe at Mitt Romney, since it reflects that he doesn’t even have the solid backing of fellow Republicans in his own state. Romney, seemingly anticipating both this defection from the Massachusetts GOP as well as an inability to carry the state in the general election, seems to have moved towards adopting Michigan as his “home” state despite his Massachusetts credentials.Second, Rudy apparently earned a sterling endorsement from National Review, or at least one of the of Weekly Journal of Americans Who Wish They Could Vote Tory’s frequent correspondents. It’s not clear to me whether this is an NR endorsement or not. Nor am I entirely sure if NR remains the flagship publication of the conservative “movement,” or whether it has been supplanted in that role by the Weekly Standard or maybe even the American Spectator. It sure looks like NR is behind the endorsement.
It sure looks like the pitch of Giuliani to conservatives has been going very well, and even principled conservatives who may disagree with Giuliani on social issues are coming to intellectually accept that he’s their best shot at keeping the White House in GOP hands. This may well turn the Republican primary into a protracted and subtle dance of what kinds of concessions the Giuliani Administration will be willing to make to social conservatives. (I wonder if this was part of the plans in the playbook that went missing and got leaked; probably not, though.)
That this is happening now, twenty months before the general election, is a very good sign, because it demonstrates that the GOP is getting its house in order early. That is more than the Democrats can say – Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama seem to be gaining momentum, and their early jockeying for position between themselves has so far seemed ineffectual. John Edwards is looking like an also-ran at this point, which must be a great disappointment to him. But hey, it’s still early.
Given the strong initial showing that Giuliani is making, I’ll be surprised if Newt Gingrich gets involved at this point as a candidate. Maybe it ends with Newt as Rudy's running mate? That would certainly please social conservatives, and it lets Newt do what he did best, which is to serve as an attack dog. This might be more appealing than Elizabeth Dole as Rudy’s running mate. That’s just an idea thrown out for discussion, not a prediction or an endorsement. The point is, Gingrich would be well-advised to not get in the ring now, and it looks like Rudy pushed a reasonably impressive play yesterday to marginalize Romney. That leaves only two dogs in the fight of any magnitude, and Rudy seems to be betting that he can take McCain in the early primaries.
This is because McCain is distrusted by social conservatives. He may or may not be a good legislator, and I say that the fact that he makes deals at all with Democrats suggests that he at least has the skill set of a good legislator. Republicans’ evaluation of him in this respect should depend on the manner of the use of those skills; whether his history is of reaching acceptable compromises with Democrats or whether he has repeatedly given the farm away to the other side when it was unnecessary to do so. But, having the skill set of a good legislator, or even that of a good soldier, does not mean that he has the skill set of a good President. He’s led his fellow captive soldiers through an unimaginable ordeal, and he’s led his legislative staff through difficult political waters. But he has never governed anything; his political career consists of three terms in the House and three terms in the Senate.
Speaking of which, why haven’t any Democratic Governors caught fire like Obama yet? Bill Richardson has a damned impressive resume. Presidents are historically picked from the executive class of politicians, not the legislative class, as I demonstrated last September. So far, all the Democratic candidates have only legislative experience, unless you want to claim that being First Lady was executive experience for Hillary (which in her case might not be a weak case to make).
So think about it – the ticket could be Giuliani-Gingrich now, with the subtle promises of favoring social conservatives for judicial appointments that we began to hear this week (the subject of some comments I made a few days ago). Is that enough to get “values voters” and their dollars, volunteers, and church-centered social networks on board?
And is this how Presidential campaigns are going to be from now on – very early jockeying for position, even before any primaries are held, resulting in an effective anointment during the primary season? That seems to be what happened to John Kerry in 2004, and George W. Bush in 2000, Bob Dole in 1996, and even Bill Clinton in 1992 (although he lost the New Hampshire primary to Paul Tsongas, he swept everything after that). The last really strongly-contested primary season was 1988 for the Democrats.
Be Nice To Mother
An interesting conversation with another attorney at the firm. We mused that the weather is something that people are normally very cavalier about. We puny humans like to delude ourselves that we’re pretty much in control of what’s going on. Sure, there’s rainstorms and things like that, but people typically just go in their houses, or turn on their lights and windshield wipers, and go on about their business with only minor inconveniences.
Now, this other attorney grew up in Bishop, and notes that there has been very little snowfall in the eastern Sierras this year. That means not a lot of skiing going on at Mammoth or June Lakes, and that the streams will run dry and the lakes will lie low in the summer. Unless some more snow gets dumped up there in the next two weeks or so, this will have a devastating effect on the tourism-based economy of the region (there is some agriculture, too, which will also be hurting).
But from time to time, Mother Nature reminds us of who’s really in charge. We are so powerless against the forces of nature that it’s frightening to contemplate. We’ve been getting a lot of those reminders recently, and pretty close to home, too. The destruction of New Orleans. Three weeks of driving cold and feet of snow dumped on the Midwest and the Atlantic Seaboard. Droughts, like what the Eastern Sierra is getting right now. These things remind us that much of our pride and confidence is just so much hubris, and that we should remember to be more grateful when nature’s largesse is bestowed upon us. To really contemplate the power that nature has over us, rather than the other way around, is an awe-inspiring and terrifying exercise.
Today it’s seventy-two degrees and the sky is a brilliant, pale blue with no clouds at all and a mild, pleasant breeze. The eastern horizon is forty miles away, far enough that it’s literally the Earth curving away from my point of perspective that’s cutting off my view. This is wonderful weather, especially for the middle of February. And I feel fortunate to be in it.
Now, this other attorney grew up in Bishop, and notes that there has been very little snowfall in the eastern Sierras this year. That means not a lot of skiing going on at Mammoth or June Lakes, and that the streams will run dry and the lakes will lie low in the summer. Unless some more snow gets dumped up there in the next two weeks or so, this will have a devastating effect on the tourism-based economy of the region (there is some agriculture, too, which will also be hurting).
But from time to time, Mother Nature reminds us of who’s really in charge. We are so powerless against the forces of nature that it’s frightening to contemplate. We’ve been getting a lot of those reminders recently, and pretty close to home, too. The destruction of New Orleans. Three weeks of driving cold and feet of snow dumped on the Midwest and the Atlantic Seaboard. Droughts, like what the Eastern Sierra is getting right now. These things remind us that much of our pride and confidence is just so much hubris, and that we should remember to be more grateful when nature’s largesse is bestowed upon us. To really contemplate the power that nature has over us, rather than the other way around, is an awe-inspiring and terrifying exercise.
Today it’s seventy-two degrees and the sky is a brilliant, pale blue with no clouds at all and a mild, pleasant breeze. The eastern horizon is forty miles away, far enough that it’s literally the Earth curving away from my point of perspective that’s cutting off my view. This is wonderful weather, especially for the middle of February. And I feel fortunate to be in it.
Labels:
California,
Talking About The Weather
Judge School, Part II
Last night I went to pro tem judge school again. This time, the subject was traffic. The amount of technical knowledge is quite intimidating. Photo red light enforcement, speeding, and sentencing all are very complicated and technical in nature. There is a lot less discretion than I would have thought, and the elements of the prosecution's case are significantly more elaborate than I would have thought.
I made an "airplane buddy" on the way in, a nice lawyer from Woodland Hills, who has sat pro tem in traffic court for a long time. Halfway through the class, he leaned over and said "This must seem overwhelming."
"Yeah. How do you keep it all straight?"
"I cheat off the benchbook. And I screw up sometimes. It's really okay if you do, everyone does. If you aren't sure about something, side with the defendant. So some guy who was speeding gets away with it. Big deal, the cops will get him next time."
That made me feel better. I was feeling overwhelmed with the long Vehicle Code citations being thrown around, concerns about the difference between bench warrants and civil assessments, and and the manner in which speed limits are determined. Now I'm more determined than ever to go ahead with my plan to pro tem judge.
I made an "airplane buddy" on the way in, a nice lawyer from Woodland Hills, who has sat pro tem in traffic court for a long time. Halfway through the class, he leaned over and said "This must seem overwhelming."
"Yeah. How do you keep it all straight?"
"I cheat off the benchbook. And I screw up sometimes. It's really okay if you do, everyone does. If you aren't sure about something, side with the defendant. So some guy who was speeding gets away with it. Big deal, the cops will get him next time."
That made me feel better. I was feeling overwhelmed with the long Vehicle Code citations being thrown around, concerns about the difference between bench warrants and civil assessments, and and the manner in which speed limits are determined. Now I'm more determined than ever to go ahead with my plan to pro tem judge.
Labels:
Law
An E-Mail From Kabul
Today, a friend of ours sent The Wife an e-mail from Kabul, where he is stationed. He's on an anti-drug patrol and conditions sound pretty grim. It's easy for us to forget that there is still a war going on in Afghanistan, that the bad guys are not destined to lose, and that a lot of people -- Afghans and Americans alike -- are dying.
The opium crop this year looks like it's going to be the biggest on record. Last year's attempts to get the farmers to convert from poppies to vegetables and wheat proved an economic failure, and now they're all planting poppies again, because they can get cash and buy food easier that way. Apparently, the manpower available to police against growing this nominally illegal crop is pathetically inadequate to the task. Perhaps our friend and his men can help, but he didn't sound very optimistic about that.
What we as a country ought to do is buy the opium ourselves. We can use it for medical supplies, but more important, we can get it out of the international narcotics channels where the proceeds from its sale can subsidize terrorism and other dangerous activity that we want to prevent. Oh, and by the way, stop some kids from getting hooked on smack. The farmers are going to grow it anyway. Then, maybe our friend could come home where he would be safer and with his friends and live in conditions a bit more comfortable than the inside of a leaky cargo container.
The opium crop this year looks like it's going to be the biggest on record. Last year's attempts to get the farmers to convert from poppies to vegetables and wheat proved an economic failure, and now they're all planting poppies again, because they can get cash and buy food easier that way. Apparently, the manpower available to police against growing this nominally illegal crop is pathetically inadequate to the task. Perhaps our friend and his men can help, but he didn't sound very optimistic about that.
What we as a country ought to do is buy the opium ourselves. We can use it for medical supplies, but more important, we can get it out of the international narcotics channels where the proceeds from its sale can subsidize terrorism and other dangerous activity that we want to prevent. Oh, and by the way, stop some kids from getting hooked on smack. The farmers are going to grow it anyway. Then, maybe our friend could come home where he would be safer and with his friends and live in conditions a bit more comfortable than the inside of a leaky cargo container.
February 14, 2007
And Away We Go!
Rudy confirmed his candidacy on Larry King last night. He’s dead right about one thing: the country needs leadership. The interview makes clear that Rudy understands federalism (he should, after all, being a lawyer). The real question is, will the American body politic accept a Presidential candidate with nuanced views on issues like guns and abortion?
Labels:
2008 Election,
Domestic Politics
Stranger Things Have Happened
This seems unlikely to me.
Labels:
2008 Election,
Domestic Politics
Needs To Happen
It might cost us some more money but it’s worth it to have a real voice in the candidate selection process. If other states follow suit to have their primaries on the same day, so much the better – I think there ought to be a national primary anyway.
Labels:
2008 Election,
California,
Domestic Politics
A Lot On My Mind
Another insomniac episode last night, as my brain was overflowing with facts and information. Nothing awful or scary or even stressful, but just plain too much of it. So that was an hour awake at 3:00 in the morning, until I could find a cool room to be in. I had so much on my mind the other day that I forgot my own anniversary. That’s when you know you’re in Big Trouble. (I’ve since reminded myself of the happy date.) I’ve been in the field of law for fifteen years and I still haven’t figured out how to compartmentalize everything. And yet I continue to take on new projects, both in and out of the office.
At least my hearing this morning – one of the many things I was mentally reviewing so early in the morning – went as planned. My attempt to buy Valentine’s Day flowers from a judgment debtor of one of the firm’s clients was not so successful; turns out the firm evicted them from the location I knew of long ago and now I’ll need to go to their other location in a really bad part of town. But I’ll do it, of course, to show The Wife just how much I love her, especially after she made me a really nice card.
And now it’s back to putting out fires and getting new ones started. At least e-mail posting takes almost no time at all during the day.
Labels:
Blog,
Law,
Sickness and Health,
The Wife
February 13, 2007
Maybe Again In A Few Months
It itched too much. It was casting off dandruff. It grew in thicker on the left side than the right, and it showed off more gray than my vanity was strictly comfortable with. And most of all, The Wife didn't like it. Taking it off was more work than I had remembered from the last time I had it, but the job got done. I wonder how long it will take people in the office to notice.
Labels:
Generalized Gripe,
The Wife
February 12, 2007
Ahead of the Curve
In a case of real life events mirroring the predictions and warnings found herein, the Los Angeles Fish Wrapper reports today that promoters of Blu-Ray technology are quietly courting pornographic movie producers to release their products in the Blu-Ray format. Of course, Loyal Readers got exposed to this issue three weeks ago.
That's why you keep coming back, Loyal Readers: this blog stays smugly ahead of the curve.
Then again, if you're reading about it in the Fish Wrapper and it's not also on the AP wire, chances are good that it's already old news. The "hip clubs" and "new restaurants" reported in the "Calendar" section all stopp being fashionable about two weeks before the articles run. But even so, you're still at least keeping current with the curve by reading here, even if you're not ahead of it every time. You're still way better off here than with the Fish Wrapper.
Please also note that I was ahead of Time magazine's analysis on Rudy Giuliani's subtle shifts of position to make himself more appealing to the right wing; Time reports that it's working, as Rush Limbaugh is warming up to Giuliani. The article is dated February 8, but will run in this week's edition of the magazine and I'd not noticed it available online until today.
That's why you keep coming back, Loyal Readers: this blog stays smugly ahead of the curve.
Then again, if you're reading about it in the Fish Wrapper and it's not also on the AP wire, chances are good that it's already old news. The "hip clubs" and "new restaurants" reported in the "Calendar" section all stopp being fashionable about two weeks before the articles run. But even so, you're still at least keeping current with the curve by reading here, even if you're not ahead of it every time. You're still way better off here than with the Fish Wrapper.
Please also note that I was ahead of Time magazine's analysis on Rudy Giuliani's subtle shifts of position to make himself more appealing to the right wing; Time reports that it's working, as Rush Limbaugh is warming up to Giuliani. The article is dated February 8, but will run in this week's edition of the magazine and I'd not noticed it available online until today.
Labels:
Blog,
News,
Rudy Giuliani,
Technology
February 11, 2007
Barack Obama's Unlikely Handicap
Yesterday, Illinois' junior Senator, Barack Obama, made it official: he will seek the Democratic Party's nomination for President in 2008. His campaign website is filled with only good things about himself, which would be a great problem for some people, if he were not a Democrat. But I predict that despite his great charisma, powerful rhetorical ability, and center-left positioning on the issues of the day, he will not succeed. Why?Senator Obama gave the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. And it was a terrific speech. They almost all are. But no one who has given a keynote address at a party's national convention, in the modern era of politics, has gone on to earn that party's nomination for President. Here is the history:
| Year | Democrat | Republican |
| 2004 | Barack Obama | Zell Miller |
| 2000 | Harold Ford, Jr. | Colin Powell & John McCain |
| 1996 | Evan Bayh | Susan Molinari |
| 1992 | George McGovern | Pat Buchanan |
| 1988 | Ann Richards | Thomas Kean |
| 1984 | Mario Cuomo | Katherine Ortega |
| 1980 | Ted Kennedy | Guy Vander Jagt |
| 1976 | Barbara Jordan | Howard Baker |
| 1972 | (Cannot determine) | Anne Armstrong |
| 1968 | Daniel Inouye | (None designated) |
As you can see, there are some pretty significant names on those lists. Colin Powell. John McCain. Evan Bayh. Ann Richards. Mario Cuomo. Ted Kennedy. George McGovern gave the keynote speech only after he had run for President (and failed). Barack Obama would be the first keynote speaker to use that highly-visible platform to go on to become the party's nominee.
For whatever reason, the keynote speaker address seems to carry the Best New Artist curse. It's an honor and a tremendous opportunity, but for whatever reason, no one who's done it has gone on to play for all the marbles.
Labels:
2008 Election,
Barack Obama,
Domestic Politics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
