You never know when something is going to set you off on a column. I didn't even have my notebook with me when I stopped by Le Peep this lunch hour to have my breakfast. The fellow next to me was in his late-40s, wearing a Harley-Davidson t-shirt from Sturgis. We started chatting about work and he told me he was an electrician.
"How much do you make an hour doing that?" I asked.
"In Champaign? Thirty-four dollars an hour."
Wow, I thought to myself, that's competitive.
"You know our biggest problem, though?" he continued. "Getting smart people to become apprentices. We can never fill all our positions. You know anyone?"
This got me to thinking. For a person of high intelligence, how would a career as an electrician pan out compared to say, getting a BS in Chemical Engineering from the University of Illinois? I came home and ran some figures.
Here's my sources: For the Chemical Engineers, I used the Princeton Review . For the Electricians, I used the US Department of Labor statistics.
Taking the median values for earnings and the cost of tuition and fees only at the University of Illinois (I think I'm being fair here--it's reasonable to assume that day-to-day living expenses are covered by parents or job) I was able to make the following calculations:
Total earnings electrician age 22--$113,633
Total earnings minus education costs chem e age 22--minus $80,000
Total earnings electrician, age 27--$327,540
Total earnings minus education chem e, age 27--$206,800 (includes interest on student loans)
Total earnings electrician, age 34--$633,697
Total earnings chem e, age 34--$791,300
The break-even point for total income in an area with the median income for an electrician is age 30. Interestingly enough, for a high-demand location like Champaign-Urbana (with a $34/hour pay scale for electricians), the break-even point is age 45.
Still, this seems like a good deal for the Chemical Engineer until you examine other circumstances involving the jobs.
1) Amount of time at work.
The median workweek for an electrician is 37.5 hours. That of a chemical engineer is 45 hours. This reduces the per/hour salary differential by 17%.
2) Number of jobs available
There are 705,000 electricians employed in the United States and 50,000 chemical engineers. There is no projected increase in the number of chemical engineering jobs and a 5000 per/year increase in electricians employed over the next ten years.
Any pay differential must be multiplied by the probability of obtaining a job in your field. For an electrician, the probability is near 100% because of the apprentice program.
3) Investment Opportunities
One approach to long-term investing is to approach the market intelligently early and make as much money as you can while you're young. While the 22 year old chemical engineer is busy spending every cent he has on college expenses, the apprentice electrician has already made $114,000 in income. The median necessary monthly living expenses for a 22 year old single male in the US is just over $500. This means that after that four-year period, the apprentice electrician has $90,000 of disposable income available to him, if he so desires, to use for investments. If he uses that wisely, he might not have to work for a living after all.
4) Job Security
Since the number of total chemical engineering jobs in the US is stable, it is in the best interest of companies' profits to lay off expensive older engineers and hire the cheap ones coming out of college. There is a $45,000 difference in income between a new college graduate and an engineer who has been with a company for 12 years. This difference is a powerful incentive to get rid of the experienced engineers.
The case is the opposite with the electricians. With a 5000/year increase in number of jobs, it is in the best interest of the employers to keep experienced employees around to teach the new people the ropes. Since salary is capped (except for CoL raises) after the apprenticeship, there is no savings for the company in firing older employees until their medical costs become a problem.
In addition, most electricians are protected by their trade unions, which prevent arbitrary decisions about termination and negotiate salaries for a wide area. The employment price for an electrician is not set arbitrarily by the employer, but is the highest value that the local market can bear. With the need for such talents, a smart electrician can assess that market and move to where the highest wages are paid.
5) The Global Economy's Impact
Engineers of any sort work in software--they trade their problem-solving abilities for money. The problem with software work is that it is not localized. It is just as easy for a corporation to use an engineer in India or the Phillipines as it is for them to use one in the United States. Since education costs are lower in other countries, the engineers there will work for lower wages. It's similar to the situation with manufacturing jobs when NAFTA was instituted. Over the next two decades, the white-collar "brain" jobs will be outsourced more and more often.
Electricians, on the other hand, are hardware providers. You will not be able to have a foreign national run conduit in your business's basement from 12,000 miles away anytime soon. This can be said of any of the other trades--plumbing, heating, carpentry, painting or ironwork, too.
6) Opportunities for self-employment
An ambitious, intelligent electrician with an eye to the niche-market (for example, installing fire alarms) can move into his own business easily. The engineer, on the other hand, would have to return to college (or stay there long enough) to get an advanced degree and then move up in a partnership in a model just like that of a lawyer. He will never, in truth, be his own boss until he in his late 40s or early 50s at the earliest.
Truth be told, if I was a 2008 high-school graduate with my intelligence and what I know about the situation right now I would be at the union hall with a letter before the ink dried on my diploma. The fact is, the situation for chemical engineers is the BEST one for any of the engineering professions--all the others are less competitive economically. I figure that with the current economic situation and early investment in the market before marriage or a serious relationship, I would be able to retire from being an electrician by age 45 or so.
Something to think about.
Tom Trumpinski
"How much do you make an hour doing that?" I asked.
"In Champaign? Thirty-four dollars an hour."
Wow, I thought to myself, that's competitive.
"You know our biggest problem, though?" he continued. "Getting smart people to become apprentices. We can never fill all our positions. You know anyone?"
This got me to thinking. For a person of high intelligence, how would a career as an electrician pan out compared to say, getting a BS in Chemical Engineering from the University of Illinois? I came home and ran some figures.
Here's my sources: For the Chemical Engineers, I used the Princeton Review . For the Electricians, I used the US Department of Labor statistics.
Taking the median values for earnings and the cost of tuition and fees only at the University of Illinois (I think I'm being fair here--it's reasonable to assume that day-to-day living expenses are covered by parents or job) I was able to make the following calculations:
Total earnings electrician age 22--$113,633
Total earnings minus education costs chem e age 22--minus $80,000
Total earnings electrician, age 27--$327,540
Total earnings minus education chem e, age 27--$206,800 (includes interest on student loans)
Total earnings electrician, age 34--$633,697
Total earnings chem e, age 34--$791,300
The break-even point for total income in an area with the median income for an electrician is age 30. Interestingly enough, for a high-demand location like Champaign-Urbana (with a $34/hour pay scale for electricians), the break-even point is age 45.
Still, this seems like a good deal for the Chemical Engineer until you examine other circumstances involving the jobs.
1) Amount of time at work.
The median workweek for an electrician is 37.5 hours. That of a chemical engineer is 45 hours. This reduces the per/hour salary differential by 17%.
2) Number of jobs available
There are 705,000 electricians employed in the United States and 50,000 chemical engineers. There is no projected increase in the number of chemical engineering jobs and a 5000 per/year increase in electricians employed over the next ten years.
Any pay differential must be multiplied by the probability of obtaining a job in your field. For an electrician, the probability is near 100% because of the apprentice program.
3) Investment Opportunities
One approach to long-term investing is to approach the market intelligently early and make as much money as you can while you're young. While the 22 year old chemical engineer is busy spending every cent he has on college expenses, the apprentice electrician has already made $114,000 in income. The median necessary monthly living expenses for a 22 year old single male in the US is just over $500. This means that after that four-year period, the apprentice electrician has $90,000 of disposable income available to him, if he so desires, to use for investments. If he uses that wisely, he might not have to work for a living after all.
4) Job Security
Since the number of total chemical engineering jobs in the US is stable, it is in the best interest of companies' profits to lay off expensive older engineers and hire the cheap ones coming out of college. There is a $45,000 difference in income between a new college graduate and an engineer who has been with a company for 12 years. This difference is a powerful incentive to get rid of the experienced engineers.
The case is the opposite with the electricians. With a 5000/year increase in number of jobs, it is in the best interest of the employers to keep experienced employees around to teach the new people the ropes. Since salary is capped (except for CoL raises) after the apprenticeship, there is no savings for the company in firing older employees until their medical costs become a problem.
In addition, most electricians are protected by their trade unions, which prevent arbitrary decisions about termination and negotiate salaries for a wide area. The employment price for an electrician is not set arbitrarily by the employer, but is the highest value that the local market can bear. With the need for such talents, a smart electrician can assess that market and move to where the highest wages are paid.
5) The Global Economy's Impact
Engineers of any sort work in software--they trade their problem-solving abilities for money. The problem with software work is that it is not localized. It is just as easy for a corporation to use an engineer in India or the Phillipines as it is for them to use one in the United States. Since education costs are lower in other countries, the engineers there will work for lower wages. It's similar to the situation with manufacturing jobs when NAFTA was instituted. Over the next two decades, the white-collar "brain" jobs will be outsourced more and more often.
Electricians, on the other hand, are hardware providers. You will not be able to have a foreign national run conduit in your business's basement from 12,000 miles away anytime soon. This can be said of any of the other trades--plumbing, heating, carpentry, painting or ironwork, too.
6) Opportunities for self-employment
An ambitious, intelligent electrician with an eye to the niche-market (for example, installing fire alarms) can move into his own business easily. The engineer, on the other hand, would have to return to college (or stay there long enough) to get an advanced degree and then move up in a partnership in a model just like that of a lawyer. He will never, in truth, be his own boss until he in his late 40s or early 50s at the earliest.
Truth be told, if I was a 2008 high-school graduate with my intelligence and what I know about the situation right now I would be at the union hall with a letter before the ink dried on my diploma. The fact is, the situation for chemical engineers is the BEST one for any of the engineering professions--all the others are less competitive economically. I figure that with the current economic situation and early investment in the market before marriage or a serious relationship, I would be able to retire from being an electrician by age 45 or so.
Something to think about.
Tom Trumpinski
Dear Readers, I apologize for posting this without doing a thorough fact check. Instead of waiting for the confirmation, I immediately published the post, which I now regret. The correlation between illiteracy rates at a young age and criminality does seem at least partially substantiated in the comments, which reinforces what I consider the central point: we are failing our children early and not recovering. I am leaving this post up for any discussion of this point, and as a reminder to myself to be more careful in the future. ~ Augur
This evening my friend Jessica, who was once a teacher and is now a policy wonk, told me about a disturbing methodology used in her native state of Indiana to determine where the state should build a new prison. One would think these decisions would be based on current crime levels, or perhaps even logistic convenience, but the principle method is based on an unsettling indicator of future crime rates: the reading levels of third grade African American students.
Even if an argument can be made that this method has been reliable in the past, this method makes assumptions that we should all do our damnedest to combat. The most immediately offensive assumption is that illiterate black third graders will become criminals--not overall illiteracy--only illiteracy among black students.
In the shadows of this racially charged assumption is an even more insidious failing, the belief that these students are a lost cause, and the writing off of classes and entire towns of students (not to mention all of their subsequent teachers). It isn't just that some teachers are failing some students. We assume our institutions fail to recover; to pick up the ball that someone has dropped; to lift up the young lives who are passed up grade after grade.
This evening my friend Jessica, who was once a teacher and is now a policy wonk, told me about a disturbing methodology used in her native state of Indiana to determine where the state should build a new prison. One would think these decisions would be based on current crime levels, or perhaps even logistic convenience, but the principle method is based on an unsettling indicator of future crime rates: the reading levels of third grade African American students.
Even if an argument can be made that this method has been reliable in the past, this method makes assumptions that we should all do our damnedest to combat. The most immediately offensive assumption is that illiterate black third graders will become criminals--not overall illiteracy--only illiteracy among black students.
In the shadows of this racially charged assumption is an even more insidious failing, the belief that these students are a lost cause, and the writing off of classes and entire towns of students (not to mention all of their subsequent teachers). It isn't just that some teachers are failing some students. We assume our institutions fail to recover; to pick up the ball that someone has dropped; to lift up the young lives who are passed up grade after grade.
Labels: Augur, crime, education, public policy
We were continuing our discussion about higher education in email and Prescott, perceiving the possibility of an intellectual challenge, asked me if I could be specific about the kinds of knowledge that is needed, but is not possessed, by current college graduates.
Here's my list and explanations why they're necessary:
Here's my list and explanations why they're necessary:
Our cultural icons: Almost all of the literature of the English-speaking world references a set of works written prior to the 18th Century. A familiarity with these works facilitates understanding of any non-technical work in print.
Shakespeare--knowledge of the text of the best two dozen plays, at least. The plot should be understood and one should be able to determine which play a random quote is derived from. He invented a thousand words of the English language, including bedroom. His plays demonstrate why. Extra credit for "getting" the dirty parts.
The Bible--both the King James for the language and a more modern translation for the meaning. This should be done with a reference in one hand so that the historical context for the writing is clear. One should be able to trace the differing authors of the Torah through its books.
Dante's Divine Comedy in an English translation that keeps the original poetic structure.
The Roman and Greek writers--pick a half dozen of each (that includes Virgil and Plato) and read everything extant in English.
Necessary skills--these are to give you both a foundation and flexibility to adapt to new input:
Poetry--In order to understand better how to communicate, the underlying structure of language should be studied. If you can write a sonnet that someone is willing to read, you can write a business report that will get you the promotion you desire.
Languages--you should be able to read comfortably (without a dictionary) two languages besides your birth language. They can be in the same language family, although it does more for you if they're not. This enables you to switch back and forth from different conceptual worlds and gives you words to describe those things that can't be described with English.
Mechanics--you should understand the workings of the items that you use every day--how to rewire a lamp, how your car works (and what each system does), why your plumbing and electrical systems are set up the way that they are. This way, if you're caught in an emergency, you can survive without help. Firearms usage falls under this category--one small-arm and one long-arm should be studied until they can be cleaned and used safely and you can hit a torso-sized target at range nine out of ten times. You should be able to scratch-build a computer that works out of purchased parts.
Mathematics--you should understand on an instinctive level discrete math, algebra, geometry (including trig), enough calculus to know when it'd be useful, and statistics until you can perform them in your sleep. All science is based upon math. You should also be able to run a balance-sheet for a household or a business.
General science--you should be able to tell the difference between a hypothesis, a conjecture, and a model and where each is useful.
Hard sciences--you should understand the standard model in physics, chemistry, biology, and astronomy well enough to determine if a new discovery disputes or corroborates it.
Soft sciences--you should understand two or three historically used theories of sociology, economics, political science, law, and game and network theory well-enough to be able to explain them to a layman.
Politics--A complete understanding of the foundation of the United States is needed, including a working knowledge of the Federalist Papers. The biographies and letters of three of the Founding Fathers should be read well enough to reference (take your pick.) Two political systems that have failed should be analyzed until the reasons for their failure becomes second nature. This is to make you a good citizen.
Military history--the development of arms and armaments from the Bronze Age to the present should be studied. The dates of battles are less important than the "feel" for what happened and why. Special attention should be paid to lost battles that shouldn't have been and to small technical improvements, like the stirrup, that made large-scale changes. As a practical exam after study, you should lead a squad into battle, either virtual or real. This skill could keep you alive in a situation where you are under fire, either here or abroad.
Business--the operation of a small business should be observed in detail until the reasons for its success or failure become obvious. The history of capital acquistion and investment should be studied in the cases of both spectacular wins and losses.
Human anatomy--your body should be studied well enough to make regular diagnoses that are correct. The anatomy of the opposite gender (or more of the same if you're gay) should be studied until it's understood and you're capable of delivering great sexual pleasure to it. You should be able to aid a mother giving birth or provide first-aid in a crisis situation.
Farming/Hunting--Plant and care for a garden for one year. Kill an animal with a gun or a knife, skin it, prepare it for cooking, cook and eat it, and tan the leather.
Engineering--Learn enough to be able to analyze one problem each in mechanical, electrical and civil engineering and create solutions. The reason for this one should be obvious--innovative problem-solving is the thing that Americans do best.
Music and art--understand the mathematical rules by which music and art operate. Be familiar enough with the history of each to be able to tell when a piece of Western art or music was created and by which school.
I think that that should do for now. If anyone on the list has any essentials that I've missed, please add them.
Tom
Labels: being human, education, Tet
Teens Should Have Sex and Smoke Pot
12 Comments Published by Brian on Monday, November 12 at 9:39 PM.
It used to be that researchers believed that teens who have sex early become delinquents. But new findings suggest this is not the case. Comparing identical twins, researchers found that "there was no positive relationship between age of first sex and delinquency." They also found that identical twins were more similar to one another in the ages at which they had sex than were fraternal twins, suggesting that there is a genetic influence on the age at which a person will have sex. Putting these findings together, they concluded that a genetic inclination toward risk-taking or impulsiveness might cause both delinquency and sex at a young age.
In addition, the study found that adolescents who had sex at younger ages were less likely to become delinquent than those who lost their virginity later. "In at least some cases sexual relationships may offer an alternative to trouble," the researchers said.
So, not only does this research suggest that abstinence-only education does not promote behavior that will reduce delinquency, which its advocates have argued for some time, but it actually promotes delinquency. Now, obviously I'm not actually saying young people should have sex, but it is about time we understand that having sex at a younger age is not necessarily a bad decision.
But that's not all! A totally different study of kids in Switzerland found that kids who smoke marijuana (without also smoking tobacco) were "significantly more likely to practice sports and they have a better relationship with their peers." Also, "even though they are more likely to skip classes, they have the same level of good grades; and though they have a worse relationship with their parents, they are not more likely to be depressed" than those who do not smoke at all.
So: smoking pot is okay, and if you're a young person inclined to take risks, you should have sex if you want to avoid becoming a delinquent.
This post isn't going to affect any hopes for a political career, is it?
In addition, the study found that adolescents who had sex at younger ages were less likely to become delinquent than those who lost their virginity later. "In at least some cases sexual relationships may offer an alternative to trouble," the researchers said.
So, not only does this research suggest that abstinence-only education does not promote behavior that will reduce delinquency, which its advocates have argued for some time, but it actually promotes delinquency. Now, obviously I'm not actually saying young people should have sex, but it is about time we understand that having sex at a younger age is not necessarily a bad decision.
But that's not all! A totally different study of kids in Switzerland found that kids who smoke marijuana (without also smoking tobacco) were "significantly more likely to practice sports and they have a better relationship with their peers." Also, "even though they are more likely to skip classes, they have the same level of good grades; and though they have a worse relationship with their parents, they are not more likely to be depressed" than those who do not smoke at all.
So: smoking pot is okay, and if you're a young person inclined to take risks, you should have sex if you want to avoid becoming a delinquent.
This post isn't going to affect any hopes for a political career, is it?
Yesterday, my latest column came out.
Today, a poorly argued letter to the editor was printed.
Much of what he [and the others who commented] said isn't worth responding to, but I will mention one point that I originally intended to include in my column but did not have space for: I am not talking about a class that studies the various world religions and puts them side by side. While I do think everyone who wants to be a good "world citizen" should learn these things, I would put knowledge of the Bible even ahead of general world religion knowledge, at least while we're talking about the United States. I won't deny the influence the Koran, etc has had on our country and Western thought in total, but quite frankly, it's nowhere near as great the influence of the Bible. I really don't think someone who hasn't a clue about the Bible can be considered well-educated.
Today, a poorly argued letter to the editor was printed.
Much of what he [and the others who commented] said isn't worth responding to, but I will mention one point that I originally intended to include in my column but did not have space for: I am not talking about a class that studies the various world religions and puts them side by side. While I do think everyone who wants to be a good "world citizen" should learn these things, I would put knowledge of the Bible even ahead of general world religion knowledge, at least while we're talking about the United States. I won't deny the influence the Koran, etc has had on our country and Western thought in total, but quite frankly, it's nowhere near as great the influence of the Bible. I really don't think someone who hasn't a clue about the Bible can be considered well-educated.
Labels: Bible, Brenda Kay, education
Although I never announced it on here, after writing a column back in the spring about the merits of joining Teach for America that seemed to indicate I was actually going to put my money where my mouth was, I chose to decline their offer to teach in the D.C. metro area public school system. Unlike most people who turn down prestigious opportunities, I rejected TFA's offer without any alternative offer on the table, and now I'm scrambling for a job.
Do I regret my decision? Not at all. I think back to the 2-3 different instances during my post-acceptance discernment when I confidently strode to the computer and put my cursor above the "Accept" button, thinking I was ready to commit to TFA, and it freaks me out. I had virtually all of my friends, my boyfriend, my U of I mentor, and my sister in one corner, consistently urging me to join TFA. In the other corner sat Augur, one or two other friends, and my parents. They were not convinced that the actual experience of teaching was something that I truly believed was right for me, regardless of the inevitable personal growth I would encounter along the way or the obvious pleasure I would take in trying to help an underprivileged group of people. Augur was convinced that there were more fitting ways to apply my talents while trying to serve the public, the 1-2 other friends were just really blunt about the fact that I did not seem like the TFA type, and my parents wanted to make sure that I was doing what I wanted to do, not what the Teach for America recruitment team suggested I do.
In the end, I agreed more with Group B. Some of my biggest "Do TFA!" cheerleaders later admitted that they were most interested in hearing all of my amazing classroom horror stories or living vicariously through my hands-on, down-and-dirty work while they did their death marches through law school. I'm pretty glad I was able to recognize some of this for what it was while it was actually happening; otherwise, Group A may have triumphed. To me, it would have been a major disservice to the kids I was supposed to be serving had I chosen to accept two years with TFA for the wrong reasons: because it was the first--and still the only--post-college job offer I had received, because a lot of people I loved happened to love the idea of me doing it, because I really only loved the idea of me doing it, or because I wanted to be able to add it to my resume. If I were to do it primarily for any of these reasons, I think it would have shown in the lack of passion for my work, and that wasn't fair to anyone.
But that's just me. Except that it's not.
It's actually the thought process of a good chunk of ambitious college seniors who apply, but right or wrong, many of them still go through the two years and have a positive impact on the lives of their students. As far as having a positive impact on the academic performance of those same students--as compared to non-TFA teachers--the debate rages on, with many education professors throughout the country siding with the TFA skeptics.
While I was in the middle of deciding what to do and after I declined, I was in touch with a reporter for the Chronicle of Higher Education. She was working a big story about Teach for America, and I got the impression that unlike most coverage I've seen of TFA, it wasn't going to be solely flattering. As an ambivalent applicant and then as a confident decliner, I was obviously a desirable source for her article, and I agreed to serve as one when she asked.
The article was published last month, and you can access it here. It's a fairly good read if you're interested in the TFA debate, and I would say it's reasonable in both its criticism and its praise for the organization. Since a few people have brought TFA up in various posts--Augur and Billy have, I think, and J. Prescott called it worthless or something once--I thought some of you might want to check it out and discuss.
Do I regret my decision? Not at all. I think back to the 2-3 different instances during my post-acceptance discernment when I confidently strode to the computer and put my cursor above the "Accept" button, thinking I was ready to commit to TFA, and it freaks me out. I had virtually all of my friends, my boyfriend, my U of I mentor, and my sister in one corner, consistently urging me to join TFA. In the other corner sat Augur, one or two other friends, and my parents. They were not convinced that the actual experience of teaching was something that I truly believed was right for me, regardless of the inevitable personal growth I would encounter along the way or the obvious pleasure I would take in trying to help an underprivileged group of people. Augur was convinced that there were more fitting ways to apply my talents while trying to serve the public, the 1-2 other friends were just really blunt about the fact that I did not seem like the TFA type, and my parents wanted to make sure that I was doing what I wanted to do, not what the Teach for America recruitment team suggested I do.
In the end, I agreed more with Group B. Some of my biggest "Do TFA!" cheerleaders later admitted that they were most interested in hearing all of my amazing classroom horror stories or living vicariously through my hands-on, down-and-dirty work while they did their death marches through law school. I'm pretty glad I was able to recognize some of this for what it was while it was actually happening; otherwise, Group A may have triumphed. To me, it would have been a major disservice to the kids I was supposed to be serving had I chosen to accept two years with TFA for the wrong reasons: because it was the first--and still the only--post-college job offer I had received, because a lot of people I loved happened to love the idea of me doing it, because I really only loved the idea of me doing it, or because I wanted to be able to add it to my resume. If I were to do it primarily for any of these reasons, I think it would have shown in the lack of passion for my work, and that wasn't fair to anyone.
But that's just me. Except that it's not.
It's actually the thought process of a good chunk of ambitious college seniors who apply, but right or wrong, many of them still go through the two years and have a positive impact on the lives of their students. As far as having a positive impact on the academic performance of those same students--as compared to non-TFA teachers--the debate rages on, with many education professors throughout the country siding with the TFA skeptics.
While I was in the middle of deciding what to do and after I declined, I was in touch with a reporter for the Chronicle of Higher Education. She was working a big story about Teach for America, and I got the impression that unlike most coverage I've seen of TFA, it wasn't going to be solely flattering. As an ambivalent applicant and then as a confident decliner, I was obviously a desirable source for her article, and I agreed to serve as one when she asked.
The article was published last month, and you can access it here. It's a fairly good read if you're interested in the TFA debate, and I would say it's reasonable in both its criticism and its praise for the organization. Since a few people have brought TFA up in various posts--Augur and Billy have, I think, and J. Prescott called it worthless or something once--I thought some of you might want to check it out and discuss.
Labels: education, jon monteith, service
Today University of Illinois College of Law Dean Heidi Hurd announced to the College of Law that she will be stepping down as Dean in August.
What will Dean Hurd's legacy be?
She was a tenacious fundraiser and an eloquent champion of the college. However, her tenure marked a dramatic change in the faculty rolls, with several of the college's most beloved teachers taking positions elsewhere. Under Dean Hurd, the College of Law's approach to admissions seems to have shifted from a comprehensive view of individual candidates to a more LSAT driven approach to admissions, playing to the U.S. News rubric, instead of holistically looking for the best potential lawyers and leaders.
From everything we've heard, Chancellor Herman considered Dean Hurd one of his most effective Dean's. Also, it's a safe assumption that Professor Michael Moore will be leaving with her. For some, this is an even bigger loss than the Dean.
Dean Hurd's gracious annoucement is below:
-----Original Message-----
From: Hurd, Heidi M.
Sent: Mon 6/4/2007 8:39 AM
To: * College of Law Community
Subject: Announcement
Dear Friends and Colleagues:
I have been honored to work with you during the past five years to advance the agenda of excellence that has long characterized the University of Illinois College of Law. I am grateful for the valuable lessons I have learned as the College's 11th dean and for the opportunities that the role has given me to partner with entrepreneurial faculty, bright students, dedicated staff, visionary university leadership, and committed alumni in building a vibrant intellectual community. However, I am writing to tell you that while Provost Katehi has very kindly encouraged me to renew the leadership pledge that I made to the College five years ago, I have decided to return to my roots and resume the projects that inspired me to become an academic in the first place. I will serve in the deanship through August 15th so as to allow the Provost time to name interim leadership and to staff a committee to seek a permanent replacement, and then I will join my colleagues on the faculty in dedicating my energies to scholarship, teaching, and public engagement. In the Fall I will teach two sections of Criminal Law as I resume work on the book project that I set aside five years ago, and in the Spring, Michael and I will seek out new adventures by returning with our children to Australia where we will spend six months as research fellows at the Australian National University in Canberra.
I am confident that the ambitious trajectory that faculty, staff, alumni, and university leaders have set for the College will be advanced by fresh leadership. I know that both the interim dean and my permanent successor will be grateful for the help of all those who are anxious to capitalize on the gains of the past years, and I urge each of you to provide unwaning support and encouragement to those who assume leadership of the College during the transitional months to come and over the years of certain growth and change that lie ahead.
My thanks to all of you for the extraordinary experience you have given me over the past five years.
Sincerely,
Heidi M. Hurd
Dean
David C. Baum Professor of Law and Philosophy
Co-Director of the Illinois Program in Law and Philosophy
University of Illinois College of Law
What will Dean Hurd's legacy be?
She was a tenacious fundraiser and an eloquent champion of the college. However, her tenure marked a dramatic change in the faculty rolls, with several of the college's most beloved teachers taking positions elsewhere. Under Dean Hurd, the College of Law's approach to admissions seems to have shifted from a comprehensive view of individual candidates to a more LSAT driven approach to admissions, playing to the U.S. News rubric, instead of holistically looking for the best potential lawyers and leaders.
From everything we've heard, Chancellor Herman considered Dean Hurd one of his most effective Dean's. Also, it's a safe assumption that Professor Michael Moore will be leaving with her. For some, this is an even bigger loss than the Dean.
Dean Hurd's gracious annoucement is below:
-----Original Message-----
From: Hurd, Heidi M.
Sent: Mon 6/4/2007 8:39 AM
To: * College of Law Community
Subject: Announcement
Dear Friends and Colleagues:
I have been honored to work with you during the past five years to advance the agenda of excellence that has long characterized the University of Illinois College of Law. I am grateful for the valuable lessons I have learned as the College's 11th dean and for the opportunities that the role has given me to partner with entrepreneurial faculty, bright students, dedicated staff, visionary university leadership, and committed alumni in building a vibrant intellectual community. However, I am writing to tell you that while Provost Katehi has very kindly encouraged me to renew the leadership pledge that I made to the College five years ago, I have decided to return to my roots and resume the projects that inspired me to become an academic in the first place. I will serve in the deanship through August 15th so as to allow the Provost time to name interim leadership and to staff a committee to seek a permanent replacement, and then I will join my colleagues on the faculty in dedicating my energies to scholarship, teaching, and public engagement. In the Fall I will teach two sections of Criminal Law as I resume work on the book project that I set aside five years ago, and in the Spring, Michael and I will seek out new adventures by returning with our children to Australia where we will spend six months as research fellows at the Australian National University in Canberra.
I am confident that the ambitious trajectory that faculty, staff, alumni, and university leaders have set for the College will be advanced by fresh leadership. I know that both the interim dean and my permanent successor will be grateful for the help of all those who are anxious to capitalize on the gains of the past years, and I urge each of you to provide unwaning support and encouragement to those who assume leadership of the College during the transitional months to come and over the years of certain growth and change that lie ahead.
My thanks to all of you for the extraordinary experience you have given me over the past five years.
Sincerely,
Heidi M. Hurd
Dean
David C. Baum Professor of Law and Philosophy
Co-Director of the Illinois Program in Law and Philosophy
University of Illinois College of Law
Labels: academia, Augur, education, law, local, philosophy, U of I
The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of Stereotyping
28 Comments Published by Brian on Wednesday, May 30 at 9:39 PM.
There is a mildly irritating sentiment in our society which (though I have no evidence of this) seems to be growing healthily among even liberal members of my generation that stereotyping social groups is okay because most stereotypes generally hold some truth to them. "They are stereotypes for a reason," after all. A new study coming out of the University of Chicago goes some way toward refuting that mentality.
Psychologists at the university gave female students a math test followed by a non-mathematical test. Some of the female students were casually reminded before they took the test that men consistently do better than women at standardized math tests, while some of the female students were not given such a reminder. The female students who were given the reminder did more poorly on not only the math test, but the non-math-related test afterward. This led the psychologists to some interesting conclusions about brain power, as they determined that the stereotype reminder didn't simply reduce the women's expectations for themselves, but rather took up valuable space in their brains that could have otherwise been used to process the test questions. Even women who did not buy into stereotypes performed more poorly because they were thinking too much about how they didn't want to be one of the women to perform poorly and thus grant support to the stereotype.
This is another in a long line of studies which demonstrate that reminding students of negative stereotypes of groups to which they belong makes them perform more poorly on tests. Even just being asked to fill in a bubble saying what your race or gender is (which pretty much every standardized test on the planet does) causes blacks and women to perform more poorly. Another study asked students seemingly benign questions like whether they lived in co-ed or single-sex dorms, and even this triggered thoughts of gender stereotypes and affected the students' performances. The principle can work the other way, too, as when students were asked why they chose to attend a private liberal arts college, activating what one psychologist called the students' "snob schema," making them think about how smart they are and thus causing them to perform better on the test.
None of this, of course, proves that there is no truth to stereotypes (though in many of these cases the performance gaps normally cited between genders or races are almost entirely eliminated by not triggering thoughts of stereotypes). It does, however, go a long way in demonstrating the way in which stereotypes are often times self-fulfilling prophecies, that whether they are accurate or not may not have all that much to do with the natural abilities of a given gender or race but rather with the way the stereotypes themselves have disadvantaged women and minorities. And this, of course, would lend support to the position that while stereotypes do not hold any great degree of truth, those who believe they do are in fact contributing to their damaging effects.
I think most people would agree with this conclusion when it comes to racism (I don't know of many people who still argue that whites are the naturally superior race), though I suspect many do not adhere to it when it comes to gender. There are, of course, at least some minimal natural differences between men and women due to genetics and hormones, but I personally am of the belief that the wide gulf that has been created between the genders is almost entirely socially constructed. These studies are another reason to maintain that belief.
Psychologists at the university gave female students a math test followed by a non-mathematical test. Some of the female students were casually reminded before they took the test that men consistently do better than women at standardized math tests, while some of the female students were not given such a reminder. The female students who were given the reminder did more poorly on not only the math test, but the non-math-related test afterward. This led the psychologists to some interesting conclusions about brain power, as they determined that the stereotype reminder didn't simply reduce the women's expectations for themselves, but rather took up valuable space in their brains that could have otherwise been used to process the test questions. Even women who did not buy into stereotypes performed more poorly because they were thinking too much about how they didn't want to be one of the women to perform poorly and thus grant support to the stereotype.
This is another in a long line of studies which demonstrate that reminding students of negative stereotypes of groups to which they belong makes them perform more poorly on tests. Even just being asked to fill in a bubble saying what your race or gender is (which pretty much every standardized test on the planet does) causes blacks and women to perform more poorly. Another study asked students seemingly benign questions like whether they lived in co-ed or single-sex dorms, and even this triggered thoughts of gender stereotypes and affected the students' performances. The principle can work the other way, too, as when students were asked why they chose to attend a private liberal arts college, activating what one psychologist called the students' "snob schema," making them think about how smart they are and thus causing them to perform better on the test.
None of this, of course, proves that there is no truth to stereotypes (though in many of these cases the performance gaps normally cited between genders or races are almost entirely eliminated by not triggering thoughts of stereotypes). It does, however, go a long way in demonstrating the way in which stereotypes are often times self-fulfilling prophecies, that whether they are accurate or not may not have all that much to do with the natural abilities of a given gender or race but rather with the way the stereotypes themselves have disadvantaged women and minorities. And this, of course, would lend support to the position that while stereotypes do not hold any great degree of truth, those who believe they do are in fact contributing to their damaging effects.
I think most people would agree with this conclusion when it comes to racism (I don't know of many people who still argue that whites are the naturally superior race), though I suspect many do not adhere to it when it comes to gender. There are, of course, at least some minimal natural differences between men and women due to genetics and hormones, but I personally am of the belief that the wide gulf that has been created between the genders is almost entirely socially constructed. These studies are another reason to maintain that belief.
New DI Column: Playing Into Conservative Hands
6 Comments Published by Brian on Thursday, April 26 at 11:45 AM.
Just to confound you guys, here's another column about the dangers of censorship: "Ruling Plays Into Conservative Hands: When the Right is right about politically correct censorship."
Labels: Brian, DI, education, LGBT, role of government
New DI Column: Banning Kurt Vonnegut
15 Comments Published by Brian on Monday, April 16 at 10:00 AM.
New column's up today (I switched days with Jon since the school board election I'm discussing happens tomorrow and we wanted it to be timely): "Banning Kurt Vonnegut and Other Sins Against Man."
Labels: DI, education, entertainment, politics, role of government, society
When Presenting Both Sides Is Just Stupid
19 Comments Published by Brian on Thursday, March 8 at 10:21 AM.
This morning my mom e-mailed me this article from the Tribune (sorry, subscription required) about a Deerfield high school which is provoking controversy for allowing gay students to hold panels in which they speak before freshmen classes about their personal experiences, cite research, and answer questions. The panels are part of a class called "freshman advisory," which tries to help students adjust to high school. While the class is mandatory, parents can remove their children on days when the lesson pertains to something that bothers them. Money quote:
Nonsense, and for a few reasons. First, it simply is not practicable in many instances. Sometimes institutions, be they a high school or a news agency or the Supreme Court, must take sides in the culture war. If this school were to invite to these panels members of the Illinois Family Institute to talk about why homosexuality is evil and harmful, or if it were to include in its biology curriculum the "theory" of intelligent design, it would be implicitly taking the position that there is a debate to be had on the subject at all, which itself is arguable in these cases.
On certain issues, it is no vice to acknowledge the existence of an objective reality, and that acknowledgment need not require a consensus or a lack of controversy. There comes a point where entertaining certain debates in a school is the educational equivalent of suborning perjury in the legal system. Questions of economics or foreign policy or crime tend to center upon inconclusive empirical data or irreconcilable value judgments, making it hard for anybody to claim that there is any objective truth on a given issue. That is not the case with LGBT issues or intelligent design, which merely center upon the fact that large swaths of the public believe in things which are either plainly incorrect, openly discriminatory, scientifically unfounded, or wholly irrelevant.
In other words, teaching the controversy flies directly in the face of teaching the truth. Sometimes even educated, thinking people don't know what the truth is, but sometimes they do, and sometimes their knowledge comes in conflict with the preconceived notions of parents like the one quoted above. That is precisely the reason why progress is entirely contingent upon education, because that is where conclusions are taught regardless of whether they conform with what students thought they knew.
I'm throwing a few different issues out there for discussion, and distinctions could certainly be made among them, so before the debate gets started, I recommend you specify which issue exactly you're talking about. I've brought up here, in one way or another, the following: LGBT nondiscrimination, intelligent design, media bias, constitutional jurisprudence, and global warming. There are other examples out there as well. This debate inherently deals with fuzzy lines between settled and unsettled questions, so the basic question becomes: where do you draw the line? Discuss.
[Deerfield resident and parent Lora Sue Hauser] said the panel is one of several ways that Deerfield High and other schools treat homosexuality as morally acceptable without presenting the viewpoints of those who disagree. "The school makes heterosexuality and homosexuality equivalent, and our country is deeply divided on that," said Hauser, who said dozens of parents belong to the advocacy group but fear they will be labeled as haters or religious fanatics if they speak out. [emphasis mine]This is another in a series of examples of occasions on which conservatives spread their policy message not by way of its merits but instead by appealing merely to the presentation of all sides of an argument. The debate over intelligent design is another perfect example, as is debate over liberal media bias or global warming. "Teach the controversy," we are told by those who employ the delicate seduction of a finely tuned free speech argument, tempting otherwise unabashed liberals to embrace a conservative agenda--because, after all, they're not really embracing a conservative agenda at all, just the decisively liberal value of a free exchange of ideas.
Nonsense, and for a few reasons. First, it simply is not practicable in many instances. Sometimes institutions, be they a high school or a news agency or the Supreme Court, must take sides in the culture war. If this school were to invite to these panels members of the Illinois Family Institute to talk about why homosexuality is evil and harmful, or if it were to include in its biology curriculum the "theory" of intelligent design, it would be implicitly taking the position that there is a debate to be had on the subject at all, which itself is arguable in these cases.
On certain issues, it is no vice to acknowledge the existence of an objective reality, and that acknowledgment need not require a consensus or a lack of controversy. There comes a point where entertaining certain debates in a school is the educational equivalent of suborning perjury in the legal system. Questions of economics or foreign policy or crime tend to center upon inconclusive empirical data or irreconcilable value judgments, making it hard for anybody to claim that there is any objective truth on a given issue. That is not the case with LGBT issues or intelligent design, which merely center upon the fact that large swaths of the public believe in things which are either plainly incorrect, openly discriminatory, scientifically unfounded, or wholly irrelevant.
In other words, teaching the controversy flies directly in the face of teaching the truth. Sometimes even educated, thinking people don't know what the truth is, but sometimes they do, and sometimes their knowledge comes in conflict with the preconceived notions of parents like the one quoted above. That is precisely the reason why progress is entirely contingent upon education, because that is where conclusions are taught regardless of whether they conform with what students thought they knew.
I'm throwing a few different issues out there for discussion, and distinctions could certainly be made among them, so before the debate gets started, I recommend you specify which issue exactly you're talking about. I've brought up here, in one way or another, the following: LGBT nondiscrimination, intelligent design, media bias, constitutional jurisprudence, and global warming. There are other examples out there as well. This debate inherently deals with fuzzy lines between settled and unsettled questions, so the basic question becomes: where do you draw the line? Discuss.
Point/Counterpoint: Community Service Requirements
7 Comments Published by Brian on Wednesday, February 21 at 11:07 AM.
DI columnist Dan Mollison and I have this Point/Counterpoint out today on the subject of whether it would be a good idea to create a general education requirement at the university for community service.
I took the position in the DI that I support the idea, though I'd like to note that my support is hesitant. And I'd emphasize that I absolutely do not support John McCain's proposal for the federal government drafting all young Americans into 2 years of community service. I simply think there is just as much educational value in community service as there is in the class I took for my Quantitative 1 requirement, probably moreso, so why not?
I took the position in the DI that I support the idea, though I'd like to note that my support is hesitant. And I'd emphasize that I absolutely do not support John McCain's proposal for the federal government drafting all young Americans into 2 years of community service. I simply think there is just as much educational value in community service as there is in the class I took for my Quantitative 1 requirement, probably moreso, so why not?
Sometimes it is difficult to grasp the racial disparity which persists in this country. Segregation, especially for people in my generation, is simply history. The reality of it, while memories still linger with many middle aged and elderly Americans, is surreal. Our understanding of the time is dependent on the imagination and skill of the historians who convey it to us. 
Despite being seduced at times by the
The Census Bureau recently released its 2007 Statistical Abstract report, which is an electronic treasure chest for social data nerds. The charts below summarize some of the more interesting data related to race, education, and wealth.
The high school graduation rates between Whites, Blacks, and Asians all hover around the 85% mark. It’s slightly surprising how low the Hispanic graduation rates are, and they appear to have leveled off at around 60%. But I find the high school graduation rates interesting because the difference between races in college graduation rates is much greater. About 50% of Asians graduate from college, a prolific number. While it surprises me that only 28% of Whites graduate from college (I suspect this is due to my personal selection bias given that I’m from a middle class high school where nearly everyone attended some type of university), the low Black and Hispanic rates might be more surprising. Again, it’s interesting that through the high school level, graduation rates are fairly even, but numerous factors fuse to create massive differences in college graduation rates (you can download my spreadsheet for graduation rates here)
The Census data does show great disparities between the genders in earnings, $46,008 for men vs. $28,691 for women. However, being the chauvinist conservative that I am, I can rationalize this difference with legitimate economic explanations. But the disparity in earnings between the races, when grouped by level of education attained, is much more difficult to explain. White earnings (Asian data was not available) were greater than Black and Hispanic earnings at every level of education by a significant margin. There are possible explanations beyond racism, but I find none of them compelling. Perhaps minority groups prefer jobs that are more “charitable” or in the service of the public, which tend to pay less. Perhaps minority groups tend to favor jobs with greater pension and healthcare plans, and thus have lower salaries. Perhaps minority groups tends to live in parts of the country with lower costs of living, and thus lower salaries (although urban areas tend to be very expensive to live in). While these explanations might account for some of the disparity, I doubt that it could account for it all (you can view my spreadsheet for race, degrees, and salaries here).
After looking at this data, it is difficult for me to escape the conclusion that the lingering effects of historical racism and continuing racism, whether it be conscious or subconscious, still ought to influence public policy decisions. Many suggest that our public policy should be color blind…the problem is that neither our past, nor our present is color blind. The unequal distribution of economic and social opportunities creates a soft apartheid, a soft segregation in
Race still matters.
Labels: Billy Joe Mills, economics, education, race
"Laws for the liberal education of the youth, especially of the lower class of the people, are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant."~John Adams (Thoughts on Government, 1776)
Labels: Billy Joe Mills, education, history, quotes
Why A Racist Fraternity-Sorority Exchange Deserves a Campus-Wide Response
This column was printed today in the Daily Illini.
Imagine for a moment that the headline on the front page of today's Daily Illini declared that a fraternity and sorority had held an exchange in which attendees came in blackface and ate watermelon and fried chicken. Now, back off from that just a tad, and you'll have the actual headline, declaring a "Mexican Exchange" held recently by the Delta Delta Delta sorority and Zeta Beta Tau fraternity with the theme, "Tequilas and Tacos."
At this exchange, participants hit piñatas, wore sombreros and wife-beaters, dressed as gardeners, and had fake bellies to pose as pregnant Mexicans. Pretty hilarious, huh?
A response to the event quickly mobilized. Cultural organizations and houses expressed their disgust, the president of the Panhellenic Council condemned the event, the Illinois Student Senate's Cultural & Minority Affairs Committee began formulating a response, and the presidents of both Delta Delta Delta and ZBT, Emma Miller and Brandon Keene, issued letters of apology.
Patty Garcia, the president of the United Greek Council, wrote a letter to administrators, faculty, cultural house directors and student leaders calling for ideas on how to "address, correct, and educate" students about this matter, saying "I feel that it is only right that something at a larger level gets done."
This is not the first event like this. For years fraternities and sororities have held ghetto-themed parties that play off racial stereotypes just as this exchange does.
In an e-mail to me, Keene, who attended the event, said that the leadership of his chapter "did not have reservations prior to the event, nor did we see it as offensive." He continued by saying that "a few individual members of the fraternity and sorority involved did engage in insensitive stereotyping," and said the chapter would "work with the counseling department to increase awareness so that a situation like this can be prevented in the future."
Many will be tempted to use this event to paint the Greek system with the same brush, much the same way this exchange painted the Latino community with the same brush. But the Greek system is an all too easy scapegoat for what is in reality a campus-wide and nation-wide problem. Be it this exchange, the unthinking "humor" of Carlos Mencia, or the minstrel show that is VH1's "Flavor of Love," our society has come to celebrate racism by labeling it irreverence. In the widespread national outrage over "political correctness," we defend negative stereotypes as "jokes" and can thus claim anybody who doesn't like them simply doesn't have a sense of humor.
But where is the joke? Where is the biting satire, the witty observation, the clever pun in a group of privileged, predominantly white college students playing "dress up like a person with darker skin than you"? How exactly can that be interpreted as funny?
And yet, as Garcia put it in her letter, "I just don't think that the campus community completely understands why it is wrong to make money and entertain yourself through a culture."
And so the University must respond. The answer is not merely inflicting punitive wounds on those who organized and participated in this embarrassment. Some have called for the Delta Delta Delta and ZBT houses to be shut down. Such a solution would do nothing but foment more anger and resentment and would lead the University down a slippery slope of regulating what students think and how they express themselves.
A better solution is available. A broader campus-wide educational campaign should be undertaken. Far too many students will laugh this event off and roll their eyes at those who have been offended. But the behavior engaged in here was not a joke, it was an insult.
This is not an overreaction by the PC-police coming to stifle the free exchange of ideas and turn everybody into humorless automatons. Part of this University's obligation to educate and enlighten is to persuade students of the fact that this kind of behavior is deeply wrong. Anything less would be negligent.
UPDATE: Two letters to the editor on this subject were printed today, here and here, both blaming the event on the racist atmosphere promoted by Chief Illiniwek. I specifically avoided mentioning the Chief in my column so as to avoid starting that debate up, but if you want an excuse to scream at each other about him, here's your chance.
This column was printed today in the Daily Illini.
Imagine for a moment that the headline on the front page of today's Daily Illini declared that a fraternity and sorority had held an exchange in which attendees came in blackface and ate watermelon and fried chicken. Now, back off from that just a tad, and you'll have the actual headline, declaring a "Mexican Exchange" held recently by the Delta Delta Delta sorority and Zeta Beta Tau fraternity with the theme, "Tequilas and Tacos."
At this exchange, participants hit piñatas, wore sombreros and wife-beaters, dressed as gardeners, and had fake bellies to pose as pregnant Mexicans. Pretty hilarious, huh?
A response to the event quickly mobilized. Cultural organizations and houses expressed their disgust, the president of the Panhellenic Council condemned the event, the Illinois Student Senate's Cultural & Minority Affairs Committee began formulating a response, and the presidents of both Delta Delta Delta and ZBT, Emma Miller and Brandon Keene, issued letters of apology.
Patty Garcia, the president of the United Greek Council, wrote a letter to administrators, faculty, cultural house directors and student leaders calling for ideas on how to "address, correct, and educate" students about this matter, saying "I feel that it is only right that something at a larger level gets done."
This is not the first event like this. For years fraternities and sororities have held ghetto-themed parties that play off racial stereotypes just as this exchange does.
In an e-mail to me, Keene, who attended the event, said that the leadership of his chapter "did not have reservations prior to the event, nor did we see it as offensive." He continued by saying that "a few individual members of the fraternity and sorority involved did engage in insensitive stereotyping," and said the chapter would "work with the counseling department to increase awareness so that a situation like this can be prevented in the future."
Many will be tempted to use this event to paint the Greek system with the same brush, much the same way this exchange painted the Latino community with the same brush. But the Greek system is an all too easy scapegoat for what is in reality a campus-wide and nation-wide problem. Be it this exchange, the unthinking "humor" of Carlos Mencia, or the minstrel show that is VH1's "Flavor of Love," our society has come to celebrate racism by labeling it irreverence. In the widespread national outrage over "political correctness," we defend negative stereotypes as "jokes" and can thus claim anybody who doesn't like them simply doesn't have a sense of humor.
But where is the joke? Where is the biting satire, the witty observation, the clever pun in a group of privileged, predominantly white college students playing "dress up like a person with darker skin than you"? How exactly can that be interpreted as funny?
And yet, as Garcia put it in her letter, "I just don't think that the campus community completely understands why it is wrong to make money and entertain yourself through a culture."
And so the University must respond. The answer is not merely inflicting punitive wounds on those who organized and participated in this embarrassment. Some have called for the Delta Delta Delta and ZBT houses to be shut down. Such a solution would do nothing but foment more anger and resentment and would lead the University down a slippery slope of regulating what students think and how they express themselves.
A better solution is available. A broader campus-wide educational campaign should be undertaken. Far too many students will laugh this event off and roll their eyes at those who have been offended. But the behavior engaged in here was not a joke, it was an insult.
This is not an overreaction by the PC-police coming to stifle the free exchange of ideas and turn everybody into humorless automatons. Part of this University's obligation to educate and enlighten is to persuade students of the fact that this kind of behavior is deeply wrong. Anything less would be negligent.
UPDATE: Two letters to the editor on this subject were printed today, here and here, both blaming the event on the racist atmosphere promoted by Chief Illiniwek. I specifically avoided mentioning the Chief in my column so as to avoid starting that debate up, but if you want an excuse to scream at each other about him, here's your chance.
The Faith in Free Markets?
7 Comments Published by Billy Joe Mills on Sunday, September 10 at 3:32 PM.
At times I have heard that secular, free market conservatives and libertarians may not have a faith in God, but that we do have a faith in the free market. This is true...except for the nearly infinite amount of data and examples to the contrary. Thanks to my good buddy and U of I alum, Josh Rohrscheib, for the link to the CNN article entitled, "Windows HS: Microsoft designs a school system."
It's just another small example of the power and ability of the market to solve nearly any problem. Microsoft is using its corporate structure as the model for the school. I hope with intense sincerity that the teacher's unions in the cities hate this proposal. I hope that it gives them nightmares. There are few institutions in this country which do more to harm people living in urban and racial poverty than the teacher's unions. Their waste and corruption amount to hatred and racism.
But can we really blame them for acting as they do? No. We shouldn't expect them to act altruistically. Teacher's unions exist to better the conditions of the teachers, not the students. Their leaders are charged with this responsibility, and this responsibility alone. The problem is that there is no alignment, no synchronization between the interests of the teachers and the education of the students. Teachers are self-interested, self-serving human beings just like everyone else. A system more reliant on the free market would include the looming threat to teachers that if they do no perform well they will be fired. The question of their performance is essentially reliant on how well they educate their students. Therefore, in that type of system the self-interest of the teachers in retaining their jobs aligns and correlates with the interests of children (and society) in getting a great education.
Do urban minority children have hopes and dreams when they know that they are attending a public school? If they have dreams before going into school, then they are surely tortured once in them. At least now a few of them have the means to throw their dreams in front of their eyes, into reality:
Faith?
It's just another small example of the power and ability of the market to solve nearly any problem. Microsoft is using its corporate structure as the model for the school. I hope with intense sincerity that the teacher's unions in the cities hate this proposal. I hope that it gives them nightmares. There are few institutions in this country which do more to harm people living in urban and racial poverty than the teacher's unions. Their waste and corruption amount to hatred and racism.
But can we really blame them for acting as they do? No. We shouldn't expect them to act altruistically. Teacher's unions exist to better the conditions of the teachers, not the students. Their leaders are charged with this responsibility, and this responsibility alone. The problem is that there is no alignment, no synchronization between the interests of the teachers and the education of the students. Teachers are self-interested, self-serving human beings just like everyone else. A system more reliant on the free market would include the looming threat to teachers that if they do no perform well they will be fired. The question of their performance is essentially reliant on how well they educate their students. Therefore, in that type of system the self-interest of the teachers in retaining their jobs aligns and correlates with the interests of children (and society) in getting a great education.
Do urban minority children have hopes and dreams when they know that they are attending a public school? If they have dreams before going into school, then they are surely tortured once in them. At least now a few of them have the means to throw their dreams in front of their eyes, into reality:
About 170 teens, nearly all black and mainly low-income, were chosen by lottery to make up the freshman class. The school eventually plans to enroll up to 750 students.Sabria Johnson, a 14-year-old from West Philadelphia, said she is excited to be attending the school.
"We're getting a chance to do something new," said the freshman, who hopes one day to go to Harvard or to the London College of Fashion. "We don't get a lot of opportunities like the suburban kids."
Faith?
Labels: Billy Joe Mills, economics, education, role of government
