Previously education was mostly about "finding yourself" -- developing understanding of the world
and yourself, as well as developing those set of abilities that you was gifted most. And deciding what
you want to do in the future, within contins of job market and your abilities. Neoliberalism has changed that dramatically. Education now is just in
"investment" into your "entrepreneurial self" to increase your value as "human capital" holder and
this your value in the "labout market." (Symptomatic
Redness -Philip Mirowski - YouTube). That's bullsh*t, but people already brainwashed by
neoliberals from the middle school buy it uncritically.
Today we live in a world of predatory bankers, predatory educators, predatory health care providers, all of them out for
themselves…. Neoliberalism is the philosophy of the Silicon Valley chieftains, the big university systems, and the Wall Street
titans who gave so much to Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign…. They are pretend to belong to so called "creative vlass", but in reality
are self-interested, parasitical, and predatory. Common people are not admissible to this new aristocracy even if they have two
university educations.
In the current circumstances education is no longer the answer to rising inequality. Instead of serving
as a social lift it, it designed to propagate the current status of parents and at least in some cases, became more of a social trap
converting poorer or more reckless (as in specializing in areas were job market is not existent) graduates into debt slaves without
chances to repay the loans. All this is connected with neoliberal
transformation of education. With the collapse of post-war public funded educational model and privatization
of the University education students face a pretty cruel world. World in which they are cows to milk.
Now universities became institutions very similar to McDonalds ( or, in less politically correct terms,
Bordellos of Higher Learning). Like McDonalds they need to price their services so that to receive nice
profit and they to make themselves more attractive to industry they intentionally feed students with
overspecialized curriculum instead of concentrating on fundamentals and the developing the ability to
understand the world. Which was the hallmark of university education of the past.
Since 1970th Neo-Liberal
University model replaced public funded university model (Dewey model). It is
now collapsing as there are not that many students, who are able (and now with lower job prospects and
persistent tales of graduates working as bartenders) to pay inflated tuition fees. Foreigners somewhat compensates for this , but
with current high prices Canada, UK and Europe are more attractive for all but the most rich parents. That means that
higher education again by-and-large became privilege of the rich and upper middle class.
Lower student enrollment first hit after dot-com boom, when the number of students who want to be programmers decines
several times. Expensive private colleges start hunting
for people with government support (such a former members of Arm forces). The
elite universities, which traditionally serve the top 1% and rich foreigners fared better but were also hit. As David Schultz wrote
in his article (Logos,
2012):
Yet the Dewey model began to collapse in middle of the 1970s. Perhaps it was the retrenchment
of the SUNY and CUNY systems in New York under Governor Hugh Carey in 1976 that began the end
of the democratic university.What caused its retrenchment was the fiscal crisis of the
1970s.
The fiscal crisis of the 1970s was born of numerous problems. Inflationary pressures caused by
Vietnam and the energy embargoes of the 1970s, and recessionary forces from relative declines in
American economic productivity produced significant economic shocks, including to the public sector
where many state and local governments edged toward bankruptcy.
Efforts to relieve declining corporate profits and productivity initiated efforts to restructure
the economy, including cutting back on government services. The response, first in England under
Margaret Thatcher and then in the United States under Ronald Reagan, was an effort to retrench the
state by a package that included decreases in government expenditures for social welfare programs,
cutbacks on business regulations, resistance to labor rights, and tax cuts. Collectively these
proposals are referred to as Neo-liberalism and their aim was to restore profitability and autonomy
to free markets with the belief that unfettered by the government that would restore productivity.
Neo-liberalism had a major impact on higher education. First beginning under President
Carter and then more so under Ronald Reagan, the federal and state governments cut taxes and public
expenditures. The combination of the two meant a halt to the Dewey business model as support
for public institutions decreased and federal money dried up.
From a high in the 1960s and early 70s when states and the federal government provided generous
funding to expand their public systems to educate the Baby Boomers, state universities now receive
only a small percentage of their money from the government. As I pointed out in my 2005 Logos “The
Corporate University in American Society” article in 1991, 74% of the funding for public universities
came from states, in 2004; it was down to 64%, with state systems in Illinois, Michigan and Virginia
down to 25%, 18%, and 8% respectively. Since then, the percentages have shrunk even more, rendering
state universities public institutions more in name than in funding.
Higher education under Neo-liberalism needed a new business model and it found it in the corporate
university. The corporate university is one where colleges increasingly use corporate structures
and management styles to run the university. This includes abandoning the American Association
of University Professors (AAUP) shared governance model where faculty had an equal voice in the running
of the school, including over curriculum, selection of department chairs, deans, and presidents,
and determination of many of the other policies affecting the academy. The corporate university
replaced the shared governance model with one more typical of a business corporation.
For the corporate university, many decisions, including increasingly those affecting curriculum,
are determined by a top-down pyramid style of authority. University administration often composed
not of typical academics but those with business or corporate backgrounds had pre-empted many of
the decisions faculty used to make. Under a corporate model, the trustees, increasingly composed
of more business leaders than before, select, often with minimal input from the faculty, the president
who, in turn, again with minimal or no faculty voice, select the deans, department heads, and other
administrative personnel.
Neoliberalism professes the idea the personal greed can serve positive society goals, which is reflected
in famous neoliberal slogan "greed is good". And university presidents listen. Now presidents of neoliberal
universities do not want to get $100K per year salary, they want one, or better several, million dollars -- the
salary of the CEO of major corporation (Student Debt
Grows Faster at Universities With Highest-Paid Leaders, Study Finds - NYTimes.com)
At the 25 public universities with the highest-paid presidents, both student debt and the use
of part-time adjunct faculty grew far faster than at the average state university from 2005 to 2012,
according to a new
study by the Institute for Policy Studies, a left-leaning Washington research group.
The study, “The One Percent at State U: How University Presidents Profit from Rising Student Debt
and Low-Wage Faculty Labor,” examined the relationship between executive pay, student debt and
low-wage faculty labor at the 25 top-paying public universities.
The co-authors, Andrew Erwin and Marjorie Wood, found that administrative expenditures at the
highest-paying universities outpaced spending on scholarships by more than two to one. And while
adjunct faculty members became more numerous at the 25 universities, the share of permanent faculty
declined drastically.
“The high executive pay obviously isn’t the direct cause of higher student debt, or cuts in labor
spending,” Ms. Wood said. “But if you think about it in terms of the allocation of resources, it
does seem to be the tip of a very large iceberg, with universities that have top-heavy executive
spending also having more adjuncts, more tuition increases and more administrative spending.”
... ... ...
The Chronicle of Higher Education’s annual
survey of public university presidents’ compensation, also released Sunday, found that nine chief
executives earned more than $1 million in total compensation in 2012-13, up from four the previous
year, and three in 2010-11. The median total compensation of the 256 presidents in the survey was
$478,896, a 5 percent increase over the previous year.
... ... ...
As in several past years, the highest-compensated president, at $6,057,615 in this period,
was E. Gordon Gee, who
resigned from Ohio State last summer amid trustee complaints about frequent gaffes. He has since
become the president of West Virginia University.
This trick requires dramatic raising of tuition costs. University bureaucracy also got taste for
better salaries and all those deans, etc want to be remunerated like vice presidents. So raising the
tuition costs became the key existential idea of neoliberal university. Not quality of education, but
tuition costs now are the key criteria of success. And if you can charge students $40K per semester
it is very, very good. If does not matter that most population get less then $20 an hour.
The same is true for professors, who proved to be no less corruptible. And some of them, such as
economic departments, simply serve as prostitutes for financial oligarchy. So they were corrupted even
before that rat race for profit. Of course there are exceptions. But they only prove the rule.
As the result university tuition inflation outpaced inflation by leaps and bounds. At some point
amount that you pay (and the level of debt after graduation) becomes an important factor in choosing
the university. So children of "have" and "have nots" get into different educational institutions and
do not meet each other. In a way aristocracy returned via back door.
Neoliberal university professes "deep specialization" to create "ready for the job market" graduates.
And that creates another problem: education became more like stock market game and that makes more difficult
for you to change your specialization late in the education cycle. But too early choice entails typical stock
market problem: you might miss the peak of the market or worse get into prolonged slump, as graduates
in finance learned all too well in 2008.
That's why it is important not to accumulate too much debt: large debt after graduation put you in situation like "all in" play in poker. You essentially bet that in
the chosen specialty there will
be open positions with high salary, when you graduate. If you lose this bet , you became a debt slave for considerable period of
your life.
As a result of this "reaction to the market trends" by neoliberal universities, when universities
became appendixes of HR of large corporations students need to be more aware of real university machinery,
then students in 50th or 60th of the last century. And first student should not assume that the university is functioning for their benefits.
One problem for a student is that there are now way too many variables that you do not control. Among
them:
Will it be a sizable market for graduates for the given specialty in four years from now
(late specialization and attempt to get a job after bachelor degree might help here; in this
case the selection of the master degree specialization can become more realistic).
What will be the general health of national economy on the moment of graduation? Remember
about students who graduated in 2008.
The total price of education (and by extension the size of the debt you get on the day
of graduation from the college).
Whether you become a victim of rip offs sponsored by the university administration. Although
this is a slight exaggeration, but the working hypothesis for student a modern neoliberal university
should probably be "This is a hostile environment ! Beware financial rip-offs". That might
involve gentle pushing you into obtaining worthless specialty or other intricate ways to screw you
based on your lack of life experience, poor understanding of academic environment and natural youth
maximalism. Loading you with loans to the max is another dirty trick. In private universities this
is a new art that is polished to perfection and widely practiced on unsuspecting lemmings.
On the deep level neoliberal university is not interested to help you to find specialization and
place in life where can unleash your talents. You are just a paying customers much like in McDonalds,
and university interests are such they might try to push you in wrong direction or load you with too
much debt.
If there is deep mismatch as was with computer science graduates after crash of dot-com boom, or
simply bad job market due to economy stagnation and
you can't find the job for your new specialty
(or if you got "junk" specialty with inherent high level of unemployment among professionals) and you
have substantial education debt, then waiting tables or having some other MacJob is a real disaster
for you. As with such salaries you simply can't pay it back. So controlling the level of debt is very
important and in this sense parents financial help is now necessary. In other words education became
more and more "rich kids game".
That does not mean that university education should be avoided for those from families with modest
means. On the contrary it provides unique experience and help a person to mature in multiple ways difficult
to achieve without it. It is still one of the best ways to get vertical mobility. But unless parents
can support you need to try to find the most economical way to obtain it without acquiring too much
debt. This is you first university exam. And if you fail it you are in trouble.
For example, computer science education is a great way to learn quite a few things necessary for
a modern life. But the price does matter and prestige of the university institution that you attend
is just one of the factors you should consider in your evaluation. It should not be the major factor
("vanity fair") unless your parents are rich and can support you. If you are good you can get later
a master degree in a prestigious university after graduation from a regular college. Or even Ph.D.
County colleges are greatly underappreciated and generally provide pretty high standard of education,
giving ability to students to save money for the first two years before transferring to a four year
college. They also smooth the transition as finding yourself among people who are only equal or superior
then you (and have access to financial resource that you don't have) is a huge stress. The proverb say
that it is better to be first in the village then last in the town has some truth in it. Prestigious
universities might provide a career boost (high fly companies usually accept resumes only from Ivy League
members), but they cost so much that you need to be a son or daughter of well-to-do parents to feel
comfortably in them. Or extremely talented. Also amount of career boost that elite universities provide
depends on whom your parents are and what connections they have. It does not depend solely on you and
the university. Again, I would like to stress that you should resist "vanity fair" approach to your
education: a much better way is to try to obtain BS in a regular university and them try to obtain MS
and then, if you are good, PHD, in a prestigious university. Here is a fragment of an interesting discussion
that covers this topic (Low Mobility Is Not a Social Tragedy?, Feb 13, 2013
; I recommend you to read the whole discussion ):
kievite:
I would like to defend Greg Clack.
I think that Greg Clack point is that the number of gifted children is limited and that
exceptionally gifted children have some chance for upper move in almost all, even the most hierarchical
societies (story of Alexander Hamilton was really fascinating for me, the story of Mikhail
Lomonosov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Lomonosov
was another one -- he went from the very bottom to the top of Russian aristocracy just on the
strength of his abilities as a scientist). In no way the ability to "hold its own" (typical for
rich families kids) against which many here expressed some resentment represents social mobility.
But the number of kids who went down is low -- that's actually proves Greg Clack point:
(1) Studies of social mobility using surnames suggest two things. Social mobility rates
are much lower than conventionally estimated. And social mobility rates estimated in this way
vary little across societies and time periods. Sweden is no more mobile than contemporary England
and the USA, or even than medieval England. Social mobility rates seem to be independent of
social institutions (see the other studies on China, India, Japan and the USA now linked here).
Francisco Ferreira rejects this interpretation, and restates the idea that there is a strong
link between social mobility rates and inequality in his interesting post.
What is wrong with the data Ferreira cites? Conventional estimates of social mobility, which
look at just single aspects of social status such as income, are contaminated by noise. If
we measure mobility on one aspect of status such as income, it will seem rapid.
But this is because income is a very noisy measure of the underlying status of families.
The status of families is a combination of their education, occupation, income, wealth, health,
and residence. They will often trade off income for some other aspect of status such as occupation.
A child can be as socially successful as a low paid philosophy professor as a high paid car
salesman. Thus if we measure just one aspect of status such as income we are going to confuse
the random fluctuations of income across generations, influenced by such things as career choices
between business and philosophy, with true generalised social mobility.
If these estimates of social mobility were anywhere near correct as indicating true
underlying rates of social mobility, then we would not find that the aristocrats of 1700 in
Sweden are still overrepresented in all elite occupations of Sweden. Further, the more
equal is income in a society, the less signal will income give of the true social status of
families. In a society such as Sweden, where the difference in income between bus drivers and
philosophy professors is modest, income tells us little about the social status of families.
It is contaminated much more by random noise. Thus it will appear if we measure social status
just by income that mobility is much greater in Sweden than in the USA, because in the USA
income is a much better indicator of the true overall status of families.
The last two paragraphs of Greg Clark article cited by Mark Thoma are badly written and actually
are somewhat disconnected with his line of thinking as I understand it as well as with the general
line of argumentation of the paper.
Again, I would like to stress that a low intergenerational mobility includes the ability
of kids with silver spoon in their mouth to keep a status close to their parent. The fact
that they a have different starting point then kids from lower strata of society does not change
that.
I think that the key argument that needs testing is that the number of challengers from lower
strata of the society is always pretty low and is to a large extent accommodated by the societies
we know (of course some societies are better then others).
Actually it would be interesting to look at the social mobility data of the USSR from this
point of view.
But in no way, say, Mark Thoma was a regular kid, although circumstances for vertical mobility
at this time were definitely better then now. He did possessed some qualities which made possible
his upward move although his choice of economics was probably a mistake ;-).
Whether those qualities were enough in more restrictive environments we simply don't know,
but circumstances for him were difficult enough as they were.
I stopped reading after that. I teach at a high school in a town with a real mix of highly
elite families, working class families, and poor families, and I can tell you that the children
of affluent parents are not obviously more gifted than the children of poor families. They
do, however, have a lot more social capital, and they have vastly more success. But the limitations
on being "gifted" are irrelevant.
According to an extensive study (Turkheimer et al., 2003) of 50,000 pregnant women and the
children they went on to have (including enough sets of twins to be able to study the role of
innate genetic differences), variation in IQ among the affluent seems to be largely genetic.
Among the poor, however, IQ has very little to do with genes -- probably because the genetic
differences are swamped and suppressed by the environmental differences, as few poor kids
are able to develop as fully as they would in less constrained circumstances.
All you said is true. I completely agree that "...few poor kids are able to develop as fully
as they would in less constrained circumstances." So there are losses here and we should openly
talk about them.
Also it goes without saying that social capital is extremely important for a child. That's
why downward mobility of children from upper classes is suppressed, despite the fact that some
of them are plain vanilla stupid.
But how this disproves the point made that"exceptionally gifted children have some
chance for upper move in almost all, even the most hierarchical societies"? I
think you just jumped the gun...
mrrunangun:
The early boomers benefitted from the happy confluence of the postwar boom, LBJ's Great
Society efforts toward financial assistance for those seeking to advance their educations, and
the 1964 Civil Rights Act which opened opportunities for marginalized social groups in institutions
largely closed to them under the prewar social customs in the US.
The US Supreme Court is made up of only Jews and Catholics as of this writing, a circumstance
inconceivable in the prewar America. Catholics were largely relegated to separate and unequal
institutions. Jews' opportunities were limited by quotas and had a separate set of institutions
of their own where their numbers could support such. Where their numbers were not sufficient,
they were often relegated to second rate institutions.
Jewish doctors frequently became the leading men in the Catholic hospitals in Midwestern industrial
towns where they were unwelcome in the towns' main hospitals. Schools, clubs, hospitals, professional
and commercial organizations often had quota or exclusionary policies. Meritocracy has its
drawbacks, but we've seen worse in living memory.
Of course bad things that happened to you during your university years are soon forgotten and nostalgia
colors everything in role tones, but the truth is that the modern university is a very cruel world.
Now more then ever.Here are some random observations of the subject (See also my Diploma Millspage about high education sharks for which
sucking you dry financially is the main goal ):
The number of talented teachers is very limited. Your chances to get one in a modern university
are pretty slim. And chances of personally interacting with one which in old time was tremendous
source of personal growth for university students are even slimmer. And level of salaries can change
this number only insignificantly as people with an outstanding talent to teach usually try to find
the way into teaching in any case. High salaries attract more careerists and psychopaths, so they
are mixed blessing. Differences of compensation do not automatically translates into differences
in quality of teaching. Please note that in the USSR the entry-level salary of a teacher was on the
same level as the salary of a casher in supermarket (in other words they were semi-starved) and still
the level of education provided was pretty decent. They were really poor by all standards. But social
status of teaching profession was very high and probably due to this people who get into teaching
were by-and-large very dedicated. So complete absence of money stimulus does not completely kills
inflow of good teachers. Moreover, after the USSR dissolved and new Russian state experienced huge
difficulties with paying salaries to government workers, most teachers did not get salary for half
a year or more and still almost 100% of them continued to teach students of daily basis.
The number of talented students is very limitedtoo. This numbercan't be
easily changed by monetary stimulus to teachers or students. Development of a talented student
only partially is dependent on the quality of the teacher and the school as a whole. They to
a certain extent are "self-propelled" and after initial "boost" (often when the interest to the subject
was sparked by contact with talented dedicated teacher in high school who loves his subject, recognized
their abilities and treated them accordingly) do not significantly increase or lower their results
on additional effort or money that are spent on their education. One interesting factor is that presence
of talented students in the class raises the level of other students and they often provide influence
similar to talented teachers.
While family support matters, excessive push typical, for example, for parents of South Asian
students can be detrimental. I attended a school for mathematically gifted children and they
pushed us so hard that none of the students became a professional mathematician, despite obvious
high natural abilities ;-). Most of us got an allergy to the mathematics for the rest of their lives.
The other extreme when student "is on your own" is also bad. Difficulties in college are substantial
and parents support matters a lot. It is a factor success.
There is also a certain number of students who do not respond well to educational effort no
matter how hard the teacher tries. So, paradoxically, requiring certain average level of achievement
for the class essentially redirects teacher effort from more talented students, who are fewer in
number but might benefit from these efforts, toward less capable and/or less motivated, but who are
more numerically significant part of the class and affect the average that is measured.
Motivation is a huge problem for certain social groups. I think tremendous level of family
pressure partially explains higher level of education success of Jewish, Asian and Eastern European
students. Parents, especially first generation emigrant parents often transfer very high level of
expectations typical for their native countries to the child. In Eastern Europe the level of educational
achievement of a child often serves as a stamp of social approval of the parents, so the pressure
can be excessive and hurt the child. Paradoxically, negative stimulus might work well too. One probable
reason that the level of education in the USSR was reasonably high despite overcrowded and poorly
equipped schools was the fact that those male students who failed entrance exam to the university
twice after the graduation from high school (year of the graduation and the next year) were drafted
to Red Army. For urban youth that was essentially a punishment for educational failure as by-and-large
they were pro-western oriented and were afraid to be drafted. For the same reason the fact that the
number of seats at the universities was limited and insufficient to absorb all high-school graduates
created huge competition when parents hired teachers to prepare students to the university entrance
exams spending often the last money they have.
All those attempts to quantify and measure the quality of a teacher are limited and pretty
controversial. Too much zeal in attempt to quantify teachers performance convert those metrics
into something completely opposite -- detrimental to the teaching bureaucratic fetish as most of
average teachers quickly redirected their efforts from teaching toward meeting those often completely
detached from reality criteria. "Number racket" can even kill incentives for better teachers up to
driving them out of particular "obsessed with measurements" school to other educational institutions.
US schools have huge problems with the quality of the curriculum. They are especially
acute in high schools. Attempts to meet demands of the lower half of student population and disadvantaged
students became so pervasive that in certain subjects students no longer get adequate education at
all (only advanced classes provide European level of exposure to physics, chemistry, biology
and history).
The US schools have pathological fear of failure of students. That depreciates the level
and effort of high achievers. SAT further complicates the picture as in no way it is equivalent to
two exams in math (one written and one taken by human examiners -- usually for an hour), written
composition skills exam and an oral exam in physics that is taken by human examiners (university
staff) which is the way students used to pass the entrance exam to the university in the USSR area.
Level of some teachers is really dismal. So dismal that I, as a university teacher, do
not understand how they managed to graduate from the university. I know a high school math teacher
who teaches at the local high school who was/is unable to solve textbook problems she assigned to
students and thus unable to see if the student solved the problem correctly if students' solution
differed from the provided in teacher's supplement to the textbook.
Unions always have negative aspects like any bureaucracy and any professional guild, but it
is less drag of the society then lobbyists for, say, investment banks. The problem of getting
rid of ridiculously bad teachers is solvable with unions. At the same time teacher union do provide
useful protection from the school administrators and litigious parents (there was a sad, but pretty
telling story that some family sued the school when their daughter was not selected as valedictorian
:-), who otherwise are completely unchecked, like old Greek tyrants.
Number of students who graduates from the university is much higher then the number of position
that require such level of education. That lead to devaluation of education with BS becoming
equivalent of high school diploma.
Computers do provide profound influence on education but this influence not always a positive
one. They greatly stimulated structured tests and "tele-teaching". The latter creates some interesting
possibilities and ability to reuse lectures and reach much broader audience (thousands of students
in case of lectures is not a problem). Also attempt to write lecture notes using computer usually
is less efficient then writing them in an old fashioned way with pen or pencil. IMHO transcription
of hand-written notes to computer notes should be a separate step. The main advantage of computer
notes is that they can be searched, but they have several drawbacks -- browsing is more difficult,
highlighting is practiced less consistently and usage became "less personal".
The personality of the teacher as a real human next to you with whom you can talk and real class
that meets each week are important factors in educational success. You lose those factors with tele-teaching.
It became more like tele-preaching :-). A huge drawback of distant learning based on telecommunication
is that personality of the teacher became sterilized and contacts with students way too formal. Essentially
teacher becomes a cartoon on the screen.
Also even one bright student in a physical class often does more then a teacher to stimulate
learning of others. This effect is completely absent in tele-audiences when everybody is
essentially an isolated, atomic unit. That also eliminate large part of fun of being student as network
of human contacts on campus, contacts that you acquire by attending classes together is a vital part
of student life. It also severe important link with teacher -- brightest students is one of the important
channels teachers learn new things :-)
Another important factor that limits the effectiveness of tele-learning is the feedback loop is
much weaker. For example, when with the audience, the teacher can adapt the presentation to the audience
in a way that is more difficult, more expensive or just impossible in tele-teaching environment.
That requires full duplex tele-presence which is a very expensive proposition, that eats quickly
any financial advantages of tele-teaching.
Yes another interesting aspect is that cheating and plagiarism became much more prominent.
There are two factors here.
First of all absence of physical contact lowers moral norms. It became more of a poker game.
And the second is the lure of possibilities created by distant exams: you can never tell who
is taking your remote exam and what they use in a process :-)
Cases when students from online class in real audience in later classes demonstrated C or D-level
of knowledge despite getting high grades in the remote course they just took are more common that
people think.
I can tell you that even for such ideally suited subject for tele-teaching as computer science,
it creates almost as many problems as it solves. So net might be neutral or negative.
Most teachers and Professors in the university are good, honest people who are trying to make some
contribution to science and teach students (difficult things to mix). But not all. One of the most dangerous
feature of neoliberal university are influx of people who represent a toxic mix of teacher, snake oil
seller, careerist and cult follower. They are not teachers but brainwashers, hired guns -- propagandists
masquerading as University professors. That is why we have witnessed such a corruption and politicization
of science and rising proportion of research and theories taught at the universities that are fraudulent.
Previously teacher was a person somewhat similar to a monk. A person who consciously traded the ability
to work in science to the possibility of acquiring material wealth, at least excessive material wealth.
As Ernest Rutherford once
reminded Pyotr Kapitsa "No
one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to
the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." (Matthew 6:24)
But in neoliberal university way too many teachers/researchers took Faustian bargain when one trades
the academic independence for above average personal wealth, influence, for the power grab. And despite
popular image of scientists and university professors they proved to be as corruptible by money as Wall
Street traders ;-). This is because the sponsors of their research such as big business, non-governmental
organizations (NGO) and government vie to publish reports and results that put the sponsors in the best
light. Good example is relations of
pharmaceutical industry and academia
“The answer to that question is at once both predictable and shocking: For the past two decades,
medical research has been quietly corrupted by cash from private industry. Most doctors and academic
researchers aren't corrupt in the sense of intending to defraud the public or harm patients, but
rather, more insidiously, guilty of allowing the pharmaceutical and biotech industries to manipulate
medical science through financial relationships, in effect tainting the system that is supposed to
further the understanding of disease and protect patients from ineffective or dangerous drugs. More
than 60 percent of clinical studies--those involving human subjects--are now funded not by the federal
government, but by the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. That means that the studies published
in scientific journals like Nature and The New England Journal of Medicine--those critical reference
points for thousands of clinicians deciding what drugs to prescribe patients, as well as for individuals
trying to educate themselves about conditions and science reporters from the popular media who will
publicize the findings--are increasingly likely to be designed, controlled, and sometimes even
ghost-written by marketing departments, rather than academic scientists. Companies routinely
delay or prevent the publication of data that show their drugs are ineffective.
...
“ Novartis, stepped in and provided additional funding for development. In 1984, private companies
contributed a mere $26 million to university research budgets. By 2000, they were ponying up $2.3
billion, an increase of 9000 percent that provided much needed funds to universities at a time when
the cost of doing medical research was skyrocketing.”
Historically the scientific community is held together through its joint acceptance of the same fundamental
principles of conducting research (and teaching those results) and ethics. Scientific research is best
practiced in a voluntary, honest and free atmosphere. But this idyllic arrangement as well as scientific
ethics now belongs to the past (
The Corruption of Science
)
“It’s a long-standing and crucial question that, as yet, remains unanswered: just how common is
scientific misconduct? In the online, open-access journal PLoS ONE, Daniele Fanelli of the University
of Edinburgh reports the first meta-analysis of surveys questioning scientists about their misbehaviours.
The results suggest that altering or making up data is more frequent than previously estimated and
might be particularly high in medical research.
...There is immense pressure on scientists to produce results, to publish, to seek glory, or just
to get tenure. Scientists are human beings, after all, and sometimes they approach their field with
preconceptions or biases. Politics certainly comes into play; consider eugenics in the United States
at the beginning of the 20th century, or eugenics in Nazi Germany.
Now we can talk only about the level of political and economical pressure and corresponding level
of corruption on professors and scientists, not so much about presence or absence of corruption in science
and education. What really matters for students is that when they feel that a professor is a scum, they
nevertheless try to imitate. See for example
Harvard Mafia, Andrei Shleifer and the economic rape of Russia.
Historically the situation started to change even before neoliberal university became a dominant
educational institution. Previously, despite the fact that money for science were in short supply, scientists
maintained a self-discipline. That changed after WWII. Prior to World War II there was little government
financial support for science. A graduate student working on a Ph.D. degree was expected to make a new
discovery to earn that degree. And if somebody else came first he needed to find a new theme and to
restart his work.
But with the advent of NSF scientists started to "propose" directions of research to get funding.
And be sure this instill atmosphere of sycophantism and political correctness. This process accelerated
dramatically since 1980th with the ascendance of neoliberalism as a dominant USA ideology, when greed
became playing significant role in US universities. It should be understood that now the university
professor is no longer is a teacher and a scientist, but predominantly "grants provider" for the university
and that means that he/she is in the first place a political agent, a manipulator on a mission from
the external agent (typically the state via NSF or other agency, see
The
Corruption of Science in America -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net)
For the unwashed masses University professor career still represents the ultimate carrier of truth
for a given discipline, so his opinion have a distinct political weight. And the architects of our neoliberal
world fully use this "superstition". Like we can see with neoclassical economics, economists have
turned into an instrument of cognitive manipulation, when under the guise of science financial
oligarchy promote beneficial to itself but false and simplistic picture of the world, using University
professors to brainwash the masses into "correct" thinking.
Professors literally became a religious figures, and cult members or even cult leaders. The first
sign of this dangerous disease of the modern university was probably
Lysenkoism in the USSR. In this sense one can say that Lysenkoism
represented a natural side effect of shrinking of freedom of the scientific community and growing influence
of political power on science. As by Frederick Seitz noted in his
The Present Danger To
Science and Society
Everyone knows that the scientific community faces financial problems at the present time. If
that were its only problem, some form of restructuring and allocation of funds, perhaps along lines
well tested in Europe and modified in characteristic American ways, might provide solutions that
would lead to stability and balance well into the next century. Unfortunately, the situation is more
complex, made so by the fact that the scientific establishment has become the object of controversy
from both outside and inside its special domain. The most important aspects of the controversy
are of a new kind and direct attention away from matters that are sufficiently urgent to be the focus
of a great deal of the community's attention.
The assaults on science from the outside arise from such movements as the ugly form of "political
correctness" that has taken root in important portions of our academic community. There are to be
found, in addition, certain tendencies toward a home-grown variant of the anti-intellectual Lysenkoism
that afflicted science in the Stalinist Soviet Union. So-called fraud cases are being dealt with
in new, bureaucratic ways that cut across the traditional methods of arriving at truth in science.
From inside the scientific community, meanwhile, there are challenges that go far beyond those
that arise from the intense competition for the limited funds that are available to nourish the country's
scientific endeavor.
The critical issue of arriving at a balanced approach to funding for science is being subordinated
to issues made to seem urgent by unhealthy alliances of scientists and bureaucrats. Science
and the integrity of its practitioners are under attack and, increasingly, legislators and bureaucrats
shape the decisions that determine which paths scientific research should take. There is, in
addition, a sinister tendency, especially in environmental affairs, toward considering the undertaking
of expensive projects that are proposed by some scientists to remedy worst-case formulations of problems
before the radical and expensive remedies are proven to be needed. They are viewed seriously
though they are based on the advice of opportunistic alarmists in science who leap ahead of what
is learned from solid research to encourage support for the expensive remedies they perceive to be
necessary. The potential for very great damage to science and society is real.
Unfortunately a large part of the textbook market in the USA has all signs of corrupted monopoly
infested with cronyism and incompetence to the extent that Standard Oil practices looks pretty benign
in comparison. As the site
MakeTextbooksAffordable.com
states on its font page:
The report found that even though students already
pay $900 year for textbooks, textbook publishers artificially inflate the price of textbooks by adding
bells and whistles to the current texts, and forcing cheaper used books off the market by producing
expensive new editions of textbooks that are barely different from the previous edition.
And some university professors are part of these scheme. Congressmen David Wu sites the opinion of
the publisher in his letter"If a student is paying hundreds of dollars for a book, it's because the professor has ordered the
Cadillac edition". But that might be true only for CS where any professor can easily find a cheaper
high quality substitute from publishers like O'Reilly (and students can do this too, see
Softpanorama Bookshelf actually about finding the best CS book
(and some other) at reasonable prices. In other disciplines like mathematics situation is a real racket:
The cost of a common calculus textbook is over $100 in the USA. This is a blatant, open
rip-off. Economics is probably even worse with some useless junk selling for almost $300 per book.
But here one needs to see a bigger picture: low quality of recommended textbooks and, especially,
the quality of university instruction makes it necessary buying additional textbooks. Also the ownership
of best textbooks often makes the difference between success and failure in the particular course. In
this sense additional $100 spending for books for each course makes economic sense as the common alternative
is to drop the course, which often means $1K of more loss.
There are several ways to save on additional textbooks that hopefully can somewhat compensate for
the low quality of tuition in a typical university. With some effort a student can often save approximately
50% of the cover price. Again my Links2bookstores page
contains more information.
At the same time if the instructor is weak, or, worse, belongs to "fundamentalists", a category of
instructors that does not distinguish between important and unimportant things and overloads the course
with "useless overcomplexity" additional books are one of few countermeasures against
this typical university-style rip-off. Dropping the course is a difficult maneuver that requires perfect
timing and problems with instructor and the course content usually do not surface during the first month
of the study when you can still do it for free or with minimal damage.
College textbook publishing became a racket with the growth of neoliberalism. And it is pretty dirty
racket with willing accomplishes in form of so called professors like Greg Mankiw. For instance, you
can find a used 5th edition Mankiw introductory to Microeconomics for under $4.00, while a new 7th edition
costs over $200. An interesting discussion of this problem can be found at
Thoughts on High-Priced Textbooks'
Tim Taylor on why textbooks cost so much:
Thoughts on High-Priced Textbooks: High textbook prices are a pebble in the shoe of many college
students. Sure, it's not the biggest financial issue they face, But it's a real and nagging annoyance
that for hinders performance for many students. ...
David Kestenbaum and Jacob Goldstein at National Public Radio took up this question recently on
one of their "Planet Money" podcasts. ... For economists, a highlight is that they converse
with Greg Mankiw, author of what is currently the best-selling introductory economics textbook,
which as they point out is selling for $286 on Amazon. Maybe this is a good place to point out
that I am not a neutral observer in this argument: The third edition of my own Principles of Economics
textbook is available through Textbook
Media.
The pricing
varies from $25 for online access to the book, up through $60 for both a paper copy (soft-cover,
black and white) and online access.
Several explanations for high textbook prices are on offer.
The standard arguments are that textbook companies are marketing selling to professors, not to
students, and professors are not necessarily very sensitive to textbook prices. (Indeed, one can
argue that before the rapid rise in textbook prices in the last couple of decades, it made sense
for professors not to focus too much on textbook prices.) Competition in the textbook market is
limited, and the big publishers load up their books with features that might appeal to professors:
multi-colored hardcover books, with DVDs and online access, together with test banks that allow
professors to give quizzes and tests that can be machine-graded. At many colleges and universities,
the intro econ class is taught in a large lecture format, which can include hundreds or even several
thousand students, as well as a flock of teaching assistants, so some form of computerized grading
and feedback is almost a necessity. Some of the marketing by textbook companies involves paying
professors for reviewing chapters--of course in the hope that such reviewers will adopt the book.
The NPR show casts much of this dynamic as a "principal-agent problem," the name for a situation
in which one person (the "principal") wants another person (the "agent") to act on their behalf,
but lacks the ability to observe or evaluate the actions of the agent in a complete way. Principal-agent
analysis is often used, for example, to think about the problem of a manager motivating employees.
But it can also be used to consider the issue of students (the "principals") wanting the professor
(the "agent") to choose the book that will best suit the needs of the students, with all factors
of price and quality duly taken into account. The NPR reporters quote one expert saying that the
profit margin for high school textbooks is 5-10%, because those books decisions are made by school
districts and states that negotiate hard. However, profit margins on college textbooks--where
the textbook choice is often made by a professor who may not even know the price that students
will pay--are more like 20%.
The NPR report suggests this principal-agent framework to Greg Mankiw, author of the top-selling
$286 economic textbook. Mankiw points out that principal-agent problems are in no way nefarious,
but come up in many contexts. For example, when you get an operation, you rely on the doctor to
make choices that involve costs; when you get your car fixed, you rely on a mechanic to make choices
that involve costs; when you are having home repairs done, you rely on a repair person or a contractor
to make choices that involve costs. Mankiw argues that professors, acting as the agents of students,
have legitimate reason to be concerned about tradeoffs of time and money. As he notes, a high
quality book is more important "than saving them a few dollars"--and he suggests that saving $30
isn't worth it for a low-quality book.
But of course, in the real world there are more choices than a high-quality $286 book and a
low-quality $256 book. The PIRG student surveys suggest that up to two-thirds of students are
avoiding buying textbooks at all, even though they fear it will hurt their grade, or are shifting
to other classes with lower textbook costs. If a student is working 10 hours a week at a part-time
job, making $8/hour after taxes, then the difference between $286 book and a $60 book is 28.25
hours--nearly three weeks of part-time work. I am unaware of any evidence in which students were
randomly assigned different textbooks but otherwise taught and evaluated in the same way, and
kept time diaries, which would show that higher-priced books save time or improve academic performance.
It is by no means obvious that a lower-cost book (yes, like my own) works less well for students
than a higher-cost book from a big publisher. Some would put that point more strongly.
A final dynamic that may be contributing to higher-prices textbooks is a sort of vicious circle
related to the textbook resale market. The NPR report says that when selling a textbook over a
three-year edition, a typical pattern was that sales fell by half after the first year and again
by half after the second year, as students who had bought the first edition resold the book to
later students. Of course, this dynamic also means that many students who bought the book new
are not really paying full-price, but instead paying the original price minus the resale price.
The argument is that as textbooks have increased in price, the resale market has become ever-more
active, so that sales of a textbook in later years have dwindled much more quickly. Textbook companies
react to this process by charging more for the new textbook, which of course only spurs more activity
in the resale market.
A big question for the future of textbooks is how and in what ways they migrate to electronic
forms. On one side, the hope is that electronic textbooks will offer expanded functionality, as
well as being cheaper. But this future is not foreordained. At least at present, my sense is that
the functionality of reading and taking notes in online textbooks hasn't yet caught up to the
ease of reading on paper. Technology and better screens may well shift this balance over time.
But even setting aside questions of reading for long periods of time on screen, or taking notes
on screen, at present it remains harder to skip around in a computerized text between what you
are currently reading and the earlier text that you need to be checking, as well as skipping to
various graphs, tables, and definitions. To say it more simply, in a number of subjects it may
still be harder to study an on-line text than to study a paper text.
Moreover, as textbook manufacturers shift to an on-line world, they will bring with them
their full bag of tricks for getting paid. The Senack report notes:
Today’s marketplace offers more digital textbook options to the student consumer than ever.
“Etextbooks” are digitized texts that students read on a laptop or tablet. Similar to PDF documents,
e-textbooks enable students to annotate, highlight and search. The cost may be 40-50 percent
of the print retail price, and access expires after 180 days. Publishers have introduced
e-textbooks for nearly all their traditional textbook offerings. In addition, the emergence
of the ereader like the Kindle and iPad, as well as the emergence of many e-textbook rental
programs, all seemed to indicate that the e-textbook will alter the college textbook landscape
for the better.
However, despite this shift, users of e-textbooks are subject to expiration dates, on-line
codes that only work once, page printing limits, and other tactics that only serve to restrict
use and increase cost.
Unfortunately for students, the publishing companies’ venture into e-textbooks is a
continuation of the practices they use to monopolize the print market.
JohnH:
My understanding is that there are cases where the professor requires the textbook he wrote
and for which he receives royalties...
In such cases, the publisher and the professor's interests align against the student, who pays
through the teeth.
djb:
good article but i have a real problem with introductory texts on economics
they are completely biased, mostly towards supply side of the debate
meaning, of course, they are wrong
if they just contained that which is undeniably true then ok, or if they presented it as this
school of thought says this and that school of thought says the other, ok,
The Raven:
A general rule of thumb: half the selling price of a book is spent before the first impression
is made on paper. Speaking as a very small publisher, I think the main problem is that the
texts are expensive to produce.
They take a lot of editorial and design effort, so the fixed costs of textbook production are
high, the production costs are often high, and textbook bestsellers are not common, so they
don't usually make it up on volume.
Now, one could, for standard freshman and sophomore texts, aim at lower costs and higher volumes,
but that's not academic publishing, and nothing is going to help with upper-level texts; the market
is just not that big.
Excellent! With a high elasticity of demand, the increase in quantity beats the drop in price.
Unless the marginal cost of printing books is higher than I suspect it is, Mankiw's publisher
is not a profit maximizing monopolist. I'm telling you the best economics is right here and we
don't charge $286!
You'd have to market a book *hard* to get that increase in demand, though. It's not a student-by-student
sale decision; the professors have to be marketed. The other thing about publishing economics
that people outside the industry don't realize: most books don't make much money, so publishers
rely on the good-sellers and the best-sellers for much of their profits. If you've got something
you're pretty sure is going to be in demand, *you mark it up,* because in William Golding's immortal
phrase, "Nobody knows anything."
Over the past 25 or so years, the consolidation of publishing has put the money types more
and more in control of the business. And the money types always want to only market best sellers.
This is sort of like Germany saying that everyone should make money exporting. "That trick never
works."
Now, if anyone wanted to bring the price of an Econ 101 book down, one could do a no-frills
book, small, soft-covered, and strictly monochrome, or perhaps an ebook. (But watch out—only some
ebook readers support mathematics well.) It might cost $50 or so (I'm guessing—I'm not a textbook
publisher.) It would not look impressive, and this might make a problem for marketing, but students
could still learn from it. And—who knows?—it might even sell.
T.J.:
The issue is that textbook publishers release new editions every couple of years. For many
subjects, including economics, this is absurd. Sciences don't change that quickly.
For instance, you can find a used 5th edition Mankiw introductory to Microeconomics for under
$4.00, while a new 7th edition costs over $200.
Has principles of microeconomics changed that much over the course of 6 years? No, but textbook
companies make a few changes on the margin and charge you hundreds of dollars for a new edition.
Many times, professors require online access codes to supplement their lecture. Therefore, the
student is forced into the newer edition, in which often there is no substantial differences or
major improvements in presenting the material.
When you have that sort of market power, it is easy to achieve economic rents.
pgl -> to T.J....
"Sciences don't change that quickly". One would hope those freshwater books changed after their
utter failures to predict the most recent recession. But they likely haven't.
cm -> to T.J....
There are errata, and some content that the author has in mind doesn't make it into the first
edition, or not at the intended quality/depth. Most people who have never published something
substantial have no idea how much work it is to get non-fiction scientific/technical stuff publication
ready. Not only on the author's part but also editing and proofreading/giving feedback at a collegial
level. (Not meaning to knock down fiction, that's a different set of challenges.)
Bill Ellis:
Two Ideas I would like to see combined. A period of Universal public service that earns a free
higher and or tech education. Something like the GI bill for all.
I think making universal public service a right of passage could help us be a more unified
society. If we have kids from inner city Detroit, rural West Virginia, suburban San Francisco
and the oil fields of Oklahoma working side by side it would open their eyes to each other in
ways that are never experienced by most American kids who are living in communities of institutional
self-segregation.
Having said that.. free education is a no brainer no matter what.
To cover everyone's tuition it would only cost us about forty billion more than the feds already
spend on higher ed. That's a rounding error in terms of our total budget.
We subsidize big oil and gas to the tune of about 50 billion a year.
The maddening thing is that the national debate is not even close to taking Free Ed seriously.
Instead Liz Warren is portrayed some kind of wild eyed radical for proposing a modest cut in interest
rates on student loans and some narrow way to get some forgiveness of debt.
John Cummings:
It is part of the educational industrial complex (which include vouchers and government backed
private school industrial complex)
Educational industrial complex
Military industrial complex
Medical industrial complex
Prison industrial complex
Fred C. Dobbs:
(Evidently, 'It’s Economics 101'.)
Higher education: Why textbooks cost so much
http://econ.st/1yzDU5Z via @TheEconomist
- Aug 16th 2014
Students can learn a lot about economics when they buy Greg Mankiw’s “Principles of Economics”—even
if they don’t read it. Like many popular textbooks, it is horribly expensive: $292.17 on Amazon.
Indeed, the nominal price of textbooks has risen more than fifteen fold since 1970, three times
the rate of inflation (see chart, at link).
Like doctors prescribing drugs, professors assigning textbooks do not pay for the products
themselves, so they have little incentive to pick cheap ones. Some assign books they have written
themselves. The 20m post-secondary students in America often have little choice in the matter.
Small wonder textbooks generate megabucks.
But hope is not lost for poor scholars. Foreign editions are easy to find online and often
cheaper—sometimes by over 90%. Publishers can be litigious about this, but in 2013 the Supreme
Court ruled that Americans have the right to buy and resell copyrighted material obtained legally.
Many university bookstores now let students rent books and return them. Publishers have begun
to offer digital textbooks, which are cheaper but can’t be resold. And if all else fails, there
is always the library.
How to Cut Your Textbook Costs in Half -- or More-Kiplinger
http://po.st/nCZsxY - August 2014
(By renting e-books, donchaknow.)
(Turns out Mankiw's Econ textbook, which
currently costs $289 in hardcover from
Amazon, can be rented in Kindle format
for a mere $173 - for 180 days.)
(Hardcover rental is $70, however.)
Fred C. Dobbs -> to Fred C. Dobbs...
(Wait a second. The Federales fixed
this problem back in 2008...)
Advocates say a new set of federal provisions, aimed at driving down the cost of college textbooks,
should help students this fall. On July 1, (2010) these rules took effect:
Publishers must give professors detailed information about textbook prices, revision histories
and a list of alternate formats.
Publishers have to sell materials typically bundled with textbooks -- such as CDs, DVDs and
workbooks -- separately so students don't have to buy them.
Colleges have to include in-course schedules with required textbooks for each class, including
the book's price and International Standard Book Number, an identifying tool.
The protections, included in the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, are an attempt to
lessen student debt, said U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., on Wednesday.
"The cost of education is of concern not only to students and families but to the nation,"
Durbin said, explaining why the government got involved in textbook prices. "Students are emerging
with more and more debt."
Textbooks have been outrageously expensive for a long time, though some of the prices quoted
in this article were astonishing to me and I used to be in the business. Nothing much has changed.
The complaints and the defenses sound very familiar. Even in the 70s and 80s, publishers groused
about how the used trade hurt their sales and the suggestion was repeatedly made that one way
around the trap was to produce much cheaper texts and make up the difference on volume. Unfortunately,
the numbers never add up for that business plan since the major textbook publishers have huge
sunk costs in the big sales forces needed to support the current model. Anyhow, good cheap books
have long been available for many big undergrad courses if profs want to assign them and don't
mind producing their own tests and other teaching aids. A handful of profs do just that and were
already doing it thirty years ago, but they are a distinct minority.
About the revision racket: the funny thing is that old editions of textbooks are often better
than more recent editions. Market research makes good books worse in much the same way that it
eventually screws up software by the relentless addition of bells and whistles. I'm a technical
writer these days and keep copies of several old classics at hand when I need to brush up: Feynman's
lectures on physics; the first edition of Freeman, Pisani, and Purves on Statistics; the 2nd edition
of Linus Pauling's Intro Chem text; Goldstein on Thermo; and a real museum piece, Sylvaner Thomas'
Calculus Made Easy. Many of these books have been reprinted by Dover and are available for peanuts.
To be fair, the high price for textbooks makes more sense in some fields than in others. The
three or four year revision cycle is absurd for math books since the math remains the same decade
after decade, but texts in areas like molecular biology really do have to be revised frequently
and substantively, a very labor-intensive task. Which is why I give a pass to the Biology editors
and the folks who struggle to update the Intermediate Accounting books with the latest FASB standards.
Can you elaborate on the revision "paradox"? Surely not only in very new fields, the state
of the art progresses, or textbook authors see a need or opportunity to include new material (I
suspect somebody setting out to write a comprehensive text has more ideas what to write about
than can be finished at the required quality in the required time, for the first edition).
How would the subsequent editions be worse, if the new content is driven by the author and
not by external marketing considerations, unless the new material is at the expense of older material
(e.g. #pages limit)?
From my very limited experience, authors who are not in it for making a profit, and who write
for a small market (selling up to a few thousand copies per year is a small market) run into substantial
overhead costs for editing, marketing (i.e. making the existence of the book known to the target
audience), and distribution, and basically have to do the work for free. Some, and perhaps most,
certainly academic, publishers have "charity" programs where they publish small editions where
they at best break even or even cross-subsidize them out of "full rate" publications. Then people
complain about excessive prices for the latter.
Leading Edge Boomer:
Jeebus, $286 for a textbook, from an author who is often wrong lately? I co-authored
a graduate computer science text (low volume = higher cost) that retailed in the low two digits.
cm -> to Leading Edge Boomer...
I will not comment on the author's merit or lack thereof, but $286 is really in "WTF" territory,
for any textbook.
cm -> to Leading Edge Boomer...
I once contributed to a book, and the authors/editors decided to collectively waive their royalties
to hit an affordable price (and I suspect it was still a charity deal on the part of the largely
academic publisher). But I got my free copy.
At least for big market textbooks, the motive for revisions is generally financial and
that's as true for the authors as the publishers. In fact, the authors are often the ones
who push for new editions as their royalty checks steadily diminish. In cases where it's the authors
who are reluctant to revise for whatever reason, publishers often sweeten the deal with advances,
grants, or other goodies.
I don't mean to be completely cynical. Authors and editors certainly try to produce a better
product when they put out new editions, and it very often happens that the second edition is better
than the first. Especially in later cycles, however, the changes are usually pretty cosmetic.
The editor in charge of the project solicits advice from users and potential users and comes up
with a list of "improvements" in a process not entirely different than what happens when various
interests in Washington get their pet provisions put in a bill. If you think that professor X
is likely to adopt the text if you go along with his ideas and plug his contributions in the acknowledgements,
the idea is very likely to be irresistible.
The sales force also weighs in. They want feature they can tout; but since real improvements
are hard to come by, that usually means more and more pedagogy: boxes, pictures, computer programs,
and umpteen forms of emphasis. Let me assure you it takes desperate ingenuity to come up with
something new to add to an Intermediate Algebra textbook. "Now with a new way to factor trinomials"
isn't exactly a memorable pitch. Meanwhile, after three or four editions, the author, who
presumably would be the best source of serious innovation for a new edition, is generally bored
to death with the project.
As I said above, there are textbooks that really do need perpetually revision for substantive
reasons; but in most fields what Freshmen and Sophomores need to learn has been known for a long
time. My remarks on revisions also don't apply very well to upper level texts in smaller markets,
in part because students tend to hang on to serious books in their majors so the companies have
less incentive to beat the used book market with new editions.
From what I remember of my university days (in the long distant past), we didn't have text
books (that was for school kids). We had lectures and lists of reading materials (that if we were
lucky we could find in the library and photocopy relvant sections). I did have a copy of Samualson
(relatively cheap). But the emphasis was on a reading a variety of sources. What has changed,
and why?
My own biggest peeve concerns calculus textbooks, especially introductory calculus textbooks.
The material hasn't changed in at least 60 years, if not longer. If it weren't for the current
ridiculously long copyright terms people could just use old ones.
The last time I took the subject our professor went to some lengths to let us use the previous
edition, which was available used. The only real change in the next edition was in the problems.
That is, if a student was assigned "problem 8 in section xxx" having the most recent edition was
the only way to know what the problem was.
I don't see any redeeming value in this.
Bloix:
My son took an intro geology course a few years ago. The textbook price at the school bookstore
was about $125. He purchased the gray market (legal) "international edition" - word for word,
page for page the same, but with a different picture on the cover - over the internet for about
$50.
It's my understanding that this sort of price-differential is common. Mankiw's book appears
to be available in the "international edition" for $60 (soft cover).
Hardcover $39.38 18 Used from $11.17 4 New from $39.38 1 Collectible from $547.00
Paperback $17.99 13 Used from $9.99 14 New from $13.20
Mass Market Paperback $15.01 4 Used from $9.91 4 New from $10.05
Antonio García Martínez talks with Steven Levy Steven Levy is the editor-in-chief of Backchannel.
Steven Levy (SL): Antonio, why did you write this book?
Antonio García Martínez (AGM): You know, that's a good question because many would think that I'm committing career suicide by
writing it. One of the most notable things about Silicon Valley is that nobody is writing those histories. Everyone in Silicon Valley
lives in what I like to call 'the eternal present'. It's the urgent now of the next start-up, or the next cool technology or the
next fundraising round or the next media event. No one ever pulls back and thinks: "What are they going to think of us in ten years
or a hundred years?" So at the very highest, noblest level, recording that history is why I wrote the book.
SL: You did it, as you mentioned, in a pretty unmediated fashion, one which is probably going to ruffle some feathers. We were
talking at one point earlier about doing pieces of this on Backchannel, and I was going to call this series 'You'll Never Eat Free
Lunch in This Town Again'. Do you think you are going to be blackballed?
AGM: Oh, yeah. I think there are going to be one of two reactions to the book. One is from the Facebook founder, early employee,
or anyone really vested in and part of the Silicon Valley establishment, who are going to be extraordinarily antagonistic to it.
And then I think there's going to be the reaction of the mid-level or junior-level Facebook employee (what I was at Facebook), or
the scarred veteran of many a start-up who is not believing in the fairy tale anymore -- they are going to read it and see what is
basically a portrait of their own lives and laugh like hell.
SL: Your view of Silicon Valley seems to be a kind of den of scoundrels, and you don't exempt yourself from this. Yet there's
a moment late in the book where you drop that pose for a second and say how you were drinking the Kool-Aid yourself. How swept up
did you get in the Silicon Valley ethos while at the same time looking at a lot of things around you with a jaundiced eye?
AGM: Like I say in the book, "Inside every cynic lives a heartbroken idealist". So if I look at the Silicon Valley world with
such a jaundiced eye, it's precisely because I at one point believed in it. I've definitely hammed up this persona of the swaggering
rapscallion running amok through the Silicon Valley world, which I kind of did for a number of years. But that rapscallion did believe.
I wore a little Facebook fleece every day, I lived at Facebook, I believed in the mission, I was as much a rank-and-file trooper
as anybody else. Of course, I was disabused of that opinion as I saw the reality. But I absolutely was a believer at one point, no
question.
Editorial Reviews Amazon.com Review An Amazon Best Book of July 2016: If you think you know the back-story of the founding of
Facebook because you saw The Social Network, think again: Antonio Garcia Martinez's Chaos Monkeys tells a more complete and sometimes
darker story about the founding and development of Mark Zuckerberg's multi-billion-dollar invention. This is not a whodunit (we know
who did – Zuckerberg, those rowing twins, and assorted Harvard frenemies) so much as a procedural, a chronicle by the data-guru who
was eventually forced out of Facebook (he went to Twitter) – but not before gathering some pretty interesting social data of his
own: about Zuckerberg, about other Silicon valley "chaos monkeys," and about the culture that spawned all of them. Others who have
toiled in tech will recognize some universal truths: for example, that despite the great wealth, most are not in it for the money
so much as the mission; Facebook, Garcia Martinez asserts, was a "church of a new religion," its practitioners true believers. While
there may be a little TMI for the casual reader, there are enough specific scenes and characters – Sheryl Sandberg included, of course
-- that, geek or not, you can't help but be fascinated. Me, I can't help but wonder how many "likes" you'd get if you posted about
it on your FB page --Sara Nelson, The Amazon Book Review Review "An irresistible and indispensable 360-degree guide to the new technology
establishment.... A must-read." -- Jonathan A. Knee, New York Times
"Reckless and rollicking... perceptive and funny and brave.... The resulting view of the Valley's craziness, self-importance and
greed isn't pretty. But it's one that most of us have never seen before and aren't likely to forget." -- Washington Post
"Michael Lewis was never a top Wall Street bond salesman, but in Liar's Poker he captured an era. Chaos Monkeys aims to do the
same for Silicon Valley, and bracingly succeeds." -- New York Times Book Review
"Brilliant." -- Financial Times
"This year's best non-business book about business.... Garcia Martinez is a real writer.... A classic tale, well told." -- Techcrunch
"There are some books that are just too good to miss.... In his insider-tells-all book, García Martínez discusses everything from
goofy stories to cultural secrets about some of the country's most powerful and influential businesses." -- Atlantic
"Incisive.... The most fun business book I have read this year.... Clearly there will be people who hate this book -- which is
probably one of the things that makes it such a great read." -- Andrew Ross Sorkin, New York Times
"[García Martínez] is, by his own account, a dissolute character.... He is nonetheless, by the end of his account, a winning antihero,
a rebel against Silicon Valley's culture of nonconformist conformity.... The reader can't help rooting for him." -- Jacob Weisberg,
New York Review of Books
"Unlike most founding narratives that flow out of the Valley, Chaos Monkeys dives into the unburnished, day-to-day realities:
the frantic pivots, the enthusiastic ass-kissing, the excruciating internal politics.... [García] can be rude, but he's shrewd, too."
-- Bloomberg Businessweek
"An unvarnished account of Silicon Valley." -- CBS This Morning
"Romps through Martínez's wild trajectory from Wall Streeter to pre-IPO Facebook employee, with the dramatic sale of his Y Combinator-backed
ad-tech startup (to Twitter) in between." -- Jillian D'Onfirio Business Insider
"Traces the evolution of social media and online marketing and reveals how it's become a part of our daily lives and how it will
affect our future." -- Leonard Lopate, WNYC
"If you're in a startup or even plan to sue one, Chaos Monkeys is the book to read." -- John Biggs, TechCrunch
"This gossipy insider account from the former Twitter adviser, Facebook product manager, and start-up CEO dishes dirt while also
explaining the ins and outs of Silicon Valley." -- Neal Wyatt, Library Journal
"[Garcia Martinez] reads like a philosopher and historian, the exact travel guide you'd want to walk you through the inner workings
of Facebook. His tell-all memoir is the best writing out there on one of the world's most powerful companies. And he even manages
to make the ins and outs of online advertising fascinating." -- Aarti Shahanti, npr.org
Amazingly accurate coverage of Facebook's internal culture, the good, the bad, and the ugly. (Plus much, much more!)
5.0 out of 5 stars
Amazingly accurate coverage of Facebook's internal culture, the good, the bad, and the ugly. (Plus much, much more!) Reviewed
in the United States on July 10, 2016 Verified Purchase I worked at Facebook from 2010 until 2015, and until now I have never
seen the inner machinations as accurately portrayed as they are in 'Chaos Monkeys'. Facebook very carefully maintains a public
relations campaign (almost more internally focused than external) to convince the world it is the best place to work ever. In
reality it is just like any other large company, with plenty of political intrigue, infighting, silo-building, and collateral
damage. Sure, the mini-kitchens have organic bananas, and pistachios that stressed slobby software engineers neither have to shell,
nor leave a pile of shells littered all around the floor... but in reality they are shackled to an oar, pulling to the endless
beat of a drum. Code. Code. Code. It is all here the creepy propaganda, the failed high-profile projects, the surreal manager/staff
relationships, the cultivated cult-like atmosphere, the sharp divide between the have-it-all, and the "hope to have enough to
escape" staff. The bizarro world of inside FB, around the IPO. I was there and experienced many of the same corporate events and
milestones myself. Antonio Garcia Martinez captures it all perfectly.
That's only the last half of the book.
The rest is a tale of escaping from startup hell, making a go at reaching startup heaven, then making deals to salvage it all
when reaching the critical trial-by-fire that every startup must face: die, execute flawlessly, or exit.
There are some who will find the tone, the voice, or the political incorrectness of both to be too harsh to digest. I've already
seen that in a few of the reviews here. To them I say "grow up"... put on your big boy/girl pants and read this for the story.
The tale it tells. The facts it presents. The data with which it backs it all up. Because it is all true. The exposition of complex
systems are described using appropriate, and facile metaphors. Many of the standard Facebook tropes ("stealing/selling your data",
"Zuck is evil", etc.) are explained for the misleading baloney that they are. Best of all it describes how the advertising media
really operates, going back to the dawn of it, and how Facebook, Google, et al are merely extensions of a system that has existed
for two centuries. It is worth the purchase price for that lesson alone, all wrapped in a great, and true story.
For myself, having lived through much of the same experience at Facebook (from onboarding, the devotion, the cynicism, to the
inglorious, frustrated exit bungled by one of the legion of Facebook's incompetent and narcissistic manager corps) I found myself
going from laughter, to nodding agreement, to gut-wrenching bouts of PTSD as I turned the pages of 'Chaos Monkeys'. Now I no longer
have to justify myself to people who ask me why I left Facebook - I can just tell them to read this book, since it explains it
better than I ever could.
Read less 559 people found this helpful >
1.0 out of 5 stars
Whiny Reviewed in the United States on October 20, 2019 Verified Purchase The author seems to be a very bitter and acerbic
individual with huge collection of chips on his shoulder, from past coworkers to the capitalism itself. It is rare to encounter
a character in his book to which he doesn't find something contemptuous or negative to say about. Even when describing genuinely
positive things - like courage, loyalty or generosity - he seems to be astonished that these puny humans he despises so much are
capable of such things. I can't remember any character (including the mother of his children) who is described with genuine warmth
and affection, then best he could master is "that person could be useful to me in certain situations".
While the protagonist seems to be entirely driven by monetary incentives, he does not forget to regularly interrupt his quest
for a lengthy tirade about how capitalism is the worst (usually on the way to convince some capitalists to give him some money
so he could participate in capitalist venture and make some money for himself).
The author undoubtedly has a knack for storytelling and a keen eye (usually turned to finding faults in everything he sees),
so there are many interesting and entertaining bits in the book. But the overall negativity and constant droning of the author
about how everything around him is wrong from the mere atoms upwards is really wearing you down. I understand that's sort of "here's
what I am without any makeup, take it or leave it" but I really wish the it wasn't a whiny narcissistic nihilist...
Gethin Darklord 5.0 out of 5 stars
Revelatory epistole from Silicon Valley Reviewed in the United Kingdom on April 29, 2018
I really enjoyed this book which falls into two sections: before the author's employment with Facebook and afterwards until
he is fired. Mr Martinez comes across as a very self centred but brilliant techy geek and whilst unappealing as a friend his frank
discussions of his thoughts give an unusual degree of insight into his character; and of those like him. He actually manages to
explain how Facebook makes its money which is something I have never understood before. His assertion they wouldn't share your
data is charmingly Niaive in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal (2019) - the book was written some years before. Ultimately
it takes bravery to write frankly about one's own failures and this makes it distinct from the hagiographies and self congratulatory
books which characterise most business books. An interesting aside is his obvious erudition with well chosen classical quotations
at the head of each chapter. Recommended highly.
Jason 5.0 out of 5 stars
A great insight into Silicon Valley Reviewed in the United Kingdom on August 28, 2019
I don't read a great deal as I struggle to find books that capture me, 'Chaos Monkeys' had me within the first few pages.
A great account of Antonio's life chapters from Wall Street to Techie to startup and working with the big boys in Silicon Valley.
Really enjoyed the style of writing, very humorous in places, and great to get an insight into the large techie firms.
Couldn't wait to read more, read the book in a week which is excellent for me!
If you like the world of tech or IT, I recommend you read this book.
R. A. Mansfield 3.0 out of 5 stars
Frustrating and irritating Reviewed in the United Kingdom on May 26, 2019
There were parts of this book I enjoyed. The insight into tech start-ups, a brief window into Facebook and the life in San
Francisco were all interesting.
Sadly, these sections were marred by having to 'listen' to Martinez's overblown prose and sense of self-worth.
The self-deprecation doesn't sound genuine and - let's face it - he comes across as a complete tool. Not worth the money
Amazon Customer 5.0 out of 5 stars
Best bio read of the year Reviewed in the United Kingdom on July 4, 2020 Verified Purchase
This book had been on my list for a couple of years but I'd kept moving it down because of the gimmicky sounding title. It's
an amazing read, enhanced by the fact I personally know a couple of the people (briefly) mentioned. It presents an inside view
that I don't think is available in print anywhere else. Learnt so much and truly grateful to the author for writing it. If you
work in tech and read anything this year, it should be this.
T. Adshead5.0 out of 5 stars
Liar's Poker for the second tech bubble Reviewed in the United Kingdom on January 21, 2018
I cannot recommend this book enough - it reads as well as anything by Michael Lewis, perhaps better in some ways, as it's more
erudite. It puts you in the room of what it's like to work in a start-up, what happens when you sell it, how compensation works
in Silicon Valley and all those details you won't find in hagiographies of Jobs or Zuckerberg. And it really is well written.
As
Peter Hitchens noted recently "the most bitterly funny story of the week is that a defector
from North Korea thinks that even her homeland is 'not as nuts' as the indoctrination now
forced on Western students."
One of Yeonmi Park's initial shocks upon starting classes at Colombia University was to be
met with a frown after revealing to a staff member that she enjoyed reading Jane Austen. "Did
you know," Ms. Park was sternly admonished, "that those writers had a colonial mind-set? They
were racists and bigots and are subconsciously brainwashing you."
But after encountering the new requirement for the use of gender-neutral pronouns, Yeonmi
concluded: "Even North Korea is not this nuts North Korea was pretty crazy, but not this
crazy." Devastatingly honest, but not exactly a compliment to what once might have been the
land of her dreams.
Sadly, Hitchens reports that her previous experience served Yeonmi well to adapt to her new
situation: "She came to fear that making a fuss would affect her grades and her degree.
Eventually, she learned to keep quiet, as people do when they try to live under intolerant
regimes, and let the drivel wash over her."
Eastern European readers will unfailingly understand what it is that Hitchens meant to
say.
Australia's tertiary education system is large, complex, and poorly regulated. Its
government funding sources, governance structures and annual reporting requirements lack
transparency and are inconsistent between and within jurisdictions. Distorted government
priorities and discredited ideological fixations have created a dysfunctional system that
devalues the work of academics and professional staff while imposing ever higher burdens on
students to pay more for less.
These statements and
others like them reinforce a widely held perception that the Coalition is
focused solely on higher education's economic contribution to the nation. At the same time
as it has raised its expectations of commercial outcomes from higher education, it has imposed
a wide range of additional funding cuts to teaching and research.
It is therefore clear that it is not the Federal Government that will primarily bear the
burden of its tertiary education ambitions. That burden will continue to fall squarely upon
Australian academics, students and professional staff. The ways governance and funding are
currently structured virtually guarantees such an outcome.
However, the overall contribution to the higher education system from the Federal Government
has halved over the last thirty years, from
around 80% to less than 40% . It has been able to do this by clawing back a much higher
proportion of universities' teaching costs from domestic students. Most of this transfer of the
cost burden to students has happened under the Coalition.
Even though total government funding for the higher education system grew 114% in real terms
since 1989, increasing from
$5.6 billion to $12 billion in 2018-19 , the number of domestic students in the system grew
by 165%, increasing from around 410,000 in 1989 to 1,087,850
in 2019 .
Allocated funding for higher education in the 2019‒2020 Federal Budget was $17.7
billion. But again, this included funding of $5.8 billion for HECS-HELP loans. Therefore,
actual government funding was only $11.9 billion out of total revenue for the higher education
system of $36.73 billion for that financial year. In other words, less than a third of the
system's total revenue was provided by the Commonwealth that year, yet it continues to behave
as though its contribution is far higher.
The combination of reduced revenue from domestic tuition fees due to government funding cuts
and from international students due to COVID has inevitably forced all of Australia's public
universities to cut expenditure over the last twelve months.
By late March 2020, however, cost savings in the core functions of teaching and research
were being sought by university executives, even though the full financial implications of the
pandemic were still far from clear.
Because labour costs have sat at around 57% of total university expenditure for the last
decade, they are always at the top of managerial priorities for cost-cutting, rather than
their own inflated wages or
latest pet projects . Executives have imposed early retirement and redundancies on
thousands of staff with little or no consultation. Many more casual and contracted staff have
been laid off or had their positions terminated at the end of their contracts. All the
indications from university executives are that
many more jobs are on the chopping block .
Universities made at least
17,000 full-time equivalent positions redundant in 2020 . This constitutes around 13% of
the total tertiary workforce. However, given that around half of that workforce
is employed casually or on contract , and has been for at least a decade, the total job
losses probably translate to around 50-60,000 in total. In other words, these job cuts need to
be grasped in the context of the massive casualisation of university teaching and
administration over the last few decades.
According to Universities Australia (UA), there was
130,000 full-time equivalent staff directly employed in the system in 2017 . However, like
the universities themselves, UA is unwilling to publicly acknowledge the number of casuals
working in the system. In 2018, there were
94,500 people employed on a casual basis at Australian universities . It would seem
reasonable on that basis to conclude that as many as half of all casuals have either totally
lost any work they had, or have had their work hours significantly reduced. However, most
universities steadfastly refuse to make employee headcount data public, so the data we do have
is inaccurate.
This has been borne out by a recent study of Victorian public university job losses in 2020
published by accounting professors James Guthrie and Brendan O'Connell. They have found that
even in Victoria, where universities are obligated to publish their casual workforce figures,
universities used inconsistent terminology and different techniques for recording their
staffing numbers at the end of 2020 . One estimate
from early May that 7,500 university employees in Victoria lost their jobs in 2020 is
therefore almost certainly an underestimate. Guthrie and O'Connell also found that universities
are using accounting losses to justify reducing employment.
The release of twenty-one university annual reports over the last few weeks strongly
reinforces their observations. UTS professor John Howard argues that the figures reported in
these annual reports raise
serious questions about the extent to which the financial crisis of the tertiary system
has been exaggerated . He points out that all but one of these universities recorded cash
surpluses, which averaged around 3% of total revenue. However, eight of them posted deficits
after they included 'non-cash' expenses such as depreciation, amortisation and changes in
investment valuations: none of these categories of 'expenses' constitute tangible revenue
losses. The bulk of university 'losses' were in decreased returns on investments (around $600
million) and the depreciation of assets, which totalled more than $1.4 billion.
Howard also points out that Australian universities had accessible cash or cash equivalent
reserves of
$4.6 billion at the beginning of the pandemic . Their own estimates indicate revenue losses
in 2020-21 of $3.8 billion. In other words, most of Australia's public universities have ample
financial assets at their disposal to offset any short- to medium-term loss of revenue.
Depreciation, amortisation and finance costs have seen the most significant growth in
'expenses' over the last decade. According to Deloitte, this category of expenses has seen the
highest growth, at
7.5% as a year-on-year average . Universities' adoption of accrual accounting has enabled
them to write off the value of fixed assets more quickly to inflate their expense claims every
year. These inflated expenses are used as an excuse to sack staff and cut programs. Howard
argues that if public universities did not use this business accounting convention, none
of the twenty-one universities he studied would have recorded any earnings deficit in 2020
.
It should therefore be clear that the main problem public universities face is not a lack of
revenue, or a lack of disposable assets to ride through a crisis. Their main problem is a lack
of transparency and accountability at the executive level which has enabled them to misallocate
financial resources, together with a corporate governance regime that has empowered executives
to behave in this fashion. These two issues need to be front and centre of reform of the
Australian higher education system.
Dr Adam Lucas is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences
at the University of Wollongong. Adam's contemporary research focuses on energy policy
responses to anthropogenic climate change and obstacles to a sustainable energy
transition.
The corporatization of Australia's public universities has been driven by government
funding cuts and regressive changes to how universities are governed. The rationale for
corporatization was that it would encourage universities to become more entrepreneurial by
turning vice-chancellors into CEOs and governing bodies into corporate boards. The resulting
hybrid has been very successful at promoting university 'brands' to international students but
has utterly failed to maintain a supportive and collegial work environment for staff and
students on university campuses.
While it is indisputable that most Australian universities have experienced huge
growth in international student revenues over the last decade, the billions of dollars in
'operating surpluses' that have flowed through the system during this time have not been
invested in expanding and developing academic workforces, or
lowering staff-student ratios , or increasing teaching and learning support for students.
Instead, those responsible for making these decisions have
spent billions of dollars on construction and marketing programs that laud their
institutions' world-class status (usually in the techno-sciences), while systematically
degrading the working conditions of academic and professional staff and the quality of
education received by students.
Resources critical to the performance of a wide range of tasks and initiatives are regularly
withheld for no good reason. Hiring freezes and the imposition of annual staff performance
assessments further contribute to the general atmosphere of fear and anxiety promoted by senior
management, who never appear to have the same performance metrics applied to them. Student and
staff services that had previously been free or subsidized have been monetized and privatized.
Professional services and expertise that could easily be sourced 'in-house' are routinely
outsourced to external consultants.
Few of these negative trends are captured in the metrics senior management regularly deploy
to spruik the virtues of their universities to students, parents and potential donors.
Preoccupied with 'cost recovery', 'performance metrics' and 'efficiency dividends', senior
managers and executives have reconstructed staff and students as revenue-generators who are
surplus to requirements if not producing financial surpluses and/or 'measurable outcomes' that
contribute to improved university rankings. International league tables, performance
monitoring, teaching and research excellence awards, and all the other 'metrics of excellence'
with which university executives and managers are currently obsessed are means to these
ends.
These legislative changes have been primarily motivated by a long-held belief within the
Coalition and certain elements of the Labor Party that universities should be run like
corporations. Those who have embraced this belief are convinced that business and industry
provide the best models for university governance because they always perform better than
public sector institutions.
Following the Dawkins reforms of Australia's higher education system in the early 1990s,
this item of faith has been progressively embedded in all of the administrative and managerial
functions of universities. As successive state and federal governments have continued to reduce
funding to the system they have sought to graft an increasingly Frankensteinian model of
'corporate governance' onto Australia's public universities.
For example, in 2012 the NSW Coalition Government inserted specific clauses in the
enabling
NSW legislation concerning university governance and finances which specify that appointed
members require financial and management experience, while those sub-clauses specifying
requirements for tertiary, professional and community experience have been removed. Similar
changes to university acts were made by the
WA Coalition Government in 2016 .
In a public corporation, the executive is accountable to shareholders and the board of
directors. Poor performance is questioned, and senior executives and managers can be removed if
the board or shareholders are unhappy with that performance. However, unlike corporate boards,
which are answerable to their shareholders, and to some extent, the public as 'clients' or
'consumers' of their goods and services, the accountability of university governing bodies is
effectively restricted to financial issues.
The auditors-general of each state and territory are empowered to annually scrutinize the
financial
accounts of all universities under their jurisdiction . Even so, it is highly unusual for
them to call universities to account for anything other than minor infringements of accounting
rules and standards. They have rarely shown any willingness to delve deeply into university
finances under their jurisdiction, despite some clear cases of
maladministration, mismanagement and even corruption . There is no evidence that any audits
have ever uncovered wrongdoing, conflicts of interest, or incidents of malfeasance, even though
we know from our own colleagues in administrative positions at multiple universities that such
behaviour is not at all uncommon.
Universities, therefore, have the worst of both worlds as far as their governance is
concerned. Staff and students have little or no say over how priorities are set and strategies
are pursued. They are subject to the whims of management, who generally regard academics as an
obstacle to the efficient running of 'their' universities, and who have no legitimate
contributions to make as far as they are concerned. They rarely admit to having made mistakes
or demonstrate any willingness to learn from them.
To illustrate this point, in the wake of COVID, it would make sense to proportionally cut
back on staffing and resources in those areas that had the highest proportions of international
students, and those related to their support and recruitment. However, there is no evidence
from any decisions made to date by university executives that these disciplines or activities
have borne the brunt of 'cost savings'. On the contrary, even prior to the current pandemic,
the arts, humanities and social sciences have been targeted for job cuts, including
non-replacement of tenured academics that have retired or resigned. In most of these instances,
the financial cases for these cuts have been based on decisions that have little or no evidence
to support them.
Many academics and students feel that senior managers target disciplines in these fields
because those who work and study in them are willing to speak out against management and
executive excesses. Critical thinking, teaching and research is deemed by university leaders to
be acceptable within those contexts,
but not when reflexively applied to their decision-making .
All of the distorted priorities that universities manifest today are an outcome of the
inappropriate and dysfunctional corporate governance and reporting models that successive
governments have imposed on universities throughout the country over many years. It is
noteworthy that Coalition governments throughout the country have made successive changes to
university acts that have the clear intention of disenfranchising staff and students from any
meaningful input into university governance.
It should be abundantly clear from all this that the existing legislation concerning
university governance is deeply flawed. It is an obstacle to better university governance and
degrades the value and quality of education for our young people and the next generation of
professionals. It also devalues the work of academic and professional staff and demonstrates no
capacity for critical self-reflection. It is therefore completely inadequate to the task of
confronting the enormous challenges that humanity faces in the twenty-first century.
We need to start a national conversation about the kinds of changes that are needed to bring
about genuine reform of Australia's higher education system. A good start would be to focus on
the ways in which university governing bodies are organized and constituted, with a particular
focus on how and why different categories of members are selected and represented.
Democratic accountability and transparency should be embedded in every new process and
structure.
Dr Adam Lucas is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Humanities, Arts and Social
Sciences at the University of Wollongong. Adam's contemporary research focuses on energy
policy responses to anthropogenic climate change and obstacles to a sustainable energy
transition.
"... He defines "wokeism" as a creed that has arisen in America in response to the "moral vacuum" created by the ebbing from public life of faith, patriotism and "the identity we derived from hard work." He argues that notions like "diversity," "equity," "inclusion" and "sustainability" have come to take their place. ..."
"... "Our collective moral insecurities," Mr. Ramaswamy says, "have left us vulnerable" to the blandishments and propaganda of the new political and corporate elites, who are now locked in a cynical "arranged marriage, where each partner has contempt for the other." Each side is getting out of the "trade" something it "could not have gotten alone." ..."
"... Wokeness entered its union with capitalism in the years following the 2008 financial panic and recession. Mr. Ramaswamy believes that conditions were perfect for the match. "We were -- and are -- in the midst of the biggest intergenerational wealth transfer in history," he says. Barack Obama had just been elected the first black president. By the end of the crisis, Americans "were actually pretty jaded with respect to capitalism. Corporations were the bad guys. The old left wanted to take money from corporations and give it to poor people." ..."
"... The birth of wokeism was a godsend to corporations, Mr. Ramaswamy says. It helped defang the left. "Wokeism lent a lifeline to the people who were in charge of the big banks. They thought, 'This stuff is easy!' " They applauded diversity and inclusion, appointed token female and minority directors, and "mused about the racially disparate impact of climate change." So, in Mr. Ramaswamy's narrative, "a bunch of big banks got together with a bunch of millennials, birthed woke capitalism, and then put Occupy Wall Street up for adoption." Now, in Mr. Ramaswamy's tart verdict, "big business makes money by critiquing itself." ..."
"... Davos is "the Woke Vatican," Mr. Ramaswamy says; Al Gore and Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock , are "its archbishops." CEOs "further down the chain" -- he mentions James Quincey of Coca-Cola , Ed Bastian of Delta , Marc Benioff of Salesforce , John Donahoe of Nike and Alan Jope of Unilever -- are its "cardinals." ..."
"... He describes this sort of corporate imposition -- "a market force supplanting open political debate to settle the essence of political questions" -- as one of the "defining challenges" America faces today. "If democracy means anything," he adds, "it means living in a one-person-one-vote system, not a one-dollar-one-vote system." Voters' voices "are unadjusted by the number of dollars we wield in the marketplace." Open debate in the public square is "our uniquely American mechanism" of settling political questions. He likens the woke-corporate silencing of debate as akin to the "old-world European model, where a small group of elites gets in a room and decides what's good for everyone else." ..."
"... The wokeism-capitalism embrace, Mr. Ramaswamy says, was replicated in Silicon Valley. Over the past few years, "Big Tech effectively agreed to censor -- or 'moderate' -- content that the woke movement didn't like. But they didn't do it for free." In return, the left "agreed to look the other way when it comes to leaving Silicon Valley's monopoly power intact." This arrangement is "working out masterfully" for both sides. ..."
"... Coca-Cola follows the same playbook, he says: "It's easier for them to issue statements about voting laws in Georgia, or to train their employees on how to 'be less white,' than it is to publicly reckon with its role in fueling a nationwide epidemic of diabetes and obesity -- including in the black communities they profess to care about so much." (In a statement, Coca-Cola apologized for the "be less white" admonition and said that while it was "accessible through our company training platform," it "was not a part of our training curriculum.") ..."
"... Nike finds it much easier to write checks to Black Lives Matter and condemn America's history of slavery, Mr. Ramaswamy says, even as it relies on "slave labor" today to sell "$250 sneakers to black kids in the inner city who can't afford to buy books for school." All the while, Black Lives Matter "neuters the police in a way that sacrifices even more black lives." (Nike has said in a statement that its code of conduct prohibits any use of forced labor and "we have been engaging with multi-stakeholder working groups to assess collective solutions that will help preserve the integrity of our global supply chains.") ..."
"... Mr. Varadarajan, a Journal contributor, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and at New York University Law School's Classical Liberal Institute. ..."
"... Seems to me in a nutshell he is saying that these woke corporations are all hypocrites. No surprise there hypocrisy is a defining characteristic of the woke left and you need to assume that characteristic yourself to be able to work within their bounds. ..."
"... Wokeists argue that theirs is not a religion because it doesn't center on a transcendent being. I see Wokeism as a religion that gathers multiple Secularist sects into a big tent. These sects include Environmentalism, Genderism, Anti-Racism, and more. ..."
"... One thing all religions share in common is the elevation of questionable premises to unassailable truths which they defend with religious zeal. Some questionable premises elevated to unassailable truths by Wokeism are that humans are making the Earth uninhabitable, gender is an individual choice, and race is the most important human characteristic. There are more. ..."
A self-made multimillionaire who founded a biotech company at 28, Vivek Ramaswamy is every
inch the precocious overachiever. He tells me he attended law school while he was in sixth
grade. He's joking, in his own earnest manner. His father, an aircraft engineer at General
Electric, had decided to get a law degree at night school. Vivek sat in on the classes with
him, so he could keep his dad company on the long car rides to campus and back -- a very Indian
filial act.
"I was probably the only person my age who'd heard of Antonin Scalia, " Mr. Ramaswamy, 35,
says in a Zoom call from his home in West Chester, Ohio. His father, a political liberal, would
often rage on the way home from class about "some Scalia opinion." Mr. Ramaswamy reckons that
this was when he began to form his own political ideas. A libertarian in high school, he
switched to being conservative at Harvard in "an act of rebellion" against the politics he
found there. That conservatism drove him to step down in January as CEO at Roivant Sciences --
the drug-development company that made him rich -- and write "Woke, Inc," a book that takes a
scathing look at "corporate America's social-justice scam." (It will be published in
August.)
Mr. Ramaswamy recently watched the movie "Spotlight," which tells the story of how reporters
at the Boston Globe exposed misconduct (specifically, sexual abuse) by Catholic priests in the
early 2000s. "My goal in 'Woke, Inc.' is to do the same thing with respect to the Church of
Wokeism." He defines "wokeism" as a creed that has arisen in America in response to the "moral
vacuum" created by the ebbing from public life of faith, patriotism and "the identity we
derived from hard work." He argues that notions like "diversity," "equity," "inclusion" and
"sustainability" have come to take their place.
"Our collective moral insecurities," Mr. Ramaswamy says, "have left us vulnerable" to the
blandishments and propaganda of the new political and corporate elites, who are now locked in a
cynical "arranged marriage, where each partner has contempt for the other." Each side is
getting out of the "trade" something it "could not have gotten alone."
Wokeness entered its union with capitalism in the years following the 2008 financial panic
and recession. Mr. Ramaswamy believes that conditions were perfect for the match. "We were --
and are -- in the midst of the biggest intergenerational wealth transfer in history," he says.
Barack Obama had just been elected the first black president. By the end of the crisis,
Americans "were actually pretty jaded with respect to capitalism. Corporations were the bad
guys. The old left wanted to take money from corporations and give it to poor people."
The birth of wokeism was a godsend to corporations, Mr. Ramaswamy says. It helped defang the
left. "Wokeism lent a lifeline to the people who were in charge of the big banks. They thought,
'This stuff is easy!' " They applauded diversity and inclusion, appointed token female and
minority directors, and "mused about the racially disparate impact of climate change." So, in
Mr. Ramaswamy's narrative, "a bunch of big banks got together with a bunch of millennials,
birthed woke capitalism, and then put Occupy Wall Street up for adoption." Now, in Mr.
Ramaswamy's tart verdict, "big business makes money by critiquing itself."
Mr. Ramaswamy regards Klaus Schwab, founder and CEO of the World Economic Forum in Davos,
Switzerland, as the "patron saint of wokeism" for his relentless propagation of "stakeholder
capitalism" -- the view that the unspoken bargain in the grant to corporations of limited
liability is that they "must do social good on the side."
Davos is "the Woke Vatican," Mr. Ramaswamy says; Al Gore and Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock , are "its
archbishops." CEOs "further down the chain" -- he mentions James Quincey of Coca-Cola , Ed Bastian of Delta , Marc Benioff of
Salesforce , John
Donahoe of Nike and
Alan Jope of Unilever
-- are its "cardinals."
Mr. Ramaswamy says that "unlike the investigative 'Spotlight' team at the Boston Globe, I'm
a whistleblower, not a journalist. But the church analogy holds strong." He paraphrases a line
in the movie: "It takes a village to raise a child, then it takes a village to abuse one. In
the case of my book, the child I'm concerned about is American democracy."
In league with the woke left, corporate America "uses force" as a substitute for open
deliberation and debate, Mr. Ramaswamy says. "There's the sustainability accounting standards
board of BlackRock, which effectively demands that in order to win an investment from
BlackRock, the largest asset-manager in the world, you must abide by the standards of that
board."
Was the board put in place by the owners of the trillions of dollars of capital that Mr.
Fink manages? Of course not, Mr. Ramaswamy says. "And yet he's actually using his seat of
corporate power to sidestep debate about questions like environmentalism or diversity on
boards."
The irrepressible Mr. Ramaswamy presses on with another example. Goldman Sachs , he says with obvious relish,
"is a very Davos-fitting example." At the 2020 World Economic Forum, Goldman Sachs CEO David
Solomon "issued an edict from the mountaintops of Davos." Mr. Solomon announced his company
would refuse to take a company public if its board wasn't sufficiently diverse. "So Goldman
gets to define what counts as 'diverse,' " Mr. Ramaswamy says. "No doubt, they're referring to
skin-deep, genetically inherited attributes."
He describes this sort of corporate imposition -- "a market force supplanting open political
debate to settle the essence of political questions" -- as one of the "defining challenges"
America faces today. "If democracy means anything," he adds, "it means living in a
one-person-one-vote system, not a one-dollar-one-vote system." Voters' voices "are unadjusted
by the number of dollars we wield in the marketplace." Open debate in the public square is "our
uniquely American mechanism" of settling political questions. He likens the woke-corporate
silencing of debate as akin to the "old-world European model, where a small group of elites
gets in a room and decides what's good for everyone else."
The wokeism-capitalism embrace, Mr. Ramaswamy says, was replicated in Silicon Valley. Over
the past few years, "Big Tech effectively agreed to censor -- or 'moderate' -- content that the
woke movement didn't like. But they didn't do it for free." In return, the left "agreed to look
the other way when it comes to leaving Silicon Valley's monopoly power intact." This
arrangement is "working out masterfully" for both sides.
The rest of corporate America appears to be following suit. "There's a Big Pharma version,
too," Mr. Ramaswamy says. "Big Pharma had an epiphany in dealing with the left." It couldn't
beat them, so it joined them. "Rather than win the debate on drug pricing, they decided to just
change the subject instead. Who needs to win a debate if you can just avoid having it?" So we
see "big-time pharma CEOs musing about topics like racial justice and environmentalism, and
writing multibillion-dollar checks to fight climate change, while taking price hikes that
they'd previously paused when the public was angry about drug pricing."
Coca-Cola follows the same playbook, he says: "It's easier for them to issue statements
about voting laws in Georgia, or to train their employees on how to 'be less white,' than it is
to publicly reckon with its role in fueling a nationwide epidemic of diabetes and obesity --
including in the black communities they profess to care about so much." (In a statement,
Coca-Cola apologized
for the "be less white" admonition and said that while it was "accessible through our company
training platform," it "was not a part of our training curriculum.")
Nike finds it much easier to write checks to Black Lives Matter and condemn America's
history of slavery, Mr. Ramaswamy says, even as it relies on "slave labor" today to sell "$250
sneakers to black kids in the inner city who can't afford to buy books for school." All the
while, Black Lives Matter "neuters the police in a way that sacrifices even more black lives."
(Nike has said in a statement that its code of conduct prohibits any use of forced labor and
"we have been engaging with multi-stakeholder working groups to assess collective solutions
that will help preserve the integrity of our global supply chains.")
... ... ...
Mr. Varadarajan, a Journal contributor, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute
and at New York University Law School's Classical Liberal Institute.
Rod Drake 53 minutes ago
Seems to me in a nutshell he is saying that these woke corporations are all hypocrites. No
surprise there hypocrisy is a defining characteristic of the woke left and you need to assume
that characteristic yourself to be able to work within their bounds.
In addition, I have been
saying for some time discrimination based on political belief desperately needs to be
included as a prohibited basis. Where are the Republicans, while the greatest civil rights
violation of our time is going on right under their noses?
Terry Overbey 1 hour ago
I love reading stories about people who are willing to take on the woke political class. For
most people, even if they strongly disagree, their only option is to bite their tongue and go
along. People aren't stupid. If you buck the system, you don't get promoted, you don't get
good grades, you don't get into elite schools, you don't get the government job.
Thank you Mr Ramaswany.
James Ransom 1 hour ago
Well. If nothing else, he just sold me a book. I think we should say that "Wokeism" tries to
"Act Like" a religion, not that it is one. Because of this fakery, we do not need to give it
"freedom" in the sense that we have "Freedom of Religion."
These misguided Americans perhaps need to be exposed to a real religion. Christianity and
Buddhism would be good choices; I don't know about Hinduism, but my point is that "Wokeism"
is more like a mental disorder. We should feel sorry for its victims, offer them treatment,
but not let them run anything.
marc goodman 1 hour ago
Wokeists argue that theirs is not a religion because it doesn't center on a transcendent
being. I see Wokeism as a religion that gathers multiple Secularist sects into a big tent.
These sects include Environmentalism, Genderism, Anti-Racism, and more.
One thing all religions share in common is the elevation of questionable premises to
unassailable truths which they defend with religious zeal. Some questionable premises
elevated to unassailable truths by Wokeism are that humans are making the Earth
uninhabitable, gender is an individual choice, and race is the most important human
characteristic. There are more.
Humans need to believe in something greater than themselves. We fulfill this need with
religion, and historically, the "greater something" has been a transcendent being. Wokeism
fulfills this need for its adherents but without a transcendent being. Ultimately, Wokeism
will fail as a religion because it can't nourish the soul like the belief in a transcendent
being does.
Grodney Ross 2 hours ago (Edited)
Judgement will be passed in November of 2022. I don't see this as a Democrat vs Republican
issue. I think it's a matter of who is paying attention vs. those who are not. We live in a
society where, generally, the most strident voices are on the left, along with the most
judgmental voices. When the "wokeless" engage in a manner that conflicts with views of the
woke, they are attacked, be you from the left or the right, so you keep your mouth shut and go
about your day.
I believe that this coming election will give voice to those who are fatigued and fed up
with the progressive lefts venom and vitriol. If not, we will survive, but without a meaningful
first amendment,14th amendment, or 2nd amendment.
Barbara Helton 2 hours ago (Edited)
Being woke, when practiced by the wealthy and influential, can be extremely similar to
bullying.
Money quote from comments: "When news of this proposed standard came out, I read the actual
standard because I wanted to see if it really was that bad. Things were reported like, "Saying
an answer is 'wrong' is racist. There is no right and wrong in math, just shades of truth."
These kinds of things are worrisome. So I read a good chunk of the proposal, and I couldn't
find anything like that. Instead, I found their point was that anyone has the capability of
learning math, and so we should be teaching it to everyone. If people aren't learning it, then
that's a problem with our teaching methods.
Not sure Google and Apple will be happy. Clearly programming languages are racists as almost
all of them were created by white guys and they disproportionally punish poor coders...
A plan to reimagine math instruction for 6 million California students has become
ensnared in equity and fairness issues -- with critics saying proposed guidelines will hold
back gifted students and supporters saying it will, over time, give all kindergartners through
12th-graders a better chance to excel. From a report: The proposed new guidelines aim to
accelerate achievement while making mathematical understanding more accessible and valuable to
as many students as possible, including those shut out from high-level math in the past because
they had been "tracked" in lower level classes. The guidelines call on educators generally to
keep all students in the same courses until their junior year in high school, when they can
choose advanced subjects, including calculus, statistics and other forms of data
science.
Although still a draft, the Mathematics Framework achieved a milestone Wednesday, earning
approval from the state's Instructional Quality Commission. The members of that body moved the
framework along, approving numerous recommendations that a writing team is expected to
incorporate. The commission told writers to remove a document that had become a point of
contention for critics. It described its goals as calling out systemic racism in mathematics,
while helping educators create more inclusive, successful classrooms. Critics said it
needlessly injected race into the study of math. The state Board of Education is scheduled to
have the final say in November.
When news of this proposed standard came out, I read the actual standard because I wanted to
see if it really was that bad. Things were reported like, "Saying an answer is 'wrong' is
racist. There is no right and wrong in math, just shades of truth." These kinds of things are
worrisome.
So I read a good chunk of the proposal, and I couldn't find anything like that. Instead, I
found their point was that anyone has the capability of learning math, and so we should be
teaching it to everyone. If people aren't learning it, then that's a problem with our teaching
methods.
I also found that instead of getting rid of calculus, they are suggesting that you learn
calculus as a Junior or Senior in high school. This seems fine to me.
Does the curriculum for grades 1-10 have the appropriate foundational education for kids in
grades 11-12 to actually succeed in a calculus class? Because if not, then the notion that any
significant portion of juniors and seniors will be able take a calculus class is just a
fantasy. Re:
That is the goal, but I am not enough of an expert to know whether they reached their goal
or not. Re:
Reading (mostly skimming) through chapter 8 (about grades 9-12), a couple things stick
out:
First off, they define three different possible "pathways" for grades 9-10, which seems
completely in opposition to goal of a "common ninth- and tenth- grade experience." It sounds
like they envision that some high schools will only provide a single pathway while others will
provide multiple ones -- but it seems incredibly obvious that that's going to put students on
different tracks.
in 40 years since I did it. (I have been helping my kids.)
Which is a problem, because the world has changed with the advent of computers.
So they work on quite difficult symbolic integrations. But absolutely nothing on numerical
methods (and getting the rounding errors correct) which is far more useful in the modern
world.
For non-specialist students, there is almost nothing on how to really build a spreadsheet
model. That again is a far more useful skill than any calculus or more advanced algebra.
And then Re: I can't believe this
white supremacy I doubt they could get AP Calculus to work. It's going to have to be an
easier version of pre Calculus. Because of how they schedule the classes today, some kids take
summer courses so that they can get the prerequisites in time. Keeping everyone at the same
slow pace is painful for the stronger students. I'm wondering if they are having trouble
finding teachers who are qualified to teach math. Kumon The ones
whose parents can send them to Kumon or Russian Math after school, will have the capacity.
Those who cant even if they were smart enough for the accelerated program under current system
wont. With any law follow the money- see who will make money from this. Re:I can't believe
this white supremacy (
Score: 4 , Insightful) by CrappySnackPlane ( 7852536 ) on Monday May 31,
2021 @04:14PM ( #61440460 )
Which planet did you go to school on?
Here on Earth, here's how "everyone learns calculus in 11th grade" works:
The entire class has to stop and wait for the kids who are genuinely overwhelmed - be it
because they're smart-but-poor-and-hungry or, you know, because they're just fucking
dumb , both types exist, it doesn't matter - to catch up, because the teacher's job
rests on whether 79% or 80% of their students score a passing grade on the statewide
achiev^H^H^H^H^H^H (whoops, can't have achievements, that's ableist) "performance" tests. The
teacher, being a rational creature who understands how to make sure their family's bread
remains buttered, spends the bulk of their time helping along little Jethro and Barbie.
The bright kids are left bored out of their minds, and the "solution" presented by these
absolute shitstains is to suggest the bright kids do after-school activities if they want to
actually learn. Like, that's great for the 1% who genuinely love math the way some kids
love music or acting or sports, but what about the 25% or so who are really gifted at math and
would like to do more with it, but aren't so passionate about it that they want to give up more
of their precious dwindling free time to pursue it? What about the 50% who aren't necessarily
great at math but could certainly learn a lot more if the class wasn't being stopped every two
minutes to re-re-remind little Goobclot that "x" was actually a number, not just a letter?
Look, I absolutely agree that it's bad to write kids off as dumb. But Harrison
Bergeron is not included in the "Utopian Literature of the 20th Century" curriculum for a
reason. There's a flipside, and none of these "one size fits all" proposals does anything to
convince me that the proponents have actually seriously considered the other side of the coin.
Reply to This Parent Share FlagRe:I can't believe this
white supremacy (
Score: 2 ) by systemd-anonymousd ( 6652324 ) on Monday May 31,
2021 @06:26PM ( #61440894 )
My local school district is removing all AP math courses because they believe a disparity in
race in the students represents racism, and/or they just don't want to have to look at the
situation. I know the precursors to this sort of racist policy when I see it, and documents
that espouse a trifecta of equity, inclusivity, and diversity are fully intended to pull crabs
back down into the boiling bucket. Re:final countdown (
Score: 2 ) by gweihir ( 88907
) on Monday May 31, 2021 @05:31PM ( #61440734 )
Next step is mandatory lobotomies for smarter kids or something like it. Because they
obviously violate the dumber ones by setting an example the dumber ones can never hope to
reach. See also "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut.
Reply to This Parent Share
This is a very short book, almost an essay -- 136 pages. It was published in October 2004, four years before financial crisis of
2008, which put the first nail in the coffin of neoliberalism. It addresses the cultural politics of neo-liberalism ("the
Great Deception")
Notable quotes:
"... By now, we've all heard about the shocking redistribution of wealth that's occurred during the last thirty years, and particularly during the last decade. But economic changes like this don't occur in a vacuum; they're always linked to politics. ..."
"... Ultimately, The Twilight of Equality? not only reveals how the highly successful rhetorical maneuvers of neoliberalism have functioned ..."
"... The titles of her four chapters--Downsizing Democracy, The Incredible Shrinking Public, Equality, Inc., Love AND Money--summarize her argument. ..."
"... Her target is neoliberalism, which she sees as a broadly controlling corporate agenda which seeks world domination, privatization of governmental decision-making, and marginalization of unions, low-income people, racial and sexual minorities while presenting to the public a benign and inclusive facade. ..."
"... Neo-liberalism seeks to upwardly distribute money, power, and status, she writes, while progressive movements seek to downwardly distribute money, power, and status. The unity of the downwardly distribution advocates should match the unity of the upwardly distribution advocates in order to be effective, she writes. ..."
"... "There is nothing stable or inevitable in the alliances supporting neoliberal agendas in the U.S. and globally," she writes. "The alliances linking neoliberal global economics, and conservative and right-wing domestic politics, and the culture wars are provisional--and fading...." ..."
"... For example, she discusses neoliberal attempts to be "multicultural," but points out that economic resources are constantly redistributed upward. Neoliberal politics, she argues, has only reinforced and increased the divide between economic and social political issues. ..."
"... Because neoliberal politicians wish to save neoliberalism by reforming it, she argues that proposing alternate visions and ideas have been blocked. ..."
By now, we've all heard about the shocking redistribution of wealth that's occurred during the last thirty years, and
particularly during the last decade. But economic changes like this don't occur in a vacuum; they're always linked to politics.
The Twilight of Equality? searches out these links through an analysis of the politics of the 1990s, the decade when
neoliberalism-free market economics-became gospel.
After a brilliant historical examination of how racial and gender inequities were woven into the very theoretical underpinnings
of the neoliberal model of the state, Duggan shows how these inequities play out today. In a series of political case studies,
Duggan reveals how neoliberal goals have been pursued, demonstrating that progressive arguments that separate identity politics and
economic policy, cultural politics and affairs of state, can only fail.
Ultimately, The Twilight of Equality? not only reveals how the highly successful rhetorical maneuvers of neoliberalism have
functioned but, more importantly, it shows a way to revitalize and unify progressive politics in the U.S. today.
Mona Cohen 5.0 out of 5 stars A Critique of Neoliberalism and the Divided Resistance to It July 3, 2006
Lisa Duggan is intensely interested in American politics, and has found political life in the United States to have been "such
a wild ride, offering moments of of dizzying hope along with long stretches of political depression." She is grateful for "many
ideas about political depression, and how to survive it," and she has written a excellent short book that helps make sense of
many widely divergent political trends.
Her book is well-summarized by its concluding paragraph, which I am breaking up into additional paragraphs for greater
clarity:
"Now at this moment of danger and opportunity, the progressive left is mobilizing against neoliberalism and possible new or
continuing wars.
"These mobilizations might become sites for factional struggles over the disciplining of troops, in the name of unity at a
time of crisis and necessity. But such efforts will fail; the troops will not be disciplined, and the disciplinarians will be
left to their bitterness.
"Or, we might find ways of think, speaking, writing and acting that are engaged and curious about "other people's" struggles
for social justice, that are respectfully affiliative and dialogic rather than pedagogical, that that look for the hopeful spots
to expand upon, and that revel in the pleasure of political life.
"For it is pleasure AND collective caretaking, love AND the egalitarian circulation of money--allied to clear and hard-headed
political analysis offered generously--that will create the space for a progressive politics that might both imagine and
create...something worth living for."
The titles of her four chapters--Downsizing Democracy, The Incredible Shrinking Public, Equality, Inc., Love AND
Money--summarize her argument.
She expected upon her high school graduation in 1972, she writes, that "active and expanding social movements seemed capable
of ameliorating conditions of injustice and inequality, poverty, war and imperialism....I had no idea I was not perched at a
great beginning, but rather at a denouement, as the possibilities for progressive social change encountered daunting historical
setbacks beginning in 1972...."
Her target is neoliberalism, which she sees as a broadly controlling corporate agenda which seeks world domination,
privatization of governmental decision-making, and marginalization of unions, low-income people, racial and sexual minorities
while presenting to the public a benign and inclusive facade.
Neo-liberalism seeks to upwardly distribute money, power, and status, she writes, while progressive movements seek to
downwardly distribute money, power, and status. The unity of the downwardly distribution advocates should match the unity of the
upwardly distribution advocates in order to be effective, she writes.
Her belief is that all groups threatened by the neoliberal paradigm should unite against it, but such unity is threatened by
endless differences of perspectives. By minutely analyzing many of the differences, and expanding understanding of diverse
perspectives, she tries to remove them as obstacles towards people and organizations working together to achieve both unique and
common aims.
This is good book for those interested in the history and current significance of numerous progressive ideological arguments.
It is a good book for organizers of umbrella organizations and elected officials who work with diverse social movements. By
articulating points of difference, the author depersonalizes them and aids in overcoming them.
Those who are interested in electoral strategies, however, will be disappointed. The interrelationship between neoliberalism
as a governing ideology and neoliberalism as a political strategy is not discussed here. It is my view that greater and more
focused and inclusive political organizing has the potential to win over a good number of the those who see support of
neoliberalism's policy initiatives as a base-broadening tactic more than as a sacred cause.
"There is nothing stable or inevitable in the alliances supporting neoliberal agendas in the U.S. and globally," she
writes. "The alliances linking neoliberal global economics, and conservative and right-wing domestic politics, and the culture
wars are provisional--and fading...."
Reading this book adds to one's understanding of labels, and political and intellectual distinctions. It has too much jargon
for my taste, but not so much as to be impenetrable. It is an excellent summarization and synthesis of the goals, ideologies, and
histories of numerous social movements, both famous and obscure.
Duggan
articulately connects social and economic issues to each other, arguing that neoliberal
politics have divided the two when in actuality, they cannot be separated from one another.
In the introduction, Duggan argues that politics have become neoliberal - while politics
operate under the guise of promoting social change or social stability, in reality, she argues,
politicians have failed to make the connection between economic and social/cultural issues. She
uses historical background to prove the claim that economic and social issues can be separated
from each other is false.
For example, she discusses neoliberal attempts to be "multicultural," but points out that
economic resources are constantly redistributed upward. Neoliberal politics, she argues, has
only reinforced and increased the divide between economic and social political issues.
After the introduction, Duggan focuses on a specific topic in each chapter: downsizing
democracy, the incredible shrinking public, equality, and love and money. In the first chapter
(downsizing democracy), she argues that through violent imperial assertion in the Middle East,
budget cuts in social services, and disillusionments in political divides, "capitalists could
actually bring down capitalism" (p. 2).
Because neoliberal politicians wish to save neoliberalism by reforming it, she argues that
proposing alternate visions and ideas have been blocked. Duggan provides historical background
that help the reader connect early nineteenth century U.S. legislation (regarding voting rights
and slavery) to perpetuated institutional prejudices.
I can understand the frustrations and rage of certain folks.
If you're a worker on an oil rig, a truck driver, a policeman, or some such jobs, there's
bound to be moments when you're angry as hell. So, even though such people say crazy things
once a while, I can understand where they're coming from. They need to blow off steam.
But the professor class? These lowlife parasites sit on their asses and talk shi*. They
produce nothing and make a living by spreading nonsense. And yet, they act like they are
soooooooooo angry with the way of the world. If they really care about the world, why hide in
their academic enclaves?
Academia needs a cultural revolution, a real kind, not the bogus 'woke' kind made up of
teachers' pets.
Over the last decade or so, Sci-Hub, often referred to as "The Pirate Bay of Science,"
has been giving free access to a huge database of scientific papers that would otherwise be
locked behind a paywall.
Unsurprisingly, the website has been the target of multiple lawsuits, as well as an
investigation from the United States Department of Justice. The site's Twitter account was
also
recently suspended under Twitter's counterfeit policy, and its founder, Alexandra
Elbakyan, reported that the FBI
gained access to her Apple accounts .
Now, Redditors from a subreddit called DataHoarder, which is aimed at archiving
knowledge in the digital space, have come together to try to save the numerous papers
available on the website. In a
post on May 13 , the moderators of r/DataHoarder, stated that "it's time we sent Elsevier
and the USDOJ a clearer message about the fate of Sci-Hub and open science.
We are the library, we do not get silenced, we do not shut down our computers, and we
are many." This will be no easy task. Sci-Hub is home to over 85 million papers, totaling a
staggering 77TB of data . The group of Redditors is currently recruiting for its archiving
efforts and its stated goal is to have approximately 8,500 individuals torrenting the papers
in order to download the entire library. Once that task is complete, the Redditors aim to
release all of the downloaded data via a new "uncensorable" open-source website.
"... "Consider hiring me to do your assignment," reads a bid from one auction site. "I work fast, pay close attention to the instructions, and deliver a plagiarism-free paper." ..."
"... ... For the final exam, Mr. Johnson, a course coordinator, said he used a computer program that generated a unique set of questions for each student. Those questions quickly showed up on a for-profit homework website that helped him to identify who posted them. ..."
"... About 200 students were caught cheating -- one-fourth of the class. Overall, cases of academic dishonesty more than doubled in the 2019-20 academic year at NC State, with the biggest uptick as students made the transition to online learning, according to the school. ..."
"... Surprised that the use of apps like Photomath and mathway weren't mentioned. Students can just take a photo of a math problem, specify the directions and copy the steps. ..."
"... I've taugh at the high school and college level. I recently taught engineering at a NC high school. Within a couple months of Zoom teaching, I realized that cheating was rampant. I had numerous blatant examples of straight copy-and-paste cheating. ..."
"... The colleges have been cheating students for decades selling worthless programs and false information to students at exorbitant rates. So who is surprised that the students learned to cheat themselves. ..."
"... What the article needs to cover is the enormous amount of cheating done on SATs, GREs, LSATs, etc. to get into prestigious universities -- especially by prospective students who'll be here on an F1 visa. ..."
"... Such cheating is legendary among some cultures but the PC crowd won't want to hear about that, will they. We need their electronics and their widgets and such best not to rock that boat. P ..."
A year of
remote learning has spurred an eruption of cheating among students, from grade school to college. With many students isolated
at home over the past year""and with a mass of online services at their disposal""academic dishonesty has never been so easy.
Websites that allow students to submit questions for expert answers have gained millions of new users over the past year. A newer
breed of site allows students to put up their own classwork for auction.
"Consider hiring me to do your assignment," reads a bid from one auction site. "I work fast, pay close attention to the instructions,
and deliver a plagiarism-free paper."
... For the final exam, Mr. Johnson, a course coordinator, said he used a computer program that generated a unique set of questions
for each student. Those questions quickly showed up on a for-profit homework website that helped him to identify who posted them.
About 200 students were caught cheating""one-fourth of the class. Overall, cases of academic dishonesty more than doubled in the
2019-20 academic year at NC State, with the biggest uptick as students made the transition to online learning, according to the school.
Texas A&M University had a 50% increase in cheating allegations in the fall from a year earlier, with one incident involving 193
students self-reporting academic misconduct to receive lighter punishment after faculty members caught on, a university official
said. The University of Pennsylvania saw cheating case investigations grow 71% in the 2019-20 academic year, school data shows.
Dozens of cadets at the
U.S. Military Academy at West Point were caught cheating on an online calculus exam last year, sharing answers with each other
from home. The school said in April it was ending a policy that protected cadets who admitted honor code violations from being kicked
out.
... ... ...
In February, auction website homeworkforyou.com featured one student post looking for someone willing to do weekly school assignments,
exams and a project for a business class at York College in Queens, N.Y., over a two-month span. The winning bidder would also need
to pose as the student and respond to classmates in a group assignment. The student specified that an "A" was the desired outcome,
and that the "willing to pay" fee was $465.
By the next day, 29 bids had come in. The average was $479.41.
... Other popular websites that students use to get help""by submitting a question for an expert to quickly answer, or by searching
a database of previous answers""include Chegg and Brainly,
which said they have seen a big increase in users during the pandemic.
Mr. Piwnik said world-wide users grew to 350 million monthly in 2020, from about 200 million in 2019. The basic service is free,
while a $24 annual subscription is ad-free and gives access to premium features.
Chegg, a publicly held company based in Santa Clara, Calif., prides itself on a willingness to help institutions determine the
identities of those who cheat. It allows educators to report copyright information found on the site. The company saw total net revenue
of $644.3 million in 2020, a 57% increase year over year. Subscribers hit a record 6.6 million, up 67%.
A year of
remote learning has spurred an eruption of cheating among students, from grade school to college. With many students isolated
at home over the past year and with a mass of online services at their disposal academic dishonesty has never been so easy.
Websites that allow students to submit questions for expert answers have gained millions of new users over the past year. A newer
breed of site allows students to put up their own classwork for auction.
"Consider hiring me to do your assignment," reads a bid from one auction site. "I work fast, pay close attention to the instructions,
and deliver a plagiarism-free paper."
... For the final exam, Mr. Johnson, a course coordinator, said he used a computer program that generated a unique set of questions
for each student. Those questions quickly showed up on a for-profit homework website that helped him to identify who posted them.
About 200 students were caught cheating -- one-fourth of the class. Overall, cases of academic dishonesty more than doubled in the
2019-20 academic year at NC State, with the biggest uptick as students made the transition to online learning, according to the school.
Texas A&M University had a 50% increase in cheating allegations in the fall from a year earlier, with one incident involving 193
students self-reporting academic misconduct to receive lighter punishment after faculty members caught on, a university official
said. The University of Pennsylvania saw cheating case investigations grow 71% in the 2019-20 academic year, school data shows.
Dozens of cadets at the
U.S. Military Academy at West Point were caught cheating on an online calculus exam last year, sharing answers with each other
from home. The school said in April it was ending a policy that protected cadets who admitted honor code violations from being kicked
out.
... ... ...
In February, auction website homeworkforyou.com featured one student post looking for someone willing to do weekly school assignments,
exams and a project for a business class at York College in Queens, N.Y., over a two-month span. The winning bidder would also need
to pose as the student and respond to classmates in a group assignment. The student specified that an "A" was the desired outcome,
and that the "willing to pay" fee was $465.
By the next day, 29 bids had come in. The average was $479.41.
... Other popular websites that students use to get help "by submitting a question for an expert to quickly answer, or by searching
a database of previous answers" include Chegg and Brainly,
which said they have seen a big increase in users during the pandemic.
Mr. Piwnik said world-wide users grew to 350 million monthly in 2020, from about 200 million in 2019. The basic service is free,
while a $24 annual subscription is ad-free and gives access to premium features.
Chegg, a publicly held company based in Santa Clara, Calif., prides itself on a willingness to help institutions determine the
identities of those who cheat. It allows educators to report copyright information found on the site. The company saw total net revenue
of $644.3 million in 2020, a 57% increase year over year. Subscribers hit a record 6.6 million, up 67%.
Colleges administrators and professors ban speakers with opinions that differ from their narratives, pull books they don't like
and can claim to be 'racist', and hire based solely on ethnic background.
But. the are SHOCKED when student cheat the system.
S 18 minutes ago
Surprised that the use of apps like Photomath and mathway weren't mentioned. Students can just take a photo of a math
problem, specify the directions and copy the steps.
Unfortunately for the students, the apps will solve problems in peculiar ways that stand out to the teacher. I've never had
so many students cheat of quizzes or tests. With most of them fully virtual even still, or home often because of hybrid, it's
almost impossible to get fairly produced student work. E
SUBSCRIBER 40 minutes ago
Lazy, lazy test makers. Write new questions (and please check them through a simple search first to make sure the answer
isn't readily available), timed testing, and assume the test takers all have full access to the internet. Stop assuming the
test taking conditions haven't changed. They have.
SUBSCRIBER 44 minutes ago
Back in the 1980's when I went to College there was a big uproar over Cliff Notes. Students copying word for word... But it
was known you could buy test questions, hire note takers for class, buy essays. The Frat boys had a well developed system! J
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago (Edited)
The cheating isn't limited to students.
Look at how our Congressional representatives behave in office!
Look at how career bureaucrats behave!
is it any wonder that cheating is so rampant? honesty and integrity are for suckers.
why worry about your conscience? there is no Deity, there is no higher moral law. All ethics are relative. As long as I get
ahead, what's the big deal?
There's no afterlife anyway, so what do I have to worry about? G
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Maybe they're studying to be our future national-level political leaders. G
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Call me old-fashioned, naive or worse but I always saw homework or studying for an exam as the mental counterpart to
physical exercise.
Sure, you can cheat.
But you cheat yourself in the long term when you don't develop the intellectual "muscles" that you need to compete and
succeed in adult life.
And you or your parents paid good money to get that degree and you bypassed four or more years of earning potential by
attending school.
Sounds like a pretty poor tradeoff to me. B
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago (Edited)
I've taugh at the high school and college level. I recently taught engineering at a NC high school. Within a couple
months of Zoom teaching, I realized that cheating was rampant. I had numerous blatant examples of straight copy-and-paste
cheating.
I confronted each student and most of them either played dumb, or denied it. I separately showed them each the website and
documents they stole from and told them this was their one and only freebie. A few parents confronted me but after showing
them the evidence they either dropped it or confronted their own child. A few parents thanked me for holding their kid
accountable, but most just complained or dropped it altogether.
After a couple more months of it continuing, and not getting enough support from the administrators, I quit, without yet
having secured a new job. I'll say this, it's worse than you think, and your child likely does it too, or knows of those who
do. It's become acceptable to them bc of pressure to get into college. M
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
It is not new. Twenty-five years ago, my wife, a ranked academic, was given a paper supposedly written by one of her
students. She recognized it because she typed it after I wrote it ten years before.
When she confronted the student he admitted to buying it from a paper mill. Apparently the prof I wrote it for sold
his "collection" on retirement. Sadly, even then, the student got little more than a slap on the wrist once outed.
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
The colleges have been cheating students for decades selling worthless programs and false information to students at
exorbitant rates. So who is surprised that the students learned to cheat themselves. M
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
This is just a manifestation of the bankruptcy of our education system. Let's face it, for most students from
kindergarteners to PhD post grads, it is not about gaining knowledge, learning how to think or even mastering skills. It is
about checking blocks to build a resume. What does a diploma really mean? A checked block.
The system has known and participated in this for decades. What does it really matter how that block got checked?
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
What the article needs to cover is the enormous amount of cheating done on SATs, GREs, LSATs, etc. to get into
prestigious universities -- especially by prospective students who'll be here on an F1 visa.
Such cheating is legendary among some cultures but the PC crowd won't want to hear about that, will they. We need
their electronics and their widgets and such best not to rock that boat. P
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
I'm a lecturer at a Canadian university and am quite troubled by the use of textbook publisher's test banks in exam prep.
Students easily find the keys on line. Some students have stopped attending class. They know what will be on the exam. Of
course they learn nothing. Admin, faculty and students love the easy inflated grades. Academic wheels turn but there is no
learning. It's not a student problem, it's a bone lazy faculty problem. I write my own exams but many refuse. E
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Wonderful. Just what I want. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, urban planners, nurses, mechanics, dentists, and
other professionals who need to cheat to graduate.
SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
Hey you forgot another sizable group that will provide US with 'professionals' of questionable quality the AA crowd
that gets placed into universities based upon what?
Over-promotion far beyond the level of competency using affirmative action playbook is a real problem and much more serious that
Peter Principle would suggest: often it is instrumental in getting female sociopaths into corner office.
Imagine a chimpanzee rampaging through a data center powering everything from Google to Facebook. Infrastructure engineers use a
software version of this "chaos monkey" to test online services' robustness -- their ability to survive random failure and correct
mistakes before they actually occur. Tech entrepreneurs are society's chaos monkeys, disruptors testing and transforming every
aspect of our lives, from transportation (Uber) and lodging (Airbnb) to television (Netflix) and dating (Tinder). One of Silicon
Valley's most provocative chaos monkeys is Antonio García Martínez.
After stints on Wall Street and as CEO of his own startup, García Martínez joined Facebook's nascent advertising team, until he was
forced out in the wake of an internal product war over the future of the company's monetization strategy, and eventually landed at
rival Twitter.
In
Chaos Monkeys
, this gleeful contrarian unravels the chaotic evolution of social media and
online marketing and lays bare the hijinks, trade secrets, and power plays of the visionaries, grunts, sociopaths, opportunists,
accidental tourists, and money cowboys who are revolutionizing our world.
>
Gethin Darklord
5.0 out of 5 stars
Revalatory
epistole from Silicon Valley
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on April 29, 2018
Verified Purchase
I really enjoyed this book which falls into two sections: before the author's
employment with Facebook and afterwards until he is fired. Mr Martinez comes across as a very self centered but brilliant
tech geek and whilst unappealing as a friend his frank discussions of his thoughts give an unusual degree of insight into
his character; and of those like him. He actually manages to explain how Facebook makes its money which is something I have
never understood before. His assertion they wouldn't share your data is charmingly Naive in the wake of the Cambridge
Analytica scandal (2019) - the book was written some years before.
Ultimately
it takes bravery to write frankly about one's own failures and this makes it distinct from the hagiographies and self
congratulatory books which characterize most business books.
An interesting aside is his obvious erudition with well chosen classical quotations
at the head of each chapter. Recommended highly.
>
Amazingly
accurate coverage of Facebook's internal culture, the good, the bad, and the ugly. (Plus much, much more!)
5.0 out of 5 stars
Amazingly
accurate coverage of Facebook's internal culture, the good, the bad, and the ugly. (Plus much, much more!)
Reviewed in the United States on July 10, 2016
Verified Purchase
I worked at Facebook from 2010 until 2015, and until now I have never seen the inner
machinations as accurately portrayed as they are in 'Chaos Monkeys'. Facebook very carefully maintains a public relations
campaign (almost more internally focused than external) to convince the world it is the best place to work ever. In reality it
is just like any other large company, with plenty of political intrigue, infighting, silo-building, and collateral damage. Sure,
the mini-kitchens have organic bananas, and pistachios that stressed slobby software engineers neither have to shell, nor leave a
pile of shells littered all around the floor... but in reality they are shackled to an oar, pulling to the endless beat of a
drum. Code. Code. Code. It is all here the creepy propaganda, the failed high-profile projects, the surreal manager/staff
relationships, the cultivated cult-like atmosphere, the sharp divide between the have-it-all, and the "hope to have enough to
escape" staff. The bizarro world of inside FB, around the IPO. I was there and experienced many of the same corporate events and
milestones myself. Antonio Garcia Martinez captures it all perfectly.
That's only the last half of the book.
The rest is a tale of escaping from startup hell, making a go at reaching startup heaven, then making deals to salvage it all
when reaching the critical trial-by-fire that every startup must face: die, execute flawlessly, or exit.
There are some who will find the tone, the voice, or the political incorrectness of both to be too harsh to digest. I've already
seen that in a few of the reviews here. To them I say "grow up"... put on your big boy/girl pants and read this for the story.
The tale it tells. The facts it presents. The data with which it backs it all up. Because it is all true. The exposition of
complex systems are described using appropriate, and facile metaphors. Many of the standard Facebook tropes ("stealing/selling
your data", "Zuck is evil", etc.) are explained for the misleading baloney that they are. Best of all it describes how the
advertising media really operates, going back to the dawn of it, and how Facebook, Google, et al are merely extensions of a
system that has existed for two centuries. It is worth the purchase price for that lesson alone, all wrapped in a great, and true
story.
For myself, having lived through much of the same experience at Facebook (from onboarding, the devotion, the cynicism, to the
inglorious, frustrated exit bungled by one of the legion of Facebook's incompetent and narcissistic manager corps) I found myself
going from laughter, to nodding agreement, to gut-wrenching bouts of PTSD as I turned the pages of 'Chaos Monkeys'. Now I no
longer have to justify myself to people who ask me why I left Facebook - I can just tell them to read this book, since it
explains it better than I ever could.
>
1.0 out of 5 stars
Whiny
Reviewed in the United States on October 20, 2019
Verified Purchase
The author seems to be a very bitter and acerbic individual with huge collection of
chips on his shoulder, from past coworkers to the capitalism itself. It is rare to encounter a character in his book to
which he doesn't find something contemptuous or negative to say about. Even when describing genuinely positive things -
like courage, loyalty or generosity - he seems to be astonished that these puny humans he despises so much are capable of
such things. I can't remember any character (including the mother of his children) who is described with genuine warmth and
affection, then best he could master is "that person could be useful to me in certain situations".
While the protagonist seems to be entirely driven by monetary incentives, he does not forget to regularly interrupt his
quest for a lengthy tirade about how capitalism is the worst (usually on the way to convince some capitalists to give him
some money so he could participate in capitalist venture and make some money for himself).
The author undoubtedly has a knack for storytelling and a keen eye (usually turned to finding faults in everything he
sees), so there are many interesting and entertaining bits in the book. But the overall negativity and constant droning of
the author about how everything around him is wrong from the mere atoms upwards is really wearing you down. I understand
that's sort of "here's what I am without any makeup, take it or leave it" but I really wish the it wasn't a whiny
narcissistic nihilist...
>
Insightful,
hilarious and accurate take on the insanity of silicon valley
5.0 out of 5 stars
Insightful,
hilarious and accurate take on the insanity of silicon valley
Reviewed in the United States on August 6, 2016
Verified Purchase
Chaos Monkeys is a bargain, since you are really getting four books in one. First, our
lucky reader is treated to a Sherman-style total war on the vanities and conceits of the tech elite. For the hater in all of us,
it is uncompromised, savage delight. He particularly takes aim at noxious myth of meritocracy in the valley. As anywhere, those
educated at the right places, and taught the right diction and manner of speaking rise to the top. For whatever reason, people in
silicon valley seem to need reminding of this fairly often, perhaps more than most.
Another skewered vanity is that the work being done there is "changing the world." The nirvana of being paid millions while doing
meaningful work is the final privilege being sought by the waves of wall street refugees making their way out west. Only the most
self-deluded really buy it, and as Antonio shows, those often happen to be working at the most influential and powerful
companies. Is Facebook really changing the world? Without question, but when Facebook uses the language of historical figures,
implicitly placing itself on the same podium as Cato the elder, say, it is both creepy and pathetic. Furthermore, the same gulf
between the windfalls of the upper echelon and the rank-and-file is still present.
The second book is a detailed, unsparing deep-dive into the trenches of the ad tech industry. Just for that, it is worth reading
if your job has any remote connection with selling online. You will come away with more awareness of how pixels convert to
dollars. This theme occupies most of the second half of the book. If anything, the vivid metaphors he uses to describe the
otherwise dull and esoteric details of identity matching and attribution will serve you well anytime you must summon a complete
picture of this complex web in your head. Even non-specialists will find fascinating the descriptions of how private data is
collected and sold, not to mention probably realizing they have been worried about the wrong kind of privacy violations.
Third, there is a marvelous how-to guide for aspiring entrepreneurs hidden between the diatribes. Antonio managed to meet many of
the key players in the industry. His detailed accounts of many of these meetings (confrontations) offer a unique
behind-the-scenes vantage which many manuals for silicon valley success avoid, so the authors can remain in good stead with the
figures involved. In addition, there is another way that Chaos Monkeys serves as an excellent preview of what entrepreneurship
entails. Other how-to books are so smitten with the idea of entrepreneur as Hero that they often fail to convey the tedium,
anxiety and chaos that are most of the day-to-day realities for any entrepreneur. These other books mention that building a
company is hard and stressful, but often seem shy to mention exactly why, beyond executing a bad idea, or a linear increase in
working hours. In reality, the unspoken "hard" part of any startup is not the actual hours involved, or the idea, or execution,
but rather the unwavering conviction you must have to keep at it when things are totally falling apart. The struggle to convince
yourself, your investors and your customers that your vision of the world is the correct one is constant war against entropy,
counterfactuals, competitors or self-doubts. Any of these must be swallowed, digested, shat out, and freeze-dried as more grist
for your sales pitch mill. Every entrepreneur will immediately recognize what Antonio unabashedly portrays: the dreadful gulf
between the inward awareness of all the chaos and flux at the startup, while preserving the outward image of polish, order and
optimism. In fact, the delusion of performing world-changing work as an entrepreneur (even when you're just building a s***ty
analytics panel) is so pervasive, it cannot be solely attributed to narcissism. The book makes the point that this delusion is
actually an emotional coping mechanism to endure the aforementioned doublethink on a daily basis.
Finally, we are given an intimate, unsentimental portrait of Antonio's tortured psyche. While I wouldn't necessarily advocate
"praying for Antonio's soul," as a previous reviewer stated, his relentless self-deprecation and raw honesty balance out some of
the selfish decisions he makes in the book. He is extremely well read, and I suspect this background informs a somewhat tragic
theme of the book -- for a certain type of person, the only hope that can lift the cynicism and misanthropy of early life
disappointment is to undergo a meaningful quest with loyal companions. There aren't many of those quests around anymore,
unfortunately, nor is there a surfeit of loyal companions in the sort of places and professions that demand one's full faculties.
In the book, many characters and causes fail to meet this high bar, of course. I suspect more than a few failed idealists will
find a kindred spirit in Antonio, despite the caustic tone throughout. That said, there is plenty here to be offended about, if
that is your sort of thing. Some of the criticism is justified. For example, there is some objectification of women that could
have been omitted. However, if that is your ONLY take-away, then you are precisely the sort of self-important, thin-skinned
windbag that is rightfully skewered in Chaos Monkeys.
>
3.0 out of 5 stars
Silicon
Valley: Operating Instructions or Expose?
Reviewed in the United States on February 12, 2017
Verified Purchase
It's an interesting read as most reviews indicate is basically two books in one. The first
"book" is about the world of Silicon Valley incubators and small start-ups. That takes up the first half of the story. The tale
is close to reality as anyone involved in the SV start-up world can attest. It is full of the excess, hype, positioning,
politics, back-stabbing and intrigue that is so commonplace. Somewhere in that mix is technology most of which is not even close
to revolutionary but likely to be useful to someone. The trick is to make that "someone" seem like a really big someone who is
dying to spend a lot of money. Then after getting investors to buy in ... keep selling. This is all well and entertainingly
covered in the book. The second "book" covers the author's life at Facebook pre- and post-IPO. Like all companies, Facebook has
its own dysfunctionalities. The dysfunctionalities that the author experienced at Facebook were not the sort he felt comfortable
with. He also felt like his ideas were far better than anything Facebook came up with and that they were idiots for not listening
to him. Maybe they were but they, as he begrudgingly indicated, seemed to do OK pursuing a different approach. Because the second
half seemed to be more about "how stupid Facebook was" and "how smart he was", it served to be far less entertaining and
enlightening than the first half mostly because I didn't care that he was being ignored and that he felt like he didn't fit in.
You can read this book two ways - especially the first half. It can be consumed as an expose showing the shallow nature and
hollow core of the Silicon Valley gold rush or a "how to" book for fledgling entrepreneurs going after the incubator and investor
dollars. And then you can skip that second half.
VINE VOICE
5.0 out of 5 stars
Surprisingly
informative and a good read
Reviewed in the United States on September 13, 2016
Verified Purchase
I bought this book on a whim as it looked like an interesting take on the inner workings of
the world of start ups as well as insights into the machinations at Facebook. Having worked for some big-ish technology companies
and now playing in the start up world I expected to get some fairly vanilla anecdotes about the ups and downs of life in the
Valley and the personalities who make the headlines.
Initially, I was not sure how the story was going to play out as the author started out with some of the later FB meetings and
the goings on in his private life. This book was not going to find its way into any college class on entrepreneurship! Happily,
the story then moves into 2 distinct phases - life in startup hell and life in big company hell. Antonio Garcia Martinez goes on
to tell it how it really is - no matter where the chips fall or who he may insult on the way through. And - he does this in an
articulate and informative way, whether discussing personalities or the arcane inner workings of ad-serving technology.
Bottom line - this book is a very authentic description of the way the tech ecosystem works. Whether discussing option vesting,
the randomness of successful product development, the lot of a product manager (the man in the middle), the venture capital
roundabout, the modus operandi of corp dev folks (that would be me) Martinez captures it accurately - f-bombs and all.
>
5.0 out of 5 stars
Fear
and Loathing in Silicon Valley
Reviewed in the United States on July 7, 2016
Verified Purchase
Were it not for the possibility of legal complications, Chaos Monkeys could have been
titled "Fear and Loathing in Silicon Valley." It is a unique blend of high stakes gambling, sex, alcohol and hubris. For those
willing to wade through technical detail, it shows how Internet applications like Facebook and Google convert pixels into
dollars. For the rest of us, the story of the excruciatingly hard work and intense drama that go into both a startup company and
the internal machinations of an established, aggressive hi-tech company provide plenty of drama.
Garcia Martinez is obviously widely read. His well chosen chapter heading quotes and references to disparate sources make that
clear. His writing is articulate, fast paced, intense and focused. The fact that he names names and gives an insider perspective
to well known events makes the story an especially interesting one.
Having been sucked in, ground up and spit out of the Silicon Valley madness, Garcia Martinez is talking about taking off on a
circumnavigation aboard his sailboat. One cannot help but wonder if he can make the change from the pressure and fast pace of his
old existence to the new. I hope so.
>
5.0 out of 5 stars
Brilliantly
written and refreshingly honest
Reviewed in the United States on August 7, 2016
Verified Purchase
Mr. Martinez chronicle's of his career in Silicon Valley is entertaining, refreshingly
honest and of historical significance. The first part of the book details his time at AdGrok, a startup of no great consequence,
where he cut his teeth in Silicon Valley. It is a tale of ambition, greed, irreverence, vengeance and betrayal, sprinkled with
enough kindness and chutzpah to keep even the less morbid reader engaged. The second part of the book chronicles Mr. Martinez
career in Facebook, as a member of the nascent Ads team. It is a fascinating and unforgiving account of the culture and
personalities that propelled Facebook to profitability. Of historical significance is the brilliant description of the evolution
of the surprisingly technical world of Internet advertisement, written in the first person by someone who had a hand in its
shaping. The tale is interesting in of itself but the book is made by Mr. Martinez prose. His writing is articulate, witty and
erudite. Most importantly, in a world where BS is a major currency, Mr. Martinez's voice is a breath of fresh air in its
irreverence and honesty. He spares nothing and no one: SV Feminists, SJWs, greedy VCs, sycophant middle managers and sociopath
CEOs. I suspect many readers will be turned off by his candor, but I for one thoroughly enjoyed his genuine, if sometimes coarse,
voice. I wish Mr. Martinez all the best in his nautical adventures and best of luck in his literary career - it is hard to
imagine he can come back to technology after this.
>
Chaos Monkeys takes you through the culture, the contradictions and, as the title would suggest, the chaos in which Silicon
Valley is apparently wrapped. Antonio Garcia Martinez makes a charming guide: funny, literate and with a rakish sense of humor
that gives this insider's account a kind of immediacy and real emotional punch. I got the kind of lift from reading this book
that I once did when reading the rollicking prose of Tom Wolfe, who was also a chronicler of the earliest corporate cultures that
defined California and the Valley. Martinez, like Wolfe, offers keen cultural observations that spring from our very human
strivings and persistent ambitions.
This book delivers a lot. We learn much about Antonio's personal life, his history, his loves (several women and a couple boats),
his avocations, his strengths (which include his gift for writing and other forms of persuasion as well as his canny negotiating
powers) and his weaknesses (his impulsiveness and his willingness to shade the truth a bit when it serves his purposes). But this
account is hardly a highly varnished one, and he casts his critical capacities inward on several occasions. We might prudently
reserve some suspicions about the strict veracity of a gifted story-teller like Martinez, but I find this account has the ring of
truth and he holds the mirror close to the his own face.
But the book is also a compendium of information, anecdotes and personal portraits of an important scene in American business
history. All this, of course, relates to the "obscene fortune and random failure in Silicon Valley" advertised in the book's
subtitle. Though many reviewers damn this aspect with faint praise, calling it gossipy, I myself found it substantive, detailed
and instructive about a slice of entrepreneurial and investment activity that is not really well known or understood by many who
might like to know. What's involved in a bona fide start-up? What are the aims of venture capitalists, who variously smile or
frown on these endeavors? When the corporate development types from Twitter and Facebook come calling, what are they seeking and
what are they offering? Martinez reliably spills the beans in this regard, naming names, pegging salaries and calculating
compensation packages out over two-, three- and four-year time horizons. Enquiring minds want to know. And in the end there is
really more random failure than obscene fortune. And I think Martinez would likely agree and especially as it applied to him
personally.
As a sort of footnote (and, by the way, Martinez likes footnotes very much, as do I), let me advise the potential reader that
this book also takes a fairly deep dive into advertising technology. And this, too, is really a big economic and business story
of our time. Open your newspaper (or however you take your news these days) and you'll likely read about the disruptive influence
of the Internet, mobile technology and all things digital on those reliable engines of the 20th century economy: media and
advertising. It's a story literally told daily. Old models are rapidly shrinking and new ones shape-shifting at the present
moment. Many think Google and Facebook own this future, although that's probably premature. Make no mistake about it though;
Martinez knows this scene up close and personal. He was toiling daily for several years, working simultaneously at both the work
of destruction and the act of creation, in the very belly of the beast. I venture an opinion that there are few people who know
more about this brave new world of digital persuasion than Antonio Garcia Martinez.
Bottom line: This book has been my favorite summer read by far. It entertained as it informed. I heartily recommend it.
>
Subtly
blistering takedown of frauds, charlatans, and stooges.
5.0 out of 5 stars
Subtly
blistering takedown of frauds, charlatans, and stooges.
Reviewed in the United States on September 26, 2017
Verified Purchase
"He's such a cynic." A favorite phrase of the deluded and dishonest used to invalidate the
perspectives and arguments of someone who's figured them out. I suppose it depends on how you define a cynic, and I tend to think
of cynicism as a condition where one knows the price of everything but can't see or won't accept the value. While I don't know
Antonio, I'm pretty sure he's not that. Time and again throughout his book, you see a guy who's just refreshingly skeptical of
the inflated value others put on both themselves and the technology they make or manage.
I enjoyed the narrative structure of the book, which starts somewhat close to the end--in a scene that nails the sad banality of
every corporate meeting ever--then jumps back in time to lay the foundation for later decisions (and effectively explains
complexities of high finance), and diverts into a mixture of expository asides, personal experiences and workplace politics. This
aspect is chaotic, and often pleonastic, and might annoy some. Overall I appreciated it, possibly because I can't stay on a
single topic for that long myself. Roughly, Antonio focuses on the day-to-day realities of cutting deals in the first half, and
the day-to-day realities of building and shipping product throughout the rest. There are some blistering insights, too, notably
the take-down of entitled Bay Area "feminists" and basic lessons on realities of capitalism and startups and investors. He's got
a knack for capturing personalities, and his vocabulary is impressive, at least to a rube such as myself.
As to the narrative: You can't help but think that the old adage that life is high school extended applies here. Or really, as
Tom Brokaw put it, life is junior high, filled with people drowning in pettiness, insecurities, and irrelevant rivalries over
imagined and exaggerated slights. This, of course, can be discarded as a cynical take on things but it's not intended to
be--we're all prone to mistakes, losing our tempers, and feeling fraudulent or irrationally immature while harboring (hopefully
only briefly) silly grudges. And it's okay. It happens. It's what people in all of their flawed glory frequently do.
The problem, however, with so many companies in the tech world is that their leadership often assumes they're somehow removed
from such pedestrian afflictions. That they are about more than what it is they actually do, that they're better, and that they
warrant their wealth and status. And this delusion would be comical if it wasn't so corrosive. For Antonio to call things what
they actually are--more than just "calling it as he sees it" but actually behaving like the scientist he is, discerning what's
going on, and explaining the discovery--isn't cynical. It's realistic. And it's a frightening, problematic reality that,
curiously, many seem to be okay with.
I understand that if you launch a startup, you have to deliver soaring platitudes about grander meaning and purpose, because you
can't offer wildly valuable stock units and enormous salaries to experienced people who can do the job but know better than to
believe the BS or indulge the risk. The comparison of early-stage startups to combat units he makes might be stretching it some,
but the stress is at least along the same lines, if only conceptually. I also enjoyed how he explained how after a startup
succeeds and transitions into the establishment, that to keep shareholders/investors happy, leadership has to make
bold-yet-credible-sounding promises about a vision that drives future growth. Thus, Facebook will continue to talk about
connection and community, and Google will talk about "billion people problems" and do everything possible to mask that their
inner machinations mostly consist of capturing behavioral data and predicting purchasing decisions, and selling that to peddlers
of largely insipid nonsense.
I kept relating the various parables in Chaos Monkeys to Game of Thrones plot-lines and characters. In that show, my favorites
are Arya and Bronn--an assassin and a mercenary, both with a different ethos but each resolutely self-deterministic, and each
capable of living according to their own principles without playing the power games that consume and crush so many others.
They're good models to follow if you choose to enter this world. I got into the tech industry because I love the challenges and
working with curious, intelligent people. It is mostly fulfilling and worthwhile, and I accept that my chances of Fast Company
glory are nil. After reading this, I feel "pretty good" about my decision, and am glad to have a greater understanding of what
founders deal with.
"... "Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience." ..."
"... all those responsible for this plandemic are guilty of crimes against humanity. ..."
"Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant
conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs
and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting
people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience."
Indeed. Dr. Fauxi is a quack and the medical establishment has lost all credibility.
GoodyGumdrops 15 hours ago
Fauci is an evil psychopath and all those responsible for this plandemic are guilty of
crimes against humanity.
This is starting to look really like staging of "Brave new world..." Today's society is
closer to Huxley's "Brave New World" than to Orwell's "1984". But there are clear elements of
both. If you will, the worst of both worlds has come true today.
In 1949, sometime after the publication of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four , Aldous
Huxley, the author of Brave New World (1931), who was then living in California, wrote to
Orwell. Huxley had briefly taught French to Orwell as a student in high school at Eton.
Huxley generally praises Orwell's novel, which to many seemed very similar to Brave New
World in its dystopian view of a possible future. Huxley politely voices his opinion that his
own version of what might come to pass would be truer than Orwell's. Huxley observed that the
philosophy of the ruling minority in Nineteen Eighty-Four is sadism, whereas his own version is
more likely, that controlling an ignorant and unsuspecting public would be less arduous, less
wasteful by other means. Huxley's masses are seduced by a mind-numbing drug, Orwell's with
sadism and fear.
The most powerful quote In Huxley's letter to Orwell is this:
Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant
conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs
and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting
people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.
Aldous Huxley.
Could Huxley have more prescient? What do we see around us?
Masses of people dependent upon drugs, legal and illegal. The majority of advertisements
that air on television seem to be for prescription drugs, some of them miraculous but most of
them unnecessary. Then comes COVID, a quite possibly weaponized virus from the
Fauci-funded-with-taxpayer-dollars lab in Wuhan, China. The powers that be tragically deferred
to the malevolent Fauci who had long been hoping for just such an opportunity. Suddenly, there
was an opportunity to test the mRNA vaccines that had been in the works for nearly twenty
years. They could be authorized as an emergency measure but were still highly experimental.
These jabs are not really vaccines at all, but a form of gene therapy . There
are potential
disastrous consequences down the road. Government experiments on the public are
nothing new .
Since there have been no actual, long-term trials, no one who contributed to this massive
drug experiment knows what the long-term consequences might be. There have been countless
adverse injuries and deaths already for which the government-funded vaccine producers will
suffer no liability. With each passing day, new side-effects have begun to appear: blood clots,
seizures, heart failure.
As new adverse reactions become known despite the censorship employed by most media outlets,
the more the Biden administration is pushing the vaccine, urging private corporations to make
it mandatory for all employees. Colleges are making them mandatory for all students returning
to campus.
The leftmedia are advocating the "shunning" of the unvaccinated. The self-appointed
virtue-signaling Democrats are furious at anyone and everyone who declines the jab. Why? If
they are protected, why do they care? That is the question. Same goes for the ridiculous mask
requirements . They protect no one but for those in operating rooms with their insides
exposed, yet even the vaccinated are supposed to wear them!
Months ago, herd immunity was near. Now Fauci and the CDC say it will never be achieved? Now
the Pfizer shot will necessitate yearly booster shots. Pfizer
expects to make $21B this year from its COVID vaccine! Anyone who thinks this isn't about
money is a fool. It is all about money, which is why Fauci, Gates, et al. were so determined to
convince the public that HCQ and ivermectin, both of which are effective, prophylactically and
as treatment, were not only useless, but dangerous. Both of those drugs are tried, true, and
inexpensive. Many of those thousands of N.Y. nursing home fatalities might have been prevented
with the use of one or both of those drugs. Those deaths are on the hands of Cuomo and his
like-minded tyrants drunk on power.
Months ago, Fauci, et al. agreed that children were at little or no risk of getting COVID,
of transmitting it, least of all dying from it. Now Fauci is demanding that all teens be
vaccinated by the end of the year! Why? They are no more in danger of contracting it now than
they were a year ago. Why are parents around this country not standing up to prevent their kids
from being guinea pigs in this monstrous medical experiment? And now they are " experimenting
" on infants. Needless to say, some have died. There is no reason on Earth for teens, children,
and infants to be vaccinated. Not one.
Huxley also wrote this:
"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they
will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be
able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' -- this is the height
of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats ."
Perhaps this explains the left's hysterical impulse to force these untested shots on those
of us who have made the decision to go without it. If they've decided that it is the thing to
do, then all of us must submit to their whims. If we decide otherwise, it gives them the
righteous right to smear all of us whom they already deplore.
As C.J. Hopkins has
written , the left means to criminalize dissent. Those of us who are vaccine-resistant are
soon to be outcasts, deprived of jobs and entry into everyday businesses. This kind of
discrimination should remind everyone of ...oh, Germany three quarters of a century ago. Huxley
also wrote, "The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other
sets of people are human." That is precisely what the left is up to, what BLM is planning, what
Critical Race Theory is all about.
Tal Zaks, Moderna's chief medical officer, said these new vaccines are "hacking the
software of life." Vaccine-promoters claim he never said this, but he did. Bill Gates called
the vaccines " an operating
system " to the horror of those promoting it, a Kinsley gaffe. Whether it is or isn't
hardly matters at this point, but these statements by those behind the vaccines are a clue to
what they have in mind.
There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love
their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears , so to speak, producing a kind of
painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their
liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it.
This is exactly what the left is working so hard to effect: a pharmacologically compromised
population happy to be taken care of by a massive state machine. And while millions of people
around the world have surrendered to the vaccine and mask hysteria, millions more, about 1.3
billion, want no part of this government vaccine mania.
In his letter to Orwell, Huxley ended with the quote cited above and again here because it
is so profound:
Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant
conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs
and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting
people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.
Huxley nailed the left more than seventy years ago, perhaps because leftists have never
changed throughout the ages. 61,497 173
Fat Beaver 14 hours ago (Edited)
If i am to be treated as an outcast or an undesirable because i refuse the vax, i will
immediately become someone that has zero reverence for the law, and i can only imagine 10's
of millions will be right there with me.
strych10 14 hours ago
Welcome to the club.
We have coffee in the corner and occasional meetings at various bars.
Dr. Chihuahua-González 13 hours ago
I'm a doctor, you could contact me anytime and receive your injection.
Fat Beaver 13 hours ago (Edited)
I've gotta feeling the normie world you think you live in is about to change drastically
for the worse...
sparky139 PREMIUM 10 hours ago
You mean you'll sign papers that you injected us *wink *wink? And toss it away?
bothneither 2 hours ago
Oh geez how uncommon, another useless doctor with no Scruples who sold out to big Pharma.
Please have my Gates sponsored secret sauce.
Unknown 6 hours ago (Edited)
Both Huxley and Orwell are wrong. Neoliberalism (the use of once office for personal
gains) is by far the most powerful force that subjugates the inept population. Neoliberalism
demolished the mighty USSR, now destroying the USA, and will do the same to China. And this
poison dribbles from the top to bottom creating self-centered population that is unable to
unite, much less resist.
Deathrips 15 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Tylers.
You gonna cover Tucker Carlsons show earlier today on FOX news about vaxxx deaths? almost 4k
reported so far this year.
Is the population of india up in arms or is the MSM?
Nelbev 10 hours ago
Facebook just flagged/censored it, must sign into see vid, Tuck also failed to mention
mRNA and adenovirus vaxes were experimental and not FDA approved nor gone through stage III
trials. Beside deaths, have blood clot issues. Good he mentioned how naturally immune if get
covid and recovered, better than vaccine, but not covered for bogus passports. Me personally,
I would rather catch covid and get natural immunity than be vaccinated with an untested
experimental vaccine.
Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya; Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche; Dr. Ron Brown; Dr. Ryan Cole; Dr.
Richard Fleming; Dr. Simone Gold; Dr. Sunetra Gupta; Dr. Carl Heneghan; Dr. Martin Kulldorff;
Dr. Paul Marik; Dr. Peter McCullough; Dr. Joseph Mercola; Dr. Lee Merritt; Dr. Judy Mikovits;
Dr. Dennis Modry; Dr. Hooman Noorchashm; Dr. Harvey Risch; Dr. Sherri Tenpenny; Dr. Richard
Urso; Dr. Michael Yeadon;
Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya; Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche; Dr. Ron Brown; Dr. Ryan Cole; Dr.
Richard Fleming; Dr. Simone Gold; Dr. Sunetra Gupta; Dr. Carl Heneghan; Dr. Martin Kulldorff;
Dr. Paul Marik; Dr. Peter McCullough; Dr. Joseph Mercola; Dr. Lee Merritt; Dr. Judy Mikovits;
Dr. Dennis Modry; Dr. Hooman Noorchashm; Dr. Harvey Risch; Dr. Sherri Tenpenny; Dr. Richard
Urso; Dr. Michael Yeadon;
His making of the gamma and delta workforce was quite prescient. We are seeing it play out
now, we all know gammas and delta. There was a really good ABC tv movie made in 1980 Brave
New World. Excellent show, it shows the Alphas and names them Rothchild and so on. Shows what
these people specifically want to do to the world. I wonder if the ruling psychopaths
actually wait for science fiction authors to plan the future and then follow their
script.
Mineshaft Gap 10 hours ago
If Huxley were starting out today no major publisher would touch him.
They'd tell him Brave New World doesn't have a diverse enough of cast. Even the mostly
likable totalitarian guy named Mustapha turns out to be white! A white Mustapha. It's soooo
triggering. Also, what's wrong with a little electronic fun and drug taking, anyway? Lighten
up , Aldous.
Meanwhile his portrait of shrieking medieval Catholic nuns who think they're possessed in
The Devils of Loudun might remind the leftist editors too uncomfortably of their own recent
bleating performances at "White Fragility" struggle sessions.
Bullying is an epidemic. It is rampant, widespread, pervasive and the effects can be
catastrophic. It occurs in our communities, in our schools – and sadly – even in
our homes. Bullying statistics are staggering, scary and merit serious consideration and
immediate action. Consider the following:
Facts and Statistics
90% of students in grades 4-8 report having been harassed or bullied.
28% of students in grades 6-12 experience bullying. 2
20% of students in grades 9-12 experience bullying. (stopbullying.gov)
In grades 6-12, 9% of students have experienced cyberbulling. 2
Over 160,000 kids refuse to go to school each day for fear of being bullied. (Nation
Education Association)
70.6% of students report having witnessed bullying in their school–and over 71% say
bullying is a problem.
Over 10% of students who dropout of school do so due to being bullied repeatedly.
Each month 282,000 students are physically assaulted in some way in secondary schools
throughout the United States–and the number is growing.
Statistics suggest that revenge [due to bullying] is the number one motivator for school
shootings in the U.S.
86% of students surveyed said, "other kids picking on them, making fun of them or
bullying them" is the number one reason that teenagers turn to lethal violence at
school.
Nearly 75% of school shootings have been linked to harassment and bullying.
87% of students surveyed report that bullying is the primary motivator of school
shootings.
64% of students who are bullied do not report it. (Petrosina, Guckenburg, Devoe and
Hanson 2010)
2 National Center for Education Statistics and Bureau of Justice
Statistics
Types of Bullying
When most people think about bullying they envision some kind of physical intimidation.
However, bullying can take on many forms which are just as emotionally and psychologically
damaging as physical intimidation and harassment. There are four general forms of bullying.
These include:
Physical – Physical bullying involves aggressive physical intimidation and is
often characterized by repeated tripping, pushing, hitting, kicking, blocking, or touching
in some other inappropriate way. Even though it's the most obvious form of bullying, it
isn't the most prominent.
Physical bullying is damaging and can be emotionally and psychologically devastating.
When a child fears for their safety, they're not able to focus on life and function
normally. Notwithstanding the trauma that physical bullying causes, most children don't
report it to a teacher or to their parents. Signs of physical bullying may include
unexplained scratches, bruises, and cuts, or unexplainable headaches or stomach aches.
However, the psychological effects of physical bullying may be even more pronounced than
the physical scars. Children who are withdrawn, struggle to focus, or become anti-social
may also be the recipients of physical bullying–even if there aren't any other
outward signs.
If you think your child or student is being bullied physically, talk to them in a casual
manner about what's going on before school, during class, during lunch or recess, and on
the way home from school. Ask them if anyone has been, or is being, mean to them. Keep your
emotions in check, and stay calm and caring in your tone, or your child may shut off and
not tell you what's happening. If you find that physical bullying is occurring, contact the
appropriate school officials, or law enforcement officers – there are anti-bullying
laws at the local, state and federal levels. Do not confront the bully, or the bully's
parents, on your own.
Verbal – Verbal bullying involves putting down others and bullying them using
cruel, demeaning words. Verbal bullying includes name calling, making racist, sexist or
homophobic remarks or jokes, insulting, slurs, sexually suggestive comments, or abusive
language of any kinds. Verbal bullying is one of the most common forms of bullying.
So how do you know when a child is being verbally bullied? They may become moody,
withdrawn, and/or have a change in their appetite. They may be straight forward and tell
you that somebody said something that hurt their feelings, or ask you if something someone
said about them is true.
Verbal bullying can be difficult to address. The best way to deal with verbal bullying
is to build childrens' self confidence. Confident kids are less susceptible to verbal
bullying than those who already struggle with poor self esteem and self image. Students
should be taught in the classroom to treat everyone with respect and that there is never an
excuse for saying something mean or disrespectful to someone else.
Social – Social bullying is a common form of bullying among children and
students. It involves exclusion from groups, spreading malicious rumors and stories about
others, and generally alienating people from social acceptance and interaction. Next to
verbal bullying, social bullying is one of the most common forms of bullying.
Social bullying can be one of the hardest forms of bullying to identify and address
– but it's just as damaging as other forms of bullying, and the effects can last a
long time. Children being bullied socially may experience mood changes, become withdrawn,
and start spending more time alone. Social bullying is more common among girls than
boys.
The best way to identify social bullying is to stay close to your kids and maintain an
open line of communication. Talk to them nightly about how their day went and how things
are going in school. Focus on building their self esteem and get them involved in
extracurricular activities outside of school such as team sports, music, art and other
activities where they develop friendships and interact with others.
Cyberbullying – Cyberbullying is the least common type of bullying, but it can
be just as damaging as other forms of bullying. It includes any type of bullying that
occurs via the Internet or through electronic mediums. The most common types of
cyberbullying include:
Text message bullying
Picture/video clip bullying via mobile phone cameras
Email message bullying
Bullying through instant messaging
Chat-room bullying
Bullying via websites
Children who are being cyberbullied typically spend more time online or texting. They
often frequent social media sites such as facebook, twitter, etc. If a child or student
seems upset, sad or anxious after being online, especially if they're visiting social media
websites, it may be a sign they're being cyberbullied. Kids and students who are
cyberbullied exhibit many of the same characteristics as kids being bullied physically,
verbally or socially. They may become withdrawn, anxious, distant, or want to stay home
from school.
Cyberbullying can occur 24/7, so the best way to combat cyberbullying is to monitor
Internet usage and limit time spent on social media websites. Children need to know that if
they encounter cyberbullying they shouldn't respond, engage, or forward it. Instead, they
need to inform their parents or a teacher so the communication can be printed out and taken
to the proper authorities. When cyberbullying includes threats of violence or sexually
explicit content, law enforcement should be involved.
Where Does Bullying Occur?
The majority of bullying occurs at school, outside on school grounds during recess or after
school, and on the school bus – or anywhere else students interact unsupervised. Bullying
may also occur at home between siblings or in the community where kids congregate.
Cyberbullying takes place online and via digital communication devices.
* Bradshaw, C.P. (2007). Bullying and peer victimization at school: Perceptual differences
between students and school staff. 36(3), 361-382.
Anti-bullying Laws and Policies
Currently, there aren't any Federal anti-bullying laws. However, state and local lawmakers
have taken steps to prevent bullying and protect the physical, emotional and psychological well
being of children. To date, 49 states have passed anti-bullying legislation. When bullying
moves into the category of harassment, it then becomes a violation of Federal law. Criminal
code as it relates to bullying by minors varies from state to state. The map below shows the
states that have established anti-bullying laws, anti-bullying policies, and both anti-bullying
laws and policies.
My uncle did admissions at Cambridge and he actively discriminated against Public School
boys, despite being one himself. He was actually involved in hiring that black woman to be the
Master at Christ's College. Similarly at Citi it was very obvious any remotely competent black
was promoted way beyond there competency, although that was largely limited to back and middle
office roles.
Still the ONS dataset is A09, Labour Market status by ethnic group, is testament to
white folks ingenuity to overcome such discrimination and the free market at work.
In fall 2011 the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center found that higher education
enrollment was slightly more than 20.5 million students. By fall 2019 that figure had dropped
to about 18.2 million, a decline of slightly over 11%. During those eight years the number of
18- to 24-year-olds remained roughly constant.
We have long had a social consensus that it's worth four years of our children's lives and
very large sums of their parents' money to see their knowledge, mental capacity, and career
prospects greatly expanded by going to college. Attitudes and habits formed by this consensus
were bound to lag behind the reality of academia as it now is. Yet the NSCRC numbers show that
already about 1 in 9 have mustered the courage and independence of thought to face reality and
stop wasting time and money.
This illicit conversion of a vital social institution to an alien use deprives all Americans
of the benefits of a properly functioning system of higher education. It also means that a
destructive and long since discredited political ideology is now using colleges and
universities to gain a degree of influence over society that it could never have achieved at
the ballot box. That's election interference on a scale not remotely matched by anything that
was alleged in the 2020 election.
When academia's astonishing message to society is, "We'll take your money, but we'll do with
it what we want, not what you want," the response ought to be simple: "No you won't." The
question is, can the millions of people who make up that wonderful abstraction called "society"
act in a way that is sufficiently concerted and organized to deliver the message effectively?
Many have already made a good start. But the rest need to join if we are ever again to have
college campuses that aren't as academically incompetent as they are politically
malevolent.
Mr. Ellis is a professor emeritus of German literature at the University of California,
Santa Cruz and author of "The Breakdown of Higher Education: How It happened, the Damage It
Does, and What Can Be Done."
With politics leaning ever more left on university campuses, I hope Dr Ladapo doesn't lose
his job at UCLA for writing a cogent and concise opinion piece.
RICHARD SANDOR SUBSCRIBER 3 hours ago
Brian : Yes, an expensive university in my largely Democrat-controlled state state has a
student group which wants to ' censor ' the university president for not being focused enough
on ' diversity, inclusiveness and equity . ' Hope the parents realize the high price they are
paying for this left wing indoctrination. mrs
"British private schools create a class culture of a kind unknown in the rest of Europe.
The extreme case is the boarding prep schools, which separate children from their parents at
the age of eight in order to shape them into members of a detached elite. In his book The
Making of Them the psychotherapist Nick Duffell shows how these artificial orphans survive
the loss of their families by dissociating themselves from their feelings of love(14).
Survival involves "an extreme hardening of normal human softness, a severe cutting off from
emotions and sensitivity."(15) Unable to attach themselves to people (intimate relationships
with other children are discouraged by a morbid fear of homosexuality), they are encouraged
instead to invest their natural loyalties in the institution.
This made them extremely effective colonial servants: if their commander ordered it, they
could organise a massacre without a moment's hesitation (witness the detachment of the
officers who oversaw the suppression of the Mau Mau, quoted in Caroline Elkins's book,
Britain's Gulag(16)). It also meant that the lower orders at home could be put down without
the least concern for the results. For many years, Britain has been governed by damaged
people.
I went through this system myself, and I know I will spend the rest of my life fighting
its effects. But one of the useful skills it has given me is an ability to recognise it in
others. I can spot another early boarder at 200 metres: you can see and smell the damage
dripping from them like sweat. The Conservative cabinets were stuffed with them: even in John
Major's "classless" government, 16 of the 20 male members of the 1993 cabinet had been to
public school; 12 of them had boarded(17). Privately-educated people dominate politics, the
civil service, the judiciary, the armed forces, the City, the media, the arts, academia, the
most prestigious professions, even, as we have seen, the Charity Commission. They recognise
each other, fear the unshaped people of the state system, and, often without being aware that
they are doing it, pass on their privileges to people like themselves.
The system is protected by silence. Because private schools have been so effective in
moulding a child's character, an attack on the school becomes an attack on all those who have
passed through it. Its most abject victims become its fiercest defenders. How many times have
I heard emotionally-stunted people proclaim "it never did me any harm"? In the Telegraph last
year, Michael Henderson boasted of the delightful eccentricity of his boarding school. "Bad
work got you an 'order mark'. One foolish fellow, Brown by name, was given a double order
mark for taking too much custard at lunch. How can you not warm to a teacher who awards such
punishment? Petty snobbery abounded," he continued, "but only wets are put off by a bit of
snobbery. So long as you pulled your socks up, and didn't let the side down, you wouldn't be
for the high jump. Which is as it should be."(18) A ruling class in a persistent state of
repression is a very dangerous thing."
Judge James C. Ho is absolutely correct to imply it is profoundly offensive to be offered
opportunity based on race rather than merit ("
Notable & Quotable: Judges ," March 27).
When I was approaching graduation and beginning my job search, a friend of the family, who
was Jewish himself, approached me with an opportunity. His accounting firm, one of the "Big
Eight" firms, had inquired if he knew any young Jewish accountants it could hire because it
didn't have any Jews working in the firm. The family friend told me this was a wonderful
opportunity and that I would be made partner and become prosperous. He was shocked when I
responded no, and asked why. I told him if I accepted this offer, I would never know if I was
successful because I was Jewish or because I was talented and skilled.
Over the months there have been letters to the editor regarding academia,
"Academic Freedom Long Ago Withered Away" (Letters, March 5) being a case in point. I find
it interesting that for the most part they are written by professors emeriti or retired
academics, not active ones with a job to lose. This is very telling in and of itself.
'The world will never be the same:' Coursera CEO on learning post pandemic
Reggie Wade
·
Writer
Fri, April 2, 2021, 12:43 PM
More content below
More content below
^IXIC
+1.76%
COUR
+1.73%
The online learning platform
Coursera
(
COUR
)
saw a big pop following its Nasdaq (
^IXIC
)
debut this week. Coursera revenue was up 60% last year, and CEO Jeff Maggioncalda predicts online learning is here to stay even
after the pandemic eventually winds down.
"The world needs more access to high-quality learning. ... There will be a new normal that emerges. We don't know what that will
look like either in terms of how we work remotely versus in an office and how we will learn online and also on campus. But it's
pretty clear that the world will never be the same again and that online learning will be a big part of it," he told Yahoo
Finance Live.
"So we really think about the long term, all the structural reasons why people will need to learn continuously through their
lives to learn new skills as the world goes more digital," he said.
Dec 27, 2019 Mountain View / CA / USA - Coursera headquarters in Silicon Valley; Coursera is an American online learning
platform that offers massive open online courses, specializations, and degrees
One area that Coursera is looking to expand is its degree and certification programs. Maggioncalda tells Yahoo Finance that the
company can use technology to shake up traditional degree offerings.
"What we've seen for centuries is that college degrees are the most meaningful, recognized learning credential that there is, and
the credential type hasn't really innovated that much over the last period of history. We think with technology, the ability to
create not only degrees but other types of credentials," he said.
"It will be a portfolio of credentials. We believe that will serve lifelong learning needs in a world where people need to keep
learning, even as they're working," he added.
"Underfunded" is a euphemism for "have students with low test scores." E.g., "Washington
D.C.'s underfunded schools."
D.C. spent around $30,115 per pupil in 2016-17, while in 2017-18, nearby Arlington County
was expected to spend $19,340, the City of Falls Church to spend $18,219; the City of
Alexandria, $17,099; Montgomery County, $16,030; Fairfax County, $14,767; Prince George's
County, $13,816; Loudoun County, $13,688; City of Manassas, $12,846; City of Manassas Park,
$11,242; and Prince William County, $11,222.
In 2015, you wrote extensively about your concerns over neoliberalism in academia, calling
it the worst threat to education. You wrote: "In order to offset the lack of public funding,
administrators have raised tuition with students becoming the primary consumers and
debt-holders. Institutions have entered into research partnerships with industry shifting the
pursuit of truth to the pursuit of profits." To accelerate this "molting," they have "
hired a larger and larger number of short-term, part-time adjuncts ."
This has created large armies of transient and disposable workers who "are in no position to
challenge the university's practices or agitate for "democratic rather than monetary
goals."
Yes, neoliberalism is hegemonic. It affects all minority communities...
"Underfunded" is a euphemism for "have students with low test scores." E.g., "Washington
D.C.'s underfunded schools." Presumably, it means "underfunded relative to some theoretical
amount of money, such as a gajillion dollars, that would be sufficient to raise these
students' test scores to average."
My dad was a school administrator in one of the top county public school systems in the
country. A politically deep-blue part of the country. He retired in the early '80's. I
remember him telling me once after he retired that his school(s) would get constant demands
from the school board to raise black (not many Hispanics then) test scores. He said the
school(s) focused all kinds of resources on black students which yielded no appreciable
results. He then said, "You know how we raised black test scores to the level demanded? We
fudged the numbers."
In the Spectator article linked -- thank you b and all -- Kimball quotes a canny friend
who said "I'd rather be ruled by the Chinese than the Yale faculty". Yes, I thought, that is
how the west is now.
I am a teacher in Australia's oldest university whose new vice-chancellor (CEO) is a pure
technocrat without academic background or a PhD.
This is the strange norm now: grey neoliberal managers are rushed into areas that require
specialists in order to 'streamline' or 'set up structures of accountability' or simply
hollow out the joint. This guy sees 'tech' as the answer, so will accelerate the pedagogical
catastrophe taking place across the world (Zoom-'teaching') whose implications are dystopian,
psychologically alienating and frankly depressing.
He is the Yale faculty at the local level; Blinken is the Yale faculty on the diplomatic
stage: a recognisable and familiar type of manager from no particular background whose career
is made leap-frogging from bureaucratisation process to bureaucratisation process.
He berates the Chinese thinking that they are the old faculty resisting the newspeak of
neoliberal managerialism, an empty meaningless feedback loop of tickboxing. The 'rules-based
order' is some imaginary thing produced in the mind of grey men to obscure their
self-aggrandisement in a vacuum; zero time has been invested in any thought about it. The
'Biden-Doctrine' is a vacuum of intellectual reflection. In short, Blinken simply doesn't
care about his job, he just cares about ticking a box on his CV as he sets himself up for the
promotion/next job. Where once we had career specialists dedicated to the actual job (like
Chas Freeman) now the whole world is run by these empty people. The consequences are very
depressing.
University administrators need not have doctoral or other academic achievements. What is
needed, in any enterprise, is the commitment to the health and to prosperity of that
enterprise.
In America, they promoted men who promised lower taxes and easier money. Men with dubious
loyalty to the long term health and well being of that country or her population. The results
is there for the world to see. Same in Italy; Mr. Berlusconi would promise to cut taxes, and
would omit to also mention that he would also cut state services. And foolish plebians would
vote for him.
When the late Mr. Khomeini came to power in Iran, one of his observations was that he
could not find enough men with integrity to put them in executive positions.
I would like to respectfully suggest to try to preserve what you can but do not try to be
a lean department or program. Maintain the "fat" so that you van save as much of the
scholarly muscle as you can when the cutting times come.
Also, reach out to the public and the alumni and ask for whatever help you can obtain. Use
Kung-Fu approaches, never attack directly. Keep trying to find alternative careers for your
older or newer faculties. Take any and all positive action and try to preserve Learning and
Scholarship for the future generations.
The late Joseph Stalin observed: "Cadres decide everything."
May be you cannot stop this, but you can delay and dlelay and derail, thus buying time for
people to adjust to their new circumstances.
That would be Mark Scott as Vice Chancellor of the University of Sydney? What a decline
from when Enoch Powell was Professor of Greek at Sydney. I greatly admire Powell's scholarly
work on Herodotus and his edition of Thucydides (one of my set texts when I was at Oxford).
How much of that work did he do at Sydney?
This is about neoliberlization of education. Early over-specialization essentially is
detrimental to professional development. this is clearlly a neoliberal approach -- to get ready
cogs into the machinery that does not reuare any additional trianing to be productive and save on
training.
Like Knuth said on a different potic "Premature optimization is the root of al evil"
Why has it taken so long for professional-services firms in the U.S. to adopt a bespoke
graduate-degree approach (
"Employers Customize Business Degrees," Business News, March 5)?
The former president of the University of Limerick, Edward Walsh, was way ahead of the game
in this regard. Dr. Walsh arguably created a new norm in Irish third-level education back in
the early 1970s, from the university's modest beginnings in the "White House" as the building
was and is still known, to a now very impressive campus with a proud record of innovation in
education and excellence in research and scholarship. Dr. Walsh customized our degrees to match
the requirements of Irish companies and industry.
My bespoke electronics-production degree was customized because the electronics industry in
Ireland at the time found that many electronic-engineering grads applying for
production-oriented positions weren't suitably qualified. As a graduate in engineering, I
believe it made my finding a job much easier than some of my counterparts in other
universities, both in Ireland and abroad. Our degrees opened many doors for my class in a lot
of different industries, and I believe they still hold us in good stead today when changing our
careers or setting up indigenous businesses.
Since inception in 2011, the Commercial Banking Program in the Mays Business School of Texas
A&M University has joined with the banking industry in implementing and teaching a required
commercial-banking curriculum that is designed to position our graduates for successful careers
in commercial banking. The banking industry provides us with valuable input on essential
training and skills they require of our students to be considered for employment. In addition,
selected parts of the program curriculum are taught by senior banking executives from our
advisory board of directors. Students receive current, relevant banking-industry training
taught by banking executives positioning them for successful careers in commercial banking.
Banks find our graduates are trained according to industry requirements and are productive
sooner than their peers, and the Commercial Banking Program is helping alleviate the shortage
of trained talent within the banking industry.
An award-winning journalist investigates Amazon's impact on the wealth and poverty of
towns and cities across the United States.
In 1937, the famed writer and activist Upton Sinclair published a novel bearing the subtitle
A Story of Ford-America . He blasted the callousness of a company worth "a billion
dollars" that underpaid its workers while forcing them to engage in repetitive and sometimes
dangerous assembly line labor. Eighty-three years later, the market capitalization of
Amazon.com has exceeded one trillion dollars, while the value of the Ford Motor Company
hovers around thirty billion. We have, it seems, entered the age of one-click America―and
as the coronavirus makes Americans more dependent on online shopping, its sway will only
intensify.
Alec MacGillis's Fulfillment is not another inside account or exposé of our
most conspicuously dominant company. Rather, it is a literary investigation of the America that
falls within that company's growing shadow. As MacGillis shows, Amazon's sprawling network of
delivery hubs, data centers, and corporate campuses epitomizes a land where winner and loser
cities and regions are drifting steadily apart, the civic fabric is unraveling, and work has
become increasingly rudimentary and isolated.
Ranging across the country, MacGillis tells the stories of those who've thrived and
struggled to thrive in this rapidly changing environment. In Seattle, high-paid workers in new
office towers displace a historic black neighborhood. In suburban Virginia, homeowners try to
protect their neighborhood from the environmental impact of a new data center. Meanwhile, in El
Paso, small office supply firms seek to weather Amazon's takeover of government procurement,
and in Baltimore a warehouse supplants a fabled steel plant. Fulfillment also shows how
Amazon has become a force in Washington, D.C., ushering readers through a revolving door for
lobbyists and government contractors and into CEO Jeff Bezos's lavish Kalorama mansion.
With empathy and breadth, MacGillis demonstrates the hidden human costs of the other
inequality―not the growing gap between rich and poor, but the gap between the country's
winning and losing regions. The result is an intimate account of contemporary capitalism: its
drive to innovate, its dark, pitiless magic, its remaking of America with every click.
" Fulfillment vividly details the devastating costs of Amazon's dominance and brutal
business practices, showcasing an economy that has concentrated in private hands staggering
wealth and power while impoverishing workers, crushing independent business, and supplanting
public governance with private might. A critical read." ―Lina Khan, associate
professor at Columbia Law School and author of Amazon's Antitrust Paradox
"Anyone who orders from Amazon needs to read these moving and enraging stories of how one
person's life savings, one life's work, one multigenerational tradition, one small business,
one town after another, are demolished by one company's seemingly unstoppable machine. They are
all the more enraging because Alec MacGillis shows so clearly how things could have been
different." ―Larissa MacFarquhar, staff writer at The New Yorker and author of
Strangers Drowning: Grappling with Impossible Idealism, Drastic Choices, and the
Overpowering Urge to Help
"Alec MacGillis practices journalism with ambition, tenacity, and empathy that will command
your awe. Like one of the great nineteenth-century novels, Fulfillment studies a social
ill with compelling intimacy and panoramic thoroughness. In the process, Jeff Bezos's dominance
and its costs are made real―and it becomes impossible to one-click again the same."
―Franklin Foer, staff writer at The Atlantic and author of World Without
Mind
"For a generation, inequality has been rising relentlessly in the United States―not
just inequality of income and wealth, but also inequality of power and geography. In
Fulfillment , Alec MacGillis brings this crisis vividly alive by creating a broad
tableau of the way one giant company, Amazon, affects the lives of people and places across the
country. This book should be read as a call to action against the new economy's continuing
assault on working people, small businesses, and left-behind places." ―Nicholas
Lemann, author of Transaction Man
" Fulfillment addresses the human impact of current technologies and economic
inequality with rare power. People in tech don't often think about the ramifications of their
work; Alec MacGillis reminds us that it has consequences, and that even if there are no clear
solutions, we have a moral imperative to consider its effects." ―Craig Newmark,
founder of craigslist
Alec MacGillis is a senior reporter for ProPublica and the recipient of the
George Polk Award, the Robin Toner prize, and other honors. He worked previously at The
Washington Post , Baltimore Sun , and The New Republic , and his journalism
has appeared in The New York Times Magazine , The New Yorker , The
Atlantic , and other publications. His ProPublica reporting on Dayton, Ohio was the
basis of a PBS Frontline documentary about the city. He is the author of The Cynic , a
2014 biography of Mitch McConnell. He lives in Baltimore.
All of these "advancements" are around removing face-to-face interaction with other people.
Whether work-from-home, automated rental & purchase, retail goods delivered, etc. Curious
what long term impact this seemingly exponential shift toward human interaction as personal
irritant is doing to our social cohesion.
Is standing in a line always a burden or is it sometimes a benefit? Sure, sometimes I just
want to do my business and go but have also met fascinating people while in lines. I'm assuming
many of the people working at that ski resort are "ski bums" who used the job as a way to
fulfill their skiing lifestyle. They are a part of the skiing culture that has been removed
from the experience now. So many local jobs are being removed and replaced by tech jobs. We
barely have local community left and it's being replaced with, what? Social media? I'm a big
fan of our online communities here at NC so it's not all bad of course.
Yes, change is inevitable and much of this is convenient but just curious what it's doing to
us as a society. Maybe it's allowing us more time to focus on closer social bonds we've already
developed? Less time in lines or stores means more time with friends and family?
Our prior ways weren't exactly healthy so honestly I don't know if this will lead to better
ways or push us further apart. Any insights or ideas are appreciated. Just been pondering it
and curious what other think.
"In a system that generates masses, individualism is the only way out. But then what happens
to community -- to society?" – Jeanette Winterson
Maybe it's allowing us more time to focus on closer social bonds we've already developed?
Less time in lines or stores means more time with friends and family?
The social bond with your doctor is pretty important I would say. As it is with your local
bookseller or grocery store. They are all people too, and being face to face with them you
build more trust and compassion. This helps us both in times of hardship
I'll take the most dire view here (someone has to!):
Every step this society takes away from face-to-face interaction, and therefore community
and fellowship, is going to proportionally increase the death rate when the rolling disasters
of our era arrive properly at our shore.
I wish I could reach out and shake everyone who is like "I interact with people too much
already, this enforced isolation is GREAT!" don't they realize this philosophy might
kill them? In the upcoming chaos, if they're an unknown unknown to the people around
them, don't they realize they'll be all too easy to leave behind or even sacrifice??
This seems to be the path our society is absolutely determined to take – so be it.
Even NC is posting articles that are more or less cheering it. But as for me, I will rage, rage
against the dying of the light.
Found myself in a rather long line (no complaints) last Sat. for 2nd Covid vaccine. Realized
later that between the long line waiting and the after waiting to leave it was probably the
most people interaction I've had for over a year! We are social creatures. Our system preaches
"individualism" because that is the only way the "instant profit" system can operate. There are
other ways; our ruling classes opt out of those and the general population becomes muddled
instead.
"Modernity" and "AI" technology is great but if u have no human interaction eventually those
traits leave and you have what???? A dead society.
And with every step forward there is a step backward. Going digital across the board is not
always good as it takes away privacy and I have an example here. There is a linked article in
Links today called "Are punitive rules forcing doctors to hide their mental health problems?"
In it, a young doctor is under enormous mental stress and turns to older doctors for advice.
They 'advised her to drive out of town, pay cash and use a pseudonym if she needed to talk
to someone.' If most transaction were done digitally, how would this doctor and others like
her go for help without endangering their jobs? What options would they have?
In cases like this, the only 'options' allowed will be "official" options. As my
misguided attempt at "therapy" years ago taught me, often times, the analyst can be toxic.
Also, in a mental health setting, I encountered the "official" preference for medication
over 'therapy.' Both are situations that put the 'authority's' preferences above the
patients. One big way I eventually 'twigged' to the dystopian dynamic was in observing the
attitudes and body language of the "health care professionals" I was dealing with.
Electronica and devices have no agency, and no "body language." The entire process is
removing useful tools for the patient to navigate the shoals and reefs where the sharks
hang out in any bureaucracy.
The other, knock on effect of telemedicine we encountered was that the charges for
electronic "office visits" have not dropped. This is analogous to when a grocery store
keeps the cost of an individual item stable and reduces the package size.
Others have said it better than I, but it bears repeating; 'modern' methods are reducing
people to the status of 'things.' Just as in the process of reducing a person or group of
people to the status of "other," the next step is 'removal.'
Cash is agency. The spying may be efficient, but its main purpose is to take away
agency. Just like "software as a service" or "in the cloud", when you could just as easily
have the same functionality on your device which you own. The vendors don't want that. They
want to control you.
The only alternative is to support and keep alive businesses that accept customers with
cash and agency. And boycott the rest. Even if it is inconvenient!
Yay, less human interaction, more isolation, fewer seasonal jobs for high school or college
students. More magical technological solutions that the on-site staff has no idea how to fix
when they stop working. You're too busy and important to stand in line! That's socialism! Let's
tell everyone that they're risking imminent death by being around other people and then sell
them ways to avoid it!
The U.S. exported its production of goods and became a "service" economy or a "knowledge"
economy. Thanks to Corona much of the service employment has become virtual. Knowledge workers
can now work from home. How many knowledge workers possess knowledge unique to the U.S. and how
many could be replaced by remote workers from somewhere else?
This post describes changes, some of which may prove temporary and others may prove
permanent. I believe most of the changes and their longer term implications require time to
fully unfold. I am not fond of virtual service. I order online from the independent vendors
still around as Amazon, E-Bay, Etsy, and other platforms grind them down, but how long will
they remain independent? The U.S. Postal Service is under attack and when it falls to
privatization what kind of e-commerce will come after that? Cashless means exposed to me --
exposed to tracking and monitoring and exposed to theft from the shadows.
I don't understand the rush to eliminating cash. Cash is the last way to opt out of
commercial control. People seem to positively embrace it, and I don't get it.
(Exception: I understand why legal cash-business owners like the idea.)
I hear crime prevention and money laundering prevention as reasons. The first is code
for "control of poor people", the second is true as far as it goes, but that's not very
far. You're targeting mainly drug money while completely ignoring corporate and
high-net-worth individuals.
My question (to no one) is how was the automation financed? Did the ski company issue
new shares in equity with first refusal to the employees? Or did the company instead mosey
on down to a local branch of the government-privileged private credit cartel to have
themselves a heaping helping of the PUBLIC'S (including the employees') CREDIT but for the
company owners' PRIVATE GAIN?
As a partridge that hatches eggs which it has not laid,
So is a person who makes a fortune, but unjustly;
In the middle of his days it will abandon him,
And in the end he will be a fool. Jeremiah 17:11
The human population didn't grow to 8 billion through physical distancing, touchless
interaction, and living in isolation. ecommerce is a thing now, but it may not have a long
shelf life. There is an inherent need for human interaction if the specie is to prosper. The
pandemic is transitory and will eventually pass; human needs, wants, and desires will endure. I
look forward to the day when I can speak with a store clerk, browse shelves and racks, and pay
for things with currency. I don't believe that there is no going back. In fact, we must go
back. At least most of the way back.
Given that we no longer trust the intentions of most public and private institutions,
i am looking for signs of a new phenomenon, which i call "Fear of new developments in
science or technology". ...due to the belief that said developments will only be used
against us, either by the state or oligarchy. Anyone have thoughts on this?
When I read "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley I considered it an improbable fantasy. But
it certainly does seem now that something of the kind is in our future, if the "best people"
have their way. Another good treatment of the subject is the short story "Welcome to the
Monkey House" by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
In neoliberalized universities there are too many PhD degree holders. It is a conveyer to produce them. .And too few real
scientists...
Notable quotes:
"... The previous generation of university educators didn't retire on schedule (I can't really blame them, tenure and ridiculously light teaching loads) and that, coupled with the rise of adjuncts and funding siphoned off for administrators, changed the nature of academia and the number of available jobs. ..."
"... I'm sorry for Herring, but she really should have anticipated what happened. I've read probably a dozen articles and essays repeating her exact experience, and none of them less that 15 years old. ..."
"Today, almost a year after I officially became Dr. Herring, I resigned from my postdoc at Ghent University. There are several reasons that motivated this decision but the
main one is that I no longer enjoy the work enough to justify how demanding it is .
As I neared
the end of my PhD, I worried about my future. It is hard to explain to those who are not in
academia just how bad things are for those who are starting out. Say the words "job market"
within earshot of a junior researcher and watch fatalistic dread cloud their face.
I was
relatively lucky because I secured a research job straight out of my PhD. But despite being
somewhat cushy, my position was still fixed-term. To hope to one day obtain an elusive
permanent contract, I had to accept that my current job would most likely be the first in a
series of short-term contracts in various distant locations.
To succeed in academia, I would
have to make a number of sacrifices. The simple truth is that I am no longer willing to make
these sacrifices. A great deal of enthusiasm is needed to survive early career academia with
its endless applications, rejections and precarity. Sadly, this enthusiasm is too often
exploited. For instance, academics are not paid to publish their research in journals. To
guarantee the quality of the research being published in these journals, they review the
findings of other researchers, also for free.
But journal publishers tend to charge thousands
in yearly subscription fees to university libraries. Increasingly, higher education staff
suffer casualisation and unreasonable workloads, and the pandemic (or rather, the ways in which
governments and university high-ups are dealing with the pandemic) is making things worse.
I do
not mean to discourage anyone who is currently working in academia or who might be considering
it as a profession. The enthusiasm and persistence of researchers is admirable and important.
Their work should be celebrated and their enthusiasm should be nourished rather than exploited.
I am proud of my friends who have managed to make things work despite all these obstacles. For
my part, I have come to terms with the fact that academia is not for me."
Regarding "Why I Am Leaving Academia," this has been true for a long time now, maybe
twenty years or so.
The previous generation of university educators didn't retire on schedule
(I can't really blame them, tenure and ridiculously light teaching loads) and that, coupled
with the rise of adjuncts and funding siphoned off for administrators, changed the nature of
academia and the number of available jobs.
How did the author not know this?
I was halfway through my MA when I understood that a PhD would likely end in economic and
professional disaster, so I gave up my dream (or more accurately, woke up).
I'm sorry for Herring, but she really should have anticipated what happened. I've read
probably a dozen articles and essays repeating her exact experience, and none of them less
that 15 years old.
After the Trump Justice Department
sued Yale following the results of a 2-year Civil Rights investigation which found
"long-standing and ongoing" race-based discrimination, the Biden DOJ just dismissed the case
without explanation .
... ... ...
The Trump DOJ had argued that the Ivy League university had violated federal civil rights
law for "at least 50 years," by favoring Black and Hispanic students over Whites and Asians,
according to
The Hill .
The legal battle represented one of the Trump administration's moves to challenge
affirmative action programs aimed at increasing diversity on campus, which some conservatives
consider unfair and illegal.
Yale, which staunchly defended its admission practices, praised the DOJ's decision to drop
the case in a statement, saying it was "gratified" by the decision. -
The Hill
"Our admissions process has allowed Yale College to assemble an unparalleled student body,
which is distinguished by its academic excellence and diversity," argued the university. "Yale
has steadfastly maintained that its process complies fully with Supreme Court precedent, and we
are confident that the Justice Department will agree."
The Trump administration notably instituted several measures to prevent universities from
considering race as a factor during admissions, even joining a similar lawsuit against Harvard
University.
This book considers the detrimental changes that have occurred to the institution of the university, as a result of the withdrawal
of state funding and the imposition of neoliberal market reforms on higher education. It argues that universities have lost their
way, and are currently drowning in an impenetrable mush of economic babble, spurious spin-offs of zombie economics, management-speak
and militaristic-corporate jargon. John Smyth provides a trenchant and excoriating analysis of how universities have enveloped themselves
in synthetic and meaningless marketing hype, and explains what this has done to academic work and the culture of universities – specifically,
how it has degraded higher education and exacerbated social inequalities among both staff and students. Finally, the book explores
how we might commence a reclamation. It should be essential reading for students and researchers in the fields of education and sociology,
and anyone interested in the current state of university management.
Quotes
If we are to unmask what is going on within and to universities, then we need to look forensically at the forces at work and
the pathological and dysfunctional effects that are placing academic lives in such jeopardy -- hence my somewhat provocative-sounding
title 'the toxic university 5 .
One of the most succinct explanations of what is animating me in writing this book was put by Lucal (2015) -- echoing arguably
the most significant sociologist ever. Charles Wright Mills (1971 [1959]) in his The sociological imagination -- when she said:
...neoliberalism is a critical public issue influencing apparently private troubles of college [university] students and teachers,
(p. 3)
... ... ...
Pathological Organizational Dysfunction
Just on 40 years ago, for all of my sins, I studied 'organizational theory and 'management behaviour' as part of my doctorate
in educational administration. I cannot remember encountering the term, but in light of mv subsequent four decades of working
in universities around the world, I think I have encountered a good deal of what 'pathological organisational dysfunction" (POD)
means in practice. I regard it is an ensemble term for a range of practices that fall well within the ambit of the 'toxic university
5 . The short explanation is that what I am calling POD has become a syndrome within which the toxic university has
become enveloped in its unquestioning embrace of the tenets of neoliberalism -- marketization, competition, audit culture, and
metrification. In other words. POD has become a major emblematic ingredient of the toxic university, which as Ferrell (2011) points
out looks fairly unproblematic on the surface:
Higher education on the corporate model imagines students as consumers, choosing between knowledge products and brands. It
imagines itself liberating the university from the dictates of the state/tradition/aristocratic self-replication, and putting
it in the hands of its democratic stakeholders. It therefore naturally subscribes to the general management principles and practices
of global corporate culture. These principles -- transparency, accountability, efficiency -- are hard to argue with in principle.
(p. 166 emphasis in original)
What is not revealed in this glossy reading of neoliberalism is the way in which it does its work, or its effects, as Ferrell
(2011) puts it in relation to universities, the way it has 'wrecked something worthwhile" (p. 181).
John Gatto. an award-winning teacher of the year in New York, comes closest to what I mean by POD in his description of'psychopathic
5 organizations. Gatto (2001) says that the term psychopathic, as applied to organizations, while it might conjure
up lurid images of deranged people running amuck, really means something quite different; he invokes the term to refer to people
'without consciences' (p. 303). The way he put it is that:
4.0 out of 5 stars Essential reading for anyone working in a UK university today.
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on August 30, 2019
Reviewers of this book seem to conflate the price of, and access to, this book in an ironic context. This isn't fair as this
is very much a book written from a formal academic perspective. In that sense the book is probably priced reasonably.
However, as I don't work in this field I found that I had to read around some of the topics in order to get a deeper understanding
of the issues raised by the book. So one thing I think that author could do is to almost re-write the book in a more "journalistic"
sense and this would make it more accessible to a wider audience.
As it stands, however, this book is right on the money. Reading almost every page brought from me nods of agreement at familiar
practices from university "leaders". This book is therefore absolutely correct in its findings and this then makes it profoundly
depressing as the book describes, in my view, the dismantling of the university system as we know it. Every chapter details things
I have witnessed or heard about from other universities. The "rock star" academics section, usually focusing on "dynamic" researchers,
is the highlight as I know enough people who fit the descriptions given - people who would sell their mothers to get a grant or
get slightly higher up the greasy pole.
The critique of university leadership, marketing functions and financial (mis)management are also spot-on.
Overall, get past the formal academic nature of this book (it is not a book designed for a wide audience, which is a pity)
and it is excellent, timely and deeply depressing.
PHILIP TAYLOR5.0 out of 5 stars
Forensic Analysis of The Toxic Neo-Liberal University Reviewed in the United Kingdom on April 19, 2019
A brilliant exposition of the toxic neo-liberal University
"Schools teach to the test, depriving children of a rounded and useful education."
Boy do they. I work in Business/IT training and as the years have rolled on I and every colleague I can think of have noticed
more and more people coming to courses that they are unfit for. Not because they are stupid, but because they have been taught
to be stupid.
So used to being taught to the test that they are afraid to ask questions. Increasingly I get asked "what's the right way to
do...", usually referring to situation in which there is no right way...
I had the great pleasure of watching our new MD describe his first customer-facing project, which was a disaster, but they
"learned" from it. I had to point out to him that I teach the two disciplines involved - businesss analysis and project management
- and if he or his team had attended any of the courses - all of which are free to them - they would have learned about the issues
they would face, because (astonishingly) they are well-known.
I fear that these incurious adult children are at the bottom of Brexit, Trump and many of the other ills that afflict us. Learning
how to do things is difficult and sometimes boring.
Much better to wander in with zero idea of what has already been done and repeat the mistakes of the past. I see the future
as a treadmill where the same mistakes are made repetitively and greeted with as much surprise as if they had never happened before.
This is a good, short book laying out many of the ways that the market has crept up on us and made our lives smaller.
Konczal provides necessary pushback to the neoliberal project, showing just everything that we have lost as the forces of capital
decided that the Great Society, the New Deal, and the Progressive Era were bridges too far against the corporate form. 8 people
found this helpful
Konczal's book is a compact history of how Americans have tried to remove the constraints imposed on them by the market. Konczal
questions the conventional idea that the market is solely a mechanism that expands choices and opportunity. As he shows, markets
can, and have, achieved precisely the opposite outcomes -- restricting choices and preventing people from having options. In many
instances, Americans successfully reclaimed the liberty they had lost to the market by organizing or taking state action. He thus
makes a more general case for ensuring that societal outcomes are more consistent with Berlin's notion of positive liberty. Libertarians
will not appreciate the book's conclusions.
The book starts with the Homestead Act and ends with the decision to terminate virtually free higher education in the 1960s
and 1970s. In between, he covers a lot of historical ground -- the effort to reduce working hours in the 19th century, the Wagner
Act and Social Security during the New Deal, and the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid, among other things. Despite the book's
ambitious scope, you can read it in a sitting, which is quite a feat. Either Konczal is a naturally efficient writer, or he has
a good editor.
There is one topic I would've liked to see treated in more detail -- finance. Konczal gives the best concise summary of the
economic ideas behind the ideological shift toward neoliberalism I have read. Still, the liberalization of finance during the
past 50 years and its farreaching implications receive a cursory discussion. In an interview, Konczal said he wanted to include
more discussion of this topic and something on the gold standard but didn't see how to incorporate it. In my view, it would have
fit quite naturally into the chapter "Free Economy."
But this is a quibble. Overall, the book is both well researched and well written. It sheds light on an important and timely
question -- to what extent should Americans permit themselves to be subject to market-driven outcomes? The book shows that, historically,
Americans have tried to implement changes that enabled them to live freer lives by organizing and taking political action. Not
all those changes were successful but many were.
For a deeper dive into these and related questions, read this book along with Polanyi's "The Great Transformation," Robin's
"The Reactionary Mind," and Slobodian's "The Globalists." 4 people found this helpful
Freedom from the Market remakes our understanding of American politics. By drawing intelligently on forgotten aspects of American
history, Konczal makes it easier for Americans to understand that things they might not believe are possible in America must be,
because they have been. He rescues moments such as the WWII government run daycare centers, or the use of the power of the federal
state to bring through the integration of Southern hospitals, from the enormous condescension of posterity. And notably, although
he doesn't dwell on this point, many of these changes began at moments that seem shittier and more despairing than our own.
So what Konczal is doing is neither to provide a standard linear history, nor yet a policy textbook. Instead, he is claiming
an alternative American tradition, that has not looked to the market as its apotheosis, but instead has sought to free Americans
from its random vagaries. His history explains how Americans have responded collectively to the real and expressed needs of publics,
who have organized to fight for them. And it does so in the plain language that he mentions in passing was necessary to allow
ordinary people to organize and understand who was trying to stop them.
Konczal's fundamental claim is that people who link freedom to markets miss out on much of the story. Equally important is
a notion of freedom <em>from</em> markets, "rooted in public programs that genuinely serve people and checking market dependency."
This notion goes back much further in time than the New Deal. The nineteenth century is sometimes depicted as a reign of laissez-faire,
both by those who admired it and deplored it. Konczal argues instead that there was an emerging sense of public needs - and how
the government might provide for them. For example, this helps us understand the provision of public land through the Homestead
Act and the land grant universities.
The nineteenth century notion of the public was clearly horribly flawed and contradictory - it did not include slaves or Native
Americans. Some, like Horace Greeley ended up fleeing these contradictions into the welcoming arms of free market absolutism.
But within these contradictions lay possibilities that opened up in the twentieth century. Konczal builds, for example on Eric
Schickler's work to argue that as the New Deal began to provide concrete benefits to African Americans, it created a new conduit
between them and the Democratic Party, breaking up the old coalition that had held Jim Crow together.
Konczal explains how change happens - through social movements and the state:
While the Supreme Court can be effective at holding back change and enforcing already existing power structures, it is actually
very weak at creating new reform itself. It controls no funding and is dependent on elite power structures to carry out its
decisions. What really creates change is popular mobilization and legislative changes.
He also draws on historians like Quinn Slobodian, to describe how modern Hayekians have sought to "encase" the market order
in institutions and practices that are hard to overturn. Property rights aren't the foundation of liberty, as both nineteenth
century jurists and twentieth century economists would have it. They are a product of the choices of the state, and as such intensely
political.
This allows Konczal to turn pragmatism against the Hayekians. Hayek's notion of spontaneous order is supposed to be evolutionary.
But if there is a need to to provide collective goods for people that cannot be fulfilled through voluntarism, the Hayekian logic
becomes a brutal constraint on adaptation.
The efforts of Hayekians to enforce binding legal constraints, to cripple the gathering of the collective knowledge that can
guide collective action, to wink at legal doctrines intended to subvert social protections against the market; all these prevent
the kinds of evolutionary change that are necessary to respond to changing circumstances. Konczal makes it clear that Oliver Wendell
Holmes was no left-winger - but his criticisms of the rigid and doctrinaire laissez-faire precepts of his colleagues rings true.
Their "willingness to use a very specific understanding of economics to override law writes a preferential understanding of economics
into the constitution itself." Although Konczal wrote this book before the current crisis, he describes Holmes as mentioning compulsory
vaccination laws as one of the ways in which government interference in private decisions can have general social benefits. The
wretched contortions of libertarians over the last several months, and their consequences for human welfare in states such as
North Dakota illustrate the point, quite brutally.
What Konczal presses for is a very different notion of freedom. This doesn't deny the benefits of markets, but it qualifies
them. In Konczal's words, "markets are great at distributing things based on people's willingness to pay. But there are some goods
that should be distributed by need." Accepting this point entails the necessity of keeping some important areas of life outside
the determining scope of markets. Furthermore, people's needs change over time, as societies and markets change. Konczal's framework
suggests the need for collective choice to figure out the best responses to these changes, and a vibrant democratic politics,
in which the state responds to the expressed needs of mobilized publics as the best way to carry out these choices.
All this makes the book sound more like an exercise in political theory than it is. You need to read the book itself, if you
really to get the good stuff - the stories, the examples, and the overall narrative that Konczal weaves together. <em>Freedom
from the Market</em> has the potential to be a very important book, focusing attention on the contested, messy but crucially important
intersection between social movements and the state. It provides a set of ideas that people on both sides of that divide can learn
from, and a lively alternative foundation to the deracinated technocratic notions of politics, in which good policy would somehow,
magically, be politically self supporting, that has prevailed up until quite recently. Recommended.
Covid-19 exposed some warts of neoliberalism in higher education... They want to keep those lucrative international students
flooding in, after all.
Notable quotes:
"... We align our identities with our institutions and think in very a short-term, metric-based fashion, seeing "success" (for instance) in terms of student recruitment (tuition fees paid in). Moreover, we're encouraged above all to be global in outlook: we look forward to our perennially "busy" international conference seasons and we emphasize the global and the transnational over the merely local or national ..."
"... our identities as academics are unavoidably embedded in a form of neoliberal hyperglobalisation. We rely on unrestricted flows of (wealthy) bodies across borders. ..."
"... We see this form of globalisation, and the benefits that accrue to us and our institutions from it, as a form of moral necessity : something it isn't possible even to argue against in good faith. Hence our loud assent to principles like open borders and always-on mass migration. ..."
"... Our commitment to the global as a form of moral mission has left us completely unprepared for what's currently unfolding. We are utterly unused to considering the material constraints of the economy our livelihoods depend on; that globalisation might come back to bite us; that the very aircraft that carry us across the world to conference destinations and field work sites would one day turn off the spigot of endlessly mobile bodies our careers and identities depend on. ..."
"... In this respect, I think of this post over at Crooked Timber, where John Quiggin (an economist I have a great deal of respect for) simply cannot bring himself to confront the possibility that the open borders dream might be dead. ..."
"... But the fact that the "export education" model was a disastrous wrong turn will take much longer to be accepted, I think, because of the widespread commitment I've been talking about here to the principle of the global as a form of moral necessity. ..."
we've had a Minsky-like process operating on a society-wide basis: as daily risks have declined, most people have blinded
themselves to what risk amounts to and where it might surface in particularly nasty forms. And the more affluent and educated
classes, who disproportionately constitute our decision-makers, have generally been the most removed.
I see something very similar happening in academia. We align our identities with our institutions and think in very a short-term,
metric-based fashion, seeing "success" (for instance) in terms of student recruitment (tuition fees paid in). Moreover, we're
encouraged above all to be global in outlook: we look forward to our perennially "busy" international conference seasons and we
emphasize the global and the transnational over the merely local or national (denigrated as narrow, provincial, and ideologically
suspect).
We like to see ourselves as mobile subjects, bodies in constant motion, our minds Romantically untethered from the confines
of any one nation state.
So our identities as academics are unavoidably embedded in a form of neoliberal hyperglobalisation. We rely on unrestricted
flows of (wealthy) bodies across borders. Our institutions (or many of them) have become dependent on international students
and their superior fee-paying ability compared with merely "domestic students."
We might agree in principle with ideas of a GND,
say, or take an ecocritical approach to a novel or a play, but we're certainly not going to cut back on the number of international
conferences we attend. Indeed, many of us go further.
We see this form of globalisation, and the benefits that accrue to us and our institutions from it, as a form of moral
necessity : something it isn't possible even to argue against in good faith. Hence our loud assent to principles like open borders
and always-on mass migration. We have to keep those lucrative international students flooding in, after all. (Not that we'd
ever put it in terms as crassly material as that; after all, we don't work in university administration .)
Our commitment to the global as a form of moral mission has left us completely unprepared for what's currently unfolding.
We are utterly unused to considering the material constraints of the economy our livelihoods depend on; that globalisation might
come back to bite us; that the very aircraft that carry us across the world to conference destinations and field work sites would
one day turn off the spigot of endlessly mobile bodies our careers and identities depend on.
Hence the reason why a lot of my colleagues are so lost right now. They're so used to living on a purely symbolic (or moral-symbolic)
level that the materiality of this virus and its consequences seems like a crude insult. Many stubbornly hold on to their old
commitments, unwilling to admit that the world might have changed.
In this respect, I think of this post over at
Crooked Timber, where John Quiggin (an economist I have a great deal of respect for) simply cannot bring himself to confront the
possibility that the open borders dream might be dead.
Where we go from here, I have no idea. But the fact that international and Erasmus students might be gone for the foreseeable
future, and the major implications this will have for the financial viability or our universities, seems to be slowly sinking
in.
But the fact that the "export education" model was a disastrous wrong turn will take much longer to be accepted, I think,
because of the widespread commitment I've been talking about here to the principle of the global as a form of moral necessity.
"As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the
citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel." ~Grover Cleveland
(about that other gilded
age)
"There is fraud at the heart of Wall Street -- deliberate intellectual, business, and political deception. Charles Ferguson is in
hot pursuit.
Inside
Job
shook
up the cozy world of academic finance.
Predator
Nation
should
stir prosecutors into action. And if we fail to reform our political system, you can say goodbye to American democracy." --
Simon
Johnson
,
coauthor of
White
House Burning
and
professor at MIT Sloan School of Management
"Over the last thirty years, the United States has been taken over by an amoral financial oligarchy, and the American dream of
opportunity, education, and upward mobility is now largely confined to the top few percent of the population.
Federal policy is increasingly dictated by the wealthy, by the financial sector, and by powerful (though sometimes badly mismanaged)
industries. These policies are implemented and praised by these groups' willing servants, namely the increasingly
bought-and-paid-for leadership of America's political parties, academia, and lobbying industry.
If allowed to continue, this process will turn the United States into a declining, unfair society with an impoverished, angry,
uneducated population under the control of a small, ultrawealthy elite. Such a society would be not only immoral but also
eventually unstable, dangerously ripe for religious and political extremism."
4.0 out of 5 stars
Scary
read. Frightening true! HIGHLY recommend!!
Reviewed in the United States on February 11, 2017
Verified Purchase
Just finished this page turner. Wow! Talk about an enlightening read.
Scary too and worse, yet it's so spot on. I always knew that most businesses, especially those dealing with
money are crooked, selfish and good for nothing greedy souls. This book proves my point and more. Personally, I
never heard of this book or the author until my brother recommended it to me in passing. It scared the hell out
of him. Naturally, I had to see what book could do that. After reading it, I understand why.
Not only are the financial industries greedy and crooked but so is our governments and both Democrats and
Republicans. The housing crash of 2008 wasn't the beginning of our problems but the culmination of years of
greed, shady deals and lack of accountability for the financial industry. President George W. Bush was
complicit in protecting the finance industry not the people of America. Worse yet was President Barack Obama.
It's all in there: every dirty little detail. If you think your broker, banker or financial advisor has your
best interest at heart, this couldn't show how very wrong you are. Is the book perfect? No. Is the U.S.
Government or any other world government perfect? Hell no. should we be very afraid of how our bankers are?
Yes.
This is a book I enjoyed reading because I already knew about most of it already just by observing and never
trusting anyone anyway. I highly recommend it. I loved the fact that the author wasn't afraid to speak the
truth. That is always refreshing. I look forward to reading more by Charles Ferguson.
Overall, an informative and compelling read. Everyone whether interested in finances or note needs to read this
book. Seriously!
Read less
2 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
>
OMG!
You owe it to yourself to read what is really going on!
5.0 out of 5 stars
OMG!
You owe it to yourself to read what is really going on!
Reviewed in the United States on November 4, 2014
Verified Purchase
Definitely an eye opener. If I was cynical before, this one pushed me
over the edge. Banks and large corporations in collusion with the government and zero accountability. Our
newspapers, again, did a disservice to the public. It is one thing to talk about the mortgage industry going
under, it is quite another to understand what the banks did to facilitate a world-wide recession with NO
prosecutions. I was particularly appalled that the corporations paid the politicians who voted to remove any
restraints on the banks. Then the banks created derivative markets they knew would fail. Moreover, the bank
made millions of dollars by betting the derivative market would fail. Yet, when the bubble burst, these same
people were standing at the government door (that they paid for) with their hand out for a taxpayer bail-out.
The CEOs were rewarded for their bad behavior with millions of dollars in bonuses and no repercussions for
bilking millions of victims or for causing a world wide downward money spiral.
7 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
>
4.0 out of 5 stars
Long
on diagnosis, short on solution
Reviewed in the United States on June 9, 2012
Verified Purchase
As a fan of "Inside Job" I was eager to read Predator Nation, which
minces no words in designating the financial industry as "criminal" abetted by the political establishment,
whether Republican or Democrat. The other reviews here lay out what this book accomplishes, to which I would
only underscore the powerful and no-holds-barred approach of Ferguson to establishing responsibility and
labeling it "criminal" as well as "predatory."
Beyond critique of Wall Street and the political "duopoly," the book widely supports the thesis that something
is terribly wrong in America, a cultural malaise rooted in economic thievery and imbalance empowering the
wealthy, and rendering today's America into the equivalent of what we used to call "a banana republic." Charles
Ferguson pulls no punches in laying out his case here.
But, as another review has pointed out, the ending is disappointing. Charles has laid into Obama as part of the
"duopoly" governing America, meaning diverging only on fractious social issues but essentially united in
matters of finance and government, including war. At one point he labels Obama's weak commentary on controlling
Wall Street "horse [manure]" and then at another point says "he [Obama] screwed us." In his concluding five
page chapter which has an "oh, well" feel to it he tells us "hold your nose and vote for him [Obama], as I
will."
With this and various commentaries we seem to be very long on laying out damages and ascribing responsibility,
but have almost nothing to say on what to do other than repair to the lounge on the Titanic and have another
whiskey, hoping somebody will come along with a bright idea or two at some point. If more energy were put into
finding answers, as with ascribing blame, maybe we could be more hopeful.
Read less
9 people found this helpful
At 78, after a prolonged illness and without recovering consciousness, Joe Biden succumbed
to the Presidency. The last hopes of the last QAnon believers vanished like smoke in the night,
with Biden assuming the mighty US throne. This is truly a dark day for America and for the
world, as the US example will be followed by many. It is also a farewell to the real world we
were brought up in. The new world is virtual, like most of the inauguration. It is virtual and
dark, ruled by digital companies fronted by old and tired politicians.
McFaul says that "Biden's team should come up with new ways to grow these ties [with
ordinary Russians] even over Putin's objections. In the long run, forging and sustaining
links with Russian society will undermine anti-American propaganda as well as American
stereotypes about Russia."
To this, McFaul adds that, "The new administration should make it easier for Russians to
study in and travel to the United States," and urges European states to do the same.
My take on this is very simple: the West cannot even absorb their own youth anymore. What
makes them think they can absorb Russia's?
Besides, it's not so simple an operation to attract young people to your country to study.
The logistics are very complicated, and it requires a lot of resources not even counting the
promise of jobs within your own country (in the case of STEM students). Even the brain drain
from countries with large populations such as China and India don't surpass much above the
low to mid six digits. And those programs take time to gain traction - decades in most cases.
And all of this already taking into account the fact that your country still has to be an
attractive place.
Discontent already exists in Americans with Indian STEM from H1B1 visa program. As the
excess population rises, so will resistance to new influx of immigrants - specially
high-skilled ones. This will snowball to a stage where Americans become second-class citizens
in their own country (as you would have to guarantee the jobs for the foreigners in order to
sweeten the deal).
How will the USA regain its advantage in this world?
I was looking back at some earlier reports to gain an insight into the means by which the
USA gave the game away and the means that might restore its place in the economic world. It
has allowed itself to be completely captive to global private finance AND ownership of the
keys to its salvation. If it dfoes not nationalise its key industries then it can rest
assured of its doom. IMO it is now almost impossible for it to nationalise a pizza parlour
let alone an education or engineering sector.
If the USA is to survive the oncoming collapse and break free of its apocalyptic war
agenda, then certain realities WILL have to occur. These realities include (but are not
limited to):
1) Regaining its lost industrial potential, with an emphasis on the machine tool sector
which the west once enjoyed as a world leader
2) Regaining the lost scientific and technological capacities which the USA once had
when it still valued productive thinking under the days of JFK and NASA
3) Regaining a grasp of education which values productive citizens over consumer
subjects
4) Regaining control over national credit under federal banking, dirigisme and other
long-term investment practices that rely on regulating Wall Street speculation and other
unproductive forms of banking.
How might these vital capacities be regained?....
The USA is incapable of nationalising its education sector and is incapable
systemically of having the patience to await the benefits. It will continue to sustain an
education sector that is designed to transfer $$$ in taxation directly to private corporation
pockets and to do so by reducing the the number of salary earners between the input $ and the
$ that end in private corporation pockets. The private corporations will continue to perfect
the swindle of returning the least possible effort in return for those $$$.
Ditto for defence spending and every other sector.
The USAi is hoist by its own petard and has a dull brained president surrounded by
ideological obsessives, cultural paranoiacs, a narcissistic Congress and Senate. It will not
be capable of restoring its real economy and will continue to imagine itself as a world
leader. It will berate and negate and cancel all unorthodox thought from those that favour
nation building.
The rest of the world's nations had better take note. Clearly many have.
@James
Speaks rn. I'm not fine with assuming that the end product will automatically produce
merit beyond what meritocracy is today – brown-nosing. True merit is you have
demonstrated you can do it.
The last 40+ years have seen an endless stream of "bright boys" graduating university with
MBAs, getting involved in the management structure as "change agents", screwing up the
business for 5 years then "taking another opportunity" to screw up a different company.
Prof. Henry Mintzberg calls them the wrong people, at the wrong time, for the wrong
reason, because they don't have a clue how the real world works. But hey, they are high IQ
people, so they must have merit.
@Curmudgeon
r medicine and sophisticated writing. The issue is that these individual were poorly educated
– first and foremost in the "greed is good" school of the America. After sipping deeply
of this dead-end, destructive ethical framework, these individuals were then carefully
trained on how to extract value from an economy/a company rather than add value.
High IQ is still desperately needed for progress and to maintain civilisation. But put to
ill-use, high IQ individuals can wreak commensurately wreak greater havoc.
Analogies could be made to guns, armies, cars. All of them can be put to exceptionally
ill-use. Few would argue that a modern nation can live without automobiles or some kind of
armed defence force.
Foreword to Brave New World, second edition -- circa 1947
Aldous Huxley (1894-1963)
Here's my abridgement:
In the meantime, however, it seems worth while at least to mention the most serious defect in
the story, which is this. The Savage is offered only two alternatives, an insane life in
Utopia, or the life of a primitive in an Indian village, a life more human in some respects,
but in others hardly less queer and abnormal. ... Today I feel no wish to demonstrate that
sanity is impossible. ... If I were now to rewrite the book, I would offer the Savage a third
alternative. Between the utopian and the primitive horns of his dilemma would lie the
possibility of sanity -- a possibility already actualized, to some extent, in a community of
exiles and refugees from the Brave New World, living within the borders of the Reservation.
In this community economics would be decentralist and Henry-Georgian , politics
Kropotkinesque cooperative. Science and technology would be used as though, like the Sabbath,
they had been made for man, not (as at present and still more so in the Brave New World) as
though man were to be adapted and enslaved to them. Religion would be the conscious and
intelligent pursuit of man's Final End, the unitive knowledge of the immanent Tao or Logos,
the transcendent Godhead or Brahman. And the prevailing philosophy of life would be a kind of
Higher Utilitarianism, in which the Greatest Happiness principle would be secondary to the
Final End principle -- the first question to be asked and answered in every contingency of
life being: "How will this thought or action contribute to, or interfere with, the
achievement, by me and the greatest possible number of other individuals, of man's Final
End?"
.... and here is the Foreword, in full:
Chronic remorse, as all the moralists are agreed, is a most undesirable sentiment. If you
have behaved badly, repent, make what amends you can and address yourself to the task of
behaving better next time. On no account brood over your wrong-doing. Rolling in the muck is
not the best way of getting clean.
Art also has its morality, and many of the rules of this morality are the same as, or at
least analogous to, the rules of ordinary ethics. Remorse, for example, is as undesirable in
relation to our bad art as it is in relation to our bad behaviour. The badness should be hunted
out, acknowledged and, if possible, avoided in the future. To pore over the literary
shortcomings of twenty years ago, to attempt to patch a faulty work into the perfection it
missed at its first execution, to spend one's middle age in trying to mend the artistic sins
committed and bequeathed by that different person who was oneself in youth -- all this is
surely vain and futile. And that is why this new Brave New World is the same as the old one.
Its defects as a work of art are considerable; but in order to correct them I should have to
rewrite the book -- and in the process of rewriting, as an older, other person, I should
probably get rid not only of some of the faults of the story, but also of such merits as it
originally possessed. And so, resisting the temptation to wallow in artistic remorse, I prefer
to leave both well and ill alone and to think about something else.
In the meantime, however, it seems worth while at least to mention the most serious defect
in the story, which is this. The Savage is offered only two alternatives, an insane life in
Utopia, or the life of a primitive in an Indian village, a life more human in some respects,
but in others hardly less queer and abnormal. At the time the book was written this idea, that
human beings are given free will in order to choose between insanity on the one hand and lunacy
on the other, was one that I found amusing and regarded as quite possibly true. For the sake,
however, of dramatic effect, the Savage is often permitted to speak more rationally than his
upbringing among the practitioners of a religion that is half fertility cult and half
Penitente ferocity would actually warrant. Even his acquaintance with Shakespeare would
not in reality justify such utterances. And at the close, of course, he is made to retreat from
sanity; his native Penitente -ism reasserts its authority and he ends in maniacal
self-torture and despairing suicide. "And so they died miserably ever after" -- much to the
reassurance of the amused, Pyrrhonic aesthete who was the author of the fable.
Today I feel no wish to demonstrate that sanity is impossible. On the contrary, though I
remain no less sadly certain than in the past that sanity is a rather rare phenomenon, I am
convinced that it can be achieved and would like to see more of it. For having said so in
several recent books and, above all, for having compiled an anthology of what the sane have
said about sanity and the means whereby it can be achieved, I have been told by an eminent
academic critic that I am a sad symptom of the failure of an intellectual class in time of
crisis. The implication being, I suppose, that the professor and his colleagues are hilarious
symptoms of success. The benefactors of humanity deserve due honour and commemoration. Let us
build a Pantheon for professors. It should be located among the ruins of one of the gutted
cities of Europe or Japan, and over the entrance to the ossuary I would inscribe, in letters
six or seven feet high, the simple words: SACRED TO THE MEMORY OF THE WORLD'S EDUCATORS. SI
MONUMENTUM REQUIRIS CIRCUMSPICE.
But to return to the future . . . If I were now to rewrite the book, I would offer the
Savage a third alternative. Between the utopian and the primitive horns of his dilemma would
lie the possibility of sanity -- a possibility already actualized, to some extent, in a
community of exiles and refugees from the Brave New World, living within the borders of the
Reservation. In this community economics would be decentralist and Henry-Georgian,
politics Kropotkinesque cooperative. Science and technology would be used as though, like the
Sabbath, they had been made for man, not (as at present and still more so in the Brave New
World) as though man were to be adapted and enslaved to them. Religion would be the conscious
and intelligent pursuit of man's Final End, the unitive knowledge of the immanent Tao or Logos,
the transcendent Godhead or Brahman. And the prevailing philosophy of life would be a kind of
Higher Utilitarianism, in which the Greatest Happiness principle would be secondary to the
Final End principle -- the first question to be asked and answered in every contingency of life
being: "How will this thought or action contribute to, or interfere with, the achievement, by
me and the greatest possible number of other individuals, of man's Final End?"
Brought up among the primitives, the Savage (in this hypothetical new version of the book)
would not be transported to Utopia until he had had an opportunity of learning something at
first hand about the nature of a society composed of freely co-operating individuals devoted to
the pursuit of sanity. Thus altered, Brave New World would possess artistic and (if it is
permissible to use so large a word in connection with a work of fiction) a philosophical
completeness, which in its present form it evidently lacks.
But Brave New World is a book about the future and, whatever its artistic or philosophical
qualities, a book about the future can interest us only if its prophecies look as though they
might conceivably come true. From our present vantage point, fifteen years further down the
inclined plane of modern history, how plausible do its prognostications seem? What has happened
in the painful interval to confirm or invalidate the forecasts of 1931?
One vast and obvious failure of foresight is immediately apparent. Brave New World contains
no reference to nuclear fission. That it does not is actually rather odd, for the possibilities
of atomic energy had been a popular topic of conversation for years before the book was
written. My old friend, Robert Nichols, had even written a successful play about the subject,
and I recall that I myself had casually mentioned it in a novel published in the late twenties.
So it seems, as I say, very odd that the rockets and helicopters of the seventh century of Our
Ford should not have been powered by disintegrating nuclei. The oversight may not be excusable;
but at least it can be easily explained. The theme of Brave New World is not the advancement of
science as such; it is the advancement of science as it affects human individuals. The triumphs
of physics, chemistry and engineering are tacitly taken for granted. The only scientific
advances to be specifically described are those involving the application to human beings of
the results of future research in biology, physiology and psychology. It is only by means of
the sciences of life that the quality of life can be radically changed. The sciences of matter
can be applied in such a way that they will destroy life or make the living of it impossibly
complex and uncomfortable; but, unless used as instruments by the biologists and psychologists,
they can do nothing to modify the natural forms and expressions of life itself. The release of
atomic energy marks a great revolution in human history, but not (unless we blow ourselves to
bits and so put an end to history) the final and most searching revolution.
This really revolutionary revolution is to be achieved, not in the external world, but in
the souls and flesh of human beings. Living as he did in a revolutionary period, the Marquis de
Sade very naturally made use of this theory of revolutions in order to rationalize his peculiar
brand of insanity. Robespierre had achieved the most superficial kind of revolution, the
political. Going a little deeper, Babeuf had attempted the economic revolution. Sade regarded
himself as the apostle of the truly revolutionary revolution, beyond mere politics and
economics -- the revolution in individual men, women and children, whose bodies were
henceforward to become the common sexual property of all and whose minds were to be purged of
all the natural decencies, all the laboriously acquired inhibitions of traditional
civilization. Between sadism and the really revolutionary revolution there is, of course, no
necessary or inevitable connection. Sade was a lunatic and the more or less conscious goal of
his revolution was universal chaos and destruction. The people who govern the Brave New World
may not be sane (in what may be called the absolute sense of the word); but they are not
madmen, and their aim is not anarchy but social stability. It is in order to achieve stability
that they carry out, by scientific means, the ultimate, personal, really revolutionary
revolution. But meanwhile we are in the first phase of what is perhaps the penultimate
revolution. Its next phase may be atomic warfare, in which case we do not have to bother with
prophecies about the future. But it is conceivable that we may have enough sense, if not to
stop fighting altogether, at least to behave as rationally as did our eighteenth-century
ancestors. The unimaginable horrors of the Thirty Years War actually taught men a lesson, and
for more than a hundred years the politicians and generals of Europe consciously resisted the
temptation to use their military resources to the limits of destructiveness or (in the majority
of conflicts) to go on fighting until the enemy was totally annihilated. They were aggressors,
of course, greedy for profit and glory; but they were also conservatives, determined at all
costs to keep their world intact, as a going concern. For the last thirty years there have been
no conservatives; there have been only nationalistic radicals of the right and nationalistic
radicals of the left. The last conservative statesman was the fifth Marquess of Lansdowne; and
when he wrote a letter to the the Times , suggesting that the First World War should be
concluded with a compromise, as most of the wars of the eighteenth century had been, the editor
of that once conservative journal refused to print it. The nationalistic radicals had their
way, with the consequences that we all know --Bolshevism, Fascism, inflation, depression,
Hitler, the Second World War, the ruin of Europe and all but universal famine.
Assuming, then, that we are capable of learning as much from Hiroshima as our forefathers
learned from Magdeburg, we may look forward to a period, not indeed of peace, but of limited
and only partially ruinous warfare. During that period it may be assumed that nuclear energy
will be harnessed to industrial uses. The result, pretty obviously, will be a series of
economic and social changes unprecedented in rapidity and completeness. All the existing
patterns of human life will be disrupted and new patterns will have to be improvised to conform
with the nonhuman fact of atomic power. Procrustes in modern dress, the nuclear scientist will
prepare the bed on which mankind must lie; and if mankind doesn't fit -- well, that will be
just too bad for mankind. There will have to be some stretching and a bit of amputation -- the
same sort of stretching and amputations as have been going on ever since applied science really
got into its stride, only this time they will be a good deal more drastic than in the past.
These far from painless operations will be directed by highly centralized totalitarian
governments. Inevitably so; for the immediate future is likely to resemble the immediate past,
and in the immediate past rapid technological changes, taking place in a mass-producing economy
and among a population predominantly propertyless, have always tended to produce economic and
social confusion. To deal with confusion, power has been centralized and government control
increased. It is probable that all the world's governments will be more or less completely
totalitarian even before the harnessing of atomic energy; that they will be totalitarian during
and after the harnessing seems almost certain. Only a large-scale popular movement toward
decentralization and self-help can arrest the present tendency toward statism. At present there
is no sign that such a movement will take place.
There is, of course, no reason why the new totalitarianisms should resemble the old.
Government by clubs and firing squads, by artificial famine, mass imprisonment and mass
deportation, is not merely inhumane (nobody cares much about that nowadays), it is demonstrably
inefficient and in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is the sin against the Holy
Ghost. A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive
of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have
to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in
present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, news- paper editors and
schoolteachers. But their methods are still crude and unscientific. The old Jesuits' boast
that, if they were given the schooling of the child, they could answer for the man's religious
opinions, was a product of wishful thinking. And the modern pedagogue is probably rather less
efficient at conditioning his pupils' reflexes than were the reverend fathers who educated
Voltaire. The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something,
but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of
view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr.
Churchill calls an "iron curtain" between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local
political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much
more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most
compelling of logical rebuttals. But silence is not enough. If persecution, liquidation and the
other symptoms of social friction are to be avoided, the positive sides of propaganda must be
made as effective as the negative. The most important Manhattan Projects of the future will be
vast government-sponsored enquiries into what the politicians and the participating scientists
will call "the problem of happiness" -- in other words, the problem of making people love their
servitude. Without economic security, the love of servitude cannot possibly come into
existence; for the sake of brevity, I assume that the all-powerful executive and its managers
will succeed in solving the problem of permanent security. But security tends very quickly to
be taken for granted. Its achievement is merely a superficial, external revolution. The love of
servitude cannot be established except as the result of a deep, personal revolution in human
minds and bodies. To bring about that revolution we require, among others, the following
discoveries and inventions.
First, a greatly improved technique of suggestion -- through infant conditioning and,
later, with the aid of drugs, such as scopolamine.
Second, a fully developed science of human differences, enabling government managers to
assign any given individual to his or her proper place in the social and economic hierarchy.
(Round pegs in square holes tend to have dangerous thoughts about the social system and to
infect others with their discontents.)
Third (since reality, however utopian, is something from which people feel the need of
taking pretty frequent holidays), a substitute for alcohol and the other narcotics, something
at once less harmful and more pleasure-giving than gin or heroin.
And fourth (but this would be a long-term project, which it would take generations of
totalitarian control to bring to a successful conclusion), a foolproof system of eugenics,
designed to standardize the human product and so to facilitate the task of the managers. In
Brave New World this standardization of the human product has been pushed to
fantastic, though not perhaps impossible, extremes. Technically and ideologically we are
still a long way from bottled babies and Bokanovsky groups of semi-morons. But by A.F. 600,
who knows what may not be happening? Meanwhile the other characteristic features of that
happier and more stable world -- the equivalents of soma and hypnopaedia and the scientific
caste system --are probably not more than three or four generations away. Nor does the sexual
promiscuity of Brave New World seem so very distant. There are already certain American
cities in which the number of divorces is equal to the number of marriages. In a few years,
no doubt, marriage licenses will be sold like dog licenses, good for a period of twelve
months, with no law against changing dogs or keeping more than one animal at a time. As
political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase.
And the dictator (unless he needs cannon fodder and families with which to colonize empty or
conquered territories) will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the
freedom to daydream under the influence of dope and movies and the radio, it will help to
reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.
All things considered it looks as though Utopia were far closer to us than anyone, only
fifteen years ago, could have imagined. Then, I projected it six hundred years into the future.
Today it seems quite possible that the horror may be upon us within a single century. That is,
if we refrain from blowing ourselves to smithereens in the interval. Indeed, unless we choose
to decentralize and to use applied science, not as the end to which human beings are to be made
the means, but as the means to producing a race of free individuals, we have only two
alternatives to choose from: either a number of national, militarized totalitarianisms, having
as their root the terror of the atomic bomb and as their consequence the destruction of
civilization (or, if the warfare is limited, the perpetuation of militarism); or else one
supranational totalitarianism, called into existence by the social chaos resulting from rapid
technological progress in general and the atomic revolution in particular, and developing,
under the need for efficiency and stability, into the welfare-tyranny of Utopia. You pays your
money and you takes your choice.
In the foreword to the 1946 edition of his novel, Brave New World , Aldous Huxley anticipated the
continued emergence, perhaps in novel forms, of statist totalitarianism:
There is, of course, no reason why the new totalitarianisms should resemble the old.
Government by clubs and firing squads, by artificial famine, mass imprisonment and mass
deportation, is not merely inhumane (nobody cares much about that nowadays), it is
demonstrably inefficient and in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is the sin
against the Holy Ghost. A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the
all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of
slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it
is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda,
news-paper editors and schoolteachers. But their methods are still crude and
unscientific.
Because, in 1946, the world had yet to witness the horrors of Red China, North Korea, Cuba,
and Cambodia, Huxley guessed wrong that artificial famines, mass imprisonment, and political
executions would go out of fashion. Totalitarianism is impossible without brute violence. And,
from our brave new world of 2021, where Big Tech's promiscuous deployment of tools like
Machine
Learning Fairness and
shadow banning prevent users' exposure to wrongthink, his estimation of propaganda methods
as "crude and unscientific" is badly out of date.
But how chilling is Huxley's prescience about propaganda ministers, news editors, and
schoolteachers training generations of serfs to willingly obey "political bosses and their army
of managers"?
Just like the truism that "generals always fight the last war," Huxley's point that there's
"no reason why the new totalitarianisms should resemble the old" calls for both vigilance and
imagination on our part; our next totalitarian enemy isn't limited to patterns of
twentieth-century Nazism or Soviet-style Communism.
For instance, the suffocating blanket of censorship and suppression of free speech, which
seems to defy any constitutional remedy because it's not directly traceable to
government action, remains a problem without an obvious solution. Regardless, it's an open
secret that the corporate executives in media, Big Tech, and Hollywood managing this
suppression are acting on behalf of a single political party -- a party that, due in large part
to that interference and suppression now have near total control of the federal government.
Townhall's Matt Vespa quotes even a liberal reporter, Michael Tracey, warning that the
"absolute authoritarian lunacy" of Twitter's decision to ban President Trump isn't about
"'safety,' it's about purposely inflating a threat in order to assert political and cultural
dominance." Warns Tracey, "The new corporate authoritarian liberal-left monoculture is going to
be absolutely ruthless -- and in 12 days it is merging with the state ." [My
italics].
Glenn Greenwald, another committed progressive, also complains "
that political censorship has 'contaminated virtually every mainstream centre-left
political organization, academic institution and newsroom.'" In October, Greenwald, co-founder
of The Intercept news site,
resigned after they refused to publish his article
about Joe Biden and Hunter's shocking influence-peddling, unless Greenwald first removed
"critical points against the Democratic candidate."
In
reality, standing alone with election fraud notwithstanding , last October's lockstep
decision by an entire news industry to suppress the starkly headline-worthy scandals around
Hunter Biden's laptop, along with all other negative stories about Joe Biden, accounts directly
for 17% of Biden voters who would have abandoned him "
had they known the facts about one or more of these news stories." Because those lost votes
"would have changed the outcome in all six of the swing states won by Joe Biden," re-electing
Trump, burying those stories was first-degree election interference.
Huxley foresaw this, too:
The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by
refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is
silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr.
Churchill calls an "iron curtain" between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local
political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion
much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most
compelling of logical rebuttals.
In 2020 alone, news outlets systematically misinformed, or kept uninformed, scores of
millions of voters whose only news sources are either mainstream media or the occasional
de-contextualized sound bite. Corporate news, in addition to disappearing the Hunter Biden
story:
Misreported that opportunistic politicians imposing destructive, arbitrary lockdowns to
stop the spread of the Wuhan virus were only "following the science," while disregarding all
scientific studies showing how lockdowns were ineffective, detrimental, and even deadly;
Misreported for months that Black Lives Matter/Antifa's nightly demonstrations were
"mostly peaceful," while refusing to report on hundreds of BLM and Antifa-organized protests
involving widespread arson, looting, and violence against police and innocent civilians;
Perpetuated the dangerous myth that black men are casually shot down by white police
every day, while ignoring that "statistics "
flatly debunk the false narratives about 'racist white cops' and the 'hunt for unarmed
black men'";
Parroted the Democrat talking point that Trump's allegations of election fraud were made
"without any evidence," while obstinately refusing to investigate well-documented evidence of
pervasive election irregularities in battleground states.
But Fake News is only as powerful as its consumers are gullible. Knowing that, PJMedia's
Stephen Kruiser was able to predict in advance that a Biden win would be "the complete triumph
of decades of
public education indoctrination ," which is no longer education, anyway, but "more of a
leftist catechism class." Journalist
William Haupt III reports that 12 years of Common Core "has resulted in 51 percent of our
youth preferring socialism to democracy." It's also why "[t]wo thirds of the millennials
believe America is a racist and sexist country and 40 percent agree America is 'the most
unequal society in the world.'" In fact, in 2011 Chuck
Rogér traced this decline to the sixties, when teachers' colleges began churning out
"[s]ocial justice-indoctrinated teachers [who] instill resentment in 'non-dominant' (minority)
children and guilt in 'dominant' (white) children. Judging by the abundance of guilt-ridden
white Americans, the tactic is working its magic well." At present a reported
3,500 classrooms across fifty states are incorporating the New York Times ' specious
1619 Project , which teaches that every accomplishment in America's history came out
of slavery . The purpose of this all this falsified history? Not education, but more
generations of Americans "unable to discern
fact from fiction ."
Now that progressives have complete control of Washington, they'll escalate their lies -- of
commission, and especially of omission -- to gain a tighter and more permanent grip. Still,
Truth remains their real enemy. It explains social media's current blitz of de-platforming
conservatives, trying to drop an "iron curtain," just as Huxley predicted, to separate the
people from undesirable facts.
Likewise, fidelity to truth is our best defense; that, and continuing to refuse their lies.
That's one positive action Solzhenitsyn was able to offer his comrades who felt
powerless against the repressive Soviet system, "the most perceptible of its aspects" being
lies: "Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace
everything, but not with any help from me."
T.R. Clancy looks at the world from Dearborn, Michigan. You can email him at [email protected] .
In today's climate of political correctness and economic uncertainty, ad revenue only goes
so far to keep an independent voice like AmericanThinker.com going. If you enjoy our articles,
please consider supporting us with a direct contribution of as much or as little as you can
give. Your donation will ensure that we continue to bring great pieces from our outstanding
columnists.
Yves here. Friend of the site Erasmus e-mailed Lambert and me about his post on Covid
accelerating the conversion of universities from institutions of learning to money generators.
As you'll see, Erasmus has direct experience with some of the pathologies, which extend beyond
colonization by MBAs.
Universities have become far more profit-oriented, and corrupted by administrative bloat and
bullshit jobs (Graeber)/make-work (like "assessment" mandates), as well as by the customer
service mentality of pleasing and placating students to the detriment of standards and solid
education. There are plenty of books about various facets of academe, including satirical
novels. The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed are useful, but there are plenty
of silly articles there too, often written by well-intentioned administrators or English
faculty. Parkinson's Law and all his other insights should be rigorously imposed on the whole
mess.
Standards have declined precipitously, which no one admits except curmudgeon tenured senior
faculty. Grade inflation is a related problem. There is cheating and lack of study skills, lack
of attention span, lack of discipline. A Harvard professor, Harvey Mansfield, has denounced
grade inflation publicly, which is excellent, but most cannot do that. The high schools do not
teach much, so students cannot handle college work, and there is a lot of partying and
dysfunction and anxiety and superficial learning, often done in groups. The pseudoscientific
obsession with metrics instead of the hard work of engagement and informed judgment means that
student course evaluations (numbers) are important, and that corrupts the teacher-student
relationship.
On tenure. Tenure can be legally revoked, but it is rare, and usually due to gross
misconduct or something serious. Probably every college and university faculty handbook has a
boilerplate section on emergency situations in which the administration can eliminate academic
departments and lay off tenured faculty – this has happened. It has been rare up to now,
but we will probably see more of it. The Medaille place mentioned in the post is a nothing
school, but it is ominous.
Legally the university is a corporation, and you can usually find the faculty handbook on
its website. Interesting reading. There are business/executive types on boards of trustees who
don't understand and/or don't care about university customs and would love to eliminate all
tenure. It is happening incrementally, with tenured faculty retirements being replaced with
low-wage, contingent adjuncts, lecturers, "clinical" faculty, "assistant teaching professors",
and the like. Gigs instead of stable positions with the traditional ranks: assistant,
associate, and full professor. In the UK a lecturer is a higher status than in the US system.
Germany and France and Italy have their own systems. Of course, as you would expect, the
Italian system (today) is the nuttiest, and unfortunately there is a lot of nepotism there, to
the detriment of serious research and teaching. Italy gave us Vico and Eco and others though,
so there's that.
In my view, it is a massive, systemic fail of the faculty to not stand up to the bad
decisions and greed of administrators and prevent a lot of this. Faculty governance is a
pleasant myth, but faculty have lost a lot of ground over the decades. Some faculty are in
denial and believe that what is customary will prevail. They do not understand the difference
between custom and law. The faculty handbook is a ratified document, in force for making
decisions.
Most faculty are cowards and careerists and sycophants who just want to be comfortable or
gain status with peers, but this neglects the institution. They are politically inept, like the
progressives (as Matt Stoller has observed). Most of them do not know how to get anything done.
They do not understand power. It used to be that mediocre faculty tended to go into
administration, but now there is an expanding administrative class that rules over the budget
and faculty, and this is detrimental to the institution. Tenured faculty have not prevented the
exponential growth in the use (exploitation) of adjuncts for undergraduate teaching. I say this
as a person with a PhD from a public university that has had a unionized faculty for decades.
It didn't make much difference. My institution was the only one in the US charging tuition to
PhD students teaching on its undergrad campuses – taking back money paid for teaching in
the system (extremely low-paid, of course). This is one reason why I will never donate.
Yep, academic freedom is being undermined. It's elusive if one can't pay the rent and is a
gig laborer for an institution run like a brutal plantation.
Yep, teaching is not job training. George Carlin had a few words on this topic –
obedient workers are the desired product of the school system. There are various brilliant
scholars who wrote worthwhile books on teaching, usually forgotten.
One insidious practice I have seen is the notion of "collegiality" being a factor in tenure
decisions. The traditional categories, usually weighted, are teaching, research, and service.
People have been sabotaged and denied tenure due to collegiality issues, which can hide
bullying and nasty dept politics or bigotry. There are legal cases about it. It is vague and
subjective, and there is no way for it to be imposed fairly as a standard. The AAUP has
position papers for various issues on its site, as does the MLA (Modern Language Assn).
Books: Higher Education?, The Last Professors, many others document what has been
happening.
Jacques Barzun foresaw a lot of what is happening in his book The American
University . He dissected the parasitical centers and institutes that infest campuses. He
has a chapter in there on an essay by William James (if I recall) on the "PhD octopus" which
exemplifies the expansion of credentials and degrees. Barzun's book Teacher in America is also
excellent and worthwhile, in my opinion.
Camille Paglia (I know Yves views her work as uneven, but when Paglia talks about academia,
she is perceptive) has written since the 1990s about the intellectual corruption in the
humanities, and many other topics. In fairness, she has been teaching undergraduates for
decades, and she was exiled from having a "normal" academic career because she was and is
outspoken and direct. She is very serious about education and students. She was in the culture
wars. She sees what is happening now.
There was a professor, Richard Mitchell, who wrote a delightful newsletter, The Underground
Grammarian, later published as
books . He also foresaw the coming idiocy. He denounced idiocy coming out of schools of
education, and deconstructed the poor thought in their convoluted prose, which is similar to
administrative prose. There are entire journals devoted to such bloviation.
The brutal economic conditions caused by the pandemic (well, due to lack of support from DC)
are only accelerating processes that were already well underway for many years in US colleges
and universities.
It is not enough to throw money at the problem – there needs to be substantial reform,
and no upper administrator wants to cut off the branch s/he is sitting on. There was great
expansion in the 1960s and 1970s, and some of those places might die out. Neoliberalism
again.
When I look back at the wonderful teachers and professors I have known across multiple
disciplines, and see the tremendous impoverishment of students today, it is heartbreaking.
When I was employed as an economist within the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I was required
to interview authorities in certain occupations and industries for my work. For that reason,
I interviewed people at professional engineering associations, and one or two of them
confirmed for me that the land-grant system (and consequently the GI Bill arising out of
WWII) had given the U.S. a major advantage over other countries. This was because many, many
graduate programs in engineering had sprung up or expanded in the 1950s and 1960s, in large
part because so many more students (than prior to WWII) were now able to attend university,
and the U.S. as a consequence did indeed produce much more "human capital", particularly in
science and engineering.
And, as an economist, I fully agree that the neo-liberal model is destroying all this in
its corrupting the institutions of academia so that they become "profit centers". [Certainly,
the ever-widening maldistribution of wealth and income, as seen in states' decisions to
steadily decrease funding for their public universities, also contributed mightily to this
trend.] But this is what happens in empires: institutions become so corrupted that they no
longer function. The sooner we all realize that the U.S. has become such a polity, the sooner
we might be able to reverse course [although, I admit, I am anything but sanguine].
Not sure if the 1980s British play 'Educating Rita' ever made it across the Atlantic,
though it was made into a film with Michael Caine, so maybe. Rita is a hairdresser wanting to
better herself by attending Open University and has tutorials with a worldweary English lit
lecturer, Frank. The pair gradually get to know each other. At one point, Rita asks Frank if
he could ever be fired from his secure tenure. His response is that the only sackable offence
would be 'buggering the bursar'.
How times change.
A great film that as well as a great book. I have some of the author's – Willy
Russell – other works and when you read about his early life, you realize that Rita's
story is really his own story in disguise. But that era of ordinary people achieving higher
education may be gone now. Mark Blyth once remarked that if today's education system was
around when he was young, that he would have ended up as just some yobbo hanging around the
streets of Glasgow.
Yes, indeed. There are (small) legions of us provincial, working class kids who lucked out
by growing up in the UK in that magic quarter century or so (~'45–'75) when, if you did
well enough in O- and A-levels to secure an offer of a place at uni, all expenses were paid
direct, and you got a living allowance on top! (£375 p.a. -- sounds like a pittance,
but, with care, and not too much beer, you could save on it).
I'm with Mark Blyth -- not in Glasgow -- but without that visionary national social policy,
I'd have been in the same boat, in another northern town.
Great movie. MIchael Caine, Julie Walters, Michael Williams – what a wonderful cast.
Saw it my junior year of HS and just loved it. Still a big fan of Dame Julie.
A big negative effect of this is the quality of research. At one time university research
was trusted as valid. Now money has corrupted it to the point a lot of the research is
questionable and not trust worthy.
True. Credit most of this to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, along with the substantial
decrease, adjusted for inflation, in federal support (NSF, NIH) for essential, fundamental
scientific research during the neoliberalization of all things. Gresham's Law in action, the
bad money did drive out the good.
But even outside the big money areas, research has become a race to publish as much as you
can, irrespective of quality, to get the right metrics for you and your institution. There
are profit-making companies whose sole job is to act as F***b**ks for academics, signing them
up and encouraging them to obsessively pore over how many people have read their work and how
many, um, "likes" they have received.
Thank you very much for this, Erasmus. Most especially citing Jacques Barzun. (Another
darn book for me to read as Lambert would put it. Ha!) It all seems spot on to what I have
personally witnessed in my little college town since the late 80's. I would like to add John
Ralston Saul to the list of folks to read/listen/watch on this subject too.
One more author, the late Canadian writer Robertson Davies who has much to say about the
decline of the University as a teaching/scholarly institution.
As someone who just retired from the community college system in Ontario, all of this
rings true to me. Especially the cowardice of full-time faculty (it isn't called tenure in
the college system in Ontario, but effectively that is what it is). Voting for pay increases
contract after contract while the holes in the collective agreement just kept getting bigger
and bigger year after year. Old timers protecting their bank accounts and youngsters living
under the delusion that things would stay the same, not wanting to rock the boat.
And yes the bloat of administration. And the contracting of private sector consultants to do
everything from re-decorate to write curriculum. Assessments done by outside firms so that
the college didn't own the data and was therefore not subject to Freedom of Information
requests. More and more administrators who know or care nothing for education. Bloated grades
and high school graduates who arrive incapable of doing the work – and thus a whole new
wing of non-academic support personnel created to help them succeed.
This post also brought to mind IM dr's comments of the other day the about the know-nothing,
unmotivated residents he is encountering at his hospital. I came across many nursing students
who needed remedial math and science help to get by in their college level courses. And
watched this play out in real life – once when my father was in the hospital, I
listened while two young nurses tried to figure out the drip rate for an IV for a new drug
prescribed by the doctor. The IV bag was a different strength than what was prescribed so
they needed to do some figuring. I had to intervene and have them call the doctor as they
were clearly hopeless at the math required to determine the correct drip rate. So, indeed
neoliberalization is not just hurting bank accounts, the crapification of our educational
institutes is now having detrimental effects in many parts of our society. It is scary.
I'm currently working in the Ontario community college system (on contract) and see little
hope of improvement. Full time faculty (i.e. tenured) have little incentive to rock the boat
because they are comfortable and secure – this is in spite of the fact that many are
left-leaning and consider themselves champions of social justice. Contract faculty (i.e.
adjuncts) are too cowed to speak out because it could mean non-renewal of teaching contracts.
Better to put your head down and hope you eventually win the full time lottery.
The strike three years ago ended up being the longest ever, and then went to arbitration
that resulted in no improvement for contract faculty (aside from superficial gestures). Most
full time faculty I spoke to were begrudging participants. Some complained about the five
weeks of pay they gave up to be on strike. A couple examples: One guy was disappointed
because he was expecting 2017 to be the first year he made six figures, until the strike.
Another told me he had to delay a bathroom reno. Boohoo, I thought sarcastically, but I held
my tongue because, you know, solidarity.
Meanwhile, things will only get worse. The pandemic is accelerating a shift to more online
learning, and has given the colleges an excuse to freeze full time faculty hiring. Will be
looking for a way out of the mess in 2021
You're right about that last strike. It was long and, in the end, pointless. I was a
faculty librarian for most of my career and decided to try my hand at admin before I retired
and had just become a low level manager when that strike happened. Being on the admin side I
was shocked by the disdain for faculty openly expressed by many administrators. Between that
us vs. them status quo and the faculty unwilling to rock the boat, I don't see things
changing for the better, ever. I had a 5 years-to-retirement plan when I got the management
gig. I only lasted 3 years, just couldn't take the nonsense anymore. Lucky for me I could
afford to go. Good luck to you!
I wanted to comment separately but the mentioning of the two nurses inability to calculate
the drip rate is a combination of insufficient education as well as lack of training.
I see education as providing the knowledge as well as furthering the ability to understand
the nature of things. Training would refer to the ability to better and more efficiently
deploy this knowledge by strengthening the pathways (brain and flesh muscles) that enable the
realization of any objective/task.
Somebody in the post that started this discussion also tried to emphasize the role of
training and I totally agree that it is important. A deep level of professionalism does
involve mastering of the knowledge and having the ability to skilfully deploy that
knowledge.
An example at limit: Stephen Hawkins had the brains, but in the end, he did rely on some
very smart, skilled young ones, that were able to carry on many of the calculations necessary
for his theorizing. Oh, the graduate student, the other lab rat of the research
environment.
I agree that some on the job training is required but those nurses were on their own on
the floor, they should have known how to calculate the drip rate. Nursing education is not
pure theoretical learning, they get a lot of hands on 'training' along with their math,
science and anatomy curriculum and should arrive on the job with those skills and abilities.
That said, I agree that on the job training is an important aspect of work and one that we
don't do anymore. Now it is 'orientation and 'on boarding' by HR, company propaganda for the
most part. One of my early part time jobs was a cashier in a grocery store. We were toured
through every isle, seeing what was where. We learned how to identify produce (there were no
stickers on fruit in those days). We actually had to go through the produce dept before every
shift to see what was on sale and what seasonal produce was available so we could identify it
and ring it in properly. We were even taught the proper way to open a roll of coins! Unroll
carefully, do not bang on side of coin drawer at risk of coins falling everywhere if you were
wondering ;
I know of a university student in a teacher's ed program who asked the professor for help
on an upcoming test: "I don't understand this adding fractions thing." No trace of
embarrassment. Nor was the professor fazed. This is normal. This potential future teacher
cannot add 2/3 + 1/2.
Many faculty have problems with writing. I'm not talking English as second language (ESL)
problems – those I can understand – I'm talking native speakers who don't know
how to use a comma.
Grading student writing, I decided to ignore most grammar errors. On the one hand, many
ESL students were flat-out incapable of assembling correct sentences. I didn't particularly
blame them: but I couldn't let them off the hook while penalizing native speakers (assuming I
could even determine who was who, probably a no-no). On the other hand, many native speakers
were at least as bad. I basically had a choice: fail half of them on English or grade them on
the course content. I graded them on the course content.
There's an attitude problem too. There are students employed to edit writing for
publication. When their errors are caught and corrected, they rise up in rebellion. "That's
how I like to do it." "You need to respect my positionality."
Dictionary.com: "Positionality is the social and political context that creates your
identity in terms of race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability status." Like my child in
public school, I suppose they are being taught novel pronouns, but not English grammar; how
many genders there are, but not how to count them. The consensus on multiplication tables
with other parents I've talked to: learn them on your own, or not at all. (What happens to
the kids of the often working class parents who haven't the time, patience or ability to do
that?)
Universities are changing mottoes and mission statements. It's no longer about finding
truth. It's about changing the world. My fear is that they will succeed.
This is the story I heard from someone not familiar with the term, who had no idea it was
an idpol thing. The main thing though is the sensitivity: whether they try out some
ridiculous claim like that, or just act huffy or hurt, the students feel it's not ok to be
corrected.
Students' sensitivity to correction is at unbelievable heights. I once explained the
difference between a tattletale and a whistleblower to a student who called himself the the
latter, saying, "I ain't no whistleblower" when he clearly meant tattletale. I was smiling
and clearly not giving him 'heck' but his angry reaction was as though I had just yelled and
called him stupid. I was shocked. That was quite a few years ago, it has only gotten worse. I
can't even remember how long ago I was told that teachers shouldn't correct work with a red
pen because it is considered too harsh! I don't understand how things have changed so much
and it is not as though kids are particularly happy at school. They're constantly talking
about all the stress they're under. I say this as someone who understands that the world has
changed and there's is much to be stressed about, but still, it is school for goodness sake.
I had a math teacher in high school who used to throw chalk at us when we were wrong and I am
pretty sure I had way more fun in school than kids today.
Some of my favourite teachers were mean. One took positvie evil glee in calling on
students for answers and humiliating them when they got them wrong. But he was equal
opportunity: the better the student, the harder he tried, until he got what he wanted. When
one survived the attack and got it right (which was probably most of the time), he played all
disappointment. Every right answer came with a flash of pride.
The effect was to make us study hard and build camaradarie. He was a dedicated teacher who
truly loved his students, and I think we loved him back.
In my experience, there are few things more discouraging than praise for mediocre work.
The best teachers make you work for it: but when you suceed (if you're just not very
talented, success can be something others might consider minor), you own it, and it's worth
it.
Today, a teacher like would probably be called up on abuse or something. But I bet his
students would stand by him.
It occurs to me that this dynamic of humiliation, pride, failure, triumph and camaradarie
are only possible in a physical classroom.
As an introvert who is happy to read a book, I have long wondered why we spend so much on
classes. This social and emotional framework is the best example I can think of of something
a book or a video (or a Zoom call) cannot replace.
Of course universities are trying hard to commodify instruction. They want a course to be
a package they can own, deliver, and reuse, while charging an arm and a leg. So the trend of
draining all potential unpleasantness from education (even if in the long run it results in
more stress) indirectly works to their advantage, making it even less likely that they
would reverse course.
There is a bright side to this: In 30 years no weapons designs will be possible because
nobody will be able to do the figuring and manual writing without getting into duelling over
where the decimal goes and which symbols to use. :p.
I think I posted Part 1 of this community college look at the state of higher ed in the
comments to this week's earlier post about universities. Here's part two, which looks at some
different marketing strategies and my college's choice of a "Buy 9, get the 10th free"
model.
As a side note to the piece posted above–I wonder how much universities are even
related to the ideas of learning and scholarship anymore. Where I live, the flagship for the
state of Kentucky has a $2 billion+ budget that spans running healthcare/hospitals and Top 10
basketball programs to accumulating a surprisingly large cache of city and state real
estate.
Scholarship (mostly by Ivy and Ivy-adjacent trained scholars who have zero intellectual or
emotional understanding of their city and region) is just how they get the tax breaks.
Nice to see that North of Center has returned. The first iteration was an excellent
counter to the local cheerleading in Lexington. Regarding the University of Basketball, yes,
it has a huge budgetary footprint. Twenty-plus years ago something called the Research
Challenge Trust Fund (RCTF) was implemented as part of an initiative to make UK a Top-20
Public Research University by 2020. Fine. When it was pointed out that would require running
three times faster than those ahead of UK who were not standing still (UCLA, Michigan,
Berkeley, Wisconsin even Florida and Georgia), crickets. And after all that money was spent
UK is still the University of Basketball. But even that seems to be in disarray. Just the
other day the Wildcats were taken absolutely apart by Georgia Tech. Oops.
Long but a good look at the asininity of the University of Basketball's plans, from the
first iteration of North of Center , is also a good summary of what neoliberalization
of everything education has produced: https://noclexington.com/wages-of-a-top-20-education-nougat-re-post/
Sadly for us lowly peeee-on$, for decades The Noble Liberal Cla$$ has exalted their Tomes
of Truth! & had pretty much nothing but contempt for the hard work of actually making
stuff work. They have done a stellar job of looking out for themselves.
"There was, thus, a turning point, which had not yet reached a clarity of options. No
country moves forward more by ideas than America. And one of the problems of 1972 was that
the idea system had become clogged by its own excessive outpourings. American intellectuals
had written the Constitution, engineered turn-of-the-century reform, provided Franklin
Roosevelt with his blueprints of reorganization, armed America with marvels of technology
during th Second World War. They had been rewarded with a gush of approval, with an
outpouring of funds, private and public, that had all but choked off fresh ideas – like
a garden over-seeded and over-fertilized. The American idea system poured out paper after
paper, study after study, learned investigation after learned investigation on the race
problem, the urban problem, the environment problem, the television problem, the violence
problem, the identity problem, until clear thinking was suffocated by the mattress of
scholary investigation."
Prologue – The End Of The Postwar World, xxviii
The Making of The President 1972, Theodore H. White, published 1973.
[Background – White's first "Making of the President 1960" won him a Pulitzer Prize.
He grew up on Boston, went to Boston Latin & then Harvard, and was in Nationalist China
during WW2 working for Time or Life? magazine.]
Irony or paradox: banner ads accompanying this article on viewers right on my computer
feature an ad for the sole four year university in the great state of Wyoming UW. Go
Cowboys!
NB Wyoming made a strategic decision scores of years ago to have a single University, to
gather any of the scarce resources for higher ed into a single grantee/ beneficiary.
So, let me get this straight. Navigation of this system is considered to be the
"meritocracy" and those who manage to do it are deserving of their riches while the rest of
us deserve our precarious and part-time gig work? Just checking.
Same thing happened to me back in the 1980s. I found that my university economics degree
qualified me for such lofty positions as dishwasher, cashier, and shelf stocker.
Color me as someone who is VERY skeptical of higher education.
An unlucky histologist here. I enjoyed my degree program and wanted to go into pure
biotechnology research. To my chagrin I found out that most of the much-vaunted STEM fields
particularly the S and E portions of it were being destroyed in the private sector by a
combination of gig work, offshoring and insourcing with cheap guestworkers from overseas.
This was part of process that has been happening since the Regan era.
Now, I work in retail at a pet store with the only thing my degrees have gotten me is
several thousand dollars in student loan debt which I am still paying off in my meager
income. I honestly do not think that my job prospects are going to improve for the forseeable
future. I am 36 and most R&D companies consider anybody older than their early-30's to be
over-the-hill.
In all honesty, if I knew then what I know now after graduating from high school I would
not have bothered with college. After all, few people work in their intended fields after
obtaining their degrees and you will be shackled with student loan debt that you may never
pay off. Many of my coworkers also have advanced degrees in various subjects but many of us
have resigned ourselves to being retail wage slaves for the rest of our lives. Retirement is
probably out of the question for many people younger than Gen-X.
Likewise, I watched as my father had his tenured position as a university professor at the
University of River Falls in Wisconsin instantly snatched away retroactively by governor
Scott Walker. My father had been tenured for ten years and after Walker got rid of tenure for
all public university professors within the state, many universities in Wisconsin responded
by firing all of their older full-time faculty and replacing them with adjunct staff.
My father was made an offer by the president of the university to be hired as an adjunct
the following semester. It would have been a one-semester position for $12,000 and no
benefits or promises of returning to the school next year. There was no way my parents could
live off of that so they were forced to sell their house and move to Missouribecause of the
low cost of living there. My father now works as a manager at an Ace Hardware store as that
was the only job he could find at 65 and being at academia all of his career.
So sorry to hear what happened to you and your family. The word disgusted does not even
begin to cover it. Not surprised that Scott Walker's name comes into the mix though. There is
no thought here about building up capacity in countries like the US and making use of talent.
The sheer amount of talent and abilities going to waste must be staggering. Must be because
most managers do not think much past this financial quarter.
' and [a] after Walker got rid of tenure for all public university professors within the
state, [b] many universities in Wisconsin responded by firing all of their older full-time
faculty and replacing them with adjunct staff.'
This is total fantasy. Scott Walker was a disaster but neither 'a' nor 'b' ever
happened.
Moreover, there is no such place as 'the University of River Falls'. And, in the UW
system, 'the president of the university' does not make contract offers to individual faculty
or academic staff members at the constituent campuses.
Scott Walker did indeed get rid of tenure for public university professors within the
state as part of a 2015 budget deal just like he got rid of the right of collective
bargaining for public employees in 2011. During his terms, Walker tried to systemically
destroy higher education and the careers of academic faculty while in office.
My father was not given a "formal" offer by the UWRF president, it was an email circulated
to all of the liquidated professors that they would be given priority hiring for the adjunct
positions that their jobs were being replaced with.
As someone with experience in higher ed, and a couple of humanities degrees, Camille
Paglia's criticisms of the humanities cut so deep, so great to see her referenced here.
Thanks for that – I always enjoy listening to Paglia. Her criticism of the
postmodernists as 'word choppers' is spot on. I think that may be one of the worst results of
neoliberalism – destroying the meanings of words to the point it becomes difficult to
communicate at a societal level. And while the rest of us argue over what the meaning of 'is'
is, the criminals in power are robbing us blind.
Neoliberalism has also done a number on numbers. The article notes the overliance on
assessments, presumably 'data driven' ones. We have had two successive school superintendents
in my area who have openly admitted that math is not their strong point and yet they rely
heavily on data driven assessments and will produce metrics for everything. I don't believe
they have a clue what they're looking at. Our current superintendent was publicly embarrassed
a couple years ago when a parent who does understand math pointed out at a well attended
school board meeting that the grading software he relied on was a complete joke in dramatic
fashion. As an accountant, I'm well aware that numbers can be manipulated to make them seem
like they mean pretty much whatever the manipulator wants them to mean. Silicon Valley has
made billions preying on people who don't understand math to the point where we have
unnecessary software for everything, tracking and monetizing every little action we make, and
we are obviously at this point not the better for it.
I absolutely identify with the lousy data nonsense.
In my work, I often had to work with the Institutional Effectiveness Office, which should
be called the "Statistics Office".
I respect them and their knowledge, but often, these offices are tasked with producing
data for whatever pet project is being promoted by administration at the time. That's why I
saw tons of turnover happen in that area, plus constant stress and alcoholism in the
director. Lots of race-based statistics making that had to represent that the institution was
failing to be accommodating to students of color on one hand, but also succeeding in every
metric on the other. No wonder the poor woman turned to drink. "Let's bake a cake using
flour, but it has to be keto-friendly."
It's unfortunate that this is hosted by Peterson. He starts the interview off by asking
about "Neomarxism" which starts the whole thing off on the wrong foot. I don't expect I'm
going to hear about the corrupting influence of Capitalism and money in universities.
Yeah, you have to accept that he's there if you're not a Peterson fan (I like him but many
don't), but the interview does come across as Peterson interviewing her, and trying to
understand her ideas, rather than him overwhelming the conversation with his usual.
I some – not few – aspects, Peterson is a hack. And he'll embrace the paradigm
of the overseers, as long as he will have the ability to monetize his continuous gospel.
I've never really listened to or read much by Peterson before but about halfway through
the interview it started getting pretty clear why he is widely disliked.
Paglia is uneven – at one point she's arguing that historically men and women never
shared labor duties and my grandmother who milked a few dozen cows by hand twice a day along
with my grandfather, and then went in and did all the housework too would surely disagree
– but she hits the nail on the head on a lot and plus is always a hoot.
On top of all that, the raw material that universities must work with -- high school
students -- is about to become much, much worse due to the coronavirus, at least in the US.
They will have even fewer study skills, and much more mental illness. Those who can afford it
may add another post-graduate year before college to compensate, but there are very few such
programs; community colleges should start them.
My cousin is an English teacher in a rural area, economically challenged. He was telling
me that the kids are getting stupider by the day. He is watching the assignments handed in
degrade in quality.
The older I get, the more I realize that learning is not about facts, but understanding
how you yourself can learn new things. School is as much about the habit of learning as it is
the content and we now have an entire cohort of kids whose habits have been undone.
By design. grades, grades, grades. That's all there is. taking time to enjoy learning,
something I have worked on, has led to lower grades because it requires time and going
outside of the textbook and homework. Kids are able to enjoy what they learn if given the
opportunity, yet from a young age it never presents itself. The advent of tech dominated
lives and short attention spans makes it all worse too.
The quality of work has dropped off a cliff. The kids are fried, and they do not think
they will be/should be held responsible for their actions or work.
Administrations are just doing a collective CYA exercise, because the failure rates have
tripled.
Parents don't know what to do. At this point probably the most productive thing a parent
can do with a remote/hybrid learning student is watch them work. Just watch them. See what
they are doing, and how many distractions they have in their lives. One of the advantages of
grade school environments is that the distraction is removed (for the most part) during class
time. Not anymore.
This is slightly tangential, but I was 7/8 years old in 1967, and I remember noticing all
the popular culture things I had to be current on (the Monkees, etc), and I specifically
thought that the powers-that-be are making up all these things to pay attention to so that we
aren't paying attention to the things that actually matter. I was OK when I was a little
kid.
I spent a year as a "Career Coach" at an absurdly priced East Coast university. My job was
a mix of office hours, hosting events for students/alumni/hiring managers, and creating Excel
and Bloomberg training classes (there weren't any).
It was fun for a bit, until I realized the students had no concept of how competitive
finance is. Everybody that came to me had big plans for a career on Wall Street –
that's nothing new. However, hardly any of them were going to get a look – their grades
were middling, their communication skills needed work, and not nearly enough evidenced
critical thinking skills (although on a conference call a hiring manager explicitly stated
they're not looking for that. Sigh).
And then I made a presentation to the Alumni Committee, and that's when I realized how
this school is run. It was littered with wealthy PE and sell-side people, and the mantra was
they wanted more alumni in the business. Why? Ego. It doesn't matter that they're ready or
qualified, just get'r done or I'll donate elsewhere.
My brother has a PhD in History and taught for several years. He had to leave because he
couldn't support his family. He was also very discouraged by student apathy and all the
administrative BS.
I think this excellent post is part and parcel with the Great Inflation of the past 40
years. All the provosts and new layers, new buildings, coordination with private business,
grade inflation, sports entertainment and the big contracts, all the bells and whistles that
are entirely unnecessary for LEARNING.
Most faculty are cowards and careerists and sycophants who just want to be comfortable
or gain status with peers, but this neglects the institution. They are politically inept,
like the progressives (as Matt Stoller has observed). Most of them do not know how to get
anything done. They do not understand power.
I know this is tangential to the thrust of the article but I wish the writer had given
examples of the evaluation of progressives?
1. I wonder who the writer would define as progressives. For example Neera Tanden is
billing herself as a progressive but that is to laugh.
2. Maybe someone at NC could explain?
Matt never responds to me on Twitter or I'd go ask him. In fact I did do that.
I think Bernie (who is a Progressive), did an excellent job of speaking truth to
power as well as organizing a movement. The fact that the powers that be ganged up on him to
stomp on the movement is the reality of entrenched power these days. That is why I'm
advocating for the formation of a new national party. The historical analogy I'm using is the
anti-slavery movement. I would ask that people find everything they can and study up on that
segment of American history as to how to proceed against today's entrenched neo-liberals.
Bernie did a fantastic job right up til they ganged up on him right before Super Tuesday.
From then until he conceded, had he been more politically 'ept', he would have used the power
he had from the support of many millions of people to demand a concession or two before
conceding. Such as Medicare for All, a 2d round of stimulus, police reform, or something. But
he didn't, instead he conceded and then campaigned harder for Biden than Biden did for
himself. Pretending that he would get his 'good friend Joe' to actually do something
progressive if asked nicely.
I think this is what the author is getting at, the failure to play hardball LBJ style to
get some compromise deals done whenever possible. And you don't have to look only at 'real'
progressives. If you look at the faux progressives like Nancy Pelosi etc., they have for many
years started at the middle and allowed conservatives to call the tune. This is deliberate on
behalf of donors/bribers, but some pundits still think it's because of ineptness.
Thanks for the bit of analysis. And too, I just had my second cup of tea so I'm more wide
awake now.
You're 100% correct about Bernie-he's never been one to dig in when the opposition mounts
a concerted attack. That really makes him much like the other members of the Democratic party
who are more adept at slugging it out in intramural sporting events with other Dems than they
are with taking on the true opponents in the GOP and big business. And in fact the blood
thirsty cheerleaders who are on the outside of government (at least officially); those are
who we should all be pushing on in a steady and consistent manner until we force them to
yield.
You're right too about Bernie conceding to not make waves-he did that with Hillary. So he
tries to avoid real confrontations when he needs to take a stand. Even when its not fun. So
there's a time to fight and a time to join. Bernie's too easily swayed to be a joiner.
Someday another Bernie Sanders type will come along and do what he did not-run as an
independent and shred the Democratic Party: even if it means losing a battle to the GOP in
order to win the larger war. Again, looking back at the formation of the Republican Party-the
leaders gave up on the Whigs and that party finally died off but the new party-headed by
Lincoln, carried the torch.
Good luck with getting a third party running in the US. Since it is the states legislation
that operationalize elections, you will probably find out that a third party to be put on the
ballot (not for president, but for representatives), in many a state would need more
supporters and signatures than there are democrats and republicans combined. Mobilizing such
numbers is a daunting task that would be possible only if more than 50% of the population
were to be unemployed AND HUNGRY.
And if that were to happen, other legal technicalities would be brought up.
And then the NSA, FBI, State Police, and the local sheriff would also be brought in. A lot
of male candidates would start o be accused of childhood pornography, etc., etc., etc
Perhaps it's not just universities. Cities now compete with each other on the quality of
their school systems. In my town a functional but aging 1960 high school was just replaced
with a billion dollar megaplex complete with stadium, basketball "arena," and fully equipped
performing arts center. This spare no expense approach is apparently seen as necessary to
compete with charter schools and private schools not to mention other towns.
Which is to say that the neoliberals have introduced competitive pressure into the
government/nonprofit world while seeking to reduce or eliminate it in the business world. I
have no idea whether this change in culture is turning out better students but it almost
seems as though these institutions have taken on a life of their own with education somewhere
down the list.
The competition is everywhere, I think. Government jobs are tough to come by, in fact
anything that offers benefits and a stable wage is tough to get, and this was before the
pandemic hit. There are a lot of people with advanced degrees and not nearly enough jobs.
But at least the Nation got sports entertainment this year.
Few years ago had to go north of Manhattan, nyc over the East River to yonkers anyway
beyong 208 st stop on the Ind. Anyway was chocked at the Columbia U stadium on the east river
it would have severly embarassed the Union HS in Tulsa, Ok. And that stadium is being
remodelled an embellished, with skyboxes no doubt. Have to drive by and see.
from CanCyn, as seen with my own two eyes: And yes the bloat of administration. And the contracting of private sector consultants to
do everything from re-decorate to write curriculum. Assessments done by outside firms so that
the college didn't own the data and was therefore not subject to Freedom of Information
requests. More and more administrators who know or care nothing for education. Bloated grades
and high school graduates who arrive incapable of doing the work – and thus a whole new
wing of non-academic support personnel created to help them succeed.
Like Lampreys.
and cocoman, seeing the other part, with my bold:
the more I realize that learning is not about facts, but understanding how you yourself
can learn new things. School is as much about the habit of learning as it is the content and
we now have an entire cohort of kids whose habits have been undone.
imo -- the desire to Learn and acquire Knowledge must be developed first–any
benefit–tangible or intangible–emanates from that center. It is not
Performative.
Yeps and absolutely. Curiosity and interest in the world are driven out early. And you
can't really learn without them. Give me the wonder of a wide eyed child over the apathy and
need to conform of teens and young adults with their focus on their phones and social media
any day.
To be honest, there has always been a trend in American education towards teaching
"Facts", and "Procedures" rather than teaching "free-form"reasoning. At least within
Engineering.
The ideal seemed to be to have a few really bright experts like Feynman figure out optimal
solutions, then "communicate" their Thinking and Reasoning into checklists, nomographs,
tabulated values and flowcharts for the lesser talents to follow. I believe it was considered
to be some kind of efficient allocation of talent, not that "one didn't want too much
thinking around the place".
The Electrical Code in America is prescribing how to reach the design goals, the European
one is the opposite, stating the goals, and not how to get there. Many, many discussions will
flow from that in a multinational project!
With "digitalisation" of course anything that can be packetised as binary choices will be
boosted enormously by being very easy to digitise and once digital, costs nothing to
distribute. Driving a tsunami of "rote learning" and "rote thinking" within all academic
fields, meeting "the requirements" is what moves one forward, not understanding.
Exemplified with essay grading "AI", where Just mashing keywords into the text is what
triggers the "learning objective", which now is The Grade and not The Writing and Making a
Coherent Argument.
IMO, this way of learning allows too many to succeed. People with "frontal-lobe issues",
expressed by weak self regulation, lack of internal motivation and brains glitching out when
corrected, instead of maturing and then making progress, we now have "Gamegate" minds showing
up "early" at university level!
Then they can use their credentials to move on into positions where they have authority
and a budget.
I've followed this at first hand in universities in several countries. It's
heartbreaking.
At least it is for me, but apparently not for lots of others. Why?
It has to do, I think, with what you think a university (or any form of education) is
actually for. In Britain, which I know best, education of any type has always been seen by
the ruling class as a ticket to a better life, and a means of preserving their privileges,
but never as an end in itself. They sent their children to "public" (ie private) schools less
for the education than to make social contacts and acquire a cachet which would financially
benefit them for the rest of their lives. It was thus an investment with a promised return.
The more intelligent of the ruling class's children would go to Oxford or Cambridge, again
less for the education than for the fact of having been there and getting to know people.
They would then be best placed to get high-paying jobs in the City, or elsewhere in the
Establishment, so that the ruling class could perpetuate itself.
For the rest of us, especially those who studied humanities rather than subjects like law
and medicine, education was an end in itself, and a way to escape from our origins into a
better world. Fifty years ago, my Head of Department welcomed new students by posing the
hypothetical question, Why Study Literature, as opposed to say, Engineering? It was, he said,
a self-justifying activity. Such statements were as common then as they are unthinkable now.
And more widely, successive governments then believed that an educated population was better
than an uneducated one. But those were the days when the newly-elected Labour Prime Minister
was a grammar-school educated economist who believed in technology. Twenty-five years later,
the newly elected Labour leader was a public-school educated lawyer who believed in God.
So what happened was that British elites, for whom education was first and last an
individual financial investment, wrested back control of education from the more progressive
forces of the postwar boom years. Above all, if individuals had to pay for their education,
if failing their exams was a disaster, and if a degree was a minimum passport to anything
like a decent life, elites could be assured of generations of servile, well-behaved students,
unlike the bolshy lot that I was part of.
Finally, this wouldn't have been so bad if it hadn't been for parallel social trends after
the 1960s. The mindless worship of the individual, the infantilisation of young people and
the move from seeing higher education as a privilege that had to be earned to a commodity
that could be bought, has combined with the mangerialisation of institutions to produce
something like a perfect storm. In my experience, students are less mature, intellectually
and personally, less well-educated, more demanding of support and comfort, more frightened of
failing and generally less well suited to university education than even twenty years ago.
And the sterile managerialism and the cancerous growth of "administration" has actually
exacerbated the problem. In the circumstances it's surprising that things are not worse than
they are.
Not every country has suffered to the same extent. France, with its effectively free
education, and its tradition of Republican education as a liberating device, was better until
recently. But even there the poison is seeping in, as anglo-saxon management and grievance
politics have started to take over French universities. The reaction of French student unions
to the virus has been to demand better treatment, less to learn, less to write, more free
time, and of course lower requirements for "vulnerable and marginalised groups" etc. etc.
And the end of all of this? Societies where people have worthless degrees, where they
can't actually do the jobs they've been recruited for, where the best teachers leave, where
the quality of teaching declines (never mind research) and the spiral goes ever downwards. As
I said, it's heartbreaking.
In an engineering program decades ago, several of my professors openly expressed contempt
at the lack of demands being placed on current students, with far too little time spent in
classes and out of class work, and the ridiculous notion of grading on a curve,(Thinking a
bit, these were all in the Physics department) at a time when incoming students were warned
not to try to hold part time jobs and to expect to spend at least 40 hours per week on work
outside of class. My student experience confirms that this trend started a long time ago.
'Erasmus' mentions in passing the late (d. 2002) lamented Prof Richard Mitchell. I
subscribed to The Underground Grammarian back in the day and I will always remember an
observation from Ben Jonson that Mitchell quoted as a sort of epigram:
Neither can his mind be thought to be in tune, whose words do jarre;
nor his reason in frame, whose sentence is preposterous.
This pool includes both tenured faculty and career faculty and OAs who fall into the PERS
tier1/tier2 buckets. Current new hires come in at tier 4 – a very different
critter.
Those who remember the IBM "voluntary transition" buyouts of the 90s will recognize the
strategy. This undercuts tenure, may reduce some departments in ways that are not
recoverable, and reduces pension liability since the sweetener here is a one time payout for
health insurance rather then PERS support.
The target pool are skeptical but the long term health of the UO is also dicey.
These "retirement" buy-outs are happening in the California community college system (~1
million students). They are offered to both administrators and tenured profs alike. Cutting
costs is imperative when the incoming high school enrollment is down an average of 7-8%; AND
International (Chinese) enrollment (high fee students) is more than 50% lower. My local
community college has a $4M shortfall. (That's huge, actually.)
Faculty members have lobbied for tenured backfill of their lost positions. Only five
positions have been approved; but not yet funded. The faculty is now predominately adjuncts
(gig workers) at 70%. Yet people still strive for that Ph Ed. (which is shortened to PhD in
their resume' and administrative title).
I expect the educational game will return to normal as the emergency vaccines prove
effective over the Spring and Summer. My college is planning on in-person instruction Fall
2021.
I'm more well-known around these parts for attempting to demystify Big Tech's functional
machinations thanks to being a tech worker this past miserable decade, but I actually left
the industry over the summer. In an attempt to switch careers I enrolled in a US undergrad
state program that is well-regarded for remote learning and girded myself for jumping on the
undergrad wagon in my upper 30s. I had gone to a non-university school in my 20s for
something utterly unrelated to tech – fashion design – and had a tech support job
through that round of school. When I left in 2011 it made more sense to stay in tech than
make clothes. Earlier this year it seemed to make more sense to learn soil science or botany
remotely while doing lesser-grade tech work remotely.
Unfortunately I barely lasted two weeks because the remote learning experience – my
own several years of working remotely and 2020's exceptional pandemic/political fireworks
aside – was so bad I was immediately infuriated at the cost and teaching style that I
knew I would not be able to complete years of it, it would not train me for a job in any way,
and I would be better served to get out ASAP and avoid the debt.
Years of tech work has acutely attuned me to recognizing the software fabric behind any
technical implementation, and the schools that were all recognized as remote learning leaders
prior to the pandemic are firmly built on big tech's toolset. I'm less bothered in this
specific case by the security/data issues inherent there than the understanding of how
colossally bloated and sh!tty the apps running the schools (Canvas in the front, Gainsight in
the back for student admin, Google Apps for document, a patchwork for branded tech services
for things like authentication, library services, collaboration) – because that means
multiple layers of the school are dependent on the bloat inherent in those tech platforms
that make their ecampus work. That means it will never get better, it will never get cheaper,
and it will always get worse year over year as bigger teams have to be hired by school admin
to keep up with the sales quotas issued by all those tech services they're using.
And then the classes themselves were in some cases links to Youtube videos of history
documentaries made for tv, for discussion in the Canvas forum app. I thought I was going to
faint from rage the first time I saw it and then I realized this is just how it is now. If my
goal is to do more meaningful work with soil and plants I can get there by planting a garden
and designing some open source hardware for monitoring in my spare time. I don't know how to
really comment effectively on what universities used to be – I know before I went in I
thought they were still more-or-less a place where you went to learn and contribute to the
body of human knowledge – fashion school was set up like an oldschool dressmaker's
academy, we cut patterns and sewed and were judged on the quality of our work rather than
lecture. But what I experienced was not in any way job training or teaching how to learn or
think critically. It was standard big tech marketing magic laid over a combo powerpoint and
commenting module-making application, and i was expected to pay tens of thousands for the
privilege. No.
If you're in an area where there's Master Gardener certification, go for it. Although it's
a location-specific curriculum, the training is excellent. Link:
Yeah the apprentice-style model is vastly superior to teaching any kind of trade or
skilled handiwork. For something like plant science I expected a lot of organic chemistry
transitioning into greenhouse labs (that I'd be able to do in person after the pandemic
ended). Imagine my disappointment to find that most upper level botany and plant biologist
'jobs' available now are computational (genomics). Years of learning to code for Big Tech and
saving to leave for the verdant groves of academe only to find out that even the plant
sciences are being driven to the software mines.
edit to add: probably the most revolutionary act one can do now is refuse to learn to code
and reject the entire premise for software eating the world
Yet, I have found working as a coder useful for the same reason you have: I easily
recognize the [family blog] in using software where it isn't needed and is actually
harmful.
I agree that higher education is failing. Sports, buildings, administrators, and social
life is much more important than the over-priced "education" that students get. I teach
forestry at a very small college in a rural state that has been struggling financially for
years mostly due to poor management and a focus on athletics. The college has been saddled
with a tremendous amount of debt to renovate buildings and build new buildings (for
athletics) despite declining enrollment. It surprises me that the college was able to sell so
many bonds. I surely wouldn't buy any.
I've been leery of the online classes and entire programs that are online. How can the
majority of students learn online? I know most of my students don't like online because they
don't learn as much. I think that online classes are mostly bull****. Sure they might work
for some motivated learners but most college kids don't fit into that category. When the
history of our time is written online classes will be amongst TV, air conditioning, video
games, fast food, cars, and neoliberalism that led to our demise.
The thing that really gets me about higher education is all of the assessment and
accreditation that can apparently be so easily gamed by the colleges. There is a large
consulting industry to help colleges meet the criteria. The amount of critical thinking and
review that goes into the accreditation process is minimal. It is more about creating a
narrative that the college is meeting the criteria than actually self-reflecting on how do we
improve.
I know that many college students aren't learning very much while they are at our school.
Yet those students are eligible for sports and even get scholarships. All the while other
students are paying full tuition and working hard to pass their classes.
In our program we try to hold the line. We have expectations for our students. We make
students do homework, papers, lab reports, lab activities, readings, projects, etc. we make
students go out in the field even when it is cold or rainy. I'm always amazed to hear from
students that professor X just has 4 tests in his/her class. That is shameful. Students have
to interact with faculty and have to engage with the material. They have to think about what
they are learning. They have to practice what they are learning. They have to demonstrate
what they have learned. Not just pick one out of four answers on a multiple choice test.
COVID should be a wake up call to higher education. Colleges need to cut out the BS (
admin, sports, etc) and focus on rigorously preparing the next generation. They will face
challenges greater than any in the 20th century.
The part about making students go out into the field even when it's cold and rainy brought
a smile to my face. Because, no matter how bad the weather, the trees have to stay outside
and cope with it.
Just some further observations from someone who has been in the trenches and is still
trench-adjacent (lots of family and friends who are/were teachers or academics)–with
apologies for length:
I taught for 10-ish years as an adjunct at a couple of public universities in the Midwest
(science and social sciences). Over that time I saw a precipitate decline in students'
ability to reason, learn, and communicate verbally.
By the end, I found them incapable of basic "if then" logical inference and they had
little understanding of analogy. If I taught them that A + B = C, then asked on a test C
– B = ?, they were totally lost. Their only learning skill was (poor) memorization, and
they appeared to experience not just frustration but almost an existential terror when
encountering subjects that either had no single answer, or where they were asked to discover
the answer.
My closest friend, one of the few who actually managed to secure a tenure-track position*,
was recently telling me how she has to stay absolutely au courant with political correctness
and rigorously self-police her own language because a single offended student could end her
career. A slip up as slight as addressing a group as "you guys" is all it could take to tank
her life's work.
*I don't know of a single one of my former colleagues who has secured a tenure-track job
unless they were (1) engaged in quantitative, scientific research or (2) male. If you're
female and in the humanities/social sciences, I guess you better learn to code.
She has commented many times that her students can be ruthlessly judgmental and their
judgments do not take context into account. This is how they've been trained to be from early
childhood: totally literal, nuance-free memorizers of "content" and generators of "metrics,"
trusting in any so-called authority figure to give them "the answers" (so long as that
authority doesn't use forbidden words), willing and eager to prove their own worth by
policing their fellows Perfect Orwellian employees and citizens.
Are the universities broken or are they working as intended? I actually hope it's the
former.
Their only learning skill was (poor) memorization, and they appeared to experience not
just frustration but almost an existential terror when encountering subjects that either had
no single answer, or where they were asked to discover the answer.
Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. It was promoted as a way to improve
struggling schools, but it was soon clear the real payload was cutting public school funding
for schools whose students did poorly on tests. This quickly created a 'teach to the test'
k-12 public school evironment. So 10 years ago, say, students entering college were products
of at least 7 or eight years of high-stakes, k-12, teach to the test teaching and
memorization demands. Teaching was in too many cases replaced with rote drill; a change made
necessary for public schools not to be docked funding and for teachers to keep their jobs.
Silicon Valley digital education companies made money, of course. I think this form of
teaching has had a very negative effect on students and teachers. It seems like a way to
destroy what's best in public k-12 education. (The rationales used to pass NCLB were based on
questionable international testing metrics.) My 2 cents.
And the Common Core curriculum, largely funded by the Gates Foundation, explicitly
rejected teaching context, instead focusing on sterile "close reading" of excerpts. Kids are
barely reading short stories, let alone novels, in high school anymore. Increasingly, the
kids don't have the attention span or cognitive stamina to do it.
As a commenter stated in Lambert's column about academia last week: "You educate humans
and train animals". Turning that around, if you train humans, but don't educate them, what
you will get are animals.
"The university is a corporation" can easily be turned into "the university is an
extension of corporations" which is at the heart of why there's no learning. The courses,
especially econ, business, and other FIRE precursor departments have their curriculum
basically laid out by the largest local employers and wall street players. So now everyone is
learning tailored curriculum that ignores fundamentals and denies criticism in favor of
trends and profitable models. No one like to learn this, it is boring, time consuming, and
inapplicable in daily life unless you are at work for one of these places. This leads the
average student, who is made abundantly clear they need a 3.5 or above to land a job at one
of those places (the only well playing jobs), to do anything possible to get the grade
including cheating and streamlining studying to answer specific questions as opposed to
understanding concepts. I myself have done this because the material is so boring and I
merely want to get the grade and get out of the class.
Tack on the relentless pursuit of career centers, recruitment fairs, and emails with the
subjects like "is your resume interview ready" every other day, it is an assembly line for
turning students into corporate drones. Yet almost all students recognize it to some degree
and either through economic, cultural, or familial pressures know its alm sot impossible to
have a stable life without giving in, hence widespread depression and anxiety on campuses.
I'd say upward of 80% of the student population has one of these at any given time.
Higher education does have problems and it is not organized to tackle this situation.
Everybody is absorbed with their own problems and responsibilities. It is easier just to
contend with your immediate situation and put off the long-term and global problems. The
government is in the best position to respond to this society-wide problem, but we haven't
seen this kind of leadership in a long time. The demise of American education probably
started under Reagan.
One factor in the financial problems of colleges might be the wars and the bailouts. Does
giving vast sums of money to the banks and military make everyone else poorer? That is my
suspicion.
This is an issue which has been discussed over a long time. One could start with Pitirim
Sorokin's " Social and Cultural Mobility " (1959), followed by Neil Postman's "
Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology " (1993) and " The End of
Education: Redefining the Value of School " (1996) and, then, Christopher Lasch's "
The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy " (1996). The concepts in these
books could then be combined with Clark Kerr's analysis in " The Uses of the
University " (1963). IMO such an exercise would show why the present situation, explained
in detail by Benjamin Ginsberg in " The Fall of the Faculty and the Rise of the
All-Administrative University and Why It Matters " (2011) was inevitable. Further
cogitation might also show the part non-deplorable elites played/play in this saga.
Best post on higher ed I have read in recent memory, and I have read a lot of them.
IMHO, cultural and organizational problems like these (and to this list I'd add the growth
in student debt) are frequently the result of economic mistakes (misallocation of resources,
ridiculous subsidies, etc.) We might as well admit it: in this case, the mistake is that
there are too damned many universities in the US.
So Erasmus can recommend "reform," and he or she is correct, but the only reform that
would make a difference is one that changes the economics. My recommendation would be for the
Feds to get out of the student loan businesses and require the universities to make and hold
the loans themselves. (Maybe the feds could stay in the game with needs-tested grants, or a
program to buy down the interest rates.)
Wah-la! Fewer universities. Fewer slacker students wasting their money and ours. Better
focus among the schools and the students that remain. Lesser burden on the taxpayer.
Major pain for faculty, I know, but there is major pain now, especially among
underemployed and indebted graduates. Adjustment always hurts.
Extra bonus: Nice real estate available to retirees.
PS My Dad, a career K-12 superintendent, said that there is no such thing as higher ed,
it's just later ed.
So Erasmus can recommend "reform," and he or she is correct, but the only reform that
would make a difference is one that changes the economics. My recommendation would be for
the Feds to get out of the student loan businesses and require the universities to make and
hold the loans themselves. (Maybe the feds could stay in the game with needs-tested grants,
or a program to buy down the interest rates.)
Maybe but first you have to change the economics that life in America without a college
degree for most is cruelty stacked upon misery. Pretty much every other developed country
treats non-college grads better than we do.
Agreed but part of the point is that American misery is gradually extending to more and
more of us and a college "education" is no prophylactic. Given a choice between
minimum-wage-slavery-or-unemployment without debt, and with, I'd take the former. Most people
would; we can read Hobbes and Proust on our own. Fewer worthless degrees and less educational
debt are a loss to no one except the higher ed institutions themselves. The revolution may or
not arrive; but in the meantime perhaps we can get our universities to stop lying to us about
what we'll get in exchange for our dollars and our years and our hopes. And we can save our
subsidy dollars, if any are left, for real bargains or the truly needy.
I wonder if paying students a salary could change some of the negative dynamics. Being a
student is somewhat like working at a job, but without renumeration, at least in the
immediate term. It would allow teachers to demand more from the students and probably reduce
or eliminate grade inflation.
This is a painful subject for me and there is much that resonates in the post and in a
number of the comments (the decline of secondary education, reducing universities to
garbage-in-garbage-out; the insolubility of treating students as customers while employers
who call the shots want them to be products; the political naivete and cowardice of faculty
who have abdicated university governance) . I have lived through the "rock and a hard place"
dilemma between sticking with an academic career or taking the package, as one's university,
indeed one's entire national system of universities, is ground into the neoliberal dust (I
chose the hard place and learned to code).
There were a few comments under Lambert's original post from University of Chicago alumni.
I am one as well (BA Economics class of 1982). The College of the University of Chicago was
an incredible place in the late 1970s. There were fewer undergraduates than law school or MBA
students, fewer even than some large suburban high schools. In my final year I had classes
with fewer than a dozen students. It cost my parents and I very little (with financial aid
and low interest loans). I started off determined to get to law school or get an MBA, but I
was a student willing to be malleable, to be formed and produced by teachers who believed
that inquiry was self-justifying and who controlled a core curriculum that included Marx,
Freud, Dostoevsky, Joyce, Marcuse I don't know what's on the core curriculum these days. I
think they teach you how to code.
Perry Anderson has a long historical perspective on the UK going back to Atlee's Labour
government in the 1940s in a recent New Left Review. In a section on the vicissitudes of the
intelligentsia (if that's what it can even be called anymore after the Blair era), I was
struck solidly in the chest by this summary. In Blair's early years, Anderson writes:
"[In the Academy], hopes that [New Labour policies] would repair the damage left by the
Thatcher period were soon gone, as it became clear that, on the contrary, the new regime was
going not only to accept, but extend it, with still more far-reaching measures of managerial
control and marketization. By the end of the New Labour era, the universities had been
battered thrice over. First, with deep spending cuts and subjection of scholarship to crudely
quantified targeting of output under Thatcher; then by imposition of corporate management
systems, inflating bureaucracy at the expense of teaching and research; then by the
introduction of fees converting students into customers, and of public -- sc. market --
'impact' as a criterion of promotion and funding. No other country in the advanced capitalist
world saw a reduction of higher education to commercial logic so extreme. What was the
reaction? Within the academy, a single scholar, Stephan Collini, published two books of
eloquent protest, each well received; outside it, a single independent researcher, Andrew
McGettigan, produced two books dismantling the economics of the changes, each well
documented.* Neither to the smallest visible effect. The intelligentsia on the receiving end
of two decades of brutal neo-liberal assault lifted scarcely a finger of collective
resistance to it. Finally, after twenty-five years, when even its pensions were cut, token
strikes (absences of a fortnight at a time), bungled by the union, ignored the majority of
university teachers, and shutting down not a single campus, began in fits and starts in 2018,
petering out fruitlessly in 2020 -- all belated, all confined to narrowly economic issues,
none raising broader structural questions."
* Stafan Collini, What are Universities For? , London 2012, and Speaking of
Universities , London 2017; Andrew McGettigan, False Accounting , London 2012, and
The Great University Gamble , London 2013.
Why did I quit? It wasn't because of the transparent stupidity of inflating bureaucracy at
the expense of teaching and research, the transparent stupidity of treating students as
customers, the transparent stupidity of the 'employability' cross-curricular themes. And it
was not about the sycophants, the cowards, the dysfunctional union, and the complete absence
of organised pushback. The last straw was the 'impact' thing. I remember sitting in an
"impact case study session" looking an ass dean across the table in the eye while we were
literally being taught how to fudge and make shit up on our case studies, surrounded by young
lecturers earnestly taking notes. It felt like a hopeless, intellectually bankrupt place to
be.
We could start all over with mutual aid societies, as Lambert suggested, but we would need
to take over the libraries and the labs first.
Given how all the factories that weren't shipped to China were sold pennies on the dollar,
I'm sure you could get the library and labs cheap, as long as someone's bonus was tied to
it.
I was going to set this as a reply to Alexandra
, but then it seemed a good response to JWP just below, Edward, and more up top. So yes,
Alexandra, the universities and other educational institutions are working as intended, at
least since 1971. That was the year that Lewis Powell wrote this memorandum (text courtesy of
his alma mater, Washington and Lee University) at the request of his friend Eugene B. Sydnor
Jr., who was education director of the US Chamber of Commerce, the original Big Business
lobby. The program was accepted and carried out, funded by old-money tycoons like Richard
Mellon Scaife and the cough-drop Smiths, as well as those johnny-come-lately oligarchs, the
Kochs. They founded and funded business-oriented think tanks, speakers bureaus (available to
college campuses and the 'rubber-chicken' circuit of Rotary, Lions, and other small-town
service clubs, or really. They starteded magazines and, eventually, ALEC -- yes, that
ALEC .
I was going to set this as a reply to Alexandra
, but then it seemed a good response to JWP just below, Edward, and more up top. So yes,
Alexandra, the universities and other educational institutions are working as intended, at
least since 1971. That was the year that Lewis Powell wrote this memorandum (text courtesy of
his alma mater, Washington and Lee University) at the request of his friend Eugene B. Sydnor
Jr., who was education director of the US Chamber of Commerce, the original Big Business
lobby. The program was accepted and carried out, funded by old-money tycoons like Richard
Mellon Scaife and the cough-drop Smiths, as well as those johnny-come-lately oligarchs, the
Kochs. They founded and funded business-oriented think tanks, speakers bureaus (available to
college campuses and the 'rubber-chicken' circuit of Rotary, Lions, and other small-town
service clubs, or really any group. They started magazines and, eventually, ALEC -- yes,
that
ALEC .
First i want to thank YVes for the ability for me to run my mouth freely about the
following:
In my mid 20s i quit my full time job to go back to college and finish my accounting
degree, as that was supposedly better than a factory job with retirement. I wasn't totally
blinded by teenage optimism. This is a big ten school. The professors all went on and on
about the starting pay, and not to be tempted by leaving a firm too soon chasing that even
bigger money. They laughed it off like everyone had such opportunity. They brought in former
students to talk about this. Then when it came to the material, professors constantly waved
off further lecture and questions about several topics, stating "you will learn that once you
get working in a firm". Then when testing time came, the tests were overly complex and
detailed. Materials were reviewed beforehand. But testing, like the grading, is being based
on a curve. So while i was getting Cs & Ds on tests, i would end the class with a 3.0-3.5
final grade. I feel they were whittling us out to get only the smartest (maybe not fastest,
but quickest to adapt) students, while not really teaching everyone in the class. Heck it was
really a ranking for their benefactors, the top 4 firms. (Funny story, Arthur Anderson's name
was everywhere one year. Then the next year it disappeared). Most professors were former
employees who still maintained their connections in the firm.
I went there to get a great education from a top business school. But my intentions were
never to go work at the Top 4 and spend half my time living in one town, while traveling the
country the rest of the time.
I can only imagine what it's like now. I was attending in 2003-2006. Half my accounting
professors were former alumni that had been teaching there for decades. Then the other ones
were younger persons who spent the majority of their time doing research.
Institute for College Access & Success (Ticas) has just released its
annual report on what college graduates owe in student debt . The latest: 62 percent of
college seniors who graduated from public and private nonprofit colleges in 2019 had
student-loan debt averaging $28,950, slightly lower than the previous year. Still, the rise in
graduates' student-debt burden has far outpaced inflation over the 15 years Ticas has been
tracking it.
The rich understand that capitalism is a game of musical chairs. It's systemic class warfare
conducted on a grand scale to discourage solidarity across lines that might otherwise threaten
the system, and with each market re-set arranged by the Federal Reserve, more of the country's
resources fall into wealthy hands.
Examining what happens when a society favors old money over new and breaks all the rules to
make the world safe for finance, author Jeanne Haskin predicts increasing volatility and
violence in the United States if we do not significantly change course.
For a preview of what lies ahead for the U.S., the author takes us for a quick exemplary
trip through Central America.
A society that is reared on competition will face unsettling
challenges to authority if it doesn't set certain functions outside the arena of battle, via
systematic enrichment of the affluent minority that has always had the power to topple and ruin
the system.
Today's preoccupation with America's revolutionary history is not just a piece of theater.
At the heart of America's outrage is an inability to lash out and demand redemption from the
source of its distress because the pain is inflicted, not by hatred, but by the fundamental
lack of stability built into our way of life.
Now that a fifth of the population is suffering job loss, foreclosures, or exclusion from
employment due to prejudice, poor credit, a lack of skills or education, a glut of competition
and insufficient opportunity, the failure to provide for the helpless majority means the system
is at an impasse. Because the system can't or won't perform, the Tea Party's rise was
preemptive with all its implied violence and 'real' American theater as the means to channel
our anger into voting out Obama so reform can proceed unimpeded...with all its inherent
dangers.
After reviewing some foreign examples that erupted in the environments of colonialism and
post-colonialism, neoliberalism, militarism and oligarchies, the author filters through the
head-spinning social and political noise that stands in for responsible debate in America
today. Ms. Haskin's richly documented essay sees a bonfire prepared as social tensions are
increased and inter-group pressures are encouraged to mount. So much for "One nation..."
Title Pagev
Table of Contentsxi
Introduction1
Chapter One- Unearthing the Bones7
Chapter Two- Instilling the Illusion of Choice19
Chapter Three- Political Strategizing23
Chapter Four- Behavioral Economics27
Chapter Five- Favoring Old Money over New33
Chapter Six- Making the World Safe for Finance39
Chapter Seven- The Colonial History of Belize51
Chapter Eight- Belize -- Party Politics and Debt65
Chapter Nine- Belize -- Recommendations of the IMF83
Chapter Ten- Nicaragua 1522–193991
Chapter Eleven- Nicaragua -- The Somoza Dynasty107
Chapter Twelve- Nicaragua -- Opposition to the Sandinistas119
Chapter Thirteen- Nicaragua -- Implementing Neoliberalism133
Chapter Fourteen- El Salvador -- The Military and the Oligarchy151
Chapter Fifteen- El Salvador -- The War and Its Aftermath165
Chapter Sixteen- Honduras -- Land of Instability179
Chapter Seventeen- Honduras -- The Impact of the Contras191
Chapter Eighteen- Fast-Forward to a Volatile USA205
Bibliography227
Index25
Harvard and Yale are set to respond this week to a series of legal challenges accusing them
of racial bias against Asian and White applicants during the admissions process, according to
Bloomberg .
The universities will respond to two of those challenges to 'race-conscious admissions,'
while two more make their way through the legal system against other universities. The
controversy could make it all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled over 40 years ago in
its Bakke decision that race is a valid factor in creating a diverse student body.
While the decision has been reaffirmed over the years, it's possible that the 'conservative'
majority Supreme Court will strike Bakke down .
"Sandra Day O'Connor basically opined that we could have another 20 years or 25 years of
affirmative action programs, but that they would not go on forever," said conservative Linda
Chavez, chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity. " And yet we do see them going on forever
," she added.
O'Connor speculated in 2003 that the race-based consideration wouldn't go on 'forever.'
17-years later, it's still happening.
" We're now talking about kids who are getting into college on the basis of some racial or
ethnic preference who are the grandchildren of people who first got those preferences. "
The Justice Department has
threatened to sue Yale unless it agrees to stop considering race . " Unlawfully dividing
Americans into racial and ethnic blocs fosters stereotypes, bitterness, and division ," the
government wrote to the university in August. Yale, which has
vowed to "vigorously defend" a process "endorsed repeatedly by the Supreme Court," is due
to respond this week.
On Wednesday, Harvard goes before a federal appeals court
over a case that it engages in "racial balancing" by holding Asian-American applicants to a
higher standard than other minority groups. Harvard denies discriminating and won the case in
federal district court last fall. -
Bloomberg
The Harvard suit and two other pending lawsuitsagainst the University of North Carolin and
the University of Texas were brought by activist Edward Blum - a longtime foe of affirmative
action and founder of Students for Fair Admissions. The Justice Department filed in the Harvard
case in support of the group , claiming that the school's admissions process is " infected with
racial bias ."
Making a review by the Supreme Court even more likely is that there are now four challenges
in four states against both public and private universities, meaning that conflicting rulings
from different appeals courts would call for the higher court's opinion.
"That's what they want," said Audrey Anderson, former general counsel at Vanderbilt
University. "They want it to go to the Supreme Court because the justices who upheld
affirmative action are not on the court anymore."
Amid the flurry of court papers, a July study by the Education Trust , which advocates for
educational opportunities for disadvantaged students, found that African Americans and
Latinos continue to be underrepresented at 101 of the country's top public universities and
that their representation has even regressed in many instances over the past two decades.
"I know that there's folks who are against affirmative action, of all backgrounds," who
believe "that we are there, and it's not needed, and maybe there's even some
over-representation or over-emphasis on race that we need to correct for," said Tiffany Jones , senior director
of education policy at the Trust. That perception, she said, "is contradicted by the data and
the research and the information about who has access to higher education." -
Bloomberg
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Last year, US District Judge Allison Burroughs found that Harvard didn't set quotas or give
undue consideration to race when reviewing applicants, and instead weighed race as one of over
200 factors which includes socioeconomic background, areas of study and letters of
recommendation, according to the report.
Blum, on the other hand, says that the evidence in the Harvard case "compellingly proved
Harvard's systematic discrimination against Asian-American applicants," and that "We assert the
district court erred in its analysis of this evidence and, surprisingly, virtually ignored
Harvard's own internal studies" that he says showed bias.
student life is reduced to a pixilated screen and the college experience is stripped of its
self-realizations and rites of passage...
The question now is whether and to what extent those changes will persist beyond the current
crisis.
Will this mass experiment with online education turn more students on to lower-cost online
degrees, or will it only make the in-person experience of college life seem all the more
valuable?
The pandemic is a monkey wrench dropped into the middle of our cobbled-together
public-private higher-education machine, freezing it up and, just possibly, breaking it.
Financially, colleges need to be open. Their operating budgets depend on tuition revenue,
and schools need students on campus to be spending money in the bookstore or the dining hall or
on sporting events. So there are a few different scenarios floating around right now for fall
instruction. One is a hybrid of virtual and in person. This seems to be the most popular
scenario, where colleges have larger classes being virtual and smaller classes in person in
large spaces where they can better socially distance. We heard of a college considering turning
an on-campus ballroom into a large classroom where students can be better spread out. They're
also looking at adjusting the residential model. Dorms are pretty small, and they're densely
populated. We've heard of schools that are considering buying up local hotels or even casino
spaces in order to give students single rooms so they can better spread out.
(27) In another televised beauty pageant, a high school girl was asked to explain a quote
by Confucius. In response, she said: "Confucius was one of the men who invented
confusion."
(29) An article in Forbes magazine stated that "America's Millennials Are Among the
World's Least Skilled". Specifically, they are short on literacy, numeracy, ability to follow
simple orders, poor at solving problems.
Free speech is not a dimmer switch, its on or its off – you can’t have it both ways. Cancel culture is a reincarnation of
Stalinist purges, or McCarthyism.
Notable quotes:
"... The sort of "lose your job for engaging in speech" thing happens in other contexts, too. Companies routinely censor their employees' speech in ways small and large, and this includes completely non-political speech about purely technical matters. ..."
"... the government severely punishes employers whose employees speak in ways the government/the identity politics left (they are working together here) dislike, and so effectively outsources speech regulation to employers. ..."
"... The concern about cancel culture is in my observation largely driven by this dynamic: the frequent tagline right-leaning speech is violence, while left-leaning violence is speech" reflects the fact that getting some particular approach to a topic defined as "discrimination" ..."
"... Think about Rebecca Long-Bailey's recent demotion from the Labour shadow cabinet over a tweet she made. Last month, she retweeted a newspaper interview with prominent Labour-supporting actress Maxine Peake, calling her an "absolute diamond." The interview included an inaccurate claim from Peake ( based apparently on information in a Morning Star article, and which Peake subsequently withdrew when she was challenged on it) that the specific knee restraint used on George Floyd had been taught to Mineapolis police by Israeli secret police consultants. ..."
"... Long-Bailey lost the Shadow Education role, and her political career is likely over, ostensibly on the basis of this one tweet. ..."
"... The RLB case also throws a spotlight on language. The various rationales for cancelling listed in the OP -- racism, transphobia, or (in this case) antisemitism -- are rarely clear-cut in real-world instances ..."
"... This, I would suggest, is also related to power. The purpose of an accusation like this is to demonstrate the power or dominance of the cancelling agent, and to intimidate others by example. ..."
"... These concepts are capable of apparently endless linguistic elasticity. Indeed, it's when they're at their most extended or diffuse, that these grounds for cancellation seem to have the most signifying power. ..."
"... Everyone working in academia, the non-profit sector, and journalism is aware that there are many ideas broadly held which people hesitate to say because they are worried a group of their strident colleagues will try to destroy their career ..."
"... it is unquestionable that "canceling from the left" is a bigger threat from the right. ..."
"... Remember that the academic institutions in which controversies about 'cancel culture' exist are bourgeois institutions, pretty much like corporations. It is a world of authority, hierarchy, and carefully controlled behavior. ..."
"... As the power and prestige of the bourgeoisie shrink, the inmates of that particular cage will fight more fiercely for what's left. One way of fighting is to get someone's job by turning up something disreputable, such as the use of an apparently racist epithet. ..."
"... It seems to me that "cancel culture" is based on the infosphere's equivalent of the technological progress that now allows a small group of determined people with AK-47s to render a region ungovernable. ..."
"... The arms dealers don't care – they sell to everyone, and the more ammunition they sell, the more you'll need. ..."
"... Whether justified or not, a significant minority of Americans, across multiple lines, are fearful that their political opinions could endanger their jobs; this suggests the problem might be more than just people getting "bent-out-of-shape that they can't be raging bigots" . ..."
"... Purveyors of what-aboutery will probably appreciate that Steve Salita now makes a living as a bus driver ; I have no reason to think that the Harpers Letter signers (even Bari Weiss) would regard that situation as any more just than other examples. ..."
"... My position on this is that individuals shouldn't face public opprobrium unless there is 1) Clear and convincing evidence they are motivated by fundamentally malicious ends and 2) They have no remorse about it. Even when these conditions are met the opprobrium they receive should be clearly proportional to the wrong they've committed. We should relax these rules somewhat for celebrities, and a great deal for politicians, who have implicitly agreed to face criticism as a consequence of their role. ..."
"... In that testing sense, cancel culture can be seen as a type of supplementary social defense mechanism compared to the standard immune system response of trying to prove the political cult wrong in the eyes of unbiased observers; in too many historical cases, the immune response is weakened by factors such as adverse economic or geopolitical circumstances (e.g., a lost war) ..."
"... Cancel culture then works as (a) tracking and removal in the form of boycotts and ostracism, in that the infected cells(individuals) are removed from positions of influence, and (b) as a type of lockdown measure (censorship) that is warranted when the infected individual is transmitting patently false versions of current events or past history, and is starting to infect others around him. ..."
"... As to Peter's argument that cancel culture disfigures the left, I would add that the only cases where the radical left has seized power took place in the brutal aftermath of right-wing pandemics: e.g. the hyper-nationalism that led Germany and Russia among others to war in 1914, or KMT/warlord attempts to violently and brutally suppress peasant demands in the case of China. In such situations, it is no surprise that the radical left becomes infected with political cultism. ..."
"... Between those two positions there's a large space where people get harassed, threatened, ostracised and silenced for minor slips, reasonable disagreements, details that were lost in translation and failures to recite the correct thought-terminating cliches with sufficient conviction – basically, things that don't threaten anyone else's ability to speak. ..."
Racism from my perspective, looks like an unwillingness to evaluate people on an
individual basis, whether it's from sloth, contempt or disability and it's a terrible look
for an intellectual.
JQ @ 1: The sort of "lose your job for engaging in speech" thing happens in other
contexts, too. Companies routinely censor their employees' speech in ways small and large,
and this includes completely non-political speech about purely technical matters.
I know of a
case where a famous chip designer got up at a conference and said "none of you people talking
about Itanium [Intel's ia64 chip that was the future of microprocessors once upon a time]
actually think it's going to succeed -- why don't any of you admit it?"
Within moments he was
covered in PR and lawyers basically taping his mouth shut. When I worked in global enterprise
IT, I didn't post blog comments (neither political nor technical) b/c it was clear that
there would always be the possibility of career repercussions for making statements that
would have post-hoc repercussions
Companies censor their employees speech before-and-after-the-fact for lots of reasons,
sometimes political. This is a fact of life, and you're very right to point out that if
people actually cared about this [as opposed to getting bent-out-of-shape that they can't be
raging bigots] they'd support strong unions.
This is mainly a problem in the US because of employment at will.
Employment at will may contribute, but a larger part of the problem is that the US laws
around free speech are odd. Technically, the government cannot regulate speech at all (with
very limited exceptions, not relevant here.) In practice, though, what has happened (via
so-called "antidiscrimination" law) is that the government severely punishes employers whose
employees speak in ways the government/the identity politics left (they are working together
here) dislike, and so effectively outsources speech regulation to employers.
The concern about cancel culture is in my observation largely driven by this dynamic: the frequent tagline
right-leaning speech is violence, while left-leaning violence is speech" reflects the fact that getting some particular
approach to a topic defined as "discrimination" means that it is severely punished by government, at second-hand.
One thing that might be useful is distinguishing "cancel culture" as a phenomenon from
cancellation more narrowly defined as a tactic . So many of the discussions I've seen
recently about the issue seem content to operate at the big-picture level, asking whether
such a thing as cancel culture even exists (the New Statesman approach) or (if it
does) whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. Focussing in on actual cases, and thinking
about who (precisely) benefits from individual instances, might instead help us think about
the specific function of cancel culture, and the role that language plays in it.
Think about Rebecca Long-Bailey's recent demotion from the Labour shadow cabinet over a
tweet she made. Last month, she retweeted a newspaper interview with prominent
Labour-supporting actress Maxine Peake, calling her an "absolute diamond." The interview
included an inaccurate claim from Peake (
based apparently on information in a Morning Star article, and which Peake
subsequently withdrew when she was challenged on it) that the specific knee restraint used on
George Floyd had been taught to Mineapolis police by Israeli secret police consultants.
Long-Bailey lost the Shadow Education role, and her political career is likely over,
ostensibly on the basis of this one tweet. This, to me, is a fairly clear instance of
cancellation at work, but it would be inadequate to leave it at that. The complete lack of
commensurability between the transgression and the outcome would be incomprehensible without
asking how RLB's cancellation fits into Labour Party politics; that is, the function of
cancelling in this specific instance. Absolutely no one I know thinks this tweet proved
Long-Bailey was genuinely antisemitic, or that it was even the primary reason she was
demoted. Instead, it's been broadly (and, I think, correctly) interpreted as a signal from
the Starmer wing of the party that the Corbyn faction with which RLB is aligned has no future
in Labour. Cancellation, in this case, is a naked piece of power politics: a way of getting
political opponents out of the way.
The RLB case also throws a spotlight on language. The various rationales for cancelling
listed in the OP -- racism, transphobia, or (in this case) antisemitism -- are rarely
clear-cut in real-world instances. In fact, there's a kind of homeopathic logic at work,
where the more tendentious the attribution is, the more cut-through it often seems to have.
This, I would suggest, is also related to power. The purpose of an accusation like this is to
demonstrate the power or dominance of the cancelling agent, and to intimidate others by
example. ("If RLB got cancelled for this , then how little would I need to do
to suffer the same fate?") As Jonathan Dollimore has pointed out, there's a certain in-built
"linguistic imprecision" in many of the terms that cancellation depends on, and it's from
that imprecision that the capacity for intimidation or fear generation stems from.
These
concepts are capable of apparently
endless linguistic elasticity. Indeed, it's when they're at their most extended or
diffuse, that these grounds for cancellation seem to have the most signifying power.
Anon For Obvious Reasons 07.30.20 at 5:31 pm (
23 )
I find this deliberately misleading. "Cancel culture" in practice refers to the idea that
you shouldn't be ostracized by your peers, friends, or professional field for holding and
voicing ideas that are essentially mainstream.
Everyone thinks that if you insult someone with a racial slur, there should be
consequences.
But after that, what should be the proper "bound" that discourse should not cross? I would
argue that "any idea which can be studied rigorously" and "any idea held by a reasonably
broad cross section of society" is clearly within the bound, and we do ourselves a huge
disservice by refusing to countenance ideas in those sets. Further, as a commenter above
notes, most people in the world are not left-wing activists. Setting the norm that you
shouldn't be friends with/work with/hire/buy from people with ideas you find acceptable, but
which are not extreme, will be and has been a disaster for gay people, atheists, and many
others.
Everyone working in academia, the non-profit sector, and journalism is aware that there
are many ideas broadly held which people hesitate to say because they are worried a group of
their strident colleagues will try to destroy their career. The Shor example comes up
because, as Matt Yglesias pointed out yesterday, it is so obviously ridiculous to lose your
job for linking to a paper in APSR by a prominent (young, black) political scientist, and yet
there really are many people in that world, progressive political campaigns, who would
refuse to work with you if you hired Shor . It wasn't just his boss or "workplace
protections" – he was kicked out of the listserv that is the main vector for finding
jobs in that sphere, and his new employer remains anonymous on purpose!
And yes, this is not just a lefty thing. I'm sure that right-wing media sites, and church
groups, and the rest all have similar cases. Trump clearly "canceled" Kaepernick, with the
NFL's help. Yet we all agree that is bad! And in the sphere many of us are in, academia, it
is unquestionable that "canceling from the left" is a bigger threat from the right.
Trader Joe 07.30.20 at 2:17 pm @ 17 -- Remember that the academic institutions in which controversies about 'cancel culture' exist
are bourgeois institutions, pretty much like corporations. It is a world of authority,
hierarchy, and carefully controlled behavior. Obviously there is little expression which may
not have adverse consequences.
As the power and prestige of the bourgeoisie shrink, the
inmates of that particular cage will fight more fiercely for what's left. One way of fighting
is to get someone's job by turning up something disreputable, such as the use of an
apparently racist epithet.
This didn't start yesterday. There is a certain spillover into popcult as students emerge from academia into the outer, also declining world and repeat the
patterns which they have observed. Numerous stories are available, but I'll spare you. Anyway,
Mr. Taibbi has been ranting well, and you can go there.
Surprising to see so little emphasis on social media as the main catalyst. Tribalism is
the driver of "engagement" online, and if righteous anger at the out-group gets the clicks,
so be it. Consider how any Twitter post can become a tiny gleaming tableau, a battle flag, an
allegory of sin or virtue. Context and interpretation cannot be arbiters, and must only serve
the self-evident cause of loyalty to one's synthetic tribe. Faith and bad faith merge; that's
just optimal use of an app's system of influence. "We shape our tools and then our tools
shape us".
It seems to me that "cancel culture" is based on the infosphere's equivalent of the
technological progress that now allows a small group of determined people with AK-47s to
render a region ungovernable. This does not imply that the region's current government is a
good one. It does not imply anything about the group's views, except that debating them is
not likely to be on the agenda when they visit your village. There will no doubt be some
unpleasant people among the casualties; perhaps that counts as a silver lining.
The arms dealers don't care – they sell to everyone, and the more ammunition they sell,
the more you'll need.
"But the fact that the same example (David Shor) is cited every time the
issue is raised " here is one attempt to tabulate
cancellations, at least on the left identitarian side; I am not endorsing any particular
example. (NB: Sophie Jane in this case, not Sophie Grace.)
I would be curious about whether Henry approves of the
suppression of speech as much as the OP does.
Purveyors of what-aboutery
will probably appreciate that Steve Salita now makes a
living as a bus driver ; I have no reason to think that the Harpers Letter signers (even
Bari Weiss) would regard that situation as any more just than other examples.
There have been occasions in my life when I have justly and rightly experienced adverse
consequences as a result of things that I have said. The proposition that nobody should ever
experience adverse consequences as a result of statements made is utterly indefensible.
Discussions over "cancellation" can make things unnecessarily difficult because it's a
very hard term to define- exactly how badly does your public reputation have to be before you
are cancelled. All too often debates turn into "well so and so wasn't cancelled because they
still have a job/they still have a platform/they're still living their life." (Although your
post does avoid this by describing it in terms of an attempt instead of outcome) So to avoid
ambiguities that attend "cancellation", I prefer "opprobrium"
My position on this is that individuals shouldn't face public opprobrium unless there is
1) Clear and convincing evidence they are motivated by fundamentally malicious ends and 2)
They have no remorse about it. Even when these conditions are met the opprobrium they receive
should be clearly proportional to the wrong they've committed. We should relax these rules
somewhat for celebrities, and a great deal for politicians, who have implicitly agreed to
face criticism as a consequence of their role.
I support this anti-opprobrium position because being shamed publicly is extremely
painful. I would rather lose a limb than be widely publicly shamed and reviled, and I think a
lot of people feel the same way, so, by the golden rule and all of that
In terms of the position you outline it seems to me that we're going to agree on a lot of
issues. Pre-meditated use of racial slurs, for example. But I think there are a lot of
instances of cancel culture that we won't agree on.
Here's some people I think have been unfairly subject to vast amounts of pubic opprobrium
that some people would call cancel culture:
The p**nstar ( I won't spell it out because I'm at work) who killed herself in part
because of the criticism she received when tweeted out (homophobically) that she didn't want
to work actors who had done gay male scenes. While criticism would have been appropriate, the
torrent of backlash she received was disproportionate.
The woman who went to the Washington Post's cartoonist party in blackface in a very
misguided but not malicious attempt to satirize blackface and subsequently lost her job when
the Washington post named her in their paper. Natalie Wynn of Contrapoints – for many different things.
Glenn Greenwald over the age difference between him and his partner
Now I'm picking cases of opprobrium that came from the left broadly construed, because I
think of this as an internal conversation on the left. However, one thing that frustrates me
about this debate is that no one is acknowledging that the right are masters of excessive
opprobrium. Some examples:
Steven Salaita
Diane Abbott
Norman Finklestein
Matthew Bruenig
But maybe my position amounts to a silly apolitical wish that people would be nice to each
other, unless there's a very, very good reason not to.
Chris: An interesting case can be made in favor of cancel culture if we start thinking of
most political cults including communism, fascism, maga-Trumpism and other types of fake
populism as pandemics.
For starters, there is the testing. A positive test result is indicated by
(a) the talking
points or analysis are exclusionary toward one or more social groups that are being "othered"
based on any common aspect other than political actions that are unethical by some
well-defined criterion; the extent indicates the severity of the symptoms, and
(b) the
speaker or commenter is repeating someone else's talking points or writing rather than their
own attempts to understand the issue; the extent indicates the degree of infectiousness.
In that testing sense, cancel culture can be seen as a type of supplementary social
defense mechanism compared to the standard immune system response of trying to prove the
political cult wrong in the eyes of unbiased observers; in too many historical cases, the
immune response is weakened by factors such as adverse economic or geopolitical circumstances
(e.g., a lost war).
Cancel culture then works as (a) tracking and removal in the form of
boycotts and ostracism, in that the infected cells(individuals) are removed from positions of
influence, and (b) as a type of lockdown measure (censorship) that is warranted when the
infected individual is transmitting patently false versions of current events or past
history, and is starting to infect others around him.
I am not in complete agreement with the above political cults-as-pandemics theory, but it
has some compelling aspects in exceptional situations. Normally, the
political-economic-cultural discourse is sufficiently healthy that the standard "cure for bad
speech is more good speech" response is sufficient. Commenters above such as Peter Dorman are
assuming that the "body politic" has a healthy and undisrupted immune system, but I would
argue that is far from being the case right now; the U.S. is afflicted by oligarchic
politics, highly unequal and quasi-feudal economics that make appeals to the free market
laughable, and by standard of living deterioration in a large number of inner urban areas as
well as mid-tier and small cities. So the patient is immuno-compromised and additional
interventions are called for.
As to Peter's argument that cancel culture disfigures the left, I would add that the only
cases where the radical left has seized power took place in the brutal aftermath of
right-wing pandemics: e.g. the hyper-nationalism that led Germany and Russia among others to
war in 1914, or KMT/warlord attempts to violently and brutally suppress peasant demands in
the case of China. In such situations, it is no surprise that the radical left becomes
infected with political cultism.
The important thing is to know when to apply cancel culture
(and other resistance measures including mass disobedience) to left-wing movements that are
"infected". Post-1989 Eastern Europe is a good example, though now it is right-wing pandemics
that are taking hold. That is, cancel culture is not just for Lost Cause racism and
proto-fascism, but for all political movements that cross the border into cultism and
"othering".
Much of the pushback against cancel culture has come from prominent journalists and
intellectuals who perceive every negative reaction from ordinary people on social media as
an affront.
I don't think this is fair. As EB says @22:
The (wealthy, high profile) signers of the Harper's letter were not complaining on their
own behalf; they were complaining on behalf of the millions of people with no power or
money who are also threatened with mobbing if they voice divergent (not racist, not
transphobic, not misogyist) views.
JK Rowling is pretty hard to cancel; she has a mountain of cash, and her books are still
selling. But people who don't have a mountain of cash are going to look at examples like
children's author Gillian Philip, who appears to have been "let go" by her publisher after
being targetted by a cancellation campaign for tweeting "#ISTANDWITHROWLING", and think very
carefully about whether they can afford to stick their head over the parapet. Personally,
I've made a number of comments on Crooked Timber which I don't think were at all outside the
bounds of acceptable discourse – certainly not in the same category as the racist
speech you refer to (and at least one moderator must have agreed, because they were posted)
– but which I simply couldn't risk making without a pseudonym.
I often detect a bit of motte-and-bailey in the anti-anti-cancel culture argument. The
outer bailey is something like "cancel culture isn't the problem it's made out to be; it's
just how norms of acceptable behaviour are worked out these days"; the motte is "it's okay to
deplatform hardcore racists and holocaust deniers".
Between those two positions there's a large space where people get harassed, threatened,
ostracised and silenced for minor slips, reasonable disagreements, details that were lost in
translation and failures to recite the correct thought-terminating cliches with sufficient
conviction – basically, things that don't threaten anyone else's ability to speak.
Often this is done with the assistance of the false-flag social media "activist" accounts
that right-wing agitators use to pick away at fault lines on the left.
Even when there are no serious real-world consequences this tends to create a narrow,
stifling intellectual environment, which is what a large part of the opposition to "cancel
culture" is trying to prevent. You do realise, don't you, that Crooked Timber's willingness
to acknowledge heterodox views, on certain subjects, from the broad left puts it radically
out of step with most of the "progressive" Western Internet?
(There are other parts where cancel-culture tactics are used against different targets,
such as apostates and feminists in general (not just the wrong kind of feminists), which
hopefully we can all agree is not good.)
Basically, I don't think it's an adequate response to critique of cancel-culture to pick
out the cases where relatively mild tactics were used against acceptable targets, without
acknowledging that the critique is much broader than that.
Meanwhile, great line from an infosec researcher and teacher here in San Francisco about
whether university classes will reopen:
Sam Bowne @sambowne Jul 26
Q: "When will this class be offered?" A: "Difficult to say, because there's a critical budget
crisis at the college, city, state, and national level, and most if not all the officials at
every level appear to be corrupt, incompetent, and insane."
There might be some extremely smart tradesmen, but exception does not justify the rule.
Colledge is a nessesary step for a smart people to mature and obtain a wider worldview as well as
some specific skills
Young male tradesmen I've met are the smartest of the bunch. Most of them have high test
scores and could easily go to college, but they see the writing on the wall. They,
rightfully, see no point in wasting 4 years of their life for a low paying office job in an
environment of outright discrimination. I know several kids that finished highchool in 3
years and are making real money at the age of 18 with no debt involved. They don't have to
worry about the system being stacked against them because none of the affirmative action
types want to do actual work anyway.
1. There is no "real money" -- this is all fiat currency and the gravy train is ending
very soon.
2. Trump supports H1B visas being extended to "essential trades". These young men will be
pushed out of these fields within 3-5 years by Indians and legalized aliens, DACA recpients,
etc. My colleagues at my university think tank who advise our Republican Senator on public
policy are advocating for explicitly this.
3. Unionized trade workers average between 84-97IQ nationally on the Stanford-Binet test.
They are the definition of "Low IQ", which is what I asserted they were.
It's hilarious hearing democrats say "no-one is above the law" as they cheat the system becoming multi millionaires via
insider trading and selling their influence.
Over these last few weeks Tucker has been one of the few people to stand up to the mob and refuses to give in. Tremendous
respect for people who refuse to give up their dignity.
4.0 out of 5 stars
Mosquitoes,
Fever, and America
Reviewed in the United States on March 8, 2009
Verified Purchase
Over three generations ago Hans Zinsser wrote "Rats, Lice and History" telling the
story of lice and men (sorry) and the typhus Rickettsia.
He founded the literary genre marked by the examination of disease, history, and having tripartite titles; Recent
examples: Guns, Germs, and Steel; Viruses, Plagues, and History.
Though Ms. Crosby did not call her book "Mosquitoes, Fever, and America," "The American Plague" nicely continues the
tradition of this fascinating venue.
The subtitle (why must books so often have subtitles now?) claims this to be "The Untold Story of Yellow Fever, The
Epidemic That Shaped Our History", which is more than a bit of a reach - Especially, given the existence of the very
similarly themed and titled adolescent's book "An American Plague: The True and Terrifying Story of the Yellow Fever
Epidemic of 1793" (2003) by Jim Murphy (which, whatever your age, is also worth reading).
It is arguable that the subtitle means only to refer to the Memphis outbreak, but that single event did not "shape our
history," it was the repeated outbreaks of Yellow Jack beginning with those in the northeast ports in 1699 that truly
did change the history of all of North America. The subtitle is simply annoying marketing hyperbole - though such an
unfounded, untrue, claim did nearly make me put the book back on the shelf unopened. Which would have been a shame, as I
enjoyed the book greatly.
"(The) American Plague" details the impact of an outbreak of Yellow Fever (YF) in Memphis, Tennessee (the author's home)
in the year 1878, and follows with an in-depth examination of the subsequent discovery of the means of transmission,
prevention, vaccination, cause, and sad lack of cure for the disease.
This book also traces the origin of the disease, and reviews how it likely came to the Americas from its home in Africa
as a consequence of the slave trade. The occurrence of YF epidemics in Europe (perhaps even dating back to the mid
500's) is not discussed, which is forgivable given the focus of the book, though the fact that 300,000 people perished
from YF in Spain in the 1800's makes it clear that YF was (is) a scourge far beyond America's shores.
The author brings to life the horror and uncertainly of epidemic disease at the dawn of scientific medicine. She
recounts the difficulty of seeing the true nature of a disease though the conflicting overlay of current knowledge and
cultural belief (a current example: autism).
Further, she points to the mendacity of businessmen who may have, in their efforts to prevent disruption of commerce by
quarantine, allowed this outbreak to spread from New Orleans to Memphis in the first place. She briefly touches on the
ethics of human, of animal, and of self, experimentation. It is not a simple book, though it is clearly, if at times
unevenly, written.
Unlike most popular science books, she includes an extensive source bibliography that points to precisely where her
material has come from. This is a very welcome addition. Over all, this is a solidly written, well researched and
interesting book. I strongly recommend it.
I also strongly recommend that you consider that the World Health Organization estimates that YF still kills 30,000
people a year. Most of these deaths could be prevented by vaccination and by mosquito control. Over the past few years
Yellow Jack has been re-emerging and spreading in the western hemisphere. This spread is, as Ms. Crosby shows that to a
degree the Memphis epidemic was, a political failure marked by primacy of business interests and of underfunded and
inadequate public health measures.
Conservatives got #CancelYale trending on Twitter and targeted liberals like Hillary Clinton in their effort to troll the left,
calling for the Ivy League school to change its name because it's named after a slave trader .
I'd never ever been on the
campus, even though I only lived only two miles away. I went to that university out of ignorance. I
thought that wanting to study sociology was enough – I'd read a book about St Ann's, the part of
Nottingham where I lived, authored by two researchers who had worked at the university. The book was
called Poverty: The Forgotten Englishman and was based on research about poverty in Nottingham during
the 1960s. It was written the year I was born, and I recognised my community in it; I wanted to study
sociology, because I wanted to represent and fight for that community.
On that first day, two things happened. During the initial welcome speech, the vice chancellor
welcomed all of the students to Nottingham and told them to enjoy the city and the university, but
warned them that there were some areas of the town to avoid, that were not so welcoming –
"Don't
go to St Ann's,"
he said. Which, as it was where I lived and the reason why I was at the
university, was going to be more than a little difficult for me. I remember being devastated and not
feeling welcome at all.
Later that day, I sat in my first lecture. It was about women and work and the lecturer talked
about how choice for working class women was never a
"real choice"
and that the idea of
"choice"
meant different things to different groups of people. I sat there and a wave of relief
poured over me – not because I had learned something new, but because what I had suspected all of my
life was being validated: that surely my poor status in life couldn't entirely be my own fault.
I realised from that day forwards that we working class people – whether we are black, white, men,
women, transgender or no gender, Muslim, Christian or atheist – had something in common. Being
working class meant you were individually held responsible for what you think is your failure. I later
found out that the way the structure of our society is built is that working class people suffer
unfair disadvantages, while the middle class benefit from equally unfair advantages.
Twenty years on from that first day at university, I've learned so much more about how society is
structured and I have tried in any and every way to support other working class people to get into
university so they, too, can have that knowledge that it's not their fault.
However, along that long route from student to lecturer, from no qualifications to a PhD, I have
had some incredible experiences and students, but also some soul-destroying, awful experiences.
One university I worked at refused to let young working class people from my estate, who were part
of a community football club, use the university's sports' pitches as they were concerned they would
come back
"at night"
, presumably to rob, or steal or worse. I was heartbroken. I knew those
kids and felt so ashamed that I had thought that this would be ok, and they had been so excited about
going onto the posh, manicured football pitches.
Over the last twenty years, I have met and had emails and messages from hundreds of working class
students and lecturers who have thanked me for speaking about working class experience at university.
But they also told me their own harrowing stories, such as being asked about
"their poverty"
in seminars, about sitting in lectures as professors have accused their communities - the places where
they and their families live - as being dangerous/racist/stupid/violent/ignorant/criminal; take your
pick, it's all been said. The prejudices that working class students, workers or lecturers suffer at
these middle- and upper-class institutions are legion. And they only dare speak openly about it when
they are together.
When I think about all of these instances of symbolic violence, of being passed over, and of having
your work scrutinised in a way that I know is not done to the middle class in higher education... When
I think about the awful and depressing conversations I've had to have with working class students who
have sought me out to talk about how difficult it is to for them to sit in those lectures, to have
their accents constantly commented on, to be asked
"what school they went to"
, and who don't
understand the sly smirks and looks they get when they give the answer
When I think about those things I realise just how tired I am, and I have to ask myself: am I
really doing the right thing by encouraging other working class people to put themselves through this
toxic, anti-working class environment? I'm sad to conclude that I am probably not.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"... State universities have a much larger enrollment (the California State system has 23 campuses with an average of 22K students each) and the elites have featherbedded the Ivies, so both will survive, even if the former have some belt-tightening. ..."
Professor/Administrator in California State University here. I'm on the campus team trying
to respond and thus reading everything current in Higher Ed on this. The conclusion is that
high end and low end will be OK, but private colleges in the middle are screwed.
Students go to college for four reasons:
a) signalling;
b) networking;
c) skills acquisition; and
d) parties
With instruction online, b) and d) disappear. The elite universities can coast because of
a) and endowments, the lower cost state universities like mine are seeing enrollment
*increase* because, in a recession, many students on the line about attending college choose
c) over unemployment. And as our tuition is only $7K ($12K for out-of-state/international),
plenty of the cash-strapped middle class will dial down to us.
But expensive, tuition-driven (eg little endowment) private colleges are going to be hit
very hard if they can't offer the whole traditional in-person experience. Most of these have
announced that they will be meeting in-person, but the unspoken assumption is that they are
lying to their prospective students, and will pull the football away at the last minute.
The media will dwell on "the death of higher education" at length, because these were the
colleges that many of them went to.
But the reality is that their share of the pie is relatively small. State universities
have a much larger enrollment (the California State system has 23 campuses with an average of
22K students each) and the elites have featherbedded the Ivies, so both will survive, even if
the former have some belt-tightening.
To label 'd' partying is unfair. D is being with their peers, building their first
independent relationships, falling in love.
Mine will be a soph in UC system, and is processing the announcement from the school
yesterday that only some students will have classes, the rest will be online. They all read
that to mean STEM majors will get the in person experience.
He and his friends are all deciding whether they will bother or take a term or two off --
because zoom school sucks. Or, as he put it, "why would we pay $20,000 for me to rent an
apartment in Santa Cruz and attend Phoenix University?" Universities may find students not
willing to waste resources on distance learning. Especially if there's no job at the end of the
rainbow.
BUT if he skips a term, what to do in that time? Jobs hard to come by and risky.
I feel for the kids. Unlike that family blogger Joe Biden.
Re small biz and recovery: my employer got some PPP money, although the impact has not hit
our magazine in a big way. Yet.
But we, like other business-niche publishers, made a good bit of money from conferences and
such live events. Partly, it's direct earnings, but there are other ways live events fueled our
biz. I believe Institutional Investor had basically ditched publishing for the conference
business. We hadnt gone that far (we weren't that good at it).
Also, the boss is drooling over the idea that he can ditch the monthly rent for our
manhattan offices. Our ship is so tight that I do not worry about getting laid off, only that
the entire enterprise could go under. So far that's not happening, but past performance
etc.
I'm not as certain as you are that big name unis will not suffer too. I think this is them
believing their own PR.
Harvard is already trying to get employees to take early retirement. And in a long
interview, Larry Summers went on in a long Business Insider interview about how universities
(clearly including Harvard) should close down entire operations that were losing money. He
advocated that Harvard should largely abandon live instruction and instead should become a
MOOC, since it could easily get 20 million students.
The toxicity that Matt writes about isn't just due to Trump - it's due to the left
abandoning traditional liberal values in favor of political correctness and identity
politics. This new Red Guard of ideological purity is the natural - shocking - evolution of
that....
1984 -- The writer of Truth rewrites history to fit whatever they want. Read the book.
That's the news media today. A warning leftists: Stalin and Hitler controlled the media. It's
not TRUMP controlling the media. Or ignoring the truth. And it should scare the hell out of
every American.
Crazy times indeed. It is reminiscent of the Hollywood Terror. A tipping point will come
when enough people are sickened of their arbitrary and capricious cultural fascism.
Mr. Taibbi fires a warning shot to alert us that the "instinct (in the American media)
to shield audiences from views or facts deemed politically uncomfortable has been in
evidence since Trump became a national phenomenon." I would say not "since" -- that vile
instinct has merely been more in evidence. The media's fear and hatred for diversity of
opinion, for the freedom of speech, has doubtless worsened ...
Exclusive access to the elite universities is the key for reproducing the "new
aristocracy"
Notable quotes:
"... Meritocracy is supposed to function best when an insecure 'middle class' constantly strives to secure, preserve and augment their income, status and other privileges by maximizing returns to their exclusive education. But access to elite education – that enables a few of modest circumstances to climb the social ladder – waxes and wanes. ..."
"... Most middle class families cannot afford the privileged education that wealth can buy, while most ordinary, government financed and run schools have fallen further behind exclusive elite schools, including some funded with public money. In recent decades, the resources gap between better and poorer public schools has also been growing. ..."
"... Elite universities and private schools still provide training and socialization, mainly to children of the wealthy, privileged and connected. Huge endowments, obscure admissions policies and tax exemption allow elite US private universities to spend much more than publicly funded institutions. ..."
"... technological and social changes have transformed the labour force and economies greatly increasing economic returns to the cognitive, ascriptive and other attributes as well as credentials of 'the best' institutions, especially universities and professional guilds, which effectively remain exclusive and elitist. ..."
"... Welcome to cosmetic meritocracy to go along with your cosmetic democracy. And in America, you can have as much of either you can afford to buy ..."
"... I think several high cost colleges like U.C.Berkeley are replacing the SAT and ACT tests with the important Bank Balance test. (joke!) ..."
"... School maybe, but then admission to University was absolutely done on merit. at least where I grew up, in Romania, the admissions were based on multiple written exams, were completely anonymized, and there were two independent markers. If the grading of the two markers diverged by more than one point, another one was brought to check. ..."
"... I would argue that a real education is one that liberates the student to become a free citizen, to become someone who can think for herself or himself. ..."
Yves
here. Meritocracy is a pet topic, or perhaps more accurately, a pet peeve. This 2007 Conference
Board Review article explains why meritocracy is unattainable , so the whole
idea was always problematic.
Chinese mandarins, who won their positions via performance on the imperial examination, are
an early, if not the first, example of a meritocratic system. Napoleon standardized education
throughout France with the explicit goal of making it possible for poor but bright boys to be
identified and further schooled to become bureaucrats.
This article includes issues regularly discussed in comments, such as how higher education
has come to be mainly about credentialing. It provides a high-level, accessible discussion of
how whatever value the idea of meritocracy had in theory, it has become perverted in
practice.
By Jomo Kwame Sundaram, a former economics professor, who was United Nations Assistant
Secretary-General for Economic Development, and received the Wassily Leontief Prize for
Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought. Originally published at the Inter Press
Service
How often have you heard someone lamenting or even condemning inequality in society,
concluding with an appeal to meritocracy? We like to think that if only the deserving, the
smart ones, those we deem competent or capable, often meaning the ones who are more like us,
were in charge, things would be better, or just fine.
Meritocracy's Appeal
Since the 1960s, many institutions, the world over, have embraced the notion of meritocracy.
With post-Cold War neoliberal ideologies enabling growing wealth concentration, the rich, the
privileged and their apologists invoke variants of 'meritocracy' to legitimize economic
inequality.
Instead, corporations and other social institutions, which used to be run by hereditary
elites, increasingly recruit and promote on the bases of qualifications, ability, competence
and performance. Meritocracy is thus supposed to democratize and level society.
Ironically, British sociologist Michael Young pejoratively coined the term meritocracy in
his 1958 dystopian satire, The Rise of the Meritocracy. With his intended criticism rejected as
no longer relevant, the term is now used in the English language without the negative
connotations Young intended.
It has been uncritically embraced by supporters of a social philosophy of meritocracy in
which influence is supposedly distributed according to the intellectual ability and achievement
of individuals.
Many appreciate meritocracy's two core virtues. First, the meritocratic elite is presumed to
be more capable and effective as their status, income and wealth are due to their ability,
rather than their family connections.
Second, 'opening up' the elite supposedly on the bases of individual capacities and
capabilities is believed to be consistent with and complementary to 'fair competition'. They
may claim the moral high ground by invoking 'equality of opportunity', but are usually careful
to stress that 'equality of outcome' is to be eschewed at all cost.
As Yale Law School Professor Daniel Markovits argues in The Meritocracy Trap, unlike the
hereditary elites preceding them, meritocratic elites must often work long and hard, e.g., in
medicine, finance or consulting, to enhance their own privileges, and to pass them on to their
children, siblings and other close relatives, friends and allies.
Gaming Meritocracy
Meritocracy is supposed to function best when an insecure 'middle class' constantly strives
to secure, preserve and augment their income, status and other privileges by maximizing returns
to their exclusive education. But access to elite education – that enables a few of
modest circumstances to climb the social ladder – waxes and wanes.
Most middle class families cannot afford the privileged education that wealth can buy, while
most ordinary, government financed and run schools have fallen further behind exclusive elite
schools, including some funded with public money. In recent decades, the resources gap between
better and poorer public schools has also been growing.
Elite universities and private schools still provide training and socialization, mainly to
children of the wealthy, privileged and connected. Huge endowments, obscure admissions policies
and tax exemption allow elite US private universities to spend much more than publicly funded
institutions.
Meanwhile, technological and social changes have transformed the labour force and economies
greatly increasing economic returns to the cognitive, ascriptive and other attributes as well
as credentials of 'the best' institutions, especially universities and professional guilds,
which effectively remain exclusive and elitist.
As 'meritocrats' captured growing shares of the education pies, the purported value of
'schooling' increased, legitimized by the bogus notion of 'human capital'. While meritocracy
transformed elites over time, it has also increasingly inhibited, not promoted social
mobility.
A Different Elite
Thus, although meritocrats like to see themselves as the antithesis of the old
'aristocratic' elite, rather than 'democratize' society through greater inclusion, meritocracy
may even increase inequality and further polarize society, albeit differently.
While the old 'aristocratic' elite was often unable to ensure their own children were well
educated, competent and excellent, meritocrats – who have often achieved their status and
privileges with education and related credentials – have often increased their
significance.
Hence, a meritocratic system – seemingly open to inclusion, ostensibly based on
ability – has become the new means for exclusion, which Chicago University Professor
Raghuram Rajan attributes to the digital revolution.
Meritocrats have increased the significance of schooling, with credential attainment
legitimizing growing pay inequality, as they secure even better education for thus own
children, thus recreating and perpetuating inequalities.
Recent public doubts about, and opposition to rising executive remuneration, MBA education,
professional guild cartels and labour remuneration disparities reflect the growing
delegitimization of ostensibly meritocratic hierarchies and inequalities.
High Moral Ground
To add insult to injury, meritocratic ideology suggests that those excluded are undeserving,
if not contemptible. With progressive options lacking middle class and elite support, those
marginalized have increasingly turned to 'ethno-populism' and other 'communal' appeals in this
age of identity politics.
Unsurprisingly, their opposition to educational and economic inequalities and
marginalization is typically pitted against the ethnic 'Other' – real, imagined or
'constructed' – typically seen as 'foreign', even if domestic, as the 'alien within'.
Markovits argues that meritocracy undermines not only itself, but also democratic and
egalitarian ideals. He insists that meritocracy also hurts the new 'meritocratic' and
'technocratic' elite, hoping to recruit them to the anti-meritocracy cause, perhaps reflecting
his appreciation of the need to build broad inclusive coalitions to bring about social
transformation.
"Progressives inflame middle-class resentment, and trigger elite resistance while demagogues
and charlatans monopolize and exploit meritocracy's discontents. Meritocratic inequality
therefore induces not only deep discontent but also widespread pessimism, verging on
despair."
Reducing Inequality Possible
In the US and elsewhere, tax policy, other incentives and even Covid-19 will encourage
replacing mid-skilled workers with automation and highly skilled professionals, e.g.,
facilitated by the growing use of artificial intelligence applications.
One alternative is to reform labour market as well as tax policies and regulations to
promote more skilled, 'middle-class' employment. Those introducing new technologies would then
be motivated to enable more productive, higher income, middle-class employment.
A more open, inclusive and broader educational system would also provide the workforce
needed for such technologies. Thus, the transitions from school to work, which have tended to
increase inequality, can be transformed to reduce inequality.
Rather than de-skill workers to be paid less in order to become more profitable,
'up-skilling' workers to be more productive can also be profitable. For example, an Indian
cardio-thoracic hospital has trained nurses for many routine medical procedures, allowing
specialist doctors to focus on tasks really requiring their expertise.
At relatively lower cost, using workers who are not fully trained doctors, but are paid and
treated better, can cost-effectively deliver important healthcare services at lower cost at
scale. Such innovations would strengthen the middle class, rather than undermine and erode
it.
New Labour talked about a meritocracy.
A classless society where anyone could get to the top through their own hard work, drive and
ambition.
In a meritocracy those at the top do get their on their own merit and deserve their
rewards.
In a meritocracy those at the bottom are there through their own lack of effort and others shouldn't feel responsible for
them
But what happened?
We adopted meritocratic ideas, but never created a meritocracy.
What does a meritocracy look like?
1) In a meritocracy everyone succeeds on their own merit.
This is obvious, but to succeed on your own merit, we need to do away the traditional
mechanisms that socially stratify society due to wealth flowing down the generations.
Anything that comes from your parents has nothing to do with your own effort.
2) There is no un-earned wealth or power, e.g inheritance, trust funds, hereditary titles.
In a meritocracy we need equal opportunity for all. We can't have the current two tier
education system with its fast track of private schools for people with wealthy parents.
3) There is a uniform schools system for everyone with no private schools.
New Labour's meritocratic vision won a landslide victory in 1997, they just never followed
through to actually create that meritocratic society where everyone has equal
opportunity.
All we got were the meritocratic ideas.
Those at the top got there on a playing field tilted in their favour, but they swan around
thinking they got to the top in a meritocracy.
The poor suffer the legacy of New Labour's meritocratic ideas with people thinking we live in
a meritocracy and the poor are poor through their own lack of effort.
This is the worst of both worlds, meritocratic ideas without a meritocracy.
In a proper meritocracy you wouldn't be able to use your money to ensure your children
succeeded.
(Even someone like Boris can become Prime Minister, if you can afford the 30k a year fees for
Eton.
Look at Trump, inherited wealth personified.)
When you can't guarantee your own children's success, you are going to be a lot more
concerned with the well being of those lower down the scale as that is where your own
children might end up.
+1000! Exactly. My favorite example (from NC?) is schools. By de-funding education (55%
reduction in funding for higher education since 1972), public policy has made even public
universities dependent on tuition (gosh! I wonder why it's been rising) or student loans
(double gosh!) for an ever-growing portion of their budgets. Professors can't flunk the
incompetent with impunity, then, since it might impair the financial viability of the
institution that employs them.
A sensible society understands enhancing its human capital has merit in and of itself, so
directs resources to it beyond what tuition students can pay.
Meanwhile, no study validates merit pay for teachers, charter schools, and testing as ways
to improve educational outcomes. What does correlate with those outcomes? Answer: childhood
poverty rates.
This is a lot of BS when examined outside the unquestionable assumptions of the US
situation.
In the US you have locally funded and geographically segregated schools, which in a
rational world should be an absolute scandal that is a topic of constant discussion until the
situation gets fixed. Instead people are taking it for granted as they only way things could
be.
Well, if you are only allowed to go to the school in your neighborhood, which in turn is
funded by whatever the tax base is the immediate vicinity, then of course a system based on
educational achievement will very quickly cement existing inequalities into inherited class
differences.
A problem with a very simple solution -- fund public schools at the federal level and fund
them equally, and also ban all private schools.
That is what the USSR did back in the days, and it did in fact achieve very high level of
social equality and mobility. It works. All that is needed is to properly identify the problem and work toward addressing it.
Going after the idea that those who are best educated should be the ones doing the
decision making in society is not going to solve the problem and will in fact hurt society in
the long run.
Then there is the problem of wealth inequality, which is in fact a separate one from that
of status. There is no reason why social status has to be so tightly correlated with wealth.
It has not been at many times and in many places throughout history.
And we are once again fighting the wrong battle if we go after "meritocracy" instead of
the more concrete mechanismS that create wealth inequality.
Again, in the USSR there was no wealth inequality because the system redistributed very
effectively and prevented accumulation of excess wealth by individuals. And before someone
screams "but that was communism", we only have to go back to the situation in the 1950s in
the US when you had a 90% top income tax rate and the various loopholes that exist now for
hiding wealth derived from the wonders of financialization did not exist.
"That is what the USSR did back in the days, and it did in fact achieve very high level of
social equality and mobility. It works. "
Except that there still were better and worse schools (for various reasons), and party
members were better able to place their kids. Not to mention, that being a party member
meant a better post-school placement of your kids int he first place, and goign to the uni
w/o party membership in family as pretty hard.
And re the wealth distribution – hahahahah. Again, if you were a high-placed party
official (which was not based on meritocracy, but on massive political infighting), you did
not have to worry about "official" wealth. Because a lot of "state" assets were yours to use
as you wished (depending on where in the hierarchy you were).
So you had your 90% of non-communist party members (in mid 80s, party membership was about
10% of populatin), then your 10% of party members, of which you had your 1% and 0.01%
respectively.
For every kid from the ghetto placed in a technical school, after lowering admission
requirements, one fewer high testing child is placed.
U.C. Berkeley is no longer requiring SATs because they are "racist".
The affect of this is to elevate the status of the very privileged even higher and to
create strife and infighting among the middle class and lower middle class.
It's not at all clear that affirmative action is at odds with merit, though it is clearly
at odds with the credentialing (grade point averages, and all the resume padding) that one
sees on the resumes of the PMG progeny. My neck of the academic woods is full of PMC grinders
who don't really have much to offer and could use way more people with real life
experience.
Which gets to the real problem with meritocracy: it is only concerned with
ranking/allocation of of jobs, not the overall structure of the job market. If good jobs were
less rare, there would be less infighting about who got to fill them, more social mixing, and
we would all have an easier time dispatching the "meritocrats" who don't contribute.
The education system in the USSR was definitely meritocratic. There were 'special' schools
with advanced curriculum (I studied in one) and you needed to pass exams to get into one.
Likewise the admission to universities was also based on examinations and the alumni of these
elite schools and universities were overrepresented in the Soviet and then Russian elite
Yes, and it was based entirely on examinations. None of the "we ask for SAT but mostly
decide based on subjective crtiria" BS that results in 75% of the undergraduate slots at the
likes of Harvard going to children of alumni and the wealthy (which is mostly the same thing)
BS, but a clear cutoff based on exam scores alone. I myself have passed through that exact
same system too, so I know very well its virtues (and deficiencies too).
Perhaps even more importantly, kindergartens and primary schools provided as equal
educational opportunities as possible. There were no private schools so when the time to pass
those exams came, everyone was on as equal footing as possible, they had gone through the
same classes together. Unfortunately, there was an exception -- the offspring of high party
officials could bypass these barriers, which was deeply unfair and caused quite a bit of
resentment, but other than that it was a true meritocracy.
Yes, it was still not a system in which where you were born played no role. The children
of university professors will on average be academically far ahead of the children of
agricultural workers, just by virtue of the environment they grew up in. There is no way
around that other than taking kids away from their parents and raising them communally.
But it is important that everyone has the opportunity to rise through the ranks and that
starts from the bottom of the educational pyramid.
We are stubbornly avoiding having that discussion though, instead we talk about how we
should be giving preferential treatment to women and minorities when they are in their 20s
and applying for jobs and positions. It is almost as if the latter serves the purposes of
preventing us from talking about the former
That's not true. Party members had access to special schools for their own kids. Often
these schools weren't "officially" special, but very often in a district there was a school
that got more funding, first pick of teachers etc. and party members had preferential
acceptance to those. As I say, it often might not have been an official party line (although
I believe there were some schoold reserved for party member kids), but was a common local
party office practice.
I say this as someone who went through the system and actually had the advantage (which I
did not understand until I was much older) as a grandson of an important party functionary
and anti-nazi hero. It even managed to beat the fact that my uncle (from the other side of
the family) emigrated to the US, which was often a fatal hit to anyone's college/uni dreams
in the rest of the family.
School maybe, but then admission to University was absolutely done on merit. at least
where I grew up, in Romania, the admissions were based on multiple written exams, were
completely anonymized, and there were two independent markers. If the grading of the two
markers diverged by more than one point, another one was brought to check.
I know children of really big party wigs that couldn't get into university under these
circumstances
Or you needed to be a kid of a high-enough placed party hack, although in most cases, they
didn't bother to put their kids there, as they could get them a job they wanted w/o the
school. I _know_ (because I have seen it first hand numerous times) that who the parents were
and who they knew played an important role.
That all said, the school system was way less about credentials than the US one. And also,
because hard-science schools were not seen as a way to a (guaranteed large) career
advancement, the people who went there were most people who really wanted to do it, not
taking it as a soft option.
The career advancement path were the various "economic" schools, as that with a right set
of connections would more or less guarantee a very cushy top job.
This country doesn't value home grown STEM graduates.. if it did it wouldn't be
undercutting them with H1-B's. So you would have to start there and show kids that getting
into STEM is seen as equally valuable as getting an MBA.
IP-laws are the source of some/much of current inequality, those IP-laws are most
definitely a political choice and they most definitely are not automatically benefitting the
meritocratic. Sometimes they do, often they don't.
But as always this is seen as the 'cure':
Rather than de-skill workers to be paid less in order to become more profitable,
'up-skilling' workers to be more productive can also be profitable.
More training, more education ..
The de-skilling is done to jobs which might, but does not have to, lead to de-skilling of
workers. The stage is set to reduce the work-load and share the work, the de-skilled work is
designed to make workers easily replaceable so the 'skill-shortage' stopping a reduction of
the hours worked is not as valid of an excuse as it was 40 years ago.
The author does acknowledge the role that governments and legislation has but for some
reason reducing the hours worked by an individual and sharing the work is not seen as a valid
option. But then again this kind of futurists believe that in the future then there will not
be enough resources to house and feed the retired.
Another view might be that in the future there will be enough resources to house and feed the
retired but those resources might, due to political choices , be spent on luxury for the few
leaving homelessness and starvation for the rest.
McDonalds was a pioneer at the movement for de-skilling workers. When they first opened up
you actually had people at the back peeling bag after bag of potatoes. Eventually they were
able to replace the potatoes with bags of frozen fries which took no skill at all to use.
They actually spent a huge amount of effort at de-skilling work there so that workers could
be easily replaced and had no skills that they could bargain higher wages for.
I would argue that a real education is one that liberates the student to become a free
citizen, to become someone who can think for herself or himself. This is what used to be
called a liberal arts education. Vocational training may certainly be important, but ought
not be confused with education. Vocational training is perhaps best left to the institutions
that actually will employ the individual. An education in liberal arts prepares the student
to learn how to learn. But we are not the employees of society. We are citizens.
Indeed, stefan, that is entirely the point, and ought to be the goal. Society is only as
good as the quality of education given to all its members, not just the elite. This country
has forgotten how important education is to the stability of the state, education from the
first steps in public schools, so that when time comes to go on with that education at more
sophisticated levels, all minds (all minds!) whatever the parents' station in life, have the
ability to go where their talents take them. We know how to do this; it's not rocket
science!!
I say we know how to do this. But it is clear – this country is not doing it. And it
is not doing it on purpose.
That is something to be out on the streets protesting against. One of the many, many
things.
Maybe, but if you could tell in advance which kids are going to need it, it would be a lot
cheaper and waste less of people's time to do advanced degrees for only the best and
brightest. For most people, hitting the workforce at the tender young age of 31, for example,
has a certain reproductive cost, not to mention lost income. It isn't for everyone.
Also, in my experience, education just gets your foot in the door. Once you get there, it
is quite likely you are the worst guy on the factory floor (for some definition of factory)
-- the greenhorn -- and whether or not you do well will eventually boil down to quality of
work or maybe management potential. In this regard, some will shine and other will not, and
at the end of the day, in a meritocracy those are the ones that will do well. In this
environment, at least in most fields, the advance degree is quickly forgotten in the absence
of law enforcing strict hierarchy (e.g. medicine).
I'll add that orthodox Christianity does not endorse "salvation by works" (i.e.
meritocracy). The orthodox position is "salvation by grace [i.e. gift]" A wise man once told
me "Christianity is just Judaism for gentiles"
I discovered the idea/Ideal of a Liberal Education around fifth grade. That's what I
wanted, due to the influence of Jefferson, Emerson, Whitman and Nietzsche(yes, i was rather
strange as a child).
But as the Schooling continued, I was continually frustrated by the all but hidden fact that
this was not what American Education was for,lol.
This frustration extended all the way into the college experience I got accepted(with a GED,
no less) to Oberlin, Brown, etc but was told we didn't have the money so a state school it
was which turned out to be a High School with ashtrays..and an indelible focus on "Getting a
Job".
Registrar actually laughed when I said i wanted to major in Philosophy ""what good is
that?"
35 or so years later, and I got my Liberal Education, on my own .and it's had zero(if not a
negative) effect on my work-life.
we've raised up a generation or 3 of technicians and micromanagers and ladder-climbers who
don't have the smash to Think, except in very narrow terms. A favorite trope-like example:
"Biology"= "specialisation", not just in Beetles or even a specific Family of Beetles but on
a specific Species of Beetle with little regard for the world that Beetle is embedded in.(I
knew a guy like this. knew all about June Bugs)
While i understand the utility of specialisation, this laser focus has negated the ability
for so many to "Think Outside the Box" or to obtain a broader perspective of our complex
world.
State College, for me, was all about "Networking" and learning how to kiss ass and say "Yes
Sir" .not about becoming a Citizen let alone a Better Human
I hated it,lol.
It took a long time to be able to articulate it and that articulation is still wanting.
But the critique of "actually existing Meritocracy" is a good place to begin.
It's not really "Meritocratic", at all.
Just another justification for privilege and inequality and the status quo(world without
end).
I don't think specialization = narrow mindedness. A long time ago at the university I made
the progression from philosophy to anthropology to genetics/cell biology and of course my
graduate thesis answered a very specific question (about the extracellular effects on
collagen synthesis.) It is a fact that that rapidly growing knowledge requires people to
specialize in deeply understanding parts of that knowlege. But I have never stopped reading
philosophy (existential), Dostoevsky's novels, along with political reading. Specialization
is not the reason for people's horizons to be so narrow. It's the societal shift toward
disregarding anything that cannot be immediately monetized. It's also the disregard for
teaching all students the tools for critical thinking.
I stated that specialisation is necessary it just feels like(30 years on, mind you) that
there was a narrowness that was encouraged. The opposite of a "Liberal Education", where one
expands and learns to Think.
I'm also biased, because i went to two community colleges, and a state school that was famous
for Criminal Justice, and for being neighbors to a bunch of prisons,lol.
I'm certainly glad, for instance, that there are people who specialise in Grasshoppers,
cancer meds and soil biota.
But we long ago stopped encouraging big picture broadness .and i think that lack is rather
acute, at the moment.
My Da Vincian Renaissance tendencies were quite actively discouraged, over my entire primary
and secondary school experience to the point that i hated school from 3rd grade on(a
remarkable achievement, in retrospect). I had, therefore, high hopes for college which were
similarly dashed, due to the sort of ineffable culture of the place.
again, i admit that all this may be merely a function of place and time .as well as of my own
anomalousness and expectations.
I might feel differently if i had been allowed to go to some of the real colleges i managed
to get accepted to(but, Amor Fati, and all,lol would i be me without all that BS?)
Forget sham meritocracy. What's the value of *actual* meritocracy, when the underlying
activity -- say, investment banking -- is worthless or injurious?
Are prisons repositories of merit, because they hold the most active and determined of
criminals?
Running through an endless gauntlet of test-taking in order to have something approaching
a stable, non-precarious life does not sound like a very pleasant society either, even if it
is sufficiently "meritocratic." Neither does constantly chasing credentials. You get all
these wasteful arms races. This was the type of society that the Hunger Games depicted: a
never-ending, unremitting competition, with the stakes being just the ability to ensure one's
basic survival. It sounds awful, even for the "winners".
Life on this planet is a never-ending, unremitting competition, with the stakes being just
the ability to ensure one's genes survival.
This is true across a spectrum of geographic and temporal scales. The plants in the yard?
And endless evolutionary game of attracting pollinators at the expense of others while
simultaneously engaging in chemical warfare with their neighbors.
The trap is the thought that we should be able to do better. I think the Romans probably
showed the limit of what was possible, everything else has just been a remake with different
stage props.
We've spent 2000 years or so basically knocking around the limits of what humanity is
capable of achieving in terms of societal structure. Lots of technological advances made and
to be discovered, but the parallel attempts on the societal side seem to end up being
inherently unstable.
I can't see how the plants in your backyard are a good model for any society. We do not
need to savagely compete by starving our neighbors, for instance, to get food or shelter. Any
scarcity of the basic necessities of life are pretty much induced.
Competition is instead over quality of life, social status, and most importantly, who gets
to decide. It is here where so-called meritocracy is supposed to be an "objective" measure
(but really, that there can be an objective measure of merit is where the idea fails, and
proves itself to be a Utopian value that really only the successful "meritocrats" can
embrace).
I think the real trap is in thinking we can't do any better (and your thought that
we haven't progressed farther than the Romans is telling). And in in the age of falling life
expectancy, incomes (for the bottom 90%), and social mobility, I would go so far as to say
such an idea forecloses on the reality that shared progress has actually happened.
Crab-in-a-bucket scenario: other crabs prevent that venturesome one from escaping.
Meritocracy, current version scenario: escaped arthropods act as guards to let in
only their own preferred candidates.
The latter has been in use at any number of companies, where the wrong kind of
applicant just isn't acknowledged. No need to write down any rules, as those unspoken
ones will do just fine. That can lead to a type of in-breeding with associated dysfunctions,
and relies heavily upon the upstream provider filtering mechanisms, such as they are. Game
those mechanisms in various ways and see the results populate, or pollute, the downstream
pools.
in the US our "meritocracy" is akin to the old saying;
"those who win in a rigged game too long ,get stupid"
We are stuck as a society because so many of the positions of authority are filled by
people , who may be "smart" in some sense . but are really just stupid.
Whatever the dynamic that enables a certain type of mindset and worldview, to rise within the
power structures , as they are is utterly insane and a serious flaw in the system.
the evidence of this is look who will be "running the free world" . today, and after the next
election all choices point to zero.
Look at our form of capitalism . we allow banks to create our money out of nothing . then
they can fund wall street speculation and corporate behemoths who dictate the playing
field(through control of the political class) all business must play on. and so the lives and
fortunes of the people and the planet and all of its life forms must endure.
the question of how stupid are we .. pretty damn stupid.
We can discuss the advantages and disadvantages of capitalism all day long – but we
don't have capitalism – we have crony capitalism.
We can discuss whether or not meritocracy is a good thing – but our "meritocracy" is
in fact massively rigged.
That said, a society has got to have some way to select leaders. If it doesn't select
based on some kind of merit, what's the alternative? Accident of birth? Random lottery?
Footraces?
Actually, I think random lottery of a group of citizens would be much better than a
president. Make the group big enough that a citizen has a good chance of assuming office at
least once in their average lifespan. Renumeration should be median of income. A democratic
executive body.
This would probably make the US more agreement capable.
Having worked in academia for 25+ years (and counting), I really can't agree with equating
the capability and/or competence with level of education. Just doesn't happen.
We have a rule of thumb: the more PhDs are involved in a project the more confused and
messier it'll be for us to sort out and make to work. If professors are involved, even we
can't sort it out.
Of course there are exceptions: some people can retain their common sense and competence
regardless of higher education. They just don't tend to climb very high in the academic
meritocracy.
Yes but for purposes of this discussion they are the same thing since TPTP have decided
that in our complicated society with so many millions of citizens credentials are a the way
to separate "the wheat from the chaff." There was a time when you had a lot more self made
men (and they were men) but our ossified economic system now makes that less likely. A
country where individualism was once the hallmark has been turned–elite
division–into a homogenized, fearful "safe space."
For the rest of us there is at least the internet where individualism can still thrive.
They are trying to stamp that out.
There are many legacy "socialist era" policies (free basic education, subsidised basic
healthcare, high ownership of public housing, well-functioning utilities and public transport
and public services that in spite of being ostensibly privatized are actually owned by a
state-owned enterprise – Temasek Holdings) that still keep things from becoming too
nasty. But we've been heading the same direction as you all.
That's because despite being semi authoritarian Singapore couldn't resist marketisation.
Doesn't make any sense to include market value of land in the price of public houses if the
government owns that land and you essentially rent it from them. Or the recent electricity
market privatisation. Just gets to show you that democratic or authoritarian, governments are
out of ideas.
OK, but then the alternative is . not very obvious.
I think in fact that the problems people have with meritocracy are more to do with the
"cracy" than the "merit" part of the term. After all, there are only three possible ways of
choosing people to fill positions and run organisations. The first is patronage, favouritism,
family and wealth, which has been the rule for most of human history, and was the only way to
make career in Europe until relatively recently. You might accidentally get a person of
ability appointed to an important job, but you obviously couldn't guarantee it. The second is
selection by lot, which worked OK in Athens for certain jobs, but is hard to generalise. The
only other option is competitive selection by merit, depending on the qualities needed for
the job, and for promotion. All modern states have ultimately gone for the third option.
When people say that they don't approve of meritocracy, then, they don't usually mean that
they want a return to the days when government positions were in the personal gift of
Ministers. They mean one of two things. First, that selection by merit doesn't always work
well or fairly, because the selection criteria can in practice favour candidates from
wealthier or more educated backgrounds, second that meritocracies can themselves become
hereditary, selecting people like themselves, just as patronage systems used to do. It's also
true that success in one field can generate a sense of individual and collective arrogance
and a belief that you are qualified to do anything. All of these are very valid criticisms
(and all can be addressed to some extent) but none of them is an argument against the
principle of merit-based selection. It's also important to remember that "merit" here really
means just "most suited"; It's not a value judgement or the equivalent of the keys to a
selective club.
Yes, this is the key problem. But I would suggest two other possibilities that also exist:
A) wide acceptance to entry-level positions, lots of training/assessment and promotions from
within, and promotion by seniority (above a threshold of competence) – a scheme which
has ups and downs and is probably not a good fit anymore for a world in which long term
employment with one employer is not the norm; and B) democratic control with promotion
determined from below (by those to be managed) rather than above. All the evidence suggests
that good management is a function of getting the best out of your subordinates (true
leadership), not all the fact BS around star performers.
The big problem with merit is that many jobs have no suitable pre-employment or even
current employment merit indicators (think of K-12 teaching, where test scores are used to
judge reading and math teachers but there are no comparable measures for teachers of any
other discipline), and the ones that are used can be gamed, and so merit becomes conflated
with credentials or test scores, which have limited real-world applicability. Another
example: in the old days, you could become a lawyer through "apprenticeship," which allowed
lots of talented people to become lawyers without the gatekeeping of law schools. It is
impossible to argue that the profession is now better with than it was in those days.
Anyone familiar with the notorious Kingsley Davis and Wilbur Moore stratification theory?
The theory attempted to legitimize economic and political stratification (i.e. inequality) in
modern societies by using quasi-Parsonian notions of meritocracy. There are standard
rebuttals to the Davis-Moore theory and this article sounds as though it has attempted to
regurgitate some of those rebuttals.
Also, however much merit one has, that should not allow her/him to steal from the
lessor-so via the use of what is, due to government privilege, the PUBLIC'S credit but for
private gain.
In other words, those with merit should not have to steal from the poor, should they?
Kinda of diminishes their triumph, doesn't it? Knowing their success is built on
oppression?
NFL wide receivers; NBA centers; MIT physics PHDs; University of Texas Petroleum
Engineering grads.
"Meritocracy legitimizes, deepens inequality"
"Meritocracy" based on gatekeeping (lawyers, civil service rules that say "must have a a
BA"; 7 years to become a physical therapist) these are, in my opinion , bad. I want to
measure outputs not inputs. And that means those hardworking, always dependable high school
girls who always turn in perfect homework (an input unconnected to knowledge) may have a high
class rank but I'll take the kid with the bad attitude, bad clothing and lousy social skills
who gets in the 98% percentile in the SAT Math exam (an output) every time (unless I'm hiring
people to be TV weathermen and weather girls- I like cute too).
What would happen in the NFL if we demanded a masters degree in wide receiver studies from
a state accredited university? Fewer blacks; fewer drug bust and girl friends beaten up and
fewer amazing catches.
Some of this rings with class warfare hogwash. I am very far from a conservative, but even
I must resort to that old saw in this case. Anyone who has worked in the same field or
company for 20 years will eventually come to realize that in time at the workplace the
academic degree is like so much kindling used to start a bonfire, and what really matters in
the long run is the contribution you make in your chosen field over that time. This can
hardly be lost on a bunch of academics nurturing their own career over decades so I must only
conclude that such an edgy interpretation is intended to make waves. Degrees don't matter for
sh__ once leadership figures out you don't know what you are doing. The best shine no matter
how much muck you throw on them.
Where education matters is getting your foot in the door in the first place. If you can't
manage that, then you may be a really great auto mechanic, rising to the top of your field,
but failing to really make the same splash as you might have from being a mechanical engineer
or chemist. Nonetheless, in almost any industry there is a need for smart competent people to
help make sure the endeavor doesn't go off the rails and those will do well. Maybe they can
afford to send their kids, who may be smart too probably, on to a better school.
It isn't about justifying inequality. It is about getting the best people in the right
places to produce he best outcomes. Consult your Napoleon. When good outcomes are needed, and
we aren't just writing papers, good people are essential.
It depends what those meritocrats are doing. MBA s are a good example. Plus nothing
original and creative comes out of a culture that prioritises corporate career building over
other aspects of human beings. That's why you see the children of these meritocrats are so
shallow and boring.
I doubt that the opinion below is right, but it creates certain concerns about treatment of
Great Britain behaviour in India as cruel and ruthless colonialism, at least on initial stages.
One interesting nuance that British brutality was almost matched by several other players during
this period.
asymmetry of the relationship between India, or its various provinces, to be more
accurate, and the GB.
Agreed but the Europeans wanted a way to the Indies (East Indies – a territorial
description in those days which included South Asia and South East Asia all the way to
Indonesia.) Indeed it was Indonesia which was the first prize (spices) which the Dutch got.
India was the second best price, some spices yes but most importantly garments. And they
Western Europeans (Portuguese, Spanish, French, Dutch, British, Danish [very small players])
wanted a way to the Indies to beat the monopoly of this trade by the Muslims and Venice. And
when Constantinople fell to the Turks, this desire to find an alternative route increased
further. I did not ask the Turks to conquer Constantinople. The whole colonial Empire chapter
of mankind started thanks to the actions of the Turks.
a bit of eastern civilization to the savage people of these dismal islands.
Savage people? Abu Taleb Khan's book on British Society gives the opposite picture.
The eastern devil had also a little chance to gang up with the worst segments of the
British ruling class to suck even more blood from its indigenous slaves. Had he made it,
then Nawab Siraj Ud Daulah would have been awarded by haveing a nice statue of him erected
in every major town of GB.
The East India Company itself stamped out all such corrupt practices with time. That is
why Robert Clive was sent for a second time.
The British came to India to trade. But rivalry with other European powers especially the
French led to the conquest of India. The earliest conquest of Indian regions of India by the
English was primarily because of rivalry with France. It was originally France which started
interfering in Indian affairs forcing the British to do the same in response out of fear of
losing trade rights in India. Before that the English policy was to not interfere in local
affairs much but just concentrate on trade. India for a while (especially) South India was
going more French than British. However French ambitions depended on one person Joseph
François Dupleix, a Napoleonic type figure of whom Empire builders are made of.
However the French East India Company Directors lambasted Dupleix to not waste energy on
conquests and empire buildings but concentrate on trade.
Must add that many Indian powers like Hyder Ali of Mysore were friends of Dupleix, unlike
the French East India Company directors, the local powers were not complaining about his
actions.
And how can we forget the Maratha Empire. It were the Maratha raids which would give the
best help to the conquest and expansion of the British Empire in India. Marathas raided and
decimated Bengal. They looted it out by their heavy taxation of Chouth (1/4th taxation i.e.
25% of the conquered/raided ) as well as killed many. So heavy were the impact of these
Maratha raids, that the fierce Rajput Kings themselves voluntarily signed an alliance with
the British East Indian Company for protection. Travancore Kingdom in South India signed a
similar treaty with the English to save them from Tipu Sultan's invasions. Also must add that
Nawab Shiraj Ud Daulah, the Nawab of Bengal crushed the Borgees, Maratha raiders who would
raid and kill and rape and loot Bengal. One must add that a Peshwa (Prime Minister of the
Royal Maratha Bhosle Family but defacto rulers) of the Marathas tried to stop all this
raiding but before he could take any action in Bengal he had to return to Pune (the capital
of the Peshwas and Maratha power center).
And what about Nader Shah the brave Sultan of Iran. Nadir Shah looted out of India
multiple times of what the British East India Company earned in India till the mutiny.
During the course of one day (March 22) 20,000 to 30,000 Indians were brutally killed by
Iranian troops and as many as 10,000 women and children were taken as slaves, forcing Indian
Mughal Emperor Mohammad Shah to beg Nader Shah for mercy.
In response, Iranian Emperor Nader Shah agreed to withdraw, but Indian Emperor Mohammad
Shah paid the consequence in handing over the keys of his royal treasury, and losing even the
fabled Peacock Throne to the Iranian emperor. The Peacock Throne, thereafter, served as a
symbol of Iranian imperial might. It is estimated that Nader took away with him treasures
worth as much as seven hundred million rupees. Among a trove of other fabulous jewels, Nader
also looted the Koh-i-Noor (meaning "Mountain of Light" in Persian) and Darya-ye Noor
(meaning "Sea of Light") diamonds. The Iranian troops left Delhi at the beginning of May
1739, but before they left, he ceded back to Muhammad Shah all territories to the east of the
Indus which he had overrun. The booty they had collected was loaded on 700 elephants,
4,000 camels, and 12,000 horses.
I let us not even start about Ahmed Shah Abdali, the Lord of the Afghans who had his
own lootings in India. The British East India Company got peanuts compared to the above
two Empires. LOL.
You think Iranian Emperor Nadir Shah, would feel guilty about slavery? LOL. Imagine a
bunch of pussyboy leftist SJWs & anti fa thugs going to manly Nadir Shah's court and
calling him evul because he enslaved people. Nadir Shah would roar with laughter so hard, the
SJWs/anti-fas would collectively pee in their pants. He would probably keep the male SJWs
& anti fas as nautch boys and females would be forced into his harem or distributed to
his courtiers.
British Empire had its own Jew lobby just like how Jews control America today.
But the people whos topped that evil trade were all British Protestant missionaries. No
Indian Baniya or Parsi or Bengali cared about the Chinese dying. Do you really think the
typical Indian baniya trader would give a rats ass about the deaths of chinkis (East Asians)
or Goras (Whites) or Kalus (Blacks)? They would not Giva a f ** k. The Jews definitely did
not care about Chinese dying. It were evul Whitey Anglos who led a campaign to stop this
trade.
The opium trade faced intense enmity from the later British Prime Minister William Ewart
Gladstone. As a member of Parliament, Gladstone called it "most infamous and atrocious"
referring to the opium trade between China and British India in particular . Gladstone
was fiercely against both of the Opium Wars and ardently opposed to the British trade in
opium to China. He lambasted it as "Palmerston's Opium War" and said that he felt "in dread
of the judgments of God upon England for our national iniquity towards China" in May 1840.
Gladstone criticized it as "a war more unjust in its origin, a war more calculated in its
progress to cover this country with permanent disgrace,".
In the 1890s, the effects of opium use were still largely undocumented by science.
Protestant missionaries in China compiled data to demonstrate the harm of the drug, which
they had observed. They were outraged that the British Royal Commission on Opium visited
India but not China. They created the Anti-Opium League in China among their colleagues in
every mission station, for which the American missionary Hampden Coit DuBose served as the
first president. This organization was instrumental in gathering data from
Western-trained medical doctors in China, most of whom were missionaries. They published
their data and conclusions in 1899 as Opinions of Over 100 Physicians on the Use of Opium in
China. The survey included doctors in private practices, particularly in Shanghai and Hong
Kong, as well as Chinese who had been trained in medical schools in Western countries.
In England, the home director of the China Inland Mission, Benjamin Broomhall, was an
active opponent of the opium trade; he wrote two books to promote banning opium smoking:
Truth about Opium Smoking and The Chinese Opium Smoker. In 1888 Broomhall formed and
became secretary of the "Christian Union for the Severance of the British Empire with the
Opium Traffic" and editor of its periodical, National Righteousness. He lobbied the
British Parliament to stop the opium trade. He and James Laidlaw Maxwell appealed to the
London Missionary Conference of 1888 and the Edinburgh Missionary Conference of 1910 to
condemn the trade. As he lay dying, the government signed an agreement to end the opium trade
within two years.
China's Opium War Was 'Completely Indian Enterprise', not British: Indian Author Amitav
Ghosh
At this juncture he found that the first opium war in China was an Indian undertaking. "
The first opium war (was) planned in India, it was financed by Indian money, it was fought
with Indian soldiers. But it has all completely vanished from our historical memory ,"
Ghosh, whose third book of Ibis series 'Flood of Fire' is all about migration in the 1830s,
told IANS.
" The putting together of the expeditionary force took place in India. The British
naval ships for the expedition were accompanied by 50 supply ships, all provided for by Parsi
merchants in Bombay (now Mumbai). From top to bottom, it was a completely Indian enterprise;
all the wherewithal for it came from India," he added.
What role did India Inc play in the opium trade war?
They [Indian companies] played a pioneering part. In large parts, the opium war was
financed by Indian money – by old Bombay money. Many of t he big Indian families made
their money in opium. This is equally true about America.
Many American companies and families have made their money in opium -President Franklin
Roo sevelt's family, t he C a l v i n Coolidge family, Forbes family from where you get the
current secretary of state, John Kerry, even institutions like Yale and Brown. Singapore and
Hong Kong wouldn't exist today without opium.Essentially opium was the most important
commodity of the 19th century.
Are companies hesitant to acknowledge their past connections to opium?
Very hesitant . Jardine Matheson was one of the most important opium trading companies in
the 19th century. Their closest partner was Sir Jamsetji Jeejeebhoy, who built half of
Bombay. To this day, Jardine Matheson does not like this connection mentioned. In fact,
they've been known to threaten journalists. Similarly, people who've been trying to work with
papers of various Indian companies find it very difficult to access documents. Let me just
say it tactfully that several companies don't like this to be spoken of in public.
Would it have been difficult for companies to hide their past if there was social media at
that time?
The opium war was a very modern war. It was sold to the British government by
merchants. They collected money and sent William Jardine to London to bribe politicians into
starting this war. It's a collusion between the State and the private sector, which
benefited not only from the policies of the opium trade, but also from the whole war being
sub-contracted to them, in terms of provisions, supply ships etc. It was the template of the
Iraq war. First, you pick up something, drum it up by publishing some articles about it, the
people will get worked up, then you start the war. You keep hidden what is actually
happening.
There is one War that is being waged on the populace of the world , especially in the West,
and it's the War on Knowledge, Truths and Common Sense. Ask a previous forged history
question to a person who has read extensively Alternate Websites like Unz Rev. , ICH, the
Late Robt. Parry etc. and then ask someone who hasn't – and the war on knowledge, truth
is quite visible. When the Author shows his history lessons from the British Educational
system, { the same as the American ones } with regards to the India history, the Brits are
always in the right . But real knowledge and truth are just the opposite. The so called
History Websites I used to read are 50% BS, and so are their Professors that are writing for
them.
I can't explain, but you can certainly feel in the air that the October Revolution
and the USSR still haunt the American people - from Alabama to California; from North
Dakota to New York.
I think that, deep down, every American knows they are a capitalist empire - it's "popular
wisdom", as they say.
Agreed. You had to have lived from 1949 to now, i.e., the Cold War. *Everyone* in that
period remembers certain things: the Kennedy assassination, Khrushchev pounding his shoe in
the UN, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Berlin Airlift, the Vietnam War (and the opposition to
it). Maybe not clearly, but they remember it was in their history.
Most people under 50 only remember things from the 1970's on. Economically, things only
started going bad in the 1970's with the oil crisis, the Nixon corruption, then the '80s,
'90s. Then 9/11 and the bogus "War on Terrorism" takes over for the last twenty years.
The conflict between the Soviet Empire and the US Empire pretty much controls how the US
perception was created. The media had a hand in it, too. In the '50s everything was "Ozzie
and Harriet" (does anyone even remember that show existed?) In the '60s it was "Father Knows
Best." In the '70s it was Archie Bunker - the first sign of a change. In the '80s it was
"Cheers". In the '90s it was "middle class black" shows like "Fresh Prince". You can see the
progression just from Google searching "TV icons" of each period.
There's never been any reality in 20th Century US history, at least since WWII ended.
This is looking like another 1960's type insurrection that will end up the same way: it will
be used by the rich and powerful elites (notice how the corporate controlled media has gone
on one knee for BLM and has gone outright anti-white?), there will be a back lash that will
crush it (right after the election), and its leaders will be either absorbed into the
establishment or offed.
America looks like a hybrid of Stephen King, Brave New World, and 1984 and the rich and
powerful US elites and intel agencies stroke it and love it. Notice that the US super rich
have been raking it in since January 2020? While at the same time Trump is busy making the US
a vassal state of Israel and accelerating the roll-out of Cold War v2 which is just fine with
US elites that will not change with the election of moron Biden (if the people elect Biden
they are electing his VP as Biden will not last long; he is a lot like Yeltsin that was
pumped up on mental stimulants and nutriments to perform for short periods until the next
treatment).
Already many families are opting out of sending their recent high school graduates off to
college as a potential second wave COVID-19 crisis looms. Many students are no doubt thinking
it's
a good time for a 'gap year' .
This is a trend likely to only grow, especially given the degree to which universities stop
actually educating in Literature, History, Science, Business, Math, and the Classics - and
instead focus on dubious and
highly elastic concepts like "privilege" and "systemic racism".
UPDATE.3: From a professor in the comments section:
I am a full professor in the humanities at a major private university. Everyone on this
blog would likely recognize my name if I published it here.
I've decided that at this point my life–I am in my late 50s–that proactively
fighting is just not worth it for me. Over a decade ago I suffered a severe depressive
episode after a student at my school sought to destroy me online by publishing, without my
permission, a kindly penned private note to her. (It involved a "woke" topic. But I'll just
leave it at that). In any event, it seemed like hell for about two weeks, suffering night
terrors, severe insomnia, excruciating brain zaps in the middle of the night, etc. I could
have turned her into the provost's office for violating the university's honor code. But I
knew if I did that I would create my own Streisand effect. Thus, I thought to myself, just
suffer for a little while and it will go away. It did. But the episode changed me
immensely.
So, with BLM and its insane sycophantic Jonestown-like disciples, I will not go out of my
way to cause trouble, such as asking my university president difficult questions, boycotting
the school's required diversity training, and so forth. However, I will not lie, and I will
not confess things I do not believe. That, of course, may be enough to attract negative
attention from "the Woman." (Take note: it's not "the Man" anymore). So be it. I have a nice
chunk of change in savings, retirement, and investments, and I am confident that I can find
work at lower ranked institutions that would be more than happy to hire me. So for me, it's
not a question of money or finding work. It's the emotional toll. I want to continue writing,
doing first rate scholarship, and try as best I can to contribute to my discipline.
As far as my students go, I will continue to teach in a "Benedict Option" way, trying the
best I can to "strengthen the things that remain" (Rev. 3) and pass on to them the best that
has been thought, believed, and lived in Western Civilisation. My experience has been that
students are hungry for such direction, but you have to present it to them in a way what
meets them where they are at. You cannot presuppose anything. For this reason, I have found
creative ways to introduce them to ancient and modern ideas that do not directly address
contemporary concerns. As they say, I try to find "the thin edge of the wedge" and pound
away, using self-deprecating humor, personal anecdotes, and a sense of joy in my teaching.
(Don't ever, I mean ever, underestimate the attractiveness and power of exhibiting love for
one's students). This results in them letting their guard down. (We used to call it in the
old days "being open minded." Back then "being closed minded" was considered disgraceful. Now
it's an essential qualification for employment at the New York Times. Go figure). On the
other hand, I will not compromise in my lectures or acquiesce to altering my curricular plan
to meet the non-academic demands of the Office of Diversity and Equity (if such demands in
fact arise, though they have not yet). I realize that I can not avoid them forever, that at
some point they will likely try to force me to confess my allegiance to their bizarre Uncivil
Religion. At that point, I will be among my blessed predecessors, including Socrates, Jesus,
St. Peter, St. Paul, and Dante. What an honor.
One weapon in the arsenal of progressives has been, for generations, popular media. (How
many were encouraged by Lennon's "Heaven" to leave the faith? How many people did U2 get to
join amnesty International?)
I wonder whether it might not be useful to assemble a catalog of art/media that (a) is
universally acknowledged as genuinely good, decent, and true, and (b) tends to undermine
some of the worst excesses of the woke.
These should be works that do not in any obvious way present themselves as
"conservative" or even as proposing what you would call specific policy positions; instead,
they would model resistance to the sort of compulsory conformity that we are dreading.
I'll start the list:
A Man for All Seasons (1966 film), specifically for Thomas More's thoughts concerning
silence and the freedom of conscience.
The militants have chosen the most sympathetic states, governors and mayors for these
protests, riots, arson, assault, etc and most recently urban takeovers but success against
pacifist mayors and governors breads hubris and conceit and over confidence. Eventually
they are going to try this in a less sympathetic state and the national guard or the
military will be called in to secure the areas possibly with real bullets and with a
totality of securing Baghdad or Kabul. The domestic terrorism laws and treason laws will be
dusted off and applied to those arrested.
"... This is where Orwell enters the convergence , for the State masks its stripmining and power grab with deliciously Orwellian misdirections such as "the People's Party," "democratic socialism," and so on. ..."
"... Orwell understood the State's ontological imperative is expansion, to the point where it controls every level of community, markets and society. Once the State escapes the control of the citizenry, it is free to exploit them in a parasitic predation that is the mirror-image of Monopoly capital. For what is the State but a monopoly of force, coercion, data manipulation and the regulation of private monopolies? ..."
"... Aldous Huxley foresaw a Central State that persuaded its people to "love their servitude" via propaganda, drugs, entertainment and information-overload. In his view, the energy required to force compliance exceeded the "cost" of persuasion, and thus the Powers That Be would opt for the power of suggestion. ..."
"... "My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World . ..."
"... As Marx explained, the dynamics of state-monopoly-capitalism lead to the complete dominance of capital over labor in both financial and political "markets," as wealth buys political influence which then protects and enforces capital's dominance. ..."
The global crisis is not merely economic; it is the result of profound financial,
sociological and political trends described by Marx, Kafka, Orwell and Huxley.
The unfolding global crisis is best understood as the convergence of the dynamics described
by Marx, Kafka, Orwell and Huxley. Let's start with Franz Kafka , the writer (1883-1924) who most
eloquently captured the systemic injustices of all-powerful bureaucratic institutions--the
alienation experienced by the hapless citizen enmeshed in the bureaucratic web, petty
officialdom's mindless persecutions of the innocent, and the intrinsic absurdity of the
centralized State best expressed in this phrase: "We expect errors, not justice."
If this isn't the most insightful summary of the current moment in history, then what is? A
lawyer by training and practice, Kafka understood that the the more powerful and entrenched the
institution and its bureaucracy, the greater the collateral damage rained on the innocent, and
the more extreme the perversion of justice.
We are living in a Kafkaesque nightmare where suspicion alone justifies the government stealing from its citizens, and an
unrelated crime (possessing drug paraphernalia) is used to justify state theft.
As in a Kafkaesque nightmare, the state is above the law when it needs an excuse to steal your car or cash. There is no
crime, no arrest, no due process--just the state threatening that you should shut up and be happy they don't take everything you
own.
All these forms of civil forfeiture are well documented. While some would claim the worst
abuses have been rectified, that is far from evident. What is evident is how long these kinds
of legalized looting have been going on.
When the state steals our cash or car on mere suspicion, you have no recourse other than
horrendously costly and time-consuming legal actions. So you no longer have enough money to
prove your innocence now that we've declared your car and cash guilty?
Tough luck, bucko--be glad you live in a fake democracy with a fake rule of law, a fake
judiciary, and a government with the officially sanctioned right to steal your money and
possessions without any due process or court proceedings-- legalized looting .
They don't have to torture a confession out of you, like the NKVD/KGB did in the former
Soviet Union, because your cash and car are already guilty.
This is where Orwell enters the convergence , for the State masks its stripmining and power
grab with deliciously Orwellian misdirections such as "the People's Party," "democratic
socialism," and so on.
Orwell understood the State's ontological imperative is expansion, to the point where it
controls every level of community, markets and society. Once the State escapes the control of
the citizenry, it is free to exploit them in a parasitic predation that is the mirror-image of
Monopoly capital. For what is the State but a monopoly of force, coercion, data manipulation
and the regulation of private monopolies?
What is the EU bureaucracy in Brussels but the perfection of a stateless State?
As Kafka divined, centralized bureaucracy has the capacity for both Orwellian obfuscation
(anyone read those 1,300-page Congressional bills other than those gaming the system for their
private benefit?) and systemic avarice and injustice.
The convergence boils down to this: it would be impossible to loot this much wealth if the
State didn't exist to enforce the "rules" of parasitic predation.
Aldous Huxley foresaw a Central State that persuaded its people to "love their servitude"
via propaganda, drugs, entertainment and information-overload. In his view, the energy required
to force compliance exceeded the "cost" of persuasion, and thus the Powers That Be would opt
for the power of suggestion.
"My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of
governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I
described in Brave New World .
Within the next generation I believe that the world's rulers will discover that infant
conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs
and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting
people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience."
As prescient as he was, Huxley could not have foreseen the power of mobile telephony, gaming
and social media hypnosis/addiction as a conditioning mechanism for passivity and
self-absorption. We are only beginning to understand the immense addictive/conditioning powers
of 24/7 mobile telephony / social media.
What would we say about a drug that caused people to forego sex to check their Facebook
page? What would we say about a drug that caused young men to stay glued to a computer for 40+
hours straight, an obsession so acute that some actually die? We would declare that drug to be
far too powerful and dangerous to be widely available, yet mobile telephony, gaming and social
media is now ubiquitous.
... ... ...
Last but not least, we come to Marx. As Marx explained, the dynamics of
state-monopoly-capitalism lead to the complete dominance of capital over labor in both
financial and political "markets," as wealth buys political influence which then protects and
enforces capital's dominance.
Marx also saw that finance-capital would inevitably incentivize over-capacity, stripping
industrial capital of pricing power and profits. Once there's more goods and services than
labor can afford to buy with earnings, financialization arises to provide credit to labor to
buy capital's surplus production and engineer financial gains with leveraged speculation and
asset bubbles.
But since labor's earnings are stagnant or declining, there's an end-game to
financialization. Capital can no longer generate any gain at all except by central banks
agreeing to buy capital's absurdly over-valued assets. Though the players tell themselves this
arrangement is temporary, the dynamics Marx described are fundamental and inexorable: the
insanity of central banks creating currency out of thin air to buy insanely over-priced assets
is the final crisis of late-stage capitalism because there is no other escape from
collapse.
Having stripped labor of earnings and political power and extracted every last scrap of
profit from over-capacity (i.e. globalization) and financialization, capital is now completely
dependent on money-spewing central banks buying their phantom capital with newly printed
currency, a dynamic that will eventually trigger a collapse in the purchasing power of the
central banks' phantom capital (i.e. fiat currencies).
When there is no incentive to invest in real-world productive assets and every incentive to
skim profits by front-running the Federal Reserve, capitalism is dead. Paraphrasing
Wallerstein, "Capitalism is no longer attractive to capitalists."
We can see this for ourselves in the real world: if "renewable energy" was as profitable as
some maintain, private capital would have rushed in to fund every project to maximize their
gains from this new source of immense profits. But as Art Berman explained in Why the
Renewable Rocket Has Failed To Launch , this hasn't been the case. Rather, "green energy"
remains dependent on government subsidies in one form or another. If hydropower is removed from
"renewables," all other renewables (solar, wind, etc.) provide only 4% of total global energy
consumption.
Japan's stagnation exemplifies Marx's analysis: Japan's central bank has created trillions
of yen out of thin air for 30 years and used this phantom capital to buy the over-valued assets
of Japan's politically dominant state-capitalist class, a policy that has led to secular
stagnation and social decline. If it weren't for China's one-off expansion, Japan's economy
would have slipped into phantom capital oblivion decades ago.
Kafka, Orwell, Huxley and Marx called it, and we're living in the last-gasp stage of the
cruel and unsustainable system they described. So sorry, but investing your phantom capital in
FANG stocks, Tik-Tok and virtual-reality games will not save phantom capital from well-deserved
oblivion.
I
had long heard rumors from academicians about how "online teaching is a nightmare," "online
teaching ruined my life," "online teaching sucked the brains out of my head," "online teaching
is a new and insidious form of labor degradation," and the like.
I foolishly tended to write these complaints off as hyperbole, saying "it can't be that
bad."
No more. I get it now. The COVID-19 era, which turned my formerly in-person adjunct class
into an online course, has been instructive.
If anything, by my experience, online teaching is worse than anything I had heard or read.
It has been a nightmare.
Online teaching the first time through became a health menace for me this spring. It has
been lethal, both mentally and physically, to have been hit with a massive requirement of
extra, unpaid online labor, requiring energy I didn't have for hours and hours of typing,
typing, typing, into a computer screen and calling, calling, and calling tech people and
internet providers and computer companies on the phone.
Unpaid and extra new online tasks and madness? Oh, indeed :
... ... ...
# Hours writing comments on papers via Track Changes. (Yes, grading papers is part of the
job, but the online method of doing this has been a big time-adder for me. Track Changes is new
to me as an editor [though not as a writer] and [for me at least] far more time-consuming than
marking and writing with a red pen. It also gave me an intimate new look at how shockingly
awful many students' writing skills are, something that has added considerably to the amount of
time I have spent doing comments.)
# Hours and hours spent trying to somehow make Zoom work via XXX.edu (this after my wife and
numerous friends told me that private Zoom was "super-hack-able").
# Hours spent filming Panopto video lectures that were erased until I got the hang of the
idiosyncratic process (this had me nearly in tears during the second week).
# Hours spent trying to edit a couple of Panopto videos that had been marred by household
and neighborhood noise and interruptions.
# Hours spent taking my computer down to sit outside the (closed) University of Iowa library
in effort to hijack its powerful Wi-Fi to upload videos after Zoom (seemed to have) crashed my
upload capacity (exactly why that crash occurred in Week 6 is still a mystery).
# Hours spent trying to explain to students how D2L works (as if I really knew).
Especially taxing have been he hours I've spent emailing with students like X1, who was
angry over the creation of Facebook group for the class and who told me (no joke) that I have
no right to comment on his failure to copy-edit his paper because he found a typo in one of my
many group emails.
Another good soul-crushing online time-suck was student X2, who handed in a paper brazenly
stolen from an online Website (with a few small word changes). He denied his plagiarism and
then confessed by saying that "I frankly think that writing papers is a waste of time
."
(I would have reported X2, but I decided not to since I could not stomach yet more time
typing, typing, typing into a computer screen, as would have been required if I'd gone to
Academic Integrity.)
It gets worse. I have also now spent hours and hours responding to false charges lodged
against me online (how else?) by (an) unnamed student(s) and sadly taken seriously by a
university dean. One such charge claims that I am "unreachable." That is nonsense: I have made
my XXX.edu email and two of my private emails fully available to all students. I check each one
of these email accounts twice daily.
Another bogus charge claims that I gave a bad and punishing grade to a student's online
comment because I disagreed with it. That is sheer nonsense. Online comments have no "grade" in
my class. And I have explained again and again to students (and I reiterated my explanation
quite clearly in the instance in question) that there is no grading penalty for disagreeing
with me or any of my assigned authors – and no grading boost for agreeing with me or my
assigned authors. I merely require that students show some meaningful engagement with my
arguments and those of my assigned authors.
Another false complaint relayed to me and taken seriously by a dean claims that I told
students that they "all write like fifth graders." Nope: I said I would no longer read papers
handed in without students having first done an elementary copy-edit. I sent a few papers back
to students, asking them to use the editing function in Word and suggesting that they read
their first drafts aloud to themselves. I recommended the university's first-rate Writing
Center as a student resource and I added a few specific comments on things like punctuation and
paragraph breaks.
I had to explain all this in a long email to the academic authorities, who took the charges
seriously because the Dean of Students took them seriously. In a recent email, I asked if any
student or the dean had provided any actual evidence for their charges. The response:
crickets.
There isno extra pay for the time spent responding to absurd charges, just as
there is no extra pay for the endless hours I've spent trying to work with the instructional
technology, the tech staff, computer and printer companies, and so on .
Online teaching for me has been a bad dream, even more base and cruel than what I had heard.
I would only wish it on myvery worst enemies .
Three things have made it especially horrific in my experience this spring:
(1) The inherent awfulness of online teaching has been significantly exacerbated by the
COVID-19 crisis, which has made coordination exceedingly difficult and has all kinds of
collateral consequences.
(2) I already spend a lot of time on a computer due to my ongoing writing career. The last
thing a writer wants is another job that involves hours and hours and hours of typing, typing,
typing into a computer screen. Give me a janitorial position before that!
(3) As a teacher I am employed as an adjunct, paid per course, not by the hour. Prior to the
online transition, the hourly rate was decent. With the extra work involved in Covid-era online
instruction, it is more like sweatshop labor. By my best guess, the labor time has at the very
least doubled (it may have tripled in my case). Along the way, the work requirements have
interfered with the other paid work I do, which now earns at a higher hourly rate (it did not
before).
As Daniel Falcone writes, paraphrasing the political scientist Stephen Zunes, "the work
has doubled and the rewards have been diminished." And, I would respectfully add, the
harassment and abuse have escalated.
I've been searching through my long employment record trying to recall a worse occupational
experience: my second job ever, as an 18-year-old dishwasher in a diner (Augie's) on Chicago's
North Clark St. The dishes and silverware and plates piled up endlessly, far beyond my capacity
to load and wash them. Every ten minutes or so, the restaurant's Greek owner would come back
and yell at me. This went on for weeks until one Friday night, when it was especially bad, I
just put my coat on and walked out the back door into a black alley and never returned. I
sacrificed two week's pay and it was worth it.
Walking out of an online curse (I am going to leave that typo – this course is a
curse ) is not an option: students are depending on a grade for this quarter and their
folks have paid (absurdly) big tuition, so I will stick it out.
Thank God it is almost over – the nightmare ends in two weeks and I have some serious
and relevant intellectual and political work to do full time when it does. We are living and
dying, after all, under a new American and global neo-fascism in a period of dire capitalogenic
epidemiological, ecological, and economic crisis. This no freaking time to be spending hours
online and on the phone trying to make yet another idiosyncratic XXX.edu program work, trying
to rally alienated students who have other priorities, and arguing with people who think it is
authoritarian bullying to want college-level students to edit their papers and write complete
sentences that end with a period instead of a comma.
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic,
fewer and fewer international students were coming to study in the United States.
While the number of international students who newly enrolled in U.S. colleges and
universities during the 2015-2016 school year stood at
more than 300,000 , by the 2018-2019 school year, that number had fallen by about 10% to
less than 270,000.
This trend will undoubtedly accelerate in the fall of 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic.
The American Council on Education predicts that overall international enrollment for the next
academic year will
decline by as much as 25% . That means there could be 220,000 fewer international students
in the U.S. than the approximately
870,000 there are now.
As an international education professional, I foresee six major ways that the expected
steep decline in international enrollment will change U.S. higher education and the
economy.
1. Higher tuition
International students often pay full tuition
, which averages more than US$26,000
per year at public four-year institutions and $36,000 at private nonprofit four-year
institutions. That matters because the tuition from foreign students provides extra funds to
subsidize the
costs of enrolling more students from the U.S. At public colleges and universities, the
revenue generated from international enrollment also helps to
make up for cuts in state funding for higher education.
One study found that for every 10% drop in state funding for higher education, international
enrollment increased by
12-17% at public research universities from 1996 to 2012.
According to the Institute of International Education's 2019
Open Doors Report , 872,214 international students are enrolled in U.S. colleges and
universities.
As
states cut budgets due to the loss of tax revenue brought on by the economic crisis caused
by COVID-19, many institutions of higher education will be forced to raise tuition . While this may help college and
university finances in the short term, in the long term it will make it more difficult for
international students to be able to
afford to study in the U.S., which in turn will make the U.S. a less attractive study
destination.
... ... ...
Associate Vice Provost for International Education, University of Maryland, Baltimore
County
"... Meanwhile - as Public Services are devalued and denuded in this system the private sector becomes increasingly wealthy at the top while its workers become poorer and less powerful at the bottom ..."
"... Education is a prime example of where neoliberalism has had a negative effect. ..."
It's the same in education. Academies are unaccountable bureaucracies with very expensive
layers of management while teachers are being laid off in some of the most deprived areas of
the country, exemplified by this story from Sheffield
Only the greedy, selfish, well off, egotistical and share holders believe that Public
Services should, could and would benefit from privatisation and deregulation.
Education and
Health for example are (in theory) a universal right in the UK. As numbers in the population
rise and demographics change so do costs ie delivery of the service becomes more expensive.As
market force logic is introduced it also becomes less responsive - hence people not able to
get the right drugs and treatment and challenging and challenged young people being denied an
education that is vital for them in increasing numbers.
Meanwhile - as Public Services are
devalued and denuded in this system the private sector becomes increasingly wealthy at the
top while its workers become poorer and less powerful at the bottom.
With the introduction of
Tory austerity which punishes the latter to the benefit of the former there is no surprise
that this system does not work and has provided a platform for the unscrupulous greedy and
corrupt to exploit Brexit and produce conditions which will take 'Neiliberalism' to where
logic suggests it would always go - with the powerful rich protected minority exerting their
power over an increasingly poor and powerless majority.
Education is a prime example of where neoliberalism has had a negative effect. It worked well
when labour was pumping billions into it and they invested in early intervention schemes such
as sure start and nursery expansion. Unfortunately under the tories we have had those
progressive policies scaled right back. Children with SEND and/or in care are commodities
bought and sold by local authorities. I've been working in a PRU which is a private company
and it does good things, but I can't help but think if that was in the public sector that it
would be in a purpose built building rather than some scruffy office with no playground. The
facilities aren't what you would expect in this day in age. If we had a proper functioning
government with a plan then what happens with vulnerable children would be properly organised
rather than a reactive shit show.
The wristband and microchip sound fab for children under 18 so we monitor to ensure their
safety, especially in educational settings and on school trips. It would enable them to be
located if lost or snatched. If it can be used to monitor language and aspects of behaviour
then they could not be falsely accused of of antisocial actions. If they don't comply then
child care benefits or access to higher education could be withdrawn as a sanction. It may
even improve road safety if they drive illegally or badly. Any chance of a tiny electric
shock feature to the microchip?
If you thought you knew everything about Eric Blair/George Orwell, I suggest
reading this essay as a test. Hopefully, you'll discover many facets not known before as
I did.
Orwell's career was a lot more complicated than that. Basically, he came from a relatively
prosperous middle-class family, which allowed him to play the game of the writer, when it
worked, and to come back to the family when things were thin. Of course he exploited his own
experiences, as every writer does. That doesn't detract from the great creations. Animal Farm
and 1984 don't have direct origins.
Posted by: Laguerre | May 20 2020 21:39 utc |
32 @Posted by: karlof1 | May 20 2020 18:51 utc | 26
That essay is a real shame, an impossible intend of whitewashing and redime Orwell, just
another intent on rewritting of history, and try to paint what is black as white.
Neo-language
This intent could be inscribed along the rescues of Stepan Bandera and the Forest Brothers as
new heroes of NATO world in their offensive against reviving socialist ideas.
That Orwell did not change even a bit after returning from Burma is proven by the fact
that he came to Spain, and strolled around there with the Trotskyites of POUM, to elaborate
black lists of communists which then were provided to Franco, at result of which many people
was tortured and summarily executed. He, this way, contributed greatly to decimate the
resistance in the side of the legitimate republican government, and thus, to help the
fascists in their way to power, well supported by the US with arms and fuel and by the air
forces of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.
Orwell: Sneak sighting of British secret services in the Cold War (is declassified by MI-5
and documented). Its function: to expose communists. He even betrayed Charles Chaplin,
exiled in his native England for FBI persecution. "Referrer". "Always loyal"
@Posted by: H.Schmatz | May 20 2020 21:40 utc | 33
In the essay by Alert Escusa linked above, it is studied the historical context in which
Orwell published his most famous works, at all innocent, debunking the legend on that he was
kinda an outsider and was about to self-publish Animal Farm , being the checked
reality that he had full support of the birgueoisie to publish his influential works when the
time was more propice for the capitalists.
As a sample, a button:
What was happening that year of 1943, while Orwell was writing his Animal Farm? It was not
exactly, as Pepe Gutiérrez says "the distribution of the world", but something quite
different that he hides from us: the Nazis had invaded the USSR two years ago,
exterminating millions of Russians and devastating much of the country. The greatest battle
of the war, Stalingrad, had taken place, and it was not yet known who would win the
conflict, whether Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. No one could safely predict that Nazism
would be extirpated from Europe, the Nazi death camps had not yet been discovered, but
Orwell was obsessed with his anti-Soviet writings. What did Orwell want to portray with his
Farm Rebellion? Nothing more and nothing less than the following: "The specific purpose
Orwell threw into it with a sense of urgency was the desire to exploit the "myth" of the
Soviet Union, as a paradigm of the socialist state".
There are plenty of comments about it. It is only worth reflecting on who benefited from
Orwell's position in 1943. The victory was precisely achieved by the Soviet people and the
Red Army at the price of innumerable human sacrifices, also easily forgotten in the West,
where the true character of the anti-fascist war is hidden. It is logical that the USSR,
which had suffered a war of extermination unprecedented in history, and which also defeated
the collaborationist and fascist regimes of Eastern Europe, along with the popular and
communist guerrillas, was seen as a liberating power by broad sectors of local populations.
In addition, the communist guerrillas, ideologically linked to the USSR, had come to have
great prestige throughout Europe: so much so that, in the first French general elections
after Nazism, the French Communist Party was the most voted party, achieving more out of 5
million votes representing 30% of the electorate [7]. As we will see later, the USSR had
very well-founded reasons to believe that a new war was being prepared against him, this
time with the country devastated, so it was logical and legitimate that he try to win
allies against the possibility of a new world war. This is a long way from "distribution of
the world" and trying to equate imperialism with socialism, as will be seen later.
I must say the replies to my 26 go in many directions. As to Martin Sieff's essay, it's
fundamentally a well deserved critique of the BBC that segues into a discussion about how
George Orwell would easily recognize its Fake News for what it is that draws on Finding George
Orwell in Burma for some of its content. (A very short preview's available at the
link and it can be borrowed if you're an Archive member, for which there's no excuse as it's
free.) IMO, the comments fit Sieff's intent quite well. Judging from book excerpts offered here , the book's more
a critique of Myanmar than Orwell, although the additional sources provided at page bottom
leads to credibility questions. I also note that most websites promoting Finding lead
with the NY Times jacket blurb which is more about dissing Myanmar than revealing what
was found regarding Orwell. Sieff says he knows the author but doesn't speculate on why he
chose a female nom de plume; I too wonder why as I don't see what purpose it could serve
unless it's anti-Myanmar propaganda that Orwell would recognize or something similar.
Curious--an innocuous comment becomes a can of worms. Also curious how Orwell and his
writing still generate an intense level of controversy.
karlof1 , May 20 2020 22:47 utc |
42H.Schmatz , May 20 2020 22:52 utc |
43
@Posted by: H.Schmatz | May 20 2020 22:08 utc | 36
A bit more from the must read essay linked, even related to current events...
2. THE HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENT OF "ANIMAL FARM" AND "1984"
What events were taking place in the western world at that time, which caused a
favorable change of attitude towards Orwell's publications, of those who were previously
reticent? Neither more nor less than the imminent offensive against socialism, which had
already lost almost thirty million lives during the anti-fascist war and had suffered
appalling material destruction.
While the first copies of Animal Farm were being printed and bound, some
extremely disturbing events were taking place. Just at the end of the war, Nazi spies and
war criminals were being recycled by the American spy services, such as the German SS
General Reinhard Genhlen, whose spy network passed entirely to the Americans and was used
in Eastern Europe to promote the anti-Soviet uprisings in East Berlin in 1953 and Hungary
in 1956. Clandestine networks were created to evade thousands of Nazi criminals towards
Latin America and the USA. Later, with Japan defeated, the operation was repeated with the
Japanese scientists who are experts in bacteriological weapons, responsible for the deaths
of tens of thousands of allied prisoners, but who were secretly brought to the United
States. Meanwhile, during the 1945 Potsdam conference, which brought together Hitler's
victorious allies - where the alleged "honeymoon" took place to "divide the world" - US
President Truman and English Churchill had speculated before Stalin about the power the
western allies had with a new secret weapon. On August 6, 1945, the first atomic bomb was
dropped on Hiroshima. According to Ian Gray, Stalin's biographer: "Stalin and the majority
of Russians immediately understood the terrible meaning of this fact ... Stalin realized
that the Americans had used the bomb mainly to impress and threaten Russia". Stalin and the
Soviets were right: the American Secretary of State, James Byrnes, recognized that the bomb
was necessary not against Japan, but "to make Russia moldable to Europe".
As the historian Pauwels has explained, the initial will of the Soviets in Europe was
not to have like-minded regimes and their own zone of influence, but to intervene in
Germany to prevent it from engaging in a second war, this time together with its former
allies against the USSR. This is demonstrated by the fact that until well into the post-war
period, the Soviets did not help to make any political-social change in the liberated
countries. It was Truman's nuclear policy that forced the Soviets to stand face to face
with the Americans in Eastern Europe, thus deterring American aviation: from this way they
would have to carry out a long trip until arriving at the Soviet cities where they had to
drop their bombs. This caused the political and social changes in Eastern Europe to
accelerate, which, however, were already taking place autonomously since the end of the war
thanks to the triumph of the popular anti-fascist forces. This fact not only saved the USSR
from a new war and enabled socialism to survive: stability in Eastern Europe laid the
foundations for a development of national liberation struggles and for socialism throughout
the world: in 1949 the victory of the Chinese Revolution heralded the triumph of many
others, putting all capitalism in danger of death.
In parallel, just after the Cold War started by imperialism, the conservative British
leader Churchill theorized about the need to build an Iron Curtain to contain the
communists and allegedly asked the American President Truman to attack the USSR with the
atomic bomb by means of a preemptive attack. Churchill was not just any character, but one
of the most influential leaders of the British Empire, champion of English colonialism and
the participation of his country in World War I, therefore responsible for many millions of
deaths and suffering of peoples.
That was the real reason for the delay in publishing Animal Farm . Orwell,
naturally, during the anti-fascist war could not see his anti-Soviet work published until
the end of the conflict, since it would have been quite awkward for the Western governments
allied to the USSR, who were risking their lives against the Nazis, to criminalize in this
way a friendly government. On the other hand, at that time, from the Orwellian model, it
would be difficult for western and world public opinion to understand how it was possible
that the Soviet people fought with such a degree of sacrifice and heroism, expelling the
Nazis from Europe: all the other bourgeois regimes, where there was freedom, had collapsed
rapidly and had collaborated with the Nazis.
It was in connection with these events that the first copies of Animal farm were
placed on the shelves of bookstores. Precisely the publication coincided with the end of
World War II and the dissolution of the anti-fascist alliance between England, USA, and the
USSR. The first edition is exactly from 1945 in England, published by Secker &
Wargburg, from London, and from 1946 in the USA, published by Harcourt, from New York. The
capitalist governments, which were imminently going to promote Animal Farm , were
evaluating different options to attack the USSR: from rearming German units as shock
brigades to attack the Soviets, to the launch of "preventive" atomic bombs. The prestige
that the USSR had among all the workers of the world, fundamentally the Europeans who
suffered the Nazi atrocities, was enormous, as well as among the intellectual and popular
sectors, whose reflection could be followed in the great influence that some communist
parties had. It was necessary to dismantle this prestige to sweep the opposition of the
world public opinion to an armed aggression against those who liberated Europe from Nazism,
and Orwell's novels came as a ring to a finger for this purpose, since they were a good
instrument to spread among the so called mass culture, just as later were the film versions
of his works.
Albert Escusa, gives in his essay a good semblance of what kind of person could Orwell
really be:
Orwell was above all a great individualist, with some important personal contradictions and
prejudices that led him to oscillate along various paths without being able to commit
himself in a stable and permanent way to anything that was not himself, in such a way that,
when he became disenchanted with some social processes that he was unable to interpret
correctly and scientifically, ended up ranting against what he believed to be the object of
his anger.
We can see it in Corbière's sharp description: "Who was Orwell? A sniper, a
skeptic who devoted his efforts to Manichean criteria describing the great social and
political contradictions of our time. Anarchist, Semitrotskyist in Spain, Labor in England,
free thinker, undercover anti-Semite, his real ideas reveal a kind of elitism.
He had an intense imagination but his methodology of thought was restricted,
one-sided.
No that I am aware, but, if interested, you could translate it with a translator.
Since the essay is quite long, you could translate paragraph by paragraph, then read the whol
thing once assembled.
A bit complicated, but worth the effort, the essay is a well researched work, wu¡ith
several referecnes as weel worth reading, like a disection of Orwell, his epoch and
motives.
Oh dear. Relatively prosperous middle class means descended from Earls of Westmorland, family
tree of Fanes, de Veres, Grosvenors, at a little reach basically related to the entire
peerage. True, Orwell's father was a bit of a dope, he did manage to contract a marriage to a
very wealthy woman. Jacintha Buddicom's memoir, Eric and Us, about growing up living next
door to the Blairs, will tell you what 'middle class' life was like.
Orwell maintained the friendships from St. Cyprians and Eton for life. Pretty much
everyone on the roster could be considered as spooks and agents. All of them tied to old
money, old family, government service. Government as MI6 and CIA.
I think he's a great writer. My copy of the four volumes of Collected Essays Letters &
Journalism is still right here next to the fireplace. All the rest of it around here
somewhere, even the minor novels from the 30s. But no illusions what team he is on or what
station he was born to.
Winston Smith means 'maker of Winston', as in broadcasting from Room 101 and forging the
myth of Winston Churchill. Orwell was a big boy when he did that and was far past having any
illusions. He created the myth that Room 101 of Broadcasting House was the worst place in the
world. And talked of how the war years were the best years of his life.
@Posted by: oldhippie | May 20 2020 23:13 utc | 48
I think he's a great writer
Not even so, more proper a plagiarist and propagandist at the service of Western
totalitarian imperialism.
Since we are in the task of deconstructing Orwell, let´s go to the end...
In addition to the Animal Farm , one of the works that most influenced the
construction of Western totalitarianism against the Communists was 1984 . It shows
an overview of socialism in the USSR similar to a delusional totalitarian and monstrous
drama, with a Big Brother (Stalin) who had absolute social control over the individuals
under his rule, through a sophisticated mind control mechanism. This work became a
must-read for CIA officers and a dependent body called the Council for Psychological
Strategies, in addition to the fact that NATO used the entire vocabulary of this novel
during the 1950s in its anti-communist strategy.12 It is interesting to know how He
conceived this book, since it was apparently a plagiarism Orwell did to another
disenchanted of Bolshevism, in this case a Russian writer, in the opinion of the writer
Emilio J. Corbière: "Orwell's was a conscious plagiarism, since he explained it
himself in another of his works. The plot, the main characters, the symbols and the climate
of its narration, belonged to a completely forgotten Russian writer of the beginning of the
century: Evgeny Zamyatin. In his book We , the Russian disillusioned with socialism
after the failure of the 1905 revolution, devoted his efforts to anathematizing the Social
Democratic Workers Party founded by Jorge Plejanov. When the October revolution happened -
in 1917 - Zamyatin went into exile in Paris, where he wrote his posthumous anti-communist
work"
This opinion is also shared by the historian Isaac Deutscher in his work The
Mysticism of Cruelty , an essay about 1984 , where he states that Orwell
"borrowed the idea of 1984, the plot, the main characters, the symbols and
the whole plot situation from the work We of Evgeny Zamyatin"
We see how behind the image of a great writer, lies the reality of a plagiarist of
stories, which served to elaborate theoretical and academic models on the functioning of
socialism in the Soviet Union totally adjusted to the requirements of imperialism in the
anti-communist Cold War. The impact of 1984 was tremendous among the population,
creating an atmosphere of anti-communist and anti-Soviet paranoia that was very effective
among the masses, as the disturbing personal testimony of Isaac Deutscher demonstrates:
"Have you read that book? You have to read it, sir. Then you will know why we have to drop
the atomic bomb on the Bolsheviks! With those words, a miserable blind newspaper vendor
recommended me in New York 1984 , a few weeks before Orwell's death".
H. Schmatz.
I am not a good book reader but I did read 1984 and it definitely seemed to be a veiled
critique on Communism.
However it seems the story is now more fitting to capitalism.
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), happily amplified by the Public Broadcasting
System (PBS) in the United States which carries its World News, continues to pump out its
regular dreck about the alleged economic chaos in Russia and the imagined miserable state of
the Russian people.
It is all lies of course. Patrick Armstrong 's
authoritative regular updates including his reports on this website are a necessary corrective
to such crude propaganda.
But amid all their countless fiascoes and failures in every other field (including the
highest per capita death rate from COVID-19 in Europe, and one of the highest in the world) the
British remain world leaders at managing global Fake News. As long as the tone remains
restrained and dignified, literally any slander will be swallowed by the credulous and every
foul scandal and shame can be confidently covered up.
None of this would have surprised the late, great George Orwell. It is fashionable these
days to endlessly trot him out as a zombie (dead but alleged to be living – so that he
cannot set the record straight himself) critic of Russia and all the other global news outlets
outside the control of the New York and London plutocracies. And it is certainly true, that
Orwell, whose hatred and fear of communism was very real, served before his death as an
informer to MI-5, British domestic security.
But it was not the Soviet Union, Stalin's show trials or his experiences with the Trotskyite
POUM group in Barcelona and Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War that "made Orwell Orwell" as
the Anglo-America Conventional Wisdom Narrative has it. It was his visceral loathing of the
British Empire – compounded during World War II by his work for the BBC which he
eventually gave up in disgust.
And it was his BBC experiences that gave Orwell the model for his unforgettable Ministry of
Truth in his great classic "1984."
George Orwell had worked in one of the greatest of all world centers of Fake News. And he
knew it.
More profoundly, the great secret of George Orwell's life has been hiding in plain sight for
70 years since he died. Orwell became a sadistic torturer in the service of the British Empire
during his years in Burma, modern Myanmar. And as a fundamentally decent man, he was so
disgusted by what he had done that he spent the rest of his life not just atoning but slowly
and willfully committing suicide before his heartbreakingly premature death while still in his
40s.
The first important breakthrough in this fundamental reassessment of Orwell comes from one
of the best books on him. "Finding George Orwell in Burma" was published in 2005 and written by
"Emma Larkin", a pseudonym for an outstanding American journalist in Asia whose identity I have
long suspected to be an old friend and deeply respected colleague, and whose continued
anonymity I respect.
"Larkin" took the trouble to travel widely in Burma during its repressive military
dictatorship and her superb research reveals crucial truths about Orwell. According to his own
writings and his deeply autobiographical novel "Burmese Days" Orwell loathed all his time as a
British colonial policeman in Burma, modern Myanmar. The impression he systematically gives in
that novel and in his classic essay "Shooting an Elephant" is of a bitterly lonely, alienated,
deeply unhappy man, despised and even loathed by his fellow British colonialists throughout
society and a ludicrous failure at his job.
This was not, however, the reality that "Larkin" uncovered. All surviving witnesses agreed
that Orwell – Eric Blair as he then still was – remained held in high regard during
his years in the colonial police service. He was a senior and efficient officer. Indeed it was
precisely his knowledge of crime, vice, murder and the general underside of human society
during his police colonial service while still in his 20s that gave him the street smarts,
experience, and moral authority to see through all the countless lies of right and left, of
American capitalists and British imperialists as well as European totalitarians for the rest of
his life.
The second revelation to throw light on what Orwell had to do in those years comes from one
of the most famous and horrifying scenes in "1984." Indeed, almost nothing even in the memoirs
of Nazi death camp survivors has anything like it: That is the scene where "O'Brien", the
secret police officer tortures the "hero" (if he can be called that) Winston Smith by locking
his face to a cage in which a starving rat is ready to pounce and devour him if it is
opened.
I remember thinking, when I was first exposed to the power of "1984" at my outstanding
Northern Irish school, "What kind of mind could invent something as horrific as that?") The
answer was so obvious that I like everyone else missed it entirely.
Orwell did not "invent" or "come up" with the idea as a fictional plot device: It was just a
routine interrogation technique used by the British colonial police in Burma, modern Myanmar.
Orwell never "brilliantly" invented such a diabolical technique of torture as a literary
device. He did not have to imagine it. It was routinely employed by himself and his colleagues.
That was how and why the British Empire worked so well for so long. They knew what they were
doing. And what they did was not nice at all.
A final step in my enlightenment about Orwell, whose writings I have revered all my life
– and still do – was provided by our alarmingly brilliant elder daughter about a
decade ago when she too was given "1984" to read as part of her school curriculum. Discussing
it with her one day, I made some casual obvious remark that Orwell was in the novel as Winston
Smith.
My American-raised teenager then naturally corrected me. "No, Dad, " she said. "Orwell isn't
Winston, or he's not just Winston. He's O'Brien too. O'Brien actually likes Winston. He doesn't
want to torture him. He even admires him. But he does it because it's his duty."
She was right, of course.
But how could Orwell the great enemy of tyranny, lies and torture so identify with and
understand so well the torturer? It was because he himself had been one.
"Emma Larkin's" great book brings out that Orwell as a senior colonial police officer in the
1920s was a leading figure in a ruthless war waged by the British imperial authorities against
drug and human trafficking crime cartels every bit as vicious and ruthless as those in modern
Ukraine, Columbia and Mexico today. It was a "war on terror" where anything and everything was
permitted to "get the job done."
The young Eric Blair was so disgusted by the experience that when he returned home he
abandoned the respectable middle class life style he had always enjoyed and became, not just an
idealistic socialist as many in those days did, but a penniless, starving tramp. He even
abandoned his name and very identity. He suffered a radical personality collapse: He killed
Eric Blair. He became George Orwell.
Orwell's early famous book "Down and Out in London and Paris" is a testament to how much he
literally tortured and humiliated himself in those first years back from Burma. And for the
rest of his life.
He ate miserably badly, was skinny and ravaged by tuberculosis and other health problems,
smoked heavily and denied himself any decent medical care. His appearance was always
abominable. His friend, the writer Malcolm Muggeridge speculated that Orwell wanted to remake
himself as a caricature of a tramp.
The truth clearly was that Orwell never forgave himself for what he did as a young agent of
empire in Burma. Even his literally suicidal decision to go to the most primitive, cold, wet
and poverty-stricken corner of creation in a remote island off Scotland to finish "1984" in
isolation before he died was consistent with the merciless punishments he had inflicted on
himself all his life since leaving Burma.
The conclusion is clear: For all the intensity of George Orwell's experiences in Spain, his
passion for truth and integrity, his hatred of the abuse of power did not originate from his
experiences in the Spanish Civil War. They all flowed directly from his own actions as an agent
of the British Empire in Burma in the 1920s: Just as his creation of the Ministry of Truth
flowed directly from his experience of working in the Belly of the Beast of the BBC in the
early 1940s.
George Orwell spent more than 20 years slowly committing suicide because of the terrible
crimes he committed as a torturer for the British Empire in Burma. We can therefore have no
doubt what his horror and disgust would be at what the CIA did under President George W. Bush
in its "Global War on Terror." Also, Orwell would identify at once and without hesitation the
real fake news flowing out of New York, Atlanta, Washington and London today, just as he did in
the 1930s and 1940s.
Let us therefore reclaim and embrace The Real George Orwell: The cause of fighting to
prevent a Third World War depends on it.
"... 1978 was the last year real wages showed significant growth in real terms in the USA. After that, came the great stagnation of the neoliberal era (1978-2008), 30 consecutive years of frozen earns for the American working classes. This era is not marked by a slow down in consumption, though. On the contrary: consumption continued to rise, but, this time, it was mainly debt-fueled. Americans wages stagnated, but they didn't want to give up their hyperconsumption privileges, so they contracted debt after debt. ..."
"... As the timeline shows, it is a myth neoliberalism begun in the USA only with Reagan's election in 1980. Most neoliberal reforms begun during Jimmy Carter's second half of his lonely term (1978-1980). It was Jimmy Carter, for example, who hired (nominated) Paul Volcker to the Fed. Other essential Acts that paved the way to neoliberalism were also passed during Jimmy Carter's later part of the reign. ..."
"... I heard some politician suggest that while many of the jobs will never come back that people can learn to code. We need drug testing for our politicians. I 'code' and I'm wetting my pants. It's not because I think that it's so easy I an be easily replaced but but we still need demand. If everyone is losing their jobs ... terrifies me. ..."
If it were true why would they need to repeat it again and again? The American Dream died
in 1969 - the last year of the post-war miracle in the USA. For the following five years, the
country continued to flourish, but at a clear slower pace. With the oil crisis of 1974-5, the
American Dream definitely died, albeit some indicators (e.g. real wages) still showed some
improvements.
1978 was the last year real wages showed significant growth in real terms in the USA.
After that, came the great stagnation of the neoliberal era (1978-2008), 30 consecutive years
of frozen earns for the American working classes. This era is not marked by a slow down in
consumption, though. On the contrary: consumption continued to rise, but, this time, it was
mainly debt-fueled. Americans wages stagnated, but they didn't want to give up their
hyperconsumption privileges, so they contracted debt after debt.
As the timeline shows, it is a myth neoliberalism begun in the USA only with Reagan's
election in 1980. Most neoliberal reforms begun during Jimmy Carter's second half of his
lonely term (1978-1980). It was Jimmy Carter, for example, who hired (nominated) Paul Volcker
to the Fed. Other essential Acts that paved the way to neoliberalism were also passed during
Jimmy Carter's later part of the reign.
Not only does the headline "The American Dream is Alive and Well" need to be repeated ad
nauseam but also the narrative it promotes, of the immigrant family that succeeds through
sheer hard work and dedication and nothing else - no help from government subsidies or
relatives already in the country, no dependence on bank loans that help start a business or
put teenagers through college, no discrimination whatsoever - has to be hammered constantly
over and over, even when everyone can see that the story template no longer has any legs if
it ever had any.
For all the sophisticated techniques and tools of propaganda that the likes of Edward
Bernays and his followers in the PR industry bequeathed to the US, the elites and their mass
media lackeys can't even get the repetition to look and sound more than banal and
one-dimensional.
Jen @6: "For all the sophisticated techniques and tools of propaganda that the likes of
Edward Bernays and his followers in the PR industry bequeathed to the US, the elites and
their mass media lackeys can't even get the repetition to look and sound more than banal and
one-dimensional."
Nice observation that incompetence is pervasive even among the empire's most important
servants. It must be asked, though, if better talent is really necessary? The propaganda and
brainwashing may be ham fisted and blunt as a hammer, but it does seem to work
nonetheless.
Anyway, the more sophisticated brainwashing is not in the infotainment field but rather in
the supposedly pure entertainment domain. Redneck dynasties built upon the monster
retail bonanza from selling duck lures, for example. Those implant "The American
Dream" directly into the subconscious without the need for awkward capitalist ideological
exposition, bypassing any potential bullshit filters that the typical media consumers might
possess.
I wonder what America would have become if sociopaths like Allen Dulles hadn't relocated to
Nazi braintrust after WWII. maybe it was inevitable that we would become the 4th reich.
David Talbot's book The Devil's Chessboard should be required reading for all
Americans.
Jen @6: "For all the sophisticated techniques and tools of propaganda that the likes of
Edward Bernays and his followers in the PR industry bequeathed to the US, the elites and
their mass media lackeys can't even get the repetition to look and sound more than banal and
one-dimensional."
Nice observation that incompetence is pervasive even among the empire's most important
servants. It must be asked, though, if better talent is really necessary? The propaganda and
brainwashing may be ham fisted and blunt as a hammer, but it does seem to work
nonetheless.
Anyway, the more sophisticated brainwashing is not in the infotainment field but rather in
the supposedly pure entertainment domain. Redneck dynasties built upon the monster
retail bonanza from selling duck lures, for example. Those implant "The American
Dream" directly into the subconscious without the need for awkward capitalist ideological
exposition, bypassing any potential bullshit filters that the typical media consumers might
possess.
We all know these main stream media outlets do little more than pump out propaganda to the
ignorant masses who need someone to tell them what they want to hear.
Wow, those guys were phoning it in. 1. Their dreamland pieces were identical to the ones
in 2015, 2. the bottom 20% who they claim either don't have it so bad or can easily improve
their lot, have been gutted like a fish and left out to dry. Did people write these opinion
pieces or robots, robots could easily replace their jobs, pity their jobs won't be automated
but I really don't see why they couldn't be. Actually Neocons could be replaced by
automatons.
I heard some politician suggest that while many of the jobs will never come back that
people can learn to code. We need drug testing for our politicians. I 'code' and I'm wetting
my pants. It's not because I think that it's so easy I an be easily replaced but but we still
need demand. If everyone is losing their jobs ... terrifies me.
As an aside that is nonetheless relevant, dealing as it does with issues of the
responsibility that banks have for the mess in this world, I recommend watching the TV
series, "Devils", described here on Wikipedia:
London, 2011. The Italian Massimo Ruggero is the head of trading at the banking giant
American New York - London Bank (NYL). While the financial crisis is raging across Europe,
Massimo is making hundreds of millions thanks to speculation. His mentor is Dominic Morgan,
the American CEO of NYL and the closest thing to a father Massimo has ever had. He fully
supports it, the talented trader seems to be the first choice in the run for vice-CEO. But
when Massimo is unwillingly involved in a scandal that sees his ex-wife implicated as an
escort, Dominic denies him the promotion, instead choosing the old school banker Edward
Stuart.
Massimo is amazed: his father turns his back on him. Convinced that he has been set up,
Massimo is determined to bring out the truth, but when Edward suddenly dies, Massimo
realizes that something bigger is at stake. With the help of his team and a group of
hackers, Massimo will discover the plot hidden behind apparently unrelated events such as
the Strauss-Kahn scandal, the war in Libya and the PIIGS crisis. Finding himself in front
of the Devils who pull the ropes of the world, Massimo will have to choose whether to fight
them or join them.
The series is well-written and well-acted. If you have access to it (I get it off the
Internet, but it does not appear to be available in the US market yet), it's well worth
watching. It is in some ways better than "Deep State", the spy series that was on a season or
two ago. It has already been renewed for a second season.
Interesting book "Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime " published in 2013 by PETER C
GØTZSCHE
He points out "Science philosopher Karl Popper in "The Open Society and Its Enemies"
depicts the totalitarian, closed society as a rigidly ordered state in which freedom of
expression and discussion of crucial issues are ruthlessly suppressed. Most of the time, when
I have tried to publish unwelcome truths about the drug industry, I have been exposed to the
journal's lawyers, and even after I have documented that everything I say is correct and have
been said before by others, I have often experienced that important bits have been removed or
that my paper was rejected for no other reason than fear of litigation. This is one of the
reasons I decided to write this book, as I have discovered that I have much more freedom when
I write books. Popper would have viewed the pharmaceutical industry as an enemy of the open
society.
Rigorous science should put itself at risk of being falsified and this practice should be
protected against those who try to impede scientific understanding, as when the industry
intimidates those who discover harms of its drugs. Protecting the hypotheses by ad hoc
modifications, such as undeclared changes to the measured outcomes or the analysis plan once
the sponsor has seen the results, or by designing trials that make them immune to refutation,
puts the hypotheses in the same category as pseudoscience.
In healthcare, the open democratic society has become an oligarchy of corporations whose
interests serve the profit motive of the industry and shape public policy, including that of
weakened regulatory agencies. Our governments have failed to regulate an industry, which has
become more and more powerful and almighty, and failed to protect scientific objectivity and
academic curiosity from commercial forces."
Thats about it in a nutshell. Too bad the good scientists are all muzzled. Only the
politicized fraudsters get the good press.
Coronavirus To Decimate Colleges and Universities Posted on
May 12, 2020 by Yves Smith "Decimate" might be too
charitable a forecast for American higher educational institutions, since the word originated
with the Roman army practice of killing one man in ten. Coronavirus is hitting pretty much all
of the bad aspects of their business models at once.
Let's list them:
Dependence on/preference for foreign students, often not for their accomplishments but for
their ability to pay full and even premium fees . Chinese students accounted for one-third of
the total. Their enrollment was already falling as of 2019.
Universities in English-speaking countries, especially Britain, Australia and the United
States, have grown increasingly dependent on tuition from Chinese students, a business model
that the virus could dismantle.
With qualifying exams postponed, travel bans spreading and anger rising among Chinese
students and parents at the West's permissive attitude toward public health, enrollment could
plummet in the coming years, experts said, potentially leaving countries with multibillion-
dollar holes in their universities' budgets.
Foreign students were dismayed by the way US schools shut down abruptly and gave little to
no help in helping get them back home.
Skyrocketing prices leading more students to question college or emphasize "practical"
degrees . As with mortgages, access to debt has led to higher prices. And with student debt
terms so draconian, more and more students are trading down: going to cheaper schools or
focusing on programs that teach harder skills that hopefully translate into market value.
Bloated adminispheres and gold plated facilities . MBA parasites have colonized
universities, with the justification often that they increase fundraising. For what purpose? To
pay themselves better, and to create naming opportunities for donors with new buildings, and to
justify high charges via plush dormitories. Apparently swanky gyms are common.
All those expensive buildings have become an albatross.
Now consider the impact of coronavirus.
Litigation over terminating on-campus instruction . This is probably the least of their
worries. Plaintiffs are seeking refunds for the degradation of the educational product. The
schools argue quite explicitly that they are not in the business of educating but of conferring
credentials, and it is they alone that determine what is adequate for them to hand out a
degree. There is precedent supporting the universities' arguments, albeit with less bad facts
than these.
Low likelihood of resuming classes on campus this fall . My colleagues with contacts among
university administrators say no one has any idea how to make dorms safe if coronavirus is
still on the loose. This has many negative implications.
Why should students and/or their parents be willing to pay full prices for a degraded
product? They won't get interaction with instructors. For science and engineering classes, they
won't get lab work. They won't get to make connections and meet potential mates. They won't get
tips from other students on career and summer job strategies. They won't get to participate in
extracurricular activities, which is a low-stakes way to learn to work with other people. They
won't learn how to grow up in a somewhat protected environment.
There is the very real possibility that employers will downgrade the value of degrees
conferred during the plague years.
It's hard to see how colleges and universities escape cutting tuition, save perhaps the most
elite. I can't see any schools besides the most elite can maintain their charges without seeing
a big falloff in enrollment. And with them administering classes remotely, the cost of delivery
has fallen. And that's before seeing students postponing or abandoning degrees due to the
horrible state of the economy.
And what happens to university budgets due to the loss of room and board income?
Schools already looking at probable downgrades . Standard & Poors is already put a long
list of higher educational institutions on its negative watch list. Bear in mind that S&P
and Moody's tend not to downgrade before Mr. Market already has the bond trading at a lower
rating level.
From an April 30 Ratings Action :
The public and private colleges and universities affected by these actions include
primarily those with lower ratings ('BBB' rating category and below), but also those entities
that, in our opinion, have less holistic flexibility (from both a market position and
financial standpoint) at their current rating level
While S&P Global Ratings' outlook on the U.S. not-for-profit higher education sector
has been negative for three consecutive years now, we believe that the COVID-19 pandemic and
related economic and financial impacts exacerbate pressures already facing colleges and
universities. The financial impact on institutions from the loss of auxiliary revenue from
housing and dining fees, and parking fees; as well as revenues from athletics, theater, and
other events, is material for many. For schools with health care systems, lost revenue from
cancelled elective surgical procedures could also be significant. The recently passed CARES
Act will provide some budgetary relief to higher education institutions; however, despite
this aid, we expect to see stressed operating budgets, the scope of which will ultimately be
determined by the magnitude of lost revenues, the duration of the pandemic, fall 2020 mode of
instruction, and ultimate enrollment figures.
Colleges and universities have reacted rapidly to the challenges presented by the
pandemic. They have moved classes online to adhere to social-distancing rules, adjusted
admission policies to accommodate disruptions to high school exams, and suspended academic
conferences and travel. At the same time, many have implemented material expense cuts,
including deferring capital expenditures, and imposing furloughs and layoffs, in some cases,
with plans to continue to ramp up cost containment under various fall scenarios. Many
colleges and universities have disclosed estimates of 2020 budget shortfalls, despite the
inclusion of CARES stimulus funds. We expect that the colleges and universities we rate will
face an unprecedented level of operating stress and tightened liquidity, which will worsen
the longer and deeper the pandemic lasts.
It is also not clear how much more help the Federal government will be willing to provide.
Even though Congresscritters will be under pressure to help institutions in their district, the
flip side is the Republicans know well that higher educational institutions are a Democratic
party province, so they won't be high on their list of rescue priorities.\\
This section seems very much behind the curve, as if S&P talks to too many Wall Street
types who are betting on a V shaped recovery:
Many of the colleges and universities that we rate have some headroom to absorb the
impacts associated with COVID-19 at their current credit ratings, as they have built up
reserves over recent years, hold solid balance sheets, and have relatively low debt levels.
However, colleges and universities will face increased downward pressure on their current
ratings depending on the extent to which economic disruptions associated with COVID-19
persist. If global travel restrictions are prolonged, or the imminent recession diminishes
foreign students' financial means, then some could opt to study or work in their home
countries instead. In our opinion, a fall 2020 with significantly fewer international
students, as well as lower domestic enrollments overall, will cause serious operational
pressures. At the same time, most U.S. colleges and universities depend on endowments and
fundraising for a significant portion of revenues, and declining investment performance and
endowment market values along with weaker fundraising results could negatively affect credit
metrics during the outlook period.
I strongly suggest you look at the list. You'll see many familiar names. In particular, the
ones at the very bottom group, which already had a negative outlook before coronavirus, are the
most downgrade exposed. Interestingly, Northwestern, which went to the "hedge fund with a
university attached" model early and has an AAA rating, is in that cohort. Did they have an
even bigger than typical blow up in their portfolio?
Needless to say, this isn't cheery reading. While the universities set themselves for a big
fall, a lot of people who had nothing to do with the bad policies will get hurt.
As an aside, this is another reason why the 'we should relax lockdown as soon as possible'
crowd are so very misguided. The education business, along with so many others, gears up
after the August holidays right across the northern hemisphere. For many countries, there is
a good chance of suppressing the virus between now and the summer so that there can be at
least some sort of normalcy restored from August onwards. At the very least, this gives a
chance of a normal academic year for students. But this is only a possibility if infection
rates can be brought down to a 'track and trace' level over the summer. Failing to do this by
September will be devastating for all education providers. The UK third level sector, already
hit by Brexit, will be similarly wiped out if the virus is visibly not under control by
then.
Although they are unprofitable for almost all schools, I'm not sure that the impact from
cancelling the season is as clear cut, especially for the large D-I programs. Many of the
costs like million-dollar coaches, hundred million-dollar stadiums are fixed. Scholarships
will likely continue as well. Schools can probably cut costs of the lower paid employees
without contracts, like assistant coaches and trainers, but I don't think those are the
biggest drivers of costs.
Gameday revenues are almost certainly cashflow positive for the schools (ushers and
cleaners aren't paid very much); without them the football teams will be even bigger money
losers for the school. The schools might even get fees from their broadcast partners, as is
the case with many professional teams.
What happens with all these high-cost games like football and basketball if they cannot
get crowds to watch them? Do these crowds off-set much of the costs of staging these games? I
suppose that the institutes would be loath to drop them as they are such a "status" program
to have but I fail to understand how a coach in such a place is entitled to a multi-million
dollar salary as that money has to come from somewhere.
Most of their money is made through TV broadcasting rights, not in game ticket sales.
People will still watch them. Arguably even more people will watch them, although I don't
think that matters because the deals are already locked in with the various networks.
TV is the king but game day revenues are not insignificant for most of the big programs
that count on 70,000+ spectators times 7-8 home games a year.
Also agree with Another Scott that big-time college football especially has a lot of fixed
costs that will not go away if the season is cancelled. On the other hand, once you get
outside the big D1 programs, I do think cancelling football would be net cash flow
positive.
Comments like, "Football programs lose money" are so poorly thoughtout I just cant believe
they are posted here.
Honestly. . .
Huge amounts of dollars go through those programs and the benefit of that circulating
money to sooo many people and companies is enormous. There are many people who want to see
those programs continue.
If a Florida school thinks the price tag is too high, it is the begining of a series of
price negotiations. . . thats it. Come on!
first, your "quoted" material wasn't a quote in this write up or comments, so you can take
the quotes off. Second, look at the link Yves posted to see how football is a money pit for
many D1 schools. Third, I think I understand what you're trying to say that there's tons of
money flowing in and around college football, but the gist is that we're talking about the
impact to and financial ratings of colleges and universities and not the impact to the Purple
Porpoise in Gainesville, FL or similar establishments.
You make it sound like it doesn't matter if they lose money, because with all that money
sloshing around there then it's a net positive. The only problem is those universities aren't
there to slosh money around in their football programs, they are there so our society can be
an educated one. And when instead people start to think that the money sloshing around is
more important (as in all areas of human life) the part that was point of the whole endeavor
(as in, the education at the university) comes to look more like a cost. And what costs is
what is cut. And what is cut is degraded, given a higher price, and otherwise forced to
submit to those market forces that looks so good (well, at least when you have dollar signs
tattooed on your eyes).
The point is, whether football programs lose money or make lots of money slosh around,
this model is exactly the thing that is destroying our society, and exactly what needs to be
dismantled. So comments like "Football programs lose money" are exactly why people come
around here in the first place, and it seems you must be confused if you "can't believe they
are posted here."
AS A PSU grad and active alumnus I can attest that Penn State uses its massive football
revenues to fund ALL other of the school's sports programs. Though not part of the topic
being discussed, football Game day revenues also basically fund theTown of State College's
Downtown businesses FOR THE YEAR. And the full fare Chinese student contingent absolutely
'makes' the bottom line there. Those of us involved in alumni activities and meet with Board
members and others often are VERY worried .
If one reads the article, the key part of the statement about "most football programs lose
money" is that it's referring to FCS (Football Championship Series) schools which are the
"lower tier" Division 1 schools. Not Big10, SEC, etc. I don't think there's much in the way
of TV revenue for FCS either, except when they get a cut of the deal when playing a major
team (once or maybe twice a year).
My cousin attends Union and decided she'll take a leave of absence in the fall if they are
still remote.
Northeastern in Boston has stated they'll be back in the fall. I believe they are deeply
dependent on tuition revenue and have massive debts due to a campus expansion that must have
been costly due to Boston real estate prices.
In the UK, Queen Mary, Manchester (labouring under at least a billion pound debt for a
state of the art campus by the canals) and (private) Buckingham are teetering. Oxford is also
experiencing some discomfort.
I made this post unduly US focused due to having the S&P analysis, so thanks for
additional input on the UK. The New York Times article above made it clear that UK unis were
even more dependent than American ones on Chinese students paying hefty fees.
Thanks for that article. I've also heard that rumour about Queen Mary, is there any public
information about them?
I wonder how many other UK universities will announce redundancies in the coming months.
Would be interesting to know numbers of current vs. normal (last year) applications from Asia
for the coming year.
Yes, Edinburgh's situation is well known. Other prominent Scottish universities are in
similar positions, having gone all-in on rich international students to subsidise their "free
tuition for Scottish students" model. They're all very exposed now.
In England, I've heard of a number of institutions this week setting up voluntary
severance and redundancy schemes, with rather alarming stated goals for how many staff they
want to shed. Big, prestigious universities, too -- again, it's that reliance on
international students. The word I'm hearing repeatedly is "bloodbath."
Interesting NYT article about Bath. We live on campus (our house is a former uni property)
of another southwestern University, famous in no particular order for its campus being a
botanic garden, its current vice chancellor being about to retire after 20 years of
market-leading pay and it having closed its chemistry department, among others, 20 years ago
to make savings to pay for other priorities.
Again in no particular order, we gave remarked in the last few months:
– just how many east Asian students and junior faculty the place has attracted. We have
Japanese student lodgers!
– just how many purpose built student factory farms are being built in the city and,
more financially perilously, on the campus (building a massive student dorm extension campus
on farmland that was prime city centre green space and materially upgrading facilities at
other student blocks) and how distorted the local housing market is
– just how long the grass is getting since lockdown. There's little infection risk on a
single seater ride-on mower – the groundstaff, botanic garden not withstanding, have
been furloughed / laid off to save money. One vice chancellor's salary could pay for them
all. Austerity for thee, public subsidy for me.
– just how tone deaf the University is to assert its campus is now closed to the
public, when public roads run through it and it is used as a cycling and pedestrian right of
way to cross the northern half of the city. The buildings are closed and the students are in
their hutches. There is no danger of infection from people taking a walk from their confines
.
There is a big reckoning coming, with these bullying institutions suddenly acknowledging
their public and local obligations in return for a bailout.
Ps: I don't think the reaction of bath students to avoid sharing an elevator with a
Chinese student was racist. Just prudent. On a risk adjusted basis, a Chinese ethnicity
student is most likely a Chinese expat and if returning from Christmas or CNY to campus
represented a higher risk than a non-Chinese. I was very wary on my weekly commute in January
from London, of the Chinese students with big suitcases tagged Heathrow who were all getting
off at my stop . Tables have turned now, of course!
> They won't get to make connections and meet potential mates.
: Sherri Tepper: See. The word Festival. In the Onomasticon it carries the meaning
'opportunity for reproduction.' We talk of School House, but the book says, 'Protection of
Genetic Potential.' We say True Game. The book says 'Population control.'
The university of my town had moved from offering professions to Learning How To Learn in
the last couple decades. Along with that was the gilting, providing a shared cultural
experience, more in line with Tepper's definitions than educational outcomes. The incoming
cash provided support for community culture as well, restaurants, arts, weird shops. The
fallout for our cosmopolitan lifestyle in a small city is unfathomable.
Deeper even still, in the middle of the last century, educator Frank Templeton wrote from
the perspective that every citizen was like a brick, in the structure called a nation, and
schools made for strong bricks.
The harsh partial truth is that primary and secondary schools were hollowed out as daycare
centers to increase the labor pool. And many parents who were willing to pay to get the older
kids out of the house are now forced with a calculation: what's the roi on the
educational/professional dimension, and what's the roi on the social/Tepper dimension? If
both are low, why pay in this time of great uncertainty?
Chinese student applications are well down this year–this from direct knowledge at
one school and anecdotal at a few more. Companies that operate in China to connect students
to US institutions are laying off. And if numbers at any given school don't absolutely crater
(50%+), know that the discounting will have had to have been ramped up to make that possible.
Obviously there are health and safety concerns, but there is also a nasty political climate
with racist/xenophobic stuff coming from the Republicans that has been in some cases matched
by e.g. Biden campaign or NYT and that might clear the way for disastrous bans on
student/post-grad visas, if not increased violence.
University of Illinois "flagship" was prescient to purchase insurance from Lloyds Of
London for fortuitous Chinese student reduction risk. International students pay top dollar
rate. All good, their insurance broker should be commended!
Yesterday, Northwestern announced they are laying off ~250 personnel and cutting
administrative salaries 10 – 20% (so it must be serious). So much for the "safety" of a
higher education job.
On a tangential tack, locally, a slight majority of voters in our city passed a school
levy to firm-up/construct school dist. infrastructure – elementary/middle-school ..
with the future goal of a new shiny high school to replace the old/failing one. In the recent
years past, the school board and their boosters would put forth levies that amounted to Taj
Maschool 'wish-lists' .. which the community rightfully voted down. Same for the towns within
close proximity. So, the result of said measure .. even though it is lower that the previous
ones, is the rise, by hundreds of $$ annually (a bond floated, to be pay off in X years ..
only to have new one's brought forth after), to every property owner to achieve these goals
.. dollars that many would find a true burden Before the pandemic will be hit even harder
going forward. We are not what one would call a rich community .. unless one only considers
the movers/shakers/boosters. We rely less and less on timber exports – happening in
spades now! – with incoming revenue predicated on the vaunted idea of 'Tourism'.
'Sigh'
I see a failure of those same movers/shakers/boosters to consider that the whole college
track gristmill is the wrong approach .. bring back hands-on vocational training instruction
that was nixed years ago, having left it to the local college to do, with the added $-stream
THAT entails .. and put much less emphasis on 'college for college sake' There are a plethora
of skills that young folk are not being taught, that they will need for their very survival,
in a conflicted and low resource world! Imo, the Federal Dept. Of Ed needs to be abolished,
thus putting a end to it's often onerous 4 to 8 year changing 'mandates', and allow state and
local communities to come up with their own models of instruction. Sure, some will no doubt
fail, but I believe many others would in fact, thrive. There should of course be iron-clad
restrictions on just who has sway on funding and 'pull' (no hedgefunds/private equity/
scoundrels, rakes, and thieves !) Leave to the locals to hash out!
A little over a century ago, we had that kind of evironment, where children actually learned
of the world, whilst also becomeing proficient in the basics .. as well as taking on truly
practical skillsets .. from often small school settings – just look at an any exam
test-sheet from back then to get an idea of how badly we've handled things since. This
pandemic has brought to light our learned follies for sure.
Very true. I read that in EvanstonNow. Also saw a story from about a month ago about the
Wildcats 2020 prospects which IIRC previewed the 2020 schedule. So I guess college football
will go on even as colleges are decimated by the coronavirus. Priorities, indeed.
I looked this up. It does not appear to be as dire as you describe it. The staff members
are being temporarily furloughed, not laid off. And it is "university leaders" and deans that
are taking pay cuts. That is not administrative salaries generally. I am not saying it won't
get worse, just that it is not quite so terrible yet.
"University leadership said approximately 250 staff members will be temporarily
furloughed, the university will suspend 5% automatic and 5% match contributions to staff
retirement plans, and university leaders will take a 20% pay cut.
NU deans will also take a 10% pay cut reduction."
MBA parasites have colonized universities, with the justification often that they
increase fundraising. For what purpose? To pay themselves better, and to create naming
opportunities for donors with new buildings, and to justify high charges via plush
dormitories. Apparently swanky gyms are common.
I wish it were unique to the Anglosphere. Even here in Sweden one of the technical
universities in my city is in the midst of a big economic crisis. My friends who work there
as researchers attribute it to obscene administrative bloat that they've seen growing rampant
in the past decade. This is also after the implementation of big tuition fees for non-EU
students in 2011 (there were no tuition fees before that) which dramatically lowered the
quality of international applicants.
Athletic budgets (public institutions) in context: https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
The far right column is the key: percent of athletic budget that is "allocated," which means
the part of the budget that comes directly out of the hide of the institution and its
students. About two dozen of the usual suspects make a "profit." My alma mater is way
profitable but still takes several million from captives in "student fees." Private
institutions in the black would include Notre Dame, Stanford, USC, and probably Duke
(basketball, which disappeared this spring). Note what the athletic budget does to schools
like UCONN, Rutgers, and UMASS, not to mention the smaller state schools. Something's gotta
give. It won't be the athletic departments.
When I bring up these data with academic colleagues, especially from smaller institutions
that have reestablished football as the prime money pit over the past 25 years, all I ever
get is the bovine stare of disbelief.
To be fair, what this analysis doesn't take into account is how many students are going to
the school (or how much more they are paying) who would not have gone if there were no sports
teams
I know thats a dumb reason to choose a college, but remember these are 18 year olds making
a decision. I suspect many more than you would assume include going to a "winner" and
additional social tailgating events as part of their criteria
Additionally, I think there is a mentality, or pride, that you too can be like Duke in
basketball or Notre Dame in football. But, first you have to commit to winning, or invest
early.
Yes, this is the "intangibles, school spirit" argument, a perennial favorite of presidents
and athletic directors and boards of trustees. It may be somewhat valid at the larger schools
of the Power Five conferences (SEC; Big-10, where they apparently can't count to 14; ACC;
Pac-12; Big-12, actually 10) but absolutely nowhere else except Notre Dame. And even in these
conferences, the financial drain on some schools is huge. Way past time to realize the sunk
costs associated with college sports are simply lost. Georgia Tech and Berkeley need big time
college sports (i.e., football)? Really? Georgia Southern and Illinois State? Connecticut and
Rutgers? Robert Maynard Hutchins to the white courtesy phone, please. Yes, I am unreasonable,
but these are unreasonable times.
And except for a brief renascence under Lou Holtz, Notre Dame football hasn't been much
since Ara Parseghian retired and the Boys from Chicago are still and forever nonplussed about
that.
And there is the small irony of educational institutions promoting a sport that can cause
serious head and bodily injury (American football).
Maybe some football programs do eventually pay for themselves via alumni contributions,
but one wonders if there is a herd mentality in colleges NEEDING to have a football team.
I know of one University of Calif campus (UC Santa Barbara) that dropped its football team
in the late 1960's, weakly woke it up in 1987 and then dropped it again in 1992.
"1985 a student referendum approved funding for a Division III, non-scholarship team. The
team began play in 1987,.. with a 33-15 record from 1987 to 1991. However, in 1992 the NCAA
decided to forbid schools playing in Division I in other sports from maintaining a lower
level football program, and UCSB dropped the sport again."
Maybe other schools can learn from UCSB's experience?
My high school buddy played on the last 1960's football team at UCSB. As a student there,
many of us were too busy protesting the war and burning the IV bank than attending football
games.
I looked at the ncaa/finances link and saw the "allocated" section.
I find that focusing on the allocated % is misleading as a school with an athletic budget
of only $100 that is not covered by gate receipts would show as %100 allocated.
This could be put in more perspective if the allocated dollar amount is divided by the
number of students.
For example, the University of California, Davis shows up at a high 81.90% allocated with
the allocated amount of $30,680,083.
UC Davis shows as having a student population of 35,186 per Google.
Per student, this is about $872 per student per year.
While Connecticut shows up at a seemingly better 49.23% allocation, but spreading the
shortfall over the 32183 student body size of Connecticut gives a cost of $1213 per student
per year.
One can wonder why the document did not give the per student cost and instead published a
%allocation figure.
These are historic times and one of the biggest sacrifices this generation of college
students will have to make is sitting through Zoom classes.
Let's keep this in perspective. Missing college because you've been drafted to fight in a
war across the Pacific is not the same as delaying your college education because you can't
get drunk with your frat. In the coming years employers will look much favorably on students
that stuck to their 4 year plan regardless of the troubles they were (or thought they were)
facing.
The Chronicle is tracking individual colleges' plans. Currently the vast majority say they
are planning for an in-person fall semester. This database is not behind a paywall Here's
a List of Colleges' Plans for Reopening in the Fall We'll see when August rolls
around.
At my university, the Registrar calculated that our campus has only ONE room large enough
to seat more than 50 students maintaining 6 feet of separation.
The rule of thumb is that covid capacity is 25-30% of normal capacity, so most classes
will need to be capped at 20 students or fewer. Probably better for education, but very much
not compatible with business as usual.
I don't see any way we reopen in any way approaching normal.
My university is probably going to be requiring us to teach half of the students in a
class in the classroom, then half of the students in the class online, alternating which
group is taught in a classroom and online throughout the semester. Unless this doesn't work,
in which case we might go all online, or all in person. What is being suggested–I kid
you not–is that we design each of our courses for the Fall to be taught in any one of
three, or more, ways. We're also taking pay cuts and losing the university's contribution to
our 403b plans. Good news though, we're still going through with our application to the NCAA
for division 1 status!!
The rot at the top of the university structure runs deep, I am afraid.
P.S. And, of course, our annual evaluations–usually the basis for a raise of between
1-1.5%–will continue, even though we're all taking pay cuts. Lol
Thank you for this, Yves. The problem is much bigger – and with more ramifications
– than most people realise, even in the education world itself .
The Guardian article linked to by CS talks about some of the immediate financial problems
this year. IN addition, huge numbers of students are going to consider putting off going to
University, even in their own country, let alone abroad, because they can't be sure that the
classes will start on time, or even at all. There's an increasing tendency, especially in
Europe, for Universities to have highly complex exchange agreements with each other,
especially at Master's level: I've taught classes with fifteen nationalities, the majority on
exchange from elsewhere. At the best of times that's a logistic nightmare, and requires
complex software to juggle. It's worse because the tendency over recent decades has been to
replace traditional degrees with a few options, by Starbucks-style hand-made degrees
assembled from bits and pieces. This works, as long as all the students who have signed up to
come can and do arrive. Otherwise, it can mean empty classrooms or teachers with one student.
Chaos is the kindest word one can use to describe what might happen in September. Courses
will have to be cancelled and lecturers' contracts torn up. It's also going to make it
permanently much more problematic to run courses on the expectation that you can attract
foreign students and send your own abroad. I'm not sure, for example that I would now sign up
for a four-year degree in (let's say) Japanese or Latin American Studies including a year
abroad that might not materialise. Language degrees, indeed, are likely to be among the first
casualties: it's almost impossible for one person to teach, say, Japanese grammar on
line.
I've taught courses using Zoom, and to be honest it's better than nothing but not a lot
better. It only works if everybody is approximately on the same timezone, and even then, once
you get above twenty students you can't actually see all of them on the screen and you have
no idea who's listening and who's doing their Facebook page. The students get no interaction
with you, and if you are using Powerpoint or similar they may hardly see your face the whole
time. It's not clear that students in future years will sign up for courses where face to
face teaching could be suspended at any moment because the virus comes back. Remember that
the virus is now pretty much everywhere and could reappear pretty much everywhere over the
next few years. When you add to that that, even today, students expect to "go to" University
rather than have it come to them, and to at least start to mature and find their feet, you
have to wonder how attractive University is going to seem, especially given the frightening
costs involved.
The situation is no better in Europe. In France, governments over the last decade have
made a huge push to attract foreign students, not just at Universities, but at the elite
Grandes Écoles like Sciences Po in Paris, where a third of the student body is from
abroad and many courses are taught in English. (You can study for some degrees in France
without speaking the language). Not many people will pay for the privilege of hearing French
teachers teaching in English while cooped up in their parents' home in a country a long way
away. For some institutions this is going to be catastrophic.
I have to say, though, as somebody who's been involved with Universities most of my life,
that this isn't all bad. In the UK, for example, there are simply too many degree courses,
and people who aren't really up to it are paying lots of money they can't afford for courses
they don't need and won't use. This could be the start of a sanity check. It's interesting
that the two universities mentioned in the Guardian article, including that of the author,
didn't used to be universities at all. They were both Polytechnics, specialising in
vocational teaching, magically transformed into universities about 25 years ago by giving
them a new name. This has led to too many graduates chasing university jobs, and too many,
frankly, sub-standard courses. There'll be some winnowing out. Partly for bad reasons –
you can't put engineering courses entirely on line – and partly for good ones: do I
really need that Master's degree in Intersectional Theory?
Thanks for the insight, David. As someone who did a Masters in one of the former Poly's
(in Oxford) back in the 1990's I was astonished at the commercialisation and pressure on
teachers in comparison to what I'd experienced doing under and post grad study in
pre-crapified (if very under-resourced) Irish Universities in the 1980's. Even then, the
pressure the junior lecturers were put under seemed extreme. I'm told by lecturer friends
that its gotten much worse over the years. And don't get them started on the standard of some
of the fee paying students .
I hope you are wrong, btw, about Japanese grammar, as I've just started online classes in
precisely that topic!
Sorry, badly expressed.You can indeed study languages online – in fact I've
done so, including Japanese as it happens. What I was suggesting is that actually
teaching languages at degree level entirely on line, and especially when you've got
three writing systems to worry about, or when you have tonal systems, or non-standard sounds
to memorise and practice, is going to be a hell of a problem. I think there's a substantial
difference between studying a language online to use it, and studying it to degree level,
which at least in theory qualifies you to teach it.
In fact, I was just thinking of that yesterday, when watching an online conversation
between two YouTuber Japanese teachers who were discussing the different ways of approaching
the language. It seems to me to be a golden age for language learning, there are so many
great resources available cheap or almost free online (I'm still picking and choosing which
method works best for me and which ones are worth supporting), but at the same time, I was
wondering if this is positive or negative for the old fashioned academic method.
Newton spent two years on the farm during the plague years and invented the calculus and
some ground breaking physics. Not to be too optimistic but perhaps there are some young folks
who can profit from a bit of time alone to think and tinker.
Thanks, David. Lots to unpack there. Much appreciated. And my two cents is that out of
this historic pandemic, maybe our great established universities and colleges will drive
online huckster "universities" out of business.
In a general view from the cheap seats, the real bottleneck here is the elite's usage of
"degrees" as gateway metrics for employment decision making. Thus, the above mentioned
transformation of "Trades Schools" into "Universities." I personally have encountered
marginally competent managers who owe their positions to their credentials, and not any
displayed skills. I have also encountered grossly incompetent managers who are not replaced
by upper management because said upper management will not consider slotting "up from the
ranks" workers into positions that they are manifestly qualified for by virtue of hands on
working experience, but lacked credentials.
This also highlights the mingling of both "Higher Education" programs with "Trade School"
ones. As a rule of thumb, when one tries to be all things to all people, one ends up being
nothing to anyone.
One to keep an eye on is the University of Austrian Economics
Chicago.
Under its current president, they have been spending like crazy, are heavily tuition
dependent,
and (like Northwestern) have a large medical center which will have taken a massive hit
from the pause on elective surgeries.
While the University of Chicago has about the same amount of debt as Yale University in
New Haven, Connecticut, its $6.7 billion endowment is a third the size of the Ivy League
school's $20.8 billion. Chicago's debt as a percentage of its endowment is 54 percent,
compared with 17 percent for Yale.
Harvard, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Stanford University, near Palo Alto,
California, have the most notes and bonds among the 20 richest schools. Yet as a percentage
of their endowments, the obligations represent about 17 percent and 26 percent,
respectively.
It would be a damn shame if the home of expansionary austerity were to end up in the
financial ICU,
on the receiving end of Dr. Market's shock therapy.
"The schools argue quite explicitly that they are not in the business of educating but of
conferring credentials, and it is they alone that determine what is adequate for them to hand
out a degree. There is precedent supporting the universities' arguments."
"What is adequate",
didn't arise as a product of public debate (as it should have in a democracy),
but as a distillation of private discussion. Their ideas contradict the original American
charter
veneer (of/by/for) but that doesn't disturb them. After all, they are on a mission.
A "doctrine of faith" was/is their cognitive source
Dewey's Pedagogic Creed statement of 1897:
"Every teacher should realize he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of the
proper
social order and the securing of the right social growth. In this way the teacher is always
the
prophet of the true God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of heaven."
Not to worry, if credentialism doesn't fly your kite, we have salvation by consumption,
or
redemption via electoral saviors
Student jobs are probably some of the first to go, definitely anybody with a job on campus
is probably now out of work. My brother lives in a small college town and he says it's a
ghost town. Their economy depends on students spending their loan/mom/dad's money.
If I were a student, I would be seriously thinking twice about taking a semester off,
moving back with my parents and waiting for things to shake out. Who wants to do zoom
classes? No way would I have been disciplined enough to self study at that age (or even
now).
College is still in session in a lot of places. It would be interesting to know how many
students have already disappeared.
My local California community college transitioned to online classes mid- Spring semester.
Most of the foreign students (Chinese, Scandinavian, European, etc.) returned home pronto.
Registration for Fall 2020 classes (likely to again be online) is way down.
Colleges are huge economic drivers in most towns. It sustains high rental income for
landlords, lots of late's for Starbuck's, and retail stores soak up mucho dinero from them.
Fortunately the wild and crazy driving antics around campus have abated.
It would really be a shame if colleges and universities were forced to cut some of their
bloated administrations in order to make up for the shortfall How would we ever get along
without the people who go to meetings all day?
+1. CU Boulder just built a massive building which they call the Center for Academic
Excellence. I thought the university was already such a center, but apparently not.
What goes on in the Center for Academic Excellence? Is any teaching done there? No. It's
extra office space for the administrators/mbas.
I remember a faculty member (an Australian, naturally) at my home institution commenting
on our recently established Center for Excellence in Something-or-Other: Why don't they just
go ahead and call it the Center for Mediocrity in Something-or-Other ? That one stuck with me
during my subsequent peregrinations. I have been fortunate to avoid such centers during my
career.
Well, no luck so far after the first round of furloughs. Some of the admin had their pay
reduced (don't worry they'll still make well into six figures next year), but they all still
have jobs.
I am in Mass., retired and teach part time at two local colleges, one private and one a
community college. The private college has already cut some classes for the fall semester,
which they are trying to find a way to hold on-campus this fall. They are hoping to reinstate
some of these canceled classes if enrollments of incoming freshmen increase in the next
several weeks. As for the community college, it is conceivable -but who knows?-enrollments
will increase due to the low cost option it presents compared to private colleges and
universities -and even to public universities.
Academic museum directors know their fortunes are tied to those of their parent
institutions.
Some worry about the possibility that collections could be raided to raise funds.
Rather than worrying about this possibility, shouldn't they be embracing the
disruption?
Campus art museums can be at the innovative cutting edge of modern higher ed finance.
For $35 million, shouldn't a job creator on the Board of Trustees get more than his name
(and it's usually a he) over the entrance to another cookie-cutter new dorm?
I'll take the small Turner for the master bath, the Modigliani for the dining room,
and a really big Rothko for the wine cellar.
I am at a University and I can speak to the fact that it is shaping up to be complicated.
Some institutions are clearly more leveraged than others but there has been another factor
which is the increasing focus of institutions on branding. Some of the bigger names e.g. MIT
and even some "state" schools such as Berkeley have long since shifted from serving their
communities to being international brands. The others like mine have attracted large foreign
populations which supplement some programs notably in STEM fields but also maintain mostly
local students.
As a side note the risk for the non-US students is partially travel though Trump's
behavior has already turned some off. It is also their own domestic economies. Despite the
happy talk China's economy is taking a big hit from this and will continue to do so. Going
abroad requires someone at home having the money to send you. That is less of a thing.
Going forward one route is already being shopped around in the groupthink of record
(NYMag) The Coming
Disruption Scott Galloway predicts a handful of elite cyborg universities will soon
monopolize higher education. . The model here is neoliberal education on steroids or
"MIT+Google" basically take the existing brands serve them up to 10,000 students and have the
major brands survive by eating the weak. This of course completely sheds the idea of
education or college as a public institution and doubles down on the credentialing concept
with the assumption that students will prefer Amazon-approved educational materials delivered
in the comfort of their home over learning from a live instructor.
Call it disaster education.
The idea is clearly an update of the "Moocs will kill education" argument and is being
trotted out as "inevitable" by someone with extensive silicon valley connections who clearly
believes that he will be one of the survivors. Interestingly there is no notion that this
education will be better for anyone (except the smaller slice of winners) only that it will
allow the already wealthy to survive. For all that the interviewee makes two points that are
salient:
Let's look at Apple. It does something like $250 billion a year in revenue. Apple has to
convince its stockholders that its stock price will double in five years, otherwise its
stockholders will go buy Salesforce or Zoom or some other stock. Apple doesn't need to
double revenue to double its stock price, but it needs to increase it by 60 or 80 percent.
That means, in the next five years, Apple probably needs to increase its revenue base by
$150 billion. To do this, you have to go big-game hunting. You can't feed a city raising
squirrels. People ask if big tech wants to get into education and health care, and I say
no, they have to get into education and health care. They have no choice. (emphasis
mine)
So even the proponents are clear that this kind of eat-the-system approach is all about
stock boosting.
That's the unfortunate part. When the government isn't able to bail out America,
billionaires step in. But it always comes at a price. Those people become largely
untouchable, and they can't be removed from office. Right now, we're in a situation where
it's no longer NASA putting us on Mars or the CDC testing us for antibodies. It's Elon Musk
and Jeff Bezos. Basically, thanks to billionaires, you're going to pay the lowest tax
rates.
And again it all comes back to tax rates, although so far as I can tell it is not my rates
that keep getting lowered. Whether the economy is working for everyone? Who cares.
That said there is of course another alternative which is to treat education as a service
again and to fund the government again so that we can actually build the nation not in a few
power centers but everywhere. This would be driven by the recognition that the students
taking MIT+Google online gain no real benefit if they continue to live in a community with no
jobs and that such an eat the young approach will only speed the slow death of the states.
But that is not Wall Street's concern.
Rebuilding communities would mean making sustained community investments and paring down
our obsession with branded elites in favor of local institutions. But doing that requires
governing for Americans not Wall St.
My uni's admin sent out an email saying something along the lines of "our uni isn't a
'place', it's an intellectual endeavor that continues even when we're apart. We're a global
enterprise that can be joined and participated in from anywhere." They're trying to convince
parents and students that remote online learning has the same value as in-person classes, lab
work, and faculty mentoring. (Not to mention the 'college experience' and meeting people in
your age group who you may meet again in your career.)
I'm afraid the uni's sales pitch is running into strong headwinds. Parents have no
interest in paying full, high dollar tuition for half a college experience. Students have no
interest in paying full, high dollar tuition for online only classes.
adding: a few years ago, the admin went all in on a public-private debt financed
real estate development campus buildings scheme that has left it in a world
of financial hurt, even with full enrollment and high tuition. For some reason the endowment
(huge) is never touched as a funding source for dire times. Nor are the sports programs'
funding. odd.
Higher education in the US is not necessarily a Democrat environment. The professoriat may
be liberal, but the regents and administration can be extremely right wing – as is the
case of the University of Colorado, where I taught.
The President of Northwestern, Morty Schapiro, was the President of my undergrad alma
mater (Williams College) back in the early 2000s. I personally tousled with him, made fun of
him on the dais as Class Commencement Speaker at graduation, called him names in the school
paper -- because then, I saw, though I may not have had a fully adult consideration of it,
that he was a tool for The Money Power. Outright contempt for the scholarship kids who
couldn't get donations.
Scuttlebut from Professors, with whom I was close, both in the humanities and stories I
heard from my friends in the Sciences, was that while "Morty" (as he demanded to be jocularly
known) led a building wave that tore down much of a quaint semi-rustic campus and put the
endowment funds in the hands of banksters, which came a'cropper in 2008 when he had
providentially moved on to better and brighter opportunities . at Northwestern!
It seems he did much the same there.
On a tangential note, I was a grad student during the Great Financial Crisis of '08, and
in the State of Michigan, which was among the worst hit (poor Michigan, so far from God, so
close to the United States .), the differences that a hit to endowment reserves entailed were
immediately and viscerally felt. A good example: food. Before the Crisis, we'd be treated to
sumptuous, delicious spreads, Indian, Middle Eastern, quiches and cakes, you name it. After
the crisis -- if there was anything beyond coffee and rolls, you might be lucky to grab some
pizza or fruit. It was night and day. And that was at a relatively rich institution.
As someone who teaches at a community college that was holding on by the skin of its teeth
beforehand, I am not optimistic as to its long-term viability.
If your family still has the money for this sort of thing, and there is a college that is
very hard to get into that you would like to attend – in one manner or another –
this would be a good year to apply. There will be less competition for admission.
Maybe the pandemic will bring a partial reprieve to small local rural colleges. People
with money may decide to send their children to someplace like St. Olaf (if they live in that
state). It is easier to arrange physical distancing when you have lots of open space –
rather than eg. at NYU or Columbia. And if the kids have to come home in a hurry, they will
still be in-state. And they won't be bringing back big city exposure.
St. Olaf is a very good small private college in Minnesota. Much respect to them. This
doesn't diminish the sudden new larger requirements for the larger world, as is. imo.
We are living in strange times indeed, this crisis raises many questions about the nature of
freedom and what our expectations are, or should be. Everyone has their own notions about what
freedom means and how far that should extend to oneself and indeed, to everyone else.
I want to start with a look at where we've come from before I look at where we are now, as I
feel it gives a better understanding of our definitions of freedom and a better context for
viewing where we are, at this moment in time.
Society probably started with the tribe – maybe not even having a leader if the
numbers where small enough, say 10 people. Tribes of scores or more obviously became hard to
manage and so, undoubtedly, this led to the idea of a leader or a group of leaders – a
chief, or a council of chiefs. Such a system seems to have worked well, so long as the chiefs
acted in the best interest of the tribe, and not in their own best interest. Tribes and early
kingdoms often had a mechanism for dealing with a poor leader – the symbolic marriage of
the leader to the land and the right to depose, or even execute, a leader that failed to live
up to expectations.
Such concepts of leadership are ancient but have survived in various places into the modern
era, including Ireland where I live. Although the practice associated with this custom is long
gone, knowledge of it remains vaguely in the public consciousness and more definitively in the
realms of scholarship and Celtic Neo-Paganism. However, societies across the globe began to
move beyond this cherished accountability millenia ago – with the rise of despotic
monarchy, something that still exists as an unfortunate anachronism even now.
As tribes grew into countries and countries grew into empires, monarchs became decreasingly
accountable to their citizens, or rather subjects – those who are subjugated. While many
monarchs felt an obligation, both 'divine' and moral to behave with care and responsibility,
others acted in pure self interest, free of any accountability for their actions. With the
backing a large army or, sizeable personal guard, it became increasing difficult to hold
monarchs accountable and one had to rely on goodwill in most cases, rather than
enforcement.
Of course, there have been countless deposing of monarchs, by the people or by rival
claimants, although the latter didn't always turn out to be beneficial. Probably the most
famous of these is that of Galus Julius Caesar, the Dictator for life of the final years of the
Roman Republic, who gave his name to the title Caesar, Czar and Keiser. He was brutally
murdered by Brutus (hence the word brutal) and we all know how that turned out the for Roman
Republic.
The republic itself was a form of democracy, based on an earlier model from Greece, a
civilization that had immense influence on Rome. Of course, Athenian democracy was nothing like
what we now regard as democracy. The right to decide how government was organised and what it
did fell to the hands of an elite group - demokratia , or "rule by the people" was only for
citizens and of these, only the men could vote. At the time (507 BC) this meant 40,000 men, out
of a much larger population, but in reality no more than about 5000 men could attend
assemblies, due to other commitments. Still, it was a ground-breaking step, so long as you
weren't a foreigner, criminal, woman, child or a slave.
It is from these Greek origins that we get the word democracy and the notion of rights and
freedom for all. Over time there have been variations on this model that have been tried out
– constitutional monarchies, republics, socialist states, fascist states and communist
states, which have varying levels of input for the masses. The masses might also be referred to
as 'plebeians' as the Romans liked to call ordinary folk, a corrupted form of which still
exists as a minor insult - pleb.
However, through most of recorded history, the most common system has been monarchy,
although one could hardly describe it as the most popular. Simpler than a democracy and easy to
enforce – notions such as corruption, fairness and accountability do not come into play,
as divine rule (e.g. the divine right of kings) gives the ruler carte blanche to do whatever
they god-damn like, unless their despotism provokes a revolt. Of course, revolt has happened,
from time to time, throughout history and one of the most famous ones is that of the barons in
England against king John.
The Magna Carta (Great Charter, of 1215) is considered by many as the bedrock of Western
civilization and democracy, despite the fact that it only gave limited concessions to a very
small number of nobles. It was a start at least, and perhaps enabled further inroads into the
monarchic monopoly on power. The Peasants' Revolt of 1381, against Richard II of England was a
major shift. Led by a commoner (Wat Tyler) it was a great embarrassment for Richard, who did
not have a standing army on hand. He was forced to pretend to negotiate with the rebels, who
camped at Blackheath, while he secretly ordered the Mayor of London to raise an army to
disperse and execute the protestors.
There are countless other examples of rebellion against monarchs across the world, but most
of them are forgotten. Perhaps the best remembered rebellion is that of the French paupers,
against the Bourbon monarchy and the entire aristocracy of France. This violent and
bloodthirsty revolution sent shudders of terror across the monarchies of the world and
precipitated a programme of reform, based on fear of similar events occurring.
Of course, some countries carried on regardless – Russia and America being
particularly sad examples, as Russia only abolished serfdom in 1861, while USA only abolished
slavery in 1865. One could justifiably say that the lives of these ordinary people, who were
now 'citizens' hardly improved as their freedom was pretty much nominal. This, in Russia, led
to the revolution of 1917, due to the intransigence of the Czar/Tsar (Caesar) Nicholai II
Alexandrovich Romanov II. The overthrow of the Russian system, inspired by the ideas of Marx
and Engels, led to a Bolshevik government headed by Vladimir Lenin. Whatever notions the
Soviets had, Lenin was a de facto Tzar in waiting and Stalin was certainly that, if not an
uncrowned heir to Ivan The Terrible.
Post World War II, we supposedly have a new age of democracy and freedom, but that only
applies to some. In truth, almost the whole world collection of governments has learned the art
of propaganda - thanks to the astounding upskilling efforts of the National Socialists (Nazis)
of Germany, who took this to new heights (or lows rather), turning it almost into an artform.
While we have been led to believe that we are free and democratic, we have never been more
exposed to lies and propaganda than we are now. The biggest lie of all is that we live in a
democracy, when in fact we actually only get to choose a new set of corrupt and self-serving
narcissists, every 4 or 5 years.
Democracies, the world over, have been bought – lobbyists have far more power than the
electorate could ever hope to achieve. What we in fact have is the illusion of democracy
– state agencies act without oversight, individuals have no say over the manifesto and
policies of parties in power and have no mechanism to undo or prevent undesirable actions by
governments. The only mechanisms available are the occasional referenda (instigated under
pressure), protest (peaceful or otherwise) and violent overthrow.
In most cases, the effort and risk of violent overthrow is considered too much for the
majority of people – it takes dire poverty, starvation and horrific coercion before the
'plebs' are pushed to the brink. Governments are aware of this and generally apply the 'boiling
frog' method of restricting people's freedoms and the removal of privacy and general rights.
However, they do on occasion overstep the mark or fail to adequately conceal their stealthy
nefarious actions – which inevitably leads to protest or insurrection.
History has proven that violent insurrection usually fails, but it is rather foolish of
authoritarian governments to take a gamble on this not happening. What is far more effective
for us 'plebs' is non-violent insurrection, in the form of non-compliance - this worked wonders
for both Gandhi and for Martin Luther-King, two of the most inspirational leaders of the 20th
century. Nelson Mandella is another fine example of someone who led a monumental change, in
South Africa, while also avoiding a catastrophic bloodbath, again through advocating of
non-violence and showing exceptional leadership skills.
At this moment in time, we are held hostage by a virus and the fear of what it might do to
humanity. While public safety has to be a priority, one has to ask the question – what is
this really about? Is this a manufactured crisis or is it is just opportunistic governments
capitalizing on their best chance to roll out new draconian measures? Temporary emergency
powers is one thing, but if there is no rollback after the crisis is over, what then? What if
the crisis is one without end – like George Orwell's perpetual war in his novel 1984?
We have come to expect freedom, we are told that we live in the 'free world' yet we see our
rights and freedoms and privacy being eroded by government legislation, corporate invasive
technology and data collection. Where do we draw the line? When do we say enough is enough?
Strangely, the same technology that enables our surveillance monitoring is also the most
powerful tool at our disposal. Internet and telecommunications enables us to share information,
just as the 'system' collects information about all of us. For many, it has opened our eyes
about government agendas, methods and operations as we now have unprecedented access to
worldwide information, often in real-time, or within minutes and hours of events happening.
Many believe that a new era of oppression is being rolled out, right now as we sit in our
homes, enabled by the high-power, high-speed and low latency 5G network, worldwide by a hidden
agency. Conspiracies aside, there are many questions to be asked about our rights, what our
freedoms should consist of and what the limits of government and corporate actions should be.
We need to ask those questions, we need to demand answers and show the 'powers that be' that
the thirst for true democracy is still alive and kicking. If we volunteer to be imprisoned or
to become our own jailors then there is no hope for humanity. As in the past, humanity needs to
assert itself, in order to remain free of despotism and it has never been more urgent than now.
Corny as it may be, the simplest way to express this is for me to repeat the words of the late
Bob Marley - "Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights!"
"... There is little doubt that the modern cult of power worship is bound up with the modern man's feeling that life here and now is the only life there is. If death ends everything, it becomes much harder to believe that you can be in the right even if you are defeated . I would say that the decay in the belief in personal immortality has been as important as the rise of machine civilization. ..."
"... Since society is held together by this myth system – the beliefs and values people live for and live by – that sustains it, societies have always had to offer symbolic "answers" to death. For without a meaningful symbolic for coming to terms with death, human action would be stymied and people would be reduced to what the psychiatrist Allan Wheelis termed "intense, preoccupying yearning." ..."
"... When leaders speak, the children hear the inner voices of their parents telling them to be careful, be very careful, the bogeyman is everywhere, so listen and obey. Freud, the Jewish atheist, and Dostoevsky, the Russian Orthodox Christian, were in agreement about people's desire to give up their freedom to authority figures who would allegedly shelter them within their warm embrace. ..."
"... The easiest way to do this is to convince people that death is stalking them, for the bogeyman is always death in one form or another. ..."
"... It works to get people to support the terrifying sadism of wars against fabricated "others, ..."
"... It works to get people to give up their freedoms out of fear of "terrorists," who are said to slide and hide in the interstices of everyday life, ready to pounce and kill at any moment. ..."
"... For the Grand Inquisitor represents those power elites across the world who wish to cower people into accepting their dicta on Covid-19 as truth without questioning its logic or rationale. ..."
"... The use of technology to control behaviour by denying holidays to people, denying promotions etc all based on credit scores and similar monitoring has to be seen by the wealthy as a model of what can be achieved by the combination of ruthless force and control over information. ..."
"... All are brainwashed from birth. Its not "capitalism" its is a parasitic banking cabals economy . ..."
"... When the education system has been designed to eliminate the use of critical thinking and the purveyors of propaganda control the vast majority of the MSM, academia plus the creation of a veneer of democracy, it is little wonder so many people have swallowed this lie. ..."
"... many who call themselves atheists worship science( but not science as knowledge as it originally meant) ..."
"... The cabal wants only their narrative( lies as the truth) they want the truth of who we are and that we are co creators in this world unknown to us . ..."
Since death is one idea that has no history except as an idea and not a reality any of us have experienced, it is the most frightening
idea there is and also quite simple. It is the ultimate unknown. It has always haunted human beings, whether consciously or unconsciously.
It lies at the root of war, violence, religion, art, love, and civilization. The good and the bad, the beautiful and the ugly,
why we like to win and not lose, pass and not fail, "pass on" and not die. It is so funny and so sad. We would be lost without it,
even when we feel lost when thinking about it. And it is fundamental for understanding the action and reaction to Covid-19.
Societies have always been people banded together in the face of death. And since people are not just physical beings but symbolic
creatures who can think and imagine the past and the future, societies are necessarily mythic symbol systems whose job is not only
to protect people physically, but symbolically as well.
Sometimes, however, the protection is a protection racket with racketeers holding people hostage to fabricated fears that keep
them locked in a living-death.
Thus death, this most potent imaginative idea and reality that doesn't exist except as a mystery about which anything we say is
speculation, can be used for good and evil, depending on who controls society.
Death is the great fear, the human haunting that hangs by a thread over life like the sword of Damocles.
In 1944 in a newspaper column, George Orwell made an astute remark:
There is little doubt that the modern cult of power worship is bound up with the modern man's feeling that life here and now
is the only life there is. If death ends everything, it becomes much harder to believe that you can be in the right even if you
are defeated . I would say that the decay in the belief in personal immortality has been as important as the rise of machine civilization.
Beliefs, of course, like "personal immortality" and all others, such as the recent rise in the belief in atheism, which is as
much a belief as belief in God, are, partially at least, relative to time and place, and develop out of social storytelling. The
"hard facts" on which many feel their lives and security rest are themselves dependent upon the symbols which give them legitimacy.
Reality is indeed precarious with society suspended by a web of myths and symbols. It is through cultural and social symbol systems
that society's meaning is transmitted to individuals, and it is within the symbol systems that the control and release of action
resides.
In today's electronic mass media world, those who control the mass media that control the narrative flow – the storytelling –
control the majority's beliefs and actions.
Since society is held together by this myth system – the beliefs and values people live for and live by – that sustains it,
societies have always had to offer symbolic "answers" to death. For without a meaningful symbolic for coming to terms with death,
human action would be stymied and people would be reduced to what the psychiatrist Allan Wheelis termed "intense, preoccupying
yearning."
Today we can hear such yearning everywhere.
Shortly after Orwell made his prescient comment in The Tribune, nuclear weapons were developed and used by the United States to
kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians. With those weapons and their use, the ages-old symbolic narrative of life
and death was transformed in a flash.
"The significance of the possibility of nuclear death is that it radically affects the meaning of death, of immortality,
of life itself," wrote Hans Morgenthau.
The traditional symbolic sources that once served to allow humans to transcend death were fundamentally undercut, and the search
for new modes of death transcendence was carried on beneath the portentous covering of the nuclear umbrella.
A qualitative transformation in the meaning of human existence was thus brought about as humans, who had the weapons, replaced
the belief in God as the holder of the power over life and death, since nuclear war could result in the extinction of human life,
leaving no one left to die.
This is our world today, and it is where the Covid-19 story takes place. A world not just of nuclear fear, but a host of other
fears constantly inflamed by the mass media that hypnotize people through the conjuring of death-fear.
In his great work on group psychology, Freud showed us how it was not just mental contagion and the herd instinct that got people
to join in group behavior. People could be induced to become little children and obey their leaders because they have "an extreme
passion for authority."
When leaders speak, the children hear the inner voices of their parents telling them to be careful, be very careful, the bogeyman
is everywhere, so listen and obey. Freud, the Jewish atheist, and Dostoevsky, the Russian Orthodox Christian, were in agreement about
people's desire to give up their freedom to authority figures who would allegedly shelter them within their warm embrace.
The easiest way to do this is to convince people that death is stalking them, for the bogeyman is always death in one form
or another.
It works to get people to support the terrifying sadism of wars against fabricated "others," who are always portrayed
as aliens who are out to kill the good people.
It works to get people to give up their freedoms out of fear of "terrorists," who are said to slide and hide in the interstices
of everyday life, ready to pounce and kill at any moment.
And it works to get people to obey orders to protect themselves from terrifying viruses that are lying in wait everywhere to strike
them dead.
In his novel The Brothers Karamazov , Dostoevsky said that people want miracles, mystery, and authority, not freedom. His
Grand Inquisitor, while a fictional creation, lives on in reality.
For the Grand Inquisitor represents those power elites across the world who wish to cower people into accepting their dicta
on Covid-19 as truth without questioning its logic or rationale.
To question has become an act of insubordination deserving death by censorship or the defiling of one's name via the term "conspiracy
theorist," a name used by the CIA to dismiss anyone questioning its murder of President Kennedy. Death comes in many forms, and the
fear of it has always been used by the powerful to render the common people speechless and obedient.
How can any thinking person, anyone not totally crippled by fear, not question what is going on with the coronavirus disaster
when reading what Peter Koenig, a thirty-year veteran economist of the World Bank and World Health Organization, writes in his article
The Farce and Diabolical Agenda
of a 'Universal Lockdown' :
The pandemic was needed as a pretext to halt and collapse the world economy and the underlying social fabric.
There is no coincidence. There were a number of preparatory events, all pointing into the direction of a worldwide monumental
historic disaster. It started at least 10 years ago – probably considerably earlier – with the infamous 2010 Rockefeller Report,
which painted the first phase of a monstrous Plan, called the "Lock Step" scenario. Among the last preparatory moves for the "pandemic"
was Event 201, held in NYC on 18 October 2019.
The event was sponsored by the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and the World
Economic Forum (WEF), the club of the rich and powerful that meets every January in Davos, Switzerland. Participating were a number
of pharmaceuticals (vaccine interest groups), as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s of the US and – of
China.
One of the objectives of Event 201 was a computer simulation of a corona virus pandemic. The simulated virus was called SARS-2-nCoV,
or later 2019-nCoV. The simulation results were disastrous, killing 65 million people in 18 months and plunging the stock market
by more than 30% -- causing untold unemployment and bankruptcies. Precisely the scenario of which we are now living the beginning.
The Lock Step scenario foresees a number of ghastly and disturbing events or components of The Plan to be implemented by the so
called Agenda ID2020, a Bill Gates creation, fully integrated into the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) – target date for
completion – 2030 (also called Agenda 2030, the hidden agenda unknown to most of the UN members), the same target date for completion
of the Agenda ID02020.
I ask the question but I am afraid I know the answer: miracle, mystery, and authority usually defeat evidence and simple logic.
Fear of death and free thought scare children. The Grand Inquisitor lives on:
But man seeks to bow before that only which is recognized by the greater majority, if not by all his fellow-men, as having
a right to be worshipped; whose rights are so unquestionable that men agree unanimously to bow down to it.
Death: A simple idea with such a powerful punch.
JoeC ,
It isn't just about the fear of death. It's also the fear of being responsible for the death of others. It's no accident that
they've chosen a contagion as our imaginary enemy. We become the visible enemy if we refuse to wear face masks, abide social distance,
wash our hands every 30 seconds or refuse a vaccine when it comes to it etc etc. Hence the laws that will follow. We will soon
be public enemy number one. The new terrorists. I'm not scared of dying but I'm petrified of being persecuted for not believing
this shit. What sort of life is that?
a belief. The author adds his on baggage to an otherwise lucid
article, which rather diminishes the other truths he mentions ?
BigB ,
Excellent stuff, with plenty to think about as usual. As a proviso: Ed's sociology and ethnography needs tightening up though.
The big cultural repertoire of myths and symbols has a name; several names actually nomos, Weltanschauung, Weltansicht (cosmographic
worldview or wide world sight), and *sensus communis* (the consensual common sense). Which is the consensus of views everyone
shares.
The last is from Giambattista Vico: who also said: "Verum esse ipsum factum" ("What is true is precisely what is made [up]").
Which is the verum-factum principle of worldviews. The ideal eternal cosmological history is subjectively made up, culturally
constructed, as a consensually maintained worldbuilding and world-maintaining mythological storytelling.
To which the individual is socialised not once – from birth through education – not twice – in the workforce – but continually
as a process of cultural individuality making. Which is not all one way, top-down traffic of obedience and control – but a reflexive
and causal circularity. The big bunch of historically specific myths and symbols make and maintain the person: just as the person
makes and maintains the big bunch of historically specific myths as a consensually maintained worldbuilding and world-maintaining
mythological storytelling. The individual self is itself a cultural constructivism.
It cannot be any other way: otherwise there can be no common ground for communication and there is only communication. Or participatory
sense-making: no one can have their own language or behavioural repertoire maintained far from the socially regulated consensus
and continue to make sense. Maintaining the dictionary definition of words (intension) and the encyclopaedic repertoire of social
norms and modes of behaviour is critical to the meaning of the overall order. And there is only the order. Very uneasy order.
The individual finds themselves historically situated in the ordinate nexus of thinking, speaking, and acting in a constrained,
shared, and lawfully regulated landscape of language, culture, society, state and market economy. There is no 'outside': except
for the retreat into solipsism and ahistoric flights of imagination. We make our own history: but not autonomously and not in
circumstances of our own choosing.
Cultural construction and reproduction – and the worldview maintainence of socially constructed reality – is a permanent process.
Following the basic processes of social constructivism – as laid out by Berger and Luckman. Which are: habitualisation by subjectivated
externalisation and reification by objectivated internalisation as a recurrent, resonant, and reflexive lifelong process.
We are part of the tissue and fabric of socially constructed reality. And socially constructed reality is part of the tissue
and fabric of us: the flesh of the cultural worldview.
Of course: the biggest lie of the principle of cultural constructivist storytelling is that what is told is naturally objective,
true, and real. And some of it is lawfully authoritative (like this old computer epidemiology model I had lying around). Which
is what gives the story its universal regulative ordinate control and constative overpower.
I mean, who would want to self-admit they were regurgitating institutionalised and habitualised false beliefs and mistaken
abstractive assumptions about the objective nature of things that were just a bunch of made up and recycled socialisation and
pacification rites of a cultural constructivist performance?
Truth, self, and social reality itself is constructed by such rites.
And what if the nomos – the ordered and naturalised ordinate principle – which is a cultures own talisman against chaos, indiscipline,
and made up shite about virology turns out to be chaotic, restrictive, petrifying and rapidly fossilising as a permanent order
of fascising bollox and corporatist control?
If the fossilising order is worse than the disorder it symbolically wards off and guards against: and the culturally created
fear of death worse than the natural process of dying then what?
Is it better that the institutionalised and institutionalising lawful ordering is in principle false and an unjust draconian
social realism? Or that it is objective, rational, and scientifically real? And eternally and universally valid?
What if a society had been rationalised and institutionalised into a universal analytical reasoning, an empiric objectivity,
a historically contingent subjectivity, and a nomological scientific principle that were in fact falsely constructed? And just
habitually and consensually maintained as a lawful, juridical, and regulatory idealism of an eternally natural cosmological order?
Which just happened to turn out to be totalitarian fascistic co-participatory dumbfuckerry?
That culture would find itself in a headfuck situation of a nomological breakdown of its worldview and its interwoven individual
identities most of which would want to shelter in the pretence of being ahistorically situated outside of language, culture, and
thought in a nomological no mans land. Which is exactly the abnegation of cultural creativity that precipitated the meaning crisis
and breakdown of order.
I'm so glad I do not live in such a culture. That would indeed be terrifying.
😱 😱 😱 😱 😱
aspnaz ,
An interesting article that reminds me of the difference between westerners and the mainland Chinese whom I believe are the model
that will used to create the future world.
I am not talking about communism, the Chinese gave up communism ages ago, they are now the world's premier imperialists, using
capitalism to drive their influence across the globe. But their control over people is surely the model aspired to by any person
wanting to rule the world.
The use of technology to control behaviour by denying holidays to people, denying promotions etc all based on credit scores
and similar monitoring has to be seen by the wealthy as a model of what can be achieved by the combination of ruthless force and
control over information.
The response of the Chinese to the virus – the lockdown – was seen in the west as China caring for its people, but here in
HK it is still commonly seen as China panicking because it thought that the people would be afraid and would turn on the government
for not protecting them. It was riot control, not virus control, hence the arrest of people spreading virus rumours.
tonyopmoc ,
Edward Curtin, what you wrote is completely brilliant, in the few minutes it took me to read it, you took me through the vastness
of time, and my entire physical and spiritual existence. thank you. tony
Hugh O'Neill ,
Another thought-provoking article, Ed. I was reminded of four quotes:
1. G.K. Chesterton: "When a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn't believe in nothing; he believes in anything"
2. On the dropping of the first atomic bomb, Oppenheimer quoted from Hindu scripture: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of
worlds"
3. JFK's favourite poem was Alan Seeger's "I have a rendezvous with death". Seeger died in 1916
4. Whatever the merits of the poem, JFK was no stranger to death. Likewise, he had adopted Lincoln's prayer: "I know there is
a God – and I see a storm coming. If he has a place for me, I believe that I am ready."
Edward, how people can be so easily fooled is an age old question. One hundred years ago they queued up to be slaughtered in the
trenches. It was all so senseless it was beyond belief.
"Over the top lads, for King and Country" (the Black Adder comedy programme really captured this).
I'm not sure what else I can say about the stupidity of the human race.
We are at this point again, and people need to fecking wake-up.
Richard Le Sarc ,
People in the West are brainwashed from birth. They have NO idea that the capitalist system is incompatible with Life on Earth,
that it is a form of cancer, that the USA is the greatest force for Evil in history and that businessmen, politicians, MSM presstitutes
are psychopaths at best, dullards and ignoramuses at best. And the worst are those that deny death in belief in various 'Gods'
who all hate each other and compel them to kill and destroy in his name. The system is collapsing, and that is finally dawning
on the brain-dead 'consumers', who will now proceed to consume one another.
All are brainwashed from birth.
Its not "capitalism" its is a parasitic banking cabals economy .
Its a monopoly you've just always believed as a debt slave its capitalism and you're free.
They are resetting it, those that understand the minds of the manchild.
Good stuff Edward,
Most of the 'plan' has been on these boards for months- the one missing is Whitney Webbs latest which exposes the dumb fucks plan
to close the 'AI Gap with China'.
'THEY' have never let a good crises go to waste to further their agenda and plans.
Another old adage is about not being able to fool all of the people all of the time.
Death and politicians and media narrative control can also lose their grip. It starts by laughing at them. It's started:
THEY will not succeed this time – the narrative is a shattering mirror, that reveals their plans – the BS isn't sticking any
more.
crank ,
Confronting our exaggerated fear of dying is the only way out of this prison.
Thanks for this article Edward.
John Deehan ,
When the education system has been designed to eliminate the use of critical thinking and the purveyors of propaganda control
the vast majority of the MSM, academia plus the creation of a veneer of democracy, it is little wonder so many people have swallowed
this lie.
Doug Stillborn ,
The cabal beleives that the truth is irrelevant and that whatever appears to you as truth is what is true to you and the only truth.
This is false. The truth is not relative. Einstein knew this and said, time is an illusion albeit a persistent one. If you propagate
the idea of atheism and science what you are actually doing is you are relinquishing any responsibility/accountability.
I don't think so Doug . The ideas of " atheism and science " are out there.
But what has happened is that many who call themselves atheists worship science( but not science as knowledge as it originally
meant) so its mostly theories taken a facts, pseudoscience.
Agree though that time is an illusion.
The cabal wants only their narrative( lies as the truth) they want the truth of who we are and that we are co creators in this
world unknown to us .
Colleges across the country are trying to figure out whether they can reopen campus this
fall. Right now, it's a 50/50 shot. No one knows, and with a
second coronavirus wave looming later this year, face-to-face classes might not be seen
until early 2021.
Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, said reopening colleges could
be a drawn-out process and lead to a 15% decline in students, resulting in billions of dollars
lost for schools.
"The math is not pretty," Robert Kelchen, a student at Seton Hall University in New Jersey,
told
NPR News . "Colleges are stressed both on the revenue side and on the expenditure
side."
The transition to virtual classes has been epic. Schools in nearly every state have moved
courses online in just weeks, triggering lawsuits filed by some students that claim refunds for
tuition, fees, and room and board must be seen.
Dominique Baker, a professor of education policy at Southern Methodist University in Dallas,
warned that every college would feel financial stress related to coronavirus lockdowns.
NPR estimates that virus lockdowns are leading to significant losses for some
universities:
"The University of Michigan estimates it may lose up to $1 billion by the end of the year.
For the University of Kentucky, it's $70 million. Hundreds of schools -- including some with
endowments of more than a billion dollars, like Duke University, Virginia Tech and Brown --
have announced hiring freezes. Other institutions have cut pay and have laid off staff and
contractors. In Vermont, state officials have floated potential college shutdowns."
Baker said the lockdowns would affect colleges in disproportionate ways. "For some colleges,
this is an existential threat that means they'll have to close," she said, while others have
the financial support to weather the virus storm.
The higher education community received a bailout via the CARES Act. Congress allocated
around $14 billion to colleges and universities affected by the shutdowns, though the American
Council on Education said it was not enough and is calling for $46 billion more.
Campus Reform
identified the top ten schools receiving the most bailout money, courtesy of the American
taxpayer:
Arizona State University- $63.5 million
Pennsylvania State University- $54.9 million
Rutgers University- $54.1 million
University of Central Florida- $51 million
Miami Dade College- $49 million
Georgia State University- $45.2 million
California State University-Northridge- $44.6 million
The Ohio State University- $42.8 million
California State University- Long Beach- $41.7 million
California State University- Fullerton- $41 million
Kelchen described a situation that happened over a decade ago when the economy crashed in
2008, and state budgets were not able to fund schools. With a
depression unfolding , it appears funding for higher education will come into question once
more.
And to make matters worse, nationwide enrollment in higher education has plunged 11% in the
last eight years as millennials figure out they don't need to rack up tens of thousands of
dollars in debt before entering the labor force.
Nicholas Christakis, a sociologist and physician at Yale University, said colleges are not
returning to normal this fall.
"This idea -- that we can somehow just get back to normal and go back to school in the
fall, because we always have, it's not reasonable, actually. I think we're going to have to
figure out other ways of doing this," said Christakis.
Bryan Alexander, an educational futurist at Georgetown University, said the pandemic is
going to reshape everything we know about college.
"There are many ways a reconstructed fall might look, including the option of continuing
everything online, though many colleges that teach in-person still think of that as a last
resort. They cite online learning growing pains and an ambivalent faculty. Plus there's some
fear that students and their families won't be willing to pay as much for an online offering.
Among the ideas being floated for tweaking the in-person model is changing the traditional
academic calendar. Instead of starting in August or September, school might open in October
or even January. Instead of 16-week semesters, colleges could shift to quarter systems or
even shorter, four-week courses to allow flexibility," said NPR.
Some have floated the idea of trying smaller classes and hosting larger ones online. Kim
Weeden, a sociologist at Cornell, along with colleague Benjamin Cornwell, said large lecture
classes should be eliminated.
"Just eliminating those 100-person or more classes didn't seem to reduce the small-world
nature of the network all that much," Weeden said. Their research -- which was published
recently in a white paper, but not peer reviewed -- was only looking at classes and didn't
factor in dorm life or campus events such as social gatherings and athletics.
"There's just so much uncertainty," said Weeden. "You know, a big piece of this, of
course, is whether there is going to be [coronavirus] testing available and what those tests
can and cannot tell us. And you know, everybody wants to know the answer to that
question."
The million-dollar question is if college classes will return to normal by fall. And the
answer is likely no, while many schools will push for virtual classes, extended lockdowns, and
a second coronavirus wave could lead to the implosion of higher education.
1. "The US political culture is that 99.99% of Americans will believe literally ANY lie,
no matter how self-evidently stupid, about the rest of the world rather than accepting any
unpleasant truth about the US. "
2. "Eventually, and inevitably, this strategic PSYOP upped the ante and FOXnews
(logically) aired this true masterpiece: "Sen. Hawley: Let coronavirus victims sue Chinese
Communist Party". Truly, this is brilliant. "I lost my job, let the evil Chinese commies pay
me back" is music to the ears of most Americans."
This is what Anglo-Zionist religious/political culture produces. And it is not restricted
to jingoistic blaming of the peoples of other nations; it also features blaming those who are
citizens of the nation but are more outsiders to the WASP Elites that the group doing the
blaming. That pattern keeps the non-Elites from ever seeing that their enemy is the
national/imperial Elite they serve.
For example, the horrors the Brit WASP Elites and their system inflicted on Lancashire
factory workers would have made any real life Simon Legree giddy at the possibilities. And
those abused masses could be counted on at every turn to retard their own demands any time
the Elites could turn the conversation to how the Irish or Highlanders would come in and take
their jobs for even less and ruin their delightful communities. Or how the evil empires on
the Continent were causing trouble and to save lives of British soldiers the factory workers
must be reasonable.
Orwellian fiction is steeped deeply in the actual ways that WASP Empire operates to grind
its own citizens and ue them as mindless pawns to make Anglo-Zionist Elites ever richer, ever
more entrenched in power.
1984 and Animal Farm get the attention, but Homage to Catalonia - Orwell's non-fiction on
the Spanish Civil War - might be his best. Wow, did he hate reporters: "It was the first time
that I had seen a person whose profession was telling lies -- unless one counts
journalists..."
Alex Berenson 4:34 PM - 18 Apr 2020
2/ And this: "I do not suppose I should exaggerate if I said that nine-tenths of it is
untruthful. Nearly all the newspaper accounts published at the time were manufactured by
journalists at a distance, and were not only inaccurate in their facts but intentionally
misleading..."
Alex Berenson 4:37 PM - 18 Apr 2020
3/ I guess one might say that the groupthink and lies Orwell saw in Spain *informed* his
writing in 1984 - which was published in 1949, 11 years after Homage to Catalonia. Apropos of
nothing, of course.
Okay, I'll be adding this book to my list of books to read after I graduate and take my
big exam.
B Ekdahl 5:06 PM - 18 Apr 2020
The part of that book that I've thought of
with hope during this chillling time is how Orwell noted that the Spanish were incompetent
even with fascism. Let's hope that US is even more incompetent.
R.R. Reno 5:30 PM - 18 Apr 2020
I don't think we can underestimate how many reporters have been so panicked that only a
few are outside their homes in New York reporting on what's actually happening.
1984 and Animal Farm get the attention, but Homage to Catalonia - Orwell's non-fiction on
the Spanish Civil War - might be his best. Wow, did he hate reporters: "It was the first time
that I had seen a person whose profession was telling lies--unless one counts
journalists..."
Will 6:27 PM - 18 Apr 2020
If you haven't heard of Udo Ulfkotte's story, you should check it out: https://www. paulcraigroberts.org/2019/10/14/jou
rnalists-are-prostitutes/ His initiation into big time media was watching fellow
reporters pour gasoline on burnt up tanks & film it, replete w/ soldier actors, like war
was happening. Audio tracks added later.
"... This is the problem with the Democrats. You might be interested in class issues, and economic equality, and not at all interested in wokeness. But what you're going to get is wokeness, because that is what the power-holding class in the Democratic Party really cares about. As James Lindsay, the left-liberal professor who does heroic work fighting wokeness, told me in our recent interview: ..."
"... Of course [Social Justice Warriors] going to find ways to use this crisis to their advantage. They go around inventing problems or dramatically exaggerating or misinterpreting small problems to push their agenda; why wouldn't they do the same in a situation where there's so much chaos and thus so much going wrong. My experience so far is that people are really underestimating how much of this there will be and how much of it will be institutionalized while we're busy doing other things like tending to the sick and dying and trying not to lose our livelihoods and/or join them ourselves. ..."
"... It's very important to understand that "Critical Social Justice" isn't just activism and some academic theories about things. It's a way of thinking about the world, and that way is rooted in critical theory as it has been applied mostly to identity groups and identity politics ..."
Might Orwell's sensitive nose have detected a whiff of cant anywhere on the contemporary left? I suspect he would have cast
a baleful eye on identity politics. He would, I think, be dubious about "diversity." Why do every college and corporation in America
have a fleet of "diversity" officers? What is gained by ensuring -- at enormous expense -- that every student or employee is proud
of his/her culture and that every other student or employee respects it? According to Walter Benn Michaels in The Trouble with
Diversity, what is gained is the avoidance of class conflict. "The commitment to diversity is at best a distraction and at worst
an essentially reactionary position . We would much rather celebrate cultural diversity than seek to establish economic equality."
Orwell was moderately obsessed with class. He would probably have noted that the explosive growth of inequality in the United
States over the past four decades has closely paralleled the explosive growth of the diversity industry, and would have drawn
some conclusions. He might have asked: If there were two societies with the same Gini coefficient, but in one of them, the proportion
of billionaires by race and gender matched that of the general population, would that society be morally better than the other?
Or: If the ratio of CEO to median employee earnings was the same in two societies, but in one of them the proportion of CEOs by
race and gender matched that of the general population, would that society be morally better than the other? I'm pretty sure that
most diversity bureaucrats would answer "yes" to both questions, and that Orwell would have answered "no."
Orwell was fearless, so a tribute to him shouldn't pull any punches. I think he would suggest that there was something irrational
about the way we enforce our most sensitive taboo: the N-word. From the wholesale banning of Huckleberry Finn to the many times
teachers and civil servants have been censured, and in one case fired, for using the word "niggardly" (which has no etymological
relation to the N-word) to the resignation under pressure recently of a Cambridge, Massachusetts, school committeewoman for using
the N-word in a discussion of a proposed high-school course about the N-word, we have often made fools of ourselves and done disadvantaged
African Americans no good. As the school superintendent summarized the Cambridge case: the committeewoman "made a point about
racist language and used the full N-word instead of the common substitute, 'N-word.' Although said in the context of a classroom
discussion, and not directed to any student or adult present, the full pronunciation of the word was upsetting to a number of
students and adults who were present or who have since heard about the incident." No one, however, as far as I am aware, has publicly
expressed hurt feelings over the fact that the average net worth of African Americans in the Boston area is $8. (Eight, no zeros.)
As Benn Michaels observes: "As long as the left continues to worry about [respect], the right won't have to worry about inequality."
I wrote earlier today about actually existing conservatism being more of a "folk libertarianism" than anything resembling philosophical
conservatism. But what about actually existing liberalism?
The surprising triumph of Joe Biden, the most normie Democrat in America, tells us something about actually existing liberalism.
Illiberal progressivism dominates in academia, the media, and in corporate America's human resources departments. A reader sends
in this abstract from a paper published by a Penn professor at the Ivy League university's Wharton School of Business (Trump's alma
mater!) in which she argues that the state should
forbid identity-based discrimination but permit refusals of service for projects that foster hate toward protected groups,
even where the hate-based project is intimately linked to a protected characteristic (as with religious groups that mandate white
supremacy). Far from perpetuating discrimination, these refusals instead promote anti-discrimination norms, and they help realize
the vision of the morally inflected marketplace that the Article defends.
You could say that Biden's (not yet assured) victory in the Democratic primaries shows that actually existing liberalism is much
less interested in wokeness than in bread-and-butter issues. After all, the more self-consciously woke candidates in the Democratic
race didn't get anywhere. I would like to read it that way. But would Biden actually stand up to any wokeness? After all, this is
the man who tweeted:
Let's be clear: Transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time. There is no room for compromise when it comes to
basic human rights.
This is the problem with the Democrats. You might be interested in class issues, and economic equality, and not at all interested
in wokeness. But what you're going to get is wokeness, because that is what the power-holding class in the Democratic Party really
cares about. As James Lindsay, the left-liberal professor who does heroic work fighting wokeness, told me
in our recent interview:
Of course [Social Justice Warriors] going to find ways to use this crisis to their advantage. They go around inventing
problems or dramatically exaggerating or misinterpreting small problems to push their agenda; why wouldn't they do the same in
a situation where there's so much chaos and thus so much going wrong. My experience so far is that people are really underestimating
how much of this there will be and how much of it will be institutionalized while we're busy doing other things like tending to
the sick and dying and trying not to lose our livelihoods and/or join them ourselves.
It's very important to understand that "Critical Social Justice" isn't just activism and some academic theories about things.
It's a way of thinking about the world, and that way is rooted in critical theory as it has been applied mostly to identity groups
and identity politics. Thus, not only do they think about almost nothing except ways that "systemic power" and "dominant
groups" are creating all the problems around us, they've more or less forgotten how to think about problems in any other way.
The underlying assumption of their Theory–and that's intentionally capitalized because it means a very specific thing–is that
the very fabric of society is built out of unjust systemic power dynamics, and it is their job (as "critical theorists") to find
those, "make them visible," and then to move on to doing it with the next thing, ideally while teaching other people to do it
too. This crisis will be full of opportunities to do that, and they will do it relentlessly. So, it's not so much a matter of
them "finding a way" to use this crisis to their advantage as it is that they don't really do anything else.
To be honest, I don't have a lot of confidence in predictions about what valence wokeness (or right-wing culture war
themes) will have in this fall's election, given the economic destruction upon us now. I do have confidence, though, that if the
left gets into power, this professional class of woke activists will march triumphantly through the institutions of government,
and implement their identity-politics utopianism. Do I think that most Democratic voters do, or would, favor that? No, probably
not. I imagine they would be voting Democratic primarily to oust Trump, and secondarily because they are more interested in
income inequality...
If Orwell were alive today and writing with his superlative critical pen about them, he would struggle
to find publication in one of our major liberal journals.
UPDATE: Just now:
I'm sure Critical Social Justice isn't quietly reorganizing things that might matter because of the pandemic Or so I keep being
told. https://t.co/LEzvjqbu2B
-- James Lindsay, staying home (@ConceptualJames)
March 31, 2020
Rod Dreher is a senior editor at The American Conservative . He has written and edited for the New York Post , The Dallas
Morning News , National Review , the South Florida Sun-Sentinel , the Washington Times , and the Baton Rouge Advocate . Rod's commentary
has been published in The Wall Street Journal , Commentary , the Weekly Standard , Beliefnet, and Real Simple, among other publications,
and he has appeared on NPR, ABC News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and the BBC. He lives in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, with his wife Julie
and their three children. He has also written four books, The Little Way of Ruthie Leming , Crunchy Cons , How Dante Can Save Your
Life , and The Benedict Option
We is set in the future. D-503, a spacecraft engineer, lives in the One State,[3] an urban nation constructed almost entirely of
glass, which assists mass surveillance. The structure of the state is Panopticon-like, and life is scientifically managed F. W.
Taylor-style. People march in step with each other and are uniformed. There is no way of referring to people except by their given
numbers. The society is run strictly by logic or reason as the primary justification for the laws or the construct of the
society.[4][5] The individual's behaviour is based on logic by way of formulas and equations outlined by the One State.[6]
Francis Lee ,
Sounds very much like Yevgeny Zamyatin – We . But we never thought it would
happen!
In the case of "Brave New World", the establishment knows how to cure pretty much any
conventional disease. Then if you're in approved society you die around age 60 because of
everything that's kept you alive and looking like 40.
I just read the book last month for the first time in 30+ years. It does belong on that
diagram. And "1984" doesn't either, since it really doesn't deal with anything like
infectious diseases--reread that about 2 years ago.
I've not read the other 2 outer books ever, but the movie of "Fahrenheit 451", which I just
watched and Bradbury certainly had a hand in writing, has nothing to do with infectious
disease.
There might be something in Camus' "The Plague" though. Haven't read that since the
1980s.
There aren't food shortages so not sure about the "Soylent Green" reference, yet at least.
"Long's Run" is about killing people off at age 35, which I guess overlaps with "kill 80% of
the poor workers", something the likes of Charles Koch certainly supports. So indirectly
there could be a "Logan's Run" connection.
Gattica is just about favored people with the right genes, so an update of "Brave New
World", without the highly literate "savage" as the main character.
I don't see how "The Matrix" relates, that's more about the material world's completeness
being an illusion.
"Clockwork Orange?" A thug suppressed with mind control?
Haven't read "Lord of the Flies", but don't the kids worship a god of the island, and
justify the horrors they commit based on that conception of god or a god?
Everything the CDC has been doing has been shocking. As a health care provider I just
don't want to even look at their recommendations anymore: their information is months old and
not based in science, let alone current research on COVID-19.
Local colleges have been shutting down but forcing instructors to go to the schools
– that's not social distancing. And many are still having students in EMT, nursing,
psychology, physical therapy, and other health sciences, go to their clinicals, where they
will be exposed without adequate personal protection equipment. This is because of the CDC.
And admin's greed for money.
My local community college, after implementing/pleading with students to incorporate
careful hygiene and social distancing into their time on campus, and seeing minimal
compliance, decided to make ALL lecture classes online access for the next 3 weeks (at
least). We have no known Covid-19 cases in the COUNTY. (But since testing is not extant, or
common, no one knows what the true situation is.)
The goal of moving to online class instruction is to minimize the number of students (15K
total) on campus and limit contact with older instructors, counselors, and other staff. Lab
classes (PE, Science) will continue under strict personal contact protocol. The solution is a
compromise between health issues and the need for students to complete 80% of course
curricula to get transferable college credits. We'll see if the gamble works out.
Closing K-12 schools is a "no win" situation. Some parents want them closed, others don't.
In Los Angeles the school district decided to close from pressure by the teachers labor
union. Again, few kids understand/implement the protocols of social distancing and smaller
home groups may be the better option (for some). Meals for disadvantaged students will
continue at the LAUSD (~500K students), but they will be drive-thru pick-up.
It appears the pandemic could bring even the invincible US to its knees.
From Albert Camus's The Plague , which is
once again on my nightstand: "There have been as many plagues as wars in history; yet always
plagues and wars take people equally by surprise."
+ We are witnessing what happens to a country (this one) that faces a pandemic after it has
privatized almost every aspect of its public social welfare and health systems & gutted the
teaching of science in public schools so thoroughly that most people can't even understand
what's coming at them
+ Even as we are being told to distance ourselves from each other, we need more solidarity
now than ever before, because the System we are living under has failed, failed to offer even a
minimum level of protection to those most vulnerable, just as we all knew it would fail, in
precisely the ways it was meant to fail.
+ Leave it to
Mike Davis , who wrote
a terrifying book a
few years ago on Avian Flu, to give us a stark forecast for what we're up against: "There is,
however, more reliable data on the virus's impact on certain groups in a few countries. It is
very scary. Italy, for example, reports a staggering 23 per cent death rate among those over
65; in Britain the figure is now 18 per cent. The 'corona flu' that Trump waves off is an
unprecedented danger to geriatric populations, with a potential death toll in the
millions."
+ Six months from now, 75% of Americans will have a "pre-existing condition." The other 25%
will probably be composting
+ When CDC Director Dr. Redfield was asked at a congressional hearing on Thursday morning
who's in charge of making sure coronavirus tests can be administered, he hesitated and then
turned to Dr. Fauci, who said, "My colleague is looking at me to answer that "
+ Do you REALLY want to give Trump those extreme powers, Bernie?
We are dealing with a national emergency and the president should declare one now.
+ All of the financial elites who were willing to swallow Trump's nativism, managerial
incompetence and anti-science lunacies in exchange for tax cuts, gutted regulations and a bull
market are getting their just desserts but did they have to drag the rest of us down with
them?
I tried reading that about 20 years ago, but it never engaged me. I'll have to give it
another try.
Currently, I'm reading Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon for the third time. One of his
best, in my opinion. But, I'd also recommend the System of the World trilogy. Slower-paced,
but also tremendously satisfying.
Stay away from Stephenson's latest, Fall, or Dodge in Hell . I've loved everything
else I've read by him, but this last one was truly execrable. I slogged through the whole
thing, thinking there must be some point to it all, and there never was.
Stephenson can be incredibly hit or miss. I loved Anathem, Cryptonomicon, Zodiac, and
Diamond Age, thought that anything Stephenson touched: cyberpunk, alt-history, sprawling
world building, etc was pure gold. Then I read Reamde What a waste of a thousand pages.
Confederacy is great, and I say that as a former New Orleanian . . .
If you like humor around absurd characters and their doings, I would recommend Charles
Portis' works, all are good. He's best known for True Grit , but additionally both
Dog of the South, Masters of Atlantis are also outstanding. The latter is a lot of fun
with secret societies, Theosophy & Masonry, that kind of social stew.
A bit more gentle in his absurdity than the over-the-top characters in Confederacy, but
lots of fun.
I picked up Anathem at random several years ago and it gave me a Nerdwoody.
I love constructed universes(LOTR, Dune) but that one was so subtle it was almost implied
that there's all this s^^t going on.
you had to grow into it.
Given EITC, I just had a haul:
Harvey's "Neoliberalism", Mr Hudson's "Forgive them ", Ruskin's" Unto this Last"(currently
involved), Frank's"Listen Liberal"(similarly involved), and EP Thompson's "The Making of the
English Working Class" this latter of which i've wanted to read for a long while.
All of them due to suggestions or mentions on NC in the last couple of years.
the first two and the last will hafta wait till all i'm doing is harvesting.
EITC + Spring Break + General Spingtime = Sudden Flurry of Activity.
2 sheds in progress sheep/goat and woodshed gigantic telephone poles set, ready for me to
wander by and frame it in then another Barnraising Day(ribs, tater salad, beer, etc) to put
the r-panel up(already pained red with yellow stripes(everything else is blue and green and
purple) then the next however long for me to finish it up.
and i've planted more this year than i have in 20.
including around 80 black gallon+ pots with seeds/acorns i've picked up all over, or rooted
cuttings of everything else i've come across.
and tons of manure.
so, only Light Reading for now.
for i am not worth shootin'.
A Confederacy of Dunces spoke to me! Funniest book I have ever read. And like you, I've
re-read several times. Just seeing the title makes me laugh. :-)
Anatomy of a Campaign: The British Fiasco in Norway, 1940 – John Kiszely
The British underfunded their military until too late. Which would have been o.k. up to a
point, except they seemed to have no realization at this point how disparate the Nazi German
capabilities were compared to their own.
When We Were Vikings – Andrew David MacDonald
A very nice coming of age tail of an adult mentally challenged young woman who is into
Vikings and dealing with a family crisis.
#Library-of-Psychohistory,_for_times_of_plague_and_famine (TM)____________
Anabasis by Xenophon
Muqaddimmah: an Introduction to History by ibn Khaldun
Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time by Johanna Nichols
Hamlet's Mill by Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend
The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe by Marija Gimbutas
Models of Discovery by Herbert Simon
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes
Unifying the Mind by David Danks
Targeted Learning in Data Science: Causal Inference for Complex Longitudinal Studies by Mark
Vanderlaan and Sherri Rose
Vladimir Propp and the Study of Structure in Hebrew Biblical Narrative by Pamela J. Milne
Washington Babylon by Alexander Cockburn and Ken Silverstein
Algernon Blackwood Anthony Hope Anthony Trollope Anton Chekhov Arthur Conan Doyle Arthur
Quiller-Couch Baroness Orczy Benjamin Disraeli Charles Dickens Dinah Craik E. Phillips
Oppenheim Edith Wharton Elizabeth Gaskell Eugene Sue F. Marion Crawford G.A. Henty G.K.
Chesterton George Gissing George Meredith Gertrude Atherton H. Rider Haggard H.G. Wells
Hamlin
Garland Henry James Honore de Balzac etc
Harvard University should be ashamed of itself. It has dumped the problem of its sudden
closure due to coronavirus largely on the students themselves and their families. While most of
them are affluent enough to handle the financial fallout of buying airfare at the last minute
and storing or shipping their clothes, books, and other possessions, Harvard's students from
lower income backgrounds have, to a significant degree, been left in the lurch.
... ... ...
But Harvard's conduct is indefensible. Harvard has, or perhaps more accurately had, a nearly
$39 billion endowment. Contrast that with an exceedingly generous estimate of what it might
cost to help make these financially stressed undergraduates whole, at least in terms of getting
out of Cambridge, or for the ones who really can't go home (flights to their country
cancelled), putting them up. Harvard has 6,800 undergraduates. Assume 25% get significant
financial support. Even a gold plated solution would cost at most $10,000.
6,800 x .25 x $10,000 = $17 million.
That is couch lint for Harvard.
As the University of Dayton example attests, university and college closures are widespread.
For the well-endowed ones who have students attending only by virtue of having received
financial aid and/or having the school arrange for paid employment to help pay for their
tuition, the failure of the school to provide generous help is a disgrace.
At Harvard, the afflicted students are petitioning the university to let them store things
on campus for free (which was standard practice in my day) and let the ones who can't go home
stay on campus. How many could that possibly be? 200 at most? Harvard has a medical center that
won't have anything to do once the kids leave. How hard would it be for their staff to check
these students' temperatures daily and test anyone who had symptoms?
And the university will have enough empty rooms that it could easily set aside other dorm
rooms if quarantine were needed.
But the Harvard disregard is a sign of where things are likely to go in the US. A university
is supposed to be a community. They are more cohesive than most of our cities and towns. Yet a
crisis comes, and the grotesquely well paid university administrators can't be bothered either
to make creative use of resources at hand, or dip in Harvard's huge pot of money.
In other words, expect the rich to walk all over the poor out of indifference, as we are
seeing at Harvard now.
___
1 Harvard houses and Yale colleges are groups of dormitories, each with their own
adminisphere (such as a faculty dean a resident dean, a house tutor), their own kitchen and
dining room, a common room, a library, and other amenities. They are modeled on the Cambridge
and Oxford college system. At Harvard, a house has roughly 300 to 400 students.
The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed. Get Out! Just got notice I
am next up at my library for Wm Gibson's new book, Agency. $17M is a rounding error yet the
wealthy feel its too much to ask.
Are we hearing the American "college experience" bubble popping? In this fantasy, youth
buy products that are packaged as educational experiences. They pay through the nose for them
and they are blind to their folly because they believe that the stamped and signed receipt of
payment handed to them with great pomp and circumstance will boost their future earning
potential to the degree necessary so that they can some day lead lives that are free of
educational debt, which until then will of course involve interest costs (compounded) as we
do not want socialism.
Why exactly doesn't Harvard charge 1 million? They could get it and they'd only have
customers who can deal gracefully with situations like this.
Although Harvard (and other esteemed Universities) are selling 'exclusivity', the veneer
of egalitarianism is still required for the Brand.
Two Random Thoughts:
I'd like to know the graduation statistics of those college students that entered through
the Admissions Scandle.
The Harvard Endowment is an important pool of shadow money, never forget it was the
Harvard Fund that 'bought' the worthless Arbusto (Harken Energy) stock that enabled Dubya to
get his stake to become Texas Rangers managing general partner, and then Governor, and then
front man for Dick Cheney.
At many US elite academic institutions, the hardest part is getting in (exceptions usually
in "hard science", engineering, etc.). Also, they probably have all the the help they need to
graduate.
Actually, don't come to California for higher education. Housing, traffic, cycling risks,
and, now, Covid-19 is getting worse. The UC/CalState system can't provide access to it's own
in-state high school students that qualify for entry.
This is brutal this. They could have helped their own students using only the money in
their petty cash drawer and they said nope! I suppose that this is a lesson for those Harvard
students that is pretty simple. If you have money so this move is not a problem for you, then
that is the way that it is supposed to be. If you are studying here and are in a precarious
position then it is all on you. Pure power politics.
It would be ironic if down the track that Harvard produced a Bill Gates from the later
group that went on to achieve fabulous wealth. But that this future alumni, when asked by
Harvard for money for them, would say sure – and give a massive contribution to Yale
and call it the 2020 Corona Fund.
I too was an undergrad at an institution in the Cambridge area, and I am not from the
US.
Got a full financial aid, but that does not fully cover your housing and does not at all
cover your food or other expenses, so you had to work during the term to make it. And you had
to move out of the dorm in the summer. Fortunately, in our particular dorm, there was storage
in the basement of the dorm, so we did not have to look for outside storage, but others were
not so lucky. But moving out at the end of the term was still a major disruption that one had
to plan for well in advance.
So I am very well aware of the situation undergrads at Harvard find themselves in, and my
first thought when I saw the news was "WTF are these students supposed to do now?".
Especially the international ones. Because a day after Harvard announces that students are
kicked out of the dorms, what does Trump do? Bans travel from Europe for 30 days. Which
effectively means banning traveling TO Europe too, because those are all round-trip flights.
This is on top of the travel restrictions regarding several countries in Asia already in
place.
In the best of times, it was always near-impossible to find a flight on such a short
notice. Now when so many flights have been cancelled, how is one supposed to go home, when
there are thousands of others in the same situation (because Harvard isn't the only
university that is doing this)? It is not even a possibility for many, forget the expenses.
There are simply no flights. And most of these students don't even have a car to sleep
in.
I will venture a guess regarding why this is done -- they don't want to get sued by
litigious-minded parents if undergrads get it while on campus. Which, admittedly, there is a
high chance of happening, unless they self-isolated the whole campus (but that would have
created a legal mess on a whole new level). Dorms often have 2, 3, 4 students living in the
same room, and the virus is very clearly airborne, so it would also get between rooms through
the air seeping beneath the doors (which is why in China quarantines involve sealing the
doors with tape). Also, bathrooms are shared across the whole floor, which is another
transmission risk.
So the administration took the easy decision -- instead of trying to help the student
population, and start that early on when it was the time to do so (i.e. mid-February), which
would have involved some effort and risk on its part, it just dumped the problem onto the
students
Thats quite disgusting – I'm assuming it is fear of litigation that is driving
this.
I was in Trinity College Dublin last night for an evening class – the nearest
Ireland would have to a Harvard (except, as the grads there would no doubt add 'with about
300 more years of history and teaching experience'). They had a Covid case in, ironically
enough, the biology department last week.
But they are acting I think quite responsibly – phasing in a slow shutdown
– all lectures have gone online, but small tutorials, etc., still going on, with lots
of support for foreign students. They were actually criticised for being over the top (there
are still plenty of people who still 'don't get it' and sadly many are in a position of
authority.)
Litigation is certainly a big part of it. The other aspect might be health insurance.
Students are on university plans. Which tend to not be that great, because it is a young and
healthy population. When catastrophic situations have arisen in the past on campus (which
happens regularly, several times a year in fact), the university has often been stuck with
the bill, especially with international students.
And it will be a lot of long ICU stays to pay for in the coming months, even among the
young and healthy.
I think you're right w/health insurance. plans are likely self-insured and not modeled
to have a cohort students popping into the ICU. Then add rash panic.
Smaller colleges I can kinda understand, Harvard? give me a break
It seems like almost all colleges and universitys will be moving to the online
solution, but you can tell it's a decision made by some administrators who really don't get
it. Online classes may be a substitute for lecture, but they wont fill the needs of art
students (like my wife who laughed at hearing this idea), science and engineering majors or
anyone who needs other facilities and equipment to actually complete work – your oven
at home wont replace a kiln as my wife says.
I would disagree that the administrators don't get it. On their list of priorities,
"avoiding huge lawsuits" is a much higher priority than "providing quality instruction to
students." I have been in and around higher ed for the last 30 years and it's not clear to me
that the latter is even on the list.
Online classes for the yes of the year–mmmm, ok .but closing dorms? that is just
insane and against the medical evidence (aka seniors are the most at risk, under-40, while
not immune, are in infinitely better shape than those over 70 and/or those w/health
issues).
And Dorms are (generally) like typical apartment complexes, not military barracks.
If anything, keeping students (aka asymptomatic, mobile, disease vectors) away from
seniors is the absolutely best thing for society. just saying
I have a child at UC Santa Cruz, hotbed of striking teaching assistants. We are coming up
on spring break and last night had a talk with him about what to do. There are risks to
flying home. There are risks to staying at school. But the latter risks are compounded by the
fact that we don't know what the school admin will do.
If he comes home for spring break, will he be able to go back? If he can't, what happens
to his stuff? If he stays, will they be allowed to remain in the dorms? And what happens in
September? I am sure he will not want to change schools now that he has established
friendships and a sense of place. I don't want to pay $66,000 per year -- an effort that
involves his parents and both sets of grandparents -- for him to take online classes. I have
been a university teacher, so I know exactly what those are worth. :)
At least we can afford it, and we have friends in Cali if he gets stuck there. This action
by Harvard is unconscionable. Then again, if Harvard had a conscience, it wouldn't be
Harvard. But UCSC, based on its treatment of the striking TAs, doesn't have a conscience
either.
I have a handful of relatives who voted for Biden, too, and I just want to punch them all
in the face. Idjits. Hooray for ecocide! Onward to mass extinction! Guess the kid won't need
that college education after all. Maybe we can use the money to send him to survival
school.
Wow! $66,000! For a supposedly public university. I went to UC Santa Cruz, admittedly a
few decades ago, and I was paying something like $2000 a year. The U.S. is making incredible
progress -- just all of it heading off in the wrong direction and toward the edge of the
cliff. Very soon your local library–should it still exist -- can file The Road
Warrior in the documentary section.
Good luck to you and your children. And give your Biden loving relatives a friendly punch
for me.
But UCSC, based on its treatment of the striking TAs, doesn't have a conscience
either.
This is the key point. The neoliberalization of the U.S. university – "public" as
well as private – has been clear for quite awhile but there are strong ideological
pressures not to see it, not least by all the brainiacs who exist on college campuses.
My prediction is that most U administrations will issue guidance to faculty to give
students full credit for all courses this semester (regardless of how much work actually gets
done). The smart ones are looking ahead to the fall and trying to figure out what to do if
enrollment/tuition, state aid and research funding crash, which seems pretty likely if things
are not back to normal shortly. The 2008 crash turned out to be a godsend to higher ed,
driving huge numbers of unemployed back to school for "re-training." But that bubble only
lasted a couple of years and enrollment trends have been steeply downward since 2010-11. The
last five years have already seen, again mostly uncommented on, the beginnings of a shake-out
(some schools closing, lots of changing emphasis to programs that can bring cash in the door,
ubiquitous move to adjuncts instead of permanent faculty). Expect that to ramp up
considerably. Ironically, perhaps the only counter-trend has been a HUGE increase in the
number of Chinese students (of which there are now apparently about 5K at my Big 10 U) paying
full freight. Can that continue?
Well, California does have standards. Getting course credit will require completing 80% of
the course curricula. Since the UC System is on the Quarter system (12 weeks, not 15) the
UCSC students have likely passed that threshold.
Encouraging International students to attend at out-of-state tuition rates is now standard
operating procedure in California. The new president of my local community college
unabashedly said it in a recent letter that it was necessary. The college needs to eliminate
its $5M budget deficit by 2022. (Real estate investors are salivating: student housing,
apartments, and SF Home speculation, etc.)
From a public health standpoint this is insane. Boston is a known epicenter for the
pandemic with reported cases doubling daily. To send students home–wherever home
is–without testing for the virus risks spreading the disease further. I hope Governor
Charlie Baker will step in stop this from happening.
Counterintuitive as it may sound, people fearing the coronavirus are
buying up copies
of Albert Camus'
The Plague
, Stephen King's
The Stand
, and Dean Koontz's
The Eyes
of Darkness
. If you're
one of those
who finds consuming pandemic stories to be palliative for your anxiety, I recommend the addition of
one of the only pieces
of American
fiction about the 1918–19 flu pandemic that was written by a survivor: Katherine Anne Porter's
Pale Horse, Pale Rider
. This short novel,
published in 1939, is a story of two doomed lovers caught up in the gears of world war and a deadly virus; somehow, it manages
to be romantic and bitter, all at once.
The story is semi-autobiographical. Porter
was 28
during the 1918–19
pandemic and working for the Rocky Mountain News in Denver. She was dating a young soldier, who was readying for deployment
overseas. When she fell sick, he nursed her at her boarding house, until her editor finally pulled strings to get her admitted
to a hospital. That hospital was so overcrowded that Porter was left on a gurney in a hallway for nine days, running a fever
of 105. When she recovered, she found out that the soldier had died of the flu.
Pale Horse, Pale Rider
gives the
bones of this experience to its protagonist, Miranda Gay.
Miranda bristles at jingoistic homefront culture, which Porter depicts as a mind virus that rivals the flu. A couple of
unctuous war bond salesmen try to guilt Miranda into purchasing a bond she cannot afford; she and the other female reporter at
her paper worry that they will lose their jobs if they can't scrape together the money to buy one. The novel shows how the
expectation of support for the war colors everyone's daily interactions. Miranda describes how everyone reacts in a particular
way when they hear the words "the war": "It was habitual, automatic, to give that solemn, mystically uplifted grin when you
spoke the words or heard them spoken."
The war and the flu mingle together as threats to a good thing that's happening in Miranda's life. In this fictionalization of
Porter's experience, the soldier Miranda is in love with is named Adam, and he's from Texas. They've been dating about 10
days, but they both feel like this is something real. They've spent those 10 days in the frenzy of early romance: dancing to
jazz, going to see plays she needs to write about for the paper, poking around geological museums, skipping out of town to
take hikes. They both know that their mutual affection will be short-lived, since he'll be going to France soon. What they
don't know is that it will be the virus that gets them first.
While Miranda admits to herself how much she would love him if he weren't bound for the war, between them, they keep
everything light by policy; the flu is no exception. "It seems to be a plague, something out of the Middle Ages," Miranda says
to Adam, who is about to be sent back to training, about the sickness. "Did you ever see so many funerals, ever?" "Never did,"
he replies. "Well, let's be strong minded and not have any of it. I've got four days more straight from the blue and not a
blade of grass must grow under our feet." With that, they make plans to go dancing.
Slowly, the flu makes its presence known in her body, even as her mind continues to dwell on the war. On the night she
collapses from the sickness she's been feeling inklings of for days, Adam and Miranda go to a play together, so she can review
it. It's a boring play, but before the third act, a fundraiser comes onstage to implore people to buy war bonds. It's this
endless speech, which hits all the patriotic high notes, that catalyzes Miranda's illness, making her head ache and spin.
At a restaurant after the play, she passes out; when she comes to, Adam is nursing her in her boardinghouse room. That's the
last time she has with him. After she's taken to the hospital and suffers through days of pain and fever dreams, Miranda wakes
up, finds out he's dead, and feels profoundly alienated from her body and her life. "Can this be my face?" Miranda asks when
she looks in the mirror after finally regaining consciousness. "Are these my own hands?" she asks a nurse, "holding them up to
show the yellow tint like melted wax glimmering between the closed fingers."
The book's small story of one person's tragedy reminds us that illness is a personal trauma, and a pandemic is a million
personal traumas in one. Porter
said of the flu pandemic in an
interview
in 1963: "It simply divided my life, cut across it like that. So that everything before that was just getting ready, and after
that I was in some strange way altered."
Pale Horse, Pale Rider
isn't a book about secretly released bioweapons or an
epic struggle between good and evil or a metaphor about Nazism; it's just a story about people coming to terms with their own
mortality. "The body is a curious monster, no place to live in, how could anyone feel at home there?" Miranda asks. How,
indeed?
Cant Stop the M... on Wed,
03/04/2020 - 8:28am We base our entire politics on the idea that we're living in a
meritocracy. In other words, like the knights of old at a joust, we find out who is best
through competition, a competition assumed to be both fair and honest. In the old days, the
joust was assumed to be fair and honest because God was both omnipotent and just and therefore,
obviously, would not allow a bad man to win. Nowadays, even most of us who believe in God don't
believe that God controls the outcome of competitions in that way. Yet the assumption of a fair
and honest competition persists, despite blatant evidence to the contrary.
In the case of U.S. elections, it is assumed, not that the will of God controls the outcome
of competitions, but that the will of the people does. Voter suppression and election fraud are
hand-waved away on the dubious grounds that any candidate strong enough could overcome such
things. Or maybe the people are to blame. The supporters of the defeated candidate must not
have worked hard enough, or maybe the people generally are to blame for not voting in large
enough numbers. Those who challenge any of these assumptions are defeated, either by
institutional inertia or by gaslighting.
Nothing happens, so nothing happened
Here's what I mean by institutional inertia.
In 2000, there was ample evidence that George W. Bush had committed fraud in the
presidential election, with the help of his brother, the governor of Florida. In 2004, there
was ample evidence that George W. Bush had committed fraud once again, famously in Ohio, and
less famously in Florida for a second time. However, in the first case, Gore stopped fighting
after an obviously partisan and corrupt Supreme Court decision, and not a single member of the
U.S. Senate was willing to help the Congressional Black Caucus challenge the election. In the
second case, Kerry refused to challenge the election in Congress, and the legal case he brought
about election fraud, after the fact, did not even make it to the Supreme Court.
In 2016, when New Yorkers brought a case that there had been election fraud and voter
suppression in the Democratic primaries, the case was thrown out on the grounds that each
county in New York had to file such cases separately, and, by then, the election would be over.
Pleas to delay the vote count, or to delay declaring a winner, until the voting rights of the
people could be secured, were brushed aside. Much later, when a civil lawsuit was brought
against the DNC, the case was once again thrown out for lack of standing, but not before the
DNC lawyers had defended their client on the grounds that the DNC didn't have to provide a fair
competition, or any competition at all, really, and certainly didn't have to care what the
people thought.
The effect of this institutional inertia is not simply that cheaters win the day, or that
the people, whose will is being suppressed, lose morale and give up. The complaint itself
begins to fade from people's minds. People begin to make excuses for what happened, to justify
it, to act as if there never were cheating to begin with. Even many of those who dissent find
that, over time, the injustice they remember mellows: no less a person than Jimmy Dore, hardly
a weak-minded hack for the establishment, talks now about Gore's "loss" in 2000 as an evil
caused by the electoral college. While the electoral college is obviously a tool for elites to
control American politics (and never has that been so obvious as over the past two election
cycles), such a narrative ignores and erases the police checkpoints that were set up in 2000
near predominantly African American polling places in Leon county, Florida. It ignores the
Republican Speaker of the House, Tom DeLay, sending Republican staffers to Dade County to break
up Miami's vote count by marching into the Supervisor of Elections office and screaming at the
top of their lungs so that no accurate count could take place. It ignores and erases the
digital Jim Crow that purged the voter lists of African American Democrats by claiming,
falsely, that they were felons. It ignores the fact that emails between the State of Florida
and the company that created the Jim Crow software revealed that the company had warned that
their software would draw too many false positives, and that the State of Florida had replied
"That's just what we want."
Similarly, the DNC's perfidy in 2016 has been reduced to the following: 1) that they had
pre-selected their candidate, and didn't provide a real or fair competition, 2) that they gave
debate questions ahead of time to Hillary Clinton, 3)that they used the electoral college, most
particularly superdelegates, to overwhelm the Sanders movement, and that 4) the party primaries
were often closed, not allowing independents the right to vote. Left out, or forgotten, are the
multiple polling places closed in states from Arizona to New York (in New York, sometimes even
the open polling places had no staff or broken machines), the media calling California for
Clinton before the votes were counted, the 136,000 voters purged off Brooklyn's voter rolls (no
doubt because Bernie Sanders was born and grew up in Brooklyn and that might have given him an
advantage there), and the much larger multi-state purge of the Democratic party through
changing people's voter registration without their knowledge and consent.
I'm not bringing this up to attack Jimmy Dore, who is one of the most reliable truth-tellers
in the media today, but rather to point out what people's minds do under the stress of watching
the establishment normalize corruption again and again. If there is no power to challenge
institutional corruption, most people, over time, make of the corruption something less unjust
and outrageous. Simply smothering objections to injustice with institutional inertia, will,
over time, allow the victors to erase the evidence of their crime.
Sore Loserman
Since we believe, with the faith of fanatics, that competition must be honest and fair, it's
easy to gaslight the losers (or the apparent losers). The Republicans in 2000 did not need to
disprove the fact that George W. Bush had committed fraud and contravened the will of the
people when he climbed up a staircase of disenfranchised Black faces to become President. All
the Republicans needed to do was issue tens of thousands of bumper stickers that replaced the
words "Gore/Lieberman" with "Sore Loserman." The RNC was using the same argument that was
bruited about in the 1980s about poverty and employment. Unemployed poor people had lost the
economic competition. Therefore, there must be something wrong with them. Maybe they weren't
educated enough, smart enough, clean enough, hard-working enough; maybe they were people of bad
character. Bloomberg's racial profiling worked much the same way. Black people are losers in
the judicial game because they commit more crimes. That's why we put more police in their
neighborhoods, because there are more criminals among young Black men than anywhere else.
Corruption can't bring down a meritorious man. If you're good, you'll win. If you complain
about cheating or any other form of injustice, you must be a Sore Loserman, attempting to cover
up your own inadequacies by whining.
It's pretty obvious that this way of thinking makes it literally impossible to stop even the
most outrageous injustice, as long as the perpetrators of that injustice have enough power to
spread their "Sore Loser" messaging far and wide. So if I commit identity theft today and
access one of your bank accounts, I can be brought to account. But if Wall St cheats
homeowners, there was probably something wrong with the homeowners, or with the government for
suggesting that those homeowners should get loans. If George W. Bush cheats in an election,
there was probably something wrong with the other candidate, or with the voters.
People tend to get upset when I bring this up, because they think that talking about the
corruption of the system will demoralize voters, making such discussions their own form of
voter suppression. But I bring this up because the worst damage that can come out of Bernie
Sanders losing contests in a highly compromised electoral process is that the idea of
meritocracy be preserved. There are valid reasons for voting even in a corrupted system (of the
"make 'em sweat" variety). There are valid reasons for not voting in a corrupted system. But
whatever a citizen chooses to do on Election Day, the idea of meritocracy must die.
Despite all the truly horrendous policies, from both the Democrats and the Republicans, that
have laid our society, our people, and the world to waste, the most poisonous effect of the
tyranny we live under is its fraudulence: its pretense of being a fair, accurate, and
reasonable expression of the will of the people. Even the Democrats' attacks on Trump, who is
supposed to be a Manchurian candidate placed in office by Russian intelligence operatives and
an existential threat to our democracy, have, in the past two years, increasingly focused on
the people who support Trump. It's the voters fault for supporting the bad man. So even when we
are supposedly in a situation of foreign powers changing the outcome of a presidential
election, it's still the people's fault. Why? Well, there was a competition, and somebody won,
so the person who won must be there by the will of the people. It has to be the
people's fault.
Corruption among the powerful isn't a thing.
System-wide corruption in all the various infrastructures of our country, especially the
political ones, isn't a thing.
Or, if it is, you just didn't do enough lifting at the political gym to be able to fend it
off.
The "social" is "social media" is in contrast to "professional" or "business" or
"commercial" media, i.e. the MSM and other commercial media.
I understand "social media" literally in the Orwellian sense, it is "social" media just like
war is peace. The true meaning is "asocial media" which prevents real interaction, and under
complete control by big brother, you can become a non-person at any moment.
@ Russ | Jan 22 2020 8:33 utc | 86 (about the gas cylinder(s).
Any bright high-school kid who's been through the math curriculum and has some calculus
can tell you, give you, a range of terminal velocities in air at that elevation. You have to
assume that the thing fell in the "best" attitude, and also the "worst" attitude - a matter
of aerodynamic drag. Obviously there's a terminal velocity - somewhere about 200 feet per
second. There's a minimum altitude above which it doesn't fall any faster because of
drag...and it has a krappy drag coefficient. You have to work with the numbers to get a fine
understanding...but it's the sort of question you'd see in a university engineering exam.
The mass is assumed to be something like 100 pounds. Do the math.
Then there's the question of concrete quality...it's highly heterogeneous..but you can
assume it's top quality, and estimate the rebar density and thickness from the pretty
pictures.
And you can assume zero projectile deformation (not even straps torn off!!?) and the
hole's not big enough.
somebody @96: "But Western main stream media does not report on it."
Of course not. The western corporate mass media does not have among their workforce
"Any bright high-school kid who's been through the math curriculum and has some
calculus..." that Walter @95 points out as being a prerequisite to see how bogus is the
narrative they are tasked with amplifying. The workforce chose to major in Journalism
specifically because they had difficulties with basic arithmetic, with such heartless and
unyielding topics as addition and subtraction being forever beyond them in the absence of a
calculator.
Many think I exaggerate or am joking, but this is literal truth. These individuals of
which the corporate mass media are composed get their conception of physics from crappy syfy
movies in which spaceship blasters make "Pew-pew!!" noises in the vacuum of space. If
it is necessary for the plot that a flimsy canister is able to punch through steel rebar
reinforced concrete with barely a scratch, then they are fine with it. If these new age
journalists' "contact" in Langley (what we know to be their "handler" or
"operator" ) says it is believable, they won't pause for an instant to question.
After all, earnest delusion and ignorance serves the Mockingbird mass media's
handlers in the CIA far better than does cynical and deliberate deception, though that last
does have a sizable role to play as well. Deliberate deception is difficult and requires some
skill, while any American can do stupidity with the greatest of ease.
"... There was nothing particularly great in the Soviet educational system. Other than students, who were selected very competitively (often more than 10-30 people for one place in ordinary universities and 100-1000 in elite; yes, 1000 or more per one place was observed in theater specialties). ..."
"... Also, the motivation for study was pretty high: if you fail two times to be admitted to the university, you were drafted into the Red Army. If you were expelled for the bad academic rating (which was, I think, to fail more then two exams in one semester) -- the same call from the Red Army was waiting for you. ..."
"... translation of foreign books in the USSR was the only first-class enterprise (despite outdated equipment). It was first-class both in the selection and the speed of translation. For example, as Knuth mentioned, all three volumes of his books were translated into Russian within a very short interval. ..."
"... But I think students learn as much from each other as from professors, and if the level of the class was extremely high, the results were corresponding. In other words, poor university teachers did not harm them that much, and a lot what they learn, they learn on their own (except fundamental disciplines) -- kind of self-education buried within ;-). ..."
"... Also, rigid soviet system (you have a zero opportunity to select your own set of subjects for a degree) has one important advantage. It schools you to be determined and persisting, no matter what subject you were assigned. To be a real fighter, in some academic or non-academic sense. ..."
"... I think that the main reason for the high quality of Soviet engineers of this period was not the education the got, but the fact that talented people were nowhere to go; there was no "business path." That's why Berezovsky became an academic scholar and even reached the level of the Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Science ..."
"... The level of backwardness of computer science education in the 90th in the USSR was staggering. So the fact that there were so many talented programmers in the country, many of whom later found a well-paid job in the Western countries, was mostly due to the level of the talent of those few who managed to get into universities. ..."
"... Many problems with Soviet education persist in Russia. Andrei Martyanov looks at many problems of Russian society via rose glasses. Taking into account the current level of Russophobia, that's a noble stance, and I do not object to his exaggerations. ..."
The question even to compare the American to the Russian or former Soviet
educational system is delusional.
However, the US has understood something that the Russians and any decent people don't get:
The people are consumers. They should not be educated beyond the needed to use the most recent
applications on their electronic devices. Anything further carries the danger of having them
discontent and thus an inroad to the Western entity.
Also, a military is not there to win wars and subsequently have a headache about how to deal
with the conquered people. It is about wrecking far away places and providing opportunities to
claim invoices from the federal government.
Modern, hybrid warfare is not about applying this or that military means, but about
occupying the universities, courts and parliaments of the subdued people – finally
occupying their minds. And yes, to do so includes that the weaponry should look cool and
provide job opportunities for the hopeless youngsters of that amorphous mass formerly called
the nation.
The Russians, Chinese, Iranians will have to stay alert 24/7/365 not to fall into the abyss
of depravity that the Great Western Civilisation is offering to them. I am afraid, that the
threat is very real that in the end they will be worn down.
The question even to compare the American to the Russian or former Soviet educational
system is delusional.
Believe me or not, I would prefer the USA system of education (with all its warts) to the
Soviet system in the 70-90th without any hesitation. And with the same quality of students, the
USA would achive the same or better results.
There was nothing particularly great in the Soviet educational system. Other than students,
who were selected very competitively (often more than 10-30 people for one place in ordinary
universities and 100-1000 in elite; yes, 1000 or more per one place was observed in theater
specialties).
Soviet universities were as poor as church rats, which has one good side effect that they
were forced to concentrate more on classic subjects like physics and math, which do not require
expensive labs. So students got a solid background in math and physics. But that's about
it.
Also, the motivation for study was pretty high: if you fail two times to be admitted to the
university, you were drafted into the Red Army. If you were expelled for the bad academic
rating (which was, I think, to fail more then two exams in one semester) -- the same call from
the Red Army was waiting for you.
As emigrants from the USSR told me, programming courses were simply dismal, and graduates
essentially learned the craft of the jobs, not at universities.
Even math books were the second rate in comparison with the USA textbooks of the same
period.
They were written by a representative of so-called axiomatic schools and were extremely
boring and uninformative. But many good math books were translated (for example, Polia
writings) Actually, as I understand, translation of foreign books in the USSR was the only
first-class enterprise (despite outdated equipment). It was first-class both in the selection
and the speed of translation. For example, as Knuth mentioned, all three volumes of his books
were translated into Russian within a very short interval.
Academic degrees were also mostly fake (much like they are in the USA now ;-): one of my
friends told me that his Ph.D. from top Ukrainian University was counted only as a master
degree in the USA by the commission which studied his thesis (I believe in NYU)
But again, most good western books on tech subjects were translated and were somewhat
available. And if you compare Feynman lectures (which were also translated) to Soviet physics
textbooks, Soviet textbooks were not even competitive. Some "cutting edge" books was OK. But
very few.
The professors and lectures (including professors large part of which were just incompetent
jerks, promoted due to nepotism or Communist party activities) deteriorated to the level that
was simply painful to watch. Some came to lectures completely unprepared or drank, or tried to
teach some completely bogus theories of their own invention. Many did not come at all sending
assistants.
My impression is that essentially, in 1990, Soviet science and education experienced the
same crisis as the Communist social system as a whole.
But I think students learn as much from each other as from professors, and if the level of
the class was extremely high, the results were corresponding. In other words, poor university
teachers did not harm them that much, and a lot what they learn, they learn on their own
(except fundamental disciplines) -- kind of self-education buried within ;-).
Also, rigid soviet system (you have a zero opportunity to select your own set of subjects
for a degree) has one important advantage. It schools you to be determined and persisting, no
matter what subject you were assigned. To be a real fighter, in some academic or non-academic
sense.
That was especially true as you also need to pass exams in Marxism philosophy and Political
economy to get a degree. Those subjects were frown upon, but in retrospect were useful:
students were forced to read classics, not junk like in neo-classical economics courses in the USA.
I think that the main reason for the high quality of Soviet engineers of this period was not
the education the got, but the fact that talented people were nowhere to go; there was no
"business path." That's why Berezovsky became an academic scholar and even reached the level of
the Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Science
The level of backwardness of computer science education in the 90th in the USSR was
staggering. So the fact that there were so many talented programmers in the country, many of
whom later found a well-paid job in the Western countries, was mostly due to the level of the
talent of those few who managed to get into universities.
Many problems with Soviet education persist in Russia. Andrei Martyanov looks at many
problems of Russian society via rose glasses. Taking into account the current level of
Russophobia, that's a noble stance, and I do not object to his exaggerations.
Not recommended for anybody with a college education, especially in STEM. The author's writing is entertaining, but that's the
only positive feature of the book. All-in-all this is a collection of cyber-rumors. Thus one star.
The content is simply yet another "Russians under each bed" fearmongering transposed into cyberspace. The magic abbreviation GRU
sells such sensationalist nonsense really well. What is funny is that the organization referred as GRU does not exist under this
name since I think 1991; after the dissolution of the USSR it was renamed GU (Wikipedia GRU_(G.U.)), but I heard that now Russians
in view of the popularity of the name in the West plan to restore the original name ;-).
So much for the non-technical competence of the author in this area. The guy clearly can't shoot straight and belongs to the
category of journalists whose news coverage is considered to be inappropriately influenced by business interests, political motives,
and trumpeted by the corporate media. There is an appropriate slang name for this category; you can Google it.
In a way, the book can serve as a classic example of Russophobia in the narrow area of cybersecurity. He presents little or no
legitimate facts, preferring to retell rumors and using eye-catching phrases like a "dark room with glowing monitors". For example,
"Working on computers whose glowing monitors were the room's only light source, the reverse engineers began by running the
Ukrainians' malware-infected PowerPoint attachment again and again inside a series of virtual machines."
It is absurd to have a dark room to investigate malware ;-)
Techniques of category of journalists include exaggerations of news events, misrepresentation of facts, sensationalism,
scandal-mongering, and . They usually politicized facts and treat them in an unprofessional and/or unethical fashion.
The author is clearly is not a programmer, just a reasonably gifted snake cyber oil seller. He would be better off if he tries to
distill the content of Vault 7 based on Wikileak's information. In this case, I think both source code (archive of malware ) and
descriptions and user manuals are available in the public domain; so with enough tech skills and time in hand one can write a really
fascinating book. But that's too hard for the guy. So he just decided to milk the public by rehashing and spreading unsubstantiated
cyber rumors.
The technical level of the author can be illustrated by the following paragraph
When Robinson finally cracked those layers of obfuscation after a week of trial and error, he was rewarded with a view of the
BlackEnergy samples millions of ones and zeros -- a collection of data that was, at a glance, still entirely meaningless. This was,
after all, the program in its compiled form, translated into machine-readable binary rather than any human-readable programming
language. To understand the binary, Robinson would have to watch it execute step-by-step on his computer, unraveling it in real-time with a common reverse-engineering tool called IDA Pro that translated the
function of its commands into code as they ran. "It's almost like you're trying to determine what someone might look like solely by
looking at their DNA," Robinson said. "And the god that created that person
was trying to make the process as hard as possible."
So trivial step-by-step tracing of the code using a non-standard (more suitable for the specific purpose) binary debugger (IDA) is
in the author's opinion close to decoding DNA. Nice try but no cigar ;-) .
Actually, the debugger does not necessarily process machine binary code. It can be some VM code like Java VM. For example, parts of
Flame malware (2012) were written in LUA. Along with Stuxnet this was another groundbreaking malware, which unfortunately was
omitted by the author.
Similar incompetent techno-blabbing fills the rest of the book.
Unless this is a pre-paid part of a disinformation campaign by usual suspects, the book is really weak and should be avoided at
prices above one dollar plus shipping. But it is OK effort, if we view it as a part of the disinformation campaign and the attempt
to revive McCarthyism.
Ukrainian part of his story fully correlates with the State Department talking points, and as such, it is stupid to pay money for
it. All other Russophobia based cyber-entertainment and fearmongering is available for free, including multiple good quality videos
on YouTube (look for Crowdstrike :-)
This propaganda honcho was too lazy even to collect relevant information about the Stuxnet -- the groundbreaking worm, which really
opened a new changer in cyberwafare. It is covered in just a dozen pages (96-109) -- less then the length is less of a free good
quality magazine article on this important subject (for example, from Mark Russinovich).
But on the level of qualification of the author all worms looks the same :-) In reality this was a real, very sophisticated act of
cyberwafare, not some Ukrainian hallucinations.
I fully agree with the assessment of "val s golovskoy" (the only other one star reviewer so far):
1.0 out of 5 stars Readers: do not waste your time. December 30, 2019
Tones of rumors, zero facts. The book is following the fashionable trend to dump everything happens in America/UK to the Kremlin.
Easy and comfortable but far from reality.
The author [is] full of fears and see enemy's computers even under his bed. This book creating another legend: how Russian hackers
tried (but did not) to crash Ukrainian system.
Absolutely false and extremely boring. Low intellectual level - do not waste your time.
Here is the contents of the book:
313 - In 2010, Michael Hayden, the former director of the NSA and CIA, made a darkly prescient point in a keynote at the Black
Hat security conference in Las Vegas, speaking to a crowd of programmers, security engineers, and hackers. "You guys made the
cyber domain look like the north German plain. Then you bitch and moan when you get invaded," he said. "On the Internet, we arc
all Poland. We all get invaded on the Web. The inherent geography of this domain is that everything plays to the offense."
317- In an era marked by those in positions of power telling shameless, blatantly self-promotional lies, that sort of
selfless truth telling is more admirable and important than ever.
Working on computers whose glowing monitors were the room's only
light source, the reverse engineers began by running the Ukrainians'
malware-infected PowerPoint attachment again and again inside a
scries of virtual machines -- ephemeral simulations of a computer
housed within a real, physical one, each one of them as scaled oft
from the rest of the computer as the black room was from the rest
of the iSight offices.
In those sealed containers, the code could be studied like a scor-
pion under an aquarium's glass. They'd allow it to infect its virtual
victims repeatedly, as the reverse engineers spun up simulations of
different digital machines, running varied versions of Windows and
Microsoft Office, to study the dimensions and flexibility of the attack.
When they'd determined that the code could extract itself from the
PowerPoint file and gain full control of even the latest, fully patched
versions of the software, they had their confirmation: It was indeed
a zero day, as rare and powerful as the Ukrainians and Hultquist
had suspected. By late in the evening -- a passage of time that went
almost entirely unmarked within their work space -- they'd produced
a detailed report to share with Microsoft and their customers and
coded their own version of it, a proof-of-concept rewrite that dem-
onstrated its attack, like a pathogen in a test tube.
1.0 out of 5 stars
Readers: do not waste your time
December 30, 2019
Format: Hardcover
Tones of rumors, zero facts. The book is
following the fashionable trend to dump everything happens in America/UK to the Kremlin. Easy and comfortable but far from
reality. The author full of fears and see enemy's computers even under his bed. This book creating another legend: how Russian
hackers tried (but did not) to crash Ukrainian system. Absolutely false and extremely boring. Low intellectual level- do not
waste your time.
"... "When the party of activist government, faced with an epic crisis, will not use government's extensive powers to reverse the economic disorders and heal deepening social deterioration, then it must be the end of the line for the governing ideology inherited from Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson." ..."
"... Bill's frustration with what he referred to as "the rightward-drifting Democrats" ran deep. While his books often explored economic themes -- with particular brilliance in One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism (1997) and Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country (1987) -- he was at his finest when he wrote about the awful intersection of money and politics, in books such as Who Will Tell the People? The Betrayal of American Democracy (1992). ..."
"... Bill believed Wall Street money was corrupting American politics in general, and the Democratic Party in particular. Decades ago, during the Reagan interregnum, he warned that if the Democrats did not renew the robust commitment to economic justice that characterized FDR's tenure at its best, then surely right-wing populists would seize the opening. As always, whether he was writing for The Washington Post , Rolling Stone or The Nation (where he served as the ablest of all national affairs correspondents), Bill was right. ..."
"... The power arrangement resembles a shared monopoly, in which two companies have tacitly ceded territories to each other to avoid costly competition. ..."
"... Furthermore, the permanent hierarchy of both parties is dominated at the top by a network of pricey Washington lawyers and lobbyists who represent business interests and collaborate with one another on lobbying the government -- while pretending to be opponents. These inside players channel their corporate clients' money to the elected politicians. In effect, everyone is on the same side. ..."
I knew Bill as a quick-witted comrade in the press corps of too many campaigns to count, a generous mentor, an ideological compatriot,
and an occasional co-conspirator. He taught me to see politics not as the game that TV pundits discuss but as a high-stakes struggle
for power in which the Democrats foolishly, and then dangerously, yielded far too much ground to increasingly right-wing Republicans.
This son of the Depression era bemoaned the failure of the Democratic Party to make a New Deal–style response to the financial meltdown
of 2008,
I knew Bill as a quick-witted comrade in the press corps of too many campaigns to count, a generous mentor, an ideological compatriot,
and an occasional co-conspirator. He taught me to see politics not as the game that TV pundits discuss but as a high-stakes struggle
for power in which the Democrats foolishly, and then dangerously, yielded far too much ground to increasingly right-wing Republicans.
This son of the Depression era bemoaned the failure of the Democratic Party to make a New Deal–style response to the financial
meltdown of 2008, This son of the Depression era bemoaned the failure of the Democratic Party to make a New Deal–style response to
the financial meltdown of 2008, explaining after
the devastating Republican victories of 2010 , "When the party of activist government, faced with an epic crisis, will not use
government's extensive powers to reverse the economic disorders and heal deepening social deterioration, then it must be the end
of the line for the governing ideology inherited from Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson."
And, anticipating the rise of Donald Trump, he counseled that the void left by Democrats who pulled their punches would be filled
by Republicans who would not hesitate to practice the crudest divide-and-conquer politics. And, anticipating the rise of Donald Trump,
he counseled that the void left by Democrats who pulled their punches would be filled by Republicans who would not hesitate to practice
the crudest divide-and-conquer politics.
Bill's frustration with what he referred to as "the rightward-drifting Democrats" ran deep. While his books often explored economic
themes -- with particular brilliance in One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism (1997) and Secrets
of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country (1987) -- he was at his finest when he wrote about the awful intersection
of money and politics, in books such as Who Will Tell the People? The Betrayal of American Democracy (1992).
Bill believed Wall Street money was corrupting American politics in general, and the Democratic Party in particular. Decades
ago, during the Reagan interregnum, he warned that if the Democrats did not renew the robust commitment to economic justice that
characterized FDR's tenure at its best, then surely right-wing populists would seize the opening. As always, whether he was writing
for The Washington Post , Rolling Stone or The Nation (where he served as the ablest of all national affairs
correspondents), Bill was right.
More than 30 years ago, he recognized that "the two-party rivalry is not nearly as significant as it's made to appear" and
counseled that
The power arrangement resembles a shared monopoly, in which two companies have tacitly ceded territories to each other to avoid
costly competition.
Furthermore, the permanent hierarchy of both parties is dominated at the top by a network of pricey Washington lawyers and
lobbyists who represent business interests and collaborate with one another on lobbying the government -- while pretending to
be opponents. These inside players channel their corporate clients' money to the elected politicians. In effect, everyone is on
the same side.
The parties have begun to delineate themselves a bit more in recent years. But not sufficiently, as Bill explained in scorchingly
honest articles for The Nation . He spoke inconvenient truths about the roots of our current politics, especially when he
explained
that "the Democratic Party's crude betrayal of the working class was carried out by Bill Clinton and Al Gore when those 'New Democrats'
won power in 1992. The Clinton-Gore administration swiftly enacted NAFTA, with Republican votes, sealing the deal with Republican
policy-makers and selling out the remnants of organized labor." Bill recognized the necessity of understanding this history in order
to explain the rise of Trump and Trumpism.
Above all, Bill argued that for Democrats to seize the high ground, morally and electorally, they had to stop being a "managerial
party" and reacquaint themselves with the message FDR delivered during an epically successful 1936 reelection run. That was the year
when Roosevelt declared that
We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace -- business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism,
sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government
by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous
in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred.
I don't know if Bill had that FDR speech memorized. But he carried its spirit in his heart and soul. And he taught the rest of
us to do the same. He appreciated the history, as all great journalists do. But there was a point to its recollection. He wanted
people to think about how a genuine two-party system might work in the 21st century.
The better part of two decades ago, Bill pointed to the way out when he wrote, for The Nation , on Republican scheming
to roll back the economic and social advances initiated by progressives during the 20th century. It was sound advice then. It is
sounder advice now, as a great wrestling for the soul of the Democratic Party plays out in the fight for the 2020 nomination to take
on Trump.
"Most elected Democrats, I think, now see their role as managerial rather than big reform, and fear that even talking about ideology
will stick them with the right's demon label: 'liberal,'" he suggested. But,
he continued,
If a new understanding of progressive purpose does get formed, one that connects to social reality and describes a more promising
future, the vision will not originate in Washington but among those who see realities up close and are struggling now to change
things on the ground. We are a very wealthy (and brutally powerful) nation, so why do people experience so much stress and confinement
in their lives, a sense of loss and failure? The answers, I suggest, will lead to a new formulation of what progressives want.
The first place to inquire is not the failures of government but the malformed power relationships of American capitalism --
the terms of employment that reduce many workers to powerless digits, the closely held decisions of finance capital that shape
our society, the waste and destruction embedded in our system of mass consumption and production. The goal is, like the right's,
to create greater self-fulfillment but as broadly as possible. Self-reliance and individualism can be made meaningful for all
only by first reviving the power of collective action.
My own conviction is that a lot of Americans are ready to take up these questions and many others. Some are actually old questions
-- issues of power that were not resolved in the great reform eras of the past. They await a new generation bold enough to ask
if our prosperous society is really as free and satisfied as it claims to be. When conscientious people find ideas and remedies
that resonate with the real experiences of Americans, then they will have their vision, and perhaps the true answer to the right
wing.
This was how Bill Greider told the people of the politics that must be. He wrote truthfully, boldly, consistently, without fear
or favor, and without the empty partisanships of these awkward times. He was our North Star.
Totalitarian ideologies live by lies and contradiction. For example, the slave-state of
North Korea , ruled by
a hereditary dictatorship, proclaims itself a Democratic People's Republic when it is neither
democratic, popular, nor a republic.
In Nineteen Eighty-Four , Orwell wrote of how "the names of the
four Ministries by which [the oppressed population is] governed exhibit a sort of impudence in
their deliberate reversal of the facts. The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the
Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with
starvation.
These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary
hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink ."
Defending the death-machine
You could, then, call GCHQ and the NSA part of the Ministry of Morality. While breaking laws
against surveillance and trying to destroy freedom of expression and enquiry, they pretend that
they're caring, ethical organizations who defend the oppressed and want to build a better
world. In fact, of course, GCHQ and the NSA are defending the death-machine of the military-industrial
complex , which has been wrecking nations and slaughtering civilians in
the Middle East (and elsewhere ) for
decades.
Quote: Orwell didn't foresee the celebration of homosexuality by totalitarians, but he did
explain it.
If you read Anthony Burgess' The Wanting Seed he writes about the roles of gays in
dystopia. He also talks about race, two things that Orwell and Huxley didn't. The Wanting
Seed is just as important in the world of dystopia as Brave New World or 1984.
one way George Orwell got the future completely wrong
That assumes he was writing about the future. He was mocking the Soviet "justice" system
in the recent past. The man was a satirist, after all. How did Stalin's men treat sexual
deviation?
1) The iniquities of the members of one skyfairy cult are not evidence for the virtues of
another such organisation and never will be.
2) It seems likely to me that homosexuality is a feature of overpopulation and may be a
natural population control mechanism. Experiments have shown that rats kept in overcrowded
conditions exhibit homosexual tendencies and also become more violent towards other rats. I
doubt that it is purely a coincidence that homosexuality first became notable round about the
time that humans started living in cities.
Other species have means of controlling their
populations, rabbits for example can reabsorb their embryos if the population count is too
high, seals can freeze the development of their foetuses etc.
I see no rational purpose in demonising homosexuals and I am certainly not going to let the purveyors of ancient
superstitious claptrap do my thinking for me. Cue howls of outrage from both skyfairy
cultists and from queers (if they are happy to use the word I don't see why I shouldn't)
3) It seems to me that the Zionist bankers have essentially bankrupted the western world
in an attempt to bring the rest of the world under their control, they have failed. They are
now attempting to mobilise any and all sections of the population that identify as minorities
as allies against the majorities in those countries, importing as many more as they can get
away with. What sense does it make to reinforce their narrative that it is heterosexual
whites v everyone else? because that is exactly what some people are doing. The Zionists are
making their following as broad as possible while attempting to narrow ours, why play into
their hands? Opposition to immigration for example does not have to be presented as a racial
issue, many people here in the UK were opposed to mass immigration from eastern Europe on
purely economic grounds, Poles and Lithuanians are not a different race and hardly even a
different culture. Do you really think that Blacks and Latinos that have been in the US for
generations are uniformly delighted about a new influx of cheap labour? Do you really believe
that Muslims are the natural allies of Jews or of homosexuals? If you actually put some
thought into the struggle rather than relying on superstitious claptrap and bigotry you might
be able to start pushing back.
So, Western civilization is going to collapse because of a few fairies & fag
hags?
Yes, it looks as if it will collapse. Not because the fairies and fag hags are
all-powerful, but because we have had it so good & easy for so long that we've gotten
weaker than any determined, focused fairy or hag.
Leftism in general, which I characterize as a mass adoption of a "mental map" (the gross
oversimplification of infinite reality people use to navigate their lives) highly estranged
from underlying reality, is Nature's "suicide switch" for an organism that has grossly
overgrown its ecological niche.
Today people believe palpably unreal things, in incredibly large numbers, with incredibly
deep fervor. The poster-child is the belief in the efficacy of magical incantations (statute
legislation) to change Actual Reality. If "we" want to end racism (however we define it in
the Newspeak Dictionary) then we just pass a law and "pow!" it's gone. (When that doesn't
work, we pass another law, and another and another and another, always expecting a different
result.)
Ditto the banking (and monetary) system. Money used to be basically a "receipt" for
actually having something IN HAND to take to the market and engage in trade. This was the
essence of Say's Law, "in order to consume (buy something) you must first produce."
Some clever Machiavellians figured out that if you could "complexify" and obscure the
monetary system enough, you could obtain the legal right to create from thin air the
ability to enter that market and buy something, which stripped to its essence is the crime of
fraud.
Banking has been an open fraud for a very long time, certainly since the era of naked fiat
money was introduced in the 1960's. But as long as everyone went along with the gag, and
especially once Credit Bubble Funny Money started fueling a debt orgy and rationalizing an
asset price mania, everyone thought "we could all get rich."
Today we have vast claims on real wealth (real wealth is productive land, productive plant
& equipment and capital you can hold in your hands, so to speak.) But we have uncountable
claims on each unit of real capital. The Machiavellians think that they will end up holding
title to it all, when the day comes to actually make an honest accounting. I suspect that
they lack the political power to pull that off, but only time will tell.
When this long, insane boom is reconciled, a lot of productive capital will turn out to be
nothing but vaporware and rusting steel. Entire industries arose to cater to
credit-bubble-demand, and when the bubble eventually ceases to inflate, demand in (and the
capital applied to) those industries will collapse. How many hospitals do you need when no
one has the money to pay for their services, and the tax base has burned to the ground?
Simple formula. Liberalism was the defense of the individual against the group.
All one needs to do is a simple substitution. Minorities , environment , animals etc are a
means by witch one can make individuals into the institutionalized oppressor. Even better is
the so called intersectional mini oppressions which make nearly all victims which in turns
makes all guilty. State intervention must increase .Guilty people , as all religions of the
world understand, are easily dominated and controlled.
The power the individual is destroyed by its own momentum.
@Digital Samizdat The Bolsheviks first pushed "free love" – easy divorce, abortion
and homosexuality. There even was serious discussion about whether or not to abolish
marriage. They reversed themselves and by the time WWII broke out, the official culture of
the Soviet Union was more socially conservative than that of the US. Even in the 1980s, the
Commies were tough on gays, lesbians and druggies.
by Ingrid Robeyns on December 29, 2019 Some aspects of
academia show great international variation. There is one on which I haven't found any good
data, and hence thought I'll ask the crowd here so that we can gather our own data, even if it
will be not very scientifically collected.
The question is this: if you are a university teacher/professor and your department awards
PhD-degrees, do you get any official time allocated (or time-compensation) for PhD supervision?
If it is part of a teaching load model, how many hours (or % teaching load) is it equivalent
to? Or is there an expectation that you take on PhD-students but that this does not lead to a
reduction in other tasks?
How do international practices of the conditions for PhD-supervisors compare?
In my faculty (Humanities at Utrecht University, the Netherlands), all supervisors together
(which generally are two, sometimes three) are collectively given a teaching load reduction of
132 hours in the year follow the graduation of the PhD-candidate. So your teaching reduction
upon successful graduation of a PhD-candidate tends to be 66 hours. For the supervisory work
you effectively do in the four years prior to graduation, there is no time allocated; so you
effectively do this in your research or your leisure time.
To put this into perspective: most (assistant/associate/full) professors teach 50-70% of
their time, and a fulltime workload is 1670 hours, or 1750 hours if you are saving for a
sabbatical. This can be reduced if you have major managerial tasks (e.g. Head of Department) or
if a large part of your wage is paid by a research grant. So without reductions, we teach about
835-1190 hours a year (this includes the time for preparation and examination, but frankly, one
always needs more than the teaching load models allocate for a given course. And in general
there are no TAs or other support staff to help with the practical sides of teaching).
For writing the grants that are almost always needed to create the jobs for PhD students
(with success rates now around 15%), and for supervising those who in the end do not get their
PhD degree, there is no time put aside for the supervisor/applicants. That time also goes,
effectively, from our research time, or, more realistically, from our leisure time.
Recently, I heard from a British colleague and a Swedish colleague their models for
PhD-supervision, which were way more generous (and rightly so in my view), so thought I'll
throw the question on the table here: what, if any, time-compensation/teachingreduction do you
get for supervising PhD students?
I am not trying to suggest here that without adequate time set aside for doing this work, it
would not be worthwhile supervising PhDs. There are in many cases other forms of rewards for
the work one does as a PhD supervisor. One might be the honor of supervising PhDs, and in most
cases the intrinsic rewards of the supervisory process – the satisfaction of seeing a
young person take their first steps as a scholar, and being able to play a crucial role in this
process. There is , after all, a reason why the Germans call their PhD-supervisor
mein Doktorvater or meine Doktormutter – since yes, there is this element
of helping someone to grow, in a cognitive and professional sense. Professionally, there are
few people who had so much influence on me as my PhD-supervisor, and I am hoping that some of
my (former) PhD-students will think the same at some point in their lives. So it would be wrong
to frame it merely as a burden, since there is the intrinsic value of the rather unique
professional relationship. But that cannot be a reason to not give PhDsupervisors the time they
need to properly supervise, given how severe time pressure in academia is. I see this as a real
tension.
In some academic fields, there may be professional research benefits for the supervisors,
such as becoming co-authors on the publications the PhD-students write under your supervision.
I recently examined a PhD-thesis in medical ethics, and all chapters (being articles published
or under review) had been co-written with several members of the supervisory team. Even raising
the funds to hire the PhD is sometimes seen as sufficient reason to be listed as a co-author.
In the humanities there is no such a thing: we don't put our names on articles of our
PhDstudents, even if we contributed significantly to the development of that piece (rightly so
in my view).
I'm posting this because I am interested in the international comparison in its own right,
but also because of its relevance in discussions on higher education policies which are
currently very intense in the Netherlands, on which I'll write another blogpost
later.
In my part of my university each PhD student earns her supervisors around 60 notional
hours/1600 total per annum, but that's usually divided 5/1 between two supervisors, so that
the person actually doing the work has about 50 hours, so slightly over an hour/week given
annual leave etc. My greatest beef with this is when we admit non-anglophone PhD students.
Since they officially have a level of competence in English as a condition of their
admission, they do not get any extra time for supervision. But in practice, their work takes
much longer to read and you have to put a lot of work into improving their English.
In my faculty (Arts and Social Sciences at Sydney) the primary supervisor gets 40 hours per
year and an auxiliary supervisor gets ten. (There is some flexibility for the 50 total hours
to be divided differently.)
In a recent survey of faculty staff with a response rate of around 30%, most reported
spending longer per primary supervision: the median was 50 hours.
There's actually a growing literature on academic time use. Kenny and Fluck have published
a series of papers based on a large survey of Australian academics. The median reported time
spent supervising a higher degree student per year was 60 hours over all discipline groups,
50 hours for Arts, Law and Humanities. (Kenny and Fluck 2018 'Research workloads in
Australian universities', _Australian Universities Review_ -- and the companion papers on
teaching and admin workloads are also worth googling for the full results over lots of
tasks.)
When we tried to establish a "norm" at the University of York, it turned out that practice
varied widely not only across faculties, but within the arts and humanities and social
sciences. Some departments simply included it in "research time" and gave zero extra time,
others gave a (more-or-less generous) "teaching" allocation. So, I am not sure you can get
any useful comparisons even at an institutional level let alone internationally.
Currently, in the Law School at York, a PhD student – during the period of registration
(i.e., only for the first 3 years) – earns her supervisors around 80 notional hours of
teaching per year. This is split across the supervisory team in proportion to their
involvement.
Many colleagues think this is insufficient, in particular with non-anglophone students and it
can be particularly galling if one is putting a lot of work into the final "writing up"
year.
For what it is worth, I found this very hard to manage when I was Head of Department (and so
responsible for workloads). The issue for me was that in many cases senior colleagues had
several PhD students and (some) junior colleagues none (or very little involvement. This was
back in the day of most students have one supervisor.). Modelling a system where PhD
supervision was "properly" rewarded (that is, where I tried to allocate hours in accordance
to the amount of time it actually took) resulted in a very hierarchical department where
(roughly) senior colleagues did PhD supervision and junior colleagues taught undergraduates.
So, I didn't do it.
For what it is worth (addressing the wider issues of workload), it seems to me that there is
an inevitable gap between a workload system conceived of as a mechanism of "counting" (how
many hours does this job actually take?) and conceived of as a mechanism of "distribution"
(how much work is there to be done and how many people to do it?). Of course, the
distributive principles cannot stray too far from the realities revealed in counting, but it
(seems to me at least) perfectly okay to think that the distributive principles include other
considerations like the "shape" of the department, individual "goals" (having PhD students is
good for promotion at York) and personal development, gender, and so on.
Finally, this problem does not seem to be unique to PhD supervision (the current "hot topic"
at York is how to count/distribute time for research grant writing, which at the moment is
simply included in individual research in most, but not all, departments). York tried to
introduce a workload model across the university and never managed it because departmental
variations were so huge (in everything from whether/how to include teaching preparation time
to how to rank administrative tasks). That said, this may be the result of our particular
institutional history (until recently, we had a very flat structure with only relatively
autonomous departments and no faculties).
In Japan as far as I know there is no allowance at all, and senior staff (the professor who
is the official supervisor) often dump all supervisory responsibility on the most junior
staff. There is also often no limit on how many PhD students the professor can take on (and
dump on their assistant prof). This is particularly bad with masters students, whose theses
are much more time limited and challenging to supervise.
I don't know if it's a general thing but my colleagues in China tell me they are only
allowed a PhD student if they publish above a certain level – PhD students are treated
as a valuable asset you need to struggle to get. (I think they are paid by the uni but don't
quote me). In the universities I know of in China the PhD student has to publish to graduate
(sometimes like 3 papers) so the benefits to the supervisor are obvious.
I'm in public health where publication is relatively easy and quick. I don't know how it
is in other disciplines (but the Japanese professor dumping his responsibilities on junior
staff is quite common across disciplines as far as I can tell).
It's not part of a workload model for us. We're expected to teach 2 classes a semester (8
contact hours a week total), then research, service, and graduate supervision on top, but the
only thing that is specified is the 2 classes. So no compensation for PhD students. In
practice the number of PhD supervisions varies greatly across faculty (as you'd expect), as
does the amount of service work we do (if you're good at it you get asked to do more, if
you're tenured and responsible you generally try to say yes), as does the amount of time we
actually spend on the courses we teach.
As do our salaries, to be fair, which reflect years of service, perceived quality of
research, how much the people elected to the department budget value the other things we do,
and, to some extent, market forces.
What I've described is my own department. There's huge variation across campus, including
variation in numbers of courses we're expected to teach.
Possibly worth mentioning that from what I have gathered expectations of how many courses
we teach have fallen dramatically (across campus) over the past 50 years, and the number of
course releases granted have increased dramatically: I estimate faculty in the humanities
teach 30% less than 50 years ago, and in the sciences 50% less. I imagine this is similar
across public research universities and SLACs.
So, purely anecdotal and from the perspective of a PhD and post-doc in Science at 2
different, fairly well thought of UK Universities (Russel group, etc. etc.).
PhD students are highly valuable. This is because a Masters or summer student are
necessarily short term, and it is difficult to fulfil much breakthrough research (sometimes
you need a few years of banging your head against a wall ). Post-docs are phenomenally
expensive as in the UK as the University charges a huge amount just to have them – e.g.
a rough breakdown (from some years ago, so a little out of date) is to just have a post-doc
(i.e. no equipment, materials, etc.) is in excess of £110K per year. Some 31000 is for
salary, the rest goes to the University to keep the lights on. Having more than a few
post-docs, for all but the most successful labs, became prohibitively expensive.
However, as a PhD most of my time was with my post-docs (in my first year I saw my
professor once, for 1hr, in later years maybe a few times more, so approximately 15 hr over
3.5 years). As a post-doc, the PhD students had regular meetings in a group format once per
month (so, more or less 2-3 hr per month). In both cases it, in principle, was possible to go
and meet the supervisor if you felt the need, but generally speaking your post-doc was the
point of contact on a day-by-day, week-by-week basis.
I've not been a lecturer, so this is very speculative, but my impression is that
supervising PhD students is generally considered a research activity, and thus you are not
budgeted time for it specifically.
Not sure if any of this is useful, but feel free to hit me up for more details if you
think it is useful/interesting.
I taught for 15 years at 3 Dutch universities, 3 years at a Russell Group university in
England, and am now at an Irish university. I did my PhD in the United States. Like the other
posters, I have experienced wide variation in 'compensation' for PhD supervision. One of the
reasons I left my position at a British university was the bizarre (and I thought, unfair)
model for workload allocation. PhD supervision was highly 'compensated', and actual classroom
teaching of undergrads was not. I had colleagues who met all or most of their teaching
obligations with PhD supervision and did not teach undergrads.
I don't know what the best way to compensate PhD supervision is, but there are a couple of
aspects I think need more attention. The first is wide variation in the number of PhD
students in any given department and the rules/norms governing who is (de facto) permitted to
supervise PhDs. Dutch departments have fewer PhD students than UK/Irish departments (for
complicated reasons), and only full (and now associate?) profs are permitted to supervise.
PhD supervision is important for promotion (as it is in the UK and IE), so everyone wants to
do it, but not everyone has access. I am not sure that an activity that is so important for
career progression should be generously compensated.
The second issue concerns co-authoring with a PhD student. I can see the advantages of this
(which Ingrid mentions), but the proliferation of the article-based PhD where the supervisors
co-author all articles is a cause for concern. Again, I am not convinced that a PhD
supervisor should be generously compensated for something (publications) that strongly
advances their own career. And it is not clear to me that the supervisor's contribution to
the publication (in many cases, at least) amounts to more than what would be considered
'normal' PhD supervision in the US, Canada, and many European universities. This makes it
very difficult to evaluate a newly minted PhD's CV, and it inflates the publication list of
more senior academics.
A couple of ideas: 1) cap the number of PhD students that staff can supervise, or at least
cap the number for which teaching points are earned. 2) ensure that all academic staff have
access to PhD supervision.
Private university in Turkey : the basic assumption here is that supervising PhD students and
MA theses takes zero time (although people typically budget an hour per week per student.
The workload allocation for Humanities at the University of Exeter is similar to Chris's
account of Bristol (where I worked previously), though it's more common for the hours to be
divided 70/30, 60/40 or even 50/50 between first and second supervisors, with the latter
playing a much more active role. The biggest difference, however, is that you continue to
receive an allowance when the student is writing up, and even if they're revising after a
first examination, whereas the Bristol practice was, at least, that you get a workload
allowance for the first three years and then nothing for the period which in my experience
often required the greatest amount of work
I haven't – yet – supervised a doctoral student, but I did examine a viva this
year & was surprised to find that this carried no workload allowance at all, which seems
odd given the amount of reading time involved. (Fortunately I wasn't mad busy.)
Former US academic; taught at a few R1 uni's from 80s to aughts.
To echo the doughty Puritan: " the basic assumption here is that supervising PhD students
and MA theses takes zero time."
We had a standard teaching load, and expectations for research and service. But there was
no calculation of supervisory load -- it simply was not tracked, budgeted, or accounted for.
As Harry says above, there were wide disparities from person to person, since some people
attract a lot of grad students and some do not (and some repel them, either for strategic
purposes, or because they are repellent no matter what they try).
No one cared whether you supervised 15 PhD students or zero. Not quite true -- there was
some unofficial awareness among colleagues who thought collegially about things. And you
might get some private thanks or informal kudos for doing more than your share. But there was
absolutely no official account of it. And this was true at all 3 R1s I taught at over several
decades.
That's partly because -- in a Humanities field -- the funding of grad students does not
follow the prof, but the program as a whole. So, Central Admin knows that your department is
training 25 PhDs, because Central Admin has to figure their tuition, stipends, etc. But the
money then flows to your department as a whole, with no closer investigation of who in your
department is doing the work.
The picture must be radically different in the Sciences, where there is literal accounting
of PhD students, since they are supported by the professor's grant-money.
Surely there are other ways to offload work to PhD students one would otherwise have to do
oneself besides getting research recognition for their thesis. How much of that is possible
should also vary across countries. So a comparsion of alocated supervision time only seems a
bit one sided.
As regards co-authorship, my PhD students and postdocs are often keen to include me on the
theory that a paper with a more senior author will have a better chance of acceptance. My
impression is that, in economics, the expectation is that the main job market paper will be
sole-authored or else co-authored with another junior researcher, but that others are likely
to be co-authored with the supervisor.
To complicate things further, economics (like philosophy, I believe) works on average
quality rather than total contribution. So, a publication with a student in a journal lower
ranked than my average paper is actually a negative for me.
I assume that "Harry" above is Harry B of the blog. If so, he's showing why comparisons w/
the US on this will be hard, if not impossible. In many countries, there is a weird fantasy
that academics can and should be treated like hourly employees, with "hours" assigned to
things. (This is certainly so in Australia.) Of course, it's a fantasy in that, if it in fact
takes a lot more "hours" to do the things you're assigned, you don't get over-time, comp
time, or paid more. The other down-side is that this system leads, in my experience, to more
micro-managing – being expected to "account" for your time to a much greater degree.
The US system treats academics more like salaried employees – you get paid a certain
amount, you have certain tasks to do, and you must do them (some of them at particular times,
like teaching classes) but otherwise you're not dealing with "hours" for things. The
down-side is that there can be lots of variation in how much work people actually do –
even teaching the same "number" of classes can vary a lot depending on the number of preps,
size, how often you've taught it, if you have TAs, etc., and having more advisees may not
lead to more recognition on its own. The plus side is that less time is spent on being
mico-managed and bureaucratic nonsense. The relevant point here, though, is that it's really
hard to make a comparison like the one asked for between systems where one treats academics
more like hourly employees and the other more like salaried employees.
My wife (a New Zealand academic with confirmation) is allocated a. 24 hours per year for
supervising PhD students. She trusts that the ludicrousness of this number is not lost on
those present.
I am a Professor in an Engineering discipline at a small, state engineering school in the US.
Our workload is departmentally determined. My department is fairly small, ~100 undergrads,
but does quite a bit of research. My nominal workload is 40% teaching, 40% research and 20%
service. This is based on 40 working hours per week. My effective workload is 46% teaching,
8% advising (both undergrad and grad), 23% overseeing my funded research projects and about
25% service. This is more than 100%, which is true for almost all faculty at my school.
Thus, I estimate how much time I spend doing various things and then convert that to
credit hours, as my contract is specified in terms of 18 credit hours of work per semester,
making a credit hour about 2 hours and 40 minutes
In Technological University Dublin (formerly Dublin Institute of Technology), supervision of
a full-time PhD student attracts a time allowance of 2 hours per week (48 hours per annum),
from a weekly teaching load of 16 contact hours for lecturers (18 hours for assistant
lecturers). So, for example, a lecturer with two full-time PhD students will allocate 25% (4
hours) of his / her weekly contact teaching duties to this role.
In my department (at Uppsala University, Sweden) the workload norm is 88 hours per year
supervisory time for the main supervisor and 20 for the assistant supervisor. This time
includes the face-to-face hours, as well as reading, commenting, etc. The split can be done
differently to reflect other kinds of co-supervisory arrangements. This seems very generous
compared to what others are reporting, which is sad, since an average of 1 hour meeting, 1
hour reading per week for 44 weeks in a year would work out as very minimal supervision --
and supervisors typically spend much more time on supervision related tasks than this.
A couple of years ago, I did a survey of the formal teaching duties at polisci departments at
Scandinavian universities for a report published by the Swedish Institute for Labour Market
Evaluation. The survey looked at the formal percentage of teaching duty for senior lecturers
and full professors, and the formal compensation in terms of hours allotted for various
teaching activities (e.g., lectures, supervision at different levels, examination and so on).
We found, first, that the formal teaching duty varied quite a lot across Scandinavian
universities, but that all Swedish universities had less generous conditions than Danish and
Norwegian universities, which came closer to the Humboldtian ideal of unity of teaching and
research.
Second, by multiplying teaching duty and compensation for a standard set of teaching
activities, we found that the consequences for the individual lecturer could be quite
drastic: over a hypothetical career from age 35 to retirement at 67, a lecturer at the least
generous university could have ten whole years more of teaching duty than their colleague at
the most generous university.
I'm an Associate Professor in Computer Science at a US R1 university.
As Matt says, the description in Ingrid's post is totally unlike how things are thought of
at all in US universities. My load is 40% research, 40% teaching, 20% service, which is
standard for tenure-track faculty in my department (and I think across departments here). The
standard teaching load is 3 courses per year (2 in one semester, 1 in the other). However,
there are several exceptions to this: before tenure, faculty are assigned only 2 courses per
year. Also, if you support (with external grant funding) 3 PhD students or post-docs in the
previous year then you only teach 2 courses the next year. Additionally, pre-tenure faculty
are asked to do considerably less service.
Furthermore, there are several additional differences that are relevant. First, and most
importantly, the distinction between "research" and "PhD supervision" does not exist in
science. Effectively all of my research is joint with PhD students, although sometimes they
are not "my" students, but those of my collaborators. Second, not all students are funded by
grants; PhD students can also be funded by teaching. So it's possible to have one or two
students without bringing in funding. Third, there's a strong expectation that training PhD
students is part of the job, you wouldn't get tenure/promotion/etc if you just didn't do
it.
In my institution, you don't get any teaching load reduction, whereas you do get a tiny but
non-zero reduction for supervising a master thesis, or even an undergraduate research
project. I believe that is the norm in France in science in general, and most likely overall.
The logic behind that choice is that supervising a PhD student is supposed to bring its own
benefits: the student will do a lot of lab work for the superviser, the superviser will
cosign the research papers etc.
In math (my own field), there is no lab work to be done and the French tradition is that
papers drawn from the PhD should be signed by the student alone, so the arrangement is quite
unfavorable to us.
On the other hand
So without reductions, we teach about 835-1190 hours a year
Did I read that right? Can you clarify how many hours are counted for one hour in front of
the students? That number looks like madness to me (and I have a heavy teaching load
myself).
"Highly research-active" profs teach one fewer course per year. There is some flexibility
as to how to maintain this designation, but typically you must have at least 2 active
graduate students at any given time (and meet various other requirements).
Going through our standard courseload: if you ignore the other work related to maintaining
status, your first two Ph.D. students are worth about 90 hours/year, and the remainder are
worth nothing.
As regards co-authorship, my Ph.D. students and postdocs are often keen to include me on
the theory that a paper with a more senior author will have a better chance of
acceptance.
This is an important point. I agree that it is somewhat dishonest to use your post-grad
students to increase you number of publications. But it should be weighted against the real
difficulties of young researchers to get their papers published. And the fact that sometimes
brilliant papers from them are rejected. Nobody can abolish clan behavior in the academy. And
the "academic kitchen" is pretty dirty, and takes years to understand ;-).
Sometimes publishing oversees helps here, and young researchers should keep this in mind.
For many foreign journals, just the fact that you are a foreigner from a prestigious
university is a plus that weights on the acceptance.
by Ingrid Robeyns on December 29, 2019 Some aspects of
academia show great international variation. There is one on which I haven't found any good
data, and hence thought I'll ask the crowd here so that we can gather our own data, even if it
will be not very scientifically collected.
The question is this: if you are a university teacher/professor and your department awards
PhD-degrees, do you get any official time allocated (or time-compensation) for PhD supervision?
If it is part of a teaching load model, how many hours (or % teaching load) is it equivalent
to? Or is there an expectation that you take on PhD-students but that this does not lead to a
reduction in other tasks?
How do international practices of the conditions for PhD-supervisors compare?
In my faculty (Humanities at Utrecht University, the Netherlands), all supervisors together
(which generally are two, sometimes three) are collectively given a teaching load reduction of
132 hours in the year follow the graduation of the PhD-candidate. So your teaching reduction
upon successful graduation of a PhD-candidate tends to be 66 hours. For the supervisory work
you effectively do in the four years prior to graduation, there is no time allocated; so you
effectively do this in your research or your leisure time.
To put this into perspective: most (assistant/associate/full) professors teach 50-70% of
their time, and a fulltime workload is 1670 hours, or 1750 hours if you are saving for a
sabbatical. This can be reduced if you have major managerial tasks (e.g. Head of Department) or
if a large part of your wage is paid by a research grant. So without reductions, we teach about
835-1190 hours a year (this includes the time for preparation and examination, but frankly, one
always needs more than the teaching load models allocate for a given course. And in general
there are no TAs or other support staff to help with the practical sides of teaching).
For writing the grants that are almost always needed to create the jobs for PhD students
(with success rates now around 15%), and for supervising those who in the end do not get their
PhD degree, there is no time put aside for the supervisor/applicants. That time also goes,
effectively, from our research time, or, more realistically, from our leisure time.
Recently, I heard from a British colleague and a Swedish colleague their models for
PhD-supervision, which were way more generous (and rightly so in my view), so thought I'll
throw the question on the table here: what, if any, time-compensation/teachingreduction do you
get for supervising PhD students?
I am not trying to suggest here that without adequate time set aside for doing this work, it
would not be worthwhile supervising PhDs. There are in many cases other forms of rewards for
the work one does as a PhD supervisor. One might be the honor of supervising PhDs, and in most
cases the intrinsic rewards of the supervisory process – the satisfaction of seeing a
young person take their first steps as a scholar, and being able to play a crucial role in this
process. There is , after all, a reason why the Germans call their PhD-supervisor
mein Doktorvater or meine Doktormutter – since yes, there is this element
of helping someone to grow, in a cognitive and professional sense. Professionally, there are
few people who had so much influence on me as my PhD-supervisor, and I am hoping that some of
my (former) PhD-students will think the same at some point in their lives. So it would be wrong
to frame it merely as a burden, since there is the intrinsic value of the rather unique
professional relationship. But that cannot be a reason to not give PhDsupervisors the time they
need to properly supervise, given how severe time pressure in academia is. I see this as a real
tension.
In some academic fields, there may be professional research benefits for the supervisors,
such as becoming co-authors on the publications the PhD-students write under your supervision.
I recently examined a PhD-thesis in medical ethics, and all chapters (being articles published
or under review) had been co-written with several members of the supervisory team. Even raising
the funds to hire the PhD is sometimes seen as sufficient reason to be listed as a co-author.
In the humanities there is no such a thing: we don't put our names on articles of our
PhDstudents, even if we contributed significantly to the development of that piece (rightly so
in my view).
I'm posting this because I am interested in the international comparison in its own right,
but also because of its relevance in discussions on higher education policies which are
currently very intense in the Netherlands, on which I'll write another blogpost
later.
In my part of my university each PhD student earns her supervisors around 60 notional
hours/1600 total per annum, but that's usually divided 5/1 between two supervisors, so that
the person actually doing the work has about 50 hours, so slightly over an hour/week given
annual leave etc. My greatest beef with this is when we admit non-anglophone PhD students.
Since they officially have a level of competence in English as a condition of their
admission, they do not get any extra time for supervision. But in practice, their work takes
much longer to read and you have to put a lot of work into improving their English.
In my faculty (Arts and Social Sciences at Sydney) the primary supervisor gets 40 hours per
year and an auxiliary supervisor gets ten. (There is some flexibility for the 50 total hours
to be divided differently.)
In a recent survey of faculty staff with a response rate of around 30%, most reported
spending longer per primary supervision: the median was 50 hours.
There's actually a growing literature on academic time use. Kenny and Fluck have published
a series of papers based on a large survey of Australian academics. The median reported time
spent supervising a higher degree student per year was 60 hours over all discipline groups,
50 hours for Arts, Law and Humanities. (Kenny and Fluck 2018 'Research workloads in
Australian universities', _Australian Universities Review_ -- and the companion papers on
teaching and admin workloads are also worth googling for the full results over lots of
tasks.)
When we tried to establish a "norm" at the University of York, it turned out that practice
varied widely not only across faculties, but within the arts and humanities and social
sciences. Some departments simply included it in "research time" and gave zero extra time,
others gave a (more-or-less generous) "teaching" allocation. So, I am not sure you can get
any useful comparisons even at an institutional level let alone internationally.
Currently, in the Law School at York, a PhD student – during the period of registration
(i.e., only for the first 3 years) – earns her supervisors around 80 notional hours of
teaching per year. This is split across the supervisory team in proportion to their
involvement.
Many colleagues think this is insufficient, in particular with non-anglophone students and it
can be particularly galling if one is putting a lot of work into the final "writing up"
year.
For what it is worth, I found this very hard to manage when I was Head of Department (and so
responsible for workloads). The issue for me was that in many cases senior colleagues had
several PhD students and (some) junior colleagues none (or very little involvement. This was
back in the day of most students have one supervisor.). Modelling a system where PhD
supervision was "properly" rewarded (that is, where I tried to allocate hours in accordance
to the amount of time it actually took) resulted in a very hierarchical department where
(roughly) senior colleagues did PhD supervision and junior colleagues taught undergraduates.
So, I didn't do it.
For what it is worth (addressing the wider issues of workload), it seems to me that there is
an inevitable gap between a workload system conceived of as a mechanism of "counting" (how
many hours does this job actually take?) and conceived of as a mechanism of "distribution"
(how much work is there to be done and how many people to do it?). Of course, the
distributive principles cannot stray too far from the realities revealed in counting, but it
(seems to me at least) perfectly okay to think that the distributive principles include other
considerations like the "shape" of the department, individual "goals" (having PhD students is
good for promotion at York) and personal development, gender, and so on.
Finally, this problem does not seem to be unique to PhD supervision (the current "hot topic"
at York is how to count/distribute time for research grant writing, which at the moment is
simply included in individual research in most, but not all, departments). York tried to
introduce a workload model across the university and never managed it because departmental
variations were so huge (in everything from whether/how to include teaching preparation time
to how to rank administrative tasks). That said, this may be the result of our particular
institutional history (until recently, we had a very flat structure with only relatively
autonomous departments and no faculties).
In Japan as far as I know there is no allowance at all, and senior staff (the professor who
is the official supervisor) often dump all supervisory responsibility on the most junior
staff. There is also often no limit on how many PhD students the professor can take on (and
dump on their assistant prof). This is particularly bad with masters students, whose theses
are much more time limited and challenging to supervise.
I don't know if it's a general thing but my colleagues in China tell me they are only
allowed a PhD student if they publish above a certain level – PhD students are treated
as a valuable asset you need to struggle to get. (I think they are paid by the uni but don't
quote me). In the universities I know of in China the PhD student has to publish to graduate
(sometimes like 3 papers) so the benefits to the supervisor are obvious.
I'm in public health where publication is relatively easy and quick. I don't know how it
is in other disciplines (but the Japanese professor dumping his responsibilities on junior
staff is quite common across disciplines as far as I can tell).
It's not part of a workload model for us. We're expected to teach 2 classes a semester (8
contact hours a week total), then research, service, and graduate supervision on top, but the
only thing that is specified is the 2 classes. So no compensation for PhD students. In
practice the number of PhD supervisions varies greatly across faculty (as you'd expect), as
does the amount of service work we do (if you're good at it you get asked to do more, if
you're tenured and responsible you generally try to say yes), as does the amount of time we
actually spend on the courses we teach.
As do our salaries, to be fair, which reflect years of service, perceived quality of
research, how much the people elected to the department budget value the other things we do,
and, to some extent, market forces.
What I've described is my own department. There's huge variation across campus, including
variation in numbers of courses we're expected to teach.
Possibly worth mentioning that from what I have gathered expectations of how many courses
we teach have fallen dramatically (across campus) over the past 50 years, and the number of
course releases granted have increased dramatically: I estimate faculty in the humanities
teach 30% less than 50 years ago, and in the sciences 50% less. I imagine this is similar
across public research universities and SLACs.
So, purely anecdotal and from the perspective of a PhD and post-doc in Science at 2
different, fairly well thought of UK Universities (Russel group, etc. etc.).
PhD students are highly valuable. This is because a Masters or summer student are
necessarily short term, and it is difficult to fulfil much breakthrough research (sometimes
you need a few years of banging your head against a wall ). Post-docs are phenomenally
expensive as in the UK as the University charges a huge amount just to have them – e.g.
a rough breakdown (from some years ago, so a little out of date) is to just have a post-doc
(i.e. no equipment, materials, etc.) is in excess of £110K per year. Some 31000 is for
salary, the rest goes to the University to keep the lights on. Having more than a few
post-docs, for all but the most successful labs, became prohibitively expensive.
However, as a PhD most of my time was with my post-docs (in my first year I saw my
professor once, for 1hr, in later years maybe a few times more, so approximately 15 hr over
3.5 years). As a post-doc, the PhD students had regular meetings in a group format once per
month (so, more or less 2-3 hr per month). In both cases it, in principle, was possible to go
and meet the supervisor if you felt the need, but generally speaking your post-doc was the
point of contact on a day-by-day, week-by-week basis.
I've not been a lecturer, so this is very speculative, but my impression is that
supervising PhD students is generally considered a research activity, and thus you are not
budgeted time for it specifically.
Not sure if any of this is useful, but feel free to hit me up for more details if you
think it is useful/interesting.
I taught for 15 years at 3 Dutch universities, 3 years at a Russell Group university in
England, and am now at an Irish university. I did my PhD in the United States. Like the other
posters, I have experienced wide variation in 'compensation' for PhD supervision. One of the
reasons I left my position at a British university was the bizarre (and I thought, unfair)
model for workload allocation. PhD supervision was highly 'compensated', and actual classroom
teaching of undergrads was not. I had colleagues who met all or most of their teaching
obligations with PhD supervision and did not teach undergrads.
I don't know what the best way to compensate PhD supervision is, but there are a couple of
aspects I think need more attention. The first is wide variation in the number of PhD
students in any given department and the rules/norms governing who is (de facto) permitted to
supervise PhDs. Dutch departments have fewer PhD students than UK/Irish departments (for
complicated reasons), and only full (and now associate?) profs are permitted to supervise.
PhD supervision is important for promotion (as it is in the UK and IE), so everyone wants to
do it, but not everyone has access. I am not sure that an activity that is so important for
career progression should be generously compensated.
The second issue concerns co-authoring with a PhD student. I can see the advantages of this
(which Ingrid mentions), but the proliferation of the article-based PhD where the supervisors
co-author all articles is a cause for concern. Again, I am not convinced that a PhD
supervisor should be generously compensated for something (publications) that strongly
advances their own career. And it is not clear to me that the supervisor's contribution to
the publication (in many cases, at least) amounts to more than what would be considered
'normal' PhD supervision in the US, Canada, and many European universities. This makes it
very difficult to evaluate a newly minted PhD's CV, and it inflates the publication list of
more senior academics.
A couple of ideas: 1) cap the number of PhD students that staff can supervise, or at least
cap the number for which teaching points are earned. 2) ensure that all academic staff have
access to PhD supervision.
Private university in Turkey : the basic assumption here is that supervising PhD students and
MA theses takes zero time (although people typically budget an hour per week per student.
The workload allocation for Humanities at the University of Exeter is similar to Chris's
account of Bristol (where I worked previously), though it's more common for the hours to be
divided 70/30, 60/40 or even 50/50 between first and second supervisors, with the latter
playing a much more active role. The biggest difference, however, is that you continue to
receive an allowance when the student is writing up, and even if they're revising after a
first examination, whereas the Bristol practice was, at least, that you get a workload
allowance for the first three years and then nothing for the period which in my experience
often required the greatest amount of work
I haven't – yet – supervised a doctoral student, but I did examine a viva this
year & was surprised to find that this carried no workload allowance at all, which seems
odd given the amount of reading time involved. (Fortunately I wasn't mad busy.)
Former US academic; taught at a few R1 uni's from 80s to aughts.
To echo the doughty Puritan: " the basic assumption here is that supervising PhD students
and MA theses takes zero time."
We had a standard teaching load, and expectations for research and service. But there was
no calculation of supervisory load -- it simply was not tracked, budgeted, or accounted for.
As Harry says above, there were wide disparities from person to person, since some people
attract a lot of grad students and some do not (and some repel them, either for strategic
purposes, or because they are repellent no matter what they try).
No one cared whether you supervised 15 PhD students or zero. Not quite true -- there was
some unofficial awareness among colleagues who thought collegially about things. And you
might get some private thanks or informal kudos for doing more than your share. But there was
absolutely no official account of it. And this was true at all 3 R1s I taught at over several
decades.
That's partly because -- in a Humanities field -- the funding of grad students does not
follow the prof, but the program as a whole. So, Central Admin knows that your department is
training 25 PhDs, because Central Admin has to figure their tuition, stipends, etc. But the
money then flows to your department as a whole, with no closer investigation of who in your
department is doing the work.
The picture must be radically different in the Sciences, where there is literal accounting
of PhD students, since they are supported by the professor's grant-money.
Surely there are other ways to offload work to PhD students one would otherwise have to do
oneself besides getting research recognition for their thesis. How much of that is possible
should also vary across countries. So a comparsion of alocated supervision time only seems a
bit one sided.
As regards co-authorship, my PhD students and postdocs are often keen to include me on the
theory that a paper with a more senior author will have a better chance of acceptance. My
impression is that, in economics, the expectation is that the main job market paper will be
sole-authored or else co-authored with another junior researcher, but that others are likely
to be co-authored with the supervisor.
To complicate things further, economics (like philosophy, I believe) works on average
quality rather than total contribution. So, a publication with a student in a journal lower
ranked than my average paper is actually a negative for me.
I assume that "Harry" above is Harry B of the blog. If so, he's showing why comparisons w/
the US on this will be hard, if not impossible. In many countries, there is a weird fantasy
that academics can and should be treated like hourly employees, with "hours" assigned to
things. (This is certainly so in Australia.) Of course, it's a fantasy in that, if it in fact
takes a lot more "hours" to do the things you're assigned, you don't get over-time, comp
time, or paid more. The other down-side is that this system leads, in my experience, to more
micro-managing – being expected to "account" for your time to a much greater degree.
The US system treats academics more like salaried employees – you get paid a certain
amount, you have certain tasks to do, and you must do them (some of them at particular times,
like teaching classes) but otherwise you're not dealing with "hours" for things. The
down-side is that there can be lots of variation in how much work people actually do –
even teaching the same "number" of classes can vary a lot depending on the number of preps,
size, how often you've taught it, if you have TAs, etc., and having more advisees may not
lead to more recognition on its own. The plus side is that less time is spent on being
mico-managed and bureaucratic nonsense. The relevant point here, though, is that it's really
hard to make a comparison like the one asked for between systems where one treats academics
more like hourly employees and the other more like salaried employees.
My wife (a New Zealand academic with confirmation) is allocated a. 24 hours per year for
supervising PhD students. She trusts that the ludicrousness of this number is not lost on
those present.
I am a Professor in an Engineering discipline at a small, state engineering school in the US.
Our workload is departmentally determined. My department is fairly small, ~100 undergrads,
but does quite a bit of research. My nominal workload is 40% teaching, 40% research and 20%
service. This is based on 40 working hours per week. My effective workload is 46% teaching,
8% advising (both undergrad and grad), 23% overseeing my funded research projects and about
25% service. This is more than 100%, which is true for almost all faculty at my school.
Thus, I estimate how much time I spend doing various things and then convert that to
credit hours, as my contract is specified in terms of 18 credit hours of work per semester,
making a credit hour about 2 hours and 40 minutes
In Technological University Dublin (formerly Dublin Institute of Technology), supervision of
a full-time PhD student attracts a time allowance of 2 hours per week (48 hours per annum),
from a weekly teaching load of 16 contact hours for lecturers (18 hours for assistant
lecturers). So, for example, a lecturer with two full-time PhD students will allocate 25% (4
hours) of his / her weekly contact teaching duties to this role.
In my department (at Uppsala University, Sweden) the workload norm is 88 hours per year
supervisory time for the main supervisor and 20 for the assistant supervisor. This time
includes the face-to-face hours, as well as reading, commenting, etc. The split can be done
differently to reflect other kinds of co-supervisory arrangements. This seems very generous
compared to what others are reporting, which is sad, since an average of 1 hour meeting, 1
hour reading per week for 44 weeks in a year would work out as very minimal supervision --
and supervisors typically spend much more time on supervision related tasks than this.
A couple of years ago, I did a survey of the formal teaching duties at polisci departments at
Scandinavian universities for a report published by the Swedish Institute for Labour Market
Evaluation. The survey looked at the formal percentage of teaching duty for senior lecturers
and full professors, and the formal compensation in terms of hours allotted for various
teaching activities (e.g., lectures, supervision at different levels, examination and so on).
We found, first, that the formal teaching duty varied quite a lot across Scandinavian
universities, but that all Swedish universities had less generous conditions than Danish and
Norwegian universities, which came closer to the Humboldtian ideal of unity of teaching and
research.
Second, by multiplying teaching duty and compensation for a standard set of teaching
activities, we found that the consequences for the individual lecturer could be quite
drastic: over a hypothetical career from age 35 to retirement at 67, a lecturer at the least
generous university could have ten whole years more of teaching duty than their colleague at
the most generous university.
I'm an Associate Professor in Computer Science at a US R1 university.
As Matt says, the description in Ingrid's post is totally unlike how things are thought of
at all in US universities. My load is 40% research, 40% teaching, 20% service, which is
standard for tenure-track faculty in my department (and I think across departments here). The
standard teaching load is 3 courses per year (2 in one semester, 1 in the other). However,
there are several exceptions to this: before tenure, faculty are assigned only 2 courses per
year. Also, if you support (with external grant funding) 3 PhD students or post-docs in the
previous year then you only teach 2 courses the next year. Additionally, pre-tenure faculty
are asked to do considerably less service.
Furthermore, there are several additional differences that are relevant. First, and most
importantly, the distinction between "research" and "PhD supervision" does not exist in
science. Effectively all of my research is joint with PhD students, although sometimes they
are not "my" students, but those of my collaborators. Second, not all students are funded by
grants; PhD students can also be funded by teaching. So it's possible to have one or two
students without bringing in funding. Third, there's a strong expectation that training PhD
students is part of the job, you wouldn't get tenure/promotion/etc if you just didn't do
it.
In my institution, you don't get any teaching load reduction, whereas you do get a tiny but
non-zero reduction for supervising a master thesis, or even an undergraduate research
project. I believe that is the norm in France in science in general, and most likely overall.
The logic behind that choice is that supervising a PhD student is supposed to bring its own
benefits: the student will do a lot of lab work for the superviser, the superviser will
cosign the research papers etc.
In math (my own field), there is no lab work to be done and the French tradition is that
papers drawn from the PhD should be signed by the student alone, so the arrangement is quite
unfavorable to us.
On the other hand
So without reductions, we teach about 835-1190 hours a year
Did I read that right? Can you clarify how many hours are counted for one hour in front of
the students? That number looks like madness to me (and I have a heavy teaching load
myself).
"Highly research-active" profs teach one fewer course per year. There is some flexibility
as to how to maintain this designation, but typically you must have at least 2 active
graduate students at any given time (and meet various other requirements).
Going through our standard courseload: if you ignore the other work related to maintaining
status, your first two Ph.D. students are worth about 90 hours/year, and the remainder are
worth nothing.
As regards co-authorship, my Ph.D. students and postdocs are often keen to include me on
the theory that a paper with a more senior author will have a better chance of
acceptance.
This is an important point. I agree that it is somewhat dishonest to use your post-grad
students to increase you number of publications. But it should be weighted against the real
difficulties of young researchers to get their papers published. And the fact that sometimes
brilliant papers from them are rejected. Nobody can abolish clan behavior in the academy. And
the "academic kitchen" is pretty dirty, and takes years to understand ;-).
Sometimes publishing oversees helps here, and young researchers should keep this in mind.
For many foreign journals, just the fact that you are a foreigner from a prestigious
university is a plus that weights on the acceptance.
This author is brilliant. He gave a comprehensive yet very compact overview of neoliberalism
the first part of the book. An overview which IMHO is very difficult to match. Here are the key
ideas and periods that he outlined:
== quote ==
This is not an ordinary political moment. Everywhere around us, the old order is collapsing.
The golden age of postwar economic growth is over, replaced by a new Gilded Age of inequality
and stagnation... People once united by common culture and information are now fractured into
social media echo chambers.
The [neo]liberal international order is cracking as nationalism grows in strength and global
institutions decay. The United States' role as a global superpower is challenged by the rising
strength of China and a new era of Russian assertiveness.
Optimists hope that generational and demographic change will restore inexorable progress.
Pessimists interpret the current moment as the decline and fall of democracy.
.. we are currently in the midst of one of these epochal transitions. We live on the edge of
a new era in politics -- the third since the Great Depression and World War II. The first era
is probably best described as liberal.... from the 1940s through the 1970s, a version of
political liberalism provided the paradigm for politics. Charting a path between the state
control of communists and fascists and the laissez-faire market that dominated before the Great
Depression, liberals adopted a form of regulated capitalism. Government set the rules of the
road for the economy, regulated finance, invested to create jobs and spark consumer demand,
policed the bad behavior of businesses, and provided a social safety net for Americans. Big
institutions -- big government, big corporations, big labor -- cooperated to balance the needs
of stakeholders in society. In the United States, it was called New Deal Liberalism. In Europe,
social democracy. There were differences across countries, of course, but the general approach
was similar. ...even the conservatives of the time were liberal. Republican president Dwight
Eisenhower championed the national highway system and warned of the military-industrial
complex. President Richard Nixon said, "I am now a Keynesian in economics." His administration
created the EPA and expanded Social Security by indexing benefits to inflation.
...since the 1980s, we have lived in a second era -- that of neoliberalism. In economic and
social policy, neoliberalism's tenets are simple: deregulation, privatization, liberalization,
and austerity. Under neoliberalism, individuals are on their own and should be responsible for
themselves. Instead of governments, corporations, and unions balancing the interests of all
stakeholders, the primary regulator of social interests should be the marketplace. Neoliberals
opposed unions and unionization, they wanted to pursue vouchers instead of public provision of
services, and they sought to shrink the size and functioning of government, even if it meant a
less effective government. Markets worked like magic, and market logic would be applied to all
aspects of life. Around the world, the neoliberal era came with an aggressive emphasis on
expanding democracy and human rights, even by military force. Expanding trade and commerce came
with little regard for who the winners and losers were -- or what the political fallout might
be. ...It was President Bill Clinton who said that the "era of big government is over" and who
celebrated the legislation deregulating Wall Street.
...With the election of Donald Trump, the neoliberal era has reached its end. While in
control of the House, Senate, and presidency, Republicans neither repealed the Affordable Care
Act nor privatized Social Security and Medicare. Their party is increasingly fractured between
Trumpist conservatives, who are far more nationalist, and the never-Trump old-line
conservatives like Bill Kristol or Jeb Bush. An increasing number of people recognize that
neoliberalism's solutions are unsuited to the challenges of our time.
== end ==
The most valuable part of the book IMHO are two chapters devoted to the collapse of
neoliberalism
The author also proposes a very interesting approach to evaluation of the identity politics
as a political strategy:
== quote ==
To be sure, race, gender, culture, and other aspects of social life have always been important
to politics. But neoliberalism's radical individualism has increasingly raised two interlocking
problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into identity groups can be used
to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic identity. Self-government requires
uniting through our commonalities and aspiring to achieve a shared future.
When individuals fall back onto clans, tribes, and us-versus-them identities, the political
community gets fragmented. It becomes harder for people to see each other as part of that same
shared future.
Demagogues [more correctly neoliberals] rely on this fracturing to inflame racial,
nationalist, and religious antagonism, which only further fuels the divisions within society.
Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and marketization of
everything, thus indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism that further undermines the
preconditions for a free and democratic society.
The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield
to protect neoliberal policies. As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class
politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary neoliberalism in which
individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means
is that some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus
claim to be progressive reformers, but they then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in
politics and the economy.
Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the
space to perpetuate the policies of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and
austerity.
Of course, the result is to leave in place political and economic structures that harm the
very groups that inclusionary neoliberals claim to support. The foreign policy adventures of
the neoconservatives and liberal internationalists haven't fared much better than economic
policy or cultural politics. The U.S. and its coalition partners have been bogged down in the
war in Afghanistan for 18 years and counting. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is a liberal
democracy, nor did the attempt to establish democracy in Iraq lead to a domino effect that
swept the Middle East and reformed its governments for the better. Instead, power in Iraq has
shifted from American occupiers to sectarian militias, to the Iraqi government, to Islamic
State terrorists, and back to the Iraqi government -- and more than 100,000 Iraqis are
dead.
Or take the liberal internationalist 2011 intervention in Libya. The result was not a
peaceful transition to stable democracy but instead civil war and instability, with thousands
dead as the country splintered and portions were overrun by terrorist groups. On the grounds of
democracy promotion, it is hard to say these interventions were a success. And for those
motivated to expand human rights around the world, it is hard to justify these wars as
humanitarian victories -- on the civilian death count alone.
Indeed, the central anchoring assumptions of the American foreign policy establishment have
been proven wrong. Foreign policymakers largely assumed that all good things would go together
-- democracy, markets, and human rights -- and so they thought opening China to trade would
inexorably lead to it becoming a liberal democracy. They were wrong. They thought Russia would
become liberal through swift democratization and privatization. They were wrong.
They thought globalization was inevitable and that ever-expanding trade liberalization was
desirable even if the political system never corrected for trade's winners and losers. They
were wrong. These aren't minor mistakes. And to be clear, Donald Trump had nothing to do with
them. All of these failures were evident prior to the 2016 election.
== end ==
In other words identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political
strategy developed by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party (aka "soft neoliberals".)
Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represents a mechanism to compensate for the loss by Clinton
Democrats of their primary voting block: trade union members, who in 2016 "en mass" defected to
Trump.
Initially Clinton calculation was that trade union voters has nowhere to go anyways, and it
was correct for first decade or so of his betrayal. But gradually trade union members and lower
middle class started to leave Dems in droves (Demexit; compare with Brexit) and that where
identity politics was invented to compensate for this loss.
We also can identity politics as a double edge sword, which the second edge being the
political strategy of the "soft neoliberals " directed at discrediting and the suppression of
the rising nationalism.
The author correctly argues that the resurgence of nationalism is the inevitable byproduct
of the dominance of neoliberalism, resurgence which I think is capable to bury neoliberalism as
it lost the popular support (which now is limited to financial oligarchy and high income
professional groups, such as we can find in corporate and military brass, (shrinking) IT
sector, upper strata of academy, upper strata of medical professionals, etc.)
In other words, if you are interested in this topic (as well as the most probable outcome of
2020 elections which would be the second referendum on neoliberalism held in the USA) , please
buy the book; you will never regret this decision ;-)
That means that the structure of the current system isn't just flawed which imply that most
problems are relatively minor and can be fixed by making some tweaks. It is unfixable, because
the "Identity wars" reflect a deep moral contradictions within neoliberal ideology. And they
can't be solved within this framework.
Level of talent is another important factor. Especially difficult people are able to succeed in fields which are
absolutely closed for others. Think about the level of competition in middle ages when a single academic position needed to be
waited until previous holder retires. Still it did not prevented rising people like Euler to the top.
You should take the results from Clever.com published below with a grain of slat.
The unjustifiably high cost of college tuition in the US has dragged a whole generation into
debt slavery. The average cost of a 4-year degree in the US is 3x higher than it was in 1990.
Even tuition at in-state schools is climbing more quickly than incomes.
As more people are forced to go into deep levels of debt to afford an education, more
would-be students are being forced to take a hard look and reevaluate the ROI on a college
degree.
And as college tuition continues to outpace wage growth, for a growing number of people, the
answer to 'is college worth it?' is going to be no.
A reporter at
Clever.com did some digging, and tabulated the ROI on different types of degrees: the
bachelor's, master's and doctorate.
Generally speaking, people with at least a bachelor's degree typically earn more money over
their lifetime than those who never attended college, and it's also easier to get a job with a
degree.
But while Americans with a bachelor's degree might be on to something, those who earn a
Master's and PHD-level degrees can't say the same.
While nearly half the population has a bachelor's degree, only 13% of Americans have a
master's or Phd-level degree.
And according to Clever's analysis, many higher-level degrees may not be worth the time and
money that students spend.
In fact, the longer someone spends in school, the more the value of their degrees
diminishes.
Of course, ROI changes depending on the subject that an individual studies. Clever found
that the best bachelor's degrees, unsurprisingly, tend to be in the STEM area: operations
research, petroleum engineering, biological and physical sciences, biopsychology and
gerontology.
Here, the data are showing us something that we find to be very interesting. Namely, that
those who spend more money on a low-ROI bachelor's degree often find their careers to be more
'meaningful' than your average engineer. Does this mean there's an inverse relationship between
spiritual fulfillment and monetary compensation when it comes to ones' career path? Possibly.
But would like to suggest another possible explanation.
The children of America's wealthy often choose low-yield fields like journalism and English,
since they don't face as much pressure to maximize earnings (their parents very often cover the
cost of their education and living expenses) they can enjoy finding 'meaning' in low-paying
careers like being a social media manager or writing for Gawker Media - careers that also don't
require the hard work and dedication required of, say, a mechanical engineer at Boeing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means without permission in writing from the Brookings Institution Press.
The Brookings Institution is a private nonprofit organization devoted to research,
education, and publication on important issues of domestic and foreign policy. Its principal
purpose is to bring the highest quality independent research and analysis to bear on current
and emerging policy problems. Interpretations or conclusions in Brookings publications should
be understood to be solely those of the authors.
The Library of Congress has cataloged the hardcover edition as
follows:
Hill, Fiona, 1965–
Mr. Putin : operative in the Kremlin / Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy.
pages ; cm. -- (Brookings focus book)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-8157-2376-9 (hardcover : alk. paper)
1. Putin, Vladimir Vladimirovich, 1952– 2. Presidents -- Russia (Federation) 3. Russia
(Federation) -- Politics and government -- 1991– I. Gaddy, Clifford G. II. Title. III.
Series: Brookings focus books.
THIS BOOK IS THE REVISED and considerably expanded version of the
first edition of Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin , which we finished
writing in September 2012 and was published in 2013. The original manuscript was the result of
a long-standing collaboration between Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy as colleagues at the
Brookings Institution, dating to the beginning of Mr. Putin's presidency in 2000. The
background for the authors' research work (individually and jointly) was outlined in the
acknowledgments to the 2013 edition. These acknowledgments also thanked all the colleagues and
contacts who assisted in fleshing out specific ideas and identifying source material.
Fiona Hill researched and wrote the additional material for this second edition, which moves
the narrative frame of the original book from its focus on the Russian domestic scene to the
international arena. Between the launch of the first edition in early 2013 and September 2014,
Fiona Hill collected and analyzed new source material and embarked on a series of international
research trips to conduct supplemental interviews with analysts, policymakers, government
officials, and private sector representatives on the key themes of the book. Some of these
trips were sponsored by external organizations, including the Embassy of the United States in
Berlin and the U.S. consulates in Germany (through the U.S. Department of State's Strategic
Speaker Program); the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (through its official visitors and
speakers program); and the Department of National Defence of Canada (through the National
Defence, Defence Engagement Program). Other trips and interviews were facilitated through
meetings and conferences arranged by partner organizations, including the Aspen Institute,
Chatham House, the Council on the United States and Italy, the Ditchley Foundation, the
European Council on Foreign Relations, the EU Institute for Strategic Studies, the German
Marshall Fund, the Heinrich Böll Foundation, the French Institute of International
Relations (IFRI), the Körber Stiftung, the London School of Economics, and the Munich
Security Conference. Participation in numerous Brookings Institution conferences, seminars, and
private meetings in Washington, D.C., and Europe also provided opportunities to engage in
one-on-one or small-group discussions with a range of U.S., European, and Russian officials, as
well as U.S. and international business figures active in Russia.
Other interviews with officials were conducted in Washington, D.C. (as indicated in the
endnotes), with the assistance of the embassies of many foreign countries, including Australia,
Canada, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan,
Moldova, Norway, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, the United
Kingdom, and the Delegation of the European Union.
Clifford Gaddy contributed new material and conclusions from two separate research projects:
on the reform of the Russian military and the evolution of Russia's new military doctrine
(conducted with Michael O'Hanlon), and on the state of the Russian economy (conducted with
Barry Ickes). Some of this material will also be reflected in Clifford Gaddy and Barry Ickes's
forthcoming book: Russia's Addiction. The Political Economy of Resource
Dependence.
The book was written between June and September 2014 with the help and hard work of
Brookings senior research assistant Hannah Thoburn. Hannah was a genuine collaborator on both
editions of the book, carrying out painstaking work on Russian source material and playing an
essential role in all aspects of the manuscript preparation.
Irina Angelescu played a critical role in the final stages of completing the manuscript,
checking sources, editing, and thinking through the organization of concepts and material.
Bilyana Lilly, Jan Malaskowski, and Catherine Trainor also assisted with the identification of
Russian language source material.
Jill Dougherty, Michael O'Hanlon, Robert Otto, and Angela Stent all reviewed the text and
gave invaluable editorial, conceptual, and organizational suggestions for the final manuscript.
Also at Brookings, Andrew Moffatt provided moral support, kept everything on track, and made
sure that time and the necessary funding were carved out so the work could get done. Other
colleagues shared sources and ideas, and offered critiques, including Strobe Talbott, Tim
Boersma, Charley Ebinger, Kai Eide, Michael Doran, Erica Downs, Bruce Jones, Kenneth
Lieberthal, Tanvi Madan, Suzanne Maloney, Ted Piccone, Natan Sachs, Mireya Solis, Harold
Trinkunas, and Thomas Wright.
Colleagues at the Center on the United States and Europe -- Riccardo Alcaro, Pavel Baev,
Carlo Bastasin, Caitlyn Davis, Jutta Falke-Ischinger, Richard Kauzlarich, Kemal Kirişci,
Steven Pifer, and Jeremy Shapiro -- all generously took the time to brainstorm on core
concepts.
Valentina Kalk, Janet Walker, and other colleagues at Brookings Institution Press embraced
the idea of an expanded second edition of the book and assisted the project all along the way.
The Brookings Institution Press also covered the new editorial and production costs for the
book. Independent editor John Felton gave editorial support and suggestions for improving the
final manuscript. Laura Mooney and other colleagues at the Brookings library helped with
difficult sourcing. Gail Chalef and Tina Trenkner pitched in with a range of ideas on outreach
as the new version of the book moved toward completion.
As the second phase of research moved along, several people who had read the first edition
raised important questions about core ideas, flagged articles in the Russian and international
press, suggested individuals for interviews (or offered themselves for interview), and very
generously sent their own and other publications for reference. These included Hannes Adomeit,
Ellen Barry, Samuel Bendett, Lynn Berry, J. D. Bindenagel, Samuel Charap, William Courtney,
Igor Danchenko, Jaba Devdariani, William Drozdiak, John Evans, Florence Fee, Katja Gloger, Paul
Goble, Tomas Gomart, Charles Grant, Zuhra Halimova, Michael Haltzel, Andrej Heinke, Marc Hujer,
Shinji Hyodo, Shoichi Ito, Akihiro Iwashita, Barbara Junge, Alisher Khamidov, Nina Khrushcheva,
Hiroshi Kimura, Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, Martin Klingst, John Kornblum, Ivan Krastev, Johann
Legner, Bobo Lo, Jenny Lo, Alexander Lukin, Georg Mascolo, Steven Lee Myers, James Nixey, Rene
Nyberg, Craig Oliphant, Tim Oliver, Bruce Parrott, William Partlett, Volker Perthes, Simon
Saradzhyan, Yukio Satoh, Zachary Shore, Mary Springer, Holger Stark, Constanze
Steltzenmüller, Stephen Szabo, Michael Thumann, Kazuhiko Togo, Mikhail Troitsky, Charles
Undeland, David Du Vivier, Thomas de Waal, Kyle Wilson, Igor Zevelev, and Nikolai Zlobin.
Finally, our dear friend and colleague Clara O'Donnell was a great source of inspiration and
ideas at the beginning of the new edition. Clara passed away in January 2014 and did not see
the project completed. Her loss is keenly felt, and perhaps this second edition of the book may
serve in some small measure as a testament to her accomplishments and memory.
We are grateful for the generous support of Stephen and Barbara Friedman, whose
contributions to the Brookings Foreign Policy program made this book possible. This revised
edition is part of Foreign Policy's project, Order from Chaos. The book's findings are in
keeping with Brookings's mission: to conduct high-quality and independent research and, based
on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations for policymakers and the
public. The conclusions and recommendations of any Brookings research are solely those of its
authors and do not reflect the views of the Institution, its management, or its other
scholars. PART ONETHE OPERATIVE EMERGES CHAPTER ONEWHO IS MR. PUTIN?
ON MARCH 18, 2014 , still bathed in the afterglow of the Winter
Olympics that he had hosted in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, Russian president Vladimir Putin
stepped up to a podium in the Kremlin to address the nation. Before an assembly of Russian
officials and parliamentarians, Putin signed the documents officially reuniting the Russian
Federation and the peninsular republic of Crimea, the home base of Russia's Black Sea Fleet.
Crimea had seceded from Ukraine only two days earlier, on March 16. The Russian president gave
what was intended to be a historic speech. The events were fresh, but his address was laden
with references to several centuries of Russian history.
Putin invoked the origins of Orthodox Christianity in Russia. He referenced military
victories on land and sea that had helped forge the Russian Empire. He noted the grievances
that had festered in Russia since the 1990s, when the state was unable to protect its interests
after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. At the center of his narrative was Crimea. Crimea
"has always been an inseparable part of Russia," Putin declared. Moscow's decision to annex
Crimea was rooted in the need to right an "outrageous historical injustice." That injustice
began with the Bolsheviks, who put lands that Russia had conquered into their new Soviet
republic of Ukraine. Then, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev made the fateful decision in 1954 to
transfer Crimea from the Russian Federation to Ukraine. When the Soviet state fell apart in
1991, Russian-speaking Crimea was left in Ukraine "like a sack of potatoes," Putin said.
1 The Russian nation was divided by borders.
Vladimir Putin's speech and the ceremony reuniting Russia with its "lost province" came
after several months of political upheaval in Ukraine. Demonstrations that had begun in late
November 2013 as a protest against Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych's decision to back out
of the planned signing of an association agreement with the European Union soon turned into a
large-scale protest movement against his government. By February 2014, protesters were engaged
in clashes with Ukrainian police that left over 100 people dead on both sides. 2 On February 21, 2014, talks between Yanukovych and the
opposition were brokered by outside parties, including Russia. A provisional agreement,
intended to end the violence and pave the way for new presidential elections at the end of
2014, was upended when Yanukovych abruptly fled the country. After several days of confusion,
Yanukovych resurfaced in Russia. Meanwhile, the opposition in Ukraine formed an interim
government and set presidential elections for May 25, 2014.
At about the same time that Yanukovych left Ukraine, unidentified armed men began to seize
control of strategic infrastructure on the Crimean Peninsula. On March 6, the Crimean
parliament voted to hold a snap referendum on independence and the prospect of joining Russia.
On March 16, the results of the referendum indicated that 97 percent of those voting had opted
to unite with Russia. It was this referendum that Putin used to justify Russia's
reincorporation, its annexation, of Crimea. He opened his speech with a reference to the
referendum and how more than 82 percent of eligible voters had turned out to make this
momentous and overwhelming choice in favor of becoming part of Russia. The people of Crimea had
exercised their right -- the right of all nations -- to self-determination. They had chosen to
restore the unity of the Russian world and historical Russia. But by annexing the Crimean
Peninsula, immediately after the referendum, Putin had dealt the greatest blow to European
security since the end of the Cold War. In the eyes of most external observers, Putin's Russia
was now a definitively revisionist power. In a short span of time, between February 21 and
March 18, 2014, Russia had moved from brokering peace to taking a piece of Ukraine.
As Western leaders deliberated how to punish Putin for seizing Crimea and deter him from
similar actions in the rest of Ukraine and elsewhere, questions arose: Why did Putin do this?
What does he want? Many commentators turned back to questions that had been asked nearly 15
years earlier, when Vladimir Putin first emerged from near-obscurity to become the leader of
Russia: "Who is Mr. Putin?" For some observers, the answer was easy: Putin was who he had
always been -- a corrupt, avaricious, and power-hungry authoritarian leader. What Putin did in
Ukraine was just a logical next step to what he had been doing in Russia since 2000: trying to
tighten his grip on power. Annexing Crimea and the nationalist rhetoric Putin used to justify
it were merely ploys to bolster his flagging public support and distract the population from
problems at home. Other commentators saw Putin's shift toward nationalist rhetoric and his
decision to annex Crimea as evidence of new "imperial" thinking, and as dangerously genuine.
Putin's goal, they proposed, was to restore the Soviet Union or the old Russian Empire. But if
that was true, where were the patterns and key indicators of neo-imperialist revisionism in
Putin's past behavior? Many world leaders and analysts wondered what they had missed. Unable to
reconcile their old understanding of Putin with his behavior in Ukraine, some concluded that
Putin himself had changed. A "new Putin" must have appeared in the Kremlin.
If, in fact, Putin's behavior in the Ukraine crisis was really different from the past, it
could provide an opportunity to understand him better. In his 2014 book, A
Sense of the Enemy: The High-Stakes History of Reading Your Rival's Mind, Zachary Shore
argues that it is precisely when people break with previous patterns of behavior that we can
begin to gain an understanding of their real character. Patterns of past behavior are a poor
predictor of how a person will act in the future. Contexts change and alter people's actions.
Pattern breaks are key for analyzing individual behavior. They push us to focus on the
invariant aspects of the person's self. They help reveal the hidden drivers, the underlying
motivations, and what an actor, a leader, values most. 3
This is the essence of our approach in this book. The book is an effort to figure out who
Mr. Putin is in terms of his motivations -- what drives him to act as he does? Rather than
present a chronicle of events in which Putin played a role, we concentrate on events that
shaped him. We look at formative experiences of Putin's past. And where
we do examine his actions, we focus on the circumstances in which he
acted. Our reasoning is that if Putin's actions and words differed during the crisis in Ukraine
in 2014 from what we might have expected in the past, it is likely that the circumstances
changed. Indeed, as we will lay out and describe in the two parts of this book, Vladimir
Putin's behavior is driven by the imperative to adapt and respond to changing -- especially,
unpredicted -- circumstances.
This book is not intended to be a definitive biography or a comprehensive study of
everything about Vladimir Putin. Although personal and even intimate life experiences shape the
way an individual thinks and views the world, we do not delve into Putin's family life or close
friendships. We also do not critique all the different stories about him, and we try to avoid
retreading ground that has been covered extensively in other analyses and biographies. Our
purpose is to look for new insights in all the material we have on Vladimir Putin.
THE ELUSIVE NATURE OF FACTS
It is remarkable -- almost hard to believe -- that for 15 years there has not been a single
substantive biography published in Russian, by a Russian, of President Putin. It is true that a
few very incomplete books -- limited in their scope -- appeared in his first months as
president. There is also, of course, Putin's own autobiography, Ot pervogo
litsa (First person), which appeared in early 2000. 4 Arguably the only
other true biography with wide circulation in Russia is a translation of Alexander Rahr's
Wladimir Putin: Der "Deutsche" im Kreml (Vladimir Putin: the "German"
in the Kremlin). 5 By contrast, there have been a number of serious
biographies of Putin in English. The West, particularly the United States, is used to a steady
flow of memoirs, and tell-alls, from former associates of our leaders. There has been nothing
like that in Russia. Rather than the flow of information about the man who has led the country
for a decade and a half growing stronger, it has actually declined over time. Above all, the
information that does emerge has been increasingly controlled and manipulated. Instead of
independently verifiable new facts from identified sources, there are only "stories" about
Putin from unidentified sources, sources who are -- we are invariably assured by those who tell
the stories -- "close to the Kremlin." There is also the phenomenon of old stories being
recycled as astonishing new revelations.
Attempting to write about Vladimir Putin is thus a challenge for many reasons. One that we
ourselves never imagined until we were well into this venture is that, like it or not, when you
delve into his hidden aspects, whether in the past or present, you are playing a game with
Putin. It is a game where he is in charge. He controls the facts and the "stories." For that
reason, every apparent fact or story needs to be regarded with suspicion. It has to be traced
back to original sources. If that turns out to be impossible, or the source seems unreliable,
what does one do with the information? As the reader will soon find out, we too use stories
about Putin. But we do so with caution. We have tested the sources. When we were unable to do
so to the fullest extent, we make that clear. Most important, we have learned to ask the
question, "Why has this story been circulated?"
The most obvious reason we cannot take any story or so-called fact at face value when it
comes to Vladimir Putin is that we are dealing with someone who is a master at manipulating
information, suppressing information, and creating pseudo-information. In the course of
studying Putin, and Putin's Russia, we have learned this the hard way. In today's world of
social media, the public has the impression that we know, or easily can know, everything about
everybody. Nothing, it seems, is private or secret. And still, after 15 years, we remain
ignorant of some of the most basic facts about a man who is arguably the most powerful
individual in the world, the leader of an important nation. When there is no certifiably real
and solid information, any tidbit becomes precious.
THE PUTIN BIOGRAPHY
Where then do we start? The basic biographical data, surely, are beyond dispute. Vladimir
Putin was born in the Soviet city of Leningrad in October 1952 and was his parents' only
surviving child. His childhood was spent in Leningrad, where his youthful pursuits included
training first in sambo (a martial art combining judo and wrestling that was developed by the
Soviet Red Army) and then in judo. After school, Putin studied law at Leningrad State
University (LGU), graduated in 1975, and immediately joined the Soviet intelligence service,
the KGB. He was posted to Dresden in East Germany in 1985, after completing a year of study at
the KGB's academy in Moscow. He was recalled from Dresden to Leningrad in 1990, just as the
USSR was on the verge of collapse.
During his time in the KGB, Putin worked as a case officer (the "operative" of our title)
and attained the rank of lieutenant colonel. In 1990–91, he moved into the intelligence
service's "active reserve" and returned to Leningrad State University as a deputy to the vice
rector. He became an adviser to one of his former law professors, Anatoly Sobchak, who left the
university to become chairman of Leningrad's city soviet, or council. Putin worked with Sobchak
during Sobchak's successful electoral campaign to become the first democratically elected mayor
of what was now St. Petersburg. In June 1991, Putin became a deputy mayor of St. Petersburg and
was put in charge of the city's Committee for External Relations. He officially resigned from
the KGB in August 1991.
In 1996, after Mayor Sobchak lost his bid for reelection, Vladimir Putin moved to Moscow to
work in the Kremlin in the department that managed presidential property. In March 1997, Putin
was elevated to deputy chief of the presidential staff. He assumed a number of other
responsibilities within the Kremlin before being appointed head of the Russian Federal Security
Service (the FSB, the successor to the KGB) in July 1998. A year later, in August 1999,
Vladimir Putin was named, in rapid succession, one of Russia's first deputy prime ministers and
then prime minister by President Boris Yeltsin, who also indicated Putin was his preferred
successor as president. Finally, on December 31, 1999, Putin became acting president of Russia
after Yeltsin resigned. He was officially elected to the position of president in March 2000.
Putin served two terms as Russia's president from 2000 to 2004 and from 2004 to 2008, before
stepping aside -- in line with Russia's constitutional prohibition against three consecutive
presidential terms -- to assume the position of prime minister. In March 2012, Putin was
reelected to serve another term as Russia's president until 2018, thanks to a constitutional
amendment pushed through by then President Dmitry Medvedev in December 2008 extending the
presidential term from four to six years.
These basic facts have been covered in books and newspaper articles. Yet there is some
uncertainty in the sources about specific dates and the sequencing of Vladimir Putin's
professional trajectory. This is especially the case for his KGB service, but also for some of
the period when he was in the St. Petersburg mayor's office, including how long he was
technically part of the KGB's "active reserve." Personal information, including on key
childhood events, his 1983 marriage to his wife, Lyudmila (whom he divorced in 2014), the birth
of two daughters in 1985 and 1986 (Maria and Yekaterina), and his friendships with politicians
and businessmen from Leningrad/St. Petersburg is remarkably scant for such a prominent public
figure. His wife, daughters, and other family members, for example, are conspicuously absent
from the public domain. Information about him that was available at the beginning of his
presidency has also been suppressed, distorted, or lost in a morass of competing and often
contradictory versions swirling with rumor and innuendo. Some materials -- related to a
notorious 1990s food scandal in St. Petersburg, which almost upended Putin's early political
career -- have been expunged, along with those with access to them. When it comes to Mr. Putin,
very little information is definitive, confirmable, or reliable.
As a result, there are many important and enduring mysteries about Vladimir Putin that we
will not address in detail in this book. Take something so fundamental as his initial rise to
power as Russian president. In less than two-and-a-half years from 1997 to 99, Vladimir Putin
was promoted to increasingly lofty positions, from deputy chief of the presidential staff, to
head of the FSB, to prime minister, then to acting president. How could this happen? Who
facilitated Putin's rise? Putin does not have a story about that in his official biographical
interviews. He leaves it to others to spin their versions. The fact that there are multiple
competing answers to such a basic question as who chose Putin to be Boris Yeltsin's successor
in 1999 is one of the reasons we decided to write this book and to adopt the specific approach
we have. All the versions of who made this important decision are based on retrospective
accounts, including from Boris Yeltsin himself in his memoir Midnight
Diaries. Almost nothing comes from real-time statements or reliable accounts of actions
taken. Even then -- if this kind of information were available -- we would not know what really
happened behind the scenes. It is clear that many of the after-the-fact statements are
self-serving. None of them seem completely credible. They are from people trying to claim
credit, or avoid blame, for a set of decisions that proved monumental for Russia.
Rather than spending time parsing the course of events in this period and analyzing the
various people who may or may not have influenced the decision to install Vladimir Putin as
Boris Yeltsin's successor, we parse and analyze Putin himself. We focus on a series of
vignettes from his basic biography that form part of a more coherent, larger story. We also
emphasize Putin's own role in getting where he did. We stress the one thing we are certain
about: Putin shaped his own fate. We do not deny there was an element of accident or chance in
his ultimate rise to power. Nor do we deny there were real people who acted on his behalf --
people who thought at a particular time that he was "their man" who would promote their
interests. But, for us, it was what Mr. Putin did that is the most critical element in his
biography.
As a good KGB operative, Vladimir Putin kept his own ambitions tightly under wraps. Like
most ambitious people, he took advantage of the opportunities that presented themselves. Mr.
Putin paid close attention to individuals who might further his career. He studied them,
strengthened his personal and professional ties to them, did favors for them, and manipulated
them. He allowed -- even actively encouraged -- people to underestimate him even as he
maneuvered himself into influential positions and quietly accumulated real power. Instead of
providing a "Who's Who" of Vladimir Putin's political circle, we highlight some of the people
who played important roles for Putin at different junctures. These include Russian historical
figures whose biographies and ideas Putin appropriated and tailored to suit his own personal
narrative. They also include a few people from his inner circle whose relationships and roles
illuminate the connections Putin developed to put himself in a position to become Russian
president and, more important, to become a president with the power to implement his goals.
None of Vladimir Putin's personal ties, however, made his rise to power inevitable.
To understand our approach, it might be useful to present a couple of examples of the
specious "stories" that have circulated about Putin and have been taken at face value by some
authors. One is the story of Putin's alleged personal fortune. The other relates to an apparent
KGB assessment of Putin as a dangerously risk-prone individual who likes to gamble.
PUTIN'S PERSONAL WEALTH
In the wake of Putin's actions in Ukraine in the spring of 2014 and the search by
politicians in the West for effective levers to "punish Putin," one tempting option was to
focus on the Russian president's personal wealth. Over the years, there have been repeated
stories about how Mr. Putin had accumulated a vast fortune thanks to massive corruption within
the inner circle of what we call Russia, Inc. 6 Early on, it was rumored
that Putin's net worth was $20 billion. With each retelling, the number grew -- $30 billion,
$40 billion, $70 billion, up (at last count) to $100 billion. These stories date back to
Putin's time in the St. Petersburg mayor's office, they implicate his family and close
associates, and they have been frequently featured in Russian as well as Western media. There
is, however, little hard documentary evidence to back up even the most credible reporting.
7
Some of the world's top financial institutions have conducted serious research on how the
corrupt hide their stolen assets. 8 We did not have the means to
undertake the kind of detailed and laborious technical work necessary to pursue Mr. Putin's
purported ill-gotten gains, nor did we want to engage in further conjecture on this subject. As
we indicate in the book, there is notable circumstantial evidence -- including expensive
watches and suits -- of Mr. Putin's supposedly luxurious lifestyle beyond the official
trappings of the Russian presidency. These extravagances on their own do not make the case that
he has amassed a fortune in the tens of billions of dollars. There are competing narratives
that Putin's day-to-day lifestyle is ascetic rather than luxurious. It is certainly true that
individuals with close and long-standing personal ties to Vladimir Putin now occupy positions
of great responsibility within the Russian economy and are some of Russia's (and the world's)
richest men. In interviews, they are remarkably frank in discussing the links between their
political connections, their economic roles, and their money.
There might also be political reasons for Putin to accumulate and flaunt personal wealth.
Indeed, some of the stories in the Russian press, and some related to us by Russian colleagues,
suggest that Mr. Putin himself might even encourage rumors that he is the richest of the rich
to curb political ambitions among Russia's billionaire businessmen, the so-called oligarchs.
They cannot even compete in the realm of personal wealth with Vladimir Putin, and it is he who
has supreme power in Russia. But this is all speculation about facts that remain, for now,
unproven.
The problem arises when this so-called fact of huge personal wealth leads to the conclusion
that greed must necessarily be Vladimir Putin's principal motivation, or that somehow the fear
of losing his personal fortune, or his associates' fortunes, would restrain his actions in the
international arena. Even if Vladimir Putin has enriched himself and those around him, we do
not believe a quest for personal wealth is primarily what drives him. We need to understand
what else motivates Putin's actions as head of the Russian state.
A "DIMINISHED SENSE OF DANGER"
One idea that gained currency during the crisis in Ukraine is that Putin is a reckless
gambler who takes dangerous risks. 9 This argument is based on the
alleged fact that Putin's KGB trainers deemed that he suffered from a "diminished sense of
danger" ( ponizhennoye chuvstvo opasnosti ). Although presented in a
couple of recent books about Putin as if it were a new revelation, this is a story familiar to
anyone who has read Putin's 2000 book, Ot pervogo litsa.10 There, Putin describes how, when he was studying at the KGB
academy, one characteristic ascribed to him as a "negative trait" was a "diminished" or
"lowered sense of danger" -- a deficiency that was considered very serious, he noted.
11
In fact, the Putin book turns out to be the only source for this story, something that ought
to have set off alarm bells. Ot pervogo litsa was intended to be a
campaign biography, or "semi-autobiography." The publication of the book was orchestrated by
Putin's staff in the spring of 2000 based on a series of one-on-one interviews with a carefully
selected troika of Russian journalists. Putin's team's task was to stage-manage the initial
presentation, to all of Russia, of this relatively unknown person who was now standing for
election as president of the country. It was crafted as a set of conversations with Putin
himself, his wife, and other people close to him in his childhood and early life. Every
vignette, every new fact presented in the book was chosen for a specific political purpose. The
journalists who interviewed Putin also used some of the material for articles in their own
newspapers and other publications.
What, then, could Putin's purpose have been in revealing such a character flaw? The answer
becomes evident when one reflects on the curious ending of the book. Ot
pervogo litsa ends with the interviewers noting that Putin seems, after all the episodes in
his life that they have gone through, to be a predictable and rather boring person. Had he
never done anything on a whim perhaps? Putin responded by recounting an incident when he risked
his own life and that of his passenger, his martial arts coach, while driving on a road outside
Leningrad (in fact when he was at university). He tried to grab a piece of hay through his open
car window from a passing farm truck and very nearly lost control of the car. At the end of the
harrowing ride, his white-faced (and presumably furious) coach turned to Putin and said, "You
take risks." Why did Putin do that? "I guess I thought the hay smelled good" ( Navernoye, seno vkusno pakhlo ), said Putin. 12 This is the last
line in the book. The reader clearly is meant to identify with Putin's coach and ask: "Wait!
What was that all about? Just who is this guy?"
This story offers a classic case of Putin and his team imparting and spinning information in
a confusing manner so that it can be interpreted in multiple ways. Putin tells contradictory
versions of the story in the same passages of his book. Immediately after stating that the
characteristic was ascribed to him during his KGB studies, Putin then suggests that his
"lowered sense of danger" was well-known to him and all his friends already in his university
days (that is, before he was ever in the KGB). 13 Putin wants people to see
him in certain ways, and yet be confused. He promotes the idea of himself both as a risk-taker
and as someone who takes calculated risks and always has a fallback option. Which version is
the real one? Both have a certain power and useful effect. The end result of Putin's
misinformation and contradictory information is to create the image that he is unknowable and
unpredictable and therefore even dangerous. It is part of his play in the domestic and
international political game -- to keep everyone guessing about, and in some cases fearing, how
he might react.
Putin is hardly the first world leader to engage in this sort of conscious image
manipulation to create doubts about their rationality or even sanity. Richard Nixon's notorious
"Madman Theory" during the Vietnam War is a case in point. In 1972, believing he had a chance
to bluff the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table to end the war, Nixon instructed his
national security advisor, Henry Kissinger, to convey the message to the North Vietnamese, via
their Soviet backers, that Nixon was prepared to use a nuclear weapon. As James Rosen and Luke
Nichter write in a recent article, "Nixon wanted to impress upon the Soviets that the president
of the United States was, in a word, mad: unstable, erratic in his decision-making, and capable
of anything." 14 In a memoir, former White House chief of staff H. R.
Haldeman wrote that Nixon had carefully scripted it all. According to Haldeman, Nixon told him,
"I call it the Madman Theory . I want the North Vietnamese to believe I've reached the point
where I might do anything to stop the war. We'll just slip the word to them that, 'for God's
sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can't restrain him when he's angry -- and
he has his hand on the nuclear button,' and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days
begging for peace." 15
In reality, Putin's goal in planting stories about himself is more complicated than Nixon's.
He is not simply trying to project a specific image of himself or even to sow confusion about
the "real" Putin. He also wants to track how the initial seeding of an idea is carried forward,
and by whom. Putin wants to see how the original version is embellished and then how it
ultimately is played back to him again. This is an exercise. It is Putin's own version of an
American children's game, "telephone" (known in the United Kingdom as "Chinese whispers," where
it was also called, in earlier versions, "Russian scandal"). In seeding intrigue, Putin wants
to see how others interpret what he says and then how they react. The focus is on people's
perceptions rather than reality. Figuring out how others think and act, when they know nothing
about him or how he operates, gives Mr. Putin a tactical political advantage.
As we have concluded over the course of writing this book, for Vladimir Putin the main thing
about information is not whether it is true or not. It is how words and deeds are perceived by
others. Putin is less interested in presenting a particular version of reality than in seeing
how others react to the information. For him, others are participants in a game he directs. He
chooses inputs, they react. He judges. Their responses to his input tell him who they think he
is -- but by responding they also tell him who they are, what
they want, what they care about. For his part,
Vladimir Putin reveals very little in return. Indeed, he goes to great, often elaborate,
lengths to throw other participants off track. As president and prime minister, he has
presented himself as a myriad of different personas. Since 2000, Mr. Putin has been the
ultimate international political performance artist.
THE KREMLIN SPECIAL PROPS DEPARTMENT: STAGING THE PRESIDENT
Over the last several years, Vladimir Putin's public relations team has pushed his image in
a multiplicity of directions, pitching him as everything from big game hunter and
conservationist to scuba diver to biker -- even nightclub crooner. Leaders of other countries
have gained notoriety for their flamboyant or patriotic style of dressing to appeal to and
rally the masses -- like Fidel Castro's and Hugo Chávez's military fatigues, Yasser
Arafat's ubiquitous keffiyeh scarf, Muammar Qaddafi's robes (and tent), Hamid Karzai's
carefully calculated blend of traditional Afghan tribal dress, and Yulia Tymoshenko's
ultra-chic Ukrainian-peasant blonde braids -- but Vladimir Putin has out-dressed them all. He
has appeared in an endless number of guises for encounters with the press or Russian special
interest groups, or at times of crisis, as during raging peat bog fires around Moscow in 2010,
when he was transformed into a fire-fighting airplane pilot. All this theatricality is done
with the assistance, it would seem, of the Kremlin's inexhaustible wardrobe and special props
department.
On the surface, Mr. Putin's antics are reminiscent of a much-beloved children's book and
animated cartoon series in the United Kingdom, "Mr. Benn." Each morning, Mr. Benn, a
nondescript British man in a standard issue bowler hat and business suit, strolls down his
street and is beckoned into a mysterious costume shop by a mustachioed, fez-wearing shopkeeper.
The shopkeeper whisks Mr. Benn into a changing room. Mr. Benn puts on a costume that has
already been laid out by the shopkeeper, walks out a secret door, and assumes a new
costume-appropriate identity, as if by magic. In every episode, Mr. Benn solves a problem for
the people he encounters during his adventure, until summoned back to reality by the
shopkeeper. 16 Like his cartoon analogue, Mr. Putin, with the
assistance of his press secretary, Dmitry Peskov (mustachioed but without the fez), and a
coterie of press people, as if by magic embarks on a series of adventures (some of which oddly
enough overlap with Mr. Benn's). In the course of his adventures, Mr. Putin pulls off every
costume and performance with aplomb, a straight face, and a demonstration of skill.
Vladimir Putin and his PR team -- which closely monitors the public reactions to the Mr.
Putin episodes -- are aware that these performances lack universal appeal and have sparked
amusement at home and abroad because of their elaborate and very obvious staging. This has led
people to depict him as a shallow, cartoonish figure, or a man with no face, no substance, no
soul. Putin is often seen as a "man from nowhere," who can appear to be anybody to anyone.
17
But Russian intellectual elites, the Russian political opposition to Mr. Putin, and overseas
commentators are not his target audiences. Each episode of Mr. Putin has a specific purpose.
They are all based on feedback from opinion polls suggesting the Kremlin needs to reach out and
create a direct personal connection to a particular group among the Russian population. Press
Secretary Peskov admitted this directly in a meeting with the press in August 2011 after Mr.
Putin dove to the bottom of the Black Sea to retrieve some suspiciously immaculate amphorae.
18 Putin himself has asserted in biographical interviews that
one of his main skills is to get people -- in this case the Russian people, his audience(s) --
to see him as what they want him to be, not what he really is. These
performances portray Putin as the ultimate Russian action man, capable of dealing with every
eventuality.
THE SERIOUS SIDE: SHOWING RESPECT
It is important to realize that there is something deeper, more complicated, at work beneath
the façade of the "Mr. Putin" performances, something that an outside observer will always
find hard to grasp. Each of the guises that Putin adopts, and the actions he undertakes, pays a
degree of respect to a certain group and validates that group's place in Russian society. If
the Russian president pulls on a leather jacket and rides off on a motorcycle with Russia's
equivalent of the "Hell's Angels" or dresses up in a white suit to fly a microlight aircraft
directing the migration of endangered birds, Russian bikers and Russian conservationists both
get their time in the spotlight. Bikers and conservationists can believe they are equally
worthy of presidential attention. They have inspired presidential action. They have their role
to play in Russian society, just like everyone else. The performances create a sense of
commonality and unity.
Western politicians routinely set out to convince voters that they are one of them, downing
beers and snacks they would never normally eat in bars and restaurants they would not otherwise
frequent. But Putin is not out to win votes. He is running a country. His actions have more in
common with the leaders of traditional societies than Western leaders. Hamid Karzai, when
leader of Afghanistan from 2004 to 2014, for example, frequently told his Western interlocutors
that contrary to their interpretations of democracy, he understood democracy to be rule by
consensus, not by majority. Without consensus, Afghan society would quickly descend into
fragmentation, conflict, and violent strife. To bring reform to Afghanistan there had to be a
broad consensus. Consensus created unity. Traditional Afghan methods of forging consensus, like
the shura, a formalized consultation with societal leaders and elders,
were more effective in reaching consensus, Karzai argued, than Western parliamentary
innovations. The most important element of a shura, a consultation,
Karzai emphasized, was not reaching some kind of decision, but showing respect in a credible
way and validating the views of others. Karzai's adoption of traditional dress was one way of
establishing credibility. Showing up in person and sitting for hours at a shura, or inviting Afghan tribal leaders to meetings in his own home, and simply
listening to the discussions were important ways of showing respect. In Afghanistan, societal
leaders wanted to feel they had been listened to by the Afghan president, not just informed of
executive decisions after the fact. 19
Similarly, Putin has stressed on several occasions that he considers listening to the
Russian people and hearing what they have to say in person as part of his duty as head of the
Russian state. 20 He has traveled extensively to Russia's far-flung
regions over the course of his presidencies and during his time as prime minister and devised
an array of forums for meeting with and hearing from the public. In an impromptu 2012 meeting
with Russian-American journalist and author Masha Gessen, Putin also claimed that most of the
costumed stunts were his own idea and not his staff's. He wanted personally to draw attention
to certain people and places and issues that he thought were being neglected or, in other
words, not given sufficient respect by the rest of society. 21
Collectively, these small but elaborately staged and highly publicized acts of respect have
been one of the reasons why Vladimir Putin has consistently polled as Russia's most popular
politician for a decade and a half.
Putin's stage performances have the double advantage not only of ensuring his domestic
popularity but also of keeping outside analysts confused about his true identity. He benefits
from leaving people guessing about how accurately his various PR versions reflect his real
persona. But if we do not accept these stage performances as even partly reflecting his
identity, then the question remains: Who is Mr. Putin? In fact, Putin hints that he is like
Russia itself in the famous poem of Fyodor Tyutchev:
In this book, we pick up the idea of a multiplicity of Mr. Putins from his PR stunts in
creating a portrait that attempts to provide some answers to the question "Who is Mr. Putin?"
We argue that uncovering the multiple "real Putins" requires looking beyond the staged
performances and the deliberately assumed guises that constitute the Putin political brand. For
most of the first decade of the 2000s, Putin displayed remarkable strength as a political actor
in the Russian context. This strength was derived from the combination of six individual
identities we discuss and highlight in this book, not from his staged performances. We term
these identities the Statist, the History Man, the Survivalist, the Outsider, the Free
Marketeer, and the Case Officer. In Part I of this book, which focuses on the period up until 2012,
we discuss each of the identities in detail, looking at their central elements and evolution,
and their roots in Russian history, culture, and politics. We then explain how Russia's current
political system can be seen as a logical result of the combination of Putin's six identities,
along with the set of personal and professional relationships he formed over several decades in
St. Petersburg and Moscow.
We begin Part I with an initial set of three identities: the Statist, the
History Man, and the Survivalist. These are the most generic, in the sense that they
characterize a larger group of Russians than just Mr. Putin, especially Russian politicians in
Putin's general age cohort who began their careers during the Soviet period and launched
themselves onto the national political stage in the 1990s. These first three identities provide
the foundation for Mr. Putin's views about the Russian state, his political philosophy, and his
conception of his first presidential terms in the 2000s. The decade of the 1990s -- the Russian
Federation's first decade as a stand-alone, independent country after the dissolution of the
USSR -- is a central element in the Statist, History Man, and Survivalist identities. This was
the decade when Russia fell into economic and political crisis, and Moscow lost its direct
authority over the rest of the former Soviet republics, including lands that had previously
been part of the Russian Empire. This period also provides the overarching context for the
identities as well as for Vladimir Putin's personal political narrative. Putin began his tenure
as acting Russian president by publishing a December 1999 treatise, which we refer to as his
"Millennium Message," on the lessons from Russia's experience in the 1990s and how he would
address them. During his 2012 presidential election campaign, Putin returned to the themes of
this earlier treatise. He made frequent explicit reference to what he described as the chaos of
Russia in the 1990s under President Boris Yeltsin. He sharply contrasted this to the decade of
political and economic stability he believes that he, personally, brought to the country after
taking office in 1999. Putin essentially ran his 2012 campaign against the past, specifically
the 1990s, rather than against another candidate. Mr. Putin clearly sees his presidency as the
product of, as well as the answer to, the Russia of the 1990s.
The first three identities help explain Mr. Putin's goals, while the next three -- the
Outsider, the Free Marketeer, and the Case Officer -- are more personal. They are primarily
about the means he has been able to employ to achieve his ends. Putin's childhood experiences
in a working class neighborhood of Leningrad, his years in the KGB at home and abroad, and his
activities in the local government of post-Soviet St. Petersburg and then in a series of
below-the-radar positions in the Kremlin in the late 1990s, all left him with a unique
combination of skills and experience that helped propel him into the presidency in
1999–2000. They allowed him to build up and maintain the political and economic system
that has been in place in Russia ever since.
That system, and Mr. Putin personally, has faced major challenges, both at home and abroad,
in recent years. Part II of the book attempts to explain Putin's responses to those
challenges in terms of the framework developed in Part I . At home, beginning with a political crisis
in 2011–12, it seemed that some of Mr. Putin's core identities had ceased being strengths
and had become sources of weakness for him, as well as a fundamental vulnerability for the
personalized system of governance he had created within the Kremlin. As we will show, key
elements of his identities prevented Mr. Putin from relating and connecting to thousands of
Russian citizens who took to the streets in protest after Russia's 2011 parliamentary and 2012
presidential elections. In the end, however, Putin prevailed over the protesters. We will argue
that he did so by going back to his core identities.
Our final chapters in Part II examine Mr. Putin in the context of his views of and
interactions with the outside world, culminating with the crisis in Ukraine in 2013–14.
Our objective is to understand Putin's motivations and his behavior by again drawing upon the
insights of Part I . We first trace the evolution of his thinking about Russia's
relations with the outside world and then show how Mr. Putin, the Operative in the Kremlin,
translated that thinking into action as the Operative Abroad.
A CONTEXTUAL PORTRAIT
The ultimate purpose of our analysis is to provide a portrait of Mr. Putin's mental outlook,
his worldview, and the individual aspects, or identities, that comprise this worldview. Like
everyone else, Putin is an amalgam, a composite, of his life experiences. Putin's identities
are parallel, not sequential. They blend into each other and are not mutually exclusive. In
many respects they could be packaged differently from the way we present them. The most generic
identities -- the Statist, the History Man, and the Survivalist -- could be merged together.
They overlap in some obvious ways and have some themes in common. Nonetheless, there are key
distinctions in each of them that we seek to tease out. Putin's outlook has been shaped by many
influences: a combination of the Soviet and Russian contexts in which he grew up, lived and
worked; a personal interest in Russian history and literature; his legal studies at Leningrad
State University (LGU); his KGB training; his KGB service in Dresden in East Germany; his
experiences in 1990s St. Petersburg; his early days in Moscow in 1996–99; and his time at
the helm of the Russian state since 2000. Instead of trying to track down all the Putin stories
to fit with these experiences, we have built a contextual narrative based on the known parts of
Putin's biography, a close examination of his public pronouncements over more than a decade,
and, not least, our own personal encounters with Mr. Putin. 23
Just as we do not know who exactly selected Mr. Putin to be Boris Yeltsin's successor in
1999, we do not know specifically what Putin did during his 16 years in the KGB. We do,
however, know the context of the KGB during the period when Vladimir Putin operated in it. So,
for example, we have examined the careers, published writings, and memoirs of leading KGB
officials such as Yury Andropov and Filipp Bobkov -- the people who shaped the institution and
thus Putin's role in it. Similarly, Putin constantly refers to Russia's "time of troubles" in
the 1990s as the negative reference point for his presidency and premiership. Although we do
not know exactly what Putin was thinking about in the 1990s, we know a great deal about the
events and debates of this decade in which people around him were closely involved. We also
have ample evidence in Mr. Putin's own writings and speeches from 1999 to 2014, of his
appropriation of the core concepts and language of an identifiable body of political and legal
thought from the 1990s. In short, we know what others around Mr. Putin said or did in a certain
timeframe, even if we cannot always prove what Putin himself was up to. We focus on what seems
the most credible in a particular context to draw out information relevant to Putin's specific
identities.
But before we turn to Mr. Putin's six identities, we begin with the context of his emergence
onto the political scene -- Russia of the 1990s. Putin did not appear out of the blue or from
"nowhere" when he arrived in Moscow in 1996 to take up a position in the Russian presidential
administration. He most demonstrably came from St. Petersburg. He also came from a group around
Mayor Anatoly Sobchak to whom he had first gravitated in the 1970s when he was a student in
LGU's law faculty and Sobchak was a lecturer there. Vladimir Putin's KGB superiors later
assigned him to work at LGU in 1990, bringing him back into Anatoly Sobchak's orbit. Features
of Mr. Putin's personality then drew him into the center of Sobchak's team as the former law
professor campaigned to become mayor of St. Petersburg. Because of his real identities -- and
particular (often unsavory) skills associated with his role as a former KGB case officer --
Vladimir Putin was subsequently determined by the St. Petersburg mayor and his close circle of
associates to be uniquely well-suited for the task of enforcing informal rules and making
corrupt businesses deliver in the freewheeling days of the 1990s. Putin became widely known as
"Sobchak's fixer," and some of the activities he engaged in while in St. Petersburg helped pave
his way to power in Moscow. CHAPTER TWOBORIS YELTSIN AND THE TIME OF TROUBLES
SOME COMMENTATORS HAVE DEPICTED THE story of how Mr. Putin came to
be prime minster and then president of Russia as something akin to a tragedy that ruptured what
appeared to be a generally positive trajectory of post-Soviet Russia in the 1990s toward the
development of a more pluralistic democratic state and market economy. Vladimir Putin views the
trajectory of 1990s in a very different way. For him, the Russian state was in a downward
spiral. His elevation to the presidency at the end of 1999 was the logical culmination of, as
well as the response to, a series of sometimes fatal (not just fateful) mistakes made by
Russian political figures over the course of this tumultuous decade. The agenda of his
presidency was an explicit response to the 1990s. His goal, as he himself often states, was to
address the mistakes that were made and put Russia back on track.
The early part of the 1990s was framed by the great upheaval of the Soviet collapse,
attempts at radical economic reform, and a declaration of hostilities between an ambitious
Russian parliament and a weak presidency. In the years before Mr. Putin came to Moscow,
factional squabbling within the Russian leadership, and endless changes in top personnel and
the composition of the Russian government, created a strong sense that President Boris Yeltsin
had allowed events to spin out of control. In 1993, President Yeltsin laid siege to the Russian
parliamentary building to force a recalcitrant legislature to its knees and back into line with
the executive branch, thus inaugurating a period of rule by presidential decree that would last
for several years. In 1994, Yeltsin launched a brutal and unsuccessful domestic war to suppress
an independence drive in the republic of Chechnya, sparking two decades of brutal conflict and
ongoing insurgency in Russia's North Caucasus region. In 1996, Yeltsin's team ran a dirty
election campaign to keep their, by now, ailing and unpopular leader in the Kremlin. They made
a deal for political support with the oligarchs -- the leading figures in Russia's new private
business sectors -- that resulted in the supposed pioneers of Russia's market economy
manipulating politics and fighting among themselves over the purchase of former state assets.
In the same timeframe, repeated setbacks to Russia's foreign policy goals in the Balkans and
elsewhere in the former Soviet space compounded a public perception of disorder verging on
chaos.
One narrative among the Russian political and intellectual elite in this period -- both
inside and outside government -- was that the Russian state had fallen into another time of
troubles ( smutnoye vremya ). This is the narrative that Putin adopted
when he embarked on his presidency in 1999–2000. Russia's infamous smutnoye vremya was the historical period that marked the end of the sixteenth and
beginning of the seventeenth century. The death of the last tsar of the Rurikid dynasty was
followed by uprisings, invasions, and widespread famine before the establishment and
consolidation of the new Romanov dynasty. Boris Yeltsin's critics compared him unfavorably with
Boris Godunov, the notorious de facto Russian regent during the time of troubles. Similar
evocations were made to other historical periods of insurgency and uncertainty in the
eighteenth century under Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, to the aftermath of the
Decembrist revolt in the 1820s–30s, and to the long span of episodic revolutionary
turmoil from the 1860s up to World War I that culminated in the Revolution of 1917.
1
On January 1, 1992, President Yeltsin launched an ambitious economic reform program intended
to transform Russia's inherited Soviet economy into a modern market economy. The approach,
labeled "shock therapy," was modeled on the recent experience of transition in Poland and other
former communist countries. The key steps included the abolition of central planning for
manufacturing and other production, the privatization of government enterprises, rapid
liberalization of prices, and stark budget cuts aimed at restoring fiscal balance. For a
Russian population that for decades had known only fixed prices, lifetime employment
guarantees, and a cradle-to-grave welfare system, there was no doubt about the shock. Since
virtually all prices were deregulated at the same time, they predictably jumped to
unprecedented levels in one single leap. Accumulated household savings were rendered worthless.
There were no provisions for compensation by the government. Enterprises were left without
government orders. Their directors had neither the time nor the skills to find alternative
customers before they had to simply shut down production. 2 Unemployment
soared.
The austerity measures did not lead to any immediate improvement in government finances.
Deficits ballooned while government services collapsed. Yeltsin's team of academic
policymakers, headed by Yegor Gaidar, reassured the president and the public that all this had
been expected but that the painful period would be brief. Recovery was around the corner. The
result would be much greater prosperity than ever before under the Soviet system. The recovery
-- the therapy part of shock therapy -- did not come. Inflation raged: prices rose on average
by 20 percent a month throughout 1993. 3 Unemployment continued to grow.
The economy as a whole shifted from a growth and development orientation to pure survival. On a
private level, Russian households did the same. But publicly there was outrage.
From the outset, Gaidar and his group of young economists bore the brunt of the criticism
for the economic and political consequences of the program. They became the target of
conservative factions in the Russian parliament and industrial circles who had vested interests
in Soviet-style business as usual. By the end of 1992, they were out of the cabinet and Boris
Yeltsin had appointed Viktor Chernomyrdin, former head of the Russian gas industry and a member
of the industrial lobby, as prime minister. Although parliament viewed Chernomyrdin as a
proponent of a slower pace of reform, the conservative factions maintained their pressure on
President Yeltsin. With Gaidar no longer overseeing economic policy, the Russian parliament
moved to challenge Yeltsin on other political issues, including the process for passing a new
Russian constitution. Both the parliament and the presidential administration set about
creating their own competing drafts to replace the defunct Soviet-era constitution.
PRESIDENT VERSUS PARLIAMENT
The political standoff between the Russian legislative and executive branches degenerated to
the point where effective governance was virtually impossible. In September 1993, Yeltsin
abolished the existing parliament and announced that there would be elections for a new lower
house in December 1993. He declared that the new lower house would now be called the State
Duma, the name of the late imperial Russian legislature. The Russian parliament countered by
naming its own acting president -- Vice President Alexander Rutskoi, who had moved into open
political opposition to Yeltsin. Rutskoi set up an alternative cabinet in the "White House,"
the Russian parliamentary building. The confrontation came to a bloody end on October
3–4, 1993. Supporters of the parliament marched on Ostankino, the Moscow television
tower, and a number of protesters were killed in a skirmish with interior ministry forces. On
the morning of October 4, Yeltsin ordered Russian military tanks to fire on the White House to
force his erstwhile vice president and the deputies to surrender. One hundred forty-five people
were killed and 800 wounded in the assault and associated street fighting, according to
official statements.
The events of October 1993 were (at that point) the most violent political confrontation in
the Russian capital since the Revolution of 1917. 4 They left their
mark on many Russian political figures of the period, including Mr. Putin. After the fighting
was over and new elections were held, President Yeltsin stripped the new State Duma of many
legislative oversight functions. He relocated parliament from the charred remnants of the White
House to an old Soviet building symbolically in the shadow of the Kremlin walls. The scorch
marks on the White House were washed off, the building was cleaned up and renovated, and it was
handed off to become the seat of the Russian government. In a January 2012 interview with the
British newspaper The Guardian, Gleb Pavlovsky -- a former Kremlin
adviser and political strategist who worked closely with Putin during his tenure as president
and prime minister before being fired in 2011 -- observed that the 1993 standoff between
Yeltsin and the parliament had a profound effect on Vladimir Putin. The assault on the White
House shaped Putin's views about what tended to happen when the balance of power shifted in
Russia. The losers in a political confrontation would be put against the wall and shot. "Putin
always said, we know ourselves we know that as soon as we move aside, you will destroy us. He
said that directly, you'll put us to the wall and execute us. And we don't want to go to the
wall that was a very deep belief and was based on [the] very tough confrontations of 1993 when
Yeltsin fired on the Supreme Soviet [parliament] and killed a lot more people -- Putin knows --
than was officially announced ." 5
A NEW PRESIDENTIAL CONSTITUTION
Fortunately for Putin, he was nowhere near either the Kremlin or the White House walls in
1993. He was a bystander to Yeltsin's showdown with the parliament, sitting on the sidelines in
the mayor's office in St. Petersburg. Putin's then boss, Anatoly Sobchak, however, was one of
the key drafters of the new Russian constitution. 6 This would prove
to be one of the most consequential documents for defining Putin's future presidency. Having
shelled the parliament into submission, Yeltsin pushed through a draft of the constitution that
granted the Russian president and the executive branch extensive powers over domestic and
foreign policy. In effect, Yeltsin's new constitution retroactively legitimized many of the
steps he had taken (excluding the military action) to curb the powers of parliament. It was a
potentially powerful tool for any president, like Mr. Putin, trying to secure the preeminent
position in Russian political life.
The 1993 Russian constitutional process was deeply rooted in earlier historical attempts to
create a constitution. Although there was a good deal of discussion of other international
conceptual sources and constitutional models, the document that emerged drew heavily from ideas
put forward in Russia's late tsarist era. One of the creators of the 1993 Russian constitution,
Sergei Shakhrai, would later claim that it was a "myth" that the Russian constitution had drawn
any inspiration whatsoever from any Western constitutional models -- except, perhaps, for the
fact that the Russian president was conceived as the "Russian equivalent of the British Queen."
7 (Great Britain, of course, does not have a constitution in the
modern sense of a single written document, nor does the British monarch have real political
power.) The Russian presidency enshrined in the constitution far exceeded even the U.S. and
French equivalents in its sweep of authority.
DEBACLE IN THE DUMA
In spite of the bloodletting and his new quasi-monarchical powers, President Yeltsin found
the Russian State Duma no easier to work with than the old parliament. The 1993 December
elections produced a parliament split between generally anti-reform parties, including the
nationalist Liberal Democratic Party (LDPR) and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation
(CPRF), and pro-reform parties such as Russia's Choice and the Russian United Democratic Party,
Yabloko ("apple"). Among the parties, the nationalist LDPR secured
almost a quarter (22.9 percent) of the popular vote, outstripping the second-place Russia's
Choice with 15 percent. 8 The Duma subsequently fell upon itself in a
series of factional and personal squabbles. Parties and blocs formed and reformed with dizzying
frequency, and some parliamentary sessions were disrupted by fistfights. 9 Similar scenes played out in regional legislatures, including
in St. Petersburg. A decade later, Putin would refer to the legislative rough and tumble with
considerable distaste, noting that the repeated brawls had given him a very low opinion of
politics. 10
In spring 1995, after much debate, a new election law was passed setting parliamentary
elections for December 1995 and presidential elections for June 1996. As would happen again in
2011, the Kremlin had an unpleasant "December surprise" in the 1995 parliamentary election. The
opposition Communist Party trounced the ruling party of the period, Nash
dom Rossiya (NDR), or Our Home Is Russia, which had been formed under the leadership of
Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin to try to unify the range of pro-reform or "democratic"
parties. 11 As we will discuss later, Putin had his own role to play in
this debacle, leading NDR's local campaign in St. Petersburg, an experience that put him off
electoral politics even further.
YELTSIN, THE OLIGARCHS, AND THE JUNE 1996 ELECTION
The subsequent 1996 presidential election -- which like other Russian presidential elections
consisted of two rounds to reduce the pool of candidates to two if no one got a clear majority
of the vote -- was transformed into an apparent head-to-head contest between Yeltsin and
Gennady Zyuganov, the Communist Party leader. Zyuganov made it clear that he would end
Yeltsin's economic reforms and return to a modified Soviet-style system if he won the
presidency. At this fateful juncture, Yeltsin was undergoing his own personal time of troubles.
The Russian president was in poor health. He would in fact have a serious heart attack between
the electoral rounds and disappear from public view for a substantial period of time. These
troubles compounded his government's political difficulties. They also set the scene for
Putin's subsequent move to Moscow. Just before the presidential election, Yeltsin's approval
ratings fell to an all-time low of 3 percent. Yeltsin risked forfeiting the election to
Zyuganov unless the team around him could pull off a political miracle, but the team lacked the
resources for a full-scale national electoral campaign. The Kremlin's coffers were empty, and
new independent media outlets had eclipsed the stale programming and content of the old state
television, newspapers, and radio. 12
Yeltsin's team reached out to a set of business people who had benefitted directly from the
government's reform program. They had amassed fortunes in new financial institutions and
acquired stakes in the new media. Among them were Boris Berezovsky, head of Logovaz, one of
Russia's largest holding companies, which had controlling shares or interests in media outlets,
including the Russian television station ORT, the newspaper Nezavisimaya
gazeta, and the weekly magazine Ogonyok ; Vladimir Potanin, the
president of Uneximbank, Russia's third-largest bank in terms of assets; Mikhail Khodorkovsky,
head of the Menatep-Rosprom financial industrial group; Vladimir Gusinsky, the founder of the
Most Bank and media group; Pyotr Aven, a former Russian minister turned banker; Mikhail
Fridman, the president of Alfa Bank; and Alexander Smolensky, the head of Stolichny Savings
Bank. 13 In return for campaign contributions on a massive scale and
preferential media access, Yeltsin promised this group of seven oligarchs privileged bidding
positions for controlling shares in some of Russia's most important state companies in the oil
and gas, metallurgy, and other industrial sectors when they were privatized. This notorious
"loans-for-shares" agreement has been thoroughly parsed and widely documented. 14 It brought the titans of Russian business, the oligarchs, who
bankrolled the campaign into the business of deciding who would run Russia. It also laid the
ground for clashes between the Yeltsin "Family" (Boris Yeltsin's family members and his closest
associates) and some of the businessmen -- with serious political consequences for Russia in
the period leading up to 1999 -- as their respective sets of interests inevitably diverged.
15
The 1996 Russian presidential campaign prefigured the political tools, components, and
principal actors of the Putin era in the 2000s. The heavy use of Western-style PR, the negative
campaigning, discrediting of opponents, the rise of both independent reformed communist and
Russian nationalist political movements, and massive infusions of campaign capital from vested
private business interests paved the way for the politics of the subsequent decade. Gennady
Zyuganov became the main political pretender to the Russian presidency. He was also Putin's
primary putative opponent in the March 2012 presidential election, reprising his 1996 role.
Russian general and Afghan war hero Alexander Lebed, a strong nationalist candidate who came in
third place in the first round of the 1996 election, died in a helicopter crash in April 2002.
He was succeeded on the national stage at various points by his colleague and co-founder of the
Congress of Russian Communities (KRO) nationalist movement, Dmitry Rogozin. 16 Other political figures -- like nationalist politician
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, head of the LDPR, which Yeltsin's team in 1996 portrayed in the domestic
and international media as the stalking horse for fascism -- also became permanent fixtures of
the Russian political scene. After that election, some of the "magnificent seven" oligarchs
were given positions in the Russian government, including Boris Berezovsky as deputy secretary
of the Russian Security Council and Vladimir Potanin as first deputy prime minister.
Berezovsky, along with Vladimir Gusinsky and Mikhail Khodorkovsky, would later become the
dramatis personae of Putin's clashes with the oligarchs in the early 2000s. Berezovsky and
Gusinsky ended up in exile and Khodorkovsky was dispatched to a Siberian jail. 17
WAR IN CHECHNYA: DOUBLE-DEALING WITH RUSSIA'S REGIONS
In the midst of the political machinations around the parliament and the presidency, Yeltsin
was embroiled in another struggle to forge a new political relationship between Moscow and the
individual regions of the Russian Federation. This struggle unleashed a war in the Russian
North Caucasus that would also prove instrumental in Putin's rise to the presidency in 1999.
Like its dealings with parliament, the Yeltsin government's engagement with the regions was ad
hoc and contradictory. It vacillated among legislative measures, police action, military
intervention, repression, and conciliatory bilateral treaties that granted different regions
varying concessions. The policies Yeltsin initiated provided the frame for contentious
center-periphery relations that have dogged Vladimir Putin's time in office.
Protests against central government policies -- including changes in internal administrative
borders and Moscow's high-level political appointments at the regional and local level -- had
been an enduring feature of politics in the Soviet periphery since the late 1950s.
18 After the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the
establishment of the Russian Federation, Russia's own regions continued to demand territorial
and political changes. The Russian North Caucasus republic of Chechnya declared its
independence and seceded, even before the end of the USSR, in November 1991. In February 1992,
Yeltsin tried to push through a new Federal Treaty to resolve all the contested issues.
Chechnya and the republic of Tatarstan in the Russian Volga region rejected it -- raising fears
that Russia would unravel like the USSR. Tatarstan and a number of other Russian regions then
rejected the provisions in the new 1993 Russian constitution that delineated regional powers.
As a stop-gap effort, the Yeltsin government concluded a bilateral treaty with Tatarstan in
February 1994. As far as Chechnya was concerned, Yeltsin made a half-hearted effort to
negotiate the republic's return to the Federation. He then threw Moscow's support behind forces
opposed to the independent Chechen government. A botched effort in summer 1994 to overthrow the
Chechen government ended with Chechen government forces capturing Russian operatives, who were
paraded in front of the media to humiliate Moscow and Yeltsin.
In December 1994, the Russian government launched a full-scale military assault on Chechnya.
The assault became the largest military campaign on Russian soil since World War II, with mass
civilian and military casualties and the almost complete destruction of Chechnya's principal
city, Grozny. In August 1996, just after the presidential election and simultaneous with
Putin's arrival in Moscow, the over-extended Russian military essentially collapsed as an
effective fighting force. The military's morale was sapped by high casualties, as well as by
shortages of critical armaments that forced commanders to dip into stocks of vintage World War
II ordnance. Even some of the most basic supplies for the predominantly conscript soldiers ran
out -- with appeals sent out during one part of the winter campaign for the Russian population
to knit thick socks for Russian forces fighting in the cold and unforgiving mountainous regions
of Chechnya. The war in Chechnya resulted in Russia's most significant military defeat since
Afghanistan the previous decade, but this time on its own territory. 19 Partly at the instigation of General Lebed -- who was now a
power to be reckoned with in Russian politics after his strong showing in the June presidential
election -- the Yeltsin government was forced to conclude a truce with the Chechen government.
In a subsequent peace agreement, Moscow agreed to end the military intervention and then
conclude a bilateral treaty on future relations with Chechnya. Many prominent figures in the
Russian political and military elite bristled at this humiliation and stressed that the
arrangements hammered out with Chechnya in 1996–97 would be temporary. 20
The war between Moscow and Chechnya emboldened other regions to demand bilateral treaties.
Instead of a stopgap measure, the treaties became the primary mechanism for regulating Moscow's
relations with its entire periphery. 21 Over a two-year period, the
Yeltsin government was forced to negotiate agreements with Bashkortorstan, a major
oil-producing region next to Tatarstan; republics neighboring Chechnya in the North Caucasus;
Nizhny Novgorod, Yekaterinburg, Perm, and Irkutsk, all predominantly ethnic Russian regions
stretching from Russia's heartland into the Urals and the Lake Baikal region of Siberia; the
Siberian republic of Sakha-Yakutiya, which is the heart of Russia's diamond industry; the
exclave of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea; and even St. Petersburg and the surrounding Leningrad
oblast. 22 The treaties proved a useful tool for avoiding further
ruinous conflict. They also resulted in the piecemeal, asymmetric decentralization of the
Russian state and a confounding set of overlapping responsibilities.
The bilateral treaties were extremely unpopular in central government and parliamentary
circles. By the end of the 1990s, as Putin rose to the top of the Russian government, they had
become one of the most enduring symbols of the administrative chaos and weakness of the Russian
state. Politicians in Moscow demanded they be overturned. With the treaties in place, leaders
of republics vaulted from the status of regional functionaries to presidents and national-level
political figures. Regional politicians reinterpreted Moscow's decrees to suit local concerns.
They refused to implement Russian federal legislation. They created their own economic
associations. They withheld tax revenues from the federal government. They openly criticized
central government policy. 23 Beyond Chechnya, this weakness found
perhaps its best expression in the Russian far east, in Primorsky Krai. There, at the furthest
edge of the Russian Federation, Moscow engaged in what seemed like a never-ending political
battle with the region's obstinate governor, Yevgeny Nazdratenko. From his political perch in
Vladivostok, the governor assailed the Yeltsin government's attempts to reach a border
agreement with China. He accused Moscow of cutting off Primorsky Krai's access to the Pacific
Ocean. He stationed his own paramilitary Cossack forces on the border, diverted federal funds
for his personal pet projects, and generally harangued Yeltsin for creating the region's
chronic economic problems. 24 Putin would later find a creative way of
dealing with Governor Nazdratenko that would become a hallmark of his efforts to deal with
other difficult personalities in the 2000s.
THWARTED ABROAD
In the meantime, as the Yeltsin government waged war with Chechnya and engaged in a
tug-of-war with Primorsky Krai, Moscow's foreign policy faltered. Russia's internecine
conflicts and economic weakness constrained its ability to exert influence on consequential
developments abroad. In the late 1980s USSR, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and Foreign
Minister Eduard Shevardnadze had drawn a direct link between domestic and foreign policy. To
secure international financial support for restructuring and revitalizing the Soviet economy,
they abandoned the USSR's traditional confrontational posture toward the West and focused
instead on reducing international tensions. 25 Boris Yeltsin initially
continued the same foreign policy line with Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev. During the early
stages of shock therapy, relations with international financial and political institutions and
the United States were prioritized. On February 1, 1992, President Yeltsin and U.S. president
George Herbert Walker Bush issued a joint declaration that Russia and the United States were no
longer adversaries. They proclaimed a new era of strategic partnership.
Optimism for this partnership rapidly faded as Russia's relations with the West became mired
in a series of international crises. After the break-up of Yugoslavia, full-scale fighting
erupted in Sarajevo, the capital of the new state of Bosnia-Herzegovina. United Nations (UN)
sanctions were slapped against Serbia -- Yugoslavia's primary successor state and one of
imperial Russia's traditional regional allies -- which openly supported ethnic Serbian forces
in what soon became a civil war. In July 1992, UN and other international peacekeeping forces
intervened, provoking a backlash from Moscow. Conservative and nationalist factions in the
Russian parliament protested that Russia had not been suitably consulted in spite of its
historic interests in the Balkans. Russia's relations with its neighborhood immediately took on
a harsher tone.
The term "near abroad" was introduced by Foreign Minister Kozyrev and other Russian
officials to describe the former Soviet states on Russia's borders. Government reports were
produced on ways of safeguarding Russian interests in these states. 26 At an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) meeting in Stockholm in December 1992, Kozyrev offered a version of a speech to his
counterparts that clearly captured a new mood in Moscow. He outlined an assertive Russian
foreign policy, reaffirming Russia's traditional support for Serbia, laying claim to the entire
former Soviet space, and reserving Russia's right to exert influence through military as well
as economic means. 27 By this time, the Russian parliament's
backlash to shock therapy was in full swing. There was a general perception, in both the
Yeltsin government and parliament, that Russia was being treated as a developing or second-tier
country by the West. Despite repeated promises of substantial financial aid, the United States
and international financial institutions had been unable to provide sufficient assistance to
alleviate the most severe effects of Russia's economic reforms. 28 The disillusioned Yeltsin government increasingly turned its
foreign policy attention away from the West and toward the new states of the former Soviet
Union -- trying to salvage what was left of Moscow's previous regional authority.
REBUFFED IN THE NEAR ABROAD
Yeltsin's overtures for closer relations were soon rebuffed in the near abroad. After the
collapse of the USSR, the Yeltsin team thought it had created a mechanism for some form of
post-Soviet regional reintegration under Russian leadership through the creation of the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Nothing went quite according to plan. Most CIS member
states saw the organization either as a means for heading off nasty Yugoslav-style conflicts,
or as the beginning of a mutual civilized divorce. The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania -- which the USSR had annexed during World War II in an act that the UN declared
illegal -- refused to join the CIS. They set their sights instead on membership in the European
Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Georgia also initially refused.
Moldova and Azerbaijan agreed only to associate membership. Ukraine, the most important of the
other former Soviet republics, joined the CIS but clashed with Russia over dividing the former
Soviet Black Sea Fleet -- based in Sevastopol on Ukraine's Crimea Peninsula. 29
Then fighting broke out between several new states and various separatist territorial
entities, pulling Moscow into the fray. Armed clashes flared between Azerbaijan and the ethnic
Armenian population in Nagorno-Karabakh. Across the border from Azerbaijan, Georgia fought with
two of its autonomous regions, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In Moldova, violence erupted between
forces loyal to the new government and the secessionist Transnistria region. Troops from the
Soviet 14th Army stationed in Transnistria intervened. General Alexander Lebed, commander of
the 14th Army, burst into the national spotlight with his efforts to separate the sides and
secure Russian military installations and weapons stockpiles. Further afield, in Central Asia,
Tajikistan fell into civil war. 30
The ethno-political violence in the Soviet successor states was exacerbated by Moscow's
confrontation with Estonia and Latvia over the status of post-war Russian-speaking immigrants.
Both states introduced legislation demanding that those immigrants fulfill residence and
language requirements before they could apply for citizenship. In November 1992, the UN adopted
a resolution calling for Moscow to withdraw all former Soviet troops from the Baltic states,
given their illegal annexation. The Yeltsin government tried to link the troop withdrawal
demanded by the UN to its dispute with the Baltic states. If the immigrants were given
citizenship, the troops would be withdrawn; otherwise they would stay until the issue was
resolved. In September 1993 at the United Nations General Assembly, Foreign Minister Kozyrev
dug in Moscow's heels even further. He declared Russia's "special responsibility" for
protecting Russian language speakers (including in Transnistria and the Baltic states) and
demanded the UN grant Russia primacy in future peacekeeping missions sent into former Soviet
republics. 31 These efforts were to no avail. Sustained Western
pressure, including specific threats to withhold loans vital for Russia's economic reform
program, ultimately forced Moscow's hand. The last former Soviet soldier was out of the Baltic
states by August 31, 1994. 32
Elsewhere in the former Soviet Union, Moscow did its best to retain whatever leverage it
could. In the Caucasus, Russian operatives and weaponry were used in conflicts and coups
against perceived anti-Russian leaders. Economic pressure was deployed against Ukraine and the
Central Asian states in a variety of disputes. A Moscow-encouraged Crimean independence
movement impinged on Ukraine's claims to the Black Sea Fleet. By September 1995, the CIS and
the near abroad had become the priority area for Russian foreign policy and the focal point of
its principal vital interests. President Yeltsin signed a decree on the integration of the CIS,
which set ambitious goals for enhancing economic, political, and military ties. 33 When he came into office in 1999–2000, Putin would
continue to emphasize the importance of Russia's relations with the former Soviet republics and
of maintaining Moscow's grip on the various levers of influence over them. He also took away
some critical lessons from Russia's experience of being ousted (in his view) ignominiously from
the Baltic states in August 1994.
VEERING FROM WEST TO EAST
At the time, none of the Yeltsin government's actions were seen by the political and
military elite in Moscow to have appreciably improved Russia's international standing. The
conflicts dominated Russia's domestic and foreign policy agenda. Relations with the United
States and the West degenerated. In 1994, the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina escalated,
culminating in punitive actions against Serbia by the EU and the United States, and then NATO
air strikes. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and President Yeltsin were informed of the
air attacks after the NATO allies had already made the decision. Although NATO later worked out
an arrangement for Russian troops to serve in a NATO peacekeeping contingent in Bosnia under
their own command, Russia's parliament was, once again, infuriated. Concurrent with the action
in the Balkans, NATO's 1994 decision to expand the alliance to the new democracies of Eastern
Europe, and by extension to former Soviet republics such as the Baltic states, was protested by
all Russian political factions. Between 1994 and 1997, the expansion of NATO dominated Russia's
interactions with the West.
In an interview in the Moscow News in September 1995, former Soviet
President Mikhail Gorbachev summed up the general elite consensus in Moscow. 34 The West had taken advantage of Russia's weakness. The West's
policy in Europe, the Balkans, and within the former Soviet Union, he asserted, "is marked by a
clear disrespect for Russia, as is shown by its failure to consult Russia on the issue of NATO
bombings [in Yugoslavia] . All this proves that some Western politicians would have liked to
see Russia play second fiddle in world politics . Whatever Russia's domestic problems, it will
never reconcile itself to such a humiliating position." 35
Gorbachev insisted that Russia "badly need[ed] a meaningful policy on the international
scene, a policy aimed at restoring the security system in Europe and Russia's role as a top
player in world politics." He also urged a change in Western policies in Russia's former
spheres of influence, warning that "an arrogant attitude towards Russia and her interests is
deeply insulting to the Russian people, and that is fraught with grave consequences."
36
Not long after Gorbachev's interview, President Yeltsin replaced Foreign Minister Kozyrev in
January 1996 with the former head of Russian foreign intelligence and Middle East specialist
Yevgeny Primakov. Humiliated and insulted in the West, Moscow made foreign policy overtures
toward former Soviet allies in Asia and the Middle East -- again with the urging of factions
within the parliament and government. Primakov's appointment marked the beginning of
initiatives aimed at rebuilding Russia's relations with China, India, Iraq, Iran, and other
powers the USSR had previously courted. There was little further talk of partnership with the
United States.
MOUNTING DEMANDS FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE STATE: PUTIN COMES TO MOSCOW
This is when Putin came to Moscow to join the Russian presidential administration. Between
1991 and 1996, Russian domestic and foreign policy had endured a long series of humiliating
setbacks. Russian politicians were at each other's throats. Yeltsin had shelled the Russian
parliament but had not forced it into complete submission. New political opposition forces and
the oligarchs had been emboldened by their roles in the June 1996 presidential election
campaign. The government's progressive economic reform program was in tatters, and its team of
economic reformers was in disarray. The economy was in full-blown recession. Tens of thousands
had taken to the streets to demand unpaid wages and pensions and to protest rising prices. War
had ravaged Chechnya and pulled it even further away from Moscow's orbit. Regional leaders were
picking apart the Russian Federation, treaty by treaty. NATO had denied Russia its traditional
role in the Balkan conflicts. The West had pushed Russia out of the Baltic states. Ukraine and
other putative allies in the near abroad were fighting over the Soviet spoils -- with Moscow
and among themselves. Relations with the United States were on a downward trajectory. CHAPTER THREETHE STATIST
WHEN PUTIN ARRIVED IN MOSCOW in August 1996, few in Russian elite
circles had any illusions about the depth of the state's domestic crisis and the loss of its
previous great-power status internationally. Many internal observers feared Russia was in
danger of total collapse. They bristled at Western commentators constantly regurgitating a
description of the country during the late Soviet period as "Upper Volta with missiles."
1 Russian politics was focused on preserving what was left and
avoiding further humiliations. Practically every political group and party across the Russian
political spectrum, from right to left, felt that the post-Soviet dismantling of the state had
gone too far and advocated the restoration of Russian "state power." Even some of the liberal
economists around Yegor Gaidar who were at the forefront of pulling apart the old Soviet
economy in 1992–93 had moved in this direction. 2
Everything Putin has said on the subject of saving Russia from chaos since he came to power
is consistent with the general elite consensus in the late 1990s on the importance of restoring
order. Most of the Russian domestic and foreign policy priorities that Putin would adopt when
he became president were already identified by the Russian political elite in the same period.
All Vladimir Putin had to do in the 2000s was to channel and synthesize the various ideas
percolating through newspaper columns and political manifestos about how to address Russia's
crisis of statehood to produce what has loosely been referred to as "Putinism." This included
the re-creation of a more authoritative centralized state apparatus -- the so-called
vertikal vlasti or "vertical of power" -- and greater assertiveness in
foreign policy, especially in the near abroad and other areas where Russia had experienced its
greatest setbacks under Boris Yeltsin. 3 Although Putin was short
on the specifics of what he would actually do at the outset of his presidency, he would
ultimately derive most of his ideas for action from some of the more conservative factions in
the 1990s political debates.
THE "MILLENNIUM MESSAGE"
The first key to Vladimir Putin's personality is his view of himself as a man of the state,
his identity as a statist ( gosudarstvennik in Russian). Putin sees
himself as someone who belongs to a large cohort of people demanding the restoration of the
state. Vladimir Putin publicly presented himself as a statist and offered his vision for the
restoration of the Russian state in one of his first major political statements and
presentations just before he became acting Russian president. This statement sets the scene for
Putin's time as both president and prime minister. As a result, we need to examine the specific
connotations of being a statist in the Russian context of the 1990s.
On December 29, 1999, the website of the Russian government posted a 5,000-word treatise
under the signature of then Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Its title was "Russia on the
Threshold of the New Millennium." Two days later, the president of Russia, Boris Yeltsin,
appeared on national television to declare that he was resigning and handing over power to
Putin. The Internet treatise became known as the "Millennium Message." It was Vladimir Putin's
political mission statement or manifesto for the beginning of his presidency, and it provides
the overall framework for understanding the system of governance he has created around him.
One of Putin's main points in his manifesto was that throughout history, the Russian state
lost its status when its people were divided, when Russians lost sight of the common values
that united them and distinguished them from all others. Since the fall of communism, Putin
asserted, Russians had embraced personal rights and freedoms, freedom of personal expression,
freedom to travel abroad. These universal values were fine, but they were not "Russian." Nor
would they be enough to ensure Russia's survival. There were other, distinctly Russian values
that were at the core of what Putin called the "Russian Idea." Those values were patriotism,
collectivism, solidarity, derzhavnost' -- the belief that Russia is
destined always to be a great power ( derzhava ) exerting its
influence abroad -- and the untranslatable gosudarstvennichestvo .
Russia is not America or Britain with their historical liberal traditions, Putin went
on:
For us, the state and its institutions and structures have always played an exceptionally
important role in the life of the country and the people. For Russians, a strong state is not
an anomaly to fight against. Quite the contrary, it is the source and guarantor of order, the
initiator and the main driving force of any change . Society desires the restoration of the
guiding and regulating role of the state. 4
Putin promised to restore that role. He declared himself to be a gosudarstvennik , a builder of the state, a servant of the state. A gosudarstvennik , a person who believes that Russia must be and must have a strong
state, has a particular resonance in Russia. It does not imply someone who engages in politics.
A gosudarstvennik is not a politician driven by a set of distinct
beliefs who represents a certain group or constituency and jumps into the fray to run for
political office. Instead, the term refers to someone who is selected or self-selects to serve
the country on a permanent basis and who believes only in the state itself.
The MSM is reporting the "impeachment" as if it was a serious (approved by expert
academics) endeavor. However, the veil is lifting. The revealed face of the ruling class is
Neo-Orwellian.
"Nadler's committee will likely vote to impeach Trump. In a report defining what it
considers impeachable offenses, the committee states that even if Trump did not actually
break any laws in his supposed "quid pro quo" dealings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky, he can still be impeached for his unstated motives.
"The question is not whether the president's conduct could have resulted from
permissible motives. It is whether the president's real reasons, the ones in his mind at the
time, were legitimate, " it stated."
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a triennial survey of
15-year-old students that assesses the extent to which they have acquired the key knowledge
and skills essential for full participation in society. The assessment focuses on proficiency
in reading, mathematics, science and an innovative domain (in 2018, the innovative domain was
global competence), and on students' well-being.
Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang (China)
What 15-year-old students in B-S-J-Z (China) know and can do
Figure 1. Snapshot of performance in reading, mathematics and science
[Graph]
• Students in B-S-J-Z (China) scored higher than the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development average in reading, mathematics and science.
• Compared to the OECD average, a larger proportion of students in B-S-J-Z (China)
performed at the highest levels of proficiency (Level 5 or 6) in at least one subject; at the
same time a larger proportion of students achieved a minimum level of proficiency (Level 2 or
higher) in at least one subject.
What students know and can do in reading
• In B-S-J-Z (China), 95% of students attained at least Level 2 proficiency in
reading, significantly more than on average across OECD countries (OECD average: 77%). At a
minimum, these students can identify the main idea in a text of moderate length, find
information based on explicit, though sometimes complex criteria, and can reflect on the
purpose and form of texts when explicitly directed to do so. Over 85% of students in Beijing,
Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang (China), Canada, Estonia, Finland, Hong Kong (China), Ireland,
Macao (China), Poland and Singapore performed at this level or above.
• Some 22% of students in B-S-J-Z (China) were top performers in reading, meaning
that they attained Level 5 or 6 in the PISA reading test (OECD average: 9%). At these levels,
students can comprehend lengthy texts, deal with concepts that are abstract or
counterintuitive, and establish distinctions between fact and opinion, based on implicit cues
pertaining to the content or source of the information. In 20 education systems, including
those of 15 OECD countries, more than 10% of 15-year-old students were top performers.
What students know and can do in mathematics
• Some 98% of students in B-S-J-Z (China) attained Level 2 or higher in mathematics
(OECD average: 76%). At a minimum, these students can interpret and recognise, without direct
instructions, how a (simple) situation can be represented mathematically (e.g. comparing the
total distance across two alternative routes, or converting prices into a different
currency). The share of 15-year-old students who attained minimum levels of proficiency in
mathematics (Level 2 or higher) varied widely – from 98% in Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu
and Zhejiang (China) to 2% in Zambia, which participated in the PISA for Development
assessment in 2017. On average across OECD countries, 76% of students attained at least Level
2 proficiency in mathematics.
• In B-S-J-Z (China), 44% of students scored at Level 5 or higher in mathematics
(OECD average: 11%). Six Asian countries and economies had the largest shares of students who
did so: Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang (China) (44%), Singapore (37%), Hong Kong
(China) (29%), Macao (China) (28%), Chinese Taipei (23%) and Korea (21%). These students can
model complex situations mathematically, and can select, compare and evaluate appropriate
problem-solving strategies for dealing with them.
What students know and can do in science
• Some 98% of students in B-S-J-Z (China) attained Level 2 or higher in science
significantly more than on average across OECD countries (OECD average: 78%). At a minimum,
these students can recognise the correct explanation for familiar scientific phenomena and
can use such knowledge to identify, in simple cases, whether a conclusion is valid based on
the data provided.
• In B-S-J-Z (China), 32% of students were top performers in science, meaning that
they were proficient at Level 5 or 6 (OECD average: 7%). These students can creatively and
autonomously apply their knowledge of and about science to a wide variety of situations,
including unfamiliar ones.
About the author
Imran Bashir has an M.Sc. in Information Security from Royal Holloway, University of London, and has a background in software development,
solution architecture, infrastructure management, and IT service management. He is also a member of the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the British Computer Society (BCS). Imran has sixteen years' of experience in the public and financial
sectors.
He worked on large scale IT projects in the public sector before moving to the financial services industry. Since then,
he has worked in various technical roles for different financial companies in Europe's financial capital, London. He is currently
working for an investment bank in London as Vice President in the Technology department.
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright and Credits
Mastering Blockchain Second Edition
Packt Upsell
Why subscribe?
PacktPub.com
Contributors
About the author
About the reviewer
Packt is searching for authors like you
Preface
Who this book is for
What this book covers
To get the most out of this book
Download the example code files
Download the color images
Conventions used
Get in touch
Reviews
Blockchain 101
The growth of blockchain technology
Distributed systems
The history of blockchain and Bitcoin
Electronic cash
Blockchain
Blockchain defined
Peer-to-peer
Distributed ledger
Cryptographically-secure
Append-only
Updateable via consensus
Generic elements of a blockchain
How blockchain works
How blockchain accumulates blocks
Benefits and limitations of blockchain
Tiers of blockchain technology
Features of a blockchain
Types of blockchain
Distributed ledgers
Distributed Ledger Technology
Public blockchains
Private blockchains
Semiprivate blockchains
Sidechains
Permissioned ledger
Shared ledger
Fully private and proprietary blockchains
Tokenized blockchains
Tokenless blockchains
Consensus
Consensus mechanism
Types of consensus mechanisms
Consensus in blockchain
CAP theorem and blockchain
Summary
Decentralization
Decentralization using blockchain
Methods of decentralization
Disintermediation
Contest-driven decentralization
Routes to decentralization
How to decentralize
The decentralization framework example
Blockchain and full ecosystem decentralization
Storage
Communication
Computing power and decentralization
Smart contracts
Decentralized Organizations
Decentralized Autonomous Organizations
Decentralized Autonomous Corporations
Decentralized Autonomous Societies
Decentralized Applications (DApps)
Requirements of a Decentralized Application
Operations of a DApp
DApp examples
KYC-Chain
OpenBazaar
Lazooz
Platforms for decentralization
Ethereum
MaidSafe
Lisk
Summary
Symmetric Cryptography
Working with the OpenSSL command line
Introduction
Mathematics
Set
Group
Field
A finite field
Order
An abelian group
Prime fields
Ring
A cyclic group
Modular arithmetic
Cryptography
Confidentiality
Integrity
Authentication
Entity authentication
Data origin authentication
Non-repudiation
Accountability
Cryptographic primitives
Symmetric cryptography
Stream ciphers
Block ciphers
Block encryption mode
Electronic Code Book
Cipher Block Chaining
Counter mode
Keystream generation mode
Message authentication mode
Cryptographic hash mode
Data Encryption Standard
Advanced Encryption Standard
How AES works
Summary
Public Key Cryptography
Asymmetric cryptography
Integer factorization
Discrete logarithm
Elliptic curves
Public and private keys
RSA
Encryption and decryption using RSA
Elliptic Curve Cryptography
Mathematics behind ECC
Point addition
Point doubling
Discrete logarithm problem in ECC
RSA using OpenSSL
RSA public and private key pair
Private key
Public key
Exploring the public key
Encryption and decryption
Encryption
Decryption
ECC using OpenSSL
ECC private and public key pair
Private key
Private key generation
Hash functions
Compression of arbitrary messages into fixed-length digest
Easy to compute
Preimage resistance
Second preimage resistance
Collision resistance
Message Digest
Secure Hash Algorithms
Design of Secure Hash Algorithms
Design of SHA-256
Design of SHA-3 (Keccak)
OpenSSL example of hash functions
Message Authentication Codes
MACs using block ciphers
Hash-based MACs
Merkle trees
Patricia trees
Distributed Hash Tables
Digital signatures
RSA digital signature algorithm
Sign then encrypt
Encrypt then sign
Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm
How to generate a digital signature using OpenSSL
ECDSA using OpenSSL
Homomorphic encryption
Signcryption
Zero-Knowledge Proofs
Blind signatures
Encoding schemes
Financial markets and trading
Trading
Exchanges
Orders and order properties
Order management and routing systems
Components of a trade
The underlying instrument
General attributes
Economics
Sales
Counterparty
Trade life cycle
Order anticipators
Market manipulation
Summary
Introducing Bitcoin
Bitcoin
Bitcoin definition
Bitcoin – a bird's-eye view
Sending a payment to someone
Digital keys and addresses
Private keys in Bitcoin
Public keys in Bitcoin
Addresses in Bitcoin
Base58Check encoding
Vanity addresses
Multisignature addresses
Transactions
The transaction life cycle
Transaction fee
Transaction pools
The transaction data structure
Metadata
Inputs
Outputs
Verification
The script language
Commonly used opcodes
Types of transactions
Coinbase transactions
Contracts
Transaction verification
Transaction malleability
Blockchain
The structure of a block
The structure of a block header
The genesis block
Mining
Tasks of the miners
Mining rewards
Proof of Work (PoW)
The mining algorithm
The hash rate
Mining systems
CPU
GPU
FPGA
ASICs
Mining pools
Summary
Bitcoin Network and Payments
The Bitcoin network
Wallets
Non-deterministic wallets
Deterministic wallets
Hierarchical Deterministic wallets
Brain wallets
Paper wallets
Hardware wallets
Online wallets
Mobile wallets
Bitcoin payments
Innovation in Bitcoin
Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs)
Advanced protocols
Segregated Witness (SegWit)
Bitcoin Cash
Bitcoin Unlimited
Bitcoin Gold
Bitcoin investment and buying and selling bitcoins
Summary
Bitcoin Clients and APIs
Bitcoin installation
Types of Bitcoin Core clients
Bitcoind
Bitcoin-cli
Bitcoin-qt
Setting up a Bitcoin node
Setting up the source code
Setting up bitcoin.conf
Starting up a node in testnet
Starting up a node in regtest
Experimenting with Bitcoin-cli
Bitcoin programming and the command-line interface
Summary
Alternative Coins
Theoretical foundations
Alternatives to Proof of Work
Proof of Storage
Proof of Stake (PoS)
Various stake types
Proof of coinage
Proof of Deposit (PoD)
Proof of Burn
Proof of Activity (PoA)
Nonoutsourceable puzzles
Difficulty adjustment and retargeting algorithms
Kimoto Gravity Well
Dark Gravity Wave
DigiShield
MIDAS
Bitcoin limitations
Privacy and anonymity
Mixing protocols
Third-party mixing protocols
Inherent anonymity
Extended protocols on top of Bitcoin
Colored coins
Counterparty
Development of altcoins
Consensus algorithms
Hashing algorithms
Difficulty adjustment algorithms
Inter-block time
Block rewards
Reward halving rate
Block size and transaction size
Interest rate
Coinage
Total supply of coins
Namecoin
Trading Namecoins
Obtaining Namecoins
Generating Namecoin records
Litecoin
Primecoin
Trading Primecoin
Mining guide
Zcash
Trading Zcash
Mining guide
Address generation
GPU mining
Downloading and compiling nheqminer
Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs)
ERC20 tokens
Summary
Smart Contracts
History
Definition
Ricardian contracts
Smart contract templates
Oracles
Smart Oracles
Deploying smart contracts on a blockchain
The DAO
Summary
Ethereum 101
Introduction
The yellow paper
Useful mathematical symbols
Ethereum blockchain
Ethereum – bird's eye view
The Ethereum network
Mainnet
Testnet
Private net
Components of the Ethereum ecosystem
Keys and addresses
Accounts
Types of accounts
Transactions and messages
Contract creation transaction
Message call transaction
Messages
Calls
Transaction validation and execution
The transaction substate
State storage in the Ethereum blockchain
The world state
The account state
Transaction receipts
Ether cryptocurrency / tokens (ETC and ETH)
The Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM)
Execution environment
Machine state
The iterator function
Smart contracts
Native contracts
Summary
Further Ethereum
Programming languages
Runtime bytecode
Opcodes and their meaning
Arithmetic operations
Logical operations
Cryptographic operations
Environmental information
Block information
Stack, memory, storage, and flow operations
Push operations
Duplication operations
Exchange operations
Logging operations
System operations
Blocks and blockchain
The genesis block
The block validation mechanism
Block finalization
Block difficulty
Gas
Fee schedule
Forks in the blockchain
Nodes and miners
The consensus mechanism
Ethash
CPU mining
GPU mining
Benchmarking
Mining rigs
Mining pools
Wallets and client software
Geth
Eth
Pyethapp
Parity
Light clients
Installation
Eth installation
Mist browser
Geth
The geth console
Funding the account with bitcoin
Parity installation
Creating accounts using the parity command line
APIs, tools, and DApps
Applications (DApps and DAOs) developed on Ethereum
Tools
Supporting protocols
Whisper
Swarm
Scalability, security, and other challenges
Trading and investment
Summary
Ethereum Development Environment
Test networks
Setting up a private net
Network ID
The genesis file
Data directory
Flags and their meaning
Static nodes
Starting up the private network
Running Mist on private net
Deploying contracts using Mist
Block explorer for private net / local Ethereum block explorer
Summary
Development Tools and Frameworks
Languages
Compilers
Solidity compiler (solc)
Installation on Linux
Installation on macOS
Integrated Development Environments (IDEs)
Remix
Tools and libraries
Node version 7
EthereumJS
Ganache
MetaMask
Truffle
Installation
Contract development and deployment
Writing
Testing
Solidity language
Types
Value types
Boolean
Integers
Address
Literals
Integer literals
String literals
Hexadecimal literals
Enums
Function types
Internal functions
External functions
Reference types
Arrays
Structs
Data location
Mappings
Global variables
Control structures
Events 
Inheritance
Libraries
Functions
Layout of a Solidity source code file
Version pragma
Import
Comments
Summary
Introducing Web3
Web3
Contract deployment
POST requests
The HTML and JavaScript frontend
Installing web3.js
Example
Creating a web3 object
Checking availability by calling any web3 method
Contract functions
Development frameworks
Truffle
Initializing Truffle
Interaction with the contract
Another example
An example project – Proof of Idea
Oracles
Deployment on decentralized storage using IPFS
Installing IPFS
Distributed ledgers
Summary
Hyperledger
Projects under Hyperledger
Fabric
Sawtooth Lake
Iroha
Burrow
Indy
Explorer
Cello
Composer
Quilt
Hyperledger as a protocol
The reference architecture
Requirements and design goals of Hyperledger Fabric
The modular approach
Privacy and confidentiality
Scalability
Deterministic transactions
Identity
Auditability
Interoperability
Portability
Rich data queries
Fabric
Hyperledger Fabric
Membership services
Blockchain services
Consensus services
Distributed ledger
The peer to peer protocol
Ledger storage
Chaincode services
Components of the fabric
Peers
Orderer nodes
Clients
Channels
World state database
Transactions
Membership Service Provider (MSP)
Smart contracts
Crypto service provider
Applications on blockchain
Chaincode implementation
The application model
Consensus in Hyperledger Fabric
The transaction life cycle in Hyperledger Fabric
Sawtooth Lake
PoET
Transaction families
Consensus in Sawtooth
The development environment – Sawtooth Lake
Corda
Architecture
State objects
Transactions
Consensus
Flows
Components
Nodes
The permissioning service
Network map service
Notary service
Oracle service
Transactions
Vaults
CorDapp
The development environment – Corda
Summary
Alternative Blockchains
Blockchains
Kadena
Ripple
Transactions
Payments related
Order related
Account and security-related
Interledger
Application layer
Transport layer
Interledger layer
Ledger layer
Stellar
Rootstock
Sidechain
Drivechain
Quorum
Transaction manager
Crypto Enclave
QuorumChain
Network manager
Tezos
Storj
MaidSafe
BigchainDB
MultiChain
Tendermint
Tendermint Core
Tendermint Socket Protocol (TMSP)
Platforms and frameworks
Eris
Summary
Blockchain – Outside of Currencies
Internet of Things
Physical object layer
Device layer
Network layer
Management layer
Application layer
IoT blockchain experiment
First node setup
Raspberry Pi node setup
Installing Node.js
Circuit
Government
Border control
Voting
Citizen identification (ID cards)
Miscellaneous
Health
Finance
Insurance
Post-trade settlement
Financial crime prevention
Media
Summary
Scalability and Other Challenges
Scalability
Network plane
Consensus plane
Storage plane
View plane
Block size increase
Block interval reduction
Invertible Bloom Lookup Tables
Sharding
State channels
Private blockchain
Proof of Stake
Sidechains
Subchains
Tree chains (trees)
Block propagation
Bitcoin-NG
Plasma
Privacy
Indistinguishability Obfuscation
Homomorphic encryption
Zero-Knowledge Proofs
State channels
Secure multiparty computation
Usage of hardware to provide confidentiality
CoinJoin
Confidential transactions
MimbleWimble
Security
Smart contract security
Formal verification and analysis
Oyente tool
Summary
Current Landscape and What's Next
Emerging trends
Application-specific blockchains (ASBCs)
Enterprise-grade blockchains
Private blockchains
Start-ups
Strong research interest
Standardization
Enhancements
Real-world implementations
Consortia
Answers to technical challenges
Convergence
Education of blockchain technology
Employment
Cryptoeconomics
Research in cryptography
New programming languages
Hardware research and development
Research in formal methods and security
Alternatives to blockchains
Interoperability efforts
Blockchain as a Service
Efforts to reduce electricity consumption
Other challenges
Regulation
Dark side
Blockchain research
Smart contracts
Centralization issues
Limitations in cryptographic functions
Consensus algorithms
Scalability
Code obfuscation
Notable projects
Zcash on Ethereum
CollCo
Cello
Qtum
Bitcoin-NG
Solidus
Hawk
Town-Crier
SETLCoin
TEEChan
Falcon
Bletchley
Casper
Miscellaneous tools
Solidity extension for Microsoft Visual Studio
MetaMask
Stratis
Embark
DAPPLE
Meteor
uPort
INFURA
Convergence with other industries
Future
Summary
Another Book You May Enjoy
Leave a review – let other readers know what you think
Preface This book has one goal, to introduce theoretical and practical aspects of the blockchain technology. This book contains
all material that is necessary to become a blockchain technical expert. Since the publication of the first edition of this book,
a lot has changed and progressed further with regards to blockchain; therefore, a need to update the book has arisen. The multitude
of benefits envisaged by the implementation of blockchain technology has sparked profound interest among researchers from academia
and industry who are tirelessly researching this technology. As a result, many consortia, working groups, projects, and professional
bodies have emerged, which are involved in the development and further advancement of this technology. The second edition of this
book will provide in-depth insights into decentralization, smart contracts, and various blockchain platforms such as Ethereum, Bitcoin,
and Hyperledger Fabric. After reading this book, readers will be able to develop a deep understanding of inner workings of the blockchain
technology and will be able to develop blockchain applications. This book covers all topics relevant to the blockchain technology,
including cryptography, cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin, Ethereum, and various other platforms and tools used for blockchain development.
It is recommended that readers have a basic understanding of computer science and basic programming experience to benefit fully from
this book. However, if that is not the case then still this book can be read easily, as relevant background material is provided
where necessary. Who this book is for This book is for anyone who wants to understand blockchain in depth. It can also be
used as a reference by developers who are developing applications for blockchain. Also, this book can be used as a textbook for courses
related to blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies. It can also be used as a learning resource for various examinations and certifications
related to cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. What this book coversChapter 1 , Blockchain 101 , introduces
the basic concepts of distributed computing on which blockchain technology is based. It also covers history, definitions, features,
types, and benefits of blockchains along with various consensus mechanisms that are at the core of the blockchain technology.
Chapter 2 , Decentralization , covers the concept of decentralization and its relationship with blockchain technology.
Various methods and platforms that can be used to decentralize a process or a system have also been introduced. Chapter 3
, Symmetric Cryptography , introduces the theoretical foundations of symmetric cryptography, which is necessary to understand
that how various security services such as confidentiality and integrity are provided. Chapter 4 , Public Key Cryptography
, introduces concepts such as public and private keys, digital signatures and hash functions with practical examples. Finally, an
introduction to financial markets is also included as there are many interesting use cases for blockchain technology in the financial
sector. Chapter 5 , Introducing Bitcoin , covers Bitcoin, the first and largest blockchain. It introduces technical
concepts related to bitcoin cryptocurrency in detail. Chapter 6 , Bitcoin Network and Payments , covers Bitcoin network,
relevant protocols and various Bitcoin wallets. Moreover, advanced protocols, Bitcoin trading and payments is also introduced.
Chapter 7 , Bitcoin Clients and APIs , introduces various Bitcoin clients and programming APIs that can be used to
build Bitcoin applications. Chapter 8 , Alternative Coins , introduces alternative cryptocurrencies that were introduced
after the invention of Bitcoin. It also presents examples of different altcoins, their properties, and how they have been developed
and implemented. Chapter 9 , Smart Contracts , provides an in-depth discussion on smart contracts. Topics such as
history, the definition of smart contracts, Ricardian contracts, Oracles, and the theoretical aspects of smart contracts are presented
in this chapter. Chapter 10 , Ethereum 101 , introduces the design and architecture of the Ethereum blockchain in
detail. It covers various technical concepts related to the Ethereum blockchain that explains the underlying principles, features,
and components of this platform in depth. Chapter 11 , Further Ethereum , continues the introduction of Ethereum
from pervious chapter and covers topics related to Ethereum Virtual Machine, mining and supporting protocols for Ethereum. Chapter
12 , Ethereum Development Environment , covers the topics related to setting up private networks for Ethereum smart contract
development and programming. Chapter 13 , Development Tools and Frameworks , provides a detailed practical introduction
to the Solidity programming language and different relevant tools and frameworks that are used for Ethereum development. Chapter
14 , Introducing Web3 , covers development of decentralized applications and smart contracts using the Ethereum blockchain.
A detailed introduction to Web3 API is provided along with multiple practical examples and a final project. Chapter 15 ,
Hyperledger , presents a discussion about the Hyperledger project from the Linux Foundation, which includes different blockchain
projects introduced by its members. Chapter 16 , Alternative Blockchains , introduces alternative blockchain solutions
and platforms. It provides technical details and features of alternative blockchains and relevant platforms. Chapter 17
, Blockchain – Outside of Currencies , provides a practical and detailed introduction to applications of blockchain technology
in fields others than cryptocurrencies, including Internet of Things, government, media, and finance. Chapter 18 , Scalability
and Other Challenges , is dedicated to a discussion of the challenges faced by blockchain technology and how to address them.
Chapter 19 , Current Landscape and What's Next , is aimed at providing information about the current landscape, projects,
and research efforts related to blockchain technology. Also, some predictions based on the current state of blockchain technology
have also been made. To get the most out of this book
All examples in this book have been developed on Ubuntu 16.04.1 LTS (Xenial) and macOS version 10.13.2. As such, it is recommended
to use Ubuntu or any other Unix like system. However, any appropriate operating system, either Windows or Linux, can be used,
but examples, especially those related to installation, may need to be changed accordingly.
Examples related to cryptography have been developed using the OpenSSL 1.0.2g 1 Mar 2016 command-line tool.
Ethereum Solidity examples have been developed using Remix IDE, available online at https://remix.ethereum.org
Ethereum Byzantine release is used to develop Ethereum-related examples. At the time of writing, this is the latest version
available and can be downloaded from https://www.ethereum.org/ .
Examples related to IoT have been developed using a Raspberry Pi kit by Vilros, but any aapropriate latest model or kit can
be used. Specifically, Raspberry Pi 3 Model B V 1.2 has been used to build the hardware example of IoT. Node.js V8.9.3 and npm
V5.5.1 have been used to download related packages and run Node js server for IoT examples.
The Truffle framework has been used in some examples of smart contract deployment, and is available at http://truffleframework.com/
. Any latest version available via npm should be appropriate.
Download the example code files You can download the example code files for this book from your account at www.packtpub.com
. If you purchased this book elsewhere, you can visit www.packtpub.com/support and register to have the files emailed directly
to you. You can download the code files by following these steps:
Log in or register at www.packtpub.com .
Select the SUPPORT tab.
Click on Code Downloads & Errata.
Enter the name of the book in the Search box and follow the onscreen instructions.
Once the file is downloaded, please make sure that you unzip or extract the folder using the latest version of:
WinRAR/7-Zip for Windows
Zipeg/iZip/UnRarX for Mac
7-Zip/PeaZip for Linux
The code bundle for the book is also hosted on GitHub at https://github.com/PacktPublishing/Mastering-Blockchain-Second-Edition
. In case there's an update to the code, it will be updated on the existing GitHub repository. We also have other code bundles from
our rich catalog of books and videos available at https://github.com/PacktPublishing/ . Check them out! Download the
color images We also provide a PDF file that has color images of the screenshots/diagrams used in this book. You can download
it here: http://www.packtpub.com/sites/default/files/downloads/MasteringBlockchainSecondEdition_ColorImages.pdf . Conventions
used There are a number of text conventions used throughout this book. CodeInText : Indicates code words
in text, database table names, folder names, filenames, file extensions, pathnames, dummy URLs, user input, and Twitter handles.
Here is an example: "After executing the command, a file named privatekey.pem is produced, which contains the
generated private key as follows." A block of code is set as follows:
pragma solidity ^0.4.0;
contract TestStruct {
struct Trade
{
uint tradeid;
uint quantity;
uint price;
string trader;
}
//This struct can be initialized and used as below
Any command-line input or output is written as follows:
$ sudo apt-get install solc
Bold : Indicates a new term, an important word, or words that you see onscreen. For example, words in menus or dialog boxes appear
in the text like this. Here is an example: "Enter the password and click on SEND TRANSACTION to deploy the contract."
Warnings or important notes appear like this.
Tips and tricks appear like this.
Get in touch Feedback from our readers is always welcome. General feedback : Email [email protected]
and mention the book title in the subject of your message. If you have questions about any aspect of this book, please email us at
[email protected] . Errata : Although we have taken every care to ensure the accuracy of our content, mistakes
do happen. If you have found a mistake in this book, we would be grateful if you would report this to us. Please visit www.packtpub.com/submit-errata
, selecting your book, clicking on the Errata Submission Form link, and entering the details. Piracy : If you come across any illegal
copies of our works in any form on the Internet, we would be grateful if you would provide us with the location address or website
name. Please contact us at [email protected] with a link to the material. If you are interested in becoming
an author : If there is a topic that you have expertise in and you are interested in either writing or contributing to a book, please
visit authors.packtpub.com . Reviews Please leave a review. Once you have read and used this book, why not leave
a review on the site that you purchased it from? Potential readers can then see and use your unbiased opinion to make purchase decisions,
we at Packt can understand what you think about our products, and our authors can see your feedback on their book. Thank you! For
more information about Packt, please visit packtpub.com . Blockchain 101 If you are reading this book, it is very
likely that you already have heard about blockchain and have some fundamental appreciation of its enormous potential. If not, then
let me tell you that this is a technology that has promised to positively alter the existing paradigms of nearly all industries including,
but not limited to IT, finance, government, media, medical, and law. This chapter serves an introduction to blockchain technology,
its technical foundations, the theory behind it, and various techniques that have been combined together to build what is known today
as blockchain. In this chapter, we first describe the theoretical foundations of distributed systems. Next, we address the precursors
of Bitcoin by which blockchain technology was introduced to the world. Finally, we introduce you to blockchain technology. This approach
is a logical way to understanding blockchain technology, as the roots of blockchain are in distributed systems. We will cover a lot
of ground quickly here, but don't worry -- we will go over a great deal of this material in much greater detail as you move through
the book. The growth of blockchain technology With the invention of Bitcoin in 2008, the world was introduced to a new concept,
which is now likely to revolutionize the whole of society. It is something that promises to have an impact on every industry, including
but not limited to the financial sector, government, media, law, and arts. Some describe blockchain as a revolution, whereas another
school of thought believes that it is going to be more evolutionary, and it will take many years before any practical benefits of
blockchain reach fruition. This thinking is correct to some extent, but in my opinion, the revolution has already begun. Many prominent
organizations all around the world are already writing proofs of concept using blockchain technology, as its disruptive potential
has now been fully recognized. However, some organizations are still in the preliminary exploration stage, though they are expected
to progress more quickly as the technology matures. It is a technology that has an impact on current technologies too and possesses
the ability to change them at a fundamental level. If we look at the last few years, we notice that in 2013 some ideas started to
emerge that suggested usage of blockchain in other areas than cryptocurrencies. Around that time the primary usage of blockchain
was cryptocurrencies, and many new coins emerged during that time. The following graph shows a broad-spectrum outline of year wise
progression and adaption trend of blockchain technology. Years shown on the x axis indicate the range of time in which a specific
phase of blockchain technology falls. Each phase has a name which represents the action and is shown on the x axis starting
from the period of IDEAS & THOUGHTS to eventually MATURITY & FURTHER STANDARDIZATION . The y axis shows level of activity,
involvement and adoption of blockchain technology. The graph shows that eventually, roughly around 2025 blockchain technology is
expected to become mature with a high number of users. Blockchain technology adoption and maturity The preceding graph shows that
in 2013 IDEAS & THOUGHTS emerged related to other usages of blockchain technology apart from cryptocurrencies. Then in 2014 some
RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTATION started which led to PROOF OF CONCEPTS , FURTHER RESEARCH , and full-scale TRIAL PROJECTS between 2015
and 2017. In 2018 we will see REAL WORLD IMPLEMENTATIONS . Already many projects are underway and set to replace existing systems,
for example, Australian Securities Exchange ( ASX ) is soon to become the first organization to replace its legacy clearing and settlement
system with blockchain technology.
More information on this topic can be found at https://www.asx.com.au/services/chess-replacement.htm .
It is expected that during 2019 more research will be carried out along with some interest towards regulation and standardization
of blockchain technology. After this, production ready projects and off the shelf products utilizing blockchain technology will be
available from 2020 and by 2021 mainstream usage of blockchain technology is expected to start. Progress in blockchain technology
almost feels like the internet dot-com boom of the late 1990s. More research is expected to continue along with adaption and
further maturity of blockchain technology, and finally, in 2025 it is expected that the technology will be mature enough to be used
on day to day basis. Please note that the timelines provided in the chart are not strict and can vary as it is quite difficult to
predict that when exactly blockchain technology will become mature. This graph is based on the progress made in the recent years
and the current climate of research, interest and enthusiasm regarding this technology which suggests that by 2025 blockchain technology
is expected to become mature. Interest in blockchain technology has risen quite significantly over the last few years. Once dismissed
as simply geek money from a cryptocurrency point of view, or as something that was just not considered worth pursuing, blockchain
is now being researched by the largest companies and organizations around the world. Millions of dollars are being spent to adapt
and experiment with this technology. This is evident from recent actions taken by European Union where they have announced plans
to increase funding for blockchain research to almost 340 million euros by 2020.
Interested readers can read more about this at https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/boost-for-blockchain-research-as-eu-increases-funding-four-fold-1.3383340
.
Another report suggests that global spending on blockchain technology research could reach 9.2 billion dollars by 2021.
More information regarding this can be found at https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/report-suggests-global-spending-blockchain-tech-could-reach-92-billion-2021/
.
There are various consortiums such as Enterprise Ethereum Alliance ( EEA ), Hyperledger , and R3 , which have been established for
research and development of blockchain technology. Moreover, a large number of start-ups are providing blockchain-based solutions
already. A simple trend search on Google reveals the immense scale of interest in blockchain technology over the last few years.
Especially, since early 2017 the increase in the search term blockchain is quite significant, as shown in the following graph:
Google trend graph for blockchain Various benefits of this technology are envisioned, such as decentralized trust, cost savings,
transparency, and efficiency. However, there are multiple challenges too that are an area of active research on blockchain, such
as scalability and privacy. In this book, we are going to see how blockchain technology can help bring about the benefits mentioned
earlier. You are going to learn about what exactly is blockchain technology, and how it can reshape businesses, multiple industries,
and indeed everyday life by bringing about a plenitude of benefits such as efficiency, cost saving, transparency, and security. We
will also explore what is distributed ledger technology, decentralization, and smart contracts and how technology solutions can be
developed and implemented using mainstream blockchain platforms such as Ethereum, and Hyperledger. We will also investigate that
what challenges need to be addressed before blockchain can become a mainstream technology. Chapter 18 , Scalability and
Other Challenges , is dedicated to a discussion of the limitations and challenges of blockchain technology. Distributed systems
Understanding distributed systems is essential to the understanding of blockchain technology, as blockchain is a distributed system
at its core. It is a distributed ledger which can be centralized or decentralized. A blockchain is originally intended to be and
is usually used as a decentralized platform. It can be thought of as a system that has properties of both decentralized and distributed
paradigms. It is a decentralized-distributed system. Distributed systems are a computing paradigm whereby two or more nodes work
with each other in a coordinated fashion to achieve a common outcome. It is modeled in such a way that end users see it as a single
logical platform. For example, Google's search engine is based on a large distributed system, but to a user, it looks like a single,
coherent platform. A node can be defined as an individual player in a distributed system. All nodes are capable of sending and receiving
messages to and from each other. Nodes can be honest, faulty, or malicious, and they have memory and a processor. A node that exhibits
irrational behavior is also known as a Byzantine node after the Byzantine Generals Problem.
The Byzantine Generals problem
In 1982, a thought experiment was proposed by Lamport and others in their research paper, The Byzantine Generals Problem
which is available at: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/byzantine-generals-problem/ whereby a group
of army generals who lead different parts of the Byzantine army are planning to attack or retreat from a city. The only way of
communicating among them is via a messenger. They need to agree to strike at the same time in order to win. The issue is that
one or more generals might be traitors who could send a misleading message. Therefore, there is a need for a viable mechanism
that allows for agreement among the generals, even in the presence of the treacherous ones, so that the attack can still take
place at the same time. As an analogy to distributed systems, the generals can be considered nodes, the traitors as Byzantine
(malicious) nodes, and the messenger can be thought of as a channel of communication among the generals.
This problem was solved in 1999 by Castro and Liskov who presented the Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance ( PBFT ) algorithm,
where consensus is reached after a certain number of messages are received containing the same signed content.
This type of inconsistent behavior of Byzantine nodes can be intentionally malicious, which is detrimental to the operation of the
network. Any unexpected behavior by a node on the network, whether malicious or not, can be categorized as Byzantine. A small-scale
example of a distributed system is shown in the following diagram. This distributed system has six nodes out of which one ( N4 )
is a Byzantine node leading to possible data inconsistency. L2 is a link that is broken or slow, and this can lead to partition in
the network. Design of a distributed system: N4 is a Byzantine node, L2 is broken or a slow network link The primary challenge in
distributed system design is coordination between nodes and fault tolerance. Even if some of the nodes become faulty or network links
break, the distributed system should be able to tolerate this and continue to work to achieve the desired result. This problem has
been an active area of distributed system design research for many years, and several algorithms and mechanisms have been proposed
to overcome these issues. Distributed systems are so challenging to design that a hypothesis known as the CAP theorem has been proven,
which states that a distributed system cannot have all three of the much-desired properties simultaneously; that is, consistency,
availability, and partition tolerance. We will dive into the CAP theorem in more detail later in this chapter. The history of
blockchain and Bitcoin Blockchain was introduced with the invention of Bitcoin in 2008. Its practical implementation then occurred
in 2009. For the purposes of this chapter, it is sufficient to review Bitcoin very briefly, as it will be explored in great depth
in Chapter 5 , Introducing Bitcoin . However, it is essential to refer to Bitcoin because, without it, the history
of blockchain is not complete. Electronic cash The concept of electronic cash or digital currency is not new. Since the 1980s,
e-cash protocols have existed that are based on a model proposed by David Chaum. Just as understanding the concept of distributed
systems is necessary to comprehend blockchain technology, the idea of electronic cash is also essential in order to appreciate the
first and astonishingly successful application of blockchain, Bitcoin, or more broadly cryptocurrencies in general. Two fundamental
e-cash system issues need to be addressed: accountability and anonymity. Accountability is required to ensure that cash is spendable
only once (double-spend problem) and that it can only be spent by its rightful owner. Double spend problem arises when same money
can be spent twice. As it is quite easy to make copies of digital data, this becomes a big issue in digital currencies as you can
make many copies of same digital cash. Anonymity is required to protect users' privacy. As with physical cash, it is almost impossible
to trace back spending to the individual who actually paid the money. David Chaum solved both of these problems during his work in
1980s by using two cryptographic operations, namely blind signatures and secret sharing . These terminologies and related concepts
will be discussed in detail in Chapter 3 , Symmetric Cryptography and Chapter 4 , Public Key Cryptography
. For the moment, it is sufficient to say that blind signatures allow for signing a document without actually seeing it, and
secret sharing is a concept that enables the detection of double spending, that is using the same e-cash token twice (double
spending). In 2009, the first practical implementation of an electronic cash (e-cash) system named Bitcoin appeared. The term cryptocurrency
emerged later. For the very first time, it solved the problem of distributed consensus in a trustless network. It used public key
cryptography with a Proof of Work ( PoW ) mechanism to provide a secure, controlled, and decentralized method of minting digital
currency. The key innovation was the idea of an ordered list of blocks composed of transactions and cryptographically secured by
the PoW mechanism. This concept will be explained in greater detail in Chapter 5 , Introducing Bitcoin . Other technologies
used in Bitcoin, but which existed before its invention, include Merkle trees, hash functions, and hash chains. All these concepts
are explained in appropriate depth in Chapter 4 , Public Key Cryptography . Looking at all the technologies mentioned
earlier and their relevant history, it is easy to see how concepts from electronic cash schemes and distributed systems were combined
to create Bitcoin and what now is known as blockchain. This concept can also be visualized with the help of the following diagram:
The various ideas that supported the invention of Bitcoin and blockchain Blockchain In 2008, a groundbreaking paper entitled
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System was written on the topic of peer-to-peer electronic cash under the pseudonym
Satoshi Nakamoto . It introduced the term chain of blocks . No one knows the actual identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. After introducing
Bitcoin in 2009, he remained active in the Bitcoin developer community until 2011. He then handed over Bitcoin development to its
core developers and simply disappeared. Since then, there has been no communication from him whatsoever, and his existence and identity
are shrouded in mystery. The term chain of blocks evolved over the years into the word blockchain . As stated earlier,
blockchain technology incorporates a multitude of applications that can be implemented in various economic sectors. Particularly
in the finance sector, significant improvement in the performance of financial transactions and settlements is seen as resulting
in desirable time and cost reductions. Additional light will be shed on these aspects of blockchain in Chapter 17 , Blockchain
– Outside of Currencies where practical use cases will be discussed in detail for various industries. For now, it is sufficient
to say that parts of nearly all economic sectors have already realized the potential and promise of blockchain and have embarked,
or will do so soon, on the journey to capitalize on the benefits of blockchain technology. Blockchain defined
Layman's definition : Blockchain is an ever-growing, secure, shared record keeping system in which each user of the data holds
a copy of the records, which can only be updated if all parties involved in a transaction agree to update.
Technical definition : Blockchain is a peer-to-peer, distributed ledger that is cryptographically-secure, append-only, immutable
(extremely hard to change), and updateable only via consensus or agreement among peers.
Now let's examine the preceding definitions in more detail. We will look at all keywords in the definitions one by one. Peer-to-peer
The first keyword in the technical definition is peer-to-peer . This means that there is no central controller in the network,
and all participants talk to each other directly. This property allows for cash transactions to be exchanged directly among the peers
without a third-party involvement, such as by a bank. Distributed ledger Dissecting the technical definition further reveals
that blockchain is a distributed ledger , which simply means that a ledger is spread across the network among all peers in
the network, and each peer holds a copy of the complete ledger. Cryptographically-secure Next, we see that this ledger is
cryptographically-secure , which means that cryptography has been used to provide security services which make this ledger
secure against tampering and misuse. These services include non-repudiation, data integrity, and data origin authentication. You
will see how this is achieved later in Chapter 3 , Symmetric Cryptography which introduces the fascinating world
of cryptography. Append-only Another property that we encounter is that blockchain is append-only , which means that
data can only be added to the blockchain in time-ordered sequential order . This property implies that once data is added
to the blockchain, it is almost impossible to change that data and can be considered practically immutable. Nonetheless, it can be
changed in rare scenarios wherein collusion against the blockchain network succeeds in gaining more than 51 percent of the power.
There may be some legitimate reasons to change data in the blockchain once it has been added, such as the right to be forgotten
or right to erasure (also defined in General Data Protection ( GDPR ) ruling, https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/ ).
However, those are individual cases that need to be handled separately and that require an elegant technical solution. For all practical
purposes, blockchain is indeed immutable and cannot be changed. Updateable via consensus Finally, the most critical attribute
of a blockchain is that it is updateable only via consensus. This is what gives it the power of decentralization. In this
scenario, no central authority is in control of updating the ledger. Instead, any update made to the blockchain is validated against
strict criteria defined by the blockchain protocol and added to the blockchain only after a consensus has been reached among all
participating peers/nodes on the network. To achieve consensus, there are various consensus facilitation algorithms which ensure
that all parties are in agreement about the final state of the data on the blockchain network and resolutely agree upon it to be
true. Consensus algorithms are discussed later in this chapter and throughout the book as appropriate. Blockchain can be thought
of as a layer of a distributed peer-to-peer network running on top of the internet, as can be seen in the following diagram. It is
analogous to SMTP, HTTP, or FTP running on top of TCP/IP. The network view of a blockchain At the bottom layer in the preceding diagram,
there is the internet, which provides a basic communication layer for any network. In this case, a peer-to-peer network runs on top
of the internet, which hosts another layer of blockchain. That layer contains transactions, blocks, consensus mechanisms, state machines,
and blockchain smart contracts. All of these components are shown as a single logical entity in a box, representing blockchain above
the peer-to-peer network. Finally, at the top, there are users or nodes that connect to the blockchain and perform various operations
such as consensus, transaction verification, and processing. These concepts will be discussed in detail later in this book. From
a business standpoint, a blockchain can be defined as a platform where peers can exchange value / electronic cash using transactions
without the need for a centrally-trusted arbitrator. For example, for cash transfers, banks act as a trusted third party. In financial
trading, a central clearing house acts as an arbitrator between two trading parties. This concept is compelling, and once you absorb
it, you will realize the enormous potential of blockchain technology. This disintermediation allows blockchain to be a decentralized
consensus mechanism where no single authority is in charge of the database. Immediately, you'll see a significant benefit of decentralization
here, because if no banks or central clearing houses are required, then it immediately leads to cost savings, faster transaction
speeds, and trust. A block is merely a selection of transactions bundled together and organized logically. A transaction is a record
of an event, for example, the event of transferring cash from a sender's account to a beneficiary's account. A block is made up of
transactions, and its size varies depending on the type and design of the blockchain in use. A reference to a previous block is also
included in the block unless it is a genesis block. A genesis block is the first block in the blockchain that is hardcoded at the
time the blockchain was first started. The structure of a block is also dependent on the type and design of a blockchain. Generally,
however, there are just a few attributes that are essential to the functionality of a block: the block header, which is composed
of pointer to previous block, the timestamp, nonce, Merkle root, and the block body that contains transactions. There are also other
attributes in a block, but generally, the aforementioned components are always available in a block. A nonce is a number that is
generated and used only once. A nonce is used extensively in many cryptographic operations to provide replay protection, authentication,
and encryption. In blockchain, it's used in PoW consensus algorithms and for transaction replay protection. Merkle root is a hash
of all of the nodes of a Merkle tree. Merkle trees are widely used to validate the large data structures securely and efficiently.
In the blockchain world, Merkle trees are commonly used to allow efficient verification of transactions. Merkle root in a blockchain
is present in the block header section of a block, which is the hash of all transactions in a block. This means that verifying only
the Merkle root is required to verify all transactions present in the Merkle tree instead of verifying all transactions one by one.
We will elaborate further on these concepts in Chapter 4 , Public Key Cryptography . The generic structure of a block.
This preceding structure is a simple block diagram that depicts a block. Specific block structures relative to their blockchain technologies
will be discussed later in the book with greater in-depth technical detail. Generic elements of a blockchain Now, let's walk
through the generic elements of a blockchain. You can use this as a handy reference section if you ever need a reminder about the
different parts of a blockchain. More precise elements will be discussed in the context of their respective blockchains in later
chapters, for example, the Ethereum blockchain. The structure of a generic blockchain can be visualized with the help of the following
diagram: Generic structure of a blockchain Elements of a generic blockchain are described here one by one. These are the elements
that you will come across in relation to blockchain:
Address : Addresses are unique identifiers used in a blockchain transaction to denote senders and recipients. An address is
usually a public key or derived from a public key. While addresses can be reused by the same user, addresses themselves are unique.
In practice, however, a single user may not use the same address again and generate a new one for each transaction. This newly-created
address will be unique. Bitcoin is, in fact, a pseudonymous system. End users are usually not directly identifiable, but some
research in removing the anonymity of Bitcoin users has shown that they can be identified successfully. A good practice is for
users to generate a new address for each transaction in order to avoid linking transactions to the common owner, thus preventing
identification.
Transaction : A transaction is the fundamental unit of a blockchain. A transaction represents a transfer of value from one
address to another.
Block : A block is composed of multiple transactions and other elements, such as the previous block hash (hash pointer), timestamp,
and nonce.
Peer-to-peer network : As the name implies, a peer-to-peer network is a network topology wherein all peers can communicate
with each other and send and receive messages.
Scripting or programming language : Scripts or programs perform various operations on a transaction in order to facilitate
various functions. For example, in Bitcoin, transaction scripts are predefined in a language called Script , which consist of
sets of commands that allow nodes to transfer tokens from one address to another. Script is a limited language, however, in the
sense that it only allows essential operations that are necessary for executing transactions, but it does not allow for arbitrary
program development. Think of it as a calculator that only supports standard preprogrammed arithmetic operations. As such, Bitcoin
script language cannot be called Turing complete . In simple words, Turing complete language means that it can perform
any computation. It is named after Alan Turing who developed the idea of Turing machine that can run any algorithm however complex.
Turing complete languages need loops and branching capability to perform complex computations. Therefore, Bitcoin's scripting
language is not Turing complete, whereas Ethereum's Solidity language is.
To facilitate arbitrary program development on a blockchain, Turing complete programming language is needed, and it is now a very
desirable feature of blockchains. Think of this as a computer that allows development of any program using programming languages.
Nevertheless, the security of such languages is a crucial question and an essential and ongoing research area. We will discuss this
in greater detail in Chapter 5 , Introducing Bitcoin , Chapter 9 , Smart Contracts , and Chapter
13 , Development Tools and Frameworks , later in this book.
Virtual machine : This is an extension of the transaction script introduced earlier. A virtual machine allows Turing
complete code to be run on a blockchain (as smart contracts); whereas a transaction script is limited in its operation. However,
virtual machines are not available on all blockchains. Various blockchains use virtual machines to run programs such as Ethereum
Virtual Machine ( EVM ) and Chain Virtual Machine ( CVM ). EVM is used in Ethereum blockchain, while CVM is a virtual machine
developed for and used in an enterprise-grade blockchain called Chain Core .
State machine : A blockchain can be viewed as a state transition mechanism whereby a state is modified from its initial form
to the next one and eventually to a final form by nodes on the blockchain network as a result of a transaction execution, validation,
and finalization process.
Node : A node in a blockchain network performs various functions depending on the role that it takes on. A node can propose
and validate transactions and perform mining to facilitate consensus and secure the blockchain. This goal is achieved by following
a consensus protocol (most commonly PoW). Nodes can also perform other functions such as simple payment verification (lightweight
nodes), validation, and many other functions depending on the type of the blockchain used and the role assigned to the node. Nodes
also perform a transaction signing function. Transactions are first created by nodes and then also digitally signed by nodes using
private keys as proof that they are the legitimate owner of the asset that they wish to transfer to someone else on the blockchain
network. This asset is usually a token or virtual currency, such as Bitcoin, but it can also be any real-world asset represented
on the blockchain by using tokens.
Smart contract : These programs run on top of the blockchain and encapsulate the business logic to be executed when certain
conditions are met. These programs are enforceable and automatically executable. The smart contract feature is not available on
all blockchain platforms, but it is now becoming a very desirable feature due to the flexibility and power that it provides to
the blockchain applications. Smart contracts have many use cases, including but not limited to identity management, capital markets,
trade finance, record management, insurance, and e-governance. Smart contracts will be discussed in more detail in Chapter
9 , Smart Contracts .
How blockchain works We have now defined and described blockchain. Now let's see how a blockchain actually works. Nodes are
either miners who create new blocks and mint cryptocurrency (coins) or block signers who validates and digitally sign
the transactions. A critical decision that every blockchain network has to make is to figure out that which node will append the
next block to the blockchain. This decision is made using a consensus mechanism . The consensus mechanism will be described
later in this chapter. Now we will look at the how a blockchain validates transactions and creates and adds blocks to grow the blockchain.
How blockchain accumulates blocks Now we will look at a general scheme for creating blocks. This scheme is presented here
to give you a general idea of how blocks are generated and what the relationship is between transactions and blocks:
A node starts a transaction by first creating and then digitally signing it with its private key. A transaction can represent
various actions in a blockchain. Most commonly this is a data structure that represents transfer of value between users on the
blockchain network. Transaction data structure usually consists of some logic of transfer of value, relevant rules, source and
destination addresses, and other validation information. This will be covered in more detail in specific chapters on Bitcoin and
Ethereum later in the book.
A transaction is propagated (flooded) by using a flooding protocol, called Gossip protocol, to peers that validate the transaction
based on preset criteria. Usually, more than one node are required to verify the transaction.
Once the transaction is validated, it is included in a block, which is then propagated onto the network. At this point, the
transaction is considered confirmed.
The newly-created block now becomes part of the ledger, and the next block links itself cryptographically back to this block.
This link is a hash pointer. At this stage, the transaction gets its second confirmation and the block gets its first confirmation.
Transactions are then reconfirmed every time a new block is created. Usually, six confirmations in the Bitcoin network are
required to consider the transaction final.
It is worth noting that steps 4 and 5 are considered non-compulsory, as the transaction itself is finalized in step 3; however, block
confirmation and further transaction reconfirmations, if required, are then carried out in step 4 and step 5. This completes the
basic introduction to blockchain. In the next section, you will learn about the benefits and limitations of this technology. Benefits
and limitations of blockchain Numerous advantages of blockchain technology have been discussed in many industries and proposed
by thought leaders around the world who are participating in the blockchain space. The notable benefits of blockchain technology
are as follows:
Decentralization : This is a core concept and benefit of the blockchain. There is no need for a trusted third party or intermediary
to validate transactions; instead, a consensus mechanism is used to agree on the validity of transactions.
Transparency and trust : Because blockchains are shared and everyone can see what is on the blockchain, this allows the system
to be transparent. As a result, trust is established. This is more relevant in scenarios such as the disbursement of funds or
benefits where personal discretion in relation to selecting beneficiaries needs to be restricted.
Immutability : Once the data has been written to the blockchain, it is extremely difficult to change it back. It is not genuinely
immutable, but because changing data is so challenging and nearly impossible, this is seen as a benefit to maintaining an immutable
ledger of transactions.
High availability : As the system is based on thousands of nodes in a peer-to-peer network, and the data is replicated and
updated on every node, the system becomes highly available. Even if some nodes leave the network or become inaccessible, the network
as a whole continues to work, thus making it highly available. This redundancy results in high availability.
Highly secure : All transactions on a blockchain are cryptographically secured and thus provide network integrity.
Simplification of current paradigms : The current blockchain model in many industries, such as finance or health, is somewhat
disorganized. In this model, multiple entities maintain their own databases and data sharing can become very difficult due to
the disparate nature of the systems. However, as a blockchain can serve as a single shared ledger among many interested parties,
this can result in simplifying the model by reducing the complexity of managing the separate systems maintained by each entity.
Faster dealings : In the financial industry, especially in post-trade settlement functions, blockchain can play a vital role
by enabling the quick settlement of trades. Blockchain does not require a lengthy process of verification, reconciliation, and
clearance because a single version of agreed-upon data is already available on a shared ledger between financial organizations.
Cost saving : As no trusted third party or clearing house is required in the blockchain model, this can massively eliminate
overhead costs in the form of the fees which are paid to such parties.
As with any technology, some challenges need to be addressed in order to make a system more robust, useful, and accessible. Blockchain
technology is no exception. In fact, much effort is being made in both academia and industry to overcome the challenges posed by
blockchain technology. The most sensitive blockchain problems are as follows:
Scalability
Adaptability
Regulation
Relatively immature technology
Privacy
All of these issues and possible solutions will be discussed in detail in Chapter 18 , Scalability and Other Challenges
. Tiers of blockchain technology In this section, various layers of blockchain technology are presented. It is thought that
due to the rapid development and progress being made in blockchain technology, many applications will evolve. Some of these advancements
have already been realized, while others are anticipated in the near future based on the current rate of advancement in blockchain
technology. The three levels discussed here were initially described in the book Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy by
Melanie Swan , O'Reilly Media , 2015 as blockchain tiers categorized by applications in each category. This
is how blockchain is evolving, and this versioning shows different tiers of evolution and usage of blockchain technology. In fact,
all blockchain platforms, with limited exceptions, support these functionalities and applications. This versioning is just a logical
segregation of various blockchain categories based on the way that they are currently being used, are evolving, or predicted to evolve.
Also note that this versioning is being presented here for completeness and for historic reasons, as these definitions are somewhat
blurred now, and with the exception of Bitcoin (Blockchain 1.0), all newer blockchain platforms that support smart contract development
can be programmed to provide the functionalities and applications mentioned in all blockchain tiers: 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and beyond. In
addition to Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3, or Tier X in the future, the following represents my own vision of what blockchain technology
eventually could become as this technology advances:
Blockchain 1.0 : This tier was introduced with the invention of Bitcoin, and it is primarily used for cryptocurrencies. Also,
as Bitcoin was the first implementation of cryptocurrencies, it makes sense to categorize this first generation of blockchain
technology to include only cryptographic currencies. All alternative cryptocurrencies as well as Bitcoin fall into this category.
It includes core applications such as payments and applications. This generation started in 2009 when Bitcoin was released and
ended in early 2010.
Blockchain 2.0 : This second blockchain generation is used by financial services and smart contracts. This tier includes various
financial assets, such as derivatives, options, swaps, and bonds. Applications that go beyond currency, finance, and markets are
incorporated at this tier. Ethereum, Hyperledger, and other newer blockchain platforms are considered part of Blockchain 2.0.
This generation started when ideas related to using blockchain for other purposes started to emerge in 2010.
Blockchain 3.0 : This third blockchain generation is used to implement applications beyond the financial services industry
and is used in government, health, media, the arts, and justice. Again, as in Blockchain 2.0, Ethereum, Hyperledger, and newer
blockchains with the ability to code smart contracts are considered part of this blockchain technology tier. This generation of
blockchain emerged around 2012 when multiple applications of blockchain technology in different industries were researched.
Blockchain X.0 : This generation represents a vision of blockchain singularity where one day there will be a public blockchain
service available that anyone can use just like the Google search engine. It will provide services for all realms of society.
It will be a public and open distributed ledger with general-purpose rational agents ( Machina economicus ) running on
a blockchain, making decisions, and interacting with other intelligent autonomous agents on behalf of people, and regulated by
code instead of law or paper contracts. This does not mean that law and contracts will disappear, instead law and contracts will
be implementable in code.
Machina Economicus is a concept which comes from the field of Artificial Intelligence ( AI ) and computational economics. It can
be defined as a machine that makes logical and perfect decisions. There are various technical challenges that need to be addressed
before this dream can be realized.
Discussion of Machina Economicus is beyond the scope of this book, interested readers can refer to https://www.infosys.com/insights/purposeful-ai/Documents/machina-economicus.pdf
, for more information.
This concept in the context of blockchain and its convergence with AI will be elaborated on in Chapter 19 , Current Landscape
and What's Next . Features of a blockchain A blockchain performs various functions which are supported by various features.
These functions include but are not limited to transfer of value, managing assets and agreements. All of the blockchain tiers described
in the previous section perform these functions with the help of features offered by blockchain, but with some exceptions. For example,
smart contracts are not supported by all blockchain platforms, such as Bitcoin. Another example is that not all blockchain platforms
produce cryptocurrency or tokens, such as Hyperledger Fabric, and MultiChain. The features of a blockchain are described here:
Distributed consensus : Distributed consensus is the primary underpinning of a blockchain. This mechanism allows a blockchain
to present a single version of the truth, which is agreed upon by all parties without the requirement of a central authority.
Transaction verification : Any transactions posted from the nodes on the blockchain are verified based on a predetermined
set of rules. Only valid transactions are selected for inclusion in a block.
Platform for smart contracts : A blockchain is a platform on which programs can run to execute business logic on behalf of
the users. Not all blockchains have a mechanism to execute smart contracts ; however, this is a very desirable feature,
and it is available on newer blockchain platforms such as Ethereum and MultiChain.
Smart Contracts
Blockchain technology provides a platform for running smart contracts. These are automated, autonomous programs that reside on
the blockchain network and encapsulate the business logic and code needed to execute a required function when certain conditions
are met. For example, think about an insurance contract where a claim is paid to the traveler if the flight is canceled. In the
real world, this process normally takes a significant amount of time to make the claim, verify it, and pay the insurance amount
to the claimant (traveler). What if this whole process were automated with cryptographically-enforced trust, transparency, and
execution so that as soon as the smart contract received a feed that the flight in question has been canceled, it automatically
triggers the insurance payment to the claimant? If the flight is on time, the smart contract pays itself.
This is indeed a revolutionary feature of blockchain, as it provides flexibility, speed, security, and automation for real-world
scenarios that can lead to a completely trustworthy system with significant cost reductions. Smart contracts can be programmed
to perform any actions that blockchain users need and according to their specific business requirements.
Transferring value between peers : Blockchain enables the transfer of value between its users via tokens. Tokens can be thought
of as a carrier of value.
Generation of cryptocurrency : This feature is optional depending on the type of blockchain in use. A blockchain can create
cryptocurrency as an incentive to its miners who validate the transactions and spend resources to secure the blockchain. We will
discuss cryptocurrencies in great detail in Chapter 5 , Introducing Bitcoin .
Smart property : It is now possible to link a digital or physical asset to the blockchain in such a secure and precise manner
that it cannot be claimed by anyone else. You are in full control of your asset, and it cannot be double-spent or double-owned.
Compare this with a digital music file, for example, which can be copied many times without any controls. While it is true that
many Digital Rights Management ( DRM ) schemes are being used currently along with copyright laws, but none of them is enforceable
in such a way as blockchain based DRM can be. Blockchain can provide DRM functionality in such a way that it can be enforced fully.
There are famously broken DRM schemes which looked great in theory but were hacked due to one limitation or another. One example
is Oculus hack ( http://www.wired.co.uk/article/oculus-rift-drm-hacked ).
End of this sample Kindle book.
Enjoyed the preview?
Buy with 1-Click
or
See details for this book in the Kindle Store
≫ Hide these books ≫ Your Browsing History Page 1 of 5 Mastering... by Imran Bashir ( 9 ) $44.99 Look Inside This Book English-Russian,...
by Kenneth Katzner ( 196 ) $29.35 Look Inside This Book English-Russian,... by Kenneth Katzner ( 196 ) Look Inside This Book Oxford
Russian... by Marcus Wheeler,... ( 53 ) $38.80 Look Inside This Book Mastering... by Imran Bashir ( 10 ) $49.99 Look Inside This
Book > Edit your book history Customers Also Bought Page 1 of 7 Blockchain Basics:... by Daniel Drescher ( 70 ) $17.74 Look Inside
This Book Hands-On Blockchain... by Nitin Gaur, Luc... ( 5 ) $31.19 Look Inside This Book Mastering Bitcoin:... by Andreas M....
( 141 ) $22.99 Look Inside This Book Mastering Ethereum:... by Andreas M.... ( 19 ) $29.99 Look Inside This Book Blockchain... by
Alan T. Norman ( 153 ) $2.99 Look Inside This Book Building Blockchain... by Narayan Prusty ( 17 ) $22.39 Look Inside This Book Blockchain
Bubble... by Neel Mehta, Aditya... ( 130 ) $9.99 Look Inside This Book The Story of the... by Omid Malekan ( 42 ) $3.95 Look Inside
This Book Blockchain: A... by Joseph J. Bambara,... ( 20 ) $19.25 Look Inside This Book The Blockchain and... by Kevin Werbach (
14 ) $15.87 Look Inside This Book Blockchain By... by Bellaj Badr,... ( 1 ) $22.39 Look Inside This Book Blockchain:... by Melanie
Swan ( 55 ) $11.99 Look Inside This Book Bitcoin and... by Arvind Narayanan,... ( 34 ) $35.28 Look Inside This Book Hands-On Blockchain...
by Arjuna Sky Kok $29.49 Look Inside This Book click to open popover
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start
reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Apple
Android
Windows Phone
Android
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
or
William Slater III , June 13, 2018
If you want to learn Blockchain or if you think you really understand Blockchain, check out this excellent book.
If you want to learn Blockchain or if you think you really understand Blockchain, check out this excellent book.
I bought Imran Bashir's Mastering Blockchain, 2nd Edition because I knew it was a complete update to his first edition, and
because I wanted to keep up with what's happening in the rapidly moving world of Blockchain Development. Needless to say, I am
a huge fan of Blockchain and the promise it has for trusted, decentralized distributed computing transactions.
I have been pleasantly surprised and extremely satisfied with this invaluable tome. It could have been titled "The Bible of
Blockchain", because that's basically what it is. No serious Blockchain Developer or Blockchain Project Manager should be without
this book. With its wealth of information on every facet of Blockchain, it is easily worth more than 10 times the purchase price.
That is not an exaggeration and here's why:
1. The author, who is clearly a great author and a very experienced practitioner of all areas Blockchain development.
2. It is authoritative.
3. Easy to read.
4. Extremely thorough.
5. Provides useful Blockchain knowledge that is immediately useful to all Blockchain professionals from the novice to the journeyman
and master.
What really stands out:
The author's explanation of Blockchain, what it is, its components, and how it works is some of the clearest and most thorough
I have seen.
His incredible explanations of the details about Ethereum and the Ethereum Development environment works. And his explanations
of the Ethereum Virtual Machine and Ethereum Messaging are the best and clearest I have seen.
The author is such a great teacher that he suggests tricks like installing Wireshark so that the Blockchain engineer can actually
see the network events between clients and servers happening in real-time.
The author generously defines and suggests a full spectrum of Blockchain tools from Wallet Managers to Blockchain Browsers
to development environments and that is much appreciated.
His though coverage of major cryptocurrencies shows that he his fair, knowledgeable, passionate about providing as much information
as possible to the reader.
In Summary:
I love this book and have recommended it to everyone I know who is interested in Blockchain. I also teach Blockchain at the
graduate school level and have used this book in my course development and teaching, for my students and the interns I am working
with this summer of 2018. Quite simply, there is nothing better on the market.
Special thanks to the author, Imran Bashir, for his tireless work that produced this masterpiece, and to everyone at PACKT
for publishing it. It is the best Blockchain Book of 2018.
Amazon Customer , July 3, 2018
This was the best book I found out there for Blockchain
As a non-developer, I was able to understand 80% of this book. The information was thorough and concise. This was the best
book I found out there for Blockchain. Read more 10 people found this helpful
Torben Worm , December 1, 2018
Practical hands-on book
This book touches a lot of subjects from distribution over cryptography to blockchain and smart contracts with many practical
examples and pointers to further resources. If you are interested in getting started with blockchain and related technologies
it's a good starting point, but if you are interested in the more theoretical aspects and deeper insights you will probably find
that the book does not fulfil your needs.
Ele Liao , July 4, 2019
a good first book for blockchain
an easy read for a very comprehensive context in the blockchain. Read more
Helpful
ST , October 22, 2019
comprehensive text on blockchain
I have read a number of popular books on blockchain. This is the first book that serves as a text on blockchain. Excellent,
clear presentation. Read more
Helpful
Muriel , June 23, 2018
Thorough and accessible
I am a developer currently building a Solidity DApp. I acquired an advanced reader's copy of this book. "Mastering Blockchain"
by Imran Bashir does a thorough job explaining the foundational concepts behind blockchain programming. I like how the book contains
both high-level descriptions and diagrams as well as examples of implementation at the code level. I was pleasantly surprised
by how accessible the writing is. This book helped me understand the differences between various types of blockchain technologies.
For example, my Bitcoin developer friends asked me how the Ethereum Patricia Merkle Tries I use are different from the regular
Merkle Trees they use in their work. This book gave very clear and concise explanations of that particular difference between
Bitcoin and Ethereum data structures.
Victor , July 30, 2018
It covers the essential and a bit more.
There are several books regarding the topic and it's quite complicate to find a good one among all the noise. I would say that
this is a good one. It's quite concise to go direct to the topic but at the same time it provides a complete view. Quite interesting,
and this is something that almost all other publications miss is the cryptography side. There are several chapters focused on
the topic and these provides a complete background that let you to understand better the blockchain mechanism. Is a really good
book for people with some technical background that want to understand blockchain.
Rami Kudmani , June 20, 2018
Comprehensive and Enjoyable
I have read the first edition of this book. The book is well-structured and it covers a broad spectrum of knowledge around
blockchain technology. What is interesting about this book is that it is one of the rare blockchain books that you could read
the majority of it by non-tech people. The other thing is that it covers many important aspects about Blockchain starting from
digital currencies, alt-coins down to non-financial applications.
I liked that book and would recommend it for newbies who are looking to understand blockchain and crypto-currencies, for for
someone who understands bits and pieces here and there and wants to fill knowledge gaps about this interesting topic.
01 December 2019Academic Conformism is the road to "1984."
The world is filled with conformism and groupthink. Most people do not wish to think for
themselves. Thinking for oneself is dangerous, requires effort and often leads to rejection by
the herd of one's peers.
The profession of arms, the intelligence business, the civil service bureaucracy, the
wondrous world of groups like the League of Women Voters, Rotary Club as well as the empire of
the thinktanks are all rotten with this sickness, an illness which leads inevitably to
stereotyped and unrealistic thinking, thinking that does not reflect reality.
The worst locus of this mentally crippling phenomenon is the world of the academics. I have
served on a number of boards that awarded Ph.D and post doctoral grants. I was on the Fulbright
Fellowship federal board. I was on the HF Guggenheim program and executive boards for a long
time. Those are two examples of my exposure to the individual and collective academic
minds.
As a class of people I find them unimpressive. The credentialing exercise in acquiring a
doctorate is basically a nepotistic process of sucking up to elders and a crutch for ego
support as well as an entrance ticket for various hierarchies, among them the world of the
academy. The process of degree acquisition itself requires sponsorship by esteemed academics
who recommend candidates who do not stray very far from the corpus of known work in whichever
narrow field is involved. The endorsements from RESPECTED academics are often decisive in the
award of grants.
This process is continued throughout a career in academic research. PEER REVIEW is the
sine qua non for acceptance of a "paper," invitation to career making conferences, or to
the Holy of Holies, TENURE.
This life experience forms and creates CONFORMISTS, people who instinctively boot-lick their
fellows in a search for the "Good Doggy" moments that make up their lives. These people are for
sale. Their price may not be money, but they are still for sale. They want to be accepted as
members of their group. Dissent leads to expulsion or effective rejection from the group.
This mentality renders doubtful any assertion that a large group of academics supports any
stated conclusion. As a species academics will say or do anything to be included in their
caste.
This makes them inherently dangerous. They will support any party or parties, of any
political inclination if that group has the money, and the potential or actual power to
maintain the academics as a tribe. pl
That is the nature of tribes and humans are very tribal. At least most of them.
Fortunately, there are outliers. I was recently reading "Political Tribes" which was written
by a couple who are both law professors that examines this.
Take global warming (aka the rebranded climate change). Good luck getting grants to do any
skeptical research. This highly complex subject which posits human impact is a perfect
example of tribal bias.
My success in the private sector comes from consistent questioning what I wanted to be
true to prevent suboptimal design decisions.
I also instinctively dislike groups that have some idealized view of "What is to be
done?"
As Groucho said: "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member"
The 'isms' had it, be it Nazism, Fascism, Communism, Totalitarianism, Elitism all demand
conformity and adherence to group think. If one does not co-tow to whichever 'ism' is at
play, those outside their group think are persecuted, ostracized, jailed, and executed all
because they defy their conformity demands, and defy allegiance to them.
One world, one religion, one government, one Borg. all lead down the same road to --
Orwell's 1984.
David Halberstam: The Best and the Brightest. (Reminder how the heck we got into Vietnam,
when the best and the brightest were serving as presidential advisors.)
Also good Halberstam re-read: The Powers that Be - when the conservative media controlled
the levers of power; not the uber-liberal one we experience today.
I'm not sure I agree with you about the Medieval Christians having no imagination. Chaucer's
pilgrims were all interesting characters. Perhaps they weren't all brilliant or virtuous, but
they were, as Chaucer created them, all INDIVIDUALS.
I try not to make judgments about medieval Muslims. I simply have had not chance to learn
much about them; so I try not to lump them all together in my mind.
After 1200, Muslims ran out of steam, encouraged & advised by their so-called Thinkers to
conform the Law and thus guarantee their After Life. What is more important: Knowledge or
Faith? Athens or zJerusalem? If your innovation causes you to go astray, discard it.
Due to the negative opinion that some Fathers of the Church expressed in relation to
ancient culture, all-medieval Christianity did not consider the teaching of liberal arts a
priority. Initially, in the monastic and episcopal schools the essential rudiments were
taught to understand the Bible and the chant, leaving aside the "subtleties" of grammar and
oratory. It will not be until the educational design of Alcuino when the liberal arts
became the central part of the curriculum.
I guess I was thinking of the common people, who did count themselves as Christian, and not
the people in the "schools," though some of Chaucer's characters were in the church--e.g., a
prioress, a friar, and so on. But these characters certainly knew how they were "supposed" to
live their lives but clearly weren't living their lives as the church would have them live.
In that regard, perhaps there was a group of Christians who were IN the church. What I am
saying is that almost all people in England at that time were--or at least considered
themselves as Christians. However, they were indeed not living their lives as a member of the
"Borg."
Perhaps, since I am a Protestant Christian, I am also not part of the group of people who
are Christian and who are "accepted" in this Borg-like group.
I often feel dismissed and diminished when my Christian beliefs, which I have held since
childhood, seem not to be worthy of consideration in the discussion.
How long ago was your last academic experience? My understanding is that in the liberal arts
it has basically become a long struggle session. Basically if you are a straight white male
you keep your head down and think in secret, like Winston Smith.
The answer to a lot of this is simple: end all federal funding to any public institution
any part of which has speech codes more restrictive than settled law with regard to the First
Amendment.
Trump could have done this his first day in office, and he actually tweeted about it once.
But no.
Requirements, IMO are 1) a certain amount of intelligence but not all that much 2) some luck
(your supervisor shouldn't die, someone else shouldn't beat you to it, your examiners
shouldn't take a scunner to you or your supervisor) 3, and probably most important,
sitzfleisch: the ability to nail your bum to the chair and plow through it. And, also
important, to know when to stop.
(an absurdly long process in N American it seems, years and years and years. I got mine in
the UK -- write the thesis and that's it)
Liberal Arts education has been made available to the masses: they do not understand it,
appreciate, need it, or can even use it. A very small percentage of mankind is suited for
that kind of education. It is almost criminal negligence to have expanded it so much.
Remember, Weinstein was fine with the anti-white, anti-western, anti-Christian agenda at
Evergreen until it inconvenienced him. Then he learned to his shock that pulling his J-card
would not give him a pass. At which point the pathetic attempt at gatekeeping called the
"intellectual dark web" was declared.
Taleb and Weinstein have had an interesting back-and-forth on twitter lately over the
latter's statement:
"We are going to have to figure out how to govern the Earth. That requires us to agree on
values, ground rules and assumptions. I don't care about private faith. I care that all
populations maintain compatibility with a common belief system that prioritizes no one's
sacred book."
The test for whether Weinstein is lying or not is simple: will he support a global ban on
infant genital mutilation?
Nassim Taleb, of Black Swan fame, talks about this phenomenon in Skin in the Game. He also
writes convincingly, if briefly, about the radical Sunni threat and Americans confusing the
Shia as the global threat. Worthwhile.
The best description of a PhD that I can think of came from a tailor. He had learned his
trade in Germany and, when he was ready to become a master, the local guild gave him a task
-- to make a morning suit from start to finish, every bit done by him. Then they tore it
apart checking everything and decided that he had the ability to be ranked as a master
tailor. That's all a PhD thesis is: proof that you can do the whole research and writing
thing.
However, I believe that of late it has more and more become an exercise in showing that you
are a loyal acolyte of whatever school your supervisor belongs to. I conclude this from
younger PhDs I met at work.
Mine dates, BTW, from 1976 and I am amused to see (everything's on the Net these days) that
there has been a (modest) uptick in demand. But an exercise that, when I started work for the
govt, probably got me more starting money and gave a useful title in a military-dominated
world where everyone had a title. "Doctor" being impressive enough but usefully vague.
All irrelevant these days and no relation, BTW, to Russia (Just as well since most
Russia/Soviet teachers in the English-speaking world seem to hate Russia and all that it has
ever done.)
Dreher's article on the 1619 project of the NY TIMES where there is an effort to re frame
the history of the US in the context of slavery. He quotes World Socialist Web Site's view on
the 'movement'. From the WSWS editorial
"Despite the pretense of establishing the United States' "true" foundation, the 1619
Project is a politically motivated falsification of history. Its aim is to create a
historical narrative that legitimizes the effort of the Democratic Party to construct an
electoral coalition based on the prioritizing of personal "identities" -- i.e., gender,
sexual preference, ethnicity, and, above all, race."
Dreher picks out a part of an interview that relates to the new academic conformity
"The reflection of identity politics in the curriculum is the primacy of cultural history.
There was a time, a long, long time ago, when a "diverse history faculty" meant that you had
an economic historian, a political historian, a social historian, a historian of the American
Revolution, of the Civil War, and so on. And now a diverse history faculty means a women's
historian, a gay historian, a Chinese-American historian, a Latino historian. So it's a
completely different kind of diversity.
On a global scale the benefit of this has been tremendous. We have more -- and we should
have more -- African history, Latin American history, Asian history, than we ever have.
Within US history it has produced narrow faculties in which everybody is basically writing
the same thing. And so you don't bump into the economic historian at the mailbox and say "Is
it true that all the wealth came from slavery," and have them say, "that's ridiculous," and
explain why it can't be true."
I am sad to agree with the points made in this post.
I find it a little frightening to think about what might happen to our country if academia
continues on this course.
However, as a person who dropped out of a doctoral program because it just wasn't in me to
interpret all assigned readings as a Marxist or a totally wacky feminist who feels men and
women might not be of the same species, I just decided not to get a doctorate and dropped out
of the program. I've been happier for it.
Later, I watched as friends, family members, and their various friends and family members
who realized the absolute worthlessness of public education nowadays in NEA controlled
schools turned to home schooling, charter schools, and various other alternate ways of
providing an actual education for their children.
I've met many of the children of these parents and am often quite pleased with the fact
that for the most part they are individuals who can speak and think freely and are happy to
be finding their way in the world doing what they want to do.
I hope more and more parents like these young people's parents break away from the public
NEA option. There are many very good choices for educating our children to become real
individual people who contribute in their individual ways to a vial economy and society.
I am counting on God, Who is Good and Loving to make this current state of affairs
temporary in the long lifetime of this world. I give it to God, as they say, and I do not
mourn my not ever getting that doctorate--a dream I had as a young girl. Not having it
doesn't mean I can't still read and study and think on my own.
Much of what I write could well be considered 'non-conformist', but I've never encountered
any problems in academia because of it. In fact, being a professor gives one the security
which makes one confident enough to be non-conformist. Sweeping generalizations are
unhelpful.
During my years as a student and my years as an adjunct instructor in several undergrad and
community college programs, I also had no problems. I was teaching required undergrad classes
such as research writing and essay writing.
It was easy in those classes to set my own standards. No full professors want to teach
those classes because it requires much time and effort to plan lessons and to grade papers.
For argumentation essays and argumentation research papers it was my right to insist that the
student research all views of the research question they chose, though many students tried
hard not to have to report the opinions they did not like and to have to explain exactly why
they felt that side was invalid.
I was lucky in the fact that when I taught those classes, "political correctness" had not
yet developed a firm foothold in the universities.
I left teaching those classes at about the time "political correctness" was beginning.
The only time I was reported to the Dean was by a student who wanted to research the
question of whether Elvis was dead or not. I told her that if her source list included the
National Enquirer or and other grocery store "news" magazine, I would not accept her paper.
My department chairman didn't laugh at her complaint, but he did back me up and smiled when
he told me he had said she had to follow my rule.
And sadly, the journalism majors were also hard to deal with. They didn't want to research
at all. They felt all they had to do was call people they felt were important sources to
provide quotes for their essays or papers. They didn't feel it was necessary to do any
in-depth research on the issue they had chosen, usually an issue that was important at the
time in the state or local community. It made them angry that I felt they should do some
background research in order to balance quoted opinions.
No. Sweeping generalizations are quite helpful because they express opinions about
behavior in general. As for you, you may have tenure but if you start saying things like,
"Bigfoot is real," you will find yourself largely ostracized. Actually academics prefer
extremely narrow foci for studies because the possibility of conflict among them is thereby
reduced,
As for you, you may have tenure but if you start saying things like, "Bigfoot is real,"
you will find yourself largely ostracized.
You feel the Bigfoot and related para-normal phenomena should matter in Public and
International Affair studies? Since comparable phenomena are reported all over the world? In
the context of what larger topic/theme/course could/should it be considered?
Or are you suggesting a Prof in international relations couldn't even mention privately he
feels Bigfoot is an interesting phenomenon? Suggesting it would get him into troubles no
matter how solid his research in his own field?
I was careful to include a wide diversity of groups in my critique of humanity.
Yes, you were. But you also spent a considerable amount of digital ink on academics more
generally and academia.
All I can say is that I have never in 20 years in academia felt the slightest pressure from
other academics to bend my research or writing to fit their will. Pressure to conform has,
however, come from outside the university - my one experience writing a report for a think
tank did not end well. On the whole, in my own field of study, I find academics much more
reasonable, nuanced, and willing to discuss and consider alternatives, than politicians,
journalists, and think tank types. Of course, that is just one person's experience, and I
wouldn't generalize from it, any more than you should from yours. But there it is.
Once Elora thought of studying Social Sciences in University at Distance...but, after seeing
the cadre of professors, being one a member of CFR who, moreover, got lately involveded in
the Integrity Initiative scandal as a one of the cluster in charge of spreading maledicence
through their columns in MSM on certain respectable colonel they deemed too much pro-Russian
to be head of national intelligence...she certainly desisted...and decided that she would
better learn on her own...
After all, it was "highly likely" he was going to catearme de plano, sin ni siquiera
leer lo que escribo ....only because Elora is so....
It looks like Soylent Green is a not too far off possibility. Washington State has thrown out
the dignity of the human death and subsequent corpse with their Washington State's bath
water. They'll be composting dead human beings like they would compost rotting food or
rotting garbage. With burial or cremation, there is some dignity given to the life of the
individual who life has passed, whereas with composting, they'll be throwing the human corpse
with its decaying fluids and all into basically a sewage pit to rot. With them composting
human dead like a rotting cabbage, basic human dignity will have been cast into the trash
heap. The Elites are now coming out in the open and calling for human cannibalism, and there
could be legislation enacted like what Washington State did with human composting,
legislation to make human cannibalism a reality. And a step further is turning the human
corpse into a palatable food item, which is what Soylent Green was in the movie. The humanity
of that movie thought they were eating vegetable crackers, unbeknownst to them they were
eating their next of kin, or their neighbor down the street. In the movie, garbage trucks
gathered up the dead corpses like they were cord-wood, and took them to a processing station,
much like what the human composting will have -- processing stations.
Remember that Orwell's 1984 was poo poo'd as never happening just a few short years ago.
And the 1973 movie Soylent Green was poo poo'd as science fiction when it was released.
World's First Human Composting Facility is Coming to Seattle in 2021
Academics make easy targets for this crew, but, as noted above, they they are far from unique
in their tribal instincts. The thing that appalled me most after my Vietnam experience (apart
from the fact that William Calley's entire chain of command did not go to prison) was the
discovery of how many people had figured out that our cause was all but unwinnable and how
little influence that discovery had. When the preparatory simulation exercises showed us
consistently losing, the pentagon stopped the war gaming. Etc. all the way through the war.
In fact even the catastrophe they suffered in Tet '68 did not shift the balance in our favor.
John Maynard Keynes made the academics' ultimate response to the notion that people in
more "practical" pursuits are more realistic: "Practical men, who believe themselves to be
quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct
economist."
And no, Keynes was not that much an advocate for academics either: " Education: the
inculcation of the incomprehensible into the indifferent by the incompetent."
Because they thought the accords meant that we agreed to let them win the war. That
interpretation doesn't mesh with Nixon's ferocious rhetoric about the Christmas bombing, but
that was the truth. And they were pretty shrewd about that sort of thing.
I can't prove it and they would never say it, but I thought at the time that the Christmas
bombing sent a message that we needed an end to it more than they did. So they reached out
and sure enough we were willing to settle on terms similar to what they had offered in
1968.
That is not to say that they were anything other than horrible brutal people. But they
were not stupid horrible brutal people, and they had the commitment to see it through. And we
did not. It was their country.
I doubt it. The ones I have spoken with about it saw it pretty much the same way at the
time. They spent a couple years hoping against hope that they were wrong - that the US did
have the commitment to see it through. Their hopes were disappointed.
Would that be the ones who fled communism after the NV army invaded the the Republic of
Vietnam or the fine people of the Socialist Republic who brought freedom from the barrels of
all those guns?
"Because they thought the accords meant that we agreed to let them win the war."
No fredw. That's a naive (or simplistic, should I say) thinking. They had no illlusion
like that, they just practiced age old Sun Tzu's teaching. In other words, if you know you
can win with diplomacy why spend the blood and treasure to achieve the same thing?
Demonstrate to your enemy that you are really willing to fight to the end no matter it takes,
and then negotiate the peace to your favor.
This conformism is not only limited to the humanities, it has crept insidiously into the
physical and natural sciences. Pharmaceutical companies can now depend on an endless supply
of conformist Scientists who will advocate for the drugging up of children in order to treat
imaginary first world diseases.
Yesterday, we had a guest Minister at my Unitarian church (I can feel the eye rolls from the
commentariat already....). She has an economics degree from Princeton, a business degree from
MIT, and an M.Div from Meadville Lombard Theological School. She comes to ministry after a
career in high tech and slow food. She is of European and Native American ancestry, and
practices the Hawaiian culture with her Big Island ohana. (Isn't that cultural appropriation?
/snark)
She opened with two sweeping proclamations:
"I am here today to help you all break the habit of referring to Native People in the past
tense..."
"We are standing on stolen land..."
She then followed those with an incoherent sermon, which I hesitate to even try to
summarize.
One of her points was that Governor Bradford, who wrote the famous sermon speaking the
shining city on the hill, believed in the righteousness of his cause, including treating the
Natives as lesser beings. She did note that the Unitarian Church is a descendant of those
original Congregational churches, but she missed the part where we still believe in the
righteousness of our cause, and the right to treat the lesser orders as we wish.
Back to her two opening remarks:
I fully know that there are still descendants of the original settlers of our area still
here.
The particular land where the First Unitarian Church of Providence stands is part of the land
conveyed by deed from the Narragansett tribe to Roger Williams, and the deed is in the
Providence City Hall Archives, signed by the Sachems Cononicus and Miantonomi.
I can hardly think of a better example of the product of group think, where the particulars
of your audience don't matter.
Pat is probably going to toss me out of here for this comment. Conformity and "Group Think"
is a human characteristic that is probably hard wired into our brains. It is not just
academics who are subject to this trait but every group, poliitcal, religious or otherwise.
That is how we got into Iraq. I got a kick out of an article in the Hill this morning about
Trump's trillion dollar annual defcits. The comment section was almost universal in " it was
Obama's fault". There was "group think' at work since anyone who disagreed was roundly booed
and the fact that not a single Republican congresscritter has raised their voice on our
annual deficits when if it was a Democrat President the hue and cry would drown out normal
reporting. Don't get me wrong, the Democrats are not any better but group think is very
widespread.
Contemptibly disrespectful to the brave men who carried out Linebacker II. It would seem
that you were a communist sympathizer. No sympathy for all the Vietnamese who did not want to
be ruled by the communists?
The men who carried out Linebacker II were American soldiers (and sailors and airmen) who as
usual gave it their all. I don't disrespect even Richard Nixon or the military brass who
ordered it. They faced seriously tough problems with no good solutions. I am just reporting
the signalling I perceived with whatever insight I had picked up from a year of interacting
with Vietnamese.
And whatever my words might "seem" to imply, I have no sympathy at all for Communism or
the Dang Lao Dong Viet Nam. But facing them day after day takes you beyond the abstraction of
"enemy". You get some insight into how they interpret the world. I don't claim any real
expertise. I didn't do that long enough to get a really deep understanding. And the people I
dealt with were low level. I am just reporting how I thought they might have reacted to
events as they unfolded. The Vietnamese I knew(both sides) were very logical calculating
people. They wouldn't underestimate the effects of what we did, but they would always be
looking for the motivation behind it.
I was heartbroken for the Vietnamese who put their lives on the line in the expectation
that we would somehow pull it out. We owed them. We copped out on that debt. I don't believe
we could have saved their war, but we should have done a lot better for them when it was
lost.
A couple of years after the accords. US commitment didn't last much longer than that. That
was the point. The accords signaled to many Vietnamese that we were played out. Yes, we had
been there for a long time, but we had come to the point of accepting that we could not have
the outcome we had fought for.
you seem to have missed the fact that between the armistice agreement and the onslaught in
1975 there were two + years. In that period of time they watched and waited until the US
Congress cut off all aid to SVN and then they overran the country.
No sir. I did not missed that fact. I merely disagreed with fredw's opinion about the
reason why the North Vietnamese came to the negotiating table. Vietnamese people are
pragmatic. Being a small country, they always do that regardless of of the situation.
The American people betrayed the Vietnamese, not the military. And truth be told most of
the SVN people were lukewarm participants in their own defense.
I don't see that you are disagreeing with my account of commitment levels. That said, there
were both deeply committed south Vietnamese and many more who put their lives on the line
betting that we could keep them from the bloody hell promised by a Communist victory. We took
that bargain on that basis. Morally, I find it similar to the situation that you have
described for the Kurds in Syria. It could only end ugly.
Perhaps the most shocking revelation that interrogators received was the realization that it
wasn't primarily us the enemy were worried about. Most of their anxieties were directed
toward the lukewarm ARVNs who despite their many many many failings were perceived as the
more dangerous enemy. We were a known (if lethal) factor. We did not represent an alternative
to them. We rarely had the knowledge or understanding of local conditions to be really
effective. The ARVNs did, and suffered four times our casualty rates trying to make their
alternative happen.
This is not a judgement of military or social effectiveness, just an observation of what
their levels of concern seemed to be.
You are mighty certain for someone who was not there. Yes, there were Vietnamese who
fought well and hard but not enough of them. You don't seem to understand that we were there
to help them. We did not run their government, leftist beliefs about that not withstanding.
We did not command their army.
"Not there"? Where was I in 1970? Sure looked like Viet Nam. Sure was hot.
There sure were a lot people speaking tieng Viet Nam. Mine had to improve really fast. I
think you may have lost the thread.
I am sure they were afraid of being turned over to the ARVN who were likely to torture and
kill them if they were in the mood. The NVA and VC main force troops wre just as liely to do
the same. You sound like John Vann who once rebuked me for not loving the Vietnamese. He was
right.
All right granted. The contents of my prior posts are much more present in my mind than in
yours. In any case, I don't see that we actually disagree that much. I think that we just
have different reactions to similar sets of acts. Not my purpose to annoy you for no reason.
Good luck with your roofing. I would probably fall the roof, even when I was young.
We have Fred, Freds, fredw. How many more Fred? " The contents of my prior posts are much
more present in my mind than in yours" Duh! Vann asked why I did not love the Vietnamese. My
answer wa something like "Why should I? I am here to fight a war on their behalf. That does
not require me to love them."
Professors are generally people who prefer the catfights in the academy to actual work in
industry, finance, engineering, etc. does that mean that I generally think they are drones?
Yes, I do.
I received this comment from DMR, presumab;y a member of the professoriat.
"Mr Robinson's remarks are spot on. In my experience most academics worth their salt are
absorbed in their research area however microscopic the focus, and delight above all in
lively exchange of ideas with colleagues and students when afforded the opportunity to do so
in the classroom, at conferences, in published research. Conformism, some of it timid, and
competition, often cut-throat, there certainly are. Who would deny this? But as in any
profession or walk of life they are par for the course. Forty years as a university teacher
encourage me to say that these deformations professionelles are far from definitive, still
less all-encompassing. Most unusually for you, Col. Lang, and pace your vaunted experience on
boards of award-granting bodies/degree committees, your judgements in this instance smack of
personal animus and bespeak an unwarrantedly generalized contempt. I say this with respect
and no wish to annoy." It is a characteristic of the academy that its members wish to be
thought independent thinkers. They are united in that thought. Professor, i will seek to
conform to your "professional" mores. My most personal animus is reserved for social
"scientists.
"... And while I am not as focused on the poverty ve wealth dynamic. this century has revealed something very disappointing that you address. That the elites have done a very poor job of leading the ship of state, while still remaining in leadership belies such a bold hypocrisy in accountability, it's jarring. The article could actually be titled: "The Myth of the Best and the Brightest." ..."
"... They are teaching the elite how to drain all value from American companies, as the rich plan their move to China, the new land of opportunity. When 1% of the population controls such a huge portion of the wealth, patriotism becomes a loadstone to them. The elite are global. Places like Harvard cater to them, help train them to rule the world .but first they must remake it. ..."
"... In my high school, there were roughly 15 of us who had been advanced two years ahead in math. Of those, 10 were Jewish; only two of them had a 'Jewish' last name. In my graduate school class, half (7) are Jewish. None has a 'Jewish' last name. So I'm pretty dubious of the counting method that you use. ..."
"... Regarding the declining Jewish achievement, it looks like it can be primarily explained through demographics: "Intermarriage rates have risen from roughly 6% in 1950 to approximately 40–50% in the year 2000.[56][57] This, in combination with the comparatively low birthrate in the Jewish community, has led to a 5% decline in the Jewish population of the United States in the 1990s." ..."
"... Jewish surnames don't mean what they used to. And intermarriage rates are lowest among the low-performing and highly prolific Orthodox. ..."
"... A potentially bigger issue completely ignored by your article is how do colleges differentiate between 'foreign' students (overwhelmingly Asian) and American students. Many students being counted as "Asian American" are in reality wealthy and elite foreign "parachute kids" (an Asian term), dropped onto the generous American education system or into boarding schools to study for US entrance exams, qualify for resident tuition rates and scholarships, and to compete for "American" admissions slots, not for the usually limited 'foreign' admission slots. ..."
"... As some who is Jewish from the former Soviet Union, and who was denied even to take an entrance exam to a Moscow college, I am saddened to see that American educational admission process looks more and more "Soviet" nowadays. Kids are denied opportunities because of their ethnic or social background, in a supposedly free and fair country! ..."
"... Actually, Richard Feynman famously rejected genetic explanations of Jewish achievement (whether he was right or wrong to do so is another story), and aggressively resisted any attempts to list him as a "Jewish scientist" or "Jewish Nobel Prize winner." I am sure he would not cared in the slightest bit how many Jews were participating in the Physics Olympiad, as long as the quality of the students' work continued to be excellent. Here is a letter he wrote to a woman seeking to include him in a book about Jewish achievement in the sciences. ..."
"... It would be interesting to know how well "true WASPS" do in admissions. This could perhaps be estimated by counting Slavic and Italian names, or Puritan New England last names. I would expect this group to do almost as well as Jews (not quite as well, because their ability would be in the lower end of the Legacy group). ..."
"... The missing variable in this analysis is income/class. While Unz states that many elite colleges have the resources to fund every student's education, and in fact practice need-blind admissions, the student bodies are skewed towards the very highest percentile of the income and wealth distribution. SAT scores may also scale with parents' income as well. ..."
"... Having worked with folks from all manner of "elite" and not so elite schools in a technical field, the main conclusion I was able to draw was folks who went to "elite" colleges had a greater degree of entitlement. And that's it. ..."
"... My own position has always been strongly in the former camp, supporting meritocracy over diversity in elite admissions. ..."
"... The Reality of American Mediocrity ..."
"... The central test of fairness in any admissions system is to ask this simple question. Was there anyone admitted under that system admitted over someone else who was denied admission and with better grades and SAT scores and poorer ? If the answer is in the affirmative, then that system is unfair , if it is in the negative then the system is fair. ..."
"... Harvard ranks only 8th after Penn State in the production of undergrads who eventually get Doctorates in Science and Engineering. Of course Berkeley has the bragging rights for that kind of attribute. ..."
"... There is an excellent analysis of this article at The Occidental Observer by Kevin MacDonald, "Ron Unz on the Illusory American Meritocracy". The MSM is ignoring Unz's article for obvious reasons. ..."
"... Could it be that the goal of financial, rather than academic, achievement, makes many young people uninterested in competing in the science and math competitions sought out by the Asian students? I ..."
"... America never promised success through merit or equality. That is the American "dream." ..."
"... Anyone famliar with sociology and the research on social stratification knows that meritocracy is a myth; for example, if one's parents are in the bottom decile of the the income scale, the child has only a 3% chance to reach the top decile in his or her lifetime. In fact, in contrast to the Horatio Alger ideology, the U.S. has lower rates of upward mobility than almost any other developed country. Social classses exist and they tend to reproduce themselves. ..."
"... The rigid class structure of the the U.S. is one of the reasons I support progressive taxation; wealth may not always be inherited, but life outcomes are largely determined by the class position of one's parents. In this manner, it is also a myth to believe that wealth is an individual creation;most financially successful individuals have enjoyed the benefits of class privilege: good and safe schools, two-parent families, tutors, and perhaps most important of all, high expecatations and positive peer socialization (Unz never mentions the importants of peeer groups, which data show exert a strong causal unfluence on academic performance). ..."
"... And I would challenge Unz's assertion that many high-performing Asians come from impovershed backgrounds: many of them may undereport their income as small business owners. I believe that Asian success derives not only from their class background but their culture in which the parents have authority and the success of the child is crucual to the honor of the family. As they assimilate to the more individualist American ethos, I predict that their academic success will level off just as it has with Jews. ..."
"... All I can say is see a book: "Ivy League Fools and Felons"' by Mack Roth. Lots of them are kids of corrupt people in all fields. ..."
Just before the Labor Day weekend, a front page New York Times story broke the news of the largest cheating scandal in Harvard University
history, in which nearly half the students taking a Government course on the role of Congress had plagiarized or otherwise illegally
collaborated on their final exam.
[1] Each year, Harvard admits just 1600 freshmen while almost 125 Harvard students now face possible suspension over this single
incident. A Harvard dean described the situation as "unprecedented."
But should we really be so surprised at this behavior among the students at America's most prestigious academic institution? In
the last generation or two, the funnel of opportunity in American society has drastically narrowed, with a greater and greater proportion
of our financial, media, business, and political elites being drawn from a relatively small number of our leading universities, together
with their professional schools. The rise of a Henry Ford, from farm boy mechanic to world business tycoon, seems virtually impossible
today, as even America's most successful college dropouts such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg often turn out to be extremely well-connected
former Harvard students. Indeed, the early success of Facebook was largely due to the powerful imprimatur it enjoyed from its exclusive
availability first only at Harvard and later restricted to just the Ivy League.
During
this period, we have witnessed a huge national decline in well-paid middle class jobs in the manufacturing sector and other sources
of employment for those lacking college degrees, with median American wages having been stagnant or declining for the last forty
years. Meanwhile, there has been an astonishing concentration of wealth at the top, with America's richest 1 percent now possessing
nearly as much net wealth as the bottom 95 percent.
[2]
This situation, sometimes described as a "winner take all society," leaves families desperate to maximize the chances that their
children will reach the winners' circle, rather than risk failure and poverty or even merely a spot in the rapidly deteriorating
middle class. And the best single means of becoming such an economic winner is to gain admission to a top university, which provides
an easy ticket to the wealth of Wall Street or similar venues, whose leading firms increasingly restrict their hiring to graduates
of the Ivy League or a tiny handful of other top colleges.
[3] On the other side, finance remains the favored employment choice for Harvard, Yale or Princeton students after the diplomas
are handed out. [4]
As a direct consequence, the war over college admissions has become astonishingly fierce, with many middle- or upper-middle class
families investing quantities of time and money that would have seemed unimaginable a generation or more ago, leading to an all-against-all
arms race that immiserates the student and exhausts the parents. The absurd parental efforts of an Amy Chua, as recounted in her
2010 bestseller Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother , were simply a much more extreme version of widespread behavior among her
peer-group, which is why her story resonated so deeply among our educated elites. Over the last thirty years, America's test-prep
companies have grown from almost nothing into a $5 billion annual industry, allowing the affluent to provide an admissions edge to
their less able children. Similarly, the enormous annual tuition of $35,000 charged by elite private schools such as Dalton or Exeter
is less for a superior high school education than for the hope of a greatly increased chance to enter the Ivy League.
[5]
Many New York City parents even go to enormous efforts to enroll their children in the best possible pre-Kindergarten program,
seeking early placement on the educational conveyer belt which eventually leads to Harvard.
[6] Others cut corners in a more
direct fashion, as revealed in the huge SAT cheating rings recently uncovered in affluent New York suburbs, in which students were
paid thousands of dollars to take SAT exams for their wealthier but dimmer classmates.
[7]
But given such massive social and economic value now concentrated in a Harvard or Yale degree, the tiny handful of elite admissions
gatekeepers enjoy enormous, almost unprecedented power to shape the leadership of our society by allocating their supply of thick
envelopes. Even billionaires, media barons, and U.S. Senators may weigh their words and actions more carefully as their children
approach college age. And if such power is used to select our future elites in a corrupt manner, perhaps the inevitable result is
the selection of corrupt elites, with terrible consequences for America. Thus, the huge Harvard cheating scandal, and perhaps also
the endless series of financial, business, and political scandals which have rocked our country over the last decade or more, even
while our national economy has stagnated.
Just a few years ago Pulitzer Prize-winning former Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Golden published The Price
of Admission , a devastating account of the corrupt admissions practices at so many of our leading universities, in which every
sort of non-academic or financial factor plays a role in privileging the privileged and thereby squeezing out those high-ability,
hard-working students who lack any special hook.
In one particularly egregious case, a wealthy New Jersey real estate developer, later sent to Federal prison on political corruption
charges, paid Harvard $2.5 million to help ensure admission of his completely under-qualified son.
[8] When we consider that Harvard's
existing endowment was then at $15 billion and earning almost $7 million each day in investment earnings, we see that a culture of
financial corruption has developed an absurd illogic of its own, in which senior Harvard administrators sell their university's honor
for just a few hours worth of its regular annual income, the equivalent of a Harvard instructor raising a grade for a hundred dollars
in cash.
An admissions system based on non-academic factors often amounting to institutionalized venality would seem strange or even unthinkable
among the top universities of most other advanced nations in Europe or Asia, though such practices are widespread in much of the
corrupt Third World. The notion of a wealthy family buying their son his entrance into the Grandes Ecoles of France or the top Japanese
universities would be an absurdity, and the academic rectitude of Europe's Nordic or Germanic nations is even more severe, with those
far more egalitarian societies anyway tending to deemphasize university rankings.
Well, legacy programs are alive and well. According to the read, here's the problem:
"The research certainly supports the widespread perception that non-academic factors play a major role in the process,
including athletic ability and "legacy" status. But as we saw earlier, even more significant are racial factors, with black
ancestry being worth the equivalent of 310 points, Hispanics gaining 130 points, and Asian students being penalized by 140
points, all relative to white applicants on the 1600 point Math and Reading SAT scale."
These arbitrary point systems while well intended are not a reflection of AA design. School lawyers in a race not be penalized
for past practices, implemented their own versions of AA programs. The numbers are easy to challenge because they aren't based
on tangible or narrow principles. It's weakneses are almost laughable. Because there redal goal was to thwart any real challenge
that institutions were idle in addressing past acts of discrimination. To boost their diversity issues, asians were heavily recruited.
Since AA has been in place a lot of faulty measures were egaged in: Quotas for quotas sake. Good for PR, lousy for AA and issues
it was designed to address.
I think the statistical data hides a very important factor and practice. Most jews in this country are white as such , and
as such only needed to change their names and hide behaviors as a strategy of surviving the entrance gauntlet. That segregation
created a black collegiate system with it's own set of elite qualifiers demonstrates that this model isn't limited to the Ivy
league.
That an elite system is devised and practiced in members of a certain club networks so as to maintain their elite status, networks
and control, this is a human practice. And it once served as something to achieve. It was thought that the avenues of becoming
an elite were there if one wanted to strive for it. Hard work, honesty, persistence, results . . . should yield X.
And while I am not as focused on the poverty ve wealth dynamic. this century has revealed something very disappointing
that you address. That the elites have done a very poor job of leading the ship of state, while still remaining in leadership
belies such a bold hypocrisy in accountability, it's jarring. The article could actually be titled: "The Myth of the Best and
the Brightest."
I don't think it's just some vindictive intent. and while Americans have always known and to an extent accepted that for upper
income citizens, normal was not the same as normal on the street. Fairness, was not the same jn practice nor sentiment. What may
becoming increasing intolerant has been the obvious lack of accountability among elites. TARP looked like the elites looking out
for each other as opposed the ship of state. I have read three books on the financials and they do not paint a pretty portrait
of Ivy League leadership as to ethics, cheating, lying, covering up, and shamelessly passing the buck. I will be reading this
again I am sure.
It's sad to think that we may be seeing te passing of an era. in which one aspired to be an elite not soley for their wealth,
but the model they provided od leadership real or imagined. Perhaps, it passed long ago, and we are all not just noticing.
I appreciated you conclusions, not sure that I am comfortable with some of the solutions.
Since I still hanker to be an elite in some manner, It is interesting to note my rather subdued response to the cheating. Sadly,
this too may be an open secret of standard fair - and that is very very sad. And disappointing. Angering even.
The shifting social demography of deans, house masters and admissions committees may be a more important metric than the composition
of the student body, as it determines the shape of the curriculum, and the underlying culture of the university as a legacy in
itself.
If Ron harrows the literary journals of the Jackson era with equal diligence. he may well turn up an essay or two expressing
deep shock at Unitarians admitting too many of the Lord's preterite sheep to Harvard, or lamenting the rise of Methodism at Yale
and the College of New Jersey.
Harvard is a university, much like Princeton and Yale, that continues based on its reputation, something that was earned in
the past. When the present catches up to them people will regard them as nepotistic cauldrons of corruption.
Look at the financial disaster that befell the USA and much of the globe back in 2008. Its genesis can be found in the clever
minds of those coming out of their business schools (and, oddly enough, their Physics programs as well).
They are teaching the elite how to drain all value from American companies, as the rich plan their move to China, the new
land of opportunity. When 1% of the population controls such a huge portion of the wealth, patriotism becomes a loadstone to them.
The elite are global. Places like Harvard cater to them, help train them to rule the world .but first they must remake it.
• Replies: @Part White, Part
Native I agree, common people would never think of derivatives , nor make loans based on speculation
First, I appreciated the length and depth of your article.
Having said that, to boil it down to its essence:
Subconcious bias/groupthink + affirmative action/diversity focus + corruption + innumeracy = student bodies at elite institutions
that are wildly skewed vis-a-vis both: 1) the ethnic makeup of the general population; and 2) the makeup of our top-performing
students.
Since these institutions are pipelines to power, this matters.
I rather doubt that wage stagnation (which appears to have begun in ~1970) can be pinned on this – that part stuck out, because
there are far more plausible causes. To the extent you're merely arguing that our elite failed to counter the trend, ok, but I'm
not sure a "better" elite would have either. The trend, after all, favored the elite.
Anyway, I find your case is plausible.
Your inner/outer circle hybrid option is interesting. One (perhaps minor) thing jumps out at me: kids talk. The innies are
going to figure out who they are and who the outies are. The outies might have their arrogance tempered, but the innies? I suspect
they'd be even *more* arrogant than such folks are now (all the more so because they'd have better justification for their arrogance),
but I could be wrong.
Perhaps more significantly, this:
But if it were explicitly known that the vast majority of Harvard students had merely been winners in the application
lottery, top businesses would begin to cast a much wider net in their employment outreach, and while the average Harvard student
would probably be academically stronger than the average graduate of a state college, the gap would no longer be seen as so
enormous, with individuals being judged more on their own merits and actual achievements
Is a very good reason for Harvard, et al. to resist the idea. I think you're right that this would be a good thing for the
country, but it would be bad for Harvard. I think the odds of convincing Harvard to do it out of the goodness of their administrators
hearts is unlikely. You are basically asking them to purposefully damage their brand.
All in all, I think you're on to something here. I have my quibbles (the wage stagnation thing, and the graph with Chinese
vs USA per capita growth come on, apples and oranges there!), but overall I think I agree that your proposal is likely superior
to the status quo.
Don't forget the mess one finds after they ARE admitted to these schools. I dropped out of Columbia University in 2010.
You can "make it" on an Ivy-league campus if you are a conservative-Republican-type with all the rich country-club connections
that liberals use to stereotype.
Or you can succeed if you are a poor or working-class type who is willing to toe the Affirmative Action party line and be a
good "progressive" Democrat (Obama stickers, "Gay Pride" celebrations, etc.)
If you come from a poor or working-class background and are religious, or culturally conservative or libertarian in any way,
you might as well save your time and money. You're not welcome, period. And if you're a military veteran you WILL be actively
persecuted, no matter what the news reports claim.
It sucks. Getting accepted to Columbia was a dream come true for me. The reality broke my heart.
Regarding the overrepresentation of Jewish students compared to their actual academic merit, I think the author overstates
the role bias (subjective, or otherwise) plays in this:
1) , a likely explanation is that Jewish applicants are a step ahead in knowing how to "play the admissions game." They therefore
constitute a good percentage of applicants that admission committees view as "the total package." (at least a higher percentage
than scores alone would yield). Obviously money and connections plays a role in them knowing to say precisely what adcoms want
to hear, but in any case, at the end of the day, if adcoms are looking for applicants with >1400 SATs, "meaningful" life experiences/accomplishments,
and a personal statement that can weave it all together into a compelling narrative, the middle-upper-class east coast Jewish
applicant probably constitutes a good percentage of such "total package" applicants. I will concede however that this explanation
only works in explaining the prevalence of jews vs. whites in general. With respect to Asians, however, since they are likely
being actively and purposefully discriminated against by adcoms, having the "complete package" would be less helpful to them.
2) Another factor is that, regardless of ethnicity, alumni children get a boost and since in the previous generation Jewish
applicants were the highest achieving academic group, many of these lesser qualified jews admitted are children of alumni.
3) That ivy colleges care more about strong verbal scores than mathematics (i.e., they prefer 800V 700M over 700V 800M), and
Jewish applicants make up a higher proportion of the high verbal score breakdowns.
4) Last, and perhaps more importantly we do not really know the extent of Jewish representation compared to their academic
merit. Unlike admitted Asian applicants, who we know, on average, score higher than white applicants, we have no similar numbers
of Jewish applicants. The PSAT numbers are helpful, but hardly dispositive considering those aren't the scores colleges use in
making their decision information.
@Bryan– Getting accepted to Columbia was a dream come true for me. The reality broke my heart.
I'm touched by this. I've spent tons of time at Columbia, a generation ago -- and my background fit fine -- the kind of WASP
background Jews found exotic and interesting. But I can see your point, sad to say. There are other great schools -- Fordham,
where my wife went to law school at night, has incredible esprit de corps - and probably, person for person, has as many lawyers
doing good and interesting work as Columbia.
"There are other great schools–Fordham, where my wife went to law school at night, has incredible esprit de corps - and
probably, person for person, has as many lawyers doing good and interesting work as Columbia."
"Tiffany was also rejected by all her other prestigious college choices, including Yale, Penn, Duke, and Wellsley, an outcome
which greatly surprised and disappointed her immigrant father.88″
In the fall of 1990, my parents had me apply to 10 colleges. I had the profile of many Indian kids at the time – ranked in
the top 10 of the class, editor of school paper, Boy Scouts. SAT scores could have been better, but still strong. Over 700 in
all achievement tests save Bio, which was 670.
Rejected by 5 schools, waitlisted by 3, accepted into 2 – one of them the state univ.
One of my classmates, whose family was from Thailand, wound up in the same predicament as me. His response, "Basketball was
designed to keep the Asian man down."
The one black kid in our group – got into MIT, dropped out after one year because he could not hack it. The kid from our school
who should have gone, from an Italian-American family, and among the few who did not embrace the guido culture, went to Rennsealer
instead, and had professional success after.
As a University of Chicago alum, I infer that by avoiding the label "elite" on such a nifty chart we can be accurately categorized
as "meritocratic" by The American Conservative.
Then again, this article doesn't even purport to ask why elite universities might be in the business of EDUCATING a wider population
of students, or how that education takes place.
Perhaps, by ensuring that "the best" students are not concentrated in only 8 universities is why the depth and quality of America's
education system remains the envy of the world.
In my high school, there were roughly 15 of us who had been advanced two years ahead in math. Of those, 10 were Jewish;
only two of them had a 'Jewish' last name. In my graduate school class, half (7) are Jewish. None has a 'Jewish' last name.
So I'm pretty dubious of the counting method that you use.
Also, it's clear that there are Asian quotas at these schools, but it's not clear that Intel Science Fairs, etc, are the best
way to estimate what level of talent Asians have relative to other groups.
I was curious so I google High School Poetry Competition, High School Constitution Competition, High School Debating Competition.
None of the winners here seem to have an especially high Asian quotient. So maybe a non-technical (liberal arts) university would
settle on ~25-30% instead of ~40% asian? And perhaps a (small) part of the problem is a preponderance of Asian applicants excelling
in technical fields, leading to competition against each other rather than the general population? Just wonderin'
Regarding the declining Jewish achievement, it looks like it can be primarily explained through demographics: "Intermarriage
rates have risen from roughly 6% in 1950 to approximately 40–50% in the year 2000.[56][57] This, in combination with the comparatively
low birthrate in the Jewish community, has led to a 5% decline in the Jewish population of the United States in the 1990s."
Jewish surnames don't mean what they used to. And intermarriage rates are lowest among the low-performing and highly prolific
Orthodox.
Jewish birth rates have been falling faster than the white population, especially for the non-Orthodox:
"In contrast to the ongoing trends of assimilation, some communities within American Jewry, such as Orthodox Jews, have significantly
higher birth rates and lower intermarriage rates, and are growing rapidly. The proportion of Jewish synagogue members who were
Orthodox rose from 11% in 1971 to 21% in 2000, while the overall Jewish community declined in number. [60] In 2000, there were
360,000 so-called "ultra-orthodox" (Haredi) Jews in USA (7.2%).[61] The figure for 2006 is estimated at 468,000 (9.4%).[61]"
"As against the overall average of 1.86 children per Jewish woman, an informed estimate gives figures ranging upward from 3.3
children in "modern Orthodox" families to 6.6 in Haredi or "ultra-Orthodox" families to a whopping 7.9 in families of Hasidim."
These statistics would suggest that half or more of Jewish children are being born into these lower-performing groups. Given
their very low intermarriage rates, a huge portion of the secular, Reform, and Conservative Jews must be intermarrying (more than
half if the aggregate 43% intermarriage figure is right). And the high-performing groups may now be around 1 child per woman or
lower, and worse for the youngest generation.
So a collapse in Jewish representation in youth science prizes can be mostly explained by the collapse of the distinct non-Orthodox
Jewish youth.
Incidentally, intermarriage also produces people with Jewish ancestry who get classified as gentiles using last names or self-identification,
reducing Jewish-gentile gaps by bringing up nominal gentile scores at the same time as nominal-Jewish scores are lowered.
The center of power in this country being located in the Northeast is nothing new. Whether it be in it's Ivy League schools
or the ownership of natural resources located in other regions, particularly the South, the Northeast has always had a disproportionate
share of influence in the power structures, particularly political and financial, of this nation. This is one of the reasons the
definition of "white" when reviewing ethnicity is so laughably inaccurate. There is a huge difference in opportunity between WASP
or Jewish in the Northeast, for instance, and those of Scots Irish ancestory in the mountain south. Hopefully statistical analysis
such as this can break open that stranglehold, especially as it is directly impacting a minority group in a negative fashion.
Doing this exercise using say, white Baptists compared to other white subgroups, while maybe equally valid in the results, would
be seen as racist by the very Ivy League system that is essentially practicing a form of racism.
Yeah, my ultimate goal was to attend law school, and a big part of the heartbreak for me–or heartburn, the more cynical would
call it–was seeing how skewed and absurd the admissions process to law school is.
I have no doubt that I could have eventually entered into a "top tier" law school, and that was a dream of mine also. I met
with admissions officers from Duke, Harvard, Stanford, Fordham, etc. I was encouraged. I had the grades and background for it.
But–and I'm really not trying to sound corny 0r self-important here–what does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his
soul? I really don't feel that I'm exaggerating when I say that that's exactly how it felt to me.
The best experience I had while In New York was working as an after-school programs administrator for P.S. 136, but that was
only because of the kids. They'll be old and bitter and cynical soon enough.
At one point it occurred to me that I should have just started claiming "Black" as my ethnicity when I first started attending
college as an adult. I never attended high-school so it couldn't have been disproved. I'm part Sicilian so I could pass for 1/4
African-American. Then I would have received the preference toward admission that, say, Michael Jordan's kids or Barack Obama's
kids will receive when they claim their Ivy-league diplomas. I should have hid the "white privilege" I've enjoyed as the son of
a fisherman and a waitress from one of the most economically-depressed states in America.
The bottom line is that those colleges are political brainwashing centers for a country I no longer believe in. I arrived on
campus in 2009 and I'm not joking at all when I say I was actively persecuted for being a veteran and a conservative who was not
drinking the Obama Kool-aid. Some big fat African-American lady, a back-room "administrator" for Columbia, straight-up threw my
VA benefits certification in the garbage, so my money got delayed by almost two months. I had no idea what was going on. I had
a wife and children to support.
The fact that technology has enabled us to sit here in real-time and correspond back-and-forth about the state of things doesn't
really change the state of things. They are irredeemable. This country is broke and broken.
If Abraham Lincoln were born today in America he would wind up like "Uncle Teardrop" from Winter's Bone. Back then, in order
to be an attorney, you simply studied law and starting trying cases. If you were good at it then you were accepted and became
a lawyer. Today, something has been lost. There is no fixing it. I don't want to waste my time trying to help by being "productive"
to the new tower of Babel or pretending to contribute.
Perhaps only one thing you left out, which is especially important with regard to Jewish enrollment and applications at Ivy
leagues, and other schools as well.
Jewish high school graduates actively look out for campuses with large Jewish populations, where they feel more comfortable.
I don't know the figures, but I believe Dartmouth, for example, has a much smaller Jewish population than Columbia, and it will
stay that way because of a positive feedback loop. (i.e. Jews would rather be at Columbia than Dartmouth, or sometimes even rather
be at NYU than Dartmouth). This explains some of the difference among different schools (and not solely better admission standards).
This is also especially relevant to your random lottery idea, which will inevitably lead to certain schools being overwhelmingly
Asian, others being overwhelmingly Jewish, etc., because the percentage of applicants from every ethnicity is different in every
school. This will necessarily eliminate any diversity which may or may not have existed until now.
I like the lottery admissions idea a lot but the real remedy for the US education system would be to abandon the absurd elite
cult altogether. There is not a shred of evidence that graduates of so-called elite institutions make good leaders. Many of them
are responsible for the economic crash and some of them have brought us the disaster of the Bush presidency.
Many better functioning countries – Germany, the Scandinavians – do not have elite higher education systems. When I enrolled
to University in Germany, I showed up at the enrollment office the summer before the academic year started, filled out a form
(1), and provided a certified copy of my Abitur certificate proving that I was academically competent to attend University. I
never wasted a minute on any of the admissions games that American middle class teenagers and their parents are subjected to.
It would surely have hurt my sense of dignity to be forced to jump through all these absurd and arbitrary hoops.
Americans, due to their ignorance of everything happening outside their borders, have no clue that a system in which a person
is judged by what "school" they attended is everything but normal. It is part of the reason for American dysfunction.
Since they are the pool from which tomorrow's governing elites will be chosen, I'd much rather see Ivy League student bodies
which reflected the full ethnic and geographic diversity of the US. Right now rural and small town Americans and those of Catholic
and Protestant descent who live in the South and Mid-West - roughly half the population - are woefully under-represented, which
explains why their economic interests have been neglected over the last forty years. We live in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic
representative democracy and our policy-making elites must reflect that diversity. Else the country will come apart.
Thus I recommend 'affirmative action for all' in our elite liberal arts colleges and universities (though not our technical
schools). Student bodies should be represent 'the best and the brightest' of every ethnic group and geographical area of the country.
Then the old school ties will truly knit our society together in a way that is simply not happening today.
A side benefit - and I mean this seriously - is that our second and third tier colleges and universities would be improved
by an influx of Asian and Ashkenazi students (even though the very best would still go to Harvard).
I believe that this article raises – and then inappropriately immediately dismisses – the simplest and most likely reason for
the over-representation of Jewish students at Ivy League Schools in the face of their declining bulk academic performance:
They apply to those schools in vastly disproportionate numbers.
Without actual data on the ethnicity of the applicants to these and other schools, we simply cannot rule out this simple and
likely explanation.
It is quite clear that a large current of Jewish American culture places a great emphasis on elite college attendance, and
among elite colleges, specifically values the Ivy League and its particular cache as opposed to other elite institutions such
as MIT. Also, elite Jewish American culture, moreso than elite Asian American culture, encourages children to go far away from
home for college, considering such a thing almost a right of passage, while other ethnic groups tend to encourage children to
remain closer. A high performing Asian student from, say, California, is much more likely to face familial pressure to stay close
to home for undergrad (Berkeley, UCLA, etc) than a high performing Jewish student from the same high school, who will likely be
encouraged by his or her family to apply to many universities "back east".
Without being able to systematically compare – with real data – the ethnicities of the applicants to those offered admission,
these conclusions simply cannot be accepted.
Different expectations for different races should worry traditional Americans.
If we become comfortable with different academic standards for Asians will we soon be expected to apply different laws to them
also? Will we apply different laws or at least different interpretations of the same laws to blacks?
The association of East Asians with CalTech is now as strong as the association of blacks with violent crime. Can not race
conscious jurisprudence be far behind?
Around a millenium ago in England it mattered to the court if you were a commoner or a noble. Nobles could exercise 'high justice'
with impunity. They were held to different standards. Their testimony counted for more in court. The law was class concious.
Then we had centuries of reform. We had 'Common Law'. By the time of our revolution the idea that all were equal before the
law was a very American kind of idea. We were proud that unlike England we did not have a class system.
Today we seem to be on the threshold of a similar sytem of privileges and rights based on race. Let me give an example. If
there were a domestic riot of somekind and a breakdown of public order, the authorities might very well impose a cufew. That makes
good sense for black male teens but makes little or no sense for elderly Chinese women. I can envision a time when we have race
specific policies for curfews and similar measures.
It seems to be starting in schools. It could be that the idea of equality before the law was an idea that only flourished between
the fifteenth century and the twenty first.
"But filling out a few very simple forms and having their test scores and grades scores automatically forwarded to a list of
possible universities would give them at least the same chance in the lottery as any other applicant whose academic skills were
adequate."
They get a lot of applications. I am guessing they chuck about 1/2 or more due to the application being incomplete, the applicant
did not follow instructions, the application was sloppy, or just obviously poor grades/test scores. The interview and perhaps
the essay and recommendations are necessary to chuck weirdos and psychopaths you do not want sitting next to King Fahd Jr. So
the "byzantine" application process is actually necessary to reduce the number of applicants to be evaluated.
I have a friend who went to Stanford with me in the early 80s. She has two sons who recently applied to Stanford. The older
son had slightly better grades and test scores. The younger son is gay. Guess which one got in?
If you were in Columbia's GS school, (or even if you were CC/SEAS/Barnard) you ought to reach out to some of on-campus and
alumni veteran's groups. They can help you maneuver through the school. (I know there's one that meets at a cafe on 122 and Broadway)
CU can be a lonely and forbidding place for anyone and that goes double for GSers and quadruple for veterans.
You ought to give it another go. Especially if you aren't going somewhere else that's better. Reach out to your deans and make
a fuss. No one in the bureaucracy wants to help but you can force them to their job.
Mr. Unz, the issues of jewish/gentile intermarriage and the significance of jewish-looking names do indeed merit more consideration
than they were given in this otherwise very enlightening article.
What would the percentage of jews in Ivy-League universities look like if the methodology used to determine the percentage
of jewish NMS semifinalists were applied to the list of Ivy League students (or some available approximation of it)?
For background: I'm an Asian-American who worked briefly in legacy admissions at an Ivy and another non-Ivy top-tier, both
while in school (work-study) and as an alum on related committees.
Mendy Finkel's observations are spot on. Re: her 1st point, personal "presentation" or "branding" is often overlooked by Asian
applicants. An admission officer at another Ivy joked they drew straws to assign "Night of a 1000 Lee's", so accomplished-but-indistinguishable
was that group.
A few points on the Asian analysis:
1. I think this analysis would benefit from expanding beyond HYP/Ivies when considering the broader meritocracy issue. Many
Asians esteem technical-leaning schools over academically-comparable liberal arts ones, even if the student isn't a science major.
When I was in college in the 90′s, most Asian parents would favor a Carnegie Mellon or Hopkins over Brown, Columbia or Dartmouth
(though HYP, of course, had its magnetic appeal). The enrollment percentages reflect this, and while some of this is changing,
this is a fairly persistent pattern.
2. Fundraising is crucial. The Harvard Class of '77 example isn't the most telling kind of number. In my experience, Jewish
alumni provide a critical mass in both the day-to-day fundraising and the resultant dollars. And they play a key role, both as
givers and getters, in the signature capital campaign commitments (univ hospitals, research centers, etc.). This isn't unique
to Jewish Ivy alumni; Catholic alumni of ND or Georgetown provide similar support. But it isn't clear what the future overall
Asian commitment to the Ivy "culture of fundraising" will be, which will continue to be a net negative in admissions.
Sidenote: While Asians greatly value the particular civic good, they are uneasy with it being so hinged to an opaque private
sector, in this case, philanthropy. That distinction, blown out a bit, speaks to some of the Republican "Asian gap".
3. I would not place too much weight on NMS comparisons between Asians and Jews. In my experience, most Asians treat the PSAT
seriously, but many established Jews do not – the potential scholarship money isn't a factor, "NMS semifinalist" isn't an admissions
distinction, and as Mendy highlighted, colleges don't see the scores.
On a different note, while the "weight" of an Ivy degree is significant, it's prestige is largely concentrated in the Northeast
and among some overseas. In terms of facilitating access and mobility, a USC degree might serve you better in SoCal, as would
an SMU one in TX.
And like J Harlan, I also hope the recent monopoly of Harvard and Yale grads in the presidency will end. No doubt, places like
Whittier College, Southwest Texas State Teachers' College, and Eureka College gave earlier presidents valuable perspectives and
experience that informed their governing.
But thank you, Ron, for a great provocative piece. Very well worth the read.
Hey Ron, your next article should be on the military academies, and all those legacies that go back to the Revolutionary War.
How do you get into the French military academy, and do the cadets trace their family history back to the soldiers of Napoleon
or Charles Martel or whatever?
"Thus, there appears to be no evidence for racial bias against Asians, even excluding the race-neutral impact of athletic recruitment,
legacy admissions, and geographical diversity."
Yes, at UCLA, at least up to 2004, Asian and white admits had nearly identical SATs and GPAs.
Further, it just isn't the case that Asians are so spectacular as people seem to think. Their average on the SAT Verbal is
slightly less than whites, their average on SAT Writing is slightly more. Only in math do they have a significant advantage, 59
points or .59 standard deviation. Total advantage is about .2 over the three tests. Assuming that Harvard or Yale admit students
at +3 standard deviations overall, and plugging the relative group quantiles +(3, 2.8) into a normal distribution, we get that
.14% of white kids would get admitted, versus .26% of Asian kids. Or, 1.85 Asian kids for every one white kid.
But, last year 4.25 times as many whites as Asians took the SAT, so there still should be about 2.28 times as many white kids
being admitted as Asians (4.25/1.85).
On GPA, whites and Asians are also pretty similar on average, 3.52 for Asians who took the SAT, 3.45 for whites who took the
SAT. So that shouldn't be much of a factor.
I am a Cadet at the US Military Academy at West Point and generally pretty familiar with trans-national Academy admissions
processes. There's an excellent comparative study of worldwide military academy admissions that was done in the late '90′s you
might find interesting (IIRC it was done by a group in the NATO Defence College) and I think you will find that although soldiers
are often proud of their family histories to a fault, it is not what controls entrance to the officer corps in most countries.
"Legacy" is definitely meaningless in US Military Academy admissions, although can be very helpful in the separate process
of securing a political appointment to attend the Academy once accepted for admission and in an Army career. West Point is not
comparable to the Ivy League schools in the country, because (ironically) the admissions department that makes those comparisons
lets in an inordinate number of unqualified candidates and ensures our student body includes a wide range of candidates, from
people who are unquestionably "Ivy League material" to those who don't have the intellect to hack it at any "elite" institution.
Prior the changes in admissions policies and JFK ordering an doubling of the size of the Corps of Cadets in the '60′s, we didn't
have this problem. But, I digress. My point is, the Academy admissions system is very meritocratic.
I am a Jewish alum of UPenn, and graduated in the late 90s. That puts me almost a generation ago, which may be before the supposed
Jewish decline you write about. I was in an 80%+ Jewish fraternity, and at least 2/3 of my overall network of friends at Penn
was also Jewish. As was mentioned earlier, I have serious qualms with your methods for counting Jews based upon last name.
Based upon my admittedly non-scientific sample, the percentage of us who had traditionally Jewish last names was well under
half and closer to 25%. My own last name is German, and you would never know I am Jewish based solely upon my name (nor would
you based upon the surname of 3/4 of my grandparents, despite my family being 100% Jewish with no intermarriages until my sister).
By contrast, Asians are much easier to identify based upon name. You may overcount certain names like Lee that are also Caucasian,
but it is highly unlikely that you will miss any Asian students when your criterion is last name.
Admittedly I skimmed parts of the article, but were other criterion used to more accurately identify the groups?
The Jewish presence is definitely understated by just looking at surnames. As is the American Indian.
My maternal grandfather was Ashkenazi and his wife was 1/2 Ashkenazi and 1/4 Apache. He changed his name to a Scots surname
that matched his red hair so as to get ahead as a business man in 20s due to KKK and anti-German feelings at the time. Their kids
had two PHDs and a Masters between them despite their parents running a very blue collar firm.
My surname comes from my dad and its a Scottish surname although he was 1/4 Cherokee. On that side we are members of the FF
of Virignia. Altogether I am more Jewish and American Indian than anything else yet would be classified as white. I could easily
claim to be
Jewish or Indian on admissions forms. I always selected white. I was NMSF.
Both my sister and I have kids. Her husband is a full blood Indian with a common English surname. One of my nieces made NMSF
and another might. My sisters kids do not think of themselves as any race and check other.
My wife is 1/4 Indian and 3/4 English. My kids are young yet one has tested to an IQ in the 150s.
Once you get West of the Appalachians, there are a lot of mutts in the non-gentile whites. A lot of Jews and American Indians
Anglicized themselves a generation or two ago and they are lumped into that group – as well as occupy the top percentile academically.
Interesting article with parts I would agree with but also tinged with bias and conclusions that I would argue are not fully
supported by the data.
I think more analysis is needed to confirm your conclusions. As others have mentioned there may be problems with your analysis
of NMS scores. I think graduate admissions and achievements especially in the math and sciences would be a better measure of intellectual
performance.
Now, I didn't attend an Ivy League school, instead a public university, mainly because I couldn't afford it or so I thought.
I was also a NMS finalist.
But I always was of the opinion that except for the most exceptional students admission to the Ivies was based on the wealth
of your family and as you mentioned there are quite a few affluent Jews so I imagine they do have a leg up. Harvard's endowment
isn't as large as it is by accident.
It is interesting that you didn't discuss the stats for Stanford.
Lastly, I think your solution is wrong. The pure meritocracy is the only fair solution. Admissions should be based upon the
entrance exams like in Asia and Europe.
There are plenty of options for those who don't want to compete and if the Asians dominate admissions at the top schools so
be it.
Hopefully, all of this will be mute point n a few years as online education options become more popular with Universities specializing
in graduate education and research.
Ron Unz on Asians (ie Asian Americans): "many of them impoverished immigrant families"
Why do you twice repeat this assertion. Asians are the wealthiest race and most of the wealthiest ethnic groups tracked by
the Census Bureau, which includes immigrants.
A potentially bigger issue completely ignored by your article is how do colleges differentiate between 'foreign' students
(overwhelmingly Asian) and American students. Many students being counted as "Asian American" are in reality wealthy and elite
foreign "parachute kids" (an Asian term), dropped onto the generous American education system or into boarding schools to study
for US entrance exams, qualify for resident tuition rates and scholarships, and to compete for "American" admissions slots, not
for the usually limited 'foreign' admission slots.
Probably people from non-Asian countries are pulling the same stunt, but it seems likely dominated by Asians. And expect many
more with the passage of the various "Dream Acts"
So American kids must compete with the offspring of all the worlds corrupt elite for what should be opportunities for US Americans.
Am I the only one that finds the comparison of Asians (a race) to Jews (a religion) as basis for a case of discrimination completely
flawed? I got in at Harvard and don't remember them even asking me what my religion was.
The value of diversity is absolutely key. I have a bunch of very good Asian friends and I love them dearly, but I don't believe
a place like CalTech with its 40% demographics cannot truly claim to be a diverse place any more.
Regarding the SAT, we do know more than just differences of averages between whites and Asians. We have some years of
score distributions . As recently
as 1992, 1.2% of whites and 5.1% of Asians scored between 750 and 800 on the math subtest. As recently as 1985, 0.20% of whites
and 0.26% of Asians scored in that range on the verbal/critical reading subtest.
On a different form of the writing subtest than is currently used, 5.0% of whites and 3.0% of Asians scored greater than 60
in 1985. We also know that, as the white-Asian average verbal/critical reading gap shrank to almost nothing and the average math
gap grew in Asians' favor, the standard deviations on both for Asians have been much higher than every other group but have stayed
relatively unchanged and have become, in fact, slightly lower than in 1985.
Therefore, Asians probably greatly increased their share of top performers.
@Milton F.: "Perhaps, by ensuring that "the best" students are not concentrated in only 8 universities is why the depth and
quality of America's education system remains the envy of the world."
Hardly. America's education system is "the envy" because of the ability for minorities to get placement into better schools,
not solely for the education they receive. Only a very select few institutions are envied for their education primarily, 90% of
the colleges and universities across the country are sub-standard education providers, same with high schools.
I would imagine you're an educator at some level, more than likely, at one of the sub-standard colleges or even perhaps a high
school teacher. You're attempting to be defensive of the American education system, when in reality, you're looking at the world
through rose colored glasses. Working from within the system, rather than from the private sector looking back, gives you extreme
tunnel vision. That, coupled with the average "closed mindedness" of educators in America is a dangerous approach to advancing
the structure of the American education system. You and those like you ARE the problem and should be taken out of the equation
as quickly as possible. Please retire ASAP or find another career.
Aside from the complete lack of actual ivy league admission data on jewish applicants, a big problem with unz's "jewish affirmative
action" claim is how difficult such a policy would be to carry out in complete secrecy.
Now, it would be one thing if Unz was claiming that jews are being admitted with similar numbers to non-jewish whites, but
in close cases, admissions staff tend to favor jewish applicants. But he goes much further than that. Unz is claiming that jews,
as a group, are being admitted with lower SAT scores than non-jewish whites. Not only that, but this policy is being carried out
by virtually every single ivy league college and it has been going on for years. Moreover, this preference is so pervasive, that
it allows jews to gain admissions at many times the rate that merit alone would yield, ultimately resulting in entering classes
that are over 20% Jewish.
If a preference this deep, consistent and widespread indeed exists, there is no way it could be the result of subjective bias
or intentional tribal favoritism on the part of individual decision makers. It would have to be an official, yet unstated, admissions
policy in every ivy league school. Over the years, dozens (if not hundreds) of admission staff across the various ivy league colleges
would be engaging in this policy, without a single peep ever leaking through about Jewish applicants getting in with subpar SAT
scores. We hear insider reports all the time about one group is favored or discriminated against (we even have such an insider
account in this comment thread), but we hear nothing about the largest admission preference of them all.
Remember, admissions staffs usually include other ethnic minorities. I couldn't imagine them not wondering why jews need to
be given such a big boost so that they make up almost a quarter of the entering class. Even if every member of every admissions
committee were Jewish liberals, it would still be almost impossible to keep this under wraps.
Obviously, I have never seen actual admission numbers for Jewish applicants, so I could be wrong, and there could in fact be
an unbreakable wall of secrecy regarding the largest and most pervasive affirmative action practice in the country. Or, perhaps,
the ivy league application pool contains a disproportionate amount of high scoring jewish applicants.
As some who is Jewish from the former Soviet Union, and who was denied even to take an entrance exam to a Moscow college,
I am saddened to see that American educational admission process looks more and more "Soviet" nowadays. Kids are denied opportunities
because of their ethnic or social background, in a supposedly free and fair country!
But this is just a tip of the iceberg. The American groupthink of political correctness, lowest common denominator, and political
posturing toward various political/ethnic/religious/sexual orientation groups is rotting this country inside out.
"Similarly, Jews were over one-quarter of the top students in the Physics Olympiad from 1986 to 1997, but have fallen to just
5 percent over the last decade, a result which must surely send Richard Feynman spinning in his grave."
Actually, Richard Feynman famously rejected genetic explanations of Jewish achievement (whether he was right or wrong to
do so is another story), and aggressively resisted any attempts to list him as a "Jewish scientist" or "Jewish Nobel Prize winner."
I am sure he would not cared in the slightest bit how many Jews were participating in the Physics Olympiad, as long as the quality
of the students' work continued to be excellent. Here is a letter he wrote to a woman seeking to include him in a book about Jewish
achievement in the sciences.
Dear Miss Levitan:
In your letter you express the theory that people of Jewish origin have inherited their valuable hereditary elements from their
people. It is quite certain that many things are inherited but it is evil and dangerous to maintain, in these days of little knowledge
of these matters, that there is a true Jewish race or specific Jewish hereditary character. Many races as well as cultural influences
of men of all kinds have mixed into any man. To select, for approbation the peculiar elements that come from some supposedly Jewish
heredity is to open the door to all kinds of nonsense on racial theory.
Such theoretical views were used by Hitler. Surely you cannot maintain on the one hand that certain valuable elements can be
inherited from the "Jewish people," and deny that other elements which other people may find annoying or worse are not inherited
by these same "people." Nor could you then deny that elements that others would consider valuable could be the main virtue of
an "Aryan" inheritance.
It is the lesson of the last war not to think of people as having special inherited attributes simply because they are born
from particular parents, but to try to teach these "valuable" elements to all men because all men can learn, no matter what their
race.
It is the combination of characteristics of the culture of any father and his father plus the learning and ideas and influences
of people of all races and backgrounds which make me what I am, good or bad. I appreciate the valuable (and the negative) elements
of my background but I feel it to be bad taste and an insult to other peoples to call attention in any direct way to that one
element in my composition.
At almost thirteen I dropped out of Sunday school just before confirmation because of differences in religious views but mainly
because I suddenly saw that the picture of Jewish history that we were learning, of a marvelous and talented people surrounded
by dull and evil strangers was far from the truth. The error of anti-Semitism is not that the Jews are not really bad after all,
but that evil, stupidity and grossness is not a monopoly of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general.
Most non-Jewish people in America today have understood that. The error of pro-Semitism is not that the Jewish people or Jewish
heritage is not really good, but rather the error is that intelligence, good will, and kindness is not, thank God, a monopoly
of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general.
Therefore you see at thirteen I was not only converted to other religious views but I also stopped believing that the Jewish
people are in any way "the chosen people." This is my other reason for requesting not to be included in your work.
@Rob Schacter – your last point is basically spot-on. The Ivies are fairly unique in the high proportion of Jewish applicants.
History, geographical bias, and self-selection all play a role. I think the overall preference distortion is probably not as wide
as Unz claims, but you will see similar tilts at Stanford, Northwestern, etc. that reflect different preference distortions.
@Leon, two quick points.
1st – the census tracks by household, which generally overestimates Asian wealth. Many families have three generations and
extended members living in one household (this reflects that many of them work together in a small family business).
2nd – most of the time, it's clear in the application (the HS, personal info, other residency info, etc.) which Asian applicants
are Asian-American and which are "Parachute Kids". But the numbers are much smaller than one might think, and the implication
depends on the school.
At Ivies, parachute kids (both Asian and not) tend to compete with each other in the application pool, and aren't substantially
informing the broader admissions thesis in this article. I'm not saying that's right, just saying it's less material than we might
think.
They more likely skew the admissions equation in great-but-not-rich liberal arts colleges (like Grinnell) and top public universities
(like UCLA), which are both having budget crises and need full fare students, parachute or not. And for the publics, this includes
adding more higher-tuition, out-of-state students, which further complicates assertions of just whose opportunities are being
lost.
I will bring this back to fundraising and finances again, because the broader point is about who is stewarding and creating
access: so long as top universities are essentially run as self-invested feedback loops, and position and resource themselves
accordingly (and other universities have to compete with them), we will continue to see large, persistent discrepancies in who
can participate.
When I applied to Harvard College back in 1976, I was proud of my application essay. In it, I proposed that the US used the
Israeli army as a proxy, just as the Russians were using the Cuban army at the time.
Alas, I wasn't admitted (I did get into Yale, which didn't require free-form essay like that).
This, of course, illustrates the point that coming from an Application Hell instead of from central Illinois helps a student
know how to write applications. It also illustrates what might help explain the mystery of high Jewish admissions: political bias.
Jews are savvier about knowing what admissions officers like to hear (including the black and Latino ones, who as a previous commentor
said aren't likely to be pro-semite). They are also politically more liberal, and so don't have to fake it. And their families
are more likely to read the New York Times and thus have the right "social graces" as we might call them, of this age.
It would be interesting to know how well "true WASPS" do in admissions. This could perhaps be estimated by counting Slavic
and Italian names, or Puritan New England last names. I would expect this group to do almost as well as Jews (not quite as well,
because their ability would be in the lower end of the Legacy group).
The missing variable in this analysis is income/class. While Unz states that many elite colleges have the resources to
fund every student's education, and in fact practice need-blind admissions, the student bodies are skewed towards the very highest
percentile of the income and wealth distribution. SAT scores may also scale with parents' income as well.
Tuition and fees at these schools have nearly doubled relative to inflation in the last 25-30 years, and with home prices in
desirable neighborhoods showing their own hyper-inflationary behavior over the past couple of decades (~15 yrs, especially), the
income necessary to pay for these schools without burdening either the student or parents with a lot of debt has been pushed towards
the top decile of earners. A big chunk of the upper middle class has been priced out. This could hit Asian professionals who may
be self made harder than other groups like Jews who may be the second or third generation of relative affluence, and would thus
have advantages in having less debt when starting their families and careers and be less burdened in financing their homes. Would
be curious to see the same analysis if $$ could be controlled.
I would also like to add that I am a late '80′s graduate of Wesleyan who ceased his modest but annual financial contribution to
the school after reading The Gatekeepers.
If I had a penny for every Jewish American I met (including myself) whose first and last name gave no indication of his religion
or ethnicity, I'd be rich. Oh–and my brother and I have four Ivy League degrees between us.
I almost clicked on a different link the instance I came across the word "elite" , but curiosity forced my hand.
Just yesterday my mom was remarking how my cousin had gotten into MIT with an SAT score far below what I scored, and she finished
by adding that I should have applied to an ivy-league college after high school. I as always, reminded her, I'm too "black for
ivy games".
I always worked hard in school, participated in olympiads and symposiums, and was a star athlete. When it came to applying
for college I found myself startled when forced to "quantify" my achievements in an "application package". I did not do or engage
in these activities solely to boost my chances of gaining admission into some elite college over similarly-hardworking Henry Wang
or Jess Steinberg. I did these things because I loved doing them.
Sports after class was almost a relaxation activity for me. Participating in math olympiads was a way for me to get a scoop
on advanced mathematics. Participating in science symposiums was a chance for me to start applying my theoretical education to
solve practical problems.
The moment I realized I would have to kneel down before some admissions officer and "present my case", outlining my "blackness",
athleticism, hard work, curiosity, and academic ability, in that specific order I should point, in order to have a fighting chance
at getting admitted; is the moment all my "black rage" came out in an internal explosion of rebellion and disapproval of "elite
colleges".
I instead applied to a college that was blind to all of the above factors. I am a firm believer that hard work and demonstrated
ability always win out in the end. I've come across, come up against is a better way to put it, Ivy-league competition in college
competitions and applications for co-ops and internships, and despite my lack of "eliteness" I am confident that my sheer ability
and track record will put me in the "interview candidate" pool.
Finally, my opinion is: let elite schools keep doing what they are doing. It isn't a problem at all, the "elite" tag has long
lost its meaning.
The difficulty with using Jewish sounding last names to identify Jewish students works poorly in two ways today. Not only,
as others have pointed out, do many Jews not have Jewish sounding last names, but there are those, my grandson for example, who
have identifiably Jewish last names and not much in the way of Jewish background.
Interesting reading. The article opens a deceptively simple statistical window into a poorly understood process - a window
which I would guess even the key participants have never looked through. I especially appreciated the insights provided by the
author's examination of Asian surname-frequencies and their over-representation in NMS databases.
Though this is a long and meticulously argued piece, it would have benefited from a more thorough discussion of the statistical
share of legacies and athletic scholarships in elite admissions.
Perhaps, though, it would be better to focus on increasing meritocracy in the broader society, which would inevitably lead
to some discounting of the value of educational credentials issued by these less than meritocratic private institutions.
It is precisely because the broader society is also in many key respects non-meritocratic that the non-meritocratic admissions
practices of elite institutions are sustainable.
Despite the very long and detailed argument, the writer's interpretation of a pro-Jewish admissions bias at Ivy-league schools
is worryingly flawed.
First, he uses two very different methods of counting Jews: name recognition for counting various "objective" measures such
as NMS semifinalists and Hillel stats for those admitted to Harvard. The first is most likely an underestimate while the latter
very possibly inflated (in both cases especially due to the very large numbers of partially-Jewish students, in the many interpretations
that has). I wonder how much of his argument would just go away if he simply counted the number of Jews in Harvard using the same
method he used to count their numbers in the other cases. Would that really be hard to do?
Second, he overlooks the obvious two sources that can lead to such Asian/Jewish relative gaps in admissions. The first is the
different groups' different focus on Science/Math vs. on Writing/Culture. It is very possible that in recent years most Asians
emphasize the former while Jews the latter, which would be the natural explanation to the Caltech vs Harvard racial composition
(as well as to the other stats). The second is related but different and it is the different group's bias in applications: the
same cultural anecdotes would explain why Asians would favor applying to Caltech and Jews to Harvard. A natural interpretation
of the data would be that Jews have learned to optimize for whatever criteria the Ivy leagues are using and the Asians are doing
so for the Caltech criteria.
Most strange is the author's interpretation of how a pro-Jewish bias in admissions is actually put into effect: the application
packets do not have the data of whether the applicant is Jewish or not, and I doubt that most admission officers figure it out
in most cases. While it could be possible for admissions officers to have a bias for or against various types of characteristics
that they see in the data in front of them (say Asian/Black/White or political activity), a systematic bias on unobserved data
is a much more difficult proposition to make. Indeed the author becomes rather confused here combining the low education level
of admissions officers, that they are "liberal arts or ethnic-studies majors" (really?), that they are "progressive", and that
there sometimes is corruption, all together presumably leading to a bias in favor of Jews?
Finally, the author's suggestion for changing admittance criteria is down-right bizarre for a conservative: The proposal is
a centralized solution that he aims to force upon the various private universities, each who can only loose from implementing
it.
Despite the long detailed (but extremely flawed) article, I am afraid that it is more a reflection of the author's biases than
of admissions biases.
Both the article and the comments are illuminating. My takeaways:
1) Affirmative action in favor of blacks and Hispanics is acknowledged.
2) Admissions officers in the Ivy League appear to limit Asian admissions somewhat relative to the numbers of qualified applicants.
3) They may also admit somewhat more Jewish applicants than would be warranted relative to their comparative academic qualifications.
The degree to which this is true is muddled by the difficulty of identifying Jews by surnames, by extensive intermarriage, by
changing demographics within the Jewish population, by geographic factors, and by the propensity to apply in the first place.
4) (My major takeaway.) White Protestants and Catholics are almost certainly the sole groups that are greatly under-represented
relative to their qualifications as well as to raw population percentages.
5) This is due partly to subtle or open discrimination.
6) I would hypothesize that a great many of the white Protestants and Catholics who are admitted are legacies, star athletes,
and the progeny of celebrities in entertainment, media, politics, and high finance. White Protestant or Catholic applicants, especially
from the hinterlands, who don't fit one of these special categories–though they must be a very large component of Mr Unz's pool
of top talent–are out of luck.
7) And everyone seems to think this is just fine.
The inner and outer ring idea seems to me an excellent one, though the likelihood of it happening is next to nil, both because
some groups would lose disproportionate access and because the schools' imprimatur would be diminished in
value.
The larger point, made by several respondents, is that far too many institutions place far too much weight on the credentials
conferred by a small group of screening institutions. The great advantage of the American system is not that it is meritocratic,
either objectively or subjectively. It is that it is–or was–Protean in its flexibility. One could rise through luck or effort
or brains, with credentials or without them, early in life or after false starts and setbacks. And there were regional elites
or local elites rather than, as we increasingly see, a single, homogenized national elite. Success or its equivalent wasn't something
institutionally conferred.
The result of the meritocratic process is that we are making a race of arrogant, entitled overlords, extremely skilled at the
aggressive and assertive arts required to gain admission to, and to succeed in, a few similar and ideologically skewed universities
and colleges; and who spend the remainder of their lives congratulating each other, bestowing themselves on the populace, and
destroying the country.
This article is the product of careful and thoughtful research, and it identifies a problem hiding in plain sight. As a society,
we have invested great trust in higher education as a transformative institution. It is clear that we have been too trusting.
That the admissions policies of elite universities are meritocratic is hardly the only wrong idea that Americans have about
higher education. Blind faith in higher education has left too many people with largely worthless degrees and crushing student-loan
debt.
Of course, the problems don't end with undergraduate education. The "100 reasons NOT to go to grad school" blog offers some
depressing reading:
The higher education establishment has failed to address so many longstanding internal structural problems that it's hard to
imagine that much will change anytime soon.
"I believe that this article raises – and then inappropriately immediately dismisses – the simplest and most likely reason
for the over-representation of Jewish students at Ivy League Schools in the face of their declining bulk academic performance:
They apply to those schools in vastly disproportionate numbers."
Here's the problem with that point. What Ron Unz demonstrates, quite effectively, is that today's Jews simply don't measure
up to either their Asian or their White Gentile counterparts in terms of actual performance when they get into, say, Harvard.
The quite massive difference in the proportions of those groups who get into Phi Beta Kappa renders this quite undeniable. What
is almost certain is that policies that favored Asians and White Gentiles over the current crop of Jewish students would create
a class of higher caliber in terms of academic performance.
If indeed it's true that Jews apply to Harvard in greater numbers, then, if the desire is to produce a class with the greatest
academic potential, some appropriate way of correcting for the consequent distortion should be introduced. Certainly when it comes
to Asians, college admissions committees have found their ways of reducing the numbers of Asians admitted, despite their intense
interest in the Ivies.
One way of understanding Unz's results here might be not so much that today's Jewish student is far less inclined to hard academic
work than those of yesteryear, but rather that others - White Gentiles and Asians - have simply caught up in terms of motivation
to get into elite schools and perform to the best of their abilities.
Certainly among members of the upper middle class, there has been great, and likely increasing, emphasis in recent years on
the importance of an elite education and strong academic performance for ultimate success. This might well produce a much stronger
class of students at the upper end applying to the Ivies.
It may be that not only the Asians, but upper middle class White Gentiles, are "The New Jews".
I don't always agree with, Mr. Unz, but his expositions are always provocative and informative. As far as the criticisms of
his data set go, he openly admits that they are less than ideal. However, the variances are so large that the margin of error
can be excused. Jews are 40 TIMES more likely to be admitted to Harvard than Gentile whites. Asians are 10 times more likely.
Of course, it could be possible that Jews, because of higher average IQs, actually produce 40 times as many members in the upper
reaches of the cognitive elite.
Given Richard Lynn's various IQ studies of Jews and the relative preponderance of non-Jewish and Jewish whites in the population,
however, whites ought to have a 7 to 1 representation vis-a-vis Jews in Ivy League institutions, assuming the IQ cutoff is 130.
Their numbers are roughly equivalent instead.
Because Ivy League admissions have been a hotbed of ethnic nepotism in the past, it seems that special care should be taken
to avoid these improprieties (or the appearance thereof) in the future. But no such safeguards have been put in place. David Brooks
has also struck the alarm about the tendency of elites to shut down meritocratic institutions once they have gained a foothold:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/brooks-why-our-elites-stink.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
Clannish as the WASPs may have been, they were dedicated enough to ideals of fairness and equality that they opened the doors
for their own dispossession. I predict that a new Asian elite will eventually eclipse our Jewish elite. Discrimination and repression
can restrain a vigorously ascendant people but for so long. When they do, it will be interesting to see if this Asian cohort clings
to its longstanding Confucian meritocratic traditions, embodied in the Chinese gaokao or if it too will succumb to the temptation,
ever present in a multiethnic polity, of preferring ethnic kinsmen over others.
Does anyone know how a minority such as the Uighurs fares in terms of elite Chinese university admissions?
This may sound like special-pleading, but it's not clear that full-scale IQ measures are meaningful when assessing and predicting
Jewish performance. Jewish deficits on g-loaded spatial reasoning task may reflect specific visuo-spatial deficits and not deficits
in g. As far as I know, no one doubts that the average Jewish VIQ is at least 112 (and possibly over 120). This score may explain
jewish representation which seems to exceed what would be projected by their full-scale iq scores. Despite PIQ's correllation
to mathematical ability in most populations, we ought also remember that, at least on the WAIS, it is the VIQ scale that includes
the only directly mathematical subtest. We should also note that Jewish mathematicians seem to use little visualization in their
reasoning (cf. Seligman
That said, I basically agree that Jews are, by and large, coasting. American Jews want their children to play hockey and join
'greek life' and stuff, not sit in libraries . It's sad for those of us who value the ivory tower, but understandable given their
stigmatiziation as a nerdish people.
I wonder if it would be at all possible to assess the political biases of admissions counselors at these schools by assessing
the rates at which applicants from red states are admitted to the elite universities. I suppose you would have to know how many
applied, and those data aren't likely to exist in the public domain.
One major flaw with this article's method of determining Jewish representation: distinctive Jewish surnames in no way make
up all Jewish surnames. Distinctive Jewish surnames happen to be held by only 10-12% of all American Jews. In fact, the third
most common American Jewish surname after Cohen and Levy is Miller. Mr. Unz' methodology does not speak well for itself, given
that he's comparing a limited set of last names against a far more carefully scrutinized estimate.
I'm not suggesting his estimate of national merit scholars and the like is off by a full 90%, but he's still ending up with
a significant undercount, possibly close to half. That would still mean Jews may be "wrongfully" over-represented are many top
colleges and universities, but the disproportion is nowhere near as nefarious as he would suggest.
@Nick – the "red state" application and admission rates isn't useful data.
Short answer: There are many reasons for this, but basically, historical momentum and comfort play a much bigger role in where
kids apply than we think. I assure you, far more top Nebraska HS seniors want to be a Cornhusker than a Crimson, even though many
would find a very receptive consideration and financial aid package.
Long answer: 1st, although this article and discussion have been framed in broad racial/cultural terms, the mechanics of college
admissions are mostly local and a bit like athletic recruiting – coverage (and cultivation) of specific regions and districts,
"X" high school historically deliver "X" kinds of candidates, etc. So to the degree we may see broader trends noted in the article
and discussion, some of that is rooted at the HS level and lower.
2nd, in "red states", most Ivy applicants come from the few blue or neutral districts. E.g.: the only 2 Utah HS's that consistently
have applicants to my Ivy alma mater are in areas that largely mirror other high-income, Dem-leaning areas nationwide rather than
the rest of Utah.
3rd, but, with some variation among the schools, the Ivy student body is more politically balanced than usually assumed. Remember,
most students are upper-income, Northeastern suburban and those counties' Dem/Rep ratio is often closer to 55/45 than 80/20.
But to wrap up, ideology plays a negligible role in admissions generally (there's always an exception); they have other fish
to fry (see below).
"Quota against Asians" is not entirely wrong, but it's too strong because it implies the forward intent is about limiting their
numbers.
Put another way, Unz believes the Ivies are failing their meritocractic mission by over-admitting a group that is neither disadvantaged
nor has highest technical credentials; and this comes at the expense of a group that is more often disadvantaged and with higher
technical credentials. The Ivies would likely reply, "well, we define 'meritocractic mission' differently".
That may be a legitimate counter, but it's also what needs more expansion and sunlight.
But Unz' analysis has a broader causation vs correlation gap. Just because admissions is essentially zero-sum doesn't mean
every large discrepancy in it is, even after allowing for soft biases. I've mentioned these earlier in passing, but here are just
a couple other factors of note:
Admissions is accountable for selection AND marketing and matriculation – these are not always complementary forces. Essentially,
you want to maximize both the number and distribution (racial, geographic, types of accomplishment, etc.) of qualified applicants,
but also the number you can safely turn down but without discouraging future applications, upsetting certain stakeholders (specific
schools, admissions counselors/consultants, etc.) or "harming" any data in the US News rankings. And you have a very finite time
to do this, and – not just your competition, but the entire sector – is essentially doing this at the same time. You can see how
an admissions process would develop certain biases over time to limit risks in an unpredictable, high volume market, even if rarely
intended to target a specific group. Ivy fixation (but especially around HYP) is particularly concentrated in the Northeast –
a sample from several top HS' across America (public and private) would show much larger application and matriculation variations
among their top students than would be assumed from Unz's thesis. Different Ivies have different competitors/peers, which influences
their diversity breakdowns – to some degree, they all co-compete, but just as often don't. E.g.: Princeton often overlaps with
Georgetown and Duke, Columbia with NYU and Cooper Union, Cornell with SUNY honors programs because it has some "in state" public
colleges, etc.
There's much more, of course, but returning to Unz's ethnographic thesis, I have this anecdote: we have two friends in finance,
whose families think much of their success. The 1st is Asian, went to Carnegie Mellon, and is a big bank's trading CTO; the 2nd
is Jewish, went to Wharton, and is in private equity.
Put another way, while both families shared a pretty specific vision of success, they differed a lot in the execution. The
upper echelon of universities, and the kinds of elite-level mobility they offer, are much more varied than even 25 years ago.
While the relative role of HYP in our country, and their soft biases in admission, are "true enough" to merit discussion, it's
probably not the discussion that was in this article.
While you may have a point as to the difficulty in some cases of identifying a Jewish surname, the most important thing methodologically
is that the criteria be performed uniformly if one is comparing Jewish representation today vs. that of other periods. I can't
think, for example, of any reason that Cohens or Levys or Golds should be any less well represented today as opposed to many years
ago if indeed there has not been an underlying shift in numbers of Jews in the relevant categories. (Nor, for that matter, should
issues like intermarriage affect the numbers much here - for every mother whose maiden name is Cohen who marries a non-Jew with
a non-Jewish surname, and whose half Jewish child will be counted as non-Jewish, there is, on average, going to be a man named
Cohen who will marry a non-Jew, and whose half Jewish child will be counted as Jewish.)
One might suppose that all this "inequity" and "discrimination" matters if we're keeping score. However, seems to me that too
much emphasis is typically placed on equality whereas real criteria in productive and satisfying lives are neglected. Kind'a like
some people wanting bragging rights as much, if not more, than wanting positive reality.
I guess I just went about my way and lived a pretty god life (so far). Who knows?; maybe those "bragging rights" are meaningful.
Ditto to many comments about the "last name problem", even if its correction weakens but doesn't invalidate the argument. (One
imagines, chillingly, a new sub-field: "Jewish last name theory", seeking to determine proportionalities of classic names validated
against member/donor lists of synagogues and other Jewish organizations.)
Regarding the 20% inner ring suggestion, it suffers from its harsh transition. Consider a randomized derating scheme: a random
number between some lower bound (say 0.90) and 1.00 is applied to each score on the ranked applicant list.
The added noise provides warmth to a cold test scores list. Such an approach nicely captures the directive: "study hard, but
it's not all about the grades".
By adjusting the lower bound, you can get whatever degree of representativeness relative to the application base you want.
That it's a "just a number" (rather than a complex subjectivity-laden labyrinth incessantly hacked at by consultants) could
allow interesting conversations about how it could relate to the "top 1% / bottom 50%" wealth ratio. The feedback loop wants closure.
You missed my point, candid. A relatively small proportion of Jews, intermarried or otherwise, have distinctive Jewish names.
I didn't make that 10-12% figure up. It's been cited in numerous local Jewish population studies and is used in part (but certainly
far from whole) to help estimate those populations. It's also been significantly dragged down over the years as the Jewish population
(and hence the surname pool) has diversified, not just from intermarriage, but in-migration from groups who often lack "distinctive
Jewish surnames" such as Jews from the former Soviet Union. Consider also that for obvious reasons, Hillel, which maintains Jewish
centers on most campus, has an incentive to over-report by a bit. Jewish populations on college campuses in the distant past were
easier to gather, given that it was far less un-PC to simply point blank inquire what religious background applicants came from.
Again, I'm not saying there isn't a downward trend in Jewish representation among high achievers (which, even if one were to
accept Unz's figures, Jews would still be triple relative to were they "should" be). But Unz has made a pretty significant oversight
in doing his calculations. That may happen to further suit his personal agenda, but it's not reality.
This is interesting, but I suspect mostly bogus, based on your not having a decent algorithm for discovering if someone's Jewish.
I'm not sure what exact mechanism you're using to decide if a name is Jewish, but I'm certain it wouldn't have caught anyone,
including myself, in my father's side of the family (Sephardic Jews from Turkey with Turkish surnames), nor my wife's family,
an Ellis Island Anglo name. Or probably most of the people in her family. And certainly watching for "Levi, Cohen and Gold*" isn't
going to do anything.
Isn't the point about Jewish over representation in the Ivy League about absolute numbers?
Yes the Jewish demographic has a higher IQ at 115 to the Goyishe Kop 100 but Jewish people are only 2% of the population so
you have 6 million Jewish people vying with 200 million white Goys for admission to the Ivy League and future control of the levers
of power. That is a 33 times larger Bell curve so the right tail of the Goys' Bell curve is still much larger than the Jewish
Bell curve at IQ levels of 130 and 145, supposedly there are seven times more Goys with IQs of 130 and over 4 times more Goys
with IQs of 145. So why the equality of representation, one to one, Jewish to white Goy in the Ivy Leagues?
Russell K. Nieli on study by Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford (mentioned by Unz):
"When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes
astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as
similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely.
These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade
and Radford surveyed. Their diversity-enhancement value was obviously rated very low."
Having worked with folks from all manner of "elite" and not so elite schools in a technical field, the main conclusion I was
able to draw was folks who went to "elite" colleges had a greater degree of entitlement. And that's it.
If all of the author's suspicions are correct, the most noteworthy takeaway would be that Jewish applicants have absolutely
no idea that they are being given preferential treatment when applying to Ivys.
Not that they think they are being discriminated against or anything, but no Jewish high school student or their parents think
they have any kind of advantage, let alone such a huge one. Someone should tell all these Jews that they don't need to be so anxious!
Also, I know this is purely anecdotal but having gone to an ivy and knowing the numbers of dozens of other Jews who have also
gone, I don't think I have ever witnessed a "surprise" acceptance, where someone got in with a score under the median.
I don't doubt for a minute that it's increasingly difficult for Asian students to get into so-called "elite" universities.
Having grown up in that community, I know a lot of people who were pressured into applying at Harvard and Yale but ended up *gasp*
going to a very good local school. My sarcasm aside, we can't really deny that having Harvard on your CV can virtually guarantee
a ticket to success, regardless of whether or not you were just a C student. It happens.
But what worries me about that is the fact that I know very well how hard Asian families tend to push their children. They
do, after all, have one of the highest suicide rates and that's here in the US. If by some means the Asian population at elite
universities is being controlled, as I suspect it is, that's only going to make tiger mothers push their children even harder.
That's not necessarily a good thing for the child's psyche, so instead of writing a novel here, I'll simply give you this link.
Since the author brought up the subject of Amy Chua and her book, I think it's a pretty fitting explanation of the fears I have
for my friends and their children if this trend is allowed to continue.
As a former admissions staff person at Princeton, I always sigh when I read articles on elite college admissions processes
which build cases on data analysis but which fail to consult with admissions experts on the interpretation of that data.
I am neither an expert in sociology, nor am I a statistician, but I have sat in that chair, reading thousands of essays, and
I have a few observations:
The most selective part of any college's admissions process is the part where students themselves decides whether or not to apply.
Without data on the actual applicant sets, it is, at the least, misleading to attribute incongruities between the overall population's
racial/ethnic/income/what-have-you characteristics and the student bodies' make-ups entirely to the admission decisions. The reality
is that there is always a struggle in the admission offices to compensate for the inequities that the applicant pool itself delivers
to their doorsteps. An experienced admission officer can tell you that applicants from cultures where academics and education
are highly valued, and where the emphasis on a single test is quite high, will generally present with very high SAT scores. Race
does not seem to be correlated, but immigrant status from such a culture is highly correlated. (This may partially explain Unz's
observation of a "decline" in Jewish scores, although I also do not believe that the surname tool for determining which scores
are "Jewish" holds much water.) One of the reasons that such students often fare less well in holistic application processes is
that the same culture that produces the work ethic and study skills which benefit SAT performance and GPA can also suppress activities
and achievement outside of the academic arena. Therefore, to say that these students are being discriminated against because of
race is a huge assumption. The true questions is whether the students with higher test scores are presenting activity, leadership
and community contributions comparable to other parts of the applicant pool which are "overrepresented". All of these articles
seem to miss the point that a freshman class is a fixed size pie chart. Any piece that shrinks or grows will impact the other
slices. My first thought upon reading Unz' argument that the Asian slice shrank was, "What other pieces were forced to grow?"
Forced growth in another slice of the class is the more likely culprit for this effect, much more likely than the idea that all
of the Ivies are systematically discriminating against the latest victim. I could go on and on, but will spare you! My last note
is to educate Mr. Unz on what an "Assistant Director" is in college admissions. Generally that position is equivalent to a Senior
Admission Officer (one step up from entry level Admission Officer), while the head of the office might be the Dean and the next
step down from that would be Associate Deans (not Assistant Directors). So while Michelle Hernandez was an Assistant Director,
she was not the second in charge of Admissions, as your article implies. A minor distinction, but one which is important to point
out so that her expertise and experience, as well as my own, as AN Assistant Director of Admission at Princeton, are not overstated.
A last personal note: During Princeton's four month reading season, I worked 7 days a week, usually for about 14 hours a day,
in order to give the fullest, most human and considerate reading of each and every applicant that I could give. I am sure that
the admission profession has its share of incompetents, corruptible people and just plain jerks, and apparently some of us are
not intelligent enough to judge the superior applicants . . . . But most of us did it for love of the kids at that age (they are
all superstars!), for love of our alma maters and what they did for us, and because we believed in the fairness of our process
and the dignity with which we tried to do it.
The sheer numbers of applicants and the fatigue of the long winters lend themselves to making poor jokes such as the "Night
of 1000 Lee's", but a good dean of admission will police such disrespect, and encourage the staff, as mine did, to read the last
applicant of the day with the same effort, energy and attention paid to the first. We admission folk have our honor, despite being
underpaid and playing in a no-win game with regard to media coverage of our activities. I am happy to be able to speak up for
the integrity of my former colleagues and the rest of the profession.
My own position has always been strongly in the former camp, supporting meritocracy over diversity in elite admissions.
When these Ivy League institutions were first begun in the colonial period, they were not strictly speaking meritocratic. The
prevailing idea was that Christocentric education is the right way to go, both from an eschatological and a temporal perspective,
and the central focus was on building and strengthening family ties. The Catholic institutions of higher learning took on the
vital role of preserving Church tradition from apostolic times and were thus more egalitarian and universalist. The results went
far beyond all expectations.
Nothing lasts forever. Your premise misses the essential point that the economy is for man and not vice-versa.
Many of the statements in this article relating to Jews are rather misleading: for while the Hillel data regarding percentage
of students who self-identify as Jews may be fairly accurate, the numbers the author cites based upon "likely Jewish names" are
a gross under-count of the real numbers, leading to the appearance of a large disparity between the two which, in reality, does
not exist. The reason for the under-count is that a large percentage of American Jews have either Anglicized their family name
or intermarried, resulting in their being mistaken for non-Hispanic whites. Thus, one ends up with incorrect statements such as
"since 2000, the percentage (of Jewish Putnam Fellows) has dropped to under 10 percent, without a single likely Jewish name in
the last seven years". The reality is that Jews, by Hillel's definition of self-identified students, have continued to be prominent
among the Putnam Fellows, US IMO team members, and high scorers in the USA Mathematical Olympiad. I have published a careful analysis
of the true ethnic/racial composition of the very top-performing students in these math competitions from recent years (see, Andreescu
et al. Notices of the AMS 2008; http://www.ams.org/notices/200810/fea-gallian.pdf
). For example, Daniel Kane, a Putnam Fellow in 2002-2006, is 100% of Jewish ancestry; his family name had been Cohen before
it was changed. Brian Lawrence was a Putnam Fellow in 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2011; his mother is Jewish. Furthermore, many of the
non-Jewish Putnam Fellows in recent years are Eastern European or East-Asian foreigners who matriculated to college in the US;
they were not US citizen non-Jewish whites or Asian-Americans, respectively. Rather, my data indicate that in recent years both
Jews and Asians have been 10- to 20-over-represented in proportion to their percentage of the US population among the students
who excel at the highest level in these math competitions. The authors conclusions based upon data from other types of competitions
is likely similarly flawed.
The title of this piece captured me to read what it was all about. What was discussed was admissions into elite colleges as
the only focus on "meritocracy" in America. That leaves the tail of the distribution of high IQ people in America, minus those
that make it into elite colleges, to be ignored, especially those that managed to be admitted to Cal Tech, or MIT, or a number
of other universities where significant intellectual power is admitted and fostered. this seems to further the meme that only
the elite graduates run the nation. They may have an early advantage through connections, but I believe that the Fortune 400 CEO's
are fairly evenly spread across the university world.
(1) Jews are better at verbal IQ, Asians at math. Your measures are all math. That woudl be OK if all else were equal across
time, but especially because Jews care a lot about admissions to Ivies, what we'd expect is that with growing Asian competition
in math/science, Jews would give up and focus their energy on drama/writing/service. I wonder if Jewish kids are doing worse in
music competitions too? Or rather- not even entering any more.
(2) For college numbers, adjustment for US/foreign is essential. How many Asians at Yale are foreign? It could well be that
Asian-Americans are far more under-represented than it seems, because they face quota competition from a billion Chinese and a
billion Indians. Cal Tech might show the same result as the Ivies.
(3) A separate but interesting study would be of humanities and science PhD programs. Different things are going on there,
and the contrast with undergrads and with each other might be interseting.
I also learned that Jews are no longer as prominent in math and science achievement, and that's not surprising to me at
all, because everyone in the elite knows that STEM is for Asians and middle-class kids. Jewish parents have learned that colleges
value sports and "leadership" activities more than raw academic achievement and nerdy activities like math olympiads, and that
the most prestigious careers are value transference activities which don't require science or high-level math.
The higher representation of Jews in the Ivies compared to Asians who have better average academic records compared to Jews
(applicants that is ) in the Ivies is due to the greater eligibility of Jews for preferences of every kind in the Ivies. In a
typical Ivy school like Harvard, at least 60% of the freshman class will disappear because of the vast system of preferences that
exists. There is no doubt that there is racial animus involved despite the denials of the Ivies and other private universities
despite the constant denials involved like that of Rosovsky who happens to be a historian by training. Jews are classified as
white in this country, hence there would presumably greater affinity for them among the white Board of Trustees and the adcom
staff. This is in contrast to Asians who do not share the same culture or body physiogonomy as whites do.
I had read the Unz article and the Andrew Goldman response to it. I just do not agree with Unz with his solutions to this problem.
First of all private schools are not going to give legacy preferences and other kinds of preferences for the simple reason that
it provides a revenue stream. Harvard is nothing but a business just like your Starbucks or Mcdonald's on the corner.
Around the world private universities regarded as nothing but the dumping ground of the children of the wealthy, the famous
and those with connections who cannot compete with others with regards to their talent and ability regardless of what anyone will
say from abroad about the private universities in their own country. Bottomline is in other countries , the privates simply do
not get the top students in the country, the top public school does. People in other countries will simply look askance at the
nonsensical admissions process of the Ivies and other private schools, the system that the Ivies use for admission does not produce
more creative people contrary to its claims.
The Goldman response has more to do with the humanities versus math . My simple response to Andrew Goldman would be this :
a grade of A in Korean history is different from a grade of A in Jewish history, it is like comparing kiwis and bananas. The fast
and decisive way of dealing with this problem is simply to deprive private schools of every single cent of tax money that practices
legacy preferences and other kinds repugnant preferences be it for student aid or for research and I had been saying that for
a long time. I would like to comment on the many points that had been raised here but I have no time.
The solution to a lot of problems would be transparency. I'd love to see the admissions and grade data of even one major university.
Public universities should be required to post publicly the names, SAT scores, and transcripts of every student. Allowing such
posting should be a requirement for admission.
The public could then investigate further if, for example, it turned out that children of state senators had lower SAT scores.
Scholars could then analyze the effect of diversity on student performance.
Of course, already many public universities (including my own, Indiana), post the salaries of their professors on the web,
and I haven't seen much analysis or muckraking come out of that.
One factor hinted at in the article, but really needing to be addressed is the "school" that is being attended.
By this, I mean, you need philosophy students to keep the philosophy department going. When I was in college 20 years ago,
I was a humanities major. I took 1 class in 4 years with an Asian American student. 1 class. When I walked through the business
building, it was about 50% Asian.
Could Asian-American students only wanting to go to Harvard to go into business, science, or math be skewing those numbers?
I don't know, but it's just a thought to put out there.
You are preaching to the choir! I blog on this extensively on my Asian Blog: JadeLuckClub. This has been going on for the last
30 years or more! All my posts are here under Don't ID as Asian When Applying to College:
All private schools basically practice legacy prefrences and other kinds of preferences and this practice has been going on
in the Ivies since time immemorial. The income revenue from these gallery of preferences will certainly not encourage the Ivies
to give them up.
In many countries around the world, private universiites are basically the dumping ground for the children of the wealthy ,
the famous and the well connected who could not get into the top public university of their choice in their own country. This
no different from the Ivies in this country where these Ivies and other private universities are just a corral or holding pen
for the children of the wealthy, the famous and the well connected and the famous who could not compete with others based on their
won talent or ability.
Abroad you have basically 3 choices if you could not get into the top public university of that country , they are:
Go to a less competetive public university
Go to a private university
or go abroad to schools like the Ivies or in other countries where the entrance requirements to a public or private university
are less competetive compared to the top public universities in your own home country.
You can easily tell a top student from another country, he is the guy who is studying in this country under a government scholarship
( unless of course it was wrangled through corruption ). the one who is studying here through his own funds or through private
means is likely to be the one who is a reject from the top public university in his own country. That is how life works.
I am generally satisfied with the data that Ron provided about Jews compared to Asians where Jews are lagging behind Asians
at least in grades and SAT scores in the high school level, from the data I had seen posted by specialized schools in NY like
Stuy , Bronx Sci, Brook Tech, Lowell (Frisco ) etc.
Ron is correct in asserting that the Ivies little represents the top students in this country. Compare UCLA and for example.
For the fall 2011 entering freshman class at UCLA , there were 2391 domestic students at UCLA compared to 1148 at Harvard who
scored above 700 in the Math portion of the SAT and there were 439 domestic students who scored a perfect 800 in the Math portion
of the SAT at UCLA, more than Harvard or MIT certainly. For the fall 2012 freshman classs at UCLA the figure was 2409 and 447
respectively.
We can devise a freshman class that will use only income, SATS,grades as a basis of admissions that will have many top students
like UCLA has using only algorithms.
The central test of fairness in any admissions system is to ask this simple question. Was there anyone admitted under that
system admitted over someone else who was denied admission and with better grades and SAT scores and poorer ? If the answer is
in the affirmative, then that system is unfair , if it is in the negative then the system is fair.
I like the comments from Chales Hale. (Nov. 30, 2012) He says: "Welcome to China". It said all in three words. All of these
have been experienced in China. They said there is no new things under the sun. History are nothing but repeated, China with its
5000 years experienced them all.
I meant that there were 439 domestic students in the fall 2011 freshman class at UCLA and 447 domestic students in the fall
2012 freshman class at UCLA who scored a perfect score of 800 in the Math portion of the SAT. In either case it is bigger than
what Harvard or MIT has got.
In fact for the fall 2011 of the entire UC system there were more students in the the freshman class of the entire UC system
who scored above 700 in the Math portion of the SAT than the entire fall 2011 freshman of the Ivy League (Cornell not included
since it is both a public and a private school )'
As I mentioned earlier there were 2409 domestic students in the fall 2012 UCLA freshman class who scored above 700 in the Math
portion of the SAT. We know that Harvard had only 1148 domestic students in its fall 2011 freshman class who scored above 700
in the Math portion of the SAT, why would Harvard ever want to have that many top students like Berkeley or UCLA have ? The answer
to that is simple , it has to do with money. For every additional student that Harvard will enroll it would mean money being taken
out of the endowment .
Since the endowment needs constant replenishment. Where would these replenishment funds come from ? From legacies,from the
children of the wealthy and the famous etc. of course . It would mean more legacy admits, more children of the wealthy admitted
etc.
That would mean that the admission rate at Harvard will rise, the mean SAT score of the entering class will be no different from
the mean SAT scores of the entering freshman classes of Boston University and Boston College
down the road. With rising admission rates and lower mean SAT scores for the entering freshman class that prospect will not prove
appetizing or appealing to the applicant pool.
Harvard ranks only 8th after Penn State in the production of undergrads who eventually get Doctorates in Science and Engineering.
Of course Berkeley has the bragging rights for that kind of attribute.
In the scenario I had outlined above, it would mean that the mean SAT score of the Harvard freshman class will actually go
down if it tried to increase the size of its freshman class and that kind of prospect ia unpalatable to Harvard and that is the
reason as to why it wants to maintain its current " air of exclusivity ".
There is another way of looking at the quality of the Harvard student body. The ACM ICPC computer programming competition is
regarded as the best known college competition among students around the world , it is a grueling programming marathon for 2 or
3 days presumably. Teams from universities around the world vie to win the contest that is dubbed the "Battle of the Brains "
What is arguably sad is that Ivy schools, Stanford and other private schools teams fielded in the finals of the competition are
basically composed of foreign students or foreign born students and foreign born coaches.
The University of Southern California team in this competition in its finals section was made up of nothing but foreign Chinese
students and a Chinese coach. The USC team won the Southern California competition to win a slot in the finals. Apparently they
could not find a domestic student who could fill the bill. However the USC team was roundly beaten by teams from China and Asia,Russia
and Eastern Europe. The last time a US team won this competition was in 1999 by Harvey Mudd, ever since the US had gone downhill
in the competition with the competition being dominated by China and Asia and by countries from Eastern Europe and Russia. Well
I guess USC's strategy was trying to fight fire with fire (Chinese students studying in the US versus Chinese students from the
Mainland ), and it failed.
Thank you Mr. Unz for scratching the surface of the various forms of corruption surrounding elite college admissions. I hope
that your next article further discusses the Harvard Price (and Yale Price and Brown Price etc). The recent press surrounding
the Hong Kong couple suing the person they had retained to pave their children's way into Harvard indicates the extent of the
problem. This Hong Kong couple just were not savvy enough to lay their money down where it would produce results.
Additionally, a discussion of how at least some North Eastern private schools facilitate the corrupt process would be illuminating.
Finally, a more thorough discussion of whether the Asian students being admitted are US residents or nationals or whether they
are foreign citizens would also be worth while and reveal. I suspect, an even lower admit percentage for US resident citizens
of Asian ethnicity.
For these schools to state that their acceptances are need blind is patently untrue and further complicates the admissions process
for students who are naive enough to believe that. These schools should come clean and just say that after the development admits
and the wealthy legacy admits spots are purchased, the remaining few admits are handed out in a need blind fashion remembering
that many of admit pools will already be filled by the development and wealthy legacy admits resulting in extraordinarily low
rates for certain non-URM type candidates (I estimate in the 1% range).
"By contrast, a similarly overwhelming domination by a tiny segment of America's current population, one which is completely
misaligned in all these respects, seems far less inherently stable, especially when the institutional roots of such domination
have continually increased despite the collapse of the supposedly meritocratic justification. This does not seem like a recipe
for a healthy and successful society, nor one which will even long survive in anything like its current form."
I completely agree that it is not healthy for one tiny segment of our population to basically hold all the key positions in
every major industry in this country. If Asians or Blacks (who look foreign) all of a sudden ran education, media, government,
and finance in this country, there would be uproar and resistance. But because Jewish people look like the majority (whites),
they've risen to the top without the masses noticing.
But Jewish people consider themselves a minority just like blacks and Asians. They have a tribal mentality that causes stronger
ethnic nepotism than most other minority groups. And they can get away with it because no one can say anything to them lest they
be branded "jew-hunters" or "anti-semists."
The question is, "where do we go from here?" True race-blind meritocracy will never be instituted on a grand scale in this
country both in education and in the work force. One group currently controls most industries and the only way this country will
see more balance is if other groups take more control. But if one group already controls them all and controls succession plans,
how will there ever be more balance?
If Jews become presidents or regents of universities, that's a credit to their ability. Nothing sinister there.
But when Jews (or anyone) buy into an institution to create the 'Goldman School of Business', or when they give large donations,
that is not a credit to anyone's ability and there may well be something sinister there.
It is no secret that corporations and individuals look for influence, if not control, in return for cash. The same thinking
can easily affect admissions policy.
It's always the same. In spite of all the jingoism about "democracy" and "freedoms" and the "free market capitalist system",
the trail of money obfuscates and corrupts. It is still very true that whoever pays the piper, calls the tune. And naive to believe
otherwise.
How recent was it that Princeton cancelled its anti-Semitism classes for lack of participation, and at least one Jewish organisation
was screaming that Princeton would never get another penny from any Jew, ever.
That is close to absolute control of a curriculum. I give you money, and you teach what I want you to teach.
How far is that from I give you money and you admit whom I want you to admit? Or from I give you money and you hire whom I
want?
A university that is properly funded by the government – "the people" – doesn't have these issues because there is nothing
you can buy.
Operating educational institutions as a business, just like charities and health care, will always produce this kind of corruption.
Two other points:
1. It occurred to me that the lowly-paid underachiever admissions officers might well have been mostly Jewish, and hired for
that reason, and that in itself could skew the results in a desired manner.
2. I think this is a serious criticism of the othewise excellent article:
At the end, Ron Unz wants us to believe that a $30-billion institution, the finest of its kind in the world, the envy of the
known universe and beyond, the prime educator of the world's most prime elites, completely abandons its entire admissions procedures,
without oversight or supervision, to a bunch of dim-witted losers of "poor human quality" who will now choose the entire next
generation of the nation's elites. And may even take cash payments to do so.
Come on. Who are you kidding? Even McDonald's is smarter than this.
Some of the comments suggest major problems with estimating who is Jewish. But the authors information is underpinned by data
collected by Jewish pressure groups for the purpose of ensuring the gravy train keeps flowing. It's either their numbers, or the
numbers are consistent with their numbers.
This article, to me, is shocking and groundbreaking. I don't think anyone has gone this in-depth into this biased and un-meritocratic
system. This is real analysis based on real numbers.
Why is this not getting more coverage in the media? Why are people so afraid to talk about this?
There is an excellent analysis of this article at The Occidental Observer by Kevin MacDonald, "Ron Unz on the Illusory
American Meritocracy". The MSM is ignoring Unz's article for obvious reasons.
I don't know if there's any truth behind the idea that Japanese Americans have become lazy relative to their Korean and Chinese
counterparts. I've grew up in Southern California, a part of the country with a relatively high percentage of Japanese Americans,
yet I've know very few other Japanese Americans in my life. I can recall one Japanese American classmate in jr. high, and one
Japanese classmate in my high school (who returned to Japan upon graduating). Even at the UC school I attended for undergrad,
I was always the only Japanese person in the every class, and the Japanese Student Association, already meager in numbers, was
almost entirely made up of Japanese International students who were only here for school.
If, in fact, 1% of California is made up of Japanese Americans, I suspect they are an aging population. I also think many 2nd
and 3rd generation Japanese Americans are only partially Japanese, since, out of necessity, Japanese Americans have a very high
rate of out marriage.
The carefully researched article makes a strong case that there is some discrimination against Asian-Americans at the Ivy League
schools.
On the other hand, I don't see how a percentage of 40-60% Asian-Americans at the selective UC schools, even given the higher
percentage of Asian-Americans in California, does not perhaps reflect reverse discrimation, or at least affirmative action on
their behalf. To be sure one way or the other, we would have to see their test scores AND GPA, apparently the criteria that the
UC schools use for admission, considered as well in the normalization of this statistical data.
The replies to date make some good points but also reflect precisely the biases pointed out in the article as likely causing
the discussed distortions.
1) use of name data in achievement vs use of Hillel data for Ivy admits: definitely an issue but is this only one of the measures
used in this study. Focusing only on this obscures the fact that Jewish enrollment as measured over time by Hillel numbers (apples
to apples) increased significantly over the past decade while the percent of Jewish high school age students relative to other
groups declined. One explanation for this surge could be that Jewish students became even more academically successful than they
have been in the past. The achievement data using Jewish surnames is used to assess this thesis in the absence of other better
data. Rejecting the surname achievement data still leaves a huge enrollment surge over time in Jewish attendance at the Ivies
relative to their percentage of the population.
2) many comments accept that the numbers show disproportionate acceptance and enrollment growth but simply then go on to assert
that Jewish students really are smarter (absolutely or in gaming the system) relying on anecdotal evidence that is not at all
compelling. All definitions of "smarter" contain value judgments". Back in the '20s the argument was that the Ivies should rely
more on objective testing to remove bias against the then high testing Jewish students; now the writers argue conveniently wthat
the new subjective tests that are applied to disproportionately admit Jewish students over higher scoring Asians and non-Jewish
Caucasians are better measures. In both cases, there is still an issue of using a set of factors that disproportionately favors
one group. In all such cases of significant disproportionate admits, the choice of the factors used to definemmerit and their
application should be carefully evaluated for bias. The burden of proof should shift to those defending the status quo in this
situation. In any event, it is clear that given the large applicant pool, there is no shortage of non-Jewish caucasians and Asians
who are fully qualified, so if the desire was there for a balanced entering class, the students are available to make it happen
3) the numbers don't break down admissions between men and women. When my child was an athletic recruit to Harvard, we received
an ethnic breakdown of the prior year's entering class. I was surprised to discover that the Caucasian population skewed heavily
male and the non-white/Asian population skewed heavily female. It seemed that Harvard achieved most of its ethnic diversity that
year by admitting female URMs, which made being a Caucasian female the single most underrepresented group relative to its percentage
in the school age population. I'm curious if this was an anomaly or another element of bias in the admissions process.
I will note that there is one flaw in this whole argument, and that flaw is thus:
Harvard and Yale aren't the best universities in the country. As someone who went to Vanderbilt, I knew people who had been
to those universities, and their evaluation was that they were no better – and perhaps actually worse – than Vanderbilt, which
is "merely" a top 25 university.
While there is a great deal of, shall we say, "insider trading" amongst graduates of those universities, in actuality they
aren't actually the best universities in the country today. That honor probably goes to MIT and Caltech, which you note are far
more meritocratic. But most of the other best universities are probably very close in overall level, and some of them might have
a lot of advantages over those top flight universities.
Or to put it simply, the Ivy League ain't what it used to be. Yeah, it includes some of the best universities in the country,
but there are numerous non-Ivy League universities that are probably on par with them. This may indeed be in part a consequence
of some of what you have described in the article, as well as a sense of complacency.
I suspect that in twenty or thirty years a lot of Ivy League graduates are going to feel a lot less entitled simply because
there has been an expansion of the top while they weren't paying attention.
I'm against the Ivies going up to 30-50% Asian but I'm also against the over-representation of a tiny minority group. This
country is going to go downhill if we continue to let one group skirt a fair application process just because they possess money
and influence. Who will stand up for fairness and equality?
Many of those commenting above don't seem to be picking up on Unz's evidence of bias against white Gentiles, which by meritocratic
measures is far worse than the bias against Asian Americans.
A drop of 70 PERCENT??? What's going on? Why is so much of the discussion that this article has spawned focused only on Asian
Americans and (secondarily) Jews?
National Merit Scholarship semifinalists are chosen based on per-state percentiles.
What this means is that NMS semifinalist numbers would be skewed _against_ a high-performing demographic group to the extent
that group's demographics concentrate geographically. Mr. Unz acknowledges that geographical skewing of Jewish populations is
huge. However, he ignores its effect on the NMS semifinalist numbers he uses as a proxy for academic performance on a _national_
level to predict equitable distributions at _national_ universities.
Please somebody explain to me how this oversight isn't fatal to his arguments
Surely the author must be aware that approximately half the children with "Jewish" names are not fully Jewish. Over half of
the marriages west of the Mississippi are reportedly mixed. Many non-Jews have last names that start with "Gold". Just these two
facts make the entire analysis ridiculous. Hillel does not keep statistics on how Jewish a student is, while many of Levys and
Cohens are not actually Jewish. What would we call Amy Chua's daughters? Jewish or Asian? It is therefore impossible to tease
out in a multi-racial society who is who.
I am an elementary school teacher at a Title One school in northern California. I supported your "English for the Children"
initiative when it was introduced.
However, the law of unintended consequences has kicked in, and what exists now is not at all what you (or anyone else, for that
matter) had intended.
The school day was not lengthened to create a time slot for English language instruction. Instead, history and science classes
were elbowed aside to make way for mediocre English language instruction. These usually worthless classes have crowded out valuable
core academic instruction for English language learners.
To make matters worse, while English language learners are in ESL classes, no academic instruction in science or history can
be given to "regular" students because that would lead to issues of "academic inequity." In other words, if the Hispanic kids
are missing out on history, the black kids have to miss out on it, too.
As a teacher, I hope you will once again consider bringing your considerable talents to focus on the education of low-income
minority children in California.
Could it be that the goal of financial, rather than academic, achievement, makes many young people uninterested in
competing in the science and math competitions sought out by the Asian students? I wonder about the different percentages
of applicants to medical school versus law or business.
I must also add that I am surprised that the author used the word "data" as singular, rather than plural. Shouldn't he be stating
that the data ARE, not IS; or SHOW, not SHOWS.
The author perhaps pays an incredible amount of attention to those with strengths in STEM fields (Science, technology, engineering,
and math), even though the proportion of all native-born white students majoring in these fields has plummetted in recent decades.
That means that he overlooks a shift in what kinds of training is considered "prestigious," and that this might be reflected in
the pursuits of students in high school. Perhaps there is a movement away from Jewish students' focus on Math Olympiad because
they are in no way interested in majoring in math or engineering fields, instead preferring economics or business. Is that the
fault of the students, or of the rewards system that corporate America has set up?
Jobs in STEM fields pay considerably less than do jobs in numerous professions - investment banking and law. So that is why
~ 40% of the Harvard graduating class - including many of its Jewish students - pursue that route. But to rely on various assessments
of math/science/computing as the measure of intelligence fails to incorporate how the rewards structure in our society has changed
over time.
I teach at an Ivy League university, and believe that many of the authors' arguments have merit, but there are also many weaknesses
in his argument. He sneers at Steinberg and the other sociologists he cites for not quite getting how society has changed - but
he clearly doesn' tunderstand how other aspects of our society have changed. Many of our most talented undergrads have no desire
to pursue careers in STEM fields. Entrance into STEM jobs even among those who majored in those fields is low, and there is very
high attrition from those fields, among both men and women. Young adults and young professionals are voting with their feet. While
our society might be better off with more Caltech grads and students interested in creating our way to a better future rather
than pursuing riches on wall street, one cannot fault students for seeking to maximize their returns on their expensive education.
That's the system we have presented them with, at considerable cost to the students and their families.
Personally, what I found profoundly disturbing is not the overrepresentation of Jewish students or the large presence of Asians
who feel they are discriminated against, but the fact that Ivy League schools have not managed to increase their representation
of Blacks for the last 3 decades. We all compete for the same talent pool. And until the K-12 system is improved, Black representation
won't increase without others screaming favoritism. The other groups - high performing Asians, middle class Jews - will do fine,
even if they don't get into Ivy League schools but have to "settle" for elite private schools. But if the Ivy Leagues are the
pathway to prestige and power, than we're not broadening our power base enough to adequately reprewsent the demographic shifts
reshaping our nation. more focus on that, please.
I've been an SAT tutor for a long time in West Los Angeles (a heavily Asian city), and I feel that at least some of Asians'
over-representation in SAT scores and NMS finalists is due to Asian parents putting massive time and money into driving their
children's success in those very statistics.
In my experience, Asian parents are more likely than other parents to attempt to ramrod their kids through test prep in order
to increase their scores. For example, the few students I've ever had preparing for the PSAT - most students prepare only for
the SAT - were all Asian.
Naturally, because it's so strange to be preparing for what is supposed to be a practice test, I asked these parents why their
9th or 10th grade child was in this class, and the answer was that they wanted to do well on the PSAT because of its use in the
NMS! Similarly, many Asian immigrants send their children to "cram school" every day after regular school lets out (and I myself
have taught SAT at one of these institutions), essentially having their students tutored in every academic subject year-round
from early in elementary school.
Because whites are unlikely to do this, it would seem to me that the resulting Asian academic achievement is analogous to baseball
players who use steroids having better stats than baseball players who do not.
It seems reasonable that the "merit" in "meritocracy" need not be based solely on test scores and grades, and that therefore
a race-based quota system is not the only conclusion that one can draw from a decrease in the attendance rate of hard-driving
test-preppers. Maybe the university didn't want to fill its dorms with grade-grubbers who are never seen because they're holed
up in the library 20 hours a day, and grade-grubbers just happen to be over-represented in the Asian population?
Unz's piece analyzes only the data that lead up to college - when the Asian parents' academic influence over their children
is absolute - whereas the Ivy League schools he criticizes are most concerned with what their students do during and after college.
Is the kid who went to cram school his entire life as likely to join student organizations? To continue practicing his four instruments
once his mom isn't forcing him to take lessons 4 days a week? To start companies and give money to his university? Or did he just
peak early because his parents were working him so hard in order to get him into that college?
However, the remedies considered are not. It is silly to believe that all abilities can be distilled into a small set of numbers,
and anyway, no one knows what abilities will succeed in marketplaces. The source of the problem is the lack of competition in
education, including higher education, a situation written in stone by current accreditation procedures. The solution to the problem
is entry. Remember Brandeis U? With sufficient competition, colleges could take whomever they pleased, on whatever grounds, and
everyone would get a chance.
Concerning the drop in non-Jewish white enrollment:
I am a recent graduate of a top public high school, where I was a NMS, individual state champion in Academic Decathlon, perfect
ACT score, National AP Scholar, etc. etc. Many of my friends – almost exclusively white and Asian – had similar backgrounds and
were eminently qualified for Ivy. None of us even applied Ivy, let alone considered going there. Why? At $60,000/yr, the cost
is simply not worth it, since none of us would have been offered anything close to substantial financial aid and our parents were
unable/unwilling to fully fund our educations. Meanwhile, my Asian friends applied to as many Ivies as they could because it was
understood that (a) their parents would foot the bill if they got in or (b) they would take on a large debt load in order to do
it.
This article discounts financial self-selection, which (at least based on my own, anecdotal evidence) is more prevalent than
we tend to think.
The author ignores the role that class plays in setting kids up for success. At one point he notes, "Given that Asians
accounted for just 1.5 percent of the population in 1980 and often lived in relatively impoverished immigrant families. . ."
When I was at Harvard in the mid-1980s, there were two distinct groups of Asian students: children of doctors, academics, scientists
and businesspeople who came from educated families in China, Korea and Vietnam, and therefore grew up with both strong educational
values and parental resources to push them; and a much smaller group of kids from Chinatown and Southeast Asian communities,
whose parents were usually working class and uneducated. The second group were at a severe disadvantage to the first, who were
able to claim "diversity" without really having to suffer for it.
I would expect you'd see the same difference among higher-caste educated South Asian Brahmins and Indians from middle and
lower castes or from places like Guyana. It is ridiculous to put South Asians and East Asians in the same category as "Asian."
They have different cultural traditions and immigration histories. Ask any Indian parent what race they are and they'll answer
"Caucasian." Grouping them without any kind of assessment of how they might be different undermines the credibility of the
author.
The takeaway is not that affirmative action is damaging opportunities for whites, but that whites are losing against Asians.
The percentage of Hispanic and Black students at leading schools is still tiny. Hence, if invisible quotas for Asians are lifted,
there will be far fewer white students at these schools. This isn't because of any conspiracy, but because white students are
scoring lower than the competition on the relevant entry requirements. I would love to see an article in this publication titled,
"Why White Students Are Deficient." How about some more writing about "The White Student Achievement Gap?"
As parents of 2 HYP grads, We can tell you from experience that Asian students are not under-represented in the Ivies today.
(In fact, I think they are slightly over represented, for the same reasons and stats the author cited).
True, if one looks at stats, such as SAT, scientific competition awards etc, it seems to imply that a +35% enrollment of Asian
students is warranted. However, these indicators are just a small part of a "holistc" approach in predicting the success of a
candidate not only in the next 4 years, but the individual's success in life and be able to impact and contribute to society later.
I have seen candidates of Asian background, who score almost full mark in SAT but was less than satisfactory in all other aspects
of being a potential achiever in life.
Granted, if one wants to be an achiever in science and technology, by all means go with Caltech and MIT. But if one wants an
real "education" and be a leader later on in life, one has to have other qualities as well (skin color is NOT one of them). Of
course, history, and current cultural and political climate may influence the assessment of such qualities because it is highly
subjective. (Is is unfair to pick a pleasant looking candidate over a lesser one, if the rest are the same?)
That is why an interview with the candidates is a good way to assess a potential applicant. I always encourage my children
to conduct interviews locally for their alma mater.
I just hope that the Ivies do not use this holistic approach to practice quota policies.
Here's a quote from a friend just today about this related topic: "Just like the Catholic church in the middle ages recruited
the smartest peasants in order to forestall revolutionary potential, and to learn mind bending religious dogma to befuddle the
remaining peasants, current practice is much the same. To twist Billy Clinton's mantra, "its the economy stupid", No ,"its the
co opted brains"! "
We can substitute economics dogma to the befuddlement mix. The bottom line is every ruling elite has co-opted the top 1%-5%
of high wage earners, to make the pyramid work. Sociology writing is all over this. Veblen, Weber, etc. We can see this little
group created everywhere minerals or natural resources are coveted by private empires.
The universities are doing exactly what they are supposed to do to protect the interests of the Trustees and Donors who run
them for a reason. They are a tool of, not a cause of, the inequality and over-concentration. It is interesting how the story
goes into hairsplitting and comparing Asians to others, etc. But, the real story is a well understood sociology story. This article
explains why Napoleon established free public education after the French Revolution.
This is a fascinating article. So much data. So many inferences. It's hardly surprising to any parent of high school students
that college admissions are only marginally meritocratic. Whether that's a good a thing or a bad thing is an open question. I
think meritocracy has a place in college admissions. But not the only place. Consider athletics, which are themselves almost exclusively
meritocratic. Only the best among the best are offered Division I scholarships. The same, I think, applies to engineering schools,
the physical sciences, and (to a lesser degree), elite law schools. It also applies to auto-mechanics, plumbers, and electricians.
Regarding the humanities (a field in which I hold a PhD), not so much. I think Unz's beef is less with admissions policies per
se (which I agree are mind-bogglingly opaque) than with the status of elite institutions. I also think, and I may be wrong, that
Unz appears heading down the Bobby Fisher highway, intimating that those pesky Jews are
America never promised success through merit or equality. That is the American "dream." America promises freedom of
religious belief and the right to carry a gun.
This is a fascinating and extremely important article which I am very eager to discuss privately with the author, having spent
my whole life in higher education, albeit with a unique perspective. I was flabbergasted the findings about Jewish and non-Jewish
white representation, and intrigued, all the more so since my own ancestry is evenly divided between those two groups. I do want
to make one criticism, however of something the author said about the 1950s which I do not think is correct.
At one point in the article the author makes the claim that the breakdown of Ivy League Jewish quotas in the 1950s reflected
the power of Jews in the media and Hollywood. The statistics he gives about their representation there may be correct, but the
inference, I believe, is unsustainable. The Proquest historical database includes the Washington Post, New York Times, and many
other major newspapers. I did a search for "Harvard AND Jewish AND quota" for the whole period 1945-65 and it turned up only 20
articles, not one of which specifically addressed the issue of Jewish quotas at Harvard and other Ivy League schools. The powerful
Jews of that era had reached their positions by downplaying their origins–often including changes in their last names–and they
were not about to use their positions overtly on behalf of their ethnic group. (This could be, incidentally, another parallel
with today's Asians.) Those quotas were broken down, in my opinion, because of a general emphasis on real equality among Americans
in those decades, which also produced the civil rights movement. The Second World War had been fought on those principles.
I could not agree more that the admissions policies of the last 30 years have produced a pathetic and self-centered elite that
has done little if any good for the country as a whole.
It is really refreshing to see in print what we all know by experience, but I have to wonder out loud, what is our higher purpose?
Surely, you have a largely goal than merely exposing corruption in the academy. Lastly, I have to wonder out loud, how would the
predicament of the working class fit into your analysis? I thank you for this scathing indictment of higher ed that has the potential
to offer us a chillingly sobering assessment.
This is why we need to reinstate a robust estate tax or "death tax" as conservatives derisively call it. To break the aristocracy
described in this article. No less than Alexis de Tocqueville said that the estate tax is what made America great and created
a meritocracy (which now is weaker and riddled with loopholes, thus the decline of America). Aristocracies dominated Europe for
centuries because they did not tax the inheritance.
The day when I learned so many Chinese ruling class' offspring are either alumni or current students of Harvard (the latest
example being Bo GuaGua), it was clear to me Harvard's admission process is corrupt. How would any ivy college determine "leadership"
quality? Does growing up in a leader's family give you more innate leadership skills? Harvard obviously thinks so.
Therefore, it's not surprising that Ron said the following on this subject. " so many sons and daughters of top Chinese leaders
attend college in the West ..while our own corrupt admissions practices get them an easy spot at Harvard or Stanford, sitting
side by side with the children of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and George W. Bush." I hope world peace will be obtained within reach
in this approach.
The chilling factor is a hardworking Chinese immigrant's child in the U.S. would have less chance of getting into ivies than
these children of privileged.
It was also very disappointing to see another Asian parent whose children are HYP alumni saying too many Asians in ivies, despite
the overwhelming evidence showing otherwise.
Perhaps it's to be expected given the length of the article (over 22,000 words), but so many of the objections and "oversights"
raised in the comments are in fact dealt with – in detail and with a great deal of respect – by Unz in the article itself.
For example, this:
National Merit Scholarship semifinalists are chosen based on per-state percentiles.
What this means is that NMS semifinalist numbers would be skewed _against_ a high-performing demographic group to the extent
that group's demographics concentrate geographically. Mr. Unz acknowledges that geographical skewing of Jewish populations
is huge. However, he ignores its effect on the NMS semifinalist numbers he uses as a proxy for academic performance on a _national_
level to predict equitable distributions at _national_ universities.
Please somebody explain to me how this oversight isn't fatal to his argument
because geographical skewing of Asian populations is also huge, yet we don't witness the same patterning in admissions data
pertaining to Asian students. As the article states: "Geographical diversity would certainly hurt Asian chances since nearly half
their population lives in just the three states of California, New York, and Texas."
Unz goes on to note: "Both groups [Jews and Asians] are highly urbanized, generally affluent, and geographically concentrated
within a few states, so the 'diversity' factors considered above would hardly seem to apply; yet Jews seem to fare much better
at the admissions office."
So there's your answer.
And aside from the fact that your "basic question" has a very simple answer, it's just ludicrous in any case to suggest that
the validity of the entire article rests on a single data point.
There is no doubt this is more of a political issue than the academic one. If only merit is considered then asian american
would constitute as much as 50% of the student population in elite universities. Politically and socially this is not a desired
outcome. Rationale for affirmative action for the african americans and hispanics is same – leaving a large population is in elite
institution is not desired, it smacks of segregation.
But the core issue remains unsolved. Affirmative action resulted in higher representation but not the competitiveness of the
blacks. I am afraid whites are going the similar path.
Anyone famliar with sociology and the research on social stratification knows that meritocracy is a myth; for example,
if one's parents are in the bottom decile of the the income scale, the child has only a 3% chance to reach the top decile in his
or her lifetime. In fact, in contrast to the Horatio Alger ideology, the U.S. has lower rates of upward mobility than almost any
other developed country. Social classses exist and they tend to reproduce themselves.
The rigid class structure of the the U.S. is one of the reasons I support progressive taxation; wealth may not always be
inherited, but life outcomes are largely determined by the class position of one's parents. In this manner, it is also a myth
to believe that wealth is an individual creation;most financially successful individuals have enjoyed the benefits of class privilege:
good and safe schools, two-parent families, tutors, and perhaps most important of all, high expecatations and positive peer socialization
(Unz never mentions the importants of peeer groups, which data show exert a strong causal unfluence on academic performance).
And I would challenge Unz's assertion that many high-performing Asians come from impovershed backgrounds: many of them
may undereport their income as small business owners. I believe that Asian success derives not only from their class background
but their culture in which the parents have authority and the success of the child is crucual to the honor of the family. As they
assimilate to the more individualist American ethos, I predict that their academic success will level off just as it has with
Jews.
1. HYP are private universities: the success of their alumni verifies the astuteness of their admissions policies.
2. Mr. Unz equates "merit" with "academic". I wonder how many CalTech undergrads would be, or were, admitted, to HYP (and vice-versa).
3. I would like ethnic or racial stats on, for several examples, class officers, first chair musicians*, job holders, actors^,
team captains, and other equally valuable (in the sense of contributing to an entering freshman class) high-school pursuits.*By
17, I had been a union trombonist for three years; at Princeton, I played in the concert band, the marching band, the concert
orchestra, several jazz ensembles, and the Triangle Club orchestra.^A high school classmate was John Lithgow, the superb Hollywood
character actor. Harvard gave him a full scholarship – and they should have.
What if we were one homogeneous ethnic group? What dynamic would we set up then?
I suggest taking the top 20% on straight merit, based on SAT scores, whether they crammed for them or not, and take the next
50% from the economically poorest of the qualified applicants (1500 – 1600 on the SAT?) by straight ethnicity percentages to directly
reflect population diversity, and 30% at random to promote some humility, and try that for 20 years and see what effects are produced
in the quality of our economic and political leadership. And of course, keep them all in the dark as to how they actually got
admitted.
Maybe one effect is that more non-ivy league schools will be tapped by the top recruiters.
"Surely the author must be aware that approximately half the children with "Jewish" names are not fully Jewish. Over
half of the marriages west of the Mississippi are reportedly mixed. Many non-Jews have last names that start with "Gold". Just
these two facts make the entire analysis ridiculous. Hillel does not keep statistics on how Jewish a student is, while many
of Levys and Cohens are not actually Jewish. What would we call Amy Chua's daughters? Jewish or Asian? It is therefore impossible
to tease out in a multi-racial society who is who."
Well, there are several arguments to be made. First, unless you are advocating that there has been a mass adoption of words
like "Gold" in non-Jewish last names these past 10, 15 years, that argument sinks like a stone. Second, by selecting for specifically
Jewish last names, intermarriage can be minimized but not eliminated. How many kids with the lastname "Goldstein" was a non-Jew
in the last NMS? Not likely a lot of them.
Intermarriage can account for some fog, but not all, not by a longshot. Your entire argument reeks of bitter defensiveness.
You have to come to grips that Jews have become like the old WASPs, rich, not too clever anymore, and blocking the path forward
for brighter, underrepresented groups.
With all due respect, I was worried that I would get an answer that lazily points to the part of the essay that glosses over
this point (which mind you I had combed through carefully before posting my question). However, I was hoping that in response
someone might respond who had thought a little more carefully about the statistical fallacy in Unz's essay: that far-reaching
statements about nation-wide academic performance can be drawn directly from per-state-percentiles.
Yes, Asian Americans, like Jews, have concentrations. But their geographical distributions differ. Yes, it might be possible
that upon careful analysis of relative distributions of populations and NMS semifinalists in each state Unz might be able to draw
a robust comparison: he might even come up with the same answer. The point that I made is that he doesn't even try.
Given the lengths Unz goes to calculate and re-calculate figures _based_on_ the assumption of _equal_ geographic distributions
among Asians and Jews, it is - and I stand by this - a disservice to the reader that no effort (beyond hand-waving) is made to
quantitatively show the assumption is at all justified.
The statistical analysis used in this article is flawed. The author uses last names to identify the religion (or birth heritage)
of NMS semifinalists? Are you serious? My son was a (recent) National Merit Finalist and graduated from an ivy league university.
His mother is Jewish; his father is not, thus he has a decidedly WASP surname and according to the author's methods he would have
been classified as WASP. With the growing numbers of interfaith and mixed-race children how can anyone draw conclusions about
race and religion in the meritocracy or even "IQ" argument? Anecdotally, my son reported that nearly half his classmates at his
ivy league were at least one-quarter Jewish (one or more parents or one grandparent). To use last names (in lieu of actual demographic
data) to make the conclusion that Jews are being admitted to ivies at higher rates than similarly qualified Asians is irresponsible.
Essentially, the leftist forces in this country are trying to put the squeeze on white gentiles from both directions.
Affirmative action for underachieving minorities to take the place of white applicants.
Meritocracy for highly achieving Asians to push down white applicants, while never mentioning that full meritocracy would push
out other minorities as well (that's not politically correct).
The whole thing has become more about political narrative than actual concern for justice. I want you to know that as an Asian
man who graduated from Brown, I sympathize with you.
Very interesting article. The case that East Asian students are significantly underrepresented and Jewish students overrepresented
at Ivy League schools is persuasive, although not dispositive. The most glaring flaw in the analysis is the heavy reliance on
performance on the PSAT (the discussion of the winners of the various Olympiad and Putnam contests has little informational value
relevant to admissions, since those winners are the outliers on the tail of the distribution), which is a test that can be prepped
for quite easily. Another flaw is the reliance on last names to determine ethnicity, which I doubt works well for Jews, although
it probably works reasonably well for East Asians.
Unfortunately, the article is also peppered with (very) thinly supported (and implausible) claims like Asians are better at
visuospatial skills, worse at verbal skills, and that the situation is reversed for Jews. This kind of claim strikes me as racial
gobbledygook, and at least anecdotally belied if one considers the overrepresentation of Jews among elite chess players, both
in the US and worldwide.
In any event, the fundamental point is that the PSAT (as is the case with all standardized tests) is a fixed target that can
be studied for. Whether one chooses to put in 100s of hours studying for the PSAT is not, and should not be, the only criterion
used for admissions.
I find the relative percentage of East Asians and Jews at schools like MIT (and also Caltech and Berkeley, although obviously
those are in part distorted by the heavy concentration of East Asians in California) as compared to HYP as strong evidence that
the admissions process at HYP advantages Jews and disadvantages East Asians.
I suspect, though, that the advantages Jews enjoy in the admissions process are unconscious and unintentional, whereas the
disadvantages suffered by East Asians are quite conscious and intentional.
The graph entitled "Asians Age 18-21 and Elite College Enrollment Trends, 1990-2011″ is misleading. It contrasts percentage
of enrolled Asian students vs. the total number of the eligible Asian applicants. Therefore, it led to a flawed argument
when comfusing number vs. percentage . For proof, if a similar graph of Hispanic student percentage vs. eligible applicants
were drawn, it would appear that they were discriminated against as well. So would be the Black!
well, even a fair and objective admission criteria can have devastating consequences. here at IIT, we admit about 1 in 100.
this has the same effect on student ethics, career options and so on. in fact, even worse, since IIT is an engineering college,
the very definition of engineering in India has now distorted as serving international finance or distant masters in a globalized
world. our own development problems remain unattended.
also, the above is a part of the current trend of knowledge concentration, i.e., a belief that only a few universities can
impart us "true" knowledge or conduct "true" research.
see http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~sohoni/kpidc.pdf
This is a very valuable article. It deals with a subject that has received too little attention. I believe that cultural bias
in many cases outweighs the racial bias in the selection program. Time and again, I have seen young people with great potential
being selected against because they are culturally different from what the selectors are looking for (often people who are like
them culturally). The article's mentioning that students who participated in R.O.T.C., F.F.A. and/or 4H are often passed over
is a good illustration.
It was interesting to note that the girl who wrote an essay on how she dealt with being caught in a drug violation found acceptance.
I suspect that a student with similar academic qualifications who wrote an essay on the negative aspects of drug use would not
be so lucky.
comes news that Yale President Levin's successor will be Peter Salovey, tending to confirm Unz's observations regarding the
grossly disproportionate number of Jewish presidents at Ivy League schools.
All very interesting but I am among the National Merit Scholars from California who has a not obviously Jewish name despite
having two Jewish parents. It was changed in the 1950s due to anti-Semitism and an urge to assimilate. A lot of other names can
be German or Jewish for example. I suspect in light of that and intermarriage cases where the mom is Jewish and the dad is not,
not to mention a lot of Russian names, you may be undercounting Jews among other things. Although to be fair, you are probably
also undercounting some half-Asians given most of those marriages have a white husband and Asian wife.
I'm an Asian HYP grad. I applaud this article for being so extremely well researched and insightful. It's an excellent indictment
of the arbitrariness and cultural favoritism concentrated in the hands of a very small group of unqualified and ideologically
driven admissions officers. And I hasten to add that I am a liberal Democratic, an avid Obama supporter, and a strong proponent
of correcting income inequality and combating discrimination in the workplace.
To me, the most compelling exhibit was the one towards the end which showed the % relative representation of enrolled students
to highly-qualified students (I wish the article labeled the exhibits). This chart shows that in the Ivies, which administer highly
subjective admission criteria, Jews are overrepresented by 3-4x, but in the California schools and MIT, which administer more
objective criteria, Jews are overrepresented by only 0-50%, a range that can easily be explained by methodology or randomness.
This single exhibit is unequivocal evidence to me of systematic bias in the Ivy League selection process, with Jews as the
primary beneficiary. I tend to agree with the author this this bias is unlikely to be explicit, but likely the result of cultural
favoritism, with a decision-making body that is heavily Jewish tending to favor the activities, accomplishments, personalities,
etc. of Jewish applicants.
The author has effectively endorsed one of the core tenets of modern liberalism – that human beings tend to favor people who
look and act like themselves. It's why institutions dominated by white males tend to have pro-white male biases. The only twist
here is that the decision-making body in this instance (Ivy League admissions committees) is white-Jewish, not white-Gentile.
So if you're a liberal like me, let's acknowledge that everyone is racist and sexist toward their own group, and what we have
here is Jews favoring Jews. We can say that without being anti-semitic, just like we can say that men favor men without being
anti-male, or whites favor whites without being anti-white.
Just some puzzling statistics: In p. 32, second paragraph, it is mentioned "The Asian ratio is 63% slightly above the white
ratio of 61 percent", then in the third paragraph "However, if we separate out the Jewish students, their
ratio turns out to be 435 percent, while the residual ratio for non-Jewish whites drops to just 28 percent, less than half of
even the Asian figure", leading to the conclusion that "As a consequence, Asians appear under-represented relative to Jews by
a factor of seven, while non-Jewish whites are by far the most under-represented group of all". Not very clear on the analysis!
Let me try to make a guess on the calculation of this statistics ratio: Assume that all groups in NMS will apply, with mA=Asians,
mJ=Jews, mW=Whites be the respective numbers in NMS. Suppose that nA, nJ, and nW are those Asians, Jews, and Whites finally admitted.
Then if the statistics ratio for G means ((nG)/(mG))/(mG/mNMS), where mNMS is the total number in the NMS, then the ratio will
amplify the admission rate (nG/mG) by (mNMS/mG) times and becomes very large or very small for small group size. For example,
for a single person group, being admitted will give a ratio as large as mNMS, and a zero for not being admitted. Why can this
ratio be used for comparing under-representation between different groups?
Very well. Loved the fact that the author put a lot into reseaching this piece. But i would like to know how many asians who
manage to attend this ivy schools end up as nobel leaurets and professors?? This demonstrates the driving force behind the testscore
prowess of the asians-financial motivation. The author talks about asians being under-represented in the ivies but even though
they manage to attend then what?? do they eventually become eintiens and great nobel leurets or great cheese players. Also what
is the stats like for asian poets, novelist, actors.etc Pls focus should be given on improving other non-ivy schools since we
have a lots of high SAT test scores than high running universities.
Look at Nobel prizes, field medals and all kind of prizes and awards that recognize lifetime original academic contributions.
Not many asians there yet. Perfect grades or SAT scores does not guarantee creativity, original thinking, intelectual curiosity
or leadership. The problem is that those things are hard to measure and very easy to fake in an application.
Loved all the research in the article and I am on board with the idea that moving in the tiger mother direction will kill creativity
in young people. And I agree with the observation that our country's top leadership since 1970 or so has been underwhelming and
dishonest especially in the financial services industry which draws almost entirely from the Ivies.
However, I am not so convinced that the over representation of Jewish students in the Ivy league is created by intentional
bias on the part of Jewish professors or administrators at these institutions. Is it possible that admissions officers select
Jewish applicants at such a high rate because they are more likely to actually attend? Once a family of four's income exceeds
$160k the net price calculation for a year at Harvard jumps up pretty quickly. By the time you hit annual income of $200k you
are looking at $43k/yr or $172k for 4 years. And at the lower income levels, even if a family has to pay just $15k a year, how
will they do that if they are struggling to make it as it is? Do they want/does their student want to graduate with $60k worth
of debt? Why not choose a great scholarship offer from a state university to pay nothing at all or go to community college for
2 years and then on to the state public institution?
There are many options for top students who can compete at the Ivy level. If I am an admissions officer looking to fill slots
left over after minority admissions (ones poor enough to get the education for free and thus to say yes), legacies, athletic recruits,
and the few super special candidates, wouldn't I choose those most likely to take me up on the admissions offer and protect my
yield number? Might an easy way to get this done be to consult a demographic tool showing net worth by zip code? And to stack
the yield odds a little more in my favor might I also choose families with Jewish appearing last names knowing they would be extremely
likely to accept my offer since I obviously have recent history to show me that these families say yes to our prices? I think
this is a much more plausible explanation then assuming some secret quota in force at these schools.
I am a conservative but I cannot believe Jewish liberals would go that far just to ensure more Jewish liberals attend their
institutions or to keep conservative white non Jewish middle income students out. Dollars and cents and the perception a yield
number conveys about the desirability of a school are what is at work here in my humble opinion.
There is a very simple solution. There is no legal definition of race. Simply check the "Negro" (or "African-American" or whatever
it is called today) box on the application form. You don't look it? Neither do many others, because your ancestry is really mixed.
This may get you in. It won't hurt your chances, which are essentially zero before you check that box. At the very least, it will
make it harder for the bigots in the admissions office to exercise their bigotry.
"Look at Nobel prizes, field medals and all kind of prizes and awards that recognize lifetime original academic contributions.
Not many asians there yet. Perfect grades or SAT scores does not guarantee creativity, original thinking, intelectual curiosity
or leadership. The problem is that those things are hard to measure and very easy to fake in an application."
Last year, 75% of Ph.D candidates where foreign born, most of which were either Indian or Chinese. You should rely on statistics
that are more current and relevant.
Wow, another article on how corrupt higher eduation is.
Folks, open your eyes a bit. Online education is growing massively; sharing this growth are websites that write academic papers
(even Ph.D. theses) on demands .these websites in toto have nearly as many customers as there are online students.
Harvard is unusual in that they actually banned students for cheating. Every investigation of cheating on campus shows it exists
on a massive scale, and reports of half or more of a class cheating are quite common in the news.
The reason for this is simple: administrators care about retention, nothing else. Faculty have long since gotten the message.
I've taught in higher education for nearly 25 years now, and I've seen many faculty punished for catching cheaters; not once has
there been any reward.
Over 90% of remedial students fail to get a 2-year degree in three years, yet administration sees no issue with talking them
into loans that will keep them in debt forever. Admin sees no issue with exploiting the vulnerable for personal gain, of course.
Here's what higher education is today: desperate people take out loans to go to college. They use the money to pay the tuition,
and they use the money to buy academic papers because they really aren't there for college, they're there for the checks. Their
courses are graded by poorly paid faculty (mostly adjuncts), again paid by those checks. The facutly are watched over by administrators
to make sure there is no integrity to the system and again, admin is paid by those checks (in fact, most of the tuition money
goes to administrators).
Hmm, what part of this could be changed that would put integrity back into the system?
I think your sources who claim to be familiar with China are very wrong concerning entrance into Chinese universities, especially
those so-called upper tier unis. It is well known amongst most Chinese students who take the gaokao, the all-or-nothing university
entrance examination, bribes, guanxi (connections) and just being local, are often better indicators of who will be accepted.
• Replies: @KA Same and
some more in India.
In India it is politics of the gutter. Someone can get to medical school and engineering school even if he or she did not qualify,if
scored say 3 points out of 1000 points as long as he or she belonged to lower caste of Hindu. The minimum requirements they have
to fulfill is to pass the school leaving examinations with science subjects .A passing level is all that matters . The process
then continues (in further education -master , training, post doctoral, and in job and in promotion)
While upper caste Hindu or Christian or Muslim may not be allowed despite scoring 999 out of 1000. It is possible and has happened.
Unfortunately the lower caste has not progressed much. Upper caste Hindus have misused this on many occasions and continue to
do do by selling themselves as lower caste with legal loopholes .Muslim or Christians can't do that for they can't claim to be
Hindu
Ron Unz is a brilliant man. He created software that made him rich, and has written articles on all kinds of subjects. But
apparently, Ron shares a problem with a very tiny number of humanity. Ron is one of those oddball characters, that, no matter
where the truth leads him, he simply has to express it, regardless of political correctness. He did this in California with the
debate on English,etc.
Compared to the administrators of these Ivy League Institutions, Ron is a mental giant, not even near being in the same class
as these supposedly important but in reality, worthless beurocrats.
If ten million Gentile whites and Asians changed their surname to Kaplan, Levy, Golden, Goldstein, Goldman, it obviously would
throw a monkey wrench into the process of ethnic favoritism.
To paraphrase Unz - the "shared group biases" of Ivy League college admission officers that have "extreme flexibility and subjectivity",
does harm white Gentiles and Asians, but only because the process lacks objective, meritocratic decision making, and in its place
is a vile form of corrupt cronyism and favoritism.
An Asian speaking here, I agree that America isn't a meritocracy, but has it ever been? It seems like this article's falling
for the oldest trick in the book - looking back at the "good old days". I'd argue that now more than ever, the barrier to entry
is lower than ever, and that every individual can rise to the occasion and innovate for the better. Places like Exeter (my alma
mater) aren't just playgrounds for the rich - I'm not extremely wealthy, and neither were my classmates. Most of us were even
on financial aid. Don't just point fingers at institutions to account for shortcomings - if you had the stroke of fortune to be
born in a nation with such opportunity, with hard work and CREATIVITY and INNOVATION, anything is possible.
Has anyone thought about why the test-prep business has expanded so much? It's to feed into the very same system that you're
complaining about. Be the change you wish to see in the world, not a victim of it. To many of the Asians out there, I'd say get
over your 4.0 GPA and 2400 SAT score and be unique for once.
To put Unz's findings in social and historical perspective, it is important to understand where Jewish academics come from.
The Eastern European Jews who immigrated to Northeast US in the Twentieth Century ran into an immigrant world dominated by Catholics
and particularly Irish Catholics. The Irish, who were as "hungry" as the Jews got control over government and its ancillary economic
benefits. I wasn't there at the time, but I imagine we Irish did not do much to help Jewish immigrants compared with Catholic
immigrants.
One area abandoned by the Catholic Church was public and secular education. The Church formed its own educational Catholic
ghetto. Jewish immigrants adopted the public-secular educational world as their own and became strong adherents of education as
the key to Americanization. Education became their small piece of turf. The only memorable political conflict between Jews and
AfricanAmericans in New York City was over control of the public schools.
Just as the Irish react against affirmative action for non-Irish in government jobs, the descendants of these Jewish immigrants
react to the plagiarism of their assimilation plan by the Chinese/Koreans. When you have de facto Irish affirmative action you
don't want de jure African American affirmative action. When you have Jewish "meritocracy" you don't want Asian meritocracy.
The result is what you see today. The Irish still have a stranglehold on government related jobs in the Northeast with a smattering
of minorities ("New Irish") and the Jews try to protect their secular education turf from the "New Jews". It's just business.
Don't take it personally.
All I can say is see a book: "Ivy League Fools and Felons"' by Mack Roth. Lots of them are kids of corrupt people in all
fields.
But I disagree that opportunity is being closed off to most Americans. Here in North Dakota I work for a high school graduate,
self made trucking millionaire. Five years ago she was a secretary in Iowa. But she got off her butt and went to where the money
is circulating. Just my 2 cents
Sorry, but quick correction regarding rankings (and I only have to say this because I go to MIT). Technically, MIT and Caltech
are *both* ranked the same. The only reason why Caltech appears on the list before MIT is because it come before it alphabetically
to suggest otherwise would be untrue. When you look at individual departments, you'll find that MIT consistently ranks higher
than that of Caltech in all engineering disciplines and most scientific disciplines. Also, personally speaking, MIT has a far
better humanities program that Caltech (especially in the fields of economics, political science, philosophy, and linguisitics).
We do have a number of Pulitizer Prize winners who teach here.
Also generally, in academic circle, MIT is usually viewed with higher regard than Caltech, although that isn't to say Caltech
isn't a fantastic school (it really and truly is–I loved it there and I wish more people knew more about it)
One observation about methodology that struck me while reading this:
The Jewish population of universities is being evaluated based on Hillel statistics, with the "Non-Jewish white" population
being based on the white population minus the Jewish population.
This can be problematic when you consider that these population are merging at a pretty high rate. (I don't have much information
here, but this is from the header of the wikipedia article: "The 1990 National Jewish Population Survey reported an intermarriage
rate of 52 percent among American Jews.")
What percentage of partially Jewish students identify as "Jewish" or does Hillel identify as Jewish? If you're taking a population
that would have once identified as "white" and now identifying them as Jewish, obviously you'll see some Jewish inflation, and
white deflation. And when a large percentage of this population bears the names "Smith", "Jones", "Roberts" etc., you're obviously
not going to see a corresponding increase in NMS scores evaluated on the basis of last names.
Of course, I have no idea what methodology Hillel is using, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's an inflated one.
Thank you Mr. Unz for this provocative article. It isn't the author's first one on Jewish & Asian enrollment at Ivy League
colleges. I remember another one, in the 1990s I believe.
According to what I read, less and less American Jews apply for medical school nationwide, and Jewish women are very educated,
but it comes also with a low birthrate and high median age. It makes the recent spike in Jewish admissions at Harvard College
all the more curious, intriguing.
This month, the NY Times published a list of the highest earners in the hedge fund industry in 2012, and 8 out of 10 were Jewish.
Are certain universities aggressively seeking donations from this super rich demographic since the 2000s?
The young American Jew is not like his grandparents. They are just as fun loving and lazy as any other. This is the result
of a lack of perceived persecution that use to keep the group together. In the major cities, half of the young people leave the
tribe through intermarriage. This is human nature. The Rabbis changed the rules some time ago to define a Jew as coming from the
mother, so the Jewish man would marry a Jewish woman, instead of a woman outside of the tribe. Read the Bible. In David's time,
the men had an eye for good looking women outside of the tribe(like all men). Now days, the young people just laugh at the Rabbi's
words.
Instead of the old folks liberal ideas of race and ethnic divisions, let us change it to go by economic class. According to
liberal thought, intelligence is equally distributed throughout all economic classes, so higher education admissions should be
by economic class, and not the old divisive ideas of race and ethnic background. After all, affirmative action programs are institutionalized
racism and racial profiling.
• Replies: @KA Yes . You
have points . This is one of the fears that drove the Zionist to plan of Israel in 1880 . It was the fear of secular life free
from religious persecution and freedom to enjoy life to its fullest in the post industrial non religious Europe guided by enlightenment
that drove them embrace the religious ethnic mix concept of statehood.
These and many other ills would be alleviated if government would stop: (a) banning aptitude tests or even outright discrimination
as determinants of employment; (b) subsidizing private institutions such as Harvard; and (c) close down all government schools,
starting with state institutions of "higher learning."
I know, pie in the sky. But the author's suggestions by comparison are mere Band-Aids.
Great analysis, but pie-in-the-sky prescription, which was presumably just intended to be thought provoking. If you want to
know why Harvard would never adopt the author's recommendation, just read what he wrote:
"But if it were explicitly known that the vast majority of Harvard students had merely been winners in the application lottery,
top businesses would begin to cast a much wider net in their employment outreach, and while the average Harvard student would
probably be academically stronger than the average graduate of a state college, the gap would no longer be seen as so enormous,
with individuals being judged more on their own merits and actual achievements. A Harvard student who graduated magna cum laude
would surely have many doors open before him, but not one who graduated in the bottom half of his class."
I wonder why Harvard officials would desire this outcome?
So a lot of ivy league presidents with Jewish-sounding names somehow influence admissions staff who may not have Jewish-sounding
names to favor undeserving applicants because they also have Jewish-sounding names? And this is because of some secret ethnic
pride thing going on? And nobody's leaked this conspiracy to the outside world until our whistle blowing author? The guy's a nut
job.
All of your statistics are highly suspect due to the enormous, and rapid annual increase in Jewish intermarriage. I do not
have the statistics, but over many years, it certainly appears that Jewish men are far more likely to intermarry than Jewish women
(the lure of the antithesis to their Jewish mother??) and to complicate matters further, Jewish men seem to have a predilection
for Asian women, at least in the greater NY Metro Area. But that still does not represent the majority of Jewish men marrying
Christians. QED. More Jewish last names, for children who are DNA wise only half Jewish than non Jewish names for the intermarried.
And if one wanted to get really specific, the rapidly rising intermarriage is diluting the "Jewish" genetic pool's previously
demonstrable intelligence superiority., strengthened by the fact that most couples use the Jewish fathers last name.
These observations are in no way associated with how the various Jewish denominations define 'Jewish"
In short: Unz substantially overestimated the percentage of Jews at Harvard while grossly underestimating the percentage of
Jews among high academic achievers, when, in fact, there is no discrepancy.
In addition, Unz's arguments have proven to be untenable in light of a recent survey of incoming Harvard freshmen conducted
by The Harvard Crimson, which found that students who identified as Jewish reported a mean SAT score of 2289, 56 points higher
than the average SAT score of white respondents.
First. I was thrilled to see your advocacy of admissions by lottery. I have advocated such a plan on various websites that
I participate in, but you have written the first major article advocating it that I have seen. Congratulations.
Just a small quibble with your plan, I would not allow the schools any running room for any alternatives to the lottery. They
have not demonstrated any willingness to administer such a system fairly. After a few years of pure lottery it would be time to
evaluate it and see if they should be allowed any leeway, but I wouldn't allow any variation before that.
I would hypothesize that one effect of a lottery admissions plan would be a return to more stringent grading in the class rooms.
It would be useful to the faculty to weed out the poor performers more quickly, and the students might have less of an attitude
of entitlement.
Second, I am glad that you raised the issue of corruption of the admissions staffs. It would be a new chapter in human history
if there was no straight out bribe taking of by functionaries in their positions. My guess is that the bag men are the "high priced
consultants". Pay them a years worth of tuition money and a sufficient amount will flow to the right places to get your kid in
to wherever you want him to go.
Third, three observations about Jewish Students.
First, Jews are subject to mean reversion just like everybody else.
Second, the kids in the millennial generation were, for the most part, born into comfortable middle class and upper class homes.
The simply do not have the drive that their immigrant grandparents and great-grandparents had. I see this in my own family. My
wife and I had immigrant parents, and we were pretty driven academically (6 degrees between us). Our kids, who are just as bright
as we were, did not show that same edge, and it was quite frustrating to us. None of them have gone to a graduate or professional
school. They are all working and are happy, but driven they aren't.
Third, Hillel's numbers of Jewish students on their website should be taken cum grano salis. All three of our kids went to
Northwestern U. (Evanston, IL) which Hillel claimed was 20% Jewish. Based on our personal observations of kids in their dorms
and among their friends, I think the number is probably 10% or less.
Finally, the side bar on Paying Tuition to a Hedge Fund. I too am frustrated with the current situation among the wealthy institutions.
I think that it deserves a lot more attention from policy makers than it has received. The Universities have received massive
benefits from the government (Federal and state) - not just tax exemptions, but grants for research and to students, subsidized
loans, tax deductions for contributions, and on, and on. They have responded to this largess by raising salaries, hiring more
administrators, spending billions on construction, and continually raising tuitions far faster than the rate of inflation. I really
do not think the tax payers should be carrying this much of a burden at a time when deficits are mounting without limit.
Henry VIII solved a similar problem by confiscating assets. We have constitutional limits on that sort of activity, but I think
there a lot of constitutional steps that should be considered. Here a few:
1. There is ample reason to tax the the investment gains of the endowments as "unrelated business taxable income" (UBTI, see
IRS Pub 598 and IRC §§ 511-515) defined as income from a business conducted by an exempt organization that is not substantially
related to the performance of its exempt purpose. If they do not want to pay tax on their investments, they should purchase treasuries
and municipals, and hold them to maturity.
2. The definition of an exempt organization could be narrowed to exclude schools that charge tuition. Charging $50,000/yr and
sitting on 30G$ of assets looks a lot more like a business than a charity.
3. Donations to overly rich institutions should be non deductible to the donors. Overly rich should be defined in terms of
working capital needs and reserves for depreciation of physical assets.
Is the proposed mechanism that Jewish university presidents create a bias in the admissions department?
That could be tested by comparing Jewish student percentages between schools with Christian and Jewish presidents. If Christian
presidents produce student bodies with a high proportion of Jews, then Jewish ethnocentrism is not the cause. (We'd have to find
a way to control for presidents' politics.)
If admissions departments are discriminating in favor of liberals, that will boost the proportion of all liberals, including
many Jews, but it will be political discrimination, not ethnic discrimination. (Both are bad, but we should be accurate.)
Liberals see a discrepancy in ethnic outcomes and consider it proof of ethnic discrimination. Are we doing the same thing?
After Russian emancipation, the Jews from Pale settlement spread out and took up jobs in government services, secured admissions
in technical and medical schools, and established positions in trade in just two decades. Then they started interconnecting and
networking more aggressively to eliminate competition and deny the non-Jews the opportunities that the non Jews rightfully claimed.
This pattern was also evident in Germany after 1880 and in Poland between interwars .
The anti-Jewish sentiment seen in pre revolutionary Russia was the product of this ethnic exclusivisity and of the tremendous
in-group behaviors .
@Ira The young American
Jew is not like his grandparents. They are just as fun loving and lazy as any other. This is the result of a lack of perceived
persecution that use to keep the group together. In the major cities, half of the young people leave the tribe through intermarriage.
This is human nature. The Rabbis changed the rules some time ago to define a Jew as coming from the mother, so the Jewish man
would marry a Jewish woman, instead of a woman outside of the tribe. Read the Bible. In David's time, the men had an eye for good
looking women outside of the tribe(like all men). Now days, the young people just laugh at the Rabbi's words.
Instead of the old folks liberal ideas of race and ethnic divisions, let us change it to go by economic class. According to
liberal thought, intelligence is equally distributed throughout all economic classes, so higher education admissions should be
by economic class, and not the old divisive ideas of race and ethnic background. After all, affirmative action programs are institutionalized
racism and racial profiling.
Yes . You have points . This is one of the fears that drove the Zionist to plan of Israel in 1880 . It was the fear of secular
life free from religious persecution and freedom to enjoy life to its fullest in the post industrial non religious Europe guided
by enlightenment that drove them embrace the religious ethnic mix concept of statehood.
@Anonymous I think your
sources who claim to be familiar with China are very wrong concerning entrance into Chinese universities, especially those so-called
upper tier unis. It is well known amongst most Chinese students who take the gaokao, the all-or-nothing university entrance examination,
bribes, guanxi (connections) and just being local, are often better indicators of who will be accepted.
Same and some more in India. In India it is politics of the gutter. Someone can get to medical school and engineering school
even if he or she did not qualify, if scored say 3 points out of 1000 points as long as he or she belonged to lower caste of Hindu.
The minimum requirements they have to fulfill is to pass the school leaving examinations with science subjects .A passing level
is all that matters . The process then continues (in further education -master , training, post doctoral, and in job and in promotion)
While upper caste Hindu or Christian or Muslim may not be allowed despite scoring 999 out of 1000. It is possible and has happened.
Unfortunately the lower caste has not progressed much. Upper caste Hindus have misused this on many occasions and continue to
do do by selling themselves as lower caste with legal loopholes .Muslim or Christians can't do that for they can't claim to be
Hindu
Takeaways:
Jews are really good at networking and in-group activity. They have centuries of practice, and lived a meritocratic existence
of self-sorting in the Pale and elsewhere.
That is evident to all who look.
Other groups have different approaches, and different organizational or affiliation bonds, based on their history, culture
and other factors.
NE Asians share some traits, and both value education as a way to improve themselves and to some extent their groups.
S Asians will demonstrate their own approach, focusing heavily on STEM.
Expect demographics to win out, given 2.5B Asians versus a smaller NAM or NE European-base populace.
Thanks for the informative article. Your proposal sounds reasonable. Another option would be to attempt to vastly decrease
the significance of these elite private schools. Why should we allow undemocratic little fiefdoms to largely control entry into
our country's ruling class? It would probably be considerably more fair, more transparent and more efficient to pour a lot of
resources into our public universities. If Berkeley, Michigan, UVA, UMass, etc. were completely free, for instance–or if they
provided students with living expenses as well as free tuition, the quality of their students would conceivably surpass that of
the Ivy League's, and over time the importance and prestige of Harvard, Stanford, etc. would diminish. Instead, we are subsidizing
students at elite private colleges more than those at public colleges–an absurd state of affairs (see this article, whose author
is a bit of an ideologue but who is right on this issue:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2014/1014/How-the-government-spends-more-per-student-at-elite-private-universities-than-public
).
Mr. Unz; thank you for the long, informational and scholarly article. I read the whole thing, and from Sailer I am familiar
with your reputation as a certified genius. I must admit however, after the 5-10,000 words you had written, I was a bit shocked
that your answer to how to improve elite University enrollment, was to FLIP A FIGURATIVE COIN.
I expected some chart with differential equations that I would have to consult my much more intelligent brother, the electrical
engineer to explain to me. Not that it does not make a lot of sense.
The issue with your solution is that you go from a three class university:
1) Legacy Admits
2) Non athletic, black admits
3) everyone else
to a much-more rigid, two class university:
1) academic admits
2) coin-flip admits
One tier being one of the smartest 15-18 year olds in the world, the other being "somewhat better than good student at Kansas
State."
My brother works at a little ivy league school. Well endowed because the parents Dun and Bradstreet reports are at the top
of the selection sheets with parents jobs also. Extra points for finance and government jobs at executive levels.
This article was excellent and reinforced everything he has told me over the years. One thing he did mention i would like to
add. Asians, which for years were their choice for filling minority quotas, are horrible when it comes to supporting the alma
mater financially during the fund drives. This information was confirmed by several other schools in the area when they tried
a multi-school drive in the far east and south east asia to canvas funds and returned with a pitiful sum.
Diversity is a scheme that is the opposite of a meritocracy. Diversity is a national victim cult that generally demonizes gentiles,
and more specifically demonizes people that conform to a jewish concocted profile of a nazi.
Why would anyone use the word diversity in the same sentence as the word meritocracy?
"Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?" Why would anybody claiming to be intelligent
include meritocracy and diversity in the same sentence?
@Sean Gillhoolley Harvard
is a university, much like Princeton and Yale, that continues based on its reputation, something that was earned in the past.
When the present catches up to them people will regard them as nepotistic cauldrons of corruption.
Look at the financial disaster that befell the USA and much of the globe back in 2008. Its genesis can be found in the clever
minds of those coming out of their business schools (and, oddly enough, their Physics programs as well). They are teaching the
elite how to drain all value from American companies, as the rich plan their move to China, the new land of opportunity. When
1% of the population controls such a huge portion of the wealth, patriotism becomes a loadstone to them. The elite are global.
Places like Harvard cater to them, help train them to rule the world....but first they must remake it.
I agree, common people would never think of derivatives , nor make loans based on speculation .
"Tiffany Wang['s] SAT scores were over 100 points above the Wesleyan average, and she ranked as a National Merit Scholarship
semifinalist "
"Julianna Bentes her SAT scores were somewhat higher than Tiffany's "
Did Ms. Wang underperform on her SATs? NMS semifinalist status depends purely on the score on a very SAT-like test being at
a 99.5 percentile level, as I understand it (and I was one, albeit a very long time ago) and I gather from the above that her
SAT scores did not correspond to the PSAT one. That is, merely " 100 points above the Wesleyan average" doesn't seem all that
exceptional. Or am I wrong?
Mr. Unz several times conflates NMS semifinalist status with being a top student. Which I most definitely was not. It's rather
an IQ test. As was the SAT.
The world is filled with conformism and groupthink. Most people do not wish to think for
themselves. Thinking for oneself is dangerous, requires effort and often leads to rejection by
the herd of one's peers.
The profession of arms, the intelligence business, the civil service bureaucracy, the
wondrous world of groups like the League of Women Voters, Rotary Club as well as the empire of
the thinktanks are all rotten with this sickness, an illness which leads inevitably to
stereotyped and unrealistic thinking, thinking that does not reflect reality.
The worst locus of this mentally crippling phenomenon is the world of the academics. I have
served on a number of boards that awarded Ph.D and post doctoral grants. I was on the Fulbright
Fellowship federal board. I was on the HF Guggenheim program and executive boards for a long
time. Those are two examples of my exposure to the individual and collective academic
minds.
As a class of people I find them unimpressive. The credentialing exercise in acquiring a
doctorate is basically a nepotistic process of sucking up to elders and a crutch for ego
support as well as an entrance ticket for various hierarchies, among them the world of the
academy. The process of degree acquisition itself requires sponsorship by esteemed academics
who recommend candidates who do not stray very far from the corpus of known work in whichever
narrow field is involved. The endorsements from RESPECTED academics are often decisive in the
award of grants.
This process is continued throughout a career in academic research. PEER REVIEW is the
sine qua non for acceptance of a "paper," invitation to career making conferences, or
to the Holy of Holies, TENURE.
This life experience forms and creates CONFORMISTS, people who instinctively boot-lick their
fellows in a search for the "Good Doggy" moments that make up their lives. These people are for
sale. Their price may not be money, but they are still for sale. They want to be accepted as
members of their group. Dissent leads to expulsion or effective rejection from the group.
This mentality renders doubtful any assertion that a large group of academics supports any
stated conclusion. As a species academics will say or do anything to be included in their
caste.
This makes them inherently dangerous. They will support any party or parties, of any
political inclination if that group has the money, and the potential or actual power to
maintain the academics as a tribe. pl
That is the nature of tribes and humans are very tribal. At least most of them.
Fortunately, there are outliers. I was recently reading "Political Tribes" which was written
by a couple who are both law professors that examines this.
Take global warming (aka the rebranded climate change). Good luck getting grants to do any
skeptical research. This highly complex subject which posits human impact is a perfect
example of tribal bias.
My success in the private sector comes from consistent questioning what I wanted to be
true to prevent suboptimal design decisions.
I also instinctively dislike groups that have some idealized view of "What is to be
done?"
As Groucho said: "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member"
The 'isms' had it, be it Nazism, Fascism, Communism, Totalitarianism, Elitism all demand
conformity and adherence to group think. If one does not co-tow to whichever 'ism' is at
play, those outside their group think are persecuted, ostracized, jailed, and executed all
because they defy their conformity demands, and defy allegiance to them.
One world, one religion, one government, one Borg. all lead down the same road to --
Orwell's 1984.
David Halberstam: The Best and the Brightest. (Reminder how the heck we got into Vietnam,
when the best and the brightest were serving as presidential advisors.)
Also good Halberstam re-read: The Powers that Be - when the conservative media controlled
the levers of power; not the uber-liberal one we experience today.
"... Finally, the Thought Police were also inspired by the human struggle for self-honesty and the pressure to conform. "The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe," Rudyard Kipling once observed. ..."
"... The struggle to remain true to one's self was also felt by Orwell, who wrote about "the smelly little orthodoxies" that contend for the human soul. Orwell prided himself with a "power of facing unpleasant facts" -- something of a rarity in humans -- even though it often hurt him in British society. ..."
"... In a sense, 1984 is largely a book about the human capacity to maintain a grip on the truth in the face of propaganda and power. ..."
"... The new Thought Police may be less sinister than the ThinkPol in 1984 , but the next generation will have to decide if seeking conformity of thought or language through public shaming is healthy or suffocating. FEE's Dan Sanchez recently observed that many people today feel like they're "walking on eggshells" and live in fear of making a verbal mistake that could draw condemnation. ..."
"... When the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, it was revealed that the Stasi , East Germany's secret police, had a full-time staff of 91,000. That sounds like a lot, and it is, but what's frightening is that the organization had almost double that in informants, including children. And it wasn't just children reporting on parents; sometimes it was the other way around." ..."
"... Movies like the Matrix actually helped people to question everything. What is real and not. Who is the enemy, and can we be sure. And when Conspiracy theories become fact, people learn. The problem is in later generations who get indoctrinated at school and college to not think, not question. Rational examination is forbidden. ..."
There are a lot of unpleasant things in George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 . Spying screens. Torture and propaganda. Victory
Gin and Victory Coffee always sounded particularly dreadful. And there is Winston Smith's varicose ulcer,
apparently a symbol of his humanity (or something),
which always seems to be "throbbing." Gross.
None of this sounds very enjoyable, but it's not the worst thing in 1984 . To me, the most terrifying part was that you couldn't
keep Big Brother out of your head.
Unlike other 20th-century totalitarians, the authoritarians in 1984 aren't that interested in controlling behavior or speech.
They do, of course, but it's only as a means to an end. Their real goal is to control the gray matter between the ears.
"When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will," O'Brien (the bad guy) tells the protagonist Winston Smith
near the end of the book.
We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us: so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture
his inner mind, we reshape him.
Big Brother's tool for doing this is the Thought Police, aka the ThinkPol, who are assigned to root out and punish unapproved
thoughts. We see how this works when Winston's neighbor Parsons, an obnoxious Party sycophant, is reported to the Thought Police
by his own child, who heard him commit a thought crime while talking in his sleep.
"It was my little daughter," Parsons tells Winston when asked who it was who denounced him.
"She listened at the keyhole. Heard what I was saying, and nipped off to the patrols the very next day. Pretty smart for a
nipper of seven, eh?"
Who Are These Thought Police?
We don't know a lot about the Thought Police, and some of what we think we know may actually not be true since some of what Winston
learns comes from the Inner Party, and they lie.
What we know is this: The Thought Police are secret police of
Oceania -- the fictional land
of 1984 that probably consists of the UK, the Americas, and parts of Africa -- who use surveillance and informants to monitor the
thoughts of citizens. The Thought Police also use psychological warfare and false-flag operations to entrap free thinkers or nonconformists.
Those who stray from Party orthodoxy are punished but not killed. The Thought Police don't want to kill nonconformists so much
as break them. This happens in Room 101 of the Ministry of Love, where prisoners are re-educated through degradation and torture.
(Funny sidebar: the name Room 101
apparently was inspired by a conference room at the BBC in which Orwell was forced to endure tediously long meetings.)
The Origins of the Thought Police
Orwell didn't create the Thought Police out of thin air. They were inspired to at least some degree by
his experiences in
the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), a complicated and
confusing affair. What you really need to know is that there were no good guys, and it ended with left-leaning anarchists and Republicans
in Spain crushed by their Communist overlords, which helped the fascists win.
Orwell, an idealistic 33-year-old socialist when the conflict started, supported the anarchists and loyalists fighting for the
left-leaning Second Spanish Republic, which received most of its support from the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin. (That might sound
bad, but keep in mind that the Nazis were on the other side.) Orwell described the atmosphere in Barcelona in December 1936 when
everything seemed to be going well for his side.
The anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing ... It was the first time
that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle,
he wrote in Homage to Catalonia.
[E]very wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle ... every shop and café had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized.
That all changed pretty fast. Stalin, a rather paranoid fellow, was bent on making Republican Spain loyal to him . Factions and
leaders perceived as loyal to his exiled Communist rival, Leon
Trotsky , were liquidated. Loyal Communists found themselves denounced as fascists. Nonconformists and "uncontrollables" were
disappeared.
Orwell never forgot the
purges or the steady stream of lies and propaganda churned out from Communist papers during the conflict. (To be fair, their Nationalist
opponents also used propaganda
and lies .) Stalin's NKVD was not exactly like the Thought Police
-- the NKVD showed less patience with its victims --
but they certainly helped inspire Orwell's secret police.
The Thought Police were not all propaganda and torture, though. They also stem from Orwell's ideas on truth. During his time in
Spain, he saw how power could corrupt truth, and he shared these reflections in his work
George Orwell: My Country Right or Left, 1940-1943 .
...I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary
lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed.
I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the
heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional
superstructures over events that had never happened.
In short, Orwell's brush with totalitarianism left him
worried that "the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world."
This scared him. A lot. He actually wrote, "This kind of thing is frightening to me."
Finally, the Thought Police were also inspired by the human struggle for self-honesty and the pressure to conform. "The individual
has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe," Rudyard Kipling once observed.
The struggle to remain true to one's self was also felt by Orwell, who
wrote about "the smelly little orthodoxies" that contend for the human soul. Orwell prided himself with a "power of facing unpleasant
facts" -- something of a rarity in humans -- even though it often hurt him in British society.
In a sense, 1984 is largely a book about the human capacity to maintain a grip on the truth in the face of propaganda and power.
It might be tempting to dismiss Orwell's book as a figment of dystopian literature. Unfortunately, that's not as easy as it sounds.
Modern history shows he was onto something.
When the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, it was revealed that the Stasi, East Germany's secret police, had a full-time
staff of 91,000.
When the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, it was revealed that
the Stasi , East Germany's secret police, had a full-time staff
of 91,000. That sounds like a lot, and it is, but what's frightening is that the organization had almost double that in informants,
including children. And it wasn't just children reporting on parents;
sometimes
it was the other way around.
Nor did the use of state spies to prosecute thoughtcrimes end with the fall of the Soviet Union. Believe it or not, it's still
happening today. The New York Times recently ran
a report featuring one Peng
Wei, a 21-year-old Chinese chemistry major. He is one of the thousands of "student information officers" China uses to root out professors
who show signs of disloyalty to President Xi Jinping or the Communist Party.
The New Thought Police?
The First Amendment of the US Constitution, fortunately, largely protects Americans from the creepy authoritarian systems found
in 1984 , East Germany, and China; but the rise of "cancel culture" shows the pressure to conform to all sorts of orthodoxies (smelly
or not) remains strong.
The new Thought Police may be less sinister than the ThinkPol in 1984 , but the next generation will have to decide if seeking
conformity of thought or language through public shaming is healthy or suffocating. FEE's Dan Sanchez
recently observed
that many people today feel like they're "walking on eggshells" and live in fear of making a verbal mistake that could draw condemnation.
That's a lot of pressure, especially for people still learning the acceptable boundaries of a new moral code that is constantly
evolving. Most people, if the pressure is sufficient, will eventually say "2+2=5" just to escape punishment. That's exactly what
Winston Smith does at the end of 1984 , after all. Yet Orwell also leaves readers with a glimmer of hope.
"Being in a minority, even a minority of one, did not make you mad," Orwell wrote.
"There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad."
In other words, the world may be mad, but that doesn't mean you have to be.
" When the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, it was revealed that the Stasi, East Germany's secret police, had a full-time
staff of 91,000.
When the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, it was revealed that
the Stasi , East Germany's secret police, had a full-time staff
of 91,000. That sounds like a lot, and it is, but what's frightening is that the organization had almost double that in
informants,
including children. And it wasn't just children reporting on parents;
sometimes
it was the other way around."
Confidential informants should be illegal.
How many people are employed by the various Federal intelligence agencies, of which there are 17 the last time I heard. Hundreds
of thousands of Federal employees, protected by strong government employee unions.
When this shitshow goes live, it will only take a small team to shut off the water that is necessary to keep the NSA servers
cool in Utah.
Movies like the Matrix actually helped people to question everything. What is real and not. Who is the enemy, and can we be sure. And when Conspiracy theories become fact, people learn. The problem is in later generations who get indoctrinated at school and college to not think, not question.
Rational examination
is forbidden.
In a nation grappling with growing inequality, stagnating social mobility, crushing
personal debt, and crumbling job security, efforts to set America's generations against one
another persist. Don't blame the system, blame the "greedy" boomers. Or the "slacker" Gen
Xers. Or "entitled" millennials. But who gains from such discourses?
Efforts to foment that warfare, intentionally or not, serve specific agendas. Numerous
writers warn that age-group hostilities are "coming." And then, pitting generations against
one another, aside from their war metaphors, writers reach for doomsday predictions,
lachrymose empathy for "our kids," and questionable data. All this relies on the invention of
mendacious attributes, conferring on millions of diverse people implausible character flaws
or virtues. Karl Mannheim, the 20th-century sociologist known for explaining the uses of
generational units, would be rolling over in his grave.
Here is the hidden history of a perverse political discourse: It started with the
so-called boomers. As they aged toward peak midlife wages in the 1980s, they got saddled with
a reputation for being rich and greedy. The media concocted a lie that made it seem as if
they wouldn't ever need Social Security.
Bill Gates was born in 1955. That makes him what is commonly called a boomer. Rene Lavoie
was also born in 1955. The Globe recently recounted the problems that led this white Army vet
to spend time in Boston's homeless shelters. According to the principal investigator of a
recent study, Dennis Culhane, many people of Lavoie's age are indeed part of a boom -- "a
boom in aging homeless people." They were "less well educated people who faced economic
challenges in their youth -- falling wages and rising housing costs -- and never recovered
financially. ... Now in their 50s and 60s, they are biologically older than most people their
age. ... The average lifespan for a homeless person is 64."
Unlike Gates's co-billionaires in the .01 percent, 29 percent of people 55 and over have
nothing at all saved for retirement, according to the Government Accountability Office, and
many of the rest have little. Ageism in the workforce is one reason they lose a job and then
can't find an equally good one -- or find any work at all. Boomers are often treated as
"deadwood." Corporations drop them by the thousands. Even Xers are now old enough to be at
risk of having their resumes discarded. When people suffering from middle ageism stop looking
for work they are omitted from the unemployment data. At midlife, some submit to deaths of
despair.
Succeeding cohorts (all containing the same disparities -- of class, race, gender, and
education) have also been treated as if they were a single human with a character flaw.
During the 1990s recessions, when the so-called Xers couldn't find work, they too were
branded with a slur -- "slackers" -- while boomers were represented as the horde bullies who
held onto all the good jobs.
The baleful technique is still at work today. Given the same problem -- lack of decent
jobs for all ages, especially people without college degrees and people over 50 -- it's the
turn of the millennials. One of them complains about the stereotypes, defensively, in Vox:
"We demand participation trophies, can't find jobs, and live with our parents until we're
30." His response is to bash -- you guessed it -- the boomers, who "have a ton of maladaptive
personality characteristics."
In the Atlantic, pundits Niall Ferguson, from the Hoover Institution, and Eyck Freymann
defend millennials because their "early working lives were blighted by the financial crisis"
-- but ignore how home foreclosures, sluggish growth, and job losses also blighted people
around Ferguson's own age (55).
Millennials are supposed to be so ignorant and cruel that they would dismiss old people's
needs because of the boomers' alleged wealth. "Cutting old-age benefits for boomers would be
an easy call if millennials are anywhere on the line of fire," write the original concoctors
of the age-war distraction, Neil Howe and William Strauss, in their latest pandering assault,
"Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation."
We frequently hear that our elders' retirement needs will "break the bank" despite their
lifelong pay-ins. If Republicans manage to destroy the whole system of social trust, cutting
Social Security could indeed be one of the dire outcomes of the lies of generational warfare.
Otherwise, experts say, its financial failure is not remotely in the cards. For families it
has always been the most popular government program, because it provides a measure of
dignified independence for older people and a measure of relief for their adult children.
Younger people should support the expansion of Social Security for another reason, writes
one millennial who doesn't take the bait. Nick Guthman argues in The Hill that because of
student debt, "Millennials and Generation Z will need Social Security even more than our
parents and grandparents do."
The 2100 Act, now before Congress, would raise the cap on taxable-wage contributions.
Conservatives reject this easy fix, but it is overwhelmingly popular with the public.
Manipulating cohort characteristics damages far more than attitudes toward Social
Security, bad as the effect of that contrived skepticism could be. Blaming an older
generation that is already maligned allows many real perpetrators to smugly hide from their
irresponsibility. Will the climate movement find youngsters blaming the boomers for
ecological destruction, because some drove big cars? Wouldn't it be better to turn on the
CEOs of Exxon, who hid the dangers of burning fossil fuels that their scientists discovered
so thoroughly that few of us knew to stop flying?
Persistent precarity is indeed the historical issue that is obscured by these discourses.
The fact of American decline is this: Most people in each generation have had it worse than
their parents. According to a report on The State of Working America, the United States lags
behind its peer countries in the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development)
in measurements of father-son mobility. In the United States, the "sons" have been receiving
stagnant wages, fewer benefits, jobs in the insecure gig economy. Many women too have lost
the progress narrative of rising expectations. That progress narrative, when upward mobility
was more widespread, supported the American Dream. It gave hope that democracy would work for
increasing numbers.
Don't blame your parents. Every article manipulating cohort stereotypes lets the
government and corporations off the hook for outsourcing abroad, the crash of rust-belt
industries, de-unionization, and the decades of cascading downward mobility we now endure.
You can't even want to get justice until you know the true sources of injustice.
How do imaginary reputations and hostile emotions get nailed onto struggling groups,
decade after decade, in this pernicious way? Naming each imagined age cohort makes it
possible. The process is called reification. Naming makes vague temporal proximity into a
thing.
Only the name baby boomers had an adequate demographic and historical reason to exist.
These millions were born (from 1946 to 1964) of the relative affluence that spread after
World War II. Their numbers did give them unifying experiences as they grew up -- made their
elders build new schools for them, made their working lives more competitive. Now they are
confronted by a president who, after promising not to, is cutting their security and health
care in devious ways.
But, even undergoing historical events together, age-peers don't build the same memories,
share the same beliefs, behave uniformly. During Vietnam, some young men were conscripted
into the war while others fought to end it. Stark differences likewise mark the current group
of young people (unimaginatively called "post-millennials"). Some of them are woke and ready
to take on racism, sexism, homophobia, gun control, global warming. At the same age,
neo-Nazis are setting fire to synagogues.
Once cohorts are reified by name, the labels become dog-whistles. Envy and fear can divide
a nation and abet destructive political changes. Malice can turn one generation against
another.
We could mitigate the divisiveness. Editors could stop soliciting age-war articles by
second-rate phrasemakers. We ordinary people need to defy the lies, and build
intergenerational bonds. Let us understand that capitalist and neoliberal choices have
worsened life, for decades, for every later, unequal subculture. And a comforting, unifying
cross-age coalition should eject politicians unwilling to maintain and repair our precious
communal institutions.
Computer programmer Steve Relles has the poop on what to do when your job is outsourced to
India. Relles has spent the past year making his living scooping up dog droppings as the
"Delmar Dog Butler." "My parents paid for me to get a (degree) in math and now I am a pooper
scooper," "I can clean four to five yards in a hour if they are close together." Relles, who
lost his computer programming job about three years ago ... has over 100 clients who pay $10
each for a once-a-week cleaning of their yard.
Relles competes for business with another local company called "Scoopy Do." Similar
outfits have sprung up across America, including Petbutler.net, which operates in Ohio.
Relles says his business is growing by word of mouth and that most of his clients are women
who either don't have the time or desire to pick up the droppings. "St. Bernard (dogs) are my
favorite customers since they poop in large piles which are easy to find," Relles said. "It
sure beats computer programming because it's flexible, and I get to be outside,"
"... This is the direction in which the world is going at the present time, and the trend lies deep in the political, social and economic foundations of the contemporary world situation. ..."
"... Specifically the danger lies in the structure imposed on Socialist and on Liberal capitalist communities by the necessity to prepare for total war with the U.S.S.R. and the new weapons, of which of course the atomic bomb is the most powerful and the most publicized. But danger lies also in the acceptance of a totalitarian outlook by intellectuals of all colours. ..."
"... Two of the principal super states will obviously be the Anglo-American world and Eurasia. If these two great blocks line up as mortal enemies it is obvious that the Anglo-Americans will not take the name of their opponents and will not dramatize themselves on the scene of history as Communists. Thus they will have to find a new name for themselves. The name suggested in Nineteen Eighty-Four is of course Ingsoc, but in practice a wide range of choices is open. In the U.S.A. the phrase "Americanism" or "hundred per cent Americanism" is suitable and the qualifying adjective is as totalitarian as anyone could wish. ..."
"... Pretty much explains the SDP and NuLabourInc and his name sake Blair and our political landscape of the last 50 years, don't you think? ..."
"... Also pay attention to the 'parody phrase. ' ..."
Because i feel that some agenda is at play. I'm not going to accuse you of trolling, or even a bit of gas lighting, but
it seems like a slide into classic red scaring and recasting of Eric Blair
By way of explaining my emotion and since you mention Warburg, here is an example of Orwellian post humous attribution.
He never said "imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever."
'from a post-publication press release directed by publisher Fredric Warburg toward readers who "had misinterpreted [Orwell's]
aim, taking the novel as a criticism of the current British Labour Party, or of contemporary socialism in general." The quotation
from the press release was "soon given the status of a last statement or deathbed appeal, given that Orwell was hospitalized
at the time and dead six months later."
You can read more at georgeorwellnovels.com, which provides a great deal of context on this press release, which runs, in
full, as follows:
It has been suggested by some of the reviewers of Nineteen Eighty-Four that it is the author's view that this, or something
like this, is what will happen inside the next forty years in the Western world. This is not correct. I think that, allowing
for the book being after all a parody, something like Nineteen Eighty-Four could happen. This is the direction in which
the world is going at the present time, and the trend lies deep in the political, social and economic foundations of the contemporary
world situation.
Specifically the danger lies in the structure imposed on Socialist and on Liberal capitalist communities by the necessity
to prepare for total war with the U.S.S.R. and the new weapons, of which of course the atomic bomb is the most powerful and
the most publicized. But danger lies also in the acceptance of a totalitarian outlook by intellectuals of all colours.
The moral to be drawn from this dangerous nightmare situation is a simple one: Don't let it happen. It depends on you.
George Orwell assumes that if such societies as he describes in Nineteen Eighty-Four come into being there will be several
super states. This is fully dealt with in the relevant chapters of Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is also discussed from a different
angle by James Burnham in The Managerial Revolution. These super states will naturally be in opposition to each other or (a
novel point) will pretend to be much more in opposition than in fact they are.
Two of the principal super states will obviously be the Anglo-American world and Eurasia. If these two great blocks
line up as mortal enemies it is obvious that the Anglo-Americans will not take the name of their opponents and will not dramatize
themselves on the scene of history as Communists. Thus they will have to find a new name for themselves. The name suggested
in Nineteen Eighty-Four is of course Ingsoc, but in practice a wide range of choices is open. In the U.S.A. the phrase "Americanism"
or "hundred per cent Americanism" is suitable and the qualifying adjective is as totalitarian as anyone could wish.
If there is a failure of nerve and the Labour party breaks down in its attempt to deal with the hard problems with which
it will be faced, tougher types than the present Labour leaders will inevitably take over, drawn probably from the ranks of
the Left, but not sharing the Liberal aspirations of those now in power. Members of the present British government, from Mr.
Attlee and Sir Stafford Cripps down to Aneurin Bevan will never willingly sell the pass to the enemy, and in general the older
men, nurtured in a Liberal tradition, are safe, but the younger generation is suspect and the seeds of totalitarian thought
are probably widespread among them. It is invidious to mention names, but everyone could without difficulty think for himself
of prominent English and American personalities whom the cap would fit.' http://www.openculture.com/2014/11/george-orwells-final-warning.html
-- -- -- -
Pretty much explains the SDP and NuLabourInc and his name sake Blair and our political landscape of the last 50 years, don't
you think?
Also pay attention to the 'parody phrase. '
'
As i wrote earlier, perhaps Blair of Eton ultimately saw how clearly hist talents had been misused by the 'totalitarians' before
he died.
I understand that some of his works are still censored and others never published. As are his state employment in propaganda
on which he probably based his 'parody' on.
They say, No more IT or system or server admins needed very soon...
Sick and tired of listening to these so called architects and full stack developers who watch bunch of videos on YouTube and Pluralsight,
find articles online. They go around workplace throwing words like containers, devops, NoOps, azure, infrastructure as code, serverless,
etc, they don't understand half of the stuff. I do some of the devops tasks in our company, I understand what it takes to implement
and manage these technologies. Every meeting is infested with these A holes.
Your best defense against these is to come up with non-sarcastic and quality questions to ask these people during the meeting,
and watch them not have a clue how to answer them.
For example, a friend of mine worked at a smallish company, some manager really wanted to move more of their stuff into Azure
including AD and Exchange environment. But they had common problems with their internet connection due to limited bandwidth and
them not wanting to spend more. So during a meeting my friend asked a question something like this:
"You said on this slide that moving the AD environment and Exchange environment to Azure will save us money. Did you take into
account that we will need to increase our internet speed by a factor of at least 4 in order to accommodate the increase in traffic
going out to the Azure cloud? "
Of course, they hadn't. So the CEO asked my friend if he had the numbers, which he had already done his homework, and it was
a significant increase in cost every month and taking into account the cost for Azure and the increase in bandwidth wiped away
the manager's savings.
I know this won't work for everyone. Sometimes there is real savings in moving things to the cloud. But often times there really
isn't. Calling the uneducated people out on what they see as facts can be rewarding. level 2
my previous boss was that kind of a guy. he waited till other people were done throwing their weight around in a meeting and
then calmly and politely dismantled them with facts.
no amount of corporate pressuring or bitching could ever stand up to that. level 3
Ive been trying to do this. Problem is that everyone keeps talking all the way to the end of the meeting leaving no room for
rational facts. level 4 PuzzledSwitch 35 points ·
4 days ago
This is my approach. I don't yell or raise my voice, I just wait. Then I start asking questions that they generally cannot
answer and slowly take them apart. I don't have to be loud to get my point across. level 4
This tactic is called "the box game". Just continuously ask them logical questions that can't be answered with their stupidity.
(Box them in), let them be their own argument against themselves.
Most DevOps I've met are devs trying to bypass the sysadmins. This, and the Cloud fad, are
burning serious amount of money from companies managed by stupid people that get easily impressed by PR stunts and shiny conferences.
Then when everything goes to shit, they call the infrastructure team to fix it...
The Iron Heel is a dystopian[1] novel by American writer Jack London, first published in
1908.[2] Generally considered to be "the earliest of the modern dystopian" fiction,[3] it
chronicles the rise of an oligarchic tyranny in the United States.
In The Iron Heel, Jack London's socialist views are explicitly on display. A forerunner of
soft science fiction novels and stories of the 1960s and '70s, the book stresses future changes
in society and politics while paying much less attention to technological changes.
The novel is based on the fictional "Everhard Manuscript" written by Avis Everhard... The
Manuscript itself covers the years 1912 through 1932 in which the Oligarchy (or "Iron Heel") arose in the United
States. In Asia, Japan conquered East Asia and created its own empire, India gained independence,
and Europe became socialist. Canada, Mexico, and Cuba formed their own Oligarchies and were
aligned with the U.S. (London remains silent as to the fates of South America, Africa, and the
Middle East.)
In North America, the Oligarchy maintains power for three centuries until the Revolution
succeeds and ushers in the Brotherhood of Man. During the years of the novel, the First Revolt is
described and preparations for the Second Revolt are discussed. From the perspective of Everhard,
the imminent Second Revolt is sure to succeed but from Meredith's frame story , the reader knows that Ernest
Everhard's hopes would go unfulfilled until centuries after his death.
The Oligarchy is the largest monopoly of trusts (or robber barons ) who manage to
squeeze out the middle class by bankrupting most small to mid-sized business as
well as reducing all farmers to effective serfdom . This Oligarchy maintains power through a
"labor caste " and the
Mercenaries . Laborers in
essential industries like steel and rail are elevated and given decent wages, housing, and
education. Indeed, the tragic turn in the novel (and Jack London's core warning to his
contemporaries) is the treachery of these favored unions which break with the other unions and
side with the Oligarchy. Further, a second, military caste is formed: the Mercenaries. The Mercenaries are
officially the army of the US but are in fact in the employ of the Oligarchs.
Jack London ambitiously predicted a breakdown of the US republic starting a few years past
1908, but various events have caused his predicted future to diverge from actual history. Most
crucially, though London placed quite accurately the time when international tensions will reach
their peak (1913 in "The Iron Heel", 1914 in actual history ), he (like many others at
the time) predicted that when this moment came, labor solidarity would prevent a war that would
include the US, Germany and other nations.
The Iron Heel is cited by George Orwell 's biographer Michael Shelden as having influenced
Orwell's most famous novel Nineteen Eighty-Four .
[4] Orwell himself
described London as having made "a very remarkable prophecy of the rise of Fascism ", in the book and believed that
London's understanding of the primitive had made him a better prophet "than many better-informed
and more logical thinkers." [5] ( The Iron Heel - Wikipedia )
As writer or thinker, Jack London can't touch George Orwell, but he's nearly the Brit's
equal when it comes to describing society's bottom. To both, being a writer is as much a
physical as an intellectual endeavor. Wading into everything, they braved all discomforts and
dangers. This attitude has become very rare, and not just among writers. Trapped in intensely
mediated lives, we all think we know more as we experience less and less.
At age 14, London worked in a salmon cannery. At 16, he was an oyster pirate. At 17, he was
a sailor on a sealing schooner that reached Japan. At 18, London crossed the country as a hobo
and, near Buffalo, was jailed for 30 days for vagrancy. At 21, he prospected for gold in the
Klondike. London was also a newsboy, longshoreman, roustabout, window washer, jute mill grunt,
carpet cleaner and electrician, so he had many incidents, mishaps and ordeals to draw from, and
countless characters to portray.
London's The Road chronicles his hobo and prison misadventure. Condemned to hard labor, the
teenager nearly starved, "While we got plenty of water, we did not get enough of the bread. A
ration of bread was about the size of one's two fists, and three rations a day were given to
each prisoner. There was one good thing, I must say, about the water -- it was hot. In the
morning it was called 'coffee,' at noon it was dignified as 'soup,' and at night it masqueraded
as 'tea.' But it was the same old water all the time."
London quickly worked his way up the clink's hierarchy, to become one of 13 enforcers for
the guards. This experience alone should have taught him that in all situations, not just dire
ones, each man will prioritize his own interest and survival, and that there's no solidarity
among the "downtrodden" or whatever. Orwell's Animal Farm is a parable about this. Since man is
an egoist, power lust lurks everywhere.
During the Russo-Japanese War a decade later, London would approvingly quote a letter from
Japanese socialists to their Russian comrades, but this pacific gesture was nothing compared to
the nationalistic fervor engulfing both countries. Like racism, nationalism is but self love.
Though clearly madness if overblown, it's unextinguishable.
Jailed, London the future socialist stood by as his gang disciplined a naïf, "I
remember a handsome young mulatto of about twenty who got the insane idea into his head that he
should stand for his rights. And he did have the right of it, too; but that didn't help him
any. He lived on the topmost gallery. Eight hall-men took the conceit out of him in just about
a minute and a half -- for that was the length of time required to travel along his gallery to
the end and down five flights of steel stairs. He travelled the whole distance on every portion
of his anatomy except his feet, and the eight hall-men were not idle. The mulatto struck the
pavement where I was standing watching it all. He regained his feet and stood upright for a
moment. In that moment he threw his arms wide apart and omitted an awful scream of terror and
pain and heartbreak. At the same instant, as in a transformation scene, the shreds of his stout
prison clothes fell from him, leaving him wholly naked and streaming blood from every portion
of the surface of his body. Then he collapsed in a heap, unconscious. He had learned his
lesson, and every convict within those walls who heard him scream had learned a lesson. So had
I learned mine. It is not a nice thing to see a man's heart broken in a minute and a half."
Jailed, you immediately recover your racial consciousness, but London apparently missed
this. In any case, a lesser writer or man wouldn't confess to such complicity with power.
Elsewhere, London admits to much hustling and lying, and even claims these practices made him a
writer, "I have often thought that to this training of my tramp days is due much of my success
as a story-writer. In order to get the food whereby I lived, I was compelled to tell tales that
rang true [ ] Also, I quite believe it was my tramp-apprenticeship that made a realist out of
me. Realism constitutes the only goods one can exchange at the kitchen door for grub."
Informed by hard-earned, bitter experience, London's accounts resonate and convince, even
when outlandish, for they are essentially true about the human condition.
London on a fellow prisoner, "He was a huge, illiterate brute, an
ex-Chesapeake-Bay-oyster-pirate, an 'ex-con' who had done five years in Sing Sing, and a
general all-around stupidly carnivorous beast. He used to trap sparrows that flew into our hall
through the open bars. When he made a capture, he hurried away with it into his cell, where I
have seen him crunching bones and spitting out feathers as he bolted it raw."
Though London often uses "beast" or "beastly" to describe how humans are treated, this
fellow appears to be congenitally bestial, with his all-around stupidity. As for the other
prisoners, "Our hall was a common stews, filled with the ruck and the filth, the scum and
dregs, of society -- hereditary inefficients, degenerates, wrecks, lunatics, addled
intelligences, epileptics, monsters, weaklings, in short, a very nightmare of humanity." Though
many are wrecked, others are born deficient, addled or weak, but in our retarded days, morons
must be smart in other ways, and raging monsters are merely oppressed into mayhem or
murder.
ORDER IT NOW
But of course, society does oppress, then and now. Remember that an 18-year-old London was
sentenced to 30 days of hard labor for merely being in a strange city without a hotel
reservation. Another inmate was doing 60 for eating from a trash can, "He had strayed out to
the circus ground, and, being hungry, had made his way to the barrel that contained the refuse
from the table of the circus people. 'And it was good bread,' he often assured me; 'and the
meat was out of sight.' A policeman had seen him and arrested him, and there he was." Well, at
least Americans are no longer locked up for dumpster diving, so there's progress for you, but
then many must still feed from the garbage, with that number rapidly rising.
Though London was a worldwide celebrity at his death in 1916, his fame faded so fast that
Orwell could comment in 1944, "Jack London is one of those border-line writers whose works
might be forgotten altogether unless somebody takes the trouble to revive them."
London's most enduring book may turn out to be The People of the Abyss, his 1903
investigation into the abjectly impoverished of London's East End.
Dressed accordingly, London joined its homeless to see how they survived. With a 58-year-old
carter and a 65-year-old carpenter, London wandered the cold streets, "From the slimy,
spittle-drenched, sidewalk, they were picking up bits of orange peel, apple skin, and grape
stems, and, they were eating them. The pits of greengage plums they cracked between their teeth
for the kernels inside. They picked up stray bits of bread the size of peas, apple cores so
black and dirty one would not take them to be apple cores, and these things these two men took
into their mouths, and chewed them, and swallowed them; and this, between six and seven o'clock
in the evening of August 20, year of our Lord 1902, in the heart of the greatest, wealthiest,
and most powerful empire the world has ever seen."
Having mingled with many homeless in cities across America, I can attest that the food
situation is not as bad in that unraveling empire, but the squalor is just as appalling, if not
worse. A Wall Street Journal headline, "California's Biggest Cities Confront a 'Defecation
Crisis'." There's no need to import public shitting from shitholes, since there's already
plenty of it, homegrown and well-fertilized with smirkingly cynical policies.
Trump, "We can't let Los Angeles, San Francisco and numerous other cities destroy themselves
by allowing what's happening," but he's only talking about the unsightliness of it all, not its
root cause, which is a deliberately wrecked economy that, over decades, has fabulously enriched
his and our masters. This, too, is a controlled demolition.
Ensconced in some leafy suburb, you might be missing this beastly, raving, zonked out and
shitty transformation. Jack London, though, never recoiled from society's diarrhea. My favorite
passage of The People of the Abyss is his account of bathing, so to speak, in a workhouse:
We stripped our clothes, wrapping them up in our coats and buckling our belts about them,
and deposited them in a heaped rack and on the floor -- a beautiful scheme for the spread of
vermin. Then, two by two, we entered the bathroom. There were two ordinary tubs, and this I
know: the two men preceding had washed in that water, we washed in the same water, and it was
not changed for the two men that followed us. This I know; but I am also certain that the
twenty-two of us washed in the same water.
I did no more than make a show of splashing some of this dubious liquid at myself, while I
hastily brushed it off with a towel wet from the bodies of other men. My equanimity was not
restored by seeing the back of one poor wretch a mass of blood from attacks of vermin and
retaliatory scratching.
If other men had to endure that, why shouldn't London, especially since he was trying to
understand these wretches?
Many moons, suns and saturns ago, I taught a writing course at UPenn, and for one
assignment, I asked students to take the subway to a strange stop, get off, walk around and
observe, but don't do it in the dark, I did warn them. Frightened, one girl couldn't get off,
so simply wrote about her very first ride. At least she got a taste of an entirely alien world
beyond campus. Considering that her parents had to cough up over 60 grands annually to consign
her to the Ivy League, they'd probably want to murder me for subjecting their precious to such
needless anxieties.
Cocooned, Americans are oblivious to their own destruction. Screwed, they're fixated by
Pornhub.
London insisted a worldwide class revolution was the answer. A century and several gory
nightmares later, there are those who still cling to this faith, but only in the West. In the
East, even the most ignorant know the survival of his identity and dignity is conterminous with
his nation's. Orwell understood this well. It is the biggest crime to wreck anyone's heritage
in a flash.
In each society, you can begin to right the ship by prosecuting the biggest criminals, with
existing laws, but first, you must have the clarity and courage to identify them.
In the US, at least, this shouldn't be too complicated, for their crimes are mostly out in
the open, and their enforcers appear nightly in your living room, not unlike 1984. As you
watch, they cheerfully lie, silence witnesses, mass murder, squander your last cent and
dismantle, brick by brick, the house your forefathers built and died defending. Even if all
they saw was its basement, it was still their everything.
Lexicologically, Jack London far surpasses Orwell. He mixes erudite and argot. Stylistically
London far surpassed anything Orwell ever came up with. Orwell is a man of unum librum.
Nor would I say Orwell was a better thinker than London. 1984 is partly inspired by the
Iron Heel, an image coined by London in a namesake book.
Reducing London to being a mere "socialist" is moronic.
London is one of those authors whom aesthetes despise, but who- against all odds- stubbornly
refuse to go away. When he wrote about "serious" topics, London was a failure (Burning
Daylight, Martin Eden, ); on the other hand, when he wrote about animals, primitives,
mentally impaired, (white) underclass & quasi-fascist-Darwinian fantasies (most stories
& short novels) -he was an unavoidable writer, one that will be read long after most
canonized authors are just a footnote.
By the way, he was extremely popular even in Czarist Russia, something along the lines of
American vitalism & energy.
Jack London's "The Iron Heel" is another of his fictional stories about the working classes
and in the book he attacks capitalism and promotes socialism while presenting the story of
the US turned into an oligarchy in 1913 (the book was written in 1907). What's interesting
about "The Iron Heel" is that by 1900 it must have been quite obvious as to how the world's
more powerful nations were planning on parceling up the world, and London makes reference to
this in his novel about the future military campaigns that will take place in the book's
dystopian future, and his fiction was not far wrong from what actually transpired in WW1 and
WW2.
After Jack London gained fame he did not work alone, he hired aspiring writers to
"fill-in" his fiction, much like famous painters painting large commissions would hire
subordinates to "fill-in" their canvas after the outline was drawn. The plot and subplots
would come from London, but his underlings would write the stories. At this point in time I
can't remember the names but as I recall a few famous authors got their start working for
Jack London.
London was also cursed with the writer's nemesis, he was an alcoholic, and his
autobiographical novel "John Barleycorn" treats the "demon drink" as one of the world's great
ills. The book being published in 1913, it is noteworthy that the eighteenth amendment
banning alcohol was passed by congress a few years later in 1919, so it could be that London
was at least a minor fulcrum in giving a push to the moral crusade against alcohol being sold
in the US.
Much of Jack London's work is classic like his short story fiction placed in Alaska, "To
Start a Fire" about a man exposed to the elements and slowly freezing to death, or his
fictional tales about being a constable sailing a schooner chasing pirates off the coast of
California. Also unique and thrilling is the short story "A Piece of Steak" about an aging
boxer hoping to win one last fight. These were tough and gritty stories about men at their
extremity, and not tales for children.
London wrote a good tale and he understood human nature, and perhaps that's what motivated
him to become an alcoholic socialist.
@Bardon
Kaldian I enjoyed much of London's works. Although I read many of his books when
young,and I don't remember them too much, they helped inspire me to head north in the very
backyard of Burning Daylight, a best seller in it's day. His portrayal of characters of the
North seem quite believable and his description of the land and it's peculiar traits are also
accurate. The short story 'All Gold Canyon' is spot on for how a prospector prospects.
I read the Jack London Reader (for sale in Chicken, ak) a few years ago and enjoyed it
immensely as I did the Sea Wolf.
Martin Eden is a depressing read. I have only read Animal Farm so I really can't compare.
Depends how much one 'likes' to get disgruntled.
Cocooned, Americans are oblivious to their own destruction. Screwed, they're fixated by
Pornhub.
Funny, all I ever read on the Internet these days are articles about America's
destruction. This article's another one. Yet according to some pouty guy on the other side of
the planet, we're oblivious.
And Pornhub is #32 according to Alexa. That's really high, but 31 websites precede it.
I've never visited Pornhub, and I'd bet neither have 9 out of 10 Americans. Eliminate kids
under 10, adults over 80, most women, and all those without Internet access, and you're left
with a core of certain primetime lusty guys who are comfortable with pornography. Couldn't be
more than 10%.
It'd be wonderful if we could have a single calendar day, say October 21, when everyone
declares a moratorium on blithely shitting on America. Or is this part of the Jewish strategy
to keep us divided and unhappy?
"London was also a newsboy, longshoreman, roustabout, window washer, jute mill grunt, carpet
cleaner and electrician" and – not least – SPORTSWRITER!John Griffith Chaney
packed a lot of experience into his short forty year span on this wretched earth but his
stint on the Oakland Herald & later sports writing – especially about surfing
– are some of his best & consistent with his own fiery enjoyment of active outdoor
sports. Perhaps best summed up in his aphorism:"I would rather be ashes than dust." London
was not known for being a soccer fan but nonetheless, he would probably still be pleased to
know that there is in his hometown today a very large & thriving Jack London Youth Soccer
League. Anybody's guess how long it will be before the Woke Folk in town try to shut it down
for being named after a 'white supremacist'.
Eric Arthur Blair had a similarly short stay in this world – only seven more years than
London – but didn't much share his enthusiasm for the sporting life. Orwell was quite
candid in his rejection of the world's favorite past time, explaining in an essay: "I loathed
the game, and since I could see no pleasure or usefulness in it, it was very difficult for me
to show courage at it. Football, it seemed to me, is not really played for the pleasure of
kicking a ball about, but is a species of fighting." Orwell was even more pointed in a London
Tribune op-ed during his early newspaper days, commenting on a recent series of matches
between a Russian & English clubs, " the games cult did not start till the later part of
the last century. Dr Arnold, generally regarded as the founder of the modern public school,
looked on games as simply a waste of time. Then, chiefly in England and the United States,
games were built up into a heavily-financed activity, capable of attracting vast crowds and
rousing savage passions, and the infection spread from country to country. It is the most
violently combative sports, football and boxing, that have spread the widest. There cannot be
much doubt that the whole thing is bound up with the rise of nationalism -- that is, with the
lunatic modern habit of identifying oneself with large power units and seeing everything in
terms of competitive prestige."
"Orwell understood this well. It is the biggest crime to wreck anyone's heritage in a
flash."
Or beat their national team. Go Golden Dragons!
When I read about a woman dying from a rooster attack, or people falling to their death to
take selfies, or the growing number of hikers who venture out into semi- wilderness with
their cell phones but not adequate water, I always think of London's "To Build a Fire."
If London observed man's diminished capacity to measure and survive nature in his era,
what would he make of any airport or street today? Like the parasite creature in "Alien",
phones are stuck to every face encountered. Most people are not "present" in any sense when
in the public sphere now, let alone taking note of the world around them.
Great essay. I made it a point to visit Jack London's ranch on a California visit. The ranch
was a huge unfulfilled project with the sad burnt out ruins of his dream house reminding us
of his grand plans. The condition of his grown-over untended grave startled me. I find it
interesting that many men of that time viewed socialism as a panacea; however, the intellect,
ambition and energy of a man like Jack London would never have survived the ideology he
espoused.
@Paul Did
you see the "Trotsky" miniseries on Netflix? It was in Russian with English subtitles, but I
enjoyed reading them all and found it riveting. It appeared to be historically accurate to
someone like me who knows little of Russian history. Trotsky (born Lev Bronstein) was a
Ukrainian Jew who cared little for how many Russians he killed. I guess Ukies hated Russians
even back then.
In each society, you can begin to right the ship by prosecuting the biggest criminals,
with existing laws, but first, you must have the clarity and courage to identify them.
This is why I don't get your disgust at President Trump. He has the will and the position
to do just as you recommend and he would do it if the ruling class weren't trying to cut him
off at the knees 24-7. Trump is the people's first successful attempt to drive the destroyers
from the forum. I fear for coming generations if he doesn't.
@simple_pseudonymic_handle
Nathaniel Hawthorne
Herman Melville
Walt Whitman
Mark Twain
Stephen Crane
T.S. Eliot
Henry James
Tennessee Williams
Saul Bellow
John Updike
I wish the author would have done an analysis of London's "Iron Heel." I just read it for
the first time, and what he was writing about 100 years ago on the dominance of the
"oligarchs", i.e., the "iron heel" rings as true today as it did back then.
Curious also how he died so suddenly. There is a YouTube video of him at his ranch looking
as healthy as can be only a couple of days before he mysteriously died.
@AaronB
An empire exploits and abuses all natives, including those of its host nation. Just think of
how they must send these natives to foreign lands, not just to kill, but die. It's better to
be a house slave than a field one, however, so many far flung subjects of the empire will try
to sneak into the house. It's also safer there, generally. Except for rare instances, as in
9/11, the empire won't blow up natives inside its borders.
I am struck by the variety of ways in which the actual spiritual state of Americans is
denied by people who have every reason to know what that state is: our educators, artists,
and politicians. It is hard for me to believe, for example, that educators do not know the
sorry truth behind the lack of real education here. It seems very clear to me that until the
educators themselves believe in what they teach, there is no hope for their students. But the
educators cannot accept this, because in order to do so they would have to overhaul every
aspect of their private lives, which effort would hurl them forever beyond the bounds of the
academic life.
James Baldwin, 1961
The catastrophe which is education in this country is not new. For the majority of students
in the United States, black students in particular, education has never meant anything more
than a training to stay in one's place. Over the past several decades, however, with the
American Empire in an accelerating free-fall, American education, ever the handmaiden of
society's rich and powerful, has in tandem spiraled downward: our schools endlessly drill our
children with boring and meaningless "worksheets"; we subsidize and celebrate the digital
economy by "teaching" children with computers and computer programs; we script our teachers to
guarantee a minimum of human interaction in the classroom; we strip our schools of art and
music, making sure that our students never see beauty or truth in the world; and, of course, we
drill our students for weeks and months on end with testing, and more testing, and still more
testing, lest our students find any joy whatsoever in learning. In short, our schools dull the
intelligence and curiosity of our young people such that they will never question the
meaningless and unpleasant lives they will be forced to lead in a society that is everywhere
falling apart around them.
In higher education, too, we see this dramatic narrowing of the already slim chances that
any of our students will achieve a real education. Our state legislatures, in the most telling
example, cut state support for higher education requiring that university administrations jack
up tuition, tuition that rises far more rapidly than does inflation. Higher tuition yields both
higher student debt and more students working twenty, thirty, or forty hours a week in paying
jobs while they attend school. Our indebted students then must hew as closely as they possibly
can to career paths which enable them to minimize and pay back their debts; and the long hours
of minimum wage work taken on by our students all but guarantee that they cannot be serious
students, cannot devote the hours they need to study and reflection, cannot, in short, do the
work most necessary for them to become educated, mature, human beings. But then educated,
mature human beings do not fit well into our global economy.
In the face of this disaster, our university faculty refuse to take any stand against the
strangling of education in this country. We mouth words in our classrooms about truth, and the
search for truth, and the value and necessity of honesty and ethics, and democracy, and
responsible citizenship. Privately, we condemn the various assessment schemes we're compelled
to carry out; privately, we denounce the rapid multiplication of educationally meaningless
administrative and compliance positions on our campuses. And privately, we bemoan the ignorance
of our students, their lack of curiosity and their lack of academic preparation. But when it
comes to denouncing all the various assaults upon education occurring across the entire
spectrum of our educational landscape, when we are compelled to speak to the reasons why our
students enter our universities uneducated, and still more seriously, why they leave our
universities uneducated, we lose our voice. As more than one of my colleagues has said to me in
explanation of his silence: "I don't want to stick my neck out."
As one who never finished the 'official' "education" process, I can look back and see that
I was reacting to an almost subconscious realization that I was 'there' for the wrong
reasons, according to the received wisdom of that, and every other, time. This disconnect
between the 'ideal' of education and the 'reality' of the "Paper Chase," is perennial.
Historically speaking, a 'proper' higher education serves the purpose of producing a 'well
rounded' person. Traditionally, that process was reserved for those with a high amount of
disposable income; the children of the wealthy. The "lower orders" beavered on in technical
colleges and apprenticeships. The odd 'special' case was made in the 'proper' universities
for the exceptionally bright and the token 'charity' student. Call it an institutional case
of virtue signalling.
Today, those two disparite streams of education have been melded into one almost
monolithic bloc. The original utilitarian view of education, previously reserved for the
'technical' fields has invaded and corrupted the "higher" educational sphere. Now, everything
has a "price." Presumably, that formulation also applies to the students enmeshed in the new,
magisterial 'education' instrumentality. Roughly speaking, the 'students' are now the
'product' of the universities, not the education.
Finally, all this might be a socially 'agreed upon' process to short circuit the
production of intellectually and emotionally 'well balanced' individuals. There is nothing
more fear producing in any ruling elite than the prospect of an 'aware' public.
As a consumer, and producer of higher education curricula over 20 years in academia, this
article is spot on in how it describes the bezzle. And the area of specialization for me
(family finance – human ecology) is the prototypical example of the Neoliberal
university coaxing students into believing that incremental change, small bits of
knowledge/courses will change their lives for our students for the better -- while large
institutions continue to cheat, obscure malfeasance, and promote the administrative culture.
Its sickening on so many levels.
It is sickening to experience (teaching and learning). And if we remembered more than we
forget, it would take about 20 seconds to remember how the market has changed higher
education in terms content (what is studied), how we study (crammage), and why we study.
Lastly, if we imagine the exact same degree type for two different eras we can see the main
focus very clear:
1. Tuition at Cal Berkley in 1970? Around 1K 2019 – more like 1K per credit
hour.
2. Paying for your future assumes that we have a future (climate change, job market
opportunities)
3. Debt peonage and rentier education squatting requires the right mix of desperation and
time
When I think about the time/money/energy that is wasted in this country (not just in
universities – anyone just has to spend 1 minute with someone who participates in
fantasy football or sports gaming to see how out of wack we are as a culture and as a
people.
The hollowed out spaces in universities are now more about pretending to be competent,
maintaining the status quo -- each unit within departments competing against one another for
resources and students rather than we are all in this together (for the student).
If education can be seen in the lens of abuse, we have the profiteers abusers, and the
admin enables with chaos for everyone else.
Crazy
As Regina Spektor says: Living in Den of Thieves – its contagious
What Barber is saying: Teaching is hard, and my students aren't very bright (look in a
mirror, sir, neither are you). Revolutions are fun. Let's do that instead.
Yes, most people are educated, especially these days, to be conformist, to adopt the
current economic fantasies, and to be highly verbal.
But Barber does himself no favors: What can he possibly mean by the American Church? I am
detecting someone who has spent too much time in the U.S. South (Tennessee) where the
"church" is those nice Methodists down the street. Along with some required singing of
Amazing Grace. So what he may think of as an insightful critique of Americans' flexible
morals doesn't get to the center of the problem. The American "church" is utilitarianism.
Whatever one can get away with one gets away with. Actions have no consequences among the
perfected.
And the mention of the Greeks by Barber and Deneen is gratuitous. Neither of them has much
use for the Greeks and Greek philosophy. Each of them likely considers Greek philosophy
mainly to be the support that makes the American Church intellectually legitimate.
I understand the moral problem of anyone trying to get an education in the U S of A these
days. My alma mater is one of the main cheerleaders for fundamentialist free-market fantasy.
(Alma mater: What an idea.) Yet the diploma is only a start: Education has to go throughout
one's life, and sentimental education (is that even a "thing" here in the U S of A?) has to
go on everyday for the rest of one's post-diploma life.
Actually, the diploma is the end of the beginning. The start is "the first five" years of
life (talk, read, sing) which is likely to expose the growing brain to stimuli that allows
for future "discovery". The beginning of formal education (K-12), unfortunately for many,
starts with poverty (25% of all school children) and impoverished school resources (including
underpaid, over-worked teachers) that conspire toward an assembly-line methodology (testing,
and more testing). Those who make it to college (honestly) are well-versed in manufacturing
"acceptable" papers on topics not understood. But then the college curricula (more demanding
than H.S.) and the concept of "critical thinking" (ignoring the social implications of 18-20
y.o.'s on their own) makes the idea of "learning how to learn" a difficult grasp. Some get
it, some don't.
It is after getting the college diploma, and maybe of few years of travel (for pleasure or
a job) that a much broader, mature perspective of the world (Plato) emerges. (Hopefully those
Classics, or an introduction to NC, comes across your path.) It is then the real learning
starts.
I agree wholeheartedly with your diagnosis (not to mention greatly appreciate your lovely
prose), however, I think your theory of change as stated here – "force the issue and
meaning of education before American society" – misses the mark.
I have spent the better part of 2 decades studying, first history, then education, with
the goal of becoming an educator (accumulating no small amount of debt in the process). So
long as I stuck to diagnosing the problem as you did here, and keeping my calls to arms
strictly in the rhetorical realm, I was welcomed as an "ally" and fellow traveler by a not
insignificant portion of my colleagues.
Unfortunately for my career (not to mention mental health), I wasn't satisfied with that,
and began to delve and a very focused and specific way into the actual structure of
educational systems, and looking for levers to gain the power necessary to change them (or,
more specifically, to shift power from those who hold it to those who do not). That was when
I learned just how thin of a gruel "allyship" really is in academia.
I think you are assuming educators have real power. They do not. Power, real power, comes
from control over the material necessities and niceties of life. The primary social function
of our educational institutions, from pre-k through endowed chairmanship is to sort people
into an unequal society. If the "real issue and meaning of education" (i.e. creating the
conditions and connections necessary for truly democratic life) were to take hold in such an
institution, it would either destroy the institution or turn it into something else
entirely.
I agree "an educated people" is indeed our only hope, because to me an educated people is
synonymous with a democratic people. Indeed, I think education is the inevitable result of
people getting together to solve problems nonviolently with a coequal distribution of power.
Where it has truly taken root (e.g. Freedom schools in the 60s, the meetings organized by
populist party at the turn of the 19th/20th century), it has had a material function and base
that is diametrically opposed to the way virtually all today's "educators" earn their daily
bread.
IMO, the way people become true "educators" – those who "force the issue and meaning
of education before American society" – is by serving the educational function in a
democratic movement. They are people who are delegated authority democratically (i.e. without
coercion) by those they serve because they, in essence, are effective hubs for the
uninhibited flow of social information. In other words, they are authentically democratic
leaders, whose power is entirely dependent on maintaining trust because trust is fundamental
to the uninhibited flow of social information, and the temptation to violate social trust is,
well, why human societies have more drama than ant colonies.
You are a professor, and no doubt do a great deal of good for a great many students (I did
a brief stint of that as well, and in no way am trying to undermine how valuable and
rewarding it can be), but you will never be, in that role, an "educator" in the truly
democratic sense because every one of your students knows you could, if you wanted,
completely screw them over and there's not a family blogging thing they could do about
it.
You can, however, be a real educator (i.e. democratic leader) in your spare time, and are
in a unique and special institutional position to prepare future (and support present) real
democratic educator/leaders to manage one hell of a clusterfamilyblog of a global
civilizational collapse that is coming whether we want it to or not. I hope you will do so
with a hard-nosed evaluation of the relationship between power, information flows, democracy,
and the material world, as I fear anything less will be far from adequate.
These comments appear to me to be the epitome of neoliberal doctrine:
1. People have everything they need to excel
2. Its never been easier to study as information has been democratized
3. Invocation of Maslow, ambient culture (interesting view of life-stage development for
young adults too
4. Individualistic lens – "addressing the big issues of your time"
Maybe I read this wrong, or it started with "NC folk" – but there is no mention
of:
Debt peonage
Administrative culture
Global Labor Markets
Real Costs for Students – Tuition Inflation (higher than healthcare costs over last 30
years)
– Parking predation
– Textbook Bezzles
– Adjunct – itus
– Pay to Play Tenure
– Darwinian death struggle among college units in departments (Survival =
Resources)
– Forgetting – a major theme (making meaning of one's education) – moving
onto CV building
Social Costs of Expensive Higher Education (delay family formation)
Long term wealth implications for this generation's graduates
Education is not a solitary event, with isolated moments of brainstorming and
individualistic memes of hardwork. It is a system with millions of parts -- and these parts
have been bent to serve our neoliberal masters in about every domain imaginable.
And in my experience, (as Yves says) this is not a bug in the system -- it was a feature
of a system reboot designed especially for these outcomes
Last year I went to the local library book sale, and bought a stack of college textbooks
– chemistry, physics, elec engineering, calc, etc. The stack was 3′ tall, and it
cost me $26.
A few months ago, I downloaded the latest Linux & Java development workbench onto the
computer I built from components sourced from Ebay/Amazon. Full, up-to-date, latest edition
of Java development workbench on killer hardware $650, including 21″ monitor. Software
and how-to materials all free. I have done this several times during my career, and it's
never been easier or cheaper to do.
To glean those textbooks, all I have to do is read, do the probs at the back of the
chapter. To build salable skills, all I have to do is think up a problem to solve, and write
the software to solve it. Effort. Those two things – ID useful problem, and the
marshalling of components to solve it – gives me demonstrable evidence of competency,
and I can parlay that into a good job.
When I look a the amount of time expended on smart phones, Facebook, etc. I become less
sympathetic about people's plight – in general. One counter-example: the 450-year
systematic repression of blacks is one issue that merits societal redress.
And whether this cultural malady of victimhood is by design (by the "elites", for ex), or
by circumstance, it is not mandatory . No one is making people watch TV. There are
choices, and some are making different, better choices, and benefiting from it.
Visit http://www.coursera.org .
Tell my why I would go into debt to get what I need when it's available (from many of the
elite schools and professors) for free.
So, if taking initiative to address my own needs is what you call NeoLiberal, then I'm all
for neoliberalism. I get confused about all the political classifications afoot these days,
so I'm not real sure what bin I fit into, exactly.
Lastly, I doubt anyone could name 100 parts (types, not instances) of their educational
experience, let alone millions. It's not nearly as complex as all that.
While there a many areas where the web and libraries do indeed offer the curious and
disciplined an opportunity to better themselves with book knowlege of software. Much of what
we hope to understand about our world – fundamental research, and many speciality areas
of knowlege require a 'craft' or hands on component that no amount of book reading can
replace. Skill crafts of cabinetmakers, tailors, chefs and and product designers, or in my
field of biology. Lab 'bench craft' is fundamental to learning: microbiology, molecular
biology and much of fundamental physics requires labs. I understand from engineering friends
that trial test rigs during university are also fundamental to locking in skills. Many areas
of STEM require significant funds to back the student, because the study work loads make
academic excellence really challenging, and part time jobs nearly impossible. I know, I
worked 20 hours in a lab on weekends during much of my undergraduate. At graduate school the
extra hours 'spare' ideally are spent working on one's bench craft as free slave labour to
the senior ranking (i.e. higher skilled, greater knowledgeable senior scientists). In biology
labs, there is almost a medieval apprentice, journeyman, master craftsman route of skill
acquisition. There is as much an art to casting an agarose gel as there is in knowing the
tweak of the 'recipe' for the molecular attributes desired. It is with great relief that I am
not part of the US system, but sitting in a well funded more democratic (free) educational
system in Europe. Our world needs to radically think how to put much ore cash into STEM and
fundamental research. Incentivise school students (everywhere on planet) to commit the insane
hours needed for genetics, molecular biology and all the other emerging areas of life
sciences. It requires countries to overhaul education to allow curious minds regardless of
family finances. I agree with many NC readers that wide systematic overhaul is needed to
untangle many of these difficult and decaying situations (not just US).
Yes. It is still possible to get an education if you are self-motivated and
self-disciplined. Either inside or outside the academy – and which academy is
secondary. But in my view education requires teachers – this is missing from your model
and a very important part of the Academy.
However, Credentialling is only available if you pay the price of attaching yourself to
the academy. DOn;t worry – credentials are becoming less and less important as changing
times and institutional decay make truly educated and adaptable people more and more
important and the obedient credentialled irrelevent and useless.
Only how many hundreds of job ads on Indeed use "do you have a bachelors degree" as a
screening question? And straight into the circular disposal unit your digital submission goes
if you don't.
Ah well pesky reality of the job market and all, sure does reduce philosophizing about
"the pointlessness of credentials and formal education" down to size. And no my position is
not that noone can succeed without credentials, just that it's obviously harder.
I've never had an employer, in the last 35 years, who would give you any credibility for
stuff you learnt on your own.
If it isn't on your school transcripts or a diploma, you don't get to negotiate with it.
If you have great knowledge, acquired on your own, and use it on the job, you will get no
mention of it, no credit, nada. They will keep taking until they are made to stop, and nary
so much as a "thank you".
But that's just my experience of 35 years on the job.
"I've never had an employer, in the last 35 years, who would give you any credibility for
stuff you learnt on your own."
+1 and most WILL NOT give any credibility for class you take either, under no
circumstances.
There are two things employers give weight to:
1) on the job experience
2) credentialing, not taking a class in this or that but having a bachelors or a masters. And
this #2 is only as a screening device, #1 is still paramount, #2 can be used to screen out
but seldom is it by itself an "in". Now there are unique circumstances, if you are still in
your 20s, some will let you start out with just a degree as "you have to start somewhere",
but after that age, no you need #1 and best to have #2 as well.
+1 on this as well. My experience is that either you have the knowledge certified by
diploma or you are considered to know nothing about the subject & that is even more true
when dealing with people with neither diploma nor knowledge of/in the subject matter. They
use what little they know and what they know is to look at a diploma.
Ignoring opinions/knowledge from non-certified people is something actively taught at
universities and especially at business schools – if things go wrong then the defense
can be: He/she was the expert and had the diploma to show for it. People in positions of
responsibility are experts at avoiding responsibility, credentials help to deflect
blame/responsibility so it is often used.
IT has been slightly different, in the older days, but now it is settling in and even IT
recruiters no longer need to take chances on the uncredentialled.
Plinking away on a keyboard may feel like you're doing "real work", but there's a lot more
that's necessary to keep any kind of civilization going than developing a new Java app.
Training yourself to do any of these myriad other tasks takes more capital, financial and
otherwise, than the $700 you've laid out above. Not to mention that staring at a computer
screen is profoundly unhealthy and not suitable work for us jumped-up monkeys.
But that's where we are now, aren't we? The only work that Americans think of as "good real
work" these days is on a family-blogging computer, and everything else that keeps things
going has had the living wage taken away from it and the training ignored.
Everything is a waste of time if it's not improving one's usefulness to the economic
system I guess you would argue. And whether it's spending time on facebook and smart phones,
or taking care of old people, or raising kids, or engaging in political activism, or
increasing one's understanding of the world, or volunteering, or hanging out with friends
which Americans increasingly don't even have, or etc.. Because you know it's not just
Facebook people spend time on.
This is the philosophy of a tool. Your soul was bought on the cheap and you don't even
have the inner spirit to miss it.
As I re-read my piece a key question descended upon me. Since Maslow's hierarchy is a
guide, or a possibility, it's not a given that someone ever will "self-actualize", or will do
so in some socially- or ecologically-useful manner. So what happened to make you
"self-acualize" in a direction that might include an NC and the values it espouses?
A parent? A book? A Ken Burns documentary? Did you decide one day to sail outside the safe
harbors of conformity, and got swept – with malice afore-thought, and cocktail in hand
– into the currents of worldliness?
This is a key question for you democratic educators, ref. funemployed above: "Where's the
launch button?"
When I first encountered Maslow, I was puzzled, thinking I was missing something profound.
Now I'm simply amazed that he can be celebrated as an intellectual with penetrating insight
for stating the obvious.
"Food, clothes and shelter
All the poor man asking for"
– Misty in Roots
None of the answers I have received when younger, about how society was organized made any
sense in justice or fairness. Thus, the quest for better answers began. If that is an
awakening, then perhaps it is genetic. Some just seek to know more. Or perhaps more have had
that curiosity defeated by society's need for conformity earlier. The quest for knowledge
often is the lonelier path, for conforming to thr tribe brings fellowship and norms to
follow. There is safety in the middle of the pack.
Now, having observed a better understanding of the intrinsic unfairness of societal
arrangements and structures, the question turns to what nudges to the body may be possible to
limit the damage we bring upon ourselves as a species to strive for better returns (profits?
Benefits?) without the understanding of what "better" or "returns" means.
Smokers know smoking is bad, but the nicotine calls are here and now answered.
Feed scrollers know it doesn't improve their lives, but the hope for just a bit of pleasure
keeps the finger scrolling.
As to the digital opiate of the masses, is it because they have been conditioned/addicted
to lose their own agency to said opiate? Perhaps the very discussions here in NC is but a
different flavour of the same digital opiate. Or to paraphrase Mulder, "The answer IS out
there", and we just have to discover it.
The more things change Check out Thorstein Veblen, The Higher Learning in America (1918)
or John Dewey The Public and its Problems and other works. Formal education, divorced as it
is from the practices of everyday life, presents these sorts of problems as a feature, not a
bug. That said, it has been my experience over the past 35 years that education can be and is
world opening for many young students. I have also found that the problem often rests with
the educator as much as it does the system of education. Well recognized philosophies of
education underlay a fundamental split teaching practice, (e.g., transmission of "facts"
versus enlivenment of knowing). Those that don't take the time to learn how to teach end up
frustrated that the "system" is failing. That a tenured full professor is lamenting thus,
just as Veblen did a century ago, is suggestive.
The prof can complain about students, but I think the students know what's going on better
than does the prof. The problems are much higher up the ladder than lowly students readiness
for college humanities courses. I expect the students are learning a great deal that's not in
the official curriculum. See:
tools for an economic system that prizes 'flexibility' (geographic, interpersonal,
ethical
Learning tools to develope flexible ethics kind of creeps me out.
Yup, training up thinkers is tough, I agree.
I think this is corollary to the above article–and if you've been in the classroom any
year for the past forty this should ring sickeningly familiar:
I loved the book about Summerhill – the alternative education option in the UK (back
in the 70s). Everyone was aghast because they thought it was remiss not to educate children
rigidly. It never got traction here in the US. But last night there was a segment on
alternative education in the UK, allowing children to go at their own pace, find their own
interest and above all learn that they didn't need an intermediary (teacher basically) to
learn – they could be successful autodidacts. It sounds like it is taking off in
England. How nice. Summerhill is still alive and kicking – it advertises itself as a
student democracy. Choose what you want to study. I certainly still like the idea because I
had my nose in a book from about the age of 7. I always read what interested me and it has
been a true pleasure. That's gotta be worth somthin.
Permit me to add three more books to your recommendation:
1. The Teenage Liberation Handbook: How to Quit School and Get a Real Life and
Education by Grace Llewellyn. I don't think this one's in print anymore.
2. The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto. Still in
print. Here's the author's website: https://www.johntaylorgatto.com/
3. The Day I Became an Audidact by Kendall Hailey. As far as I can tell, no longer
in print.
Enjoy your self-education outside the system, everyone!
From the OED: educate, v. [f. L. ēducāt- ppl. stem of ēducāre to rear, bring up
(children, young animals), related to ēdūcĕre to lead forth (see educe), which
is sometimes used nearly in the same sense.] 1 To rear, bring up (children, animals) by
supply of food and attention to physical wants. Obs. 2 To bring up (young persons) from
childhood, so as to form (their) habits, manners, intellectual and physical aptitudes. b To
instruct, provide schooling for (young persons). 3 To train (any person) so as to develop the
intellectual and moral powers generally. 4 To train, discipline (a person, a class of
persons, a particular mental or physical faculty or organ), so as to develop some special
aptitude, taste, or disposition. b To train (animals).
It would seem that Prof. Barber bemoans the demise of meaning 3, if that ever was the purpose
or function of our educational system.
Meanings 2 and 4 are alive and well. A special aptitude for narrow-minded submission is
successfully cultivated, the more so as the academic ladder is scrambled up.
But it's in Deneen's characterization of our students as "individuals without a past
cultureless ciphers".
I get that.
Americans have no use for History (with a capital H). American History is trail of carnage
and savagery on the scale of Attila and Hitler. Any discussion of History is replete with
irony, exceptions and contradictions. Things that Americans do not do well, and things that
you do not want rattling around in the heads of right-thinking citizens. Critical thinking
could be the catastrophic result.
OK then! Well enculturated Americans know that we have an exceptional past and we are an
exceptional people. But, History meh!
What we do have is a future. That's what America is all about. The wonderful, wonderful
future with it's myriad fabulous possibilities. Really, you could wet your pants just
thinking about it!
By 8th grade students are well versed in basic math and language arts. At that point the
student and family should have a choice between a college bound liberal arts education or a
technical education where they have a choice of several knowledge disciplines to choose to
study during High school. That way kids who leave high school and are not college bound at
least have one skill they can take anyplace in the USA and get a job.. Auto Mechanic, Diesel
Mechanic, Marine Mechanic, Chef, Software Development, Website Development, Cosmetology,
Adobe Creative Suite (video and photo editing), etc. Not all of those careers would be
offered at every high school. But at least 2 or 3 at a minimum and more choices the better.
After 12 years of state schooling students should have a skill or a plan to attend college to
acquire that skill.
World War II ended nearly three generations ago, and few of its adult survivors still walk
the earth. From one perspective the true facts of that conflict and whether or not they
actually contradict our traditional beliefs might appear rather irrelevant. Tearing down the
statues of some long-dead historical figures and replacing them with the statues of others
hardly seems of much practical value.
But if we gradually conclude that the story that all of us have been told during our entire
lifetimes is substantially false and perhaps largely inverted, the implications for our
understanding of the world are enormous. Most of the surprising material presented here is
hardly hidden or kept under lock-and-key. Nearly all the books are easily available at Amazon
or even freely readable on the Internet, many of the authors have received critical and
scholarly acclaim, and in some cases their works have sold in the millions.
Yet this important material has been almost entirely ignored or dismissed by the popular
media that shapes the common beliefs of our society. So we must necessarily begin to wonder
what other massive falsehoods may have been similarly promoted by that media, perhaps involving
incidents of the recent past or even the present day. And those latter events do have enormous
practical significance. As I pointed out several years ago in my original American Pravda article :
Aside from the evidence of our own senses, almost everything we know about the past or the
news of today comes from bits of ink on paper or colored pixels on a screen, and fortunately
over the last decade or two the growth of the Internet has vastly widened the range of
information available to us in that latter category. Even if the overwhelming majority of the
unorthodox claims provided by such non-traditional web-based sources is incorrect, at least
there now exists the possibility of extracting vital nuggets of truth from vast mountains of
falsehood.
We must also recognize that many of the fundamental ideas that dominate our present-day
world were founded upon a particular understanding of that wartime history, and if there seems
good reason to believe that narrative is substantially false, perhaps we should begin
questioning the framework of beliefs erected upon it.
ORDER IT NOW
George Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War during the 1930s and discovered that the true
facts in Spain were radically different from what he had been led to believe by the British
media of his day. In 1948 these past experiences together with the rapidly congealing "official
history" of the Second World War may have been uppermost in his mind when he published his
classic novel 1984, which famously declared that "Who controls the past controls the future;
who controls the present controls the past."
Great article, thank you. The WWII legend is sacrosanct because it is the founding myth of
the empire that replaced our republic, just as the Founders predicted would be the result of
choosing sides in foreign conflicts. Is seems credible to think that FDR enabled Churchill's
blood lust because encouraging the seriously weakened British empire to finish committing
suicide by engaging in another ground war in Europe would clear the way for the US to finally
replace the hated mother country as the world's great power- just as another faction of the
Founders dreamed. The motto on our National Seal "Novus Ordo Seclorum" is quoted from
Virgil's Eclogues, where it is the prophecy of the Cumaean Sybil that Rome was destined to
rule the world.
Historian Murray Rothbard best described the impact of the war in this obituary he wrote
for fellow popular historian Harry Elmer Barnes, "Our entry into World War II was the crucial
act in foisting a permanent militarization upon the economy and society, in bringing to the
country a permanent garrison state, an overweening military-industrial complex, a permanent
system of conscription. It was the crucial act in expanding the United States from a republic
into an Empire, and in spreading that Empire throughout the world, replacing the sagging
British Empire in the process. It was the crucial act in creating a Mixed Economy run by Big
Government, a system of State-Monopoly-Capitalism run by the central government in
collaboration with Big Business and Big Unionism. It was the crucial act in elevating
Presidential power, particularly in foreign affairs, to the role of single most despotic
person in the history of the world. And, finally, World War II is the last war-myth left, the
myth that the Old Left clings to in pure desperation: the myth that here, at least, was a
good war, here was a war in which America was in the right. World War II is the war thrown
into our faces by the war-making Establishment, as it tries, in each war that we face, to
wrap itself in the mantle of good and righteous World War II."
For those who lack the time to read these books, or even this great essay, here is a
13-minute video summary. For those shocked by this information, return and read this entire
essay, then the books if you still fail to understand that history has been distorted.
"Although Saddam Hussein clearly had no connection to the attacks, his status as a
possible regional rival to Israel had established him as their top target, and they soon
began beating the drums for war, with America finally launching its disastrous invasion in
February 2003."
I agree that replacing a progressive Arab leader with an Anglo-American puppet government
was an important factor, but the return of Iraqi oil fields to Anglo-American control was the
main objective. Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Total, and British Petroleum are now the biggest
producers of Iraqi oil.:
Thank You to Mr. Unz for mentioning the long-forgotten hero of the America First Committee,
John T. Flynn.
His biography, by Michele Stenehjem Gerber, is called An American First: John T. Flynn
and the America First Committee and has not yet been banned on Amazon:
Nonetheless I read it years ago, and it confirmed my suspicion that Lillian Gish,
pioneering film actress, was on a blacklist of some sort, and indeed she was. And this was
years before her name was removed from a college building here in Ohio. It is short, not hard
to read, less a full biography of Flynn than an interesting look at that filthy period in US
history when non-interventionists were slimed as "isolationists" and had their reputations
ruined. Or at least dinged quite a bit.
From an Amazon review:
This book inspires the broadening of the America First discussion, making references to
Lillian Gish, who proved she was blacklisted , Charlie Chaplin, whose The Great
Dictator was itself attacked as propaganda, and the charges of anti-Semitism from some
names not already researched, like Brooklyn Dodgers' president Larry MacPhail, S. H. Hauk,
Laura Ingalls, and Wilhelm Kunze of the German-American Bund (but still no Walt Disney
I went to Cambridge University in 1966 to study history. Two things I recall very distinctly:
the powerful impression Taylor's books made on me; and the very subtle but unmistakable
deprecation my tutors and lecturers applied to him and his work.
Taylor was certainly very talented, they said, but prone to "bees in his bonnet";
over-enthusiastic; sometimes unreliable.
Looking back, I can see how very effective this treatment was. As a rebellious and
iconoclastic 18-year-old, if I had been told that Taylor was wicked and wrong and I must
ignore his books, I would have hurried to study them deeply. But since I was cleverly
informed that he was just mildly eccentric and prone to unjustified speculation, I neglected
him in order to concentrate on the many other writers we had to read.
Most of the surprising material presented here is hardly hidden or kept under
lock-and-key. Nearly all the books are easily available at Amazon or even freely readable
on the Internet, many of the authors have received critical and scholarly acclaim, and in
some cases their works have sold in the millions. Yet this important material has been
almost entirely ignored or dismissed by the popular media that shapes the common beliefs of
our society. So we must necessarily begin to wonder what other massive falsehoods may have
been similarly promoted by that media, perhaps involving incidents of the recent past or
even the present day. And those latter events do have enormous practical significance.
Being the Guardian, of course, their prescription is that people should make a more
sincere effort to support the Reporters of Truth, such as the Guardian. In their retrograde
Left vs Right world, it's still up to the 'goodthinkers' to preserve our liberties from the
Boris Johnsons and Donald Trumps of the world. Never in a million years would they entertain
the possibility that Johnsons and Trumps come about because the Establishment–most
certainly including its MSM lackeys–is corrupt to its core.
As the Washington Post has it, "Democracy Dies in Darkness" -- neglecting to add, "We
supply the Darkness."
So now, instead of now [erroneously] believing, as we were all , er, "taught", that the
allies were the good guys of WW2, and that the Japs and Germans were the bad guys, we are now
supposed to believe the exact opposite, right, Mr Unz ? Jap and German governments now"good"-
WW2 allies governments now "bad"?
Reality fact: before, during and after WW2 and all the way up to this present
moment in time, the US, Soviet, French , Polish, Brit [etc. etc. ad infinitum] governments
lied; the German government lied, the Jap government lied. They ALL lied [and lie]!
Reality fact: It [lying] is what all governments everywhere all do – , all of
the time!
Reality fact: It's what they _must_ do to maintain power over their slave
populations [ see the Bernays quote below].
Regarding the fundamental nature of all governments, past, present, or future – this
"just" in :
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [via central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed","improved", nor "limited" in
scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
" The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the
masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen
mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our
country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested,
largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Bernays_Propaganda_in_english_.pdf
"The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their
power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must
be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of
the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan." ~ Adolf Hitler
"My first rule- I don't believe anything the government tells me- nothing!- ZERO!" George
Carlin
@Tom67
Thank God we American's were pillars morality. LOL
Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the
American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi,
"the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose
progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."
Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenic leader Madison Grant calling his
race-based eugenics book, The Passing of the Great Race his "bible."
This is a classic catch 22 situation with this "oath" described below...
Also I think a lot of professors of neo-classical economics look like the member of Komsomol
described below ;-) For them it is about opening new opportunities for advancement not about the
truth and the level of corresponding to the reality of this pseudo-scientific neo-classical garbage, with the smoke screen of
mathematics as a lipstick on the pig (mathiness)
Most such people will teach students complete garbage understanding that this is a complete garbage with a smile.
Still, in in Soviet way it is possible for some to accept the position and work to undermine neo-classical economics acting within
the institution using Aesopian language in lectures and papers.
"... Consider an example from the contemporary United States. Today a number of private universities, colleges, and schools in several states require teachers and professors to take a "loyalty oath" to ensure that they do not "hold or foster undesirable political beliefs.... ..."
"... From a political standpoint she disagreed with the practice of taking loyalty oaths, and later, in her role as professor of the sociology of law, she voiced political positions counter to those mentioned in the oath and challenged the oath-taking practice itself. ..."
"... However, before she could do this, she first had to take the oath, understanding that without this act she would not be employed or recognized by the institution as a legitimate member with a voice authorized to participate in teaching, research, and the institution's politics (committees, meetings, elections, and so forth), including even the possibility to question publicly the practice of taking oaths. ..."
"... "The oath did not mean much if you took it, but it meant a lot if you didn't." ..."
"... However, "when a vote had to be taken, everyone roused -- a certain sensor clicked in the head: 'Who is in favor?' -- and you raised your hand automatically" (see a discussion of such ritualized practices within the Komsomol in chapter a). ..."
"... Participating in these acts reproduced oneself as a "normal" Soviet person within the system of relations, collectivities, and subject positions, with all the constraints and possibilities that position entailed, even including the possibility, after the meetings, to engage in interests, pursuits, and meanings that ran against those that were stated in the resolutions one had voted for. ..."
"... These acts are not about stating facts and describing opinions but about doing things and opening new possibilities. ..."
A general shift at the level of concrete ritualized forms of discourse, in which the
formal dimension's importance grows, while the
informal, substantiative dimension opens up to new meanings, can and does occur in different historical and
cultural contexts.
Consider an example from the contemporary United States. Today a number of private
universities, colleges, and schools in several states require teachers and professors to take a
"loyalty oath" to ensure that they do not "hold or foster undesirable political
beliefs....
While the statutes vary, [these institutions] generally deny the right to teach to those who
cannot or will not take the loyalty oath" (Chin and Rao 2003, 431 -32). Recently, a sociologist
of law took such a loyalty oath at a Midwestern university when her appointment as a professor
began.
From a political standpoint she disagreed with the practice of taking loyalty oaths, and
later, in her role as professor of the sociology of law, she voiced political positions counter
to those mentioned in the oath and challenged the oath-taking practice itself.
However, before
she could do this, she first had to take the oath, understanding that without this act she
would not be employed or recognized by the institution as a legitimate member with a voice
authorized to participate in teaching, research, and the institution's politics (committees,
meetings, elections, and so forth), including even the possibility to question publicly the
practice of taking oaths.
Here, the informal, substantiative dimension of the ritualized act experiences a shift, while the
formal dimension remains fixed and important: taking the oath opens a world of
possibilities where new informal, substantiative meanings become possible, including a professorial position
with a recognized political voice within the institution. In the sociologist's words, "The
oath did not mean much if you took it, but it meant a lot if you didn't." 3
^
This example illustrates the general principle of how some discursive acts or whole types of
discourse can drift historically in the direction of an increasingly expanding formal
dimension and increasingly open or even irrelevant informal, substantiative dimension. During Soviet late
socialism, the formal dimension of speech acts at formal gathering and rituals became
particularly important in most contexts and during most events.
One person who participated in large Komsomol meetings in the 1970s and 1980s described how
he often spent the meetings reading a book. However, "when a vote had to be taken, everyone
roused -- a certain sensor clicked in the head: 'Who is in favor?' -- and you raised your hand
automatically" (see a discussion of such ritualized practices within the Komsomol in chapter
a).
Here the emphasis on the formal dimension of organizational discourse was unique both
in scale and substance. Most ritualized acts of "organizational discourse" during this time
underwent such a transformation.
Participating in these acts reproduced oneself as a
"normal" Soviet person within the system of relations, collectivities, and subject positions,
with all the constraints and possibilities that position entailed, even including the
possibility, after the meetings, to engage in interests, pursuits, and meanings that ran
against those that were stated in the resolutions one had voted for.
It would obviously be wrong to see these acts of voting simply as informal, substantiative statements
about supporting the resolution that are either true (real support) or false (dissimulation of
support). These acts are not about stating facts and describing opinions but about doing
things and opening new possibilities.
perhaps, just like proponents of AI and self driving cars. They just love the technology,
financially and emotionally invested in it so much they can't see the forest from the
trees.
I like technology, I studied engineering. But the myopic drive to profitability and
naivety to unintended consequences are pushing these tech out into the world before they are
ready.
engineering used to be a discipline with ethics and responsibilities... But now anybody
who could write two lines of code can call themselves a software engineer....
When Students Melt Down Over a 'B'
Rampant grade anxiety is a reflection of deeper American social dysfunction, with our children the biggest
victims.
By
David Masciotra
•
September 17, 2019
By Marjan Apostolovic /Shutterstock
The library on campus of a small Catholic university in Illinois was largely empty. Since
the administrators had replaced most of the bookshelves with plush furniture, conference tables, and chairs, it better
resembled an airport terminal just before a redeye. A handful of students were staring intensely into computer screens,
while another pair talked loudly -- no more than 10 feet from the silent, visibly demoralized librarian -- about the rap song
that one of them had just played moments earlier. Not one student was near a book. There wasn't a single newspaper or
journal in sight. The university had canceled its subscriptions and removed the periodical section a few semesters
earlier.
I was making my way toward the front door when one of the students
from my Intro to Literature course stopped me, tears rolling down her cheeks, her body nearly convulsing as she
attempted to suppress her sobs. Because any human contact is potentially criminal, I ignored my impulse to offer a
consoling hand to the shoulder, and asked what was wrong. Expecting her to tell me about a personal tragedy -- perhaps the
terminal diagnosis of a loved one -- I almost began to weep myself when she said, "You gave me a 'B' on the paper."
Her crying made the harangue that followed difficult to fully comprehend, but it
seemed that she must maintain a certain GPA to remain in athletics. When I countered that a "B" is a good grade and that
she would have plenty of time to aspire towards an "A" on other assignments, she began pleading with me for
opportunities to "bring up the grade." I declined, and asked if some other, more personal factor was contributing to her
stress over a passing grade on one paper in a course entirely unrelated to her major. She insisted that there was not.
Helpless and baffled, I wished her well, offered her reassurance, and proceeded out of the library and into the parking
lot.
Fielding an existential meltdown, complete with a crying jag, is not part of my
professional training. Yet rarely does a semester go by without some kind of grade-related complaint, appeal for mercy,
and panic attack. When a student appears as if he has just undergone a life-altering trauma because he's realized he is
hanging over the edge of a "C," I think of my father, who at around the same age was in Vietnam. We all have our crosses
to bear, whether surviving guerrilla warfare or dealing with a professor who will not give extra credit.
Advertisement
"Grade anxiety," to use the more popular term, is not unique to my students or school
of employment. Studies from Penn State and reports from
Psychology Today
,
Boston University
, and many other
sources have confirmed that debilitating anxiety is now the leading mental health problem for college students. A quick
Google search of "grade anxiety" reveals endless pages of advice to students apoplectic about their exam scores, the
professors on the receiving end of their complaints and concerns, and the parents who cannot cope with anything other
than perfection.
In all fairness, contemporary college students, contrary to Baby Boomer sanctimony, do
have a tougher task than their predecessors. More of them work, often full-time, while completing their degree
requirements, and must shoulder heavy financial burdens to acquire their education -- which they understand they will
carry, in the form of student debt not dischargeable in bankruptcy, for the majority of their working lives.
Yet even acknowledging the peculiar injustice that exists in American higher
education, there is no avoiding the conclusion that 20-year-old adults obsessing and crying over their grades is not a
sign of societal health. It's a tornado siren blasting 100 yards away from a trailer park.
As tempting as it is to ridicule the students for their inability to put their lives
in mature perspective, it's more instructive to recognize that they are products of American families, institutions, and
culture. The overwhelming prevalence of severe grade anxiety indicts a society that is failing to strengthen children
into thoughtful and resilient adults. As Gore Vidal once quipped, "I've never met a boring six-year-old in America, and
I've never met an interesting 16-year-old."
Even before reaching the age of six, children are under the constant influence of
their families. Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff document in their important book
The Coddling of the American Mind
how
"helicopter parenting" has weakened us all. Paranoid about safety, aggressively committed to their children's
achievement, parents aspire to protect their sons and daughters from all potential hardship, pushing them into closely
monitored extracurricular activities. They treat school work as an accountant treats an actuarial table. The wealthier
the parents, the more likely they are to enter their children into the vigilant competition of meritocracy. Some
families even send their kids to elite preschools, believing that failure to do so will keep them off the Ivy League
university trajectory.
The self-esteem movement has ensured that children will not only aspire to the
materialistic measurement of the "best," but believe that they are innately worthy of it. Hearing for their entire lives
that they are flawless specimens of Da Vinci-esque brilliance and creativity leaves them unprepared for even the mildest
form of criticism. One of the most common rebuttals to a low grade from a student is an indignant "I think I did a great
job," spoken as if the teacher should receive a pupil's opinion about his own work as a Catholic priest receives a papal
encyclical.
Since the move toward standardized testing as the ultimate metric for student and
school success, educational institutions in both rich and poor neighborhoods have relegated the learning experience to
high stakes exam preparation, indoctrinating children to believe that they can reduce the value of their intellectual
pursuits to a number on a results sheet. The testing model of education complements the American adult's inevitable
entrance into a consumer culture with a hierarchy of social status and purchasing power. The earning power of the
Kardashians or Waltons allows them to accrue more political influence and cultural value than the typical family in a
city without a "Real Housewives" franchise.
Too many conservatives insist on demoting education to nothing more than job training,
encouraging the prevalent anti-intellectualism in the United States with suspicion, or outright derision, towards the
"impractical" liberal arts. Liberals don't help matters by too often transforming the humanities into conduits of
leftist social theory, and before that making elementary and secondary schools too bureaucratic. Formulaic lesson plans
and mechanical approaches to pedagogy prevent teachers from developing fruitful bonds with their students, or adjusting
their class agendas according to student need and interest.
The
Atlantic
has run informative but also demoralizing reports on how elementary schools in Finland
allow children plenty of free time for play, while also encouraging them to indulge their curiosities in the classroom.
In the United States, organic and unrestrained learning is a privilege for children whose parents pay the high prices of
a Montessori school. An American kindergartener has an average of 30 minutes of homework per night.
One of my favorite assignments as a child, at the Lutheran elementary school I
attended from first through eighth grade, was the book report. Our teacher would walk us to the library and tell us to
pick any book, read it, and write a page on it. Depriving children of choice robs them of any joy they might associate
with learning. I now teach students in perpetual panic over their grades, and more times than not, the only questions I
receive after attempting to facilitate a discussion on a masterpiece of literature is "Will this be on the test?" or
"How long does the paper have to be?"
Standards of evaluation are necessary. But I often try to inculcate in my students the
knowledge that, in any walk of life and in comparison with the development of passions and the need to sharpen one's
ability to look at a complex world, grades are not that important.
This is a tough sell -- pun intended -- in a country that has so thoroughly degraded its
public vision of life to an endless quest for wealth and power. There is now a handy measurement of everything. Are you
successful? Check your bank account. Are you important? Check your social media followers. Are you attractive? Check the
likes on your latest profile picture.
Grades, with the weight of an institution behind them, act as a final judgment in the
minds of too many students. They equate A's not only with immediate academic success, but also the chance of having a
successful life. Anything less than the optimum might lead to unhappiness.
All lives have moments of failure, pain, and agony. Real adversity is not a "B" on a
paper, but your best friend in a coffin, your child's frightening medical condition, your injury that leads to a
permanent disability. Education at its best can bequeath what Albert Murray called "equipment for living."
Students who panic and cry over less than perfect grades demonstrate that America has
not given them equipment that is helpful and durable. America, in that respect, is worthy of an "F."
This impostor definitely demonstrated programming abilities, although at the time there was
not such ter :-)
Notable quotes:
"... "We wrote it down. ..."
"... The next phrase was: ..."
"... " ' Booki fai kiz soy ?' " said Whitey. "It means 'Do you surrender?' " ..."
"... " ' Mizi pok loi ooni rak tong zin ?' 'Where are your comrades?' " ..."
"... "Tong what ?" rasped the colonel. ..."
"... "Tong zin , sir," our instructor replied, rolling chalk between his palms. He arched his eyebrows, as though inviting another question. There was one. The adjutant asked, "What's that gizmo on the end?" ..."
"... Of course, it might have been a Japanese newspaper. Whitey's claim to be a linguist was the last of his status symbols, and he clung to it desperately. Looking back, I think his improvisations on the Morton fantail must have been one of the most heroic achievements in the history of confidence men -- which, as you may have gathered by now, was Whitey's true profession. Toward the end of our tour of duty on the 'Canal he was totally discredited with us and transferred at his own request to the 81-millimeter platoon, where our disregard for him was no stigma, since the 81 millimeter musclemen regarded us as a bunch of eight balls anyway. Yet even then, even after we had become completely disillusioned with him, he remained a figure of wonder among us. We could scarcely believe that an impostor could be clever enough actually to invent a language -- phonics, calligraphy, and all. It had looked like Japanese and sounded like Japanese, and during his seventeen days of lecturing on that ship Whitey had carried it all in his head, remembering every variation, every subtlety, every syntactic construction. ..."
a fabulous tale of the South Pacific by William Manchester
The Man Who Could Speak Japanese
"We wrote it down.
The next phrase was:
" ' Booki fai kiz soy ?' " said Whitey. "It means 'Do you surrender?' "
Then:
" ' Mizi pok loi ooni rak tong zin ?' 'Where are your comrades?' "
"Tong what ?" rasped the colonel.
"Tong zin , sir," our instructor replied, rolling chalk between his palms. He arched
his eyebrows, as though inviting another question. There was one. The adjutant asked,
"What's that gizmo on the end?"
Of course, it might have been a Japanese newspaper. Whitey's claim to be a linguist
was the last of his status symbols, and he clung to it desperately. Looking back, I think
his improvisations on the Morton fantail must have been one of the most heroic achievements
in the history of confidence men -- which, as you may have gathered by now, was Whitey's
true profession. Toward the end of our tour of duty on the 'Canal he was totally
discredited with us and transferred at his own request to the 81-millimeter platoon, where
our disregard for him was no stigma, since the 81 millimeter musclemen regarded us as a
bunch of eight balls anyway. Yet even then, even after we had become completely
disillusioned with him, he remained a figure of wonder among us. We could scarcely believe
that an impostor could be clever enough actually to invent a language -- phonics,
calligraphy, and all. It had looked like Japanese and sounded like Japanese, and during his
seventeen days of lecturing on that ship Whitey had carried it all in his head, remembering
every variation, every subtlety, every syntactic construction.
Amazing; I had no idea Betsy Voss – advocate of for-profit charter schools (privatizing
education) and The New Curriculum – and Eric Prince (advocate for privatizing war) are
brother and sister. Blood will tell.
Profiteering is naked and in the open now in the west, and public systems increasingly
favour the wealthy – if you want better, you should be ready to pay for it. I guess
that's what all those tax cuts were about – shifting a burden off of the wealthy, so
that now public services are pay-as-you-go because the government can't afford to provide
them for everyone. However, tax cuts also favoured the wealthy – gee, it almost makes
you think the class system is coming back, dunnit?
I recall Jeremy Scahill mentioning in his book on Blackwater (before it started changing its
name faster than you can change your socks) that Erik Prince was related to Betsy deVos. This
was long before Scahill turned his own name and reputation into mud when he walked out of a
London conference back in 2012 or 2013 because the Syrian nun Agnes Mariam de la Croix, who
was known to support President Assad at the time, was a guest speaker at the conference.
"... When the issues of poverty and inequality came up, a common neoliberal dodge was to invoke the Horatio Alger myth -- that in America, with hard work one can, or should be able to, raise oneself up by one' bootstraps. This switches the question from security ..."
"... As it happens, mobility has declined over the long term in the United States, but that aside, it's a two-way street. The escalator of life runs in both directions. Moreover, it's a separate issue from that of poverty or inequality. One can have more mobility and the same or worse poverty or inequality. The rising tide goes out as well as in. ..."
"... The neoliberal remedy for poverty and inequality is commonly held to be education, because workers lack the requisite skills to earn a living wage. It's kind of their fault. All that's needed is some reasonable public expenditure. No deeper structural factors are at issue. This mindset is contradicted now in two ways. ..."
When the issues of poverty and inequality came up, a common neoliberal dodge was to invoke
the Horatio Alger myth -- that in America, with hard work one can, or should be able to, raise
oneself up by one' bootstraps. This switches the question from security made possible by
the public sector to an individual responsibility for economic mobility.
As it happens, mobility has declined over the long term in the United States, but that
aside, it's a two-way street. The escalator of life runs in both directions. Moreover, it's a
separate issue from that of poverty or inequality. One can have more mobility and the same or
worse poverty or inequality. The rising tide goes out as well as in.
The neoliberal remedy for poverty and inequality is commonly held to be education, because
workers lack the requisite skills to earn a living wage. It's kind of their fault. All that's
needed is some reasonable public expenditure. No deeper structural factors are at issue. This
mindset is contradicted now in two ways.
First, the idea of education as an essential,
missing ingredient is being supplanted by the idea that what's at issue is power , both
political and economic . The wealthy control streams of income and institutions of
credentialization that could be rerouted, via taxation, to finance education ("free college") that has an equalizing effect on
wealth and enhances economic security..
Speech is controlled by political correctness. Someone behind the scenes decides what
is acceptable and what is not, what is desirable or not, and even what is permissible. You
make one 'mistake' and you are out; from the teaching positions at the universities, or
from the media outlets.
And what is permissible is becoming truly weird. These are comments on an article over
at http://www.thecollegefix.com
"Poll: 73 percent of Republican students have withheld political views in class for fear
their grades would suffer".
I'm ABD (all but dissertation) in Econometrics because my adviser was a Marxist nutcase
from the London School of Economics. I couldn't fight the communists forever; not when they
held all the cards.
Reply: Medina-Merino
I left my PhD program in Anthropology when on a "field trip" , my advisor and his
idiotic tie-dyed moron of a wife (former student of his) crawled into my tent on the
first night of a 2 week research project in black leather bondage harnesses and informed
me it was time for me to join them in a "night of pure pleasure".
Fast forward I got up, got into my car, drove through the night back to campus, parked
outside of the Dean's office, stormed in with wide-blood-shot-eyes when he arrived in his
700-Series turbo-charged Special Edition BMW and told him I wanted to file a complaint
against Professor "Bondo" and when he (Dean Bozo) did not respond to my request in over a
week, I withdrew from my program (ABD also) before the "Drop Deadline" so I could get
full refund of my hard-earned TENS OF THOUSANDS of tuition dollars and used the money to
secure an attorney (who I later learned was on-the-take for the University's own legal
counsel office of "Equity & Fairness") until I ran out of money and then left town to
take a position in Scotland on a research team studying Celtic migrations to the Northern
Coast of the Iberian Peninsula, known for centuries unofficially as the "Celtic Coast". I
loved my work and worked with some amazing and HONEST and RESPECTFUL colleagues.
I learned a big lesson from this EFFIN nightmare be verrrrrrrrrrrrrrry careful of
whose hands you find your career in there are a lot of filthy, abusive, corrupt "faculty"
and even more dishonest and disingenuous and despicable "administrators" in the
contemporary academy and many have brass name-plates on their doors and hold
do-nothing-but-damage-to-the-lives-of those who are often powerless against their callous
and deliberate abuses.
Even today, on my sleepless nights I can still hear Mr. Chips rustling in his
grave
I went on to hold positions of academic renown in Europe and Latin America and
eventually returned to the US when I knew I would be able to secure adjunct positions in
the US and Canada and Puerto Rico to support myself and my family, whose lives I was able
to maintain in a stable trajectory throughout this horror!
Revenge is sweet however today when I receive requests from my former "institution of
higher learning" I respond in the SASE
"NEVER WILL I EVER GIVE YOU ONE CENT FOR NOT HAVING PROTECTED ME FROM ABUSE AT THE HANDS
OF DR. "BONDO" YEARS AGO!" Even today, he is part of campus lore and is whispered about
in hushed tones.
What happened to the "prof" he died of very painful brain cancer (poetic justice) and
his idiot wife went full-tilt into drugs and is sitting in a pool of her own pee in a
very dismal geriatric ward. And the "Dean"? He is likewise awaiting his last days in his
luxury condo in Santa Barbara, CA surrounded by like-minded Lutheran do-gooders holding
prayer circles and burning incense and rubbing crystals for each of their pathetic
selves
Programming skills are somewhat similar to the skills of people who play violin or piano. As
soon a you stop playing violin or piano still start to evaporate. First slowly, then quicker. In
two yours you probably will lose 80%.
Notable quotes:
"... I happened to look the other day. I wrote 35 programs in January, and 28 or 29 programs in February. These are small programs, but I have a compulsion. I love to write programs and put things into it. ..."
Dijkstra said he was proud to be a programmer. Unfortunately he changed his attitude
completely, and I think he wrote his last computer program in the 1980s. At this conference I
went to in 1967 about simulation language, Chris Strachey was going around asking everybody at
the conference what was the last computer program you wrote. This was 1967. Some of the people
said, "I've never written a computer program." Others would say, "Oh yeah, here's what I did
last week." I asked Edsger this question when I visited him in Texas in the 90s and he said,
"Don, I write programs now with pencil and paper, and I execute them in my head." He finds that
a good enough discipline.
I think he was mistaken on that. He taught me a lot of things, but I really think that if he
had continued... One of Dijkstra's greatest strengths was that he felt a strong sense of
aesthetics, and he didn't want to compromise his notions of beauty. They were so intense that
when he visited me in the 1960s, I had just come to Stanford. I remember the conversation we
had. It was in the first apartment, our little rented house, before we had electricity in the
house.
We were sitting there in the dark, and he was telling me how he had just learned about the
specifications of the IBM System/360, and it made him so ill that his heart was actually
starting to flutter.
He intensely disliked things that he didn't consider clean to work with. So I can see that
he would have distaste for the languages that he had to work with on real computers. My
reaction to that was to design my own language, and then make Pascal so that it would work well
for me in those days. But his response was to do everything only intellectually.
So, programming.
I happened to look the other day. I wrote 35 programs in January, and 28 or 29 programs
in February. These are small programs, but I have a compulsion. I love to write programs and
put things into it. I think of a question that I want to answer, or I have part of my book
where I want to present something. But I can't just present it by reading about it in a book.
As I code it, it all becomes clear in my head. It's just the discipline. The fact that I have
to translate my knowledge of this method into something that the machine is going to understand
just forces me to make that crystal-clear in my head. Then I can explain it to somebody else
infinitely better. The exposition is always better if I've implemented it, even though it's
going to take me more time.
So I had a programming hat when I was outside of Cal Tech, and at Cal Tech I am a
mathematician taking my grad studies. A startup company, called Green Tree Corporation because
green is the color of money, came to me and said, "Don, name your price. Write compilers for us
and we will take care of finding computers for you to debug them on, and assistance for you to
do your work. Name your price." I said, "Oh, okay. $100,000.", assuming that this was In that
era this was not quite at Bill Gate's level today, but it was sort of out there.
The guy didn't blink. He said, "Okay." I didn't really blink either. I said, "Well, I'm not
going to do it. I just thought this was an impossible number."
At that point I made the decision in my life that I wasn't going to optimize my income; I
was really going to do what I thought I could do for well, I don't know. If you ask me what
makes me most happy, number one would be somebody saying "I learned something from you". Number
two would be somebody saying "I used your software". But number infinity would be Well, no.
Number infinity minus one would be "I bought your book". It's not as good as "I read your
book", you know. Then there is "I bought your software"; that was not in my own personal value.
So that decision came up. I kept up with the literature about compilers. The Communications of
the ACM was where the action was. I also worked with people on trying to debug the ALGOL
language, which had problems with it. I published a few papers, like "The Remaining Trouble
Spots in ALGOL 60" was one of the papers that I worked on. I chaired a committee called
"Smallgol" which was to find a subset of ALGOL that would work on small computers. I was active
in programming languages.
Frana: You have made the comment several times that maybe 1 in 50 people have the
"computer scientist's mind." Knuth: Yes. Frana: I am wondering if a large number of those
people are trained professional librarians? [laughter] There is some strangeness there. But can
you pinpoint what it is about the mind of the computer scientist that is....
Knuth: That is different?
Frana: What are the characteristics?
Knuth: Two things: one is the ability to deal with non-uniform structure, where you
have case one, case two, case three, case four. Or that you have a model of something where the
first component is integer, the next component is a Boolean, and the next component is a real
number, or something like that, you know, non-uniform structure. To deal fluently with those
kinds of entities, which is not typical in other branches of mathematics, is critical. And the
other characteristic ability is to shift levels quickly, from looking at something in the large
to looking at something in the small, and many levels in between, jumping from one level of
abstraction to another. You know that, when you are adding one to some number, that you are
actually getting closer to some overarching goal. These skills, being able to deal with
nonuniform objects and to see through things from the top level to the bottom level, these are
very essential to computer programming, it seems to me. But maybe I am fooling myself because I
am too close to it.
Frana: It is the hardest thing to really understand that which you are existing
within.
Knuth: Well, certainly it seems the way things are going. You take any particular subject
that you are interested in and you try to see if somebody with an American high school
education has learned it, and you will be appalled. You know, Jesse Jackson thinks that
students know nothing about political science, and I am sure the chemists think that students
don't know chemistry, and so on. But somehow they get it when they have to later. But I would
say certainly the students now have been getting more of a superficial idea of mathematics than
they used to. We have to do remedial stuff at Stanford that we didn't have to do thirty years
ago.
Frana: Gio [Wiederhold] said much the same thing to me.
Knuth: The most scandalous thing was that Stanford's course in linear algebra could not get
to eigenvalues because the students didn't know about complex numbers. Now every course at
Stanford that takes linear algebra as a prerequisite does so because they want the students to
know about eigenvalues. But here at Stanford, with one of the highest admission standards of
any university, our students don't know complex numbers. So we have to teach them that when
they get to college. Yes, this is definitely a breakdown.
Frana: Was your mathematics training in high school particularly good, or was it that you
spent a lot of time actually doing problems?
Knuth: No, my mathematics training in high school was not good. My teachers could not answer
my questions and so I decided I'd go into physics. I mean, I had played with mathematics in
high school. I did a lot of work drawing graphs and plotting points and I used pi as the radix
of a number system, and explored what the world would be like if you wanted to do logarithms
and you had a number system based on pi. And I had played with stuff like that. But my teachers
couldn't answer questions that I had.
... ... ... Frana: Do you have an answer? Are American students different today? In one of
your interviews you discuss the problem of creativity versus gross absorption of knowledge.
Knuth: Well, that is part of it. Today we have mostly a sound byte culture, this lack of
attention span and trying to learn how to pass exams. Frana: Yes,
Knuth: I can be a writer, who tries to organize other people's ideas into some kind of a
more coherent structure so that it is easier to put things together. I can see that I could be
viewed as a scholar that does his best to check out sources of material, so that people get
credit where it is due. And to check facts over, not just to look at the abstract of something,
but to see what the methods were that did it and to fill in holes if necessary. I look at my
role as being able to understand the motivations and terminology of one group of specialists
and boil it down to a certain extent so that people in other parts of the field can use it. I
try to listen to the theoreticians and select what they have done that is important to the
programmer on the street; to remove technical jargon when possible.
But I have never been good at any kind of a role that would be making policy, or advising
people on strategies, or what to do. I have always been best at refining things that are there
and bringing order out of chaos. I sometimes raise new ideas that might stimulate people, but
not really in a way that would be in any way controlling the flow. The only time I have ever
advocated something strongly was with literate programming; but I do this always with the
caveat that it works for me, not knowing if it would work for anybody else.
When I work with a system that I have created myself, I can always change it if I don't like
it. But everybody who works with my system has to work with what I give them. So I am not able
to judge my own stuff impartially. So anyway, I have always felt bad about if anyone says,
'Don, please forecast the future,'...
Those measures are nothing special. They are typical for any war or any coup d'état to install totalitarian regime in the
country. Fritened people are easily manipulated. . The only question against whom the war was launched and what was real origin of
9/11. Here 1984 instantly comes to mind.
Next week will be the
18th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
Politicians and bureaucrats wasted no time after that
carnage to unleash the Surveillance State on average Americans, treating every person like a
terrorist suspect.
Since the government failed to protect the public, Americans somehow
forfeited their constitutional right to privacy. Despite heroic efforts by former NSA staffer
Edward Snowden and a host of activists and freedom fighters, the government continues ravaging
American privacy.
Two of the largest leaps towards "1984" began in 2002.
Though neither the
Justice Department's Operation TIPS nor the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness program was
brought to completion, parcels and precedents from each program have profoundly influenced
subsequent federal policies.
In July 2002, the Justice Department unveiled plans for Operation TIPS -- the Terrorism
Information and Prevention System.
According to the Justice Department website, TIPS would
be "a nationwide program giving millions of American truckers, letter carriers, train conductors,
ship captains, utility employees, and others a formal way to report suspicious terrorist activity."
TIPSters would be people who, "in the daily course of their work, are in a unique position to serve
as extra eyes and ears for law enforcement." The feds aimed to recruit people in jobs that "make
them uniquely well positioned to understand the ordinary course of business in the area they serve,
and to identify things that are out of the ordinary." Homeland Security director Tom Ridge said
that observers in certain occupations "might pick up a break in the certain rhythm or pattern of a
community." The feds planned to enlist as many as 10 million people to watch other people's
"rhythms."
The Justice Department provided no definition of "suspicious behavior" to guide
vigilantes.
As
the public began to focus on the program's sweep, opposition surfaced; even the U.S. Postal Service
briefly balked at participating in the program. Director Ridge insisted that TIPS "is not a
government intrusion." He declared, "The last thing we want is Americans spying on Americans.
That's just not what the president is all about, and not what the TIPS program is all about."
Apparently, as long as the Bush administration did not announce plans to compel people to testify
about the peccadilloes of their neighbors and customers, TIPS was a certified freedom-friendly
program.
When Attorney General John Ashcroft was cross-examined by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on TIPS at
a Judiciary Committee hearing on July 25, he insisted that
"the TIPS program is
something requested by industry to allow them to talk about anomalies that they encounter."
But, when George W. Bush first announced the program, he portrayed it as an administration
initiative. Did thousands of Teamsters Union members petition 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue over
"anomalies"? Senator Leahy asked whether reports to the TIPS hotline would become part of a federal
database with millions of unsubstantiated allegations against American citizens.
Ashcroft told Leahy, "I have recommended that there would be none, and I've been given assurance
that the TIPS program would not maintain a database." But Ashcroft could not reveal which federal
official had given him the assurance.
The ACLU's Laura Murphy observed,
"This is a program where people's activities,
statements, posters in their windows or on their walls, nationality, and religious practices will
be reported by untrained individuals without any relationship to criminal activity."
San Diego law professor Marjorie Cohn observed, "Operation TIPS will encourage neighbors to
snitch on neighbors and won't distinguish between real and fabricated tips. Anyone with a grudge or
vendetta against another can provide false information to the government, which will then enter the
national database."
On August 9, the Justice Department announced it was fine-tuning TIPS, abandoning any "plan to
ask thousands of mail carriers, utility workers, and others with access to private homes to report
suspected terrorist activity," the
Washington Post
reported. People who had enlisted to be
TIPSters received an email notice from Uncle Sam that "only those who work in the trucking,
maritime, shipping, and mass transit industries will be eligible to participate in this information
referral service." But the Justice Department continued refusing to disclose to the Senate
Judiciary Committee who would have access to the TIPS reports.
After the proposal created a fierce backlash across the political board, Congress passed
an amendment blocking its creation.
House Majority Leader Richard Armey (R-Tex.) attached
an amendment to homeland security legislation that declared, "Any and all activities of the federal
government to implement the proposed component program of the Citizen Corps known as Operation TIPS
are hereby prohibited." But the Bush administration and later the Obama administration pursued the
same information roundup with federally funded fusion centers that encouraged people to file
"suspicious activity reports" for a wide array of innocuous behavior -- reports that are dumped into
secret federal databases that can vex innocent citizens in perpetuity.
Operation TIPS illustrated how the momentum of intrusion spurred government to propose
programs that it never would have attempted before 9/11.
If Bush had proposed in August
2001 to recruit 10 million Americans to report any of their neighbors they suspected of acting
unusual or being potential troublemakers, the public might have concluded the president had gone
berserk.
Total Information Awareness: 300 million dossiers
The USA PATRIOT Act created a new Information Office in the Pentagon's Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
In January 2002, the White House chose retired admiral
John Poindexter to head the new office. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer explained, "Admiral
Poindexter is somebody who this administration thinks is an outstanding American, an outstanding
citizen, who has done a very good job in what he has done for our country, serving the military."
Cynics kvetched about Poindexter's five felony convictions for false testimony to Congress
and destruction of evidence during the investigation of the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages exchange.
Poindexter's convictions were overturned by a federal appeals court, which cited the immunity
Congress granted his testimony.
Poindexter committed the new Pentagon office to achieving Total Information Awareness (TIA).
TIA's mission is "to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans --
and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist
acts,"
according to DARPA. According to Undersecretary of Defense Pete Aldridge, TIA would
seek to discover "connections between transactions -- such as passports; visas; work permits;
driver's licenses; credit cards; airline tickets; rental cars; gun purchases; chemical purchases --
and events -- such as arrests or suspicious activities and so forth." Aldridge agreed that every
phone call a person made or received could be entered into the database. With "voice recognition"
software, the actual text of the call could also go onto a permanent record.
TIA would also strive to achieve "Human Identification at a Distance" (HumanID),
including "Face Recognition," "Iris Recognition," and "Gait Recognition."
The Pentagon
issued a request for proposals to develop an "odor recognition" surveillance system that would help
the feds identify people by their sweat or urine -- potentially creating a wealth of new job
opportunities for deviants.
TIA's goal was to stockpile as much information as possible about everyone on Earth -- thereby
allowing government to protect everyone from everything.
New York Times
columnist William
Safire captured the sweep of the new surveillance system: "Every purchase you make with a credit
card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you
visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you
make, every trip you book, and every event you attend -- all these transactions and communications
will go into what the Defense Department describes as 'a virtual, centralized grand database.'"
Columnist Ted Rall noted that the feds would even scan "veterinary records. The TIA believes that
knowing if and when Fluffy got spayed -- and whether your son stopped torturing Fluffy after you put
him on Ritalin -- will help the military stop terrorists before they strike."
Phil Kent, president of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, an Atlanta-based public-interest law
firm, warned that TIA was "the most sweeping threat to civil liberties since the Japanese-American
internment." The ACLU's Jay Stanley labeled TIA "the mother of all privacy invasions. It would
amount to a picture of your life so complete, it's equivalent to somebody following you around all
day with a video camera." A coalition of civil-liberties groups protested to Senate leaders, "There
are no systems of oversight or accountability contemplated in the TIA project. DARPA itself has
resisted lawful requests for information about the Program pursuant to the Freedom of Information
Act."
Bush administration officials were outraged by such criticisms.
Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared, "The hype and alarm approach is a disservice to the public . I
would recommend people take a nice deep breath. Nothing terrible is going to happen." Poindexter
promised that TIA would be designed so as to "preserve rights and protect people's privacy while
helping to make us all safer." (Poindexter was not under oath at the time of his statement.) The
TIA was defended on the basis that "nobody has been searched" until the feds decide to have him
arrested on the basis of data the feds snared. Undersecretary Aldridge declared, "It is absurd to
think that DARPA is somehow trying to become another police agency. DARPA's purpose is to
demonstrate the feasibility of this technology. If it proves useful, TIA will then be turned over
to the intelligence, counterintelligence, and law-enforcement communities as a tool to help them in
their battle against domestic terrorism." In January 2003, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) learned
that the FBI was working on a memorandum of understanding with the Pentagon "for possible
experimentation" with TIA. Assistant Defense Secretary for Homeland Security Paul McHale confirmed,
in March 2003 testimony to Congress, that the Pentagon would turn TIA over to law-enforcement
agencies once the system was ready to roll.
DARPA responded to the surge of criticism by removing the Information Awareness Office
logo from the website.
The logo showed a giant green eye atop a pyramid, covering half the
globe with a peculiar yellow haze, accompanied by the motto "Scientia est Potentia" (Knowledge is
Power).
Shortly after DARPA completed a key research benchmark for TIA, Lt. Col. Doug Dyer, a DARPA
program manager, publicly announced in April 2003 that Americans are obliged to sacrifice some
privacy in the name of security:
"When you consider the potential effect of a terrorist
attack against the privacy of an entire population, there has to be some trade-off."
But nothing in the U.S. Constitution entitles the Defense Department to decide how much privacy or
liberty American citizens deserve.
In September 2003, Congress passed an amendment abolishing the Pentagon's Information Office and
ending TIA funding. But by that point, DARPA had already awarded 26 contracts for dozens of private
research projects to develop components for TIA. Salon.com reported,
"According to
people with knowledge of the program, TIA has now advanced to the point where it's much more than a
mere 'research project.' There is a working prototype of the system, and federal agencies outside
the Defense Department have expressed interest in it."
The U.S. Customs and Border
Patrol is already using facial recognition systems at 20 airports and the Transportation Security
Administration is expected to quickly follow suit.
Two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo sent a secret memo
to the White House declaring that the Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches was null
and void:
"If the government's heightened interest in self-defense justifies the use of
deadly force, then it also certainly would justify warrantless searches."
That memo
helped set federal policy until it was publicly revealed after Barack Obama took office in 2009.
Unfortunately, that anti-Constitution, anti-privacy mindset unleashed many federal intrusions that
continue to this day, from the TSA to the National Security Agency to the FBI and Department of
Homeland Security.
In our time, we are endlessly brainwashed to love all the things that we can buy.
Meanwhile, people are being bombed, terrorized, sanctioned, etc. across the world ... We
can't complain since we got lots of toys to play with.
And here I think one has an enormous area in which the ultimate revolution could
function very well indeed, an area in which a great deal of control could be used by not
through terror, but by making life seem much more enjoyable than it normally does.
Enjoyable to the point, where as I said before, Human beings come to love a state of things
by which any reasonable and decent human standard they ought not to love and this I think
is perfectly possible.
"Happiness" with our toys is being used to keep us quiet.
"The dictatorships of tomorrow will deprive men of their freedom, but will give them in
exchange a happiness none the less real, as a subjective experience, for being chemically
induced. The pursuit of happiness is one of the traditional rights of man; unfortunately,
the achievement of happiness may turn out to be incompatible with another of man's rights
-- namely, liberty."
...press has complete control to filter everything to look rosey for them, demonize any
dissidents, and the masses fall for it. Why? They do not allow any counter arguments...
A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive
of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not
have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.
...bread and circus propaganda. They want to keep that way. Any one who dissents is a
"hater".
What I may call the messages of Brave New World, but it is possible to make people
contented with their servitude. I think this can be done. I think it has been done in the
past. I think it could be done even more effectively now because you can provide them with
bread and circuses and you can provide them with endless amounts of distractions and
propaganda.
...Pleasure trick keeps one from looking at what our rulers are doing.
As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends correspondingly to
increase. And the dictator will do well to encourage that freedom it will help to reconcile
his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.
...using their MSM to make massive herds of humans all over the earth to love their
servitude to Zion uber alles.
The question of the next generation will not be one of how to liberate the masses, but
rather, how to make them love their servitude
"... When you're writing a document for a human being to understand, the human being will look at it and nod his head and say, "Yeah, this makes sense." But then there's all kinds of ambiguities and vagueness that you don't realize until you try to put it into a computer. Then all of a sudden, almost every five minutes as you're writing the code, a question comes up that wasn't addressed in the specification. "What if this combination occurs?" ..."
"... When you're faced with implementation, a person who has been delegated this job of working from a design would have to say, "Well hmm, I don't know what the designer meant by this." ..."
...I showed the second version of this design to two of my graduate students, and I said,
"Okay, implement this, please, this summer. That's your summer job." I thought I had specified
a language. I had to go away. I spent several weeks in China during the summer of 1977, and I
had various other obligations. I assumed that when I got back from my summer trips, I would be
able to play around with TeX and refine it a little bit. To my amazement, the students, who
were outstanding students, had not competed [it]. They had a system that was able to do about
three lines of TeX. I thought, "My goodness, what's going on? I thought these were good
students." Well afterwards I changed my attitude to saying, "Boy, they accomplished a
miracle."
Because going from my specification, which I thought was complete, they really had an
impossible task, and they had succeeded wonderfully with it. These students, by the way, [were]
Michael Plass, who has gone on to be the brains behind almost all of Xerox's Docutech software
and all kind of things that are inside of typesetting devices now, and Frank Liang, one of the
key people for Microsoft Word.
He did important mathematical things as well as his hyphenation methods which are quite used
in all languages now. These guys were actually doing great work, but I was amazed that they
couldn't do what I thought was just sort of a routine task. Then I became a programmer in
earnest, where I had to do it. The reason is when you're doing programming, you have to explain
something to a computer, which is dumb.
When you're writing a document for a human being to understand, the human being will
look at it and nod his head and say, "Yeah, this makes sense." But then there's all kinds of
ambiguities and vagueness that you don't realize until you try to put it into a computer. Then
all of a sudden, almost every five minutes as you're writing the code, a question comes up that
wasn't addressed in the specification. "What if this combination occurs?"
It just didn't occur to the person writing the design specification. When you're faced
with implementation, a person who has been delegated this job of working from a design would
have to say, "Well hmm, I don't know what the designer meant by this."
If I hadn't been in China they would've scheduled an appointment with me and stopped their
programming for a day. Then they would come in at the designated hour and we would talk. They
would take 15 minutes to present to me what the problem was, and then I would think about it
for a while, and then I'd say, "Oh yeah, do this. " Then they would go home and they would
write code for another five minutes and they'd have to schedule another appointment.
I'm probably exaggerating, but this is why I think Bob Floyd's Chiron compiler never got
going. Bob worked many years on a beautiful idea for a programming language, where he designed
a language called Chiron, but he never touched the programming himself. I think this was
actually the reason that he had trouble with that project, because it's so hard to do the
design unless you're faced with the low-level aspects of it, explaining it to a machine instead
of to another person.
Forsythe, I think it was, who said, "People have said traditionally that you don't
understand something until you've taught it in a class. The truth is you don't really
understand something until you've taught it to a computer, until you've been able to program
it." At this level, programming was absolutely important
Knuth: No, I stopped going to conferences. It was too discouraging. Computer programming
keeps getting harder because more stuff is discovered. I can cope with learning about one new
technique per day, but I can't take ten in a day all at once. So conferences are depressing; it
means I have so much more work to do. If I hide myself from the truth I am much happier.
"... Also, Addison-Wesley was the people who were asking me to do this book; my favorite textbooks had been published by Addison Wesley. They had done the books that I loved the most as a student. For them to come to me and say, "Would you write a book for us?", and here I am just a secondyear gradate student -- this was a thrill. ..."
"... But in those days, The Art of Computer Programming was very important because I'm thinking of the aesthetical: the whole question of writing programs as something that has artistic aspects in all senses of the word. The one idea is "art" which means artificial, and the other "art" means fine art. All these are long stories, but I've got to cover it fairly quickly. ..."
Knuth: This is, of course, really the story of my life, because I hope to live long enough
to finish it. But I may not, because it's turned out to be such a huge project. I got married
in the summer of 1961, after my first year of graduate school. My wife finished college, and I
could use the money I had made -- the $5000 on the compiler -- to finance a trip to Europe for
our honeymoon.
We had four months of wedded bliss in Southern California, and then a man from
Addison-Wesley came to visit me and said "Don, we would like you to write a book about how to
write compilers."
The more I thought about it, I decided "Oh yes, I've got this book inside of me."
I sketched out that day -- I still have the sheet of tablet paper on which I wrote -- I
sketched out 12 chapters that I thought ought to be in such a book. I told Jill, my wife, "I
think I'm going to write a book."
As I say, we had four months of bliss, because the rest of our marriage has all been devoted
to this book. Well, we still have had happiness. But really, I wake up every morning and I
still haven't finished the book. So I try to -- I have to -- organize the rest of my life
around this, as one main unifying theme. The book was supposed to be about how to write a
compiler. They had heard about me from one of their editorial advisors, that I knew something
about how to do this. The idea appealed to me for two main reasons. One is that I did enjoy
writing. In high school I had been editor of the weekly paper. In college I was editor of the
science magazine, and I worked on the campus paper as copy editor. And, as I told you, I wrote
the manual for that compiler that we wrote. I enjoyed writing, number one.
Also, Addison-Wesley was the people who were asking me to do this book; my favorite
textbooks had been published by Addison Wesley. They had done the books that I loved the most
as a student. For them to come to me and say, "Would you write a book for us?", and here I am
just a secondyear gradate student -- this was a thrill.
Another very important reason at the time was that I knew that there was a great need for a
book about compilers, because there were a lot of people who even in 1962 -- this was January
of 1962 -- were starting to rediscover the wheel. The knowledge was out there, but it hadn't
been explained. The people who had discovered it, though, were scattered all over the world and
they didn't know of each other's work either, very much. I had been following it. Everybody I
could think of who could write a book about compilers, as far as I could see, they would only
give a piece of the fabric. They would slant it to their own view of it. There might be four
people who could write about it, but they would write four different books. I could present all
four of their viewpoints in what I would think was a balanced way, without any axe to grind,
without slanting it towards something that I thought would be misleading to the compiler writer
for the future. I considered myself as a journalist, essentially. I could be the expositor, the
tech writer, that could do the job that was needed in order to take the work of these brilliant
people and make it accessible to the world. That was my motivation. Now, I didn't have much
time to spend on it then, I just had this page of paper with 12 chapter headings on it. That's
all I could do while I'm a consultant at Burroughs and doing my graduate work. I signed a
contract, but they said "We know it'll take you a while." I didn't really begin to have much
time to work on it until 1963, my third year of graduate school, as I'm already finishing up on
my thesis. In the summer of '62, I guess I should mention, I wrote another compiler. This was
for Univac; it was a FORTRAN compiler. I spent the summer, I sold my soul to the devil, I guess
you say, for three months in the summer of 1962 to write a FORTRAN compiler. I believe that the
salary for that was $15,000, which was much more than an assistant professor. I think assistant
professors were getting eight or nine thousand in those days.
Feigenbaum: Well, when I started in 1960 at [University of California] Berkeley, I was
getting $7,600 for the nine-month year.
Knuth: Knuth: Yeah, so you see it. I got $15,000 for a summer job in 1962 writing a
FORTRAN compiler. One day during that summer I was writing the part of the compiler that looks
up identifiers in a hash table. The method that we used is called linear probing. Basically you
take the variable name that you want to look up, you scramble it, like you square it or
something like this, and that gives you a number between one and, well in those days it would
have been between 1 and 1000, and then you look there. If you find it, good; if you don't find
it, go to the next place and keep on going until you either get to an empty place, or you find
the number you're looking for. It's called linear probing. There was a rumor that one of
Professor Feller's students at Princeton had tried to figure out how fast linear probing works
and was unable to succeed. This was a new thing for me. It was a case where I was doing
programming, but I also had a mathematical problem that would go into my other [job]. My winter
job was being a math student, my summer job was writing compilers. There was no mix. These
worlds did not intersect at all in my life at that point. So I spent one day during the summer
while writing the compiler looking at the mathematics of how fast does linear probing work. I
got lucky, and I solved the problem. I figured out some math, and I kept two or three sheets of
paper with me and I typed it up. ["Notes on 'Open' Addressing', 7/22/63] I guess that's on the
internet now, because this became really the genesis of my main research work, which developed
not to be working on compilers, but to be working on what they call analysis of algorithms,
which is, have a computer method and find out how good is it quantitatively. I can say, if I
got so many things to look up in the table, how long is linear probing going to take. It dawned
on me that this was just one of many algorithms that would be important, and each one would
lead to a fascinating mathematical problem. This was easily a good lifetime source of rich
problems to work on. Here I am then, in the middle of 1962, writing this FORTRAN compiler, and
I had one day to do the research and mathematics that changed my life for my future research
trends. But now I've gotten off the topic of what your original question was.
Feigenbaum: We were talking about sort of the.. You talked about the embryo of The Art of
Computing. The compiler book morphed into The Art of Computer Programming, which became a
seven-volume plan.
Knuth: Exactly. Anyway, I'm working on a compiler and I'm thinking about this. But now I'm
starting, after I finish this summer job, then I began to do things that were going to be
relating to the book. One of the things I knew I had to have in the book was an artificial
machine, because I'm writing a compiler book but machines are changing faster than I can write
books. I have to have a machine that I'm totally in control of. I invented this machine called
MIX, which was typical of the computers of 1962.
In 1963 I wrote a simulator for MIX so that I could write sample programs for it, and I
taught a class at Caltech on how to write programs in assembly language for this hypothetical
computer. Then I started writing the parts that dealt with sorting problems and searching
problems, like the linear probing idea. I began to write those parts, which are part of a
compiler, of the book. I had several hundred pages of notes gathering for those chapters for
The Art of Computer Programming. Before I graduated, I've already done quite a bit of writing
on The Art of Computer Programming.
I met George Forsythe about this time. George was the man who inspired both of us [Knuth and
Feigenbaum] to come to Stanford during the '60s. George came down to Southern California for a
talk, and he said, "Come up to Stanford. How about joining our faculty?" I said "Oh no, I can't
do that. I just got married, and I've got to finish this book first." I said, "I think I'll
finish the book next year, and then I can come up [and] start thinking about the rest of my
life, but I want to get my book done before my son is born." Well, John is now 40-some years
old and I'm not done with the book. Part of my lack of expertise is any good estimation
procedure as to how long projects are going to take. I way underestimated how much needed to be
written about in this book. Anyway, I started writing the manuscript, and I went merrily along
writing pages of things that I thought really needed to be said. Of course, it didn't take long
before I had started to discover a few things of my own that weren't in any of the existing
literature. I did have an axe to grind. The message that I was presenting was in fact not going
to be unbiased at all. It was going to be based on my own particular slant on stuff, and that
original reason for why I should write the book became impossible to sustain. But the fact that
I had worked on linear probing and solved the problem gave me a new unifying theme for the
book. I was going to base it around this idea of analyzing algorithms, and have some
quantitative ideas about how good methods were. Not just that they worked, but that they worked
well: this method worked 3 times better than this method, or 3.1 times better than this method.
Also, at this time I was learning mathematical techniques that I had never been taught in
school. I found they were out there, but they just hadn't been emphasized openly, about how to
solve problems of this kind.
So my book would also present a different kind of mathematics than was common in the
curriculum at the time, that was very relevant to analysis of algorithm. I went to the
publishers, I went to Addison Wesley, and said "How about changing the title of the book from
'The Art of Computer Programming' to 'The Analysis of Algorithms'." They said that will never
sell; their focus group couldn't buy that one. I'm glad they stuck to the original title,
although I'm also glad to see that several books have now come out called "The Analysis of
Algorithms", 20 years down the line.
But in those days, The Art of Computer Programming was very important because I'm
thinking of the aesthetical: the whole question of writing programs as something that has
artistic aspects in all senses of the word. The one idea is "art" which means artificial, and
the other "art" means fine art. All these are long stories, but I've got to cover it fairly
quickly.
I've got The Art of Computer Programming started out, and I'm working on my 12 chapters. I
finish a rough draft of all 12 chapters by, I think it was like 1965. I've got 3,000 pages of
notes, including a very good example of what you mentioned about seeing holes in the fabric.
One of the most important chapters in the book is parsing: going from somebody's algebraic
formula and figuring out the structure of the formula. Just the way I had done in seventh grade
finding the structure of English sentences, I had to do this with mathematical sentences.
Chapter ten is all about parsing of context-free language, [which] is what we called it at
the time. I covered what people had published about context-free languages and parsing. I got
to the end of the chapter and I said, well, you can combine these ideas and these ideas, and
all of a sudden you get a unifying thing which goes all the way to the limit. These other ideas
had sort of gone partway there. They would say "Oh, if a grammar satisfies this condition, I
can do it efficiently." "If a grammar satisfies this condition, I can do it efficiently." But
now, all of a sudden, I saw there was a way to say I can find the most general condition that
can be done efficiently without looking ahead to the end of the sentence. That you could make a
decision on the fly, reading from left to right, about the structure of the thing. That was
just a natural outgrowth of seeing the different pieces of the fabric that other people had put
together, and writing it into a chapter for the first time. But I felt that this general
concept, well, I didn't feel that I had surrounded the concept. I knew that I had it, and I
could prove it, and I could check it, but I couldn't really intuit it all in my head. I knew it
was right, but it was too hard for me, really, to explain it well.
So I didn't put in The Art of Computer Programming. I thought it was beyond the scope of my
book. Textbooks don't have to cover everything when you get to the harder things; then you have
to go to the literature. My idea at that time [is] I'm writing this book and I'm thinking it's
going to be published very soon, so any little things I discover and put in the book I didn't
bother to write a paper and publish in the journal because I figure it'll be in my book pretty
soon anyway. Computer science is changing so fast, my book is bound to be obsolete.
It takes a year for it to go through editing, and people drawing the illustrations, and then
they have to print it and bind it and so on. I have to be a little bit ahead of the
state-of-the-art if my book isn't going to be obsolete when it comes out. So I kept most of the
stuff to myself that I had, these little ideas I had been coming up with. But when I got to
this idea of left-to-right parsing, I said "Well here's something I don't really understand
very well. I'll publish this, let other people figure out what it is, and then they can tell me
what I should have said." I published that paper I believe in 1965, at the end of finishing my
draft of the chapter, which didn't get as far as that story, LR(k). Well now, textbooks of
computer science start with LR(k) and take off from there. But I want to give you an idea
of
Level 4/5 is the ability to read complex information and glean information from it, or in
numeracy, the ability to do algebra and above. You will note that only about 1 in 10 function at
this level. The vast majority function at about 6th to 8th grade competency.
Its just from slow growth and the Boomer deleveraging era. Its a global phenom and its
impacts are global into the cultural realm. The college degree boom is a great example of
this phenom. It was really based on the surge in consumer debt boom after WWII boosting these
supply chains in the US to increased consumption to GDP and reduced manufacturing, which fell
in real terms during the 1950-2000 period.
This created traditionally required college degree jobs into a nexus that was originally
based around the Baby Boomer generation and strengthened afterwards. Once growth petered in
2007(and we developed a oversupply since 2000) we now have too many people with college
degrees.
Even the rich aren't as rich as they were in 2007. Real profits are struggling this cycle
and are showing up with weak job growth this year. The unemployment rates flaws are showing
up this cycle as well, as total numbers mean little compared historically than the potential
that is lowest unemployment can go.
Based on that, the current level of labor market saturation seems to be at a late 70's
cycle level. In otherwards, if you adjust the population growth and total size this cycle is
doing no better than the Carter era top in 1979 .then we see the whining.
Both the Reagan and Bush II era expansions were a bit better and probably onto a intro of
a "boom".
Obviously it is noticeably the Korean, Vietnam and Tech era booms which would require
unemployment to fall below 3% to reach, maybe down to 2.5%, which tells you something about
potential unemployment drop peaks.
Interesting. Sorry you had that experience. I'm not sure what you mean by a "multi-line
text widget". I can tell you that early versions of OpenMOTIF were very very buggy in my
experience. You probably know this, but after OpenMOTIF was completed and revved a few times
the original MOTIF code was released as open-source. Many of the bugs I'd been seeing (and
some just strange visual artifacts) disappeared. I know a lot of people love QT and it's
produced real apps and real results - I won't poo-poo it. How
Even if you don't like C++ much, The Design and
Evolution of C++ [amazon.com] is a great book for understanding why pretty much any
language ends up the way it does, seeing the tradeoffs and how a language comes to grow and
expand from simple roots. It's way more interesting to read than you might expect (not very
dry, and more about human interaction than you would expect).
Other than that reading through back posts in a lot of coding blogs that have been around
a long time is probably a really good idea.
You young whippersnappers don't 'preciate how good you have it!
Back in my day, the only book about programming was the 1401 assembly language manual!
But seriously, folks, it's pretty clear we still don't know shite about how to program
properly. We have some fairly clear success criteria for improving the hardware, but the
criteria for good software are clear as mud, and the criteria for ways to produce good
software are much muddier than that.
Having said that, I will now peruse the thread rather carefully
Couldn't find any mention of Guy Steele, so I'll throw in The New Hacker's
Dictionary , which I once owned in dead tree form. Not sure if Version 4.4.7 http://catb.org/jargon/html/ [catb.org] is
the latest online... Also remember a couple of his language manuals. Probably used the Common
Lisp one the most...
Didn't find any mention of a lot of books that I consider highly relevant, but that may
reflect my personal bias towards history. Not really relevant for most programmers.
I've been programming for the past ~40 years and I'll try to summarize what I believe are
the most important bits about programming (pardon the pun.) Think of this as a META: " HOWTO:
Be A Great Programmer " summary. (I'll get to the books section in a bit.)
1. All code can be summarized as a trinity of 3 fundamental concepts:
* Linear ; that is, sequence: A, B, C
* Cyclic ; that is, unconditional jumps: A-B-C-goto B
* Choice ; that is, conditional jumps: if A then B
2. ~80% of programming is NOT about code; it is about Effective Communication. Whether
that be:
* with your compiler / interpreter / REPL
* with other code (levels of abstraction, level of coupling, separation of concerns,
etc.)
* with your boss(es) / manager(s)
* with your colleagues
* with your legal team
* with your QA dept
* with your customer(s)
* with the general public
The other ~20% is effective time management and design. A good programmer knows how to
budget their time. Programming is about balancing the three conflicting goals of the
Program
Management Triangle [wikipedia.org]: You can have it on time, on budget, on quality.
Pick two.
3. Stages of a Programmer
There are two old jokes:
In Lisp all code is data. In Haskell all data is code.
And:
Progression of a (Lisp) Programmer:
* The newbie realizes that the difference between code and data is trivial.
* The expert realizes that all code is data.
* The true master realizes that all data is code.
(Attributed to Aristotle Pagaltzis)
The point of these jokes is that as you work with systems you start to realize that a
data-driven process can often greatly simplify things.
4. Know Thy Data
Fred Books once wrote
"Show me your flowcharts (source code), and conceal your tables (domain model), and I shall
continue to be mystified; show me your tables (domain model) and I won't usually need your
flowcharts (source code): they'll be obvious."
A more modern version would read like this:
Show me your code and I'll have to see your data,
Show me your data and I won't have to see your code.
The importance of data can't be understated:
* Optimization STARTS with understanding HOW the data is being generated and used, NOT the
code as has been traditionally taught.
* Post 2000 "Big Data" has been called the new oil. We are generating upwards to millions of
GB of data every second. Analyzing that data is import to spot trends and potential
problems.
5. There are three levels of optimizations. From slowest to fastest run-time:
a) Bit-twiddling hacks
[stanford.edu]
b) Algorithmic -- Algorithmic complexity or Analysis of algorithms
[wikipedia.org] (such as Big-O notation)
c) Data-Orientated
Design [dataorienteddesign.com] -- Understanding how hardware caches such as instruction
and data caches matter. Optimize for the common case, NOT the single case that OOP tends to
favor.
Optimizing is understanding Bang-for-the-Buck. 80% of code execution is spent in 20% of
the time. Speeding up hot-spots with bit twiddling won't be as effective as using a more
efficient algorithm which, in turn, won't be as efficient as understanding HOW the data is
manipulated in the first place.
6. Fundamental Reading
Since the OP specifically asked about books -- there are lots of great ones. The ones that
have impressed me that I would mark as "required" reading:
* The Mythical Man-Month
* Godel, Escher, Bach
* Knuth: The Art of Computer Programming
* The Pragmatic Programmer
* Zero Bugs and Program Faster
* Writing Solid Code / Code Complete by Steve McConnell
* Game Programming
Patterns [gameprogra...tterns.com] (*)
* Game Engine Design
* Thinking in Java by Bruce Eckel
* Puzzles for Hackers by Ivan Sklyarov
(*) I did NOT list Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software
as that leads to typical, bloated, over-engineered crap. The main problem with "Design
Patterns" is that a programmer will often get locked into a mindset of seeing
everything as a pattern -- even when a simple few lines of code would solve th
eproblem. For example here is 1,100+ of Crap++ code such as Boost's over-engineered
CRC code
[boost.org] when a mere ~25 lines of SIMPLE C code would have done the trick. When was the
last time you ACTUALLY needed to _modify_ a CRC function? The BIG picture is that you are
probably looking for a BETTER HASHING function with less collisions. You probably would be
better off using a DIFFERENT algorithm such as SHA-2, etc.
7. Do NOT copy-pasta
Roughly 80% of bugs creep in because someone blindly copied-pasted without thinking. Type
out ALL code so you actually THINK about what you are writing.
8. K.I.S.S.
Over-engineering and aka technical debt, will be your Achilles' heel. Keep It Simple,
Silly.
9. Use DESCRIPTIVE variable names
You spend ~80% of your time READING code, and only ~20% writing it. Use good, descriptive
variable names. Far too programmers write usless comments and don't understand the difference
between code and comments:
Code says HOW, Comments say WHY
A crap comment will say something like: // increment i
No, Shit Sherlock! Don't comment the obvious!
A good comment will say something like: // BUGFIX: 1234:
Work-around issues caused by A, B, and C.
10. Ignoring Memory Management doesn't make it go away -- now you have two problems. (With
apologies to JWZ)
If you don't understand both the pros and cons of these programming paradigms
...
* Procedural
* Object-Orientated
* Functional, and
* Data-Orientated Design
... then you will never really understand programming, nor abstraction,
at a deep level, along with how and when it should and shouldn't be used.
12. Multi-disciplinary POV
ALL non-trivial code has bugs. If you aren't using static code analysis
[wikipedia.org] then you are not catching as many bugs as the people who are.
Also, a good programmer looks at his code from many different angles. As a programmer you
must put on many different hats to find them:
* Architect -- design the code
* Engineer / Construction Worker -- implement the code
* Tester -- test the code
* Consumer -- doesn't see the code, only sees the results. Does it even work?? Did you VERIFY
it did BEFORE you checked your code into version control?
13. Learn multiple Programming Languages
Each language was designed to solve certain problems. Learning different languages, even
ones you hate, will expose you to different concepts. e.g. If you don't how how to read
assembly language AND your high level language then you will never be as good as the
programmer who does both.
14. Respect your Colleagues' and Consumers Time, Space, and Money.
Mobile game are the WORST at respecting people's time, space and money turning "players
into payers." They treat customers as whales. Don't do this. A practical example: If you are
a slack channel with 50+ people do NOT use @here. YOUR fire is not their emergency!
15. Be Passionate
If you aren't passionate about programming, that is, you are only doing it for the money,
it will show. Take some pride in doing a GOOD job.
16. Perfect Practice Makes Perfect.
If you aren't programming every day you will never be as good as someone who is.
Programming is about solving interesting problems. Practice solving puzzles to develop your
intuition and lateral thinking. The more you practice the better you get.
"Sorry" for the book but I felt it was important to summarize the "essentials" of
programming.
--
Hey Slashdot. Fix your shitty filter so long lists can be posted.: "Your comment has too few
characters per line (currently 37.0)."
You crammed a lot of good ideas into a short post.
I'm sending my team at work a link to your post.
You mentioned code can data. Linus Torvalds had this to say:
"I'm a huge proponent of designing your code around the data, rather than the other way
around, and I think it's one of the reasons git has been fairly successful [â¦] I
will, in fact, claim that the difference between a bad programmer and a good one is whether
he considers his code or his data structures more important."
"Bad programmers worry about the code. Good programmers worry about data structures and
their relationships."
I'm inclined to agree. Once the data structure is right, the code oftem almost writes
itself. It'll be easy to write and easy to read because it's obvious how one would handle
data structured in that elegant way.
Writing the code necessary to transform the data from the input format into the right
structure can be non-obvious, but it's normally worth it.
i learnt to program at school from a Ph.D computer scientist. We never even had computers
in the class. We learnt to break the problem down into sections using flowcharts or
pseudo-code and then we would translate that program into whatever coding language we were
using. I still do this usually in my notebook where I figure out all the things I need to do
and then write the skeleton of the code using a series of comments for what each section of
my program and then I fill in the code for each section. It is a combination of top down and
bottom up programming, writing routines that can be independently tested and validated.
"... Defensive programming is a method of prevention, rather than a form of cure. Compare this to debugging -- the act of removing bugs after they've bitten. Debugging is all about finding a cure. ..."
"... Defensive programming saves you literally hours of debugging and lets you do more fun stuff instead. Remember Murphy: If your code can be used incorrectly, it will be. ..."
"... Working code that runs properly, but ever-so-slightly slower, is far superior to code that works most of the time but occasionally collapses in a shower of brightly colored sparks ..."
"... Defensive programming avoids a large number of security problems -- a serious issue in modern software development. ..."
Okay, defensive programming won't remove program failures altogether. But problems will become less of a hassle and easier to fix.
Defensive programmers catch falling snowflakes rather than get buried under an avalanche of errors.
Defensive programming is a method of prevention, rather than a form of cure. Compare this to debugging -- the act of removing
bugs after they've bitten. Debugging is all about finding a cure.
WHAT DEFENSIVE PROGRAMMING ISN'T
There are a few common misconceptions about defensive programming . Defensive programming is not:
Error checking
If there are error conditions that might arise in your code, you should be checking for them anyway. This is not defensive
code. It's just plain good practice -- a part of writing correct code.
Testing
Testing your code is not defensive . It's another normal part of our development work. Test harnesses aren't defensive ; they
can prove the code is correct now, but won't prove that it will stand up to future modification. Even with the best test suite
in the world, anyone can make a change and slip it past untested.
Debugging
You might add some defensive code during a spell of debugging, but debugging is something you do after your program has failed.
Defensive programming is something you do to prevent your program from failing in the first place (or to detect failures
early before they manifest in incomprehensible ways, demanding all-night debugging sessions).
Is defensive programming really worth the hassle? There are arguments for and against:
The case against
Defensive programming consumes resources, both yours and the computer's.
It eats into the efficiency of your code; even a little extra code requires a little extra execution. For a single function
or class, this might not matter, but when you have a system made up of 100,000 functions, you may have more of a problem.
Each defensive practice requires some extra work. Why should you follow any of them? You have enough to do already, right?
Just make sure people use your code correctly. If they don't, then any problems are their own fault.
The case for
The counterargument is compelling.
Defensive programming saves you literally hours of debugging and lets you do more fun stuff instead. Remember Murphy: If
your code can be used incorrectly, it will be.
Working code that runs properly, but ever-so-slightly slower, is far superior to code that works most of the time
but occasionally collapses in a shower of brightly colored sparks.
We can design some defensive code to be physically removed in release builds, circumventing the performance issue. The
majority of the items we'll consider here don't have any significant overhead, anyway.
Defensive programming avoids a large number of security problems -- a serious issue in modern software development. More
on this follows.
As the market demands software that's built faster and cheaper, we need to focus on techniques that deliver results. Don't skip
the bit of extra work up front that will prevent a whole world of pain and delay later.
There is one danger to defensive coding: It can bury errors. Consider the following
code:
def drawLine(m, b, image, start = 0, stop = WIDTH):
step = 1
start = int(start)
stop = int(stop)
if stop-start < 0:
step = -1
print('WARNING: drawLine parameters were reversed.')
for x in range(start, stop, step):
index = int(m*x + b) * WIDTH + x
if 0 <= index < len(image):
image[index] = 255 # Poke in a white (= 255) pixel.
This function runs from start to stop . If stop is less than start , it just steps backward
and no error is reported .
Maybe we want this kind of error to be "fixed " during the
run -- buried -- but I think we should at least print a warning that the range is coming in
backwards. Maybe we should abort the program .
"... Code installed for defensive programming is not immune to defects, and you're just as likely to find a defect in defensive-programming code as in any other code -- more likely, if you write the code casually. Think about where you need to be defensive , and set your defensive-programming priorities accordingly. ..."
Originally from: Code Complete, Second Edition II. Creating High-Quality Code
8.3. Error-Handling Techniques
Too much of anything is bad, but too much whiskey is just enough. -- Mark Twain
Too much defensive programming creates problems of its own. If you check data passed as parameters in every conceivable way in
every conceivable place, your program will be fat and slow.
What's worse, the additional code needed for defensive programming adds
complexity to the software.
Code installed for defensive programming is not immune to defects, and you're just as likely to find
a defect in defensive-programming code as in any other code -- more likely, if you write the code casually. Think about where you
need to be defensive , and set your defensive-programming priorities accordingly.
Defensive Programming
General
Does the routine protect itself from bad input data?
Have you used assertions to document assumptions, including preconditions and postconditions?
Have assertions been used only to document conditions that should never occur?
Does the architecture or high-level design specify a specific set of error-handling techniques?
Does the architecture or high-level design specify whether error handling should favor robustness or correctness?
Have barricades been created to contain the damaging effect of errors and reduce the amount of code that has to be concerned
about error processing?
Have debugging aids been used in the code?
Have debugging aids been installed in such a way that they can be activated or deactivated without a great deal of fuss?
Is the amount of defensive programming code appropriate -- neither too much nor too little?
Have you used offensive- programming techniques to make errors difficult to overlook during development?
Exceptions
Has your project defined a standardized approach to exception handling?
Have you considered alternatives to using an exception?
Is the error handled locally rather than throwing a nonlocal exception, if possible?
Does the code avoid throwing exceptions in constructors and destructors?
Are all exceptions at the appropriate levels of abstraction for the routines that throw them?
Does each exception include all relevant exception background information?
Is the code free of empty catch blocks? (Or if an empty catch block truly is appropriate, is it documented?)
Security Issues
Does the code that checks for bad input data check for attempted buffer overflows, SQL injection, HTML injection, integer
overflows, and other malicious inputs?
Are all error-return codes checked?
Are all exceptions caught?
Do error messages avoid providing information that would help an attacker break into the system?
Assertions as special statement is questionable approach unless there is a switch to exclude them from the code. Other
then that BASH exit with condition or Perl die can serve equally well.
The main question here is which assertions should be in code only for debugging and which should be in production.
Notable quotes:
"... That an input parameter's value falls within its expected range (or an output parameter's value does) ..."
"... Many languages have built-in support for assertions, including C++, Java, and Microsoft Visual Basic. If your language doesn't directly support assertion routines, they are easy to write. The standard C++ assert macro doesn't provide for text messages. Here's an example of an improved ASSERT implemented as a C++ macro: ..."
"... Use assertions to document and verify preconditions and postconditions. Preconditions and postconditions are part of an approach to program design and development known as "design by contract" (Meyer 1997). When preconditions and postconditions are used, each routine or class forms a contract with the rest of the program . ..."
An assertion is code that's used during development -- usually a routine or macro -- that allows a program to check itself as
it runs. When an assertion is true, that means everything is operating as expected. When it's false, that means it has detected an
unexpected error in the code. For example, if the system assumes that a customerinformation file will never have more than 50,000
records, the program might contain an assertion that the number of records is less than or equal to 50,000. As long as the number
of records is less than or equal to 50,000, the assertion will be silent. If it encounters more than 50,000 records, however, it
will loudly "assert" that an error is in the program .
Assertions are especially useful in large, complicated programs and in high-reliability programs . They enable programmers to
more quickly flush out mismatched interface assumptions, errors that creep in when code is modified, and so on.
An assertion usually takes two arguments: a boolean expression that describes the assumption that's supposed to be true, and a
message to display if it isn't. Here's what a Java assertion would look like if the variable denominator were expected to
be nonzero:
Example 8-1. Java Example of an Assertion
assert denominator != 0 : "denominator is unexpectedly equal to 0.";
This assertion asserts that denominator is not equal to 0 . The first argument, denominator != 0 , is a boolean
expression that evaluates to true or false . The second argument is a message to print if the first argument is
false -- that is, if the assertion is false.
Use assertions to document assumptions made in the code and to flush out unexpected conditions. Assertions can be used to check
assumptions like these:
That an input parameter's value falls within its expected range (or an output parameter's value does)
That a file or stream is open (or closed) when a routine begins executing (or when it ends executing)
That a file or stream is at the beginning (or end) when a routine begins executing (or when it ends executing)
That a file or stream is open for read-only, write-only, or both read and write
That the value of an input-only variable is not changed by a routine
That a pointer is non-null
That an array or other container passed into a routine can contain at least X number of data elements
That a table has been initialized to contain real values
That a container is empty (or full) when a routine begins executing (or when it finishes)
That the results from a highly optimized, complicated routine match the results from a slower but clearly written routine
Of course, these are just the basics, and your own routines will contain many more specific assumptions that you can document
using assertions.
Normally, you don't want users to see assertion messages in production code; assertions are primarily for use during development
and maintenance. Assertions are normally compiled into the code at development time and compiled out of the code for production.
During development, assertions flush out contradictory assumptions, unexpected conditions, bad values passed to routines, and so
on. During production, they can be compiled out of the code so that the assertions don't degrade system performance.
Building Your Own Assertion Mechanism
Many languages have built-in support for assertions, including C++, Java, and Microsoft Visual Basic. If your language doesn't
directly support assertion routines, they are easy to write. The standard C++ assert macro doesn't provide for text messages.
Here's an example of an improved ASSERT implemented as a C++ macro:
Cross-Reference
Building your own assertion routine is a good example of programming "into" a language rather than just programming "in" a language.
For more details on this distinction, see
Program into Your
Language, Not in It .
Use error-handling code for conditions you expect to occur; use assertions for conditions that should. never occur Assertions
check for conditions that should never occur. Error-handling code checks for off-nominal circumstances that might not occur
very often, but that have been anticipated by the programmer who wrote the code and that need to be handled by the production code.
Error handling typically checks for bad input data; assertions check for bugs in the code.
If error-handling code is used to address an anomalous condition, the error handling will enable the program to respond to the
error gracefully. If an assertion is fired for an anomalous condition, the corrective action is not merely to handle an error gracefully
-- the corrective action is to change the program's source code, recompile, and release a new version of the software.
A good way to think of assertions is as executable documentation -- you can't rely on them to make the code work, but they can
document assumptions more actively than program -language comments can.
Avoid putting executable code into assertions. Putting code into an assertion raises the possibility that the compiler will eliminate
the code when you turn off the assertions. Suppose you have an assertion like this:
Example 8-3. Visual Basic Example of a Dangerous Use of an Assertion
The problem with this code is that, if you don't compile the assertions, you don't compile the code that performs the action.
Put executable statements on their own lines, assign the results to status variables, and test the status variables instead. Here's
an example of a safe use of an assertion:
Example 8-4. Visual Basic Example of a Safe Use of an Assertion
Use assertions to document and verify preconditions and postconditions. Preconditions and postconditions are part of an approach
to program design and development known as "design by contract" (Meyer 1997). When preconditions and postconditions are used, each
routine or class forms a contract with the rest of the program .
Further Reading
For much more on preconditions and postconditions, see Object-Oriented Software Construction (Meyer 1997).
Preconditions are the properties that the client code of a routine or class promises will be true before it calls the routine
or instantiates the object. Preconditions are the client code's obligations to the code it calls.
Postconditions are the properties that the routine or class promises will be true when it concludes executing. Postconditions
are the routine's or class's obligations to the code that uses it.
Assertions are a useful tool for documenting preconditions and postconditions. Comments could be used to document preconditions
and postconditions, but, unlike comments, assertions can check dynamically whether the preconditions and postconditions are true.
In the following example, assertions are used to document the preconditions and postcondition of the Velocity routine.
Example 8-5. Visual Basic Example of Using Assertions to Document Preconditions and Postconditions
Private Function Velocity ( _
ByVal latitude As Single, _
ByVal longitude As Single, _
ByVal elevation As Single _
) As Single
' Preconditions
Debug.Assert ( -90 <= latitude And latitude <= 90 )
Debug.Assert ( 0 <= longitude And longitude < 360 )
Debug.Assert ( -500 <= elevation And elevation <= 75000 )
...
' Postconditions Debug.Assert ( 0 <= returnVelocity And returnVelocity <= 600 )
' return value
Velocity = returnVelocity
End Function
If the variables latitude , longitude , and elevation were coming from an external source, invalid values
should be checked and handled by error-handling code rather than by assertions. If the variables are coming from a trusted, internal
source, however, and the routine's design is based on the assumption that these values will be within their valid ranges, then assertions
are appropriate.
For highly robust code, assert and then handle the error anyway. For any given error condition, a routine will generally use either
an assertion or error-handling code, but not both. Some experts argue that only one kind is needed (Meyer 1997).
But real-world programs and projects tend to be too messy to rely solely on assertions. On a large, long-lasting system, different
parts might be designed by different designers over a period of 5–10 years or more. The designers will be separated in time, across
numerous versions. Their designs will focus on different technologies at different points in the system's development. The designers
will be separated geographically, especially if parts of the system are acquired from external sources. Programmers will have worked
to different coding standards at different points in the system's lifetime. On a large development team, some programmers will inevitably
be more conscientious than others and some parts of the code will be reviewed more rigorously than other parts of the code. Some
programmers will unit test their code more thoroughly than others. With test teams working across different geographic regions and
subject to business pressures that result in test coverage that varies with each release, you can't count on comprehensive, system-level
regression testing, either.
In such circumstances, both assertions and error-handling code might be used to address the same error. In the source code for
Microsoft Word, for example, conditions that should always be true are asserted, but such errors are also handled by error-handling
code in case the assertion fails. For extremely large, complex, long-lived applications like Word, assertions are valuable because
they help to flush out as many development-time errors as possible. But the application is so complex (millions of lines of code)
and has gone through so many generations of modification that it isn't realistic to assume that every conceivable error will be detected
and corrected before the software ships, and so errors must be handled in the production version of the system as well.
Here's an example of how that might work in the Velocity example:
Example 8-6. Visual Basic Example of Using Assertions to Document Preconditions and Postconditions
Private Function Velocity ( _
ByRef latitude As Single, _
ByRef longitude As Single, _
ByRef elevation As Single _
) As Single
' Preconditions
Debug.Assert ( -90 <= latitude And latitude <= 90 ) <-- 1
Debug.Assert ( 0 <= longitude And longitude < 360 ) |
Debug.Assert ( -500 <= elevation And elevation <= 75000 ) <-- 1
...
' Sanitize input data. Values should be within the ranges asserted above,
' but if a value is not within its valid range, it will be changed to the
' closest legal value
If ( latitude < -90 ) Then <-- 2
latitude = -90 |
ElseIf ( latitude > 90 ) Then |
latitude = 90 |
End If |
If ( longitude < 0 ) Then |
longitude = 0 |
ElseIf ( longitude > 360 ) Then <-- 2
...
(1) Here is assertion code.
(2) Here is the code that handles bad input data at run time.
"... Defensive programming means always checking whether an operation succeeded. ..."
"... Exceptional usually means out of the ordinary and unusually good, but when it comes to errors, the word has a more negative meaning. The system throws an exception when some error condition happens, and if you don't catch that exception, it will give you a dialog box that says something like "your program has caused an error -- –goodbye." ..."
There are five desirable properties of good programs : They should be robust, correct,
maintainable, friendly, and efficient. Obviously, these properties can be prioritized in
different orders, but generally, efficiency is less important than correctness; it is nearly
always possible to optimize a well-designed program , whereas badly written "lean and mean"
code is often a disaster. (Donald Knuth, the algorithms guru, says that "premature optimization
is the root of all evil.")
Here I am mostly talking about programs that have to be used by non-expert users. (You can
forgive programs you write for your own purposes when they behave badly: For example, many
scientific number-crunching programs are like bad-tempered sports cars.) Being unbreakable is
important for programs to be acceptable to users, and you, therefore, need to be a little
paranoid and not assume that everything is going to work according to plan. ' Defensive
programming ' means writing programs that cope with all common errors. It means things like not
assuming that a file exists, or not assuming that you can write to any file (think of a
CD-ROM), or always checking for divide by zero.
In the next few sections I want to show you how to 'bullet-proof' programs . First, there is
a silly example to illustrate the traditional approach (check everything), and then I will
introduce exception handling.
Bullet-Proofing Programs
Say you have to teach a computer to wash its hair. The problem, of course, is that computers
have no common sense about these matters: "Lather, rinse, repeat" would certainly lead to a
house flooded with bubbles. So you divide the operation into simpler tasks, which return true
or false, and check the result of each task before going on to the next one. For example, you
can't begin to wash your hair if you can't get the top off the shampoo bottle.
Defensive programming means always checking whether an operation succeeded. So the following
code is full of if-else statements, and if you were trying to do something more
complicated than wash hair, the code would rapidly become very ugly indeed (and the code would
soon scroll off the page):
void wash_hair()
{
string msg = "";
if (! find_shampoo() || ! open_shampoo()) msg = "no shampoo";
else {
if (! wet_hair()) msg = "no water!";
else {
if (! apply_shampoo()) msg = "shampoo application error";
else {
for(int i = 0; i < 2; i++) // repeat twice
if (! lather() || ! rinse()) {
msg = "no hands!";
break; // break out of the loop
}
if (! dry_hair()) msg = "no towel!";
}
}
}
if (msg != "") cerr << "Hair error: " << msg << endl;
// clean up after washing hair
put_away_towel();
put_away_shampoo();
}
Part of the hair-washing process is to clean up afterward (as anybody who has a roommate
soon learns). This would be a problem for the following code, now assuming that
wash_hair() returns a string:
string wash_hair()
{
...
if (! wet_hair()) return "no water!"
if (! Apply_shampoo()) return "application error!";
...
}
You would need another function to call this wash_hair() , write out the message
(if the operation failed), and do the cleanup. This would still be an improvement over the
first wash_hair() because the code doesn't have all those nested blocks.
NOTE
Some people disapprove of returning from a function from more than one place, but this is
left over from the days when cleanup had to be done manually. C++ guarantees that any object is
properly cleaned up, no matter from where you return (for instance, any open file objects are
automatically closed). Besides, C++ exception handling works much like a return ,
except that it can occur from many functions deep. The following section describes this and
explains why it makes error checking easier. Catching Exceptions
An alternative to constantly checking for errors is to let the problem (for example,
division by zero, access violation) occur and then use the C++ exception-handling mechanism to
gracefully recover from the problem.
Exceptional usually means out of the ordinary and
unusually good, but when it comes to errors, the word has a more negative meaning. The system
throws an exception when some error condition happens, and if you don't catch that exception,
it will give you a dialog box that says something like "your program has caused an error --
–goodbye."
You should avoid doing that to your users -- at the very least you should give
them a more reassuring and polite message.
If an exception occurs in a try block, the system tries to match the exception with
one (or more) catch blocks.
try { // your code goes inside this block
... problem happens - system throws exception
}
catch(Exception) { // exception caught here
... handle the problem
}
It is an error to have a try without a catch and vice versa. The ON
ERROR clause in Visual Basic achieves a similar goal, as do signals in C; they allow you
to jump out of trouble to a place where you can deal with the problem. The example is a
function div() , which does integer division. Instead of checking whether the divisor
is zero, this code lets the division by zero happen but catches the exception. Any code within
the try block can safely do integer division, without having to worry about the
problem. I've also defined a function bad_div() that does not catch the exception,
which will give a system error message when called:
int div(int i, int j)
{
int k = 0;
try {
k = i/j;
cout << "successful value " << k << endl;
}
catch(IntDivideByZero) {
cout << "divide by zero\n";
}
return k;
}
;> int bad_div(int i,int j) { return i/j; }
;> bad_div(10,0);
integer division by zero <main> (2)
;> div(2,1);
successful value 1
(int) 1
;> div(1,0);
divide by zero
(int) 0
This example is not how you would normally organize things. A lowly function like
div() should not have to decide how an error should be handled; its job is to do a
straightforward calculation. Generally, it is not a good idea to directly output error
information to cout or cerr because Windows graphical user interface programs
typically don't do that kind of output. Fortunately, any function call, made from within a
try block, that throws an exception will have that exception caught by the
catch block. The following is a little program that calls the (trivial) div()
function repeatedly but catches any divide-by-zero errors:
// div.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include <uc_except.h>
using namespace std;
int div(int i, int j)
{ return i/j; }
int main() {
int i,j,k;
cout << "Enter 0 0 to exit\n";
for(;;) { // loop forever
try {
cout << "Give two numbers: ";
cin >> i >> j;
if (i == 0 && j == 0) return 0; // exit program!
int k = div(i,j);
cout << "i/j = " << k << endl;
} catch(IntDivideByZero) {
cout << "divide by zero\n";
}
}
return 0;
}
Notice two crucial things about this example: First, the error-handling code appears as a
separate exceptional case, and second, the program does not crash due to divide-by-zero errors
(instead, it politely tells the user about the problem and keeps going).
Note the inclusion of <uc_except.h> , which is a nonstandard extension
specific to UnderC. The ISO standard does not specify any hardware error exceptions, mostly
because not all platforms support them, and a standard has to work everywhere. So
IntDivideByZero is not available on all systems. (I have included some library code
that implements these hardware exceptions for GCC and BCC32; please see the Appendix for more
details.)
How do you catch more than one kind of error? There may be more than one catch
block after the try block, and the runtime system looks for the best match. In some
ways, a catch block is like a function definition; you supply an argument, and you can
name a parameter that should be passed as a reference. For example, in the following code,
whatever do_something() does, catch_all_errors() catches it -- specifically a
divide-by-zero error -- and it catches any other exceptions as well:
The standard exceptions have a what() method, which gives more information about
them. Order is important here. Exception includes HardwareException , so
putting Exception first would catch just about everything. When an exception is
thrown, the system picks the first catch block that would match that exception. The
rule is to put the catch blocks in order of increasing generality.
Throwing
Exceptions
You can throw your own exceptions, which can be of any type, including C++ strings. (In
Chapter 8 ,
"Inheritance and Virtual Methods," you will see how you can create a hierarchy of errors, but
for now, strings and integers will do fine.) It is a good idea to write an error-generating
function fail() , which allows you to add extra error-tracking features later. The
following example returns to the hair-washing algorithm and is even more paranoid about
possible problems:
void fail(string msg)
{
throw msg;
}
void wash_hair()
{
try {
if (! find_shampoo()) fail("no shampoo");
if (! open_shampoo()) fail("can't open shampoo");
if (! wet_hair()) fail("no water!");
if (! apply_shampoo())fail("shampoo application error");
for(int i = 0; i < 2; i++) // repeat twice
if (! lather() || ! rinse()) fail("no hands!");
if (! dry_hair()) fail("no towel!");
}
catch(string err) {
cerr << "Known Hair washing failure: " << err << endl;
}
catch(...) {
cerr << "Catastropic failure\n";
}
// clean up after washing hair
put_away_towel();
put_away_shampoo();
}
In this example, the general logic is clear, and the cleanup code is always run, whatever
disaster happens. This example includes a catch-all catch block at the end. It is a
good idea to put one of these in your program's main() function so that it can deliver
a more polite message than "illegal instruction." But because you will then have no information
about what caused the problem, it's a good idea to cover a number of known cases first. Such a
catch-all must be the last catch block; otherwise, it will mask more specific
errors.
It is also possible to use a trick that Perl programmers use: If the fail()
function returns a bool , then the following expression is valid C++ and does exactly
what you want:
If dry_hair() returns true, the or expression must be true, and there's no
need to evaluate the second term. Conversely, if dry_hair() returns false, the
fail() function would be evaluated and the side effect would be to throw an exception.
This short-circuiting of Boolean expressions applies also to && and is
guaranteed by the C++ standard.
Once you've adopted this mind-set, you can then rewrite your prototype and follow a set of
eight strategies to make your code as solid as possible.
While I work on the real version, I
ruthlessly follow these strategies and try to remove as many errors as I can, thinking like
someone who wants to break the software.
Never Trust Input. Never trust the data you're given and always validate it.
Prevent Errors. If an error is possible, no matter how probable, try to prevent it.
Fail Early and Openly Fail early, cleanly, and openly, stating what happened, where, and how
to fix it.
Document Assumptions Clearly state the pre-conditions, post-conditions, and invariants.
Prevention over Documentation. Don't do with documentation that which can be done with code
or avoided completely.
Automate Everything Automate everything, especially testing.
Simplify and Clarify Always simplify the code to the smallest, cleanest form that works
without sacrificing safety.
Question Authority Don't blindly follow or reject rules.
These aren't the only strategies, but they're the core things I feel programmers have to
focus on when trying to make good, solid code. Notice that I don't really say exactly how to do
these. I'll go into each of these in more detail, and some of the exercises will actually cover
them extensively.
"... Different responsibilities should go into different components, layers, or modules of the application. Each part of the program should only be responsible for a part of the functionality (what we call its concerns) and should know nothing about the rest. ..."
"... The goal of separating concerns in software is to enhance maintainability by minimizing ripple effects. A ripple effect means the propagation of a change in the software from a starting point. This could be the case of an error or exception triggering a chain of other exceptions, causing failures that will result in a defect on a remote part of the application. It can also be that we have to change a lot of code scattered through multiple parts of the code base, as a result of a simple change in a function definition. ..."
"... Rule of thumb: Well-defined software will achieve high cohesion and low coupling. ..."
This is a design principle that is applied at multiple levels. It is not just about the
low-level design (code), but it is also relevant at a higher level of abstraction, so it will
come up later when we talk about architecture.
Different responsibilities should go into different components, layers, or modules of the
application. Each part of the program should only be responsible for a part of the
functionality (what we call its concerns) and should know nothing about the rest.
The goal of separating concerns in software is to enhance maintainability by minimizing
ripple effects. A ripple effect means the propagation of a change in the software from a
starting point. This could be the case of an error or exception triggering a chain of other
exceptions, causing failures that will result in a defect on a remote part of the application.
It can also be that we have to change a lot of code scattered through multiple parts of the
code base, as a result of a simple change in a function definition.
Clearly, we do not want these scenarios to happen. The software has to be easy to change. If
we have to modify or refactor some part of the code that has to have a minimal impact on the
rest of the application, the way to achieve this is through proper encapsulation.
In a similar way, we want any potential errors to be contained so that they don't cause
major damage.
This concept is related to the DbC principle in the sense that each concern can be enforced
by a contract. When a contract is violated, and an exception is raised as a result of such a
violation, we know what part of the program has the failure, and what responsibilities failed
to be met.
Despite this similarity, separation of concerns goes further. We normally think of contracts
between functions, methods, or classes, and while this also applies to responsibilities that
have to be separated, the idea of separation of concerns also applies to Python modules,
packages, and basically any software component. Cohesion and coupling
These are important concepts for good software design.
On the one hand, cohesion means that objects should have a small and well-defined purpose,
and they should do as little as possible. It follows a similar philosophy as Unix commands that
do only one thing and do it well. The more cohesive our objects are, the more useful and
reusable they become, making our design better.
On the other hand, coupling refers to the idea of how two or more objects depend on each
other. This dependency poses a limitation. If two parts of the code (objects or methods) are
too dependent on each other, they bring with them some undesired consequences:
No code reuse : If one function depends too much on a particular object, or takes too
many parameters, it's coupled with this object, which means that it will be really difficult
to use that function in a different context (in order to do so, we will have to find a
suitable parameter that complies with a very restrictive interface)
Ripple effects : Changes in one of the two parts will certainly impact the other, as they
are too close
Low level of abstraction : When two functions are so closely related, it is hard to see
them as different concerns resolving problems at different levels of abstraction
Rule of thumb: Well-defined software will achieve high cohesion and low coupling.
"... Check all values in function/method parameter lists. ..."
"... Are they all the correct type and size? ..."
"... You should always initialize variables and not depend on the system to do the initialization for you. ..."
"... taking the time to make your code readable and have the code layout match the logical structure of your design is essential to writing code that is understandable by humans and that works. Adhering to coding standards and conventions, keeping to a consistent style, and including good, accurate comments will help you immensely during debugging and testing. And it will help you six months from now when you come back and try to figure out what the heck you were thinking here. ..."
By defensive programming we mean that your code should protect itself from bad data. The bad
data can come from user input via the command line, a graphical text box or form, or a file.
Bad data can also come from other routines in your program via input parameters like in the
first example above.
How do you protect your program from bad data? Validate! As tedious as it sounds, you should
always check the validity of data that you receive from outside your routine. This means you
should check the following
Check the number and type of command line arguments.
Check file operations.
Did the file open?
Did the read operation return anything?
Did the write operation write anything?
Did we reach EOF yet?
Check all values in function/method parameter lists.
Are they all the correct type and size?
You should always initialize variables and not depend on the system to do the
initialization for you.
What else should you check for? Well, here's a short list:
Null pointers (references in Java)
Zeros in denominators
Wrong type
Out of range values
As an example, here's a C program that takes in a list of house prices from a file and
computes the average house price from the list. The file is provided to the program from the
command line.
/* * program to compute the average selling price of a set of homes. * Input comes from a file that is passed via the command line.
* Output is the Total and Average sale prices for * all the homes and the number of prices in the file. * * jfdooley */ #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv) { FILE *fp; double totalPrice, avgPrice; double price; int numPrices;
/* check that the user entered the correct number of args */ if (argc < 2) { fprintf(stderr,"Usage: %s <filename>\n", argv[0]); exit(1); }
/* try to open the input file */ fp = fopen(argv[1], "r"); if (fp == NULL) { fprintf(stderr, "File Not Found: %s\n", argv[1]); exit(1); } totalPrice = 0.0; numPrices = 0;
avgPrice = totalPrice / numPrices; printf("Number of houses is %d\n", numPrices); printf("Total Price of all houses is $%10.2f\n", totalPrice); printf("Average Price per house is $%10.2f\n", avgPrice);
return 0; }
Assertions Can Be Your Friend
Defensive programming means that using assertions is a great idea if your language supports
them. Java, C99, and C++ all support assertions. Assertions will test an expression that you
give them and if the expression is false, it will throw an error and normally abort the program
. You should use error handling code for errors you think might happen – erroneous user
input, for example – and use assertions for errors that should never happen
– off by one errors in loops, for example. Assertions are great for testing
your program , but because you should remove them before giving programs to customers (you
don't want the program to abort on the user, right?) they aren't good to use to validate input
data.
Exceptions and Error Handling
We've talked about using assertions to handle truly bad errors, ones that should never occur
in production. But what about handling "normal" errors? Part of defensive programming is to
handle errors in such a way that no damage is done to any data in the program or the files it
uses, and so that the program stays running for as long as possible (making your program
robust).
Let's look at exceptions first. You should take advantage of built-in exception handling in
whatever programming language you're using. The exception handling mechanism will give you
information about what bad thing has just happened. It's then up to you to decide what to do.
Normally in an exception handling mechanism you have two choices, handle the exception
yourself, or pass it along to whoever called you and let them handle it. What you do and how
you do it depends on the language you're using and the capabilities it gives you. We'll talk
about exception handling in Java later.
Error Handling
Just like with validation, you're most likely to encounter errors in input data, whether
it's command line input, file handling, or input from a graphical user interface form. Here
we're talking about errors that occur at run time. Compile time and testing errors are covered
in the next chapter on debugging and testing. Other types of errors can be data that your
program computes incorrectly, errors in other programs that interact with your program , the
operating system for instance, race conditions, and interaction errors where your program is
communicating with another and your program is at fault.
The main purpose of error handling is to have your program survive and run correctly for as
long as possible. When it gets to a point where your program cannot continue, it needs to
report what is wrong as best as it can and then exit gracefully. Exiting is the last resort for
error handling. So what should you do? Well, once again we come to the "it depends" answer.
What you should do depends on what your program's context is when the error occurs and what its
purpose is. You won't handle an error in a video game the same way you handle one in a cardiac
pacemaker. In every case, your first goal should be – try to recover.
Trying to recover from an error will have different meanings in different programs .
Recovery means that your program needs to try to either ignore the bad data, fix it, or
substitute something else that is valid for the bad data. See McConnell 8
for a further discussion of error handling. Here are a few examples of how to recover from
errors,
You might just ignore the bad data and keep going , using the next valid piece of
data. Say your program is a piece of embedded software in a digital pressure gauge. You
sample the sensor that returns the pressure 60 times a second. If the sensor fails to deliver
a pressure reading once, should you shut down the gauge? Probably not; a reasonable thing to
do is just skip that reading and set up to read the next piece of data when it arrives. Now
if the pressure sensor skips several readings in a row, then something might be wrong with
the sensor and you should do something different (like yell for help).
__________
8 McConnell, 2004.
You might substitute the last valid piece of data for a missing or wrong piece.
Taking the digital pressure gauge again, if the sensor misses a reading, since each time
interval is only a sixtieth of a second, it's likely that the missing reading is very close
to the previous reading. In that case you can substitute the last valid piece of data for
the missing value.
There may be instances where you don't have any previously recorded valid data. Your
application uses an asynchronous event handler, so you don't have any history of data, but
your program knows that the data should be in a particular range. Say you've prompted the
user for a salary amount and the value that you get back is a negative number. Clearly no one
gets paid a salary of negative dollars, so the value is wrong. One way (probably not the
best) to handle this error is to substitute the closest valid value in the range , in
this case a zero. Although not ideal, at least your program can continue running with a valid
data value in that field.
In C programs , nearly all system calls and most of the standard library functions return
a value. You should test these values! Most functions will return values that indicate
success (a non-negative integer) or failure (a negative integer, usually -1). Some functions
return a value that indicates how successful they were. For example, the
printf() family of functions returns the number of characters printed, and the
scanf() family returns the number of input elements read. Most C functions also
set a global variable named errno that contains an integer value that is the
number of the error that occurred. The list of error numbers is in a header file called
errno.h . A zero on the errno variable indicates success. Any other
positive integer value is the number of the error that occurred. Because the system tells you
two things, (1) an error occurred, and (2) what it thinks is the cause of the error, you can
do lots of different things to handle it, including just reporting the error and
bailing out. For example, if we try to open a file that doesn't exist, the program
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <errno.h>
if ((fd = fopen(fname, "r")) == NULL) {
perror("File not opened");
exit(1);
}
printf("File exists\n");
return 0;
}
will return the error message File not opened: No such file or
directory
if the file really doesn't exist. The function perror() reads the
errno variable and using the string provided plus a standard string
corresponding to the error number, writes an error message to the console's standard
error output. This program could also prompt the user for a different file name or it
could substitute a default file name. Either of these would allow the program to
continue rather than exiting on the error.
There are other techniques to use in error handling and recovery. These examples should
give you a flavor of what you can do within your program . The important idea to remember
here is to attempt recovery if possible, but most of all, don't fail silently!
Exceptions in Java
Some programming languages have built-in error reporting systems that will tell you when an
error occurs, and leave it up to you to handle it one way or another. These errors that would
normally cause your program to die a horrible death are called exceptions . Exceptions
get thrown by the code that encounters the error. Once something is thrown, it's usually
a good idea if someone catches it. This is the same with exceptions. So there are two
sides to exceptions that you need to be aware of when you're writing code:
When you have a piece of code that can encounter an error you throw an exception.
Systems like Java will throw some exceptions for you. These exceptions are listed in the
Exception class in the Java API documentation (see http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api
). You can also write your own code to throw exceptions. We'll have an example later in the
chapter.
Once an exception is thrown, somebody has to catch it. If you don't do anything in
your program , this uncaught exception will percolate through to the Java Virtual
Machine (the JVM) and be caught there. The JVM will kill your program and provide you with a
stack backtrace that should lead you back to the place that originally threw the exception
and show you how you got there. On the other hand, you can also write code to encapsulate the
calls that might generate exceptions and catch them yourself using Java's S
try...catch mechanism. Java requires that some exceptions must be caught.
We'll see an example later.
Java has three different types of exceptions – checked exceptions, errors, and
unchecked exceptions. Checked exceptions are those that you should catch and handle
yourself using an exception handler; they are exceptions that you should anticipate and handle
as you design and write your code. For example, if your code asks a user for a file name, you
should anticipate that they will type it wrong and be prepared to catch the resulting
FileNotFoundException . Checked exceptions must be caught.
Errors on the other hand are exceptions that usually are related to things happening
outside your program and are things you can't do anything about except fail gracefully. You
might try to catch the error exception and provide some output for the user, but you will still
usually have to exit.
The third type of exception is the runtime exception . Runtime exceptions all result
from problems within your program that occur as it runs and almost always indicate errors in
your code. For example, a NullPointerException nearly always indicates a
bug in your code and shows up as a runtime exception. Errors and runtime exceptions are
collectively called unchecked exceptions (that would be because you usually don't try to
catch them, so they're unchecked). In the program below we deliberately cause a runtime
exception:
public class TestNull {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String str = null;
int len = str.length();
}
}
This program will compile just fine, but when you run it you'll get this as output:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException
at TestNull.main(TestNull.java:4)
This is a classic runtime exception. There's no need to catch this exception because the
only thing we can do is exit. If we do catch it, the program might look like:
public
class TestNullCatch {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String str = null;
try {
int len = str.length();
} catch (NullPointerException e) {
System.out.println("Oops: " + e.getMessage());
System.exit(1);
}
}
}
which gives us the output
Oops: null
Note that the getMessage() method will return a String containing
whatever error message Java deems appropriate – if there is one. Otherwise it returns a
null . This is somewhat less helpful than the default stack trace above.
Let's rewrite the short C program above in Java and illustrate how to catch a checked
exception .
import java.io.*; import java.util.*;
public class FileTest
public static void main(String [] args) { File fd = new File("NotAFile.txt"); System.out.println("File exists " + fd.exists());
By the way, if we don't use the try-catch block in the above program ,
then it won't compile. We get the compiler error message
FileTestWrong.java:11: unreported exception java.io.FileNotFoundException; must be caught
or declared to be thrown
FileReader fr = new FileReader(fd);
^1 error
Remember, checked exceptions must be caught. This type of error doesn't show up for
unchecked exceptions. This is far from everything you should know about exceptions and
exception handling in Java; start digging through the Java tutorials and the Java API!
The Last Word on Coding
Coding is the heart of software development. Code is what you produce. But coding is hard;
translating even a good, detailed design into code takes a lot of thought, experience, and
knowledge, even for small programs . Depending on the programming language you are using and
the target system, programming can be a very time-consuming and difficult task.
That's why
taking the time to make your code readable and have the code layout match the logical structure
of your design is essential to writing code that is understandable by humans and that works.
Adhering to coding standards and conventions, keeping to a consistent style, and including
good, accurate comments will help you immensely during debugging and testing. And it will help
you six months from now when you come back and try to figure out what the heck you were
thinking here.
And finally,
I am rarely happier than when spending an entire day programming my computer to perform
automatically a task that it would otherwise take me a good ten seconds to do by
hand.
"... How do you protect your program from bad data? Validate! As tedious as it sounds, you should always check the validity of data that you receive from outside your routine. This means you should check the following ..."
"... Check the number and type of command line arguments. ..."
By defensive programming we mean that your code should protect itself from bad data. The bad
data can come from user input via the command line, a graphical text box or form, or a file.
Bad data can also come from other routines in your program via input parameters like in the
first example above.
How do you protect your program from bad data? Validate! As tedious as it sounds, you should
always check the validity of data that you receive from outside your routine. This means you
should check the following
Check the number and type of command line arguments.
Check file operations.
Did the file open?
Did the read operation return anything?
Did the write operation write anything?
Did we reach EOF yet?
Check all values in function/method parameter lists.
Are they all the correct type and size?
You should always initialize variables and not depend on the system to do the
initialization for you.
What else should you check for? Well, here's a short list:
Null pointers (references in Java)
Zeros in denominators
Wrong type
Out of range values
As an example, here's a C program that takes in a list of house prices from a file and
computes the average house price from the list. The file is provided to the program from the
command line.
/* * program to compute the average selling price of a set of homes. * Input comes from a file that is passed via the command line.
* Output is the Total and Average sale prices for * all the homes and the number of prices in the file. * * jfdooley */ #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv) { FILE *fp; double totalPrice, avgPrice; double price; int numPrices;
/* check that the user entered the correct number of args */ if (argc < 2) { fprintf(stderr,"Usage: %s <filename>\n", argv[0]); exit(1); }
/* try to open the input file */ fp = fopen(argv[1], "r"); if (fp == NULL) { fprintf(stderr, "File Not Found: %s\n", argv[1]); exit(1); } totalPrice = 0.0; numPrices = 0;
avgPrice = totalPrice / numPrices; printf("Number of houses is %d\n", numPrices); printf("Total Price of all houses is $%10.2f\n", totalPrice); printf("Average Price per house is $%10.2f\n", avgPrice);
return 0; }
Assertions Can Be Your Friend
Defensive programming means that using assertions is a great idea if your language supports
them. Java, C99, and C++ all support assertions. Assertions will test an expression that you
give them and if the expression is false, it will throw an error and normally abort the program
. You should use error handling code for errors you think might happen – erroneous user
input, for example – and use assertions for errors that should never happen
– off by one errors in loops, for example. Assertions are great for testing
your program , but because you should remove them before giving programs to customers (you
don't want the program to abort on the user, right?) they aren't good to use to validate input
data.
Exceptions and Error Handling
We've talked about using assertions to handle truly bad errors, ones that should never occur
in production. But what about handling "normal" errors? Part of defensive programming is to
handle errors in such a way that no damage is done to any data in the program or the files it
uses, and so that the program stays running for as long as possible (making your program
robust).
Let's look at exceptions first. You should take advantage of built-in exception handling in
whatever programming language you're using. The exception handling mechanism will give you
information about what bad thing has just happened. It's then up to you to decide what to do.
Normally in an exception handling mechanism you have two choices, handle the exception
yourself, or pass it along to whoever called you and let them handle it. What you do and how
you do it depends on the language you're using and the capabilities it gives you. We'll talk
about exception handling in Java later.
Error Handling
Just like with validation, you're most likely to encounter errors in input data, whether
it's command line input, file handling, or input from a graphical user interface form. Here
we're talking about errors that occur at run time. Compile time and testing errors are covered
in the next chapter on debugging and testing. Other types of errors can be data that your
program computes incorrectly, errors in other programs that interact with your program , the
operating system for instance, race conditions, and interaction errors where your program is
communicating with another and your program is at fault.
The main purpose of error handling is to have your program survive and run correctly for as
long as possible. When it gets to a point where your program cannot continue, it needs to
report what is wrong as best as it can and then exit gracefully. Exiting is the last resort for
error handling. So what should you do? Well, once again we come to the "it depends" answer.
What you should do depends on what your program's context is when the error occurs and what its
purpose is. You won't handle an error in a video game the same way you handle one in a cardiac
pacemaker. In every case, your first goal should be – try to recover.
Trying to recover from an error will have different meanings in different programs .
Recovery means that your program needs to try to either ignore the bad data, fix it, or
substitute something else that is valid for the bad data. See McConnell 8
for a further discussion of error handling. Here are a few examples of how to recover from
errors,
You might just ignore the bad data and keep going , using the next valid piece of
data. Say your program is a piece of embedded software in a digital pressure gauge. You
sample the sensor that returns the pressure 60 times a second. If the sensor fails to deliver
a pressure reading once, should you shut down the gauge? Probably not; a reasonable thing to
do is just skip that reading and set up to read the next piece of data when it arrives. Now
if the pressure sensor skips several readings in a row, then something might be wrong with
the sensor and you should do something different (like yell for help).
__________
8 McConnell, 2004.
You might substitute the last valid piece of data for a missing or wrong piece.
Taking the digital pressure gauge again, if the sensor misses a reading, since each time
interval is only a sixtieth of a second, it's likely that the missing reading is very close
to the previous reading. In that case you can substitute the last valid piece of data for
the missing value.
There may be instances where you don't have any previously recorded valid data. Your
application uses an asynchronous event handler, so you don't have any history of data, but
your program knows that the data should be in a particular range. Say you've prompted the
user for a salary amount and the value that you get back is a negative number. Clearly no one
gets paid a salary of negative dollars, so the value is wrong. One way (probably not the
best) to handle this error is to substitute the closest valid value in the range , in
this case a zero. Although not ideal, at least your program can continue running with a valid
data value in that field.
In C programs , nearly all system calls and most of the standard library functions return
a value. You should test these values! Most functions will return values that indicate
success (a non-negative integer) or failure (a negative integer, usually -1). Some functions
return a value that indicates how successful they were. For example, the
printf() family of functions returns the number of characters printed, and the
scanf() family returns the number of input elements read. Most C functions also
set a global variable named errno that contains an integer value that is the
number of the error that occurred. The list of error numbers is in a header file called
errno.h . A zero on the errno variable indicates success. Any other
positive integer value is the number of the error that occurred. Because the system tells you
two things, (1) an error occurred, and (2) what it thinks is the cause of the error, you can
do lots of different things to handle it, including just reporting the error and
bailing out. For example, if we try to open a file that doesn't exist, the program
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <errno.h>
if ((fd = fopen(fname, "r")) == NULL) {
perror("File not opened");
exit(1);
}
printf("File exists\n");
return 0;
}
will return the error message File not opened: No such file or
directory
if the file really doesn't exist. The function perror() reads the
errno variable and using the string provided plus a standard string
corresponding to the error number, writes an error message to the console's standard
error output. This program could also prompt the user for a different file name or it
could substitute a default file name. Either of these would allow the program to
continue rather than exiting on the error.
There are other techniques to use in error handling and recovery. These examples should
give you a flavor of what you can do within your program . The important idea to remember
here is to attempt recovery if possible, but most of all, don't fail silently!
At TruePublica we have written endlessly about the continued slow strangulation of civil liberties and human rights in Britain.
We have warned about the rise of a
techno-Stasi-state
where technology is harnessed and used against civilians without any debate or indeed any real legal framework. We have alerted the
public on the illegal mass data collections by the government and
subsequent loss of much it by MI5 who should not have had it all in the first place. We warned against '
digital strip
searches ' – an activity of the police of the victims in rape cases, and the fact that Britain is becoming a
database state . At TruePublica
we have tried to press home the story that surveillance by the state on such a scale, described as the most intrusive in the Western
world – is not just illegal, it's immoral and dangerous. (see our surveillance database
HERE ).
Here is more evidence of just how dangerous and out of hand this creeping surveillance architecture is becoming. An investigation
by Big Brother Watch has uncovered a facial recognition 'epidemic'
across privately owned sites in the UK. The civil liberties campaign group has found major property developers, shopping centres,
museums, conference centres and casinos using the technology in the UK.
Millions of shoppers scanned
Their investigation uncovered the use of live facial recognition in Sheffield's Meadowhall , one of the biggest shopping
centres in the North of England, in secret police trials that took place last year. The trial could have scanned the faces of
over 2 million visitors.
The shopping centre is owned by British Land, which owns large areas within London including parts of Paddington, Broadgate,
Canada Water and Ealing Broadway. Each site's privacy policy says facial recognition may be in use, although British Land insists
only Meadowhall has used the surveillance so far.
Last week, the Financial Times revealed that the privately owned Kings Cross estate in London was using facial recognition,
whilst Canary Wharf is considering following suit. The expose prompted widespread concerns and the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan,
to write to the estate to express his concerns. The Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham has launched an investigation.
Last year, the Trafford Centre in Manchester was pressured to stop using live facial recognition surveillance following an
intervention by the Surveillance Camera Commissioner. It was estimated that up to 15 million people were scanned during the operation.
" Dark irony" of China exhibition visitors scanned
Big Brother Watch's investigation has also revealed that Liverpool's World Museum scanned visitors with facial recognition
surveillance during its exhibition, "China's First Emperor and the Terracotta Warriors" in 2018. Director of Big Brother Watch
Silkie Carlo described it as "dark irony" noting that "this authoritarian surveillance tool is rarely seen outside of China" and
warning that "many of those scanned will have been school children".
The museum is part of the National Museums Liverpool group, which also includes the International Slavery Museum, the
Museum of Liverpool and other museums and art galleries. The museum group said it is "currently testing the feasibility of using
similar technology in the future".
" Eroding freedom of association"
Big Brother Watch's investigation also found that the Millennium Point conference centre in Birmingham uses facial recognition
surveillance "at the request of law enforcement", according to its privacy policy. In recent years, the area surrounding the conference
centre has been used for demonstrations by trade unionists, football fans and anti-racism campaigners. The centre refused to give
further information about its past or present uses of facial recognition surveillance. Millennium Point is soon to host a 'hackathon'.
A number of casinos and betting shops also have policies that refer to their use of facial recognition technology including
Ladbrokes, Coral and Hippodrome Casino London.
Director of Big Brother Watch, Silkie Carlo, said:
There is an epidemic of facial recognition in the UK.
The collusion between police and private companies in building these surveillance nets around popular spaces is deeply
disturbing. Facial recognition is the perfect tool of oppression and the widespread use we've found indicates we're facing
a privacy emergency.
We now know that many millions of innocent people will have had their faces scanned with this surveillance without knowing
about it, whether by police or by private companies.
The idea of a British museum secretly scanning the faces of children visiting an exhibition on the first emperor of China
is chilling. There is a dark irony that this authoritarian surveillance tool is rarely seen outside of China.
Facial recognition surveillance risks making privacy in Britain extinct.
Parliament must follow in the footsteps of legislators in the US and urgently ban this authoritarian surveillance from
public spaces.
"... Today, it might be argued, Americans have been plunged into our own bizarre version of 1984 . In our world, Donald Trump has, in some sense, absorbed into his own person more or less everything dystopian in the vicinity. ..."
"... In some strange fashion, he and his administration already seem like a combination of the Ministry of Truth (a ministry of eternal lies ), the memory hole (down which the past, especially the Obama legacy and the president's own discarded statements , disappear daily), the two-minutes-hate sessions and hate week that are the essence of any of his rallies ("lock her up!," " send her back! "), and recently the "hate" slaughter of Mexicans and Hispanics in El Paso, Texas, by a gunman with a Trumpian "Hispanic invasion of Texas" engraved in his brain. And don't forget Big Brother. ..."
"... In some sense, President Trump might be thought of as Big Brother flipped. In The Donald's version of Orwell's novel, he isn't watching us every moment of the day and night, it's we who are watching him in an historically unprecedented way. ..."
"... In his book, he created a nightmare vision of something like the Communist Party of the Stalin-era Soviet Union perpetuating itself into eternity by constantly regenerating and reinforcing a present-moment of ultimate power. For him, dystopia was an accentuated version of just such a forever, a "huge, accurately planned effort to freeze history at a particular moment of time," as a document in the book puts it, to "arrest the course of history" for "thousands of years." ..."
"... In other words, with the American president lending a significant hand, we may make it to 2084 far sooner than anyone expected. With that in mind, let's return for a moment to 1984 . As no one who has read Orwell's book is likely to forget, its mildly dissident anti-hero, Winston Smith, is finally brought into the Ministry of Love by the Thought Police to have his consciousness retuned to the needs of the Party. In the process, he's brutally tortured until he can truly agree that 2 + 2 = 5. Only when he thinks he's readjusted his mind to fit the Party's version of the world does he discover that his travails are anything but over. ..."
I, Winston Smith I mean, Tom Engelhardt have not just been reading a dystopian novel, but,
it seems, living one -- and I suspect I've been living one all my life.
Yes, I recently reread George Orwell's classic 1949 novel, 1984 . In it, Winston Smith, a secret opponent of the totalitarian world of Oceania,
one of three great imperial superpowers left on planet Earth, goes down for the count at the
hands of Big Brother. It was perhaps my third time reading it in my 75 years on this
planet.
Since I was a kid, I've always had a certain fascination for dystopian fiction. It started,
I think, with War of the
Worlds , that ur-alien-invasion-from-outer-space novel in which Martians land in
southern England and begin tearing London apart. Its author, H.G. Wells, wrote it at the end of
the nineteenth century, evidently to give his English readers a sense of what it might have
felt like to be living in Tasmania, the island off the coast of Australia, and have the
equivalent of Martians -- the British, as it happened -- appear in your world and begin to
destroy it (and your culture with it).
I can remember, at perhaps age 13, reading that book under the covers by flashlight when I
was supposed to be asleep; I can remember, that is, being all alone, chilled (and thrilled) to
the bone by Wells' grim vision of civilizational destruction. To put this in context: in 1957,
I would already have known that I was living in a world of potential civilizational destruction
and that the Martians were here. They were then called the Russians, the Ruskies, the Commies,
the Reds. I would only later grasp that we (or we, too) were Martians on this planet.
The world I inhabited was, of course, a post- Hiroshima , post-
Nagasaki one. I was born on July 20, 1944, just a year and a few days before my country
dropped atomic bombs on those two Japanese cities, devastating them in blasts of a kind never
before experienced and killing more
than 200,000 people. Thirteen years later, I had already become inured to scenarios of the
most dystopian kinds of global destruction -- of a sort that would have turned those Martians
into pikers -- as the U.S. and the Soviet Union (in a distant second place) built up their
nuclear arsenals at a staggering pace.
Nuclear obliteration had, by then, become part of our everyday way of life. After all, what
American of a certain age who lived in a major city can't remember, on some otherwise perfectly
normal day, air-raid sirens suddenly beginning to howl outside your classroom window as the
streets emptied? They instantly called up a vision of a world in ashes. Of course, we children
had only a vague idea of what had happened under those mushroom clouds that rose over Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. As we huddled under our desks, hands over heads, " ducking
and covering " like Bert the Turtle while a radio on the
teacher's desk blared Conelrad
warnings , we knew enough, however, to realize that those desks and hands were unlikely to
save us from the world's most powerful weaponry. The message being delivered wasn't one of
safety but of ultimate vulnerability to Russian nukes. After such tests, as historian Stephen
Weart recalled in his book Nuclear Fear ,
"The press reported with ghoulish precision how many millions of Americans 'died' in each mock
attack."
If those drills didn't add up to living an everyday vision of the apocalypse as a child,
what would? I grew up, in other words, with a new reality: for the first time in history,
humanity had in its hands Armageddon-like possibilities of a sort
previously left to the gods. Consider
, for instance, the U.S. military's Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) of 1960 for a
massive nuclear
strike on the Communist world. It was, we now know, meant to deliver more than 3,200
nuclear weapons to 1,060 targets, including at least 130 cities. Official, if then secret,
estimates of casualties ran to 285 million dead and 40 million injured (and probably
underestimated the longer term effects of radiation).
In the early 1960s, a commonplace on the streets of New York where I lived was the
symbol for "fallout
shelters" (as they were then called), the places you would head for during just such an
impending global conflagration. I still remember how visions of nuclear destruction populated
my dreams (or rather nightmares) and those of my friends, as some would later admit to me. To
this day, I can recall the feeling of sudden heat on one side of my body as a nuclear bomb went
off on the distant horizon of one of those dreams. Similarly, I recall sneaking into a Broadway
movie theater to see On the
Beach with two friends -- kids of our age weren't allowed into such films without
parents -- and so getting a glimpse, popcorn in hand, of what a devastated, nuclearized San
Francisco might look like. That afternoon at that film, I also lived through a
post-nuclear-holocaust world's end in Australia with no less than Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner, and
Fred Astaire for company.
An All-American Hate Week
So my life -- and undoubtedly yours, too -- has been lived, at least in part, as if in a
dystopian novel. And certainly since November 2016 -- since, that is, the election of Donald
Trump -- the feeling (for me, at least) of being in just such a world, has only grown stronger.
Worse yet, there's nothing under the covers by flashlight about The Donald or his invasive
vision of our American future. And this time around, as a non-member of his "base," it's been
anything but thrilling to the bone.
It was with such a feeling growing in me that, all these years later, I once again picked up
Orwell's classic novel and soon began wondering whether Donald Trump wasn't our very own
idiosyncratic version of Big Brother. If you remember, when Orwell finished the book in 1948
(he seems to have flipped that year for the title), he imagined an England, which was part of
Oceania, one of the three superpowers left on the planet. The other two were Eurasia
(essentially the old Soviet Union) and Eastasia (think: a much-expanded China). In the book,
the three of them are constantly at war with each other on their borderlands (mostly in South
Asia and Africa), a war that is never meant to be either decisive or to end.
In Oceania's Airstrip One (the former England), where Winston Smith is a minor functionary
in the Ministry of Truth (a ministry of lies, of course), the Party rules eternally in a world
in which -- a classic Orwellian formulation -- "WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS
STRENGTH." It's a world of "inner" Party members (with great privilege), an outer circle like
Smith who get by, and below them a vast population of impoverished "proles."
It's also a world in which the present is always both the future and the past, while every
document, every newspaper, every bit of history is constantly being rewritten -- Smith's job --
to make it so. At the same time, documentation of the actual past is tossed down "the memory
hole" and incinerated. It's a world in which a "telescreen" is in every room, invariably
announcing splendid news (that might have been terrible news in another time). That screen can
also spy on you at just about any moment of your life. In that, Orwell, who lived at a time
when TV was just arriving, caught something essential about the future worlds of surveillance
and social media.
In his dystopian world, English itself is being reformulated into something called Newspeak,
so that, in a distant future, it will be impossible for anyone to express a non-Party-approved
thought. Meanwhile, whichever of those other two superpowers Oceania is at war with at a given
moment, as well as a possibly mythical local opposition to the Party, are regularly subjected
to a mass daily "two minutes hate" session and periodic "hate weeks." Above all, it's a world
in which, on those telescreens and posters everywhere, the mustachioed face of Big Brother, the
official leader of the Party -- "Big Brother is watching you!" -- hovers over everything,
backed up by a Ministry of Love (of, that is, imprisonment, reeducation, torture, pain, and
death).
That was Orwell's image of a kind of Stalinist Soviet Union perfected for a future of
everlasting horror. Today, it might be argued, Americans have been plunged into our own bizarre
version of 1984 . In our world, Donald Trump has, in some sense, absorbed into his own
person more or less everything dystopian in the vicinity.
In some strange fashion, he and his
administration already seem like a combination of the Ministry of Truth (a ministry of
eternal lies ), the memory hole (down which the past, especially the
Obama legacy and the president's own
discarded statements , disappear daily), the two-minutes-hate sessions and hate week that
are the essence of any of his rallies ("lock her up!," " send her
back! "), and recently the "hate" slaughter of
Mexicans and Hispanics in El Paso, Texas, by a gunman with a Trumpian
"Hispanic invasion of Texas" engraved in his brain. And don't forget Big Brother.
In some sense, President Trump might be thought of as Big Brother flipped. In The Donald's
version of Orwell's novel, he isn't watching us every moment of the day and night, it's we who
are watching him in an historically unprecedented way. In what I've called the
White Ford Bronco presidency , nothing faintly like the media's 24/7 focus on him has ever
been matched. No human being has ever been attended to, watched, or discussed this way -- his
every gesture, tweet, passing comment, half-verbalized thought, slogan, plan, angry outburst,
you name it. In the past, such coverage only went with, say, a presidential assassination, not
everyday life in the White House (or at
Bedminster , Mar-a-Lago, his rallies, on Air Force One, wherever).
Room 101 (in 2019)
Think of Donald Trump's America as, in some sense, a satirical version of 1984 in
crazed formation. Not surprisingly, however, Orwell, remarkable as he was, fell short, as we
all do, in imagining the future. What he didn't see as he rushed to finish that
novel before his own life ended makes the Trumpian present far more potentially dystopian than
even he might have imagined. In his book, he created a nightmare vision of something like the
Communist Party of the Stalin-era Soviet Union perpetuating itself into eternity by constantly
regenerating and reinforcing a present-moment of ultimate power. For him, dystopia was an
accentuated version of just such a forever, a "huge, accurately planned effort to freeze
history at a particular moment of time," as a document in the book puts it, to "arrest the
course of history" for "thousands of years."
Yes, in 1948, Orwell obviously knew about Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the weaponry that went
with them. (In 1984 , he even mentions the use of such weaponry in the then-future
1950s.) What he didn't imagine in his book was a dystopian world not of the grimmest kind of
ongoingness but of endings, of ultimate destruction. He didn't conjure up a nuclear apocalypse
set off by one of his three superpowers and, of course, he had no way of imagining another kind
of potential apocalypse that has become increasingly familiar to us all: climate change.
Unfortunately, on both counts Donald Trump is proving dystopian indeed. He is, after all,
the president who threatened
to unleash "fire and fury like the world has never seen" on North Korea (before
falling in love with its dictator). He only recently claimed he could
achieve victory in the almost 18-year-old Afghan War "in a week" by wiping that country "off
the face of the Earth" and killing "10 million people." For the first time, his generals
used
the "Mother of all Bombs," the most powerful weapon in the U.S. conventional arsenal (with a
mushroom cloud that, in a test at least, could be seen for 20 miles), in that same country,
clearly to impress him.
More recently,
beginning with its withdrawal from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, his
administration has started trashing the Cold War-era nuclear architecture of restraint that
kept the great-power arsenals under some control. In the process, it's clearly helping to
launch a
wildly expensive new nuclear arms race on Planet Earth. And keep in mind that this is happening
at a time when we know that a relatively localized nuclear war between regional powers like
India
and Pakistan (whose politicians are once again at each other's throats
over Kashmir ) could create a global nuclear winter and
starve to death up to a
billion people.
... ... ...
And keep in mind as well that our own twisted version of Big Brother, that guy with the
orange hair instead of the mustache, could be around to be watched for significantly longer,
should he win the election of 2020. (His polling numbers have, on the whole, been slowly rising ,
not falling in these years.)
In other words, with the American president lending a significant hand, we may make it to
2084 far sooner than anyone expected. With that in mind, let's return for a moment to
1984 . As no one who has read Orwell's book is likely to forget, its mildly dissident
anti-hero, Winston Smith, is finally brought into the Ministry of Love by the Thought Police to
have his consciousness retuned to the needs of the Party. In the process, he's brutally
tortured until he can truly agree that 2 + 2 = 5. Only when he thinks he's readjusted his mind
to fit the Party's version of the world does he discover that his travails are anything but
over.
He still has to visit Room 101. As his interrogator tells him, "You asked me once what was
in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is
in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world." And that "worst thing" is always adjusted to the
specific terrors of the specific prisoner.
So here's one way to think of where we are at this moment on Planet Earth: Americans -- all
of humanity, in fact -- may already be in Room 101, whether we know it or not, and the truth
is, by this steaming summer, that most of us should know it.
It's obviously time to act on a global scale. Tell that to Big Brother.
tomdispatch.com The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of
the Strategic Culture Foundation. Tags: Big BrotherOrwell
Well duh. Your college has been suctioning money out of the pockets of kids for the
last couple decades or so at a rate that is multiples of the general growth rate. Which means
most (probably all) of the wealth you see around you is a shift from elsewhere, not a
creation of such.
At best it is maybe repatriating some of the money going to Asia.
Neoliberalism and Education
(To borrow a term often seen here at NC term – more evidence of "crapification")
In the new issue of the American Affairs Journal, the following article may be of interest
to those who tune into scholastic matters. Two quotes are posted here in case the paywall
obstructs.
1. "But the technology pushed into schools today is a threat to child development and an
unredeemable waste. In the first place, technology exacerbates the greatest problem of all in
schools: confusion about their purpose. Education is the cultivation of a person, not the
manufacture of a worker. But in many public school districts we have already traded our
collective birthright, the promise of human flourishing, for a mess of utilitarian pottage
called 'job skills.' The more recent, panicked, money-lobbing fetish for STEM is a late
realization that even those dim promises will go unmet [E]ducational technology is a
regressive political weapon, never just a neutral tool: it increases economic inequality,
decreases school accountability, takes control away from teachers, and makes poorer students
more vulnerable to threats from automation and globalization."
2. "Dumping gadgets on children is a win-win proposition in poor school districts. It's a
win for tech billionaires looking to buy progressive indulgences (e.g., Mark Zuckerberg
in Newark), and it's a win for local mayors wanting to gesture toward needy schools
without changing the underlying economic reality (e.g., Cory Booker in Newark, Pete
Buttigieg in South Bend) The meanest trick of all is when funds allocated to bring struggling
students "into the future" are used instead to banish them into the realm of for-profit
programs called "online charter schools," which consist mostly of children watching lecture
videos all day instead of being taught by a teacher. Online charter schools are a worsening
catastrophe. Compared to the performance of peers in traditional public schools with similar
income, race, gender, and first-language characteristics, the impact of online charter
attendance on student reading is so bad, it's like missing 72 days of school each year.
In math, being afflicted by an online charter school is like being absent for 180 days!"
This is a clear lack of up mobility. In other words American Dream is now a fake for all but
extremely talented or extremely lucky. .
Class Warfare
"6 findings that show the dire state of America's middle class" [
Business Insider ] (From May, still germane). "Nearly 60% of those who said they grew up
affluent now consider themselves to be in a lower class -- about half of this group said
they're middle-class or upper-middle-class, while the other half said they're poor or
working-class. Nearly 60% of those who said they had an upper-middle-class upbringing
identified with a lower class -- half of this group said they're middle-class, while the
remaining half said they're poor or working-class. And while half of those who said they grew
up in the middle class said they're still in it today, more than one-third identified with a
lower class. Only about 12% said they're now part of a higher class." • Lover
https://acdn.adnxs.com/ib/static/usersync/v3/async_usersync.html <img
src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" /> By
Natalia Abrams, the Executive Director of Student Debt Crisis, and Cody Hounanian, the Program
Director of Student Debt Crisis. Originally published at
openDemocracy
Student debt has been solely responsible for the majority of my decision-making as an
adult
(Erin – Portland, Maine)
The student debt crisis is not the burden of a single generation. It impacts Baby Boomers in
their 60s and 70s; Gen Xers in their 40s and 50s; Millennials in their 20s and 30s – as
well as Gen Z high school students still planning for college. Thus it's a grave mistake to
frame student loan debt as exclusively or even primarily a "Millennial problem." At the same
time, Millennials have borne the brunt of the astounding rise in college costs. They are the
first generation to experience a life shaped by the near-certainty of student debt.
Weighted for inflation, college costs (including tuition and fees) rose 81% between 2001 and
2009 – the decade when well over half of Millennials graduated high school.
Traditionally, when the price of a commodity rises rapidly, demand for that commodity drops.
Necessities like food and shelter are usually exempt from that general rule. However, college
has become one of those essentials, with the perceived cost of not attending growing at
least as fast as the actual costs themselves. As a result, student loans make the essential,
attainable.
Not everyone saddled with a tremendous debt burden ends up with a degree. Whether a borrower
receives a degree or not, few are in a position to rapidly repay their student loans. While a
college degree may or may not expand opportunities; as we're finding, student loan debt
absolutely shuts doors that might have otherwise remained open.
Lower Homeownership rates
Growing up I was told by my parents, teachers, and guidance counselors to go to college
because it would give me a better life. I graduated in 2013 with a Master's Degree in English
with the hopes of being a teacher myself. There are no teaching jobs in high schools or
colleges and I owe over $100,000 in student debt. I now work a job that doesn't even require
a degree, and was turned down for a mortgage because my debt to income ratio was too high.
Not a day goes by where I don't think about my debt
(Danielle – Roseville, California)
If homeownership is fundamental to the 'American dream', then student loan debt puts that
dream out of reach for millions of Americans. After years of growth, homeownership rates
noticeably declined in 2017. While partly due to factors unrelated to student debt (such as
rising housing prices , particularly in urban areas), the rate of Millennial homeownership
has fallen faster than that of the general population.
In a January 2019 study, the
Federal Reserve revealed the connection between lower homeownership rates and the
Millennial generation most burdened by student debt: "our estimates suggest that increases in
student loan debt are an important factor in explaining (young people's) lowered homeownership
rates." The study went on to conclude that "a little over 20 percent of the overall decline in
homeownership among the young can be attributed to the rise in student loan debt. This
represents over 400,000 young individuals who would have owned a home in 2014 had it not been
for the rise in debt."
While the Federal Reserve study focused on the decade between 2005-2014, a 2019 survey by
Bankrate
of nearly 4,000 American borrowers found that 31% of Millennial respondents postponed buying a
home because of student loan debt. By comparison, when the Baby Boomers were entering the
housing market 40 years ago, only 15% delayed a purchase because of student loan debt.
It's also worth noting that the real number of Millennials unable to purchase a home because
of student debt is likely much higher. While 31% of Millennial respondents reported that
student debt directly delayed homeownership, this figure only accounts for potential buyers who
still consider future homeownership a real possibility. Thus it does not reflect the unknown
number of those whose debt to income ratio is so high that they don't expect to ever afford a
home. As Forbes
noted in 2019, "no matter how many possible solutions are tossed around Washington and
beyond on reducing the crushing burden of student loan debt, it remains one of the top reasons
millennials are putting off buying a home."
Historically, home mortgages defined middle-class debt. Yet due to pre-existing debt,
student loan borrowers face difficulty qualifying for a mortgage. In tandem with rising housing
prices, and stringent mortgage qualification requirements adopted in the wake of the 2008
economic crisis, those with already exorbitant levels of student debt face a near-perfect storm
for obtaining a mortgage: placing a key component of the 'American dream' out of reach for
millions of young Americans.
A
2018 study by Summer and Student Debt Crisis found that 56% of respondents reported that
student loan debt made it more difficult to buy a home. That figure excludes those who consider
homeownership so unattainable that they have preemptively "given up." The same study notes that
58% of those surveyed experienced a decline in their credit score as a direct result of their
student debt. Credit scores, based on past payment habits as well as debt-to-income ratios, are
pivotal to mortgage qualification. Even borrowers who haven't yet considered buying a home are
keenly aware that their student-debt-burdened credit scores have put a mortgage out of
reach.
Fewer Marriages
I have put off having children, marrying, or purchasing a home due to the high costs of
student debt repayment. Regularly, I contemplate selling everything and living in my car to
help free up money to pay off the debt sooner.
(Melissa – Granbury, Texas)
Homeownership is not the only dream deferred, or abandoned altogether, because of crushing
student loan debt.
One theme in the stories we've collected – and in our studies – is that student
debt is an overwhelming factor in declining marriage and birth rates. Millennial borrowers like
Melissa, regularly told us that there were three central dreams that debt had put out of reach:
buying a home, getting married, and having children.
In 1990, 26% of adults under 65 were never married – by 2018, that number rose to 36%.
Today, only one in five adults are married before the age of 30 – and the average age of
first marriage has risen by more than six years since 1960. There are a host of factors that
have driven the marriage rate to record lows – and we do not suggest that student debt is
the sole (or even primary) driver of delayed marriage. Evolving and elevated expectations for
romantic partnership, economic shifts, greater equality for women and increased acceptance of
premarital sex all play critical roles in changing marriage habits. One cause of social
transformation however, doesn't negate the impact of another.
Student loan debt delays marriage in several ways. One way is through a sheer
misunderstanding of the law regarding debt. Several borrowers told us they were reluctant to
marry and "make my spouse responsible for my debt." Though the laws concerning spousal
responsibility vary by state, the fears of saddling a partner with one's debts are not
unfounded. Similarly, if a spouse with pre-existing debt returns to school after marriage, both
the debt incurred before and during marriage gets lumped together as a shared liability.
Practically, the legal responsibility for the liability is a nominal matter. Most couples
cannot simply isolate one partner's debt. The money spent each month on student loans could be
collectively used for other essentials, like rent, car repairs, or childcare.
A study
released in June 2019 by the think-tank Demos showed that those who start college after age
twenty (or go back to college following a break) have a particularly hard time paying off
loans. Twelve years after leaving school, the average borrower (who started college after the
age of twenty) will have paid off only 5% of their student debt. If a borrower is
determined not to bring their student debt into a marriage, research suggest that they will
have to wait a very long before they wed.
Media coverage tends to ignore that finances, rather than changing social mores, are the
primary driver of diminishing marriage rates. For every young person who "never wants to
marry", statistics suggest there are far more who would like to wed someday but can't imagine
ever being able to afford to do so. A
Pew Organization study in 2017 found that nearly six out of ten unmarried American adults
hope to marry someday. That same report noted that unmarried Millennials cited "not being
financially stable" as one of the chief reasons why they haven't yet wed. 41% of those
unmarried cited financial instability as a primary reason for remaining single, while 28%
described it as a "secondary" reason. (By comparison, only 24% of young adults named "not being
ready to settle down" as the primary explanation for not being married.)
The research is clear: the primary reason why Americans delay wedlock, or forego it
altogether, is financial insecurity. Debt is reshaping our most intimate relationships, putting
a profound source of happiness further and further out of reach.
Falling Birthrates
My wife and I have been married 3 years and she desperately wants kids. But paying out
$350 a month to pay off my 45k in loans has shattered our dreams of family. We both work but
it's not enough. I've paid my loans since 2004 and I'm not getting ahead.
(James – Kansas City, Missouri)
With less homeownership, along with fewer marriages – it's hardly surprising that the
most debt-laden generation in history is also having far fewer babies than their parents and
grandparents. Millennials are on track to have a lower birth rate than any generation in
American history. In 2018, the overall birth rate in the United States fell to 59 births per
1000 women, the lowest on record and a 2% drop from the previous year.
The birth rate has fallen steadily since the start of the Great Recession in 2008. Yet even
after the recovery, the birth-rate continued to decline.
There's a disagreement as to whether the birthrate decline can be attributed to women
wanting fewer babies (or wanting them later), versus women being unable to afford children. Yet
the survey data is fairly compelling: most young people have had (or expect to have) fewer
children than they consider ideal. In a
2018 New York Times/Morning Consult survey , four of the top five reasons respondents cited
for not having as many children as they wanted focused on financial concerns:
Child care
is too expensive (64% of respondents)Want more time for the children I have (54%)Worried about the economy (49%)Can't afford more children (44%)Waited
because of financial instability (43%)
Furthermore, a 2015 study by the National Institutes of
Health examined the impact of debt on the decision to have children. The results were
stunning. While mortgage holders were more likely than renters to have children, and
credit-card debt had no impact among debtors, the study found that "holding student loans more
significantly affects fertility at higher levels of indebtedness." Low levels of student loan
debt reduced fertility only slightly; high levels of student debt sharply reduced the chances
of having a baby.
Every generation reassesses priorities. Some pundits look at the lives of Millennials and
conclude that they're simply less interested in homeownership, simply more suspicious of
enduring monogamy, simply less interested in having children. The evidence shows that's a false
narrative.
The research in fact reveals that a high percentage of Millennials want homeownership,
marriage, and children. The chief obstacle is not the timeless problem of finding the right
person, but financial insecurity. Student loan debt is a central driver behind this precarity
– affecting the fundamental milestones of our lives.
I hear the phrase "student loan forgiveness " quite often these days. "Forgiveness" for
being a victim of financial predators and a failed leadership class? No, that's not
forgiveness. That's justice. Forgiveness comes from the victims, not the perpetrators.
Personally, I'm not forgiving anybody involved. Politicians, schools, the "financial
industry", etc. These are the folks that should be begging for forgiveness from the
borrowers, not the other way around. These policies have destroyed lives. They then try to
frame any corrective action as doing the victims a favor, "forgiveness", rescuing the
borrowers from their own failures and poor choices. Right. This is basically a war on the
poor. I wonder if it isn't a way to curb greenhouse emissions without inconveniencing the
wealthy.
Excellent comment -- thank you! Let us never let our fellow Americans forget Joe Biden's
central role in killing bankruptcy protection for student debtors.
I also think your final point is very important, as I am increasingly convinced that
"environmental footprint reduction" is likely to be used as a pretext for further austerity
for the working class. Environmentalism has always been a mostly elite and middle class
phenomena, and working class interests are often unmindfully ignored or disregarded. In fact,
I don't think it's unduly paranoid to anticipate ostensibly radical environmentalists
(Extinction Rebellion and the like) being used as cat's paws to extend Overclass policies of
extraction and control.
It's already happened in France – the Gilets Jaunes movement was a direct result of
the radical neoliberal Macron government putting higher taxes on diesel – a regressive
tax on the poor and rural working class.
No, penury and exploitation as a result of educational debt is not a way to cut greenhouse
gas emissions without inconveniencing the wealthy. It's just another example of Americans
being suckered by their own delusions and ignorance, just another example of wealthy
Americans, many of whom are rich without being educated, ripping off poorer Americans, many
of whom ernestly believe that going into long-term crippling debt in order to pay for a
college degree is a good way to get up and out of living from week to week with maxed out
credit cards.
The typical American university/college student has drunk the kool-aid. She believes that
higher education is a personal choice, freely made, to invest in earning potential. The
possibility that this is not necessarily the case apparently does not occur to her. She
genuinely believes, or sometimes she is compelled to believe, that it makes sense to take on
for example 100k in educational debt because the degree that should follow will allow her to
earn a hopefully large multiple of that number. Such students and their parents are
apparently blind to the fact that a country that struggles to defend a primitive form of
democracy is doomed to dystopic horrors without an educated population. Education, including
higher education, is not a personal choice alone – much more it is a national mission
that compels the government to provide instruction to qualified candidates at a minimal cost
to candidates. This is a not a utopian vision – this is reality in democracies that are
not as primitive as the American.
The attempt to associate the diesel tax with French educational policy needs
clarification: The French have free public higher education. Their free public higher
education consists of institutions that are selective, some highly selective, as well as
institutions that are not selective. The selective institutions are intended to provide a
nominally meritocratic elite-building function at the service of both public and private
beneficieries. Public transport infrasturcture is weak in the country, and the Gilets Jaunes
(GJ) argue that that's becasue administrators and mangers, many of whom are graduates of
tuition-free elite universities, have not only failed to improve it: they threw salt in GJ
wounds by attempting to impose a diesel tax. Though for many the tax is a tax-deductable
expense, there are enough economically non-rural residents of rural areas in France to make
the salt really sting. The GJ should more aggressively criticize the meritocratic fallacy of
(highly) selective public institutions and bring attention to the phenomenon of economically
non-rural residents of rural areas. They are relatively heavy polluters (lots of driving,
single-family homes). I wonder if public transport infrastructure in rural areas could be
expanded or if economically non-rural residents of rural areas could be compelled to live in
less isolation.
The most repressive and draconian indebtedness has been thrust upon the youth of America
by its government. I say 'youth' because many of those suffering under this burden were young
once but have struggled long enough to be middle aged and even beyond in the search for a
quality education, not only so they could have a good job but also in order to develop their
minds. This was not a foolish pursuit – – until it was.
Something has to be done about this. And if it has to be done, it will be done, to
paraphrase what Professor Hudson has said: if a debt can't be paid it won't be paid. And also
lest we forget, these neoliberal shenanigans came about as financiers figured they could
layer everything into juicy offerings for the players on Wall Street. Tranches or trenches as
with mortgages – you know, like layers of filo dough with yummy stuff sandwiched in
between. (Hah, my spellcheck doesn't like the word 'neoliberal'. Phooey on you, spellcheck;
it's a word!)
Hasn't been thrust upon the youth of America by its government – the student debt
crisis is a result of predatory financial interests consorting with ignorant, anti-government
ideologues to corrupt the wise support of state and federal governments for public education.
Private non-profit as well as private for-profit "educators" have lobbied lobbied lobbied for
example to expand government lending facilities for students while doing little to regulate
the "institutions" that were convincing candidates to use the facilities to borrow funds to
pay for the questionable degrees that the "institutions" were awarding. There should have
been a major cultural effort to convince Americans that we need public education including
virtually free higher education and to contradict the delusion that an investment in higher
education was essentially an investment in earning potential. Free public education including
effectively free public higher education is essential for the success of democracy. Sadly
many Americans have forgotten a fundamental aspect of the American Way of Life.
Brother in law couldn't make the payments, went underground and worked for cash, then
ultimately committed suicide in his 50's. Not saying he wasn't unstable to begin with, but
will say that having a mountain of debt he was never going to be able to get out from under
certainly was a major factor.
With an 81% increase adjusted for inflation in under a decade, why aren't schools being
penalized? Why not stop writing any and all loans for those schools?
That's an excellent point. I had burdensome student loans and eventually paid them off,
but I support student loan forgiveness. However, from a political standpoint, I understand
why some people are angry about the concept. They think they were smart and chose not to go
to college because of the financial danger, and if loans are forgiven, they're being
"punished" in the housing and job market for being "responsible."
Your "justice" framing could address both of these interest groups. Instead of just
looking at the student loans alone, we'd consider all the ways in which the loans and the
degrees have influenced people's lives. Maybe everyone could have access to "educational
credit," which could be used to directly pay off existing loans, allow people to enroll in a
degree program now, or be credited towards a new or existing mortgage. The program becomes a
universal benefit, and depending upon one's situation, the money could be used in different,
socially beneficial ways.
The main point is I like the "justice" framing, and it should be used to create a program
that benefits everyone. Then the messaging is more about rectifying a dysfunctional system,
then bailing out irresponsible spendthrifts (I don't believe this is true, but that is how
loan forgiveness is framed).
How about the government takes over all consumer debt and charges only the Fed rate in
interest? And writes down any amount considered unpayable? Would anyone not connected to the
financial industry be opposed?
The arguments against student loan forgiveness on the basis of "I paid mine off, why can't
you?" are short-sighted and ultimately injure the person making them.
Everyone is harmed by the toxic environment of debt that we're living in -- even those of
us who never had student loans and those of you who paid them off. We are all suffering under
a regime that has paralyzed people economically. The act of debt cancellation, as those whose
incomes were locked up now get a little piece of it back to spend on other things, would have
a stimulative effect on the economy.
I work with a lady who's only child entered college last year, and was exposed at work to
her discussions with her daughter over the phone and with co workers what is on the list she
choose for her student loans. Things like room and board/rent, etc. This lady has a killer
personality that works smashingly well in corporate offices – only positive things may
be talked about and she juggles her aging, ailing mom, her daughter off to college, and work
quite well.
It wasn't my place to offer advice, but I got a bad feeling listening to the load up of
student loan debt. Then I overhead her advice to her mother regarding what package from
Comcast to get. She recommended the package for seniors with insurance that protects seniors
from phishing and that sort of thing. I don't recall the fee, but she also has insurance for
her smart phone screen.
The $$$ signs of how I could manager their budget and save them some money where dancing
in my head.
I guess they call that being a Financial Advisor today. It used to be called common
sense.
When I was with my former, much younger partner, I told him he would live free with me on
condition he cut back his 60+hrs/week working at multiple Dunkin Donuts and go to school,
take NO school debt and pay everything with his paycheck. He did, and got tax credits on top
of that. He choose medical billing and coding at a school that has since gone bankrupt. But
it got him in the door. He is now supervisor in the billing department at Boston Children's
Hospital and they told him they are sending him to management training at their expense.
He too has a killer personality. Perfect for Facebook where only positive things are said.
He will do well but I worry he will later be not so well off because he doesn't save, he
spends everything he has.
My first year at University of Chicago undergrad was $4,000. Second year $5,000. Then I
moved to Boston and my employer paid most of my school expense while I finished up at
Northeastern University. Peanuts compared to today.
I would never pay for College education at todays prices. I'd take that same money and buy
a house.
And I say that as someone who just dropped a smartphone face-down on a hardwood floor.
I'm here to say that my screen protector, which cost something like 30 bucks, did its job.
It took one for the Arizona Slim team and cracked in several places. The screen was intact.
Hooray!
However, the replacement protector doesn't stick, so back to the phone repair shop I go.
While I'm there, I think I'll strike up a conversation about the right to repair. Hey, I
might just be able to turn another person on to Naked Capitalism.
I'd say that a robust course in home economics would be valuable in public schools. But
I'm guessing our owners would heavily attack that effort.
Fact is, if you want to have any professional career, an education is mandatory. I don't
want my nurse practitioner or doctor to be the likes of the Trump children simply because
they're the only ones who will be able to afford the education, same as all economics,
political science, law etc. workers to only be the ones who can afford it. Sort of insures
that our future leaders won't have any clue whatsoever about the lives of the 90% they'll be
claiming to support. A crappy situation made even worse.
The author claims that college costs (that term is not defined) rose 80% from 2001 to
2009. That is far higher than any figure I have seen. According to National Center for Education
Satistics, the figure for tuition+fees is closer to 30% which is still outrageous. If the
descrepancy means that aid is being cut back more or non-tuition/fee costs are increasing
faster, that would be good to know. Defenders of high prices claim that aid is increasing (I
doubt that but do not have figures).
Good discussion topic. Permit me to share a little tale from the Arizona Slim file:
As mentioned here before, I am learning the Russian language. After completing all 30
lessons in Mark Thompson's "Russian Made Easy" video series on YouTube, I decided that it was
time for some classroom training.
So, off to look at the University of Arizona website. I couldn't easily find any
information about enrolling as a non-degree student, so I sent an email to the department
where I'd be taking an intro Russian class.
Reply: In order to become a UA non-degree student, I would have to complete an online
application. And pay a $45 application fee.
Nyet.
Instead of paying the UA 45 bucks just to apply, I could spend that same money on a
vocabulary builder course, which is taught by a native Russian speaker. From her home in
Moscow, she has built a global business as a language teacher. So, look out, Real Russian
Club, here I come. Link:
Arizona Slim, take a look at the free Russian language courses on Coursera.org. I've taken
excellent Italian courses on EdX, but Coursera looks better now for conversational Russian.
(EdX has a couple of classes on Russian for scientific work.) With foreign languages, the
more practice and exposure, the better, so maybe Coursera could be useful in addition to your
vocabulary builder course.
I was wondering about the kids and parents who pay full freight for college. Can that cost
ever be recouped? Even for top colleges? For instance, financial aid at Harvard maxes out at
$110K in household income. So a high income family will have to pay full sticker price every
year. Tuition and living expenses could be $70K per year or more. So a four year education
could cost $280K to $350K. It's like buying a house in many parts of the country without
buying a house. Yet the median salary for a Harvard graduate is $90K ten years after entering
school (six years after graduation). If college costs are paid back in ten years, the college
graduate will have to pay back $30K every year, on top of everything else. Not much left for
savings, retirement, or a house. Even for Harvard College graduates.
I love these articles. At no point is it ever questioned or addressed why cost of college
has gone exponential relative to the real economy (taking out real estate and healthcare)
since the late 1970s,
It is because "financial aid", especially loans, spends the same as cash. The colleges
will charge what the market will bear, Econ 101,taking account the new money those loans
bring into the picture, driving up the price. Colleges have no skin in the game for repayment
/ default of loans.
Sorry, but I am cool with the whole system collapsing into itself and my bank account
sitting this one out.
Please spare me the club med, lazy river, climbing wall stories. FULL DISCLOSURE: I went
to Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago, a garden spot of the city between 31st and
35th and State Street off the Dan Ryan Expressway in the late 70s. The place is a bigger dump
now when I went there, full salute to the Mies Van Der Rohe flat roof glass shoe boxes and
the post WWII housing project-like dorms.
A friend invited me to lunch at the cafeteria in the university dorm building. Lunch was
$11 50, but all-you-can-eat with a gourmet style, nice China tableware. I had pizza,
hamburger , pasta al fredo, pudding, cookies, salad, soft drinks. Great opportunity to gain
weight & spend $$$!
well also probably due to both the decimation of the non-college job market, and
credential inflation (a degree now being required for jobs it didn't use to be). of course
college grads are now overproduced relative to demand as well.
Here's an educational experiance one can endeavor : Enter your local thrift/antique
establishment/yard sale/dump, etc. and pick an item – any item .. and figure out how to
rebuild/repair/make serviceable said item. Presto ! THERE'S your future, waiting in the wings
of regression !
Not a bad place to be actually .. beats high penury, no ?
My paleo-conservative dad likes to point out that student loans existed before the
government started backing them. He took out a very large loan in 1950 to attend MIT in got
his Masters there, PhD at SUNY Buffalo in 1970. He paid it off in 1985. Back then lending
standards were based on reality and job market projections. When I went to school, all you
had to do was fog a mirror Then in the 1990s prices started doubling and tripling, etcetc .
Answer is to ban the government from backing loans, full stop.
I have a bunch of hoops to jump through for that!
Here's what my hoops look like:
One of them cancels $50,000 in student loan debt for every person with household income under
$100,000.
Another hoop provides substantial debt cancellation for every person with household income
between $100,000 and $250,000. The $50,000 cancellation amount phases out by $1 for every $3
in income above $100,000, so, for example, a person with household income of $130,000 gets
$40,000 in cancellation, while a person with household income of $160,000 gets $30,000 in
cancellation. Pick you hoop!
I also have a non-hoop, hoop that offers no debt cancellation to people with household income
above $250,000 (the top 5%).
For most Americans, cancellation will take place automatically using data already available
to the federal government about income and outstanding student loan debt.
We also have a moving hoop private student loan debt is also eligible for cancellation, and
the federal government will work with borrowers and the holders of this debt to provide
relief.
And our final hoop. Canceled debt will not be taxed as income.
E. Warren (the Hoop Queen)
Well unless full room and board is paid for, that's how it ends up being though? I mean
free tuition is simply not going to solve this, because how to pay for a roof over one's head
while going to school?
1) live at the parents home and go to a nearby school, sure a bit infantalizing 2) get the
bank of mom and dad to foot the dorm costs again mom and dad paying 3) take out debt for
living expenses.
Haha, no you usually can't afford housing on or off campus (renting a room) with some low
wage job!!! And if you had the capacity to get a well paying job without a degree (or other
training) you might not be pursuing one anyway. Since a large number of students are homeless
(actually true here, shocking numbers), I guess that's also an option.
I'm surprised, this being NC, that no one has mentioned this yet – student debt is a
modern form of indentured servitude.
While it does not directly tie the indebted (former) student to a single employer, it
provides potential employers with leverage in regard to wages & working conditions. Quite
simply, someone with a large debt hanging over their head is more likely to accept a job with
lower pay, fewer raises and/or benefits than some someone who is debt-free and therefore can
afford to be more picky, more demanding to be paid & treated decently.
Get 'em in more debt at an earlier age so they will be more docile and accepting of
neoliberal crapification.
At the same time it has become vastly more expensive a college degree has also become
watered down and of less value. That is the true injustice. Many jobs that once required only
a high school education now require a college degree. This is not because the job
requirements have changed. This is due to the simple fact that many more people possess
college diplomas, so employers now demand them for a greater number of occupations. However,
the pay for these occupations has not risen to be commensurate with the additional costs
incurred to gain the newly required credentials. Now these holders of costly credentials find
themselves in a real bind. The author of this article offered no solutions.
This is a great device for shortcuts. I like the part where the driver only runs once on a computer then the setting will remember
even unplug and use it on another computer. The key setting is very easy straightforward. The keys: control alt and shift can
be set as combo key with other keys. The window key is standalone can't do a combo (too bad). The two side extra slot USB2 are
ready, not usb3. The key plate can be lifted up for label custom key. Most other devices do the same and cost more than tripple.
As a developer, I type the same statements repeatedly. I wanted a programmable keypad so the most common operations could be
incorporated into a single key press. The Elsra PK-2068 is perfect for that task.
This is a sturdy, well-made keypad and the keys feel of excellent quality when pressed. The Windows software provided is easy
to understand and use. I did have an issue with the software on one PC which I suspect was a USB HID conflict, but switching to
another PC solved that problem. The programmes are saved onto the keypad itself, which means I can pick up the PK-2068 and plug
it into my Linux desktop and the programmed keys just work.
Whilst troubleshooting the programming issue, I was in contact with Elsre Customer Support, who responded very quickly, and
offered exceptional service.
Overall I am extremely happy with this purchase and recommend the keypad over the many others I looked at when purchasing.
>
Hardware: Excellently built. USB hub works well. Would be better if it were ergonomically angled like a keyboard instead of
being flat, but the size and convenience make up for it. Customizable key covers are sturdy and remain in place even with extended
use. Sturdy, appears to be quality materials. I already have plans to buy a second one.
The software to program it is pretty terrible. No help or instructions, so you just have to figure it out on your own. It doesn't
let you save different configurations as files, so if you want multiple configurations, you'd pretty much have to have the entire
application stored on different machines. Also, you can not type the characters you want to program; you have to manually click
each one from an on-screen keyboard, which is very tedious. You can't easily edit the text, either: If you want to change a character,
you need to click on the "delete" button over and over 'til you reach the character, then you have to re-do everything using the
onscreen keyboard. Presumably, they figure that you'll only have to program it once, so they don't expend much effort on making
the software user friendly.
It's really hard to know how to rate such a good product that comes with such terrible software. Once it's programmed the way
you want it, it's great- but getting there is a real hassle.
This sturdy little keyboard is easy to program with up to 30 characters for each key. And 3-stroke combos like Ctrl+Shift+-(Ctru
plus Shift plus -) appear only to count as one Character toward this limit - at least according to the character counter in the
program. You will see from the included photo that I have set up mine for use with a specialty computer program (for Indexing
Genealogical Records). The two AHK-labeled keys in the lower left trigger AutoHotkey actions I have separately programmed that
assign more complex actions to certain key combos, so yes, it will work with AutoHotkey. The keypress is very quiet and satisfying.
Regarding Support, I had trouble triggering the modifier keys (Ctrl, Shift, etc.) with the specified double-click, possibly
due to a problem with my mouse, but a third click worked for me. I reached out to Support, and they were very responsive and helpful.
I have ordered a second PK-2068 for use with another program we use regularly in our household. For the price and considering
both its capabilities and restrictions, I am very pleased with the value and effectiveness of this product for my purposes, and
highly recommend it for use in similar situations.
For your information, I made the little paper labels in the photo by creating a Table in MS Word with cell size .56" x .56"
(after experimenting) and used AlternateGothic2 BT font in font size 11 for most of the cells. Transparent keycaps and a keycap
puller come with the device and it is easy to pull a keycap, place your label, and replace the transparent keycap over it.
--EDIT 6/17/2019--
The company contacted me and sent me a newer revised keypad with software capable of adding delays between keystrokes, I'm going
to try it asap but my needs changed so it's low on my priority list. Seems like good customer support though!
--EDIT 7/12/2018---
The company that manufactures this keypad contacted me after I asked about adding a delay function, and they're considering adding
it! I'm excited they care about customer service. This keypad works as intended so I upped my rating to 4 stars. It's inability
to have pauses is a bummer but it's still a good keypad and should work for most modern programs. Older programs written to only
accept human-speed inputs may struggle with instant keystrokes. Hopefully the timing feature will make it to a hardware/software
revision.
---EDIT 5/29/2018---
We've been running into either driver issues, or timing issues. Windows 7 installs four drivers for this keypad, and we're not
sure what the problem is but whenever we're using it, our data entry program crashes. It COULD be that the keypad doesn't allow
pauses, so it types so fast the program we use crashes.
We also had a "driver power state failure" while trying to reboot a computer that was affected. Besides the issues above, it's
a good keypad and definitely worth a try, if you have a good modern program to use it with. Personally, our business uses an older
system (auto star) that may not be liking the fast keystrokes.
---original review:
Awesome keypad, immense help at work, and the PRICE is appropriate!!! Unlike some keys that cost over $80 for a simple pad,
this one is $34.90 at time of writing.
We use tons of hotkeys for everyday work at my job, and an entire programmable keyboard was unnecessary and expensive, and
a good number pad can come in handy. This has both, and it has a delete key! Not that you couldn't program one in, but this has
it already, along with "00" for you number crunchers, and still has 4 programmable keys in number pad mode.
The rubber dome keyswitches feel fine, and they bounce well. They aren't rough, slidey, or goopy like some keyboards. These
feel fine and have a tactile pop at the bottom as you'd expect from a decent rubber dome.
The programming is easy, you download the program or install from the disk, run the .exe, and click the keys on the graphic
GUI that you want programmed to the selected button. You can do key combinations or strings of text like you'd expect from other
macro setups. There's a good LED button up top to show what mode you're in; programmable 24 button keypad, or a number pad with
just four open programmable buttons up top.
The macros are stored on the keypad, so if you have several computers, you don't have to worry about loosing your macro programs.
The only two gripes I have so far, which I consider slight; the 5 key doesn't have a bump, so finding the "home row" of the
keypad with your middle finger on the 5 isn't easy. I stuck a rubber pad on it, problem fixed. A drop of hot glue, keycap sticker,
whatever. fixed.
The other thing some may like is a "pause" feature in macros for slower programs or scripts that require a pause in keystrokes.
I don't need it, but some may.
I used a basic template for the caps.
I'm tempted to buy the whole programmable board, but then I'd have two number pads. Still tempting though, as I could use this
for just hotkeys.
If I need hotkeys at home for photoshop or something I may very well buy another one of these. The only improvement I could see
would be hotkeys that are program specific, or a third layer of macros.
Pros:
All keys (except Enter) are programmable
See-through keycaps pop out and label can be inserted
Programming accepts all combinations of Shift, Alt and Ctrl
Key travel with positive feedback, yet quiet
Unit provides two USB 2.0 ports
Solid construction.
Cons:
Keypad must be manually programmed, i.e., cannot save and retrieve macros from configuration files
Wish the Enter key can be programmed as well
Keys do not auto-repeat.
"... For example, as a Stanford graduate he nonetheless argues that "The skills required for getting into Stanford at 17 (extracurriculars, SAT prep etc) do not correlate to job success as a software developer ..."
"... How good a student you were at 17, is not very relevant to who you are at 25." References are flawed because "People will only ever list references who will say good things about them," and they ultimately punish people who've had bad managers. But asking for source code from past sides projects penalizes people with other interests or family, while "most work product is confidential." ..."
Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday July 28, 2019 @06:34AM from the if-it-is-broke-fix-it dept.
DevNull127 writes: Hiring is
broken and yours is too," argues a New York-based software developer whose LinkedIn profile
says he's worked at both Amazon and Google, as well as doing architecture verification work for
both Oracle and Intel. Summarizing what he's read about hiring just this year in numerous
online articles, he lists out the
arguments against virtually every popular hiring metric , ultimately concluding that "Until
and unless someone does a rigorous scientific study evaluating different interviewing
techniques, preferably using a double-blind randomized trial, there's no point in beating this
dead horse further. Everyone's hiring practices are broken, and yours aren't any
better."
For example, as a Stanford graduate he nonetheless argues that "The skills required for
getting into Stanford at 17 (extracurriculars, SAT prep etc) do not correlate to job success as
a software developer.
How good a student you were at 17, is not very relevant to who you are at
25." References are flawed because "People will only ever list references who will say good
things about them," and they ultimately punish people who've had bad managers. But asking for
source code from past sides projects penalizes people with other interests or family, while
"most work product is confidential."
Brain teasers "rely on you being lucky enough to get a flash of inspiration, or you
having heard it before," and are "not directly related to programming.
Even Google says it is useless ." And live-coding exercises are "artificial and contrived,"
and "not reflective of practical coding," while pair programming is unrealistic, with the
difficulty of the tasks varying from day to day.
He ultimately criticizes the ongoing discussion
for publicizing the problems but not the solutions. "How exactly should we weigh the various
pros and cons against each other and actually pick a solution? Maybe we could maybe try
something novel like data crunch the effectiveness of each technique, or do some randomized
experiments to measure the efficacy of each approach? Lol, j/k. Ain't nobody got time for
that!"
"... I favor the notion that the Internet's gift of vastly more accessible information and greater and less expensive communication is exposing more of corruption in government that continues an ancient trend, this web site being a sterling example. ..."
Quite a few people couldn't help but notice that the country was shifting into a
dis-informational mode several years ago. So much for the Information Age, the Internet and
hand held ( communication ) devices to increase awareness. It was noticed by some folks even
here at CN that tendencies had come ito play that were reminiscent of Orwell's dystopian yet
fictional accounts in the novel 1984. This entire Russiagate episode could just as easily
have come from 1984's Ministry of Information as our own Intelligence Services and might have
been just as boring if it had . Meanwhile us , prols, just go with the flow and don't really
care. Are things that much different than they have ever been? I rem,ember the Waterdate
hearings and the Iran-Contra Hearings, Ken Starr's Investigation. I'm a little to young to
remember the Warren Commission or Senator Joe McCarthy and the Red Scare but I do remember
the 9/11 Commission and WMGs in Iraq.. I remember wrote a paper on Propaganda films in WW II.
Is this episode really all that different?
@ "Quite a few people couldn't help but notice that the country was shifting into a
dis-informational mode several years ago. So much for the Information Age, the Internet and
hand held ( communication ) devices to increase awareness. "
You address a topic I've pondered long and hard. Although I can cite scant evidence, I
can't help but wonder: Are we instead only noticing -- because of the far wider availability
of information via the Internet -- a disinformation phenomenon that is perhaps centuries old
if not still older?
Huxley's Brave New World was published in 1931, Orwell's 1984 in 1949. Dickens' Bleakhouse
was serialized in 1852-53. All can be fairly said to deal with a perception that those who
control government are dishonest and corrupt, based on then-current norms. E.g., Dickens
noted in the preface of his first edition that his fictional Jarndyce and Jarndyce largely
paralleled the sadly real Thellusson v Woodford. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thellusson_v_Woodford
Such precedents argue against the "disinformational mode" being of recent origin.
I favor the notion that the Internet's gift of vastly more accessible information and
greater and less expensive communication is exposing more of corruption in government that
continues an ancient trend, this web site being a sterling example.
"... And ultimately, this is why I can't blame graduate students for figuring out that they need to be technocrats in order to survive. The job market is tough, there are very few tenure-track jobs available, and the people who make it are the people who don't do History for the love of it but who do it like...a career. ..."
Right now, for a creative or artistic or even just a curious person, I think over-exposure to academia is intellectual and spiritual
poison.
But I should qualify that disillusionment by saying that academia also saved me. If I hadn't read Franz Kafka in community college
and discovered (to my utter shock) that I had a gift for writing poetry in my first creative writing class, I have no idea what kind
of bad roads I would've wandered down. So my disillusionment with academia was gradual and fairly late.
I can maybe explain if you'll indulge a mini-narrative of my academic career. After community college, I went to a very conservative
Christian college in the Missouri Ozarks. It was a school for working class kids where you worked on campus to pay for your tuition
and room and board. So for most students it was our one realistic chance at a full college education without crushing debt.
So, no matter how crazy the school's politics got in our eyes, we felt like we were stuck there. But when I was a student, the
college also had a great English faculty who turned us on to William Butler Yeats, Flannery O'Connor, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Emily
Dickinson, Faulkner, Hemingway. There was also a healthy theater department.
Little by little, my handful of weirdo artsy friends and I learned how to creatively thrive without institutional sanction or
ideological kinship with our hyper-conservative college.
After my undergrad education, I went to the University of Arkansas's MFA program in creative writing to study poetry. And that
was pretty amazing in its own feral way. I connected with this great generation of old school Southern writers in Arkansas, though
that generation began phasing out during my four years in the program. They started getting replaced by writers who were more slick,
more credentialed, more politically astute, less problematic but also infinitely less interesting than the generation that preceded
them. [Emphasis mine -- RD]
... So I think my issues are less with Duke or that particular English department and more with this emerging academic generation,
which to me seems to double-down on the older generation's worst trait (ideological certainty) while skimping out on its greatest
strengths (genuine erudition and intellectual curiosity). As an academic, I generally felt like as soon as the older professors retired,
I was going to be surrounded by people who all read the same ten theorists and who uniformly had pretty banal tastes in literature
and who were all frothing to cancel and leap-frog each other into eternity and/or tenure. [Emphasis mine -- RD]
If Cambridge decolonizes its curriculum then our heritage will be preserved at places like the College of the Ozarks.
I had a very similar experience in my PhD program, mine was in History. I did an MA in London and loved every minute of it.
It was designed as a very international program, and I have so many fond memories of sitting in pubs after our seminars arguing
in a good natured way about the topic of the day, and I thought "this is what I want to do with my life!" But graduate work for
a career in academia is nothing like that. People have to specialize, and so you find quickly that in a room full of PhD candidate
historians there is actually not that much to talk about because everyone's silo is so specific and so different. Politics plays
a role too, I suppose. I was free to be an out and proud conservative in my MA program.
I did not feel that freedom in my PhD
program, where you need good professional relationships in order to have a chance at a job.
And ultimately, this is why I can't blame graduate students for figuring out that they need to be technocrats in order to survive.
The job market is tough, there are very few tenure-track jobs available, and the people who make it are the people who don't do
History for the love of it but who do it like...a career.
Which is what they want it to be. They had the right approach and I
had the romantic, and wrong, approach. It's not their fault. Being one of the few to carve out a career in such an industry takes
determination and not a little joyless professionalism. If you aren't ready to turn your passion into a business, don't go to
graduate school.
I noticed when I was in graduate school in the 80s that one thing that seemed to characterize many of the students and professors
in literature-oriented fields -- particularly Comp Lit -- was that they didn't really seem to enjoy reading very much. I'm not
sure they were even capable anymore of just sitting and reading a book purely for enjoyment with trying to mine it for nuggets
to support their pet theory.
"If you deeply love art or books or music, I really believe the last thing you should do is pursue a graduate degree studying
that thing you love. "
They will beat that love right out of you, replace it with vapid ideology, and you'll never love those things with the same
wide-eyed innocence as before.
This is unfortunate, as a cooler, more mature perspective on art is something we should all try to cultivate. But critique
as murder + autopsy is the order of the day.
My American poetry professor in college (a proper reactionary, he spoke without irony of 'the War of Northern Aggression) inoculated
me against 'interrogating the text' in the way the modern academy trains its cadres to do.
While email and web activity of employees is definitely monitored, all other monitoring
usually is pretty fragmentary. Often on a corporate smartphone there are two zones -- secure zone
where you access corporate network and email and private zone where you have access to the
internet via you provider and traffic is not monitored other then for the volume.
Keeping track of all those details (and some of them will be wrong) is just too expensive and
few corporation outside FIRE sector so that.
In short anything that opens company to a lawsuit will be monitored, but outside of that
companies actually are not interested in the information collection as it opens them to
additional liability in save of suicides and such.
Mining data from social media is a different complex topic and requires a separate
article.
Notable quotes:
"... From there, the company even sees as Chet logs onto the guest Wi-Fi connections at places like the coffee shop in the morning. Many companies require additional authentication when they try to access company information from unsecure Wi-Fi networks. ..."
"... Then, as Chet gets to his desk, his web browsing is tracked along with his email. New software breaks down how workers interact with email and how quickly colleagues reply in an attempt to see which employees are most influential . Some software on company computers even snaps screenshots every 30 seconds to evaluate productivity and hours worked. ..."
"... Even Chet's phone conversations can be recorded, transcribed and monitored. Companies use this information to find subject matter experts and measure productivity. Even conference room discussions and meetings can now be recorded and analyzed by software. ..."
Orwell, Inc.: How Your Employer Spies On You From When You Wake Up Until You Go To Bed
An increasing number of large companies are using data from employees' electronic devices to
track such personal details like when you they wake up, where they go for coffee in the
morning, their whereabouts throughout the entire day, and what time they go to bed according to
a new Wall
Street Journal article. What's the company explanation for this type of spying?
"An increasing number of companies are keeping track of such information to flag
potentially suspicious activity and measure work-life balance," the article claims.
The article walks through the day in the life of a fictional worker, Chet. It starts by
noting that his employer logs the time and his location when he first wakes up to check his
e-mail in the morning.
From there, the company even sees as Chet logs onto the guest Wi-Fi connections at
places like the coffee shop in the morning. Many companies require additional authentication
when they try to access company information from unsecure Wi-Fi networks.
Then, a Bluetooth device and his ID badge mark what time he arrives at the office while
tracking his movement around the building. These technologies are supposedly used to see what
teams collaborate frequently and to make sure that employees aren't accessing unauthorized
areas.
Then, as Chet gets to his desk, his web browsing is tracked along with his email. New
software breaks down how workers interact with email and how quickly colleagues reply in an
attempt to see which employees are most influential . Some software on company computers even
snaps screenshots every 30 seconds to evaluate productivity and hours worked.
Even Chet's phone conversations can be recorded, transcribed and monitored. Companies
use this information to find subject matter experts and measure productivity. Even conference
room discussions and meetings can now be recorded and analyzed by software.
At the end of the day, if Chet goes to the gym or for a run, the company will know that too
and just how many calories he has burned: his fitness tracker logs how many steps he takes and
what exercise, if any, he is doing. Companies then use that information to determine how
frequently employees are exercising and whether or not they should be paying for health and
fitness services.
They retain firms that track us on our social media accounts. Supposedly to defend against
workplace violence threats. And then there are the cameras. We never really know. Just do my
job and keep personal use of company resources to a minimum.
The operation known as "LifeLog" was replaced the very day that Face Book came into
being?
Life Log : The objective of the LifeLog concept was "to be able to trace the 'threads' of
an individual's life in terms of events, states, and relationships", and it has the ability
to "take in all of a subject's experience, from phone numbers dialed and e-mail messages
viewed to every breath taken, step made and place gone". [1]
My takeaway from all this is that many, perhaps most, human institutions are corrupt and
that there is no basis from which most people are able to discern truth from lies or right
from wrong. This explains the ability of the Power Elite to easily divide people against each
other. For example, you cannot debate a Liberal because they have their basis for truth on
their personal feeling or emotions. Many conservatives do as well, but they are closer in
their thingking to the foundation from which truth sits upon.
Edward Snowden, former NSA employee. Snowden is an absolute supporter of encryption of all
stored and transmitted content. Now there are many applications that have encryption
features. And among them there are common and well-known messengers, such as, for example,
WhatsApp, Telegram and others.
The former NSA agent also advises to secure his computer, in particular, the hard drive.
On the Internet you can find instructions on how to do this. Usually used special software.
For example, for Windows, there is a program preinstalled in advanced versions of the OS --
BitLocker, for Mac -- FileVault. Thus, if the computer is stolen, the attacker will not be
able to read your data.
Password Managers A useful thing that most people do not even think about. Such programs
allow you to keep your passwords in order - to create unique keys and store them. According
to Snowden, one of the most common problems with online privacy is leaks.
Tor. The former NSA official calls the anonymous Tor network "the most important
technological project to ensure the confidentiality of those currently used." He stated that
he uses it on a daily basis. Tor allows you to "cover up traces" on the Internet, that is, it
provides anonymity, making it difficult to determine the person's IP address and
location.
Also, Snowden told how to avoid total surveillance. For example, special services that can
remotely turn on a microphone or camera on a smartphone and start listening. The answer is
simple - pull out the microphone and camera modules from the device. Instead, it is proposed
to use an external accessory and disconnect from the selfie and never use it.
The only safe way is to abstain as much as possible, which is now next to impossible.
Security is only as protected as the weakest link. Consider a person who uses their smart
phone giving Google or Apple the permissions needed to use their OS's and apps; we do not
even know exactly how much info we agreed to give away. Consider all the contact info that
your friends, relatives, work or other organizations you associate with have on their devices
and how vulnerable they make it; they are not as cautious as you and some people using these
things do not even think about security; it never occurs to them.. .. just some musing on my
part.
Jeez, I used to sign a quarterly affirmation that I complied with all of the companies
electronic communication monitoring policies...and they made us sign that we understood that
they had climbed up our *** and pitched a tent.
One of the reasons they had to find a replacement for me when I quit.
If you're using your employer's devices, facilities, or networks, you should assume they
are tracking what you're doing, and they have every right to do so. When I buy your company's
products or services, I don't want to have to pay for your time spent messing around at
work.
I can't read the article since it's behind a paywall, but I don't see how your waking and
sleeping time and "work life balance" could be tracked unless you are using your employer's
devices or networks outside of work. Which is friggin stupid if you do it.
Actually it doesnt work like that... Chet isn't informed of this happening. The fact that
the company does this is buried in vague language in the 500 page employee handbook that Chet
has to sign when he is hired. Chet is just like anyone else with a company provided
electronic device. All companies monitor and track everything they can with the electronic
devices they provide. If you have one and th think your company doesnt do it... you are
naive.
Chet has the ability to determine when and where he uses the work-provided devices. And
why does work have access to his fitness tracker? Supplied by his employer too? Really, Chet
had options
Not with me... I have a personal phone and when I am not at work I keep my work phone at
home turned off. My emails are forwarded to my personal device and any voicemail I get also
gets forwarded to my personal device. I never place personal calls with my work phone and I
turn it off the second I leave work to go home.
What a waste of resources. If you want to see what I do, just ask. I'll show you how I
accomplish my work-related duties. How I manage my time at work. Where I go to cry and regret
my life choices.
"... Huxley died at 5:20pm, London time, on 22 November 1963. About ten minutes later, CS Lewis died. Just under an hour after that, of course, JFK was shot and killed in Dallas. There may never have been a deadlier 70 minutes for celebrity ..."
"... Fifty years ago, three great men died within a few hours of each other: C. S. Lewis, John F. Kennedy and Aldous Huxley. In 1982, philosophy professor Peter Kreeft imagined the three of them in conversation after their deaths. ..."
"... I think there's a good deal to be said for this this point of view in in regard to the permanence of any dictatorship. " ..."
Poor old Aldous Huxley. In other circumstances, his name would be all over the place today, the 50th anniversary of his death.
Yet, just moments after his demise, the Brave New World author had the misfortune, if that's the right word, of becoming a key
member of the "eclipsed celebrity death club".
Huxley died at 5:20pm, London time, on 22 November 1963. About ten minutes later, CS Lewis died. Just under an hour after that,
of course, JFK was shot and killed in Dallas. There may never have been a deadlier 70 minutes for celebrity
A book has been written about these three deaths on the same day by Peter Kreeft. He imagines them talking together in the heavens.
Fifty years ago, three great men died within a few hours of each other: C. S. Lewis, John F. Kennedy and Aldous Huxley. In
1982, philosophy professor Peter Kreeft imagined the three of them in conversation after their deaths.
Positioning Lewis as a proponent of ancient Western theism, Kennedy as a modern Western humanist, and Huxley as an ancient Eastern
pantheist, Kreeft wrote a conversational book entitled Between Heaven and Hell: A Dialog Somewhere Beyond Death with John F.
Kennedy, C. S. Lewis & Aldous Huxley. "
Aldous Huxley said something that points exactly what happening in the world now. We are lead by a wild species. The Zios don't
want to be domesticated by freedom of speech. Spare the rod ( of freedom of speech) spoil the child. The Zios want to be wild forever.
They want to do whatever they want on earth with no scolding feedback.
This question and answer talk was at Berkeley Univ. on March
20 1962. This fear of being domesticated is why the ADL went crazy on 6/6/19, closing down websites and videos all over the internet.
Another point which was made by Sir Charles Darwin in his book "The Next Million Years" which I think was one would with
in different terms .
I envisaged in brave new world .I mean here
he points out that the human species is still a wild species, it has never been domesticated .
I mean domesticated species is
one which has been tamed by another species. Well, until we get an invasion from Mars we shall not be tamed by another species.
All we can do is to try to tame ourselves.
An oligarchy tries to tame ourselves but the oligarchy still remains wild. I mean
however much it succeeded in taming the domesticating the rest of the race it from it must remain wild. And this was the part
of the fable the dramatic part of the fable of brave new world is that the people in the upper hierarchy who were not ruthlessly
conditioned could break down.
I mean this Charles Darwin insists that because man is wild he can never expect to domesticate
himself because the people on top would always be undomesticated sooner or later always run wild. I think there's a good deal
to be said for this this point of view in in regard to the permanence of any dictatorship. "
"... As Curtis notes, full-time salaries are only one part of the faculty salary picture. Curtis' own research for the AAUP (published as an appendix to my Equality for Contingent Faculty documents that only twenty-five percent of professors now teach on the tenure-track, and only sixteen percent have tenure. Seventy-five percent of all college professors, one million in total, teach off the tenure-track, with fifty percent of all professors teaching part-time. ..."
"... While "free trade" agreements encouraged the closing of American factories and the loss of millions of American jobs, colleges and universities instituted their own brand of wage theft called by adjunct Ron Swift "inside-outsourcing." Even though the number of students was increasing, the colleges staunched the number of well-paid, secure, full-time tenure-track positions. They met rising enrollments by staffing classrooms with "contingent" faculty who teach off the tenure-track without the protections for free speech afforded their tenured brothers and sisters. ..."
"... The colleges save money by refusing to pay these contingent professors a living wage, in flagrant violation of the principle of equal pay for equal work. They are paid on a completely separate and lower pay scale than their full-time counterparts are paid for teaching the very same courses; they are paid on average only about fifty percent of what a full-timer would earn for teaching the same number of courses. See my " The Wal-Martization of Higher Education: How Young Professors Are Getting Screwed "). ..."
"... In " The Ph.D. Now Comes with Food Stamps ," the Chronicle of Higher Education has documented hundreds of thousands of people with graduate degrees receiving some form of public assistance, many of them contingent faculty. ..."
So are the Democrats right to try and solve the equality problem
by making college more affordable, with tuition perhaps free? Or are these proposals simply the
current version of the Herbert Hoover's 1928 Presidential campaign where he literally offered
voters "
A chicken for every pot."
But before we go spending trillions of dollars on college tuition and eliminating student
debt, shouldn't we ask: What has been driving up the cost of attending college over the past
few decades leading to the current lack of affordable college options?
In his run for re-election as Vice President in 2012, Joe Biden made clear that he blamed
college professors' high salaries for the skyrocketing costs of tuition. This was an
astonishing charge, especially given that his wife has long been a college professor. He was
immediately admonished by faculty groups around the country. "
Faculty Groups Try to Educate Biden on Salaries ".
John Curtis, former Director of Research for the American Association of University
Professors, wrote a rebuttal to Biden on January 18, 2012. He took issue with Biden's claim,
pointing out that full-time faculty salaries have been stagnant for a number of years. He noted
that tuition rates, in contrast, had risen "between three and fourteen times as fast as
full-time faculty salaries." (underlining added)
As Curtis notes, full-time salaries are only one part of the faculty salary picture. Curtis'
own research for the AAUP (published as an appendix to my Equality for
Contingent Faculty documents that only twenty-five percent of professors now teach on
the tenure-track, and only sixteen percent have tenure. Seventy-five percent of all college
professors, one million in total, teach off the tenure-track, with fifty percent of all
professors teaching part-time.
While "free trade" agreements encouraged the closing of American factories and the loss of
millions of American jobs, colleges and universities instituted their own brand of wage theft
called by adjunct Ron Swift "inside-outsourcing." Even though the number of students was
increasing, the colleges staunched the number of well-paid, secure, full-time tenure-track
positions. They met rising enrollments by staffing classrooms with "contingent" faculty who
teach off the tenure-track without the protections for free speech afforded their tenured
brothers and sisters.
The colleges save money by refusing to pay these contingent professors a living wage, in
flagrant violation of the principle of equal pay for equal work. They are paid on a completely
separate and lower pay scale than their full-time counterparts are paid for teaching the very
same courses; they are paid on average only about fifty percent of what a full-timer would earn
for teaching the same number of courses. See my "
The Wal-Martization of Higher Education: How Young Professors Are Getting Screwed ").
In other words, though women are still paid only 82% percent of what men earn for doing the
same work, with black men earning only 73% and Hispanics only 69%, most adjunct professors are
paid at most 50% of what tenure-track faculty earn for teaching the same course.
Though possessing Master's and Doctorates and tens of thousands of dollars in student loans,
these college professors are not being paid for all of the hours they work outside of class
preparing lectures, grading tests, and meeting with students. They often do not even have
offices. Their work schedule is capped below full-time so they will not qualify for tenure.
Their work varies from quarter to quarter and they are often denied unemployment when they are
in fact unemployed. The adjuncts and other contingent professors usually do not have any health
insurance or retirement benefits
In " The Ph.D. Now Comes with
Food Stamps ," the Chronicle of Higher Education has documented hundreds of
thousands of people with graduate degrees receiving some form of public assistance, many of
them contingent faculty.
The treatment between the two tiers is so disparate that I have called it "faculty
apartheid" because the tenure-track few control and dominate the contingent many. Indeed, the
tenured faculty often serve as the direct supervisors of the contingents. I have called the
kind of discrimination that exists in higher education "tenurism," the baseless but widespread
stereotype that the tenured faculty are superior and warrant higher pay and better treatment
and than the non-tenure-track faculty. (see my " Against Tenurism ").
In an interview with Shankar Vedantam on the NPR show "The Hidden Brain," Raj Chetty, a
Harvard economist who has done research on inequality in education, says the best solution is
to have "the best teachers in American classrooms."
But we are far from that solution, with the majority of the U.S. higher education teaching
force earning much less than the vaunted $15 an hour minimum wage recommended by nearly all of
the Democratic candidates. These contingent faculty are "apprentices to nowhere" with little
realistic hope of escaping the academic ghetto as the contingents far outnumber the dwindling
number of tenure-track professors.
But don't' the Democrats have a tight relation with the faculty unions (American Association
of University Professors, American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education
Association)? Yes, they do. But the unions themselves have collectively bargained the
contingents into poverty and income insecurity. The two-tier system exists within the unions
too, which have long been run by and for the tenure-track faculty; these unions clearly have
not apprised the Democrats of these inequalities, let alone insist they solve them.
Will the Democrats insist that these unions, upon whom they are so dependent for money and
campaign workers, treat all of their members equally? Or will they continue to look the other
way in order to keep union money flowing into their campaign coffers.
Will the Democrats insist that these colleges, upon whom they wish to build an equal
society, treat their professors equally and offer them the same opportunities for a better life
that they are offering their students?
If politicians are going to solve a problem, they must first have a clear diagnosis before
offering a treatment. Before the Democrats spend tax money on free tuition and paying off
student loans, they need to acknowledge the income disparity among the professoriate and make
solving it an equal priority.
1984, Brave New World, and Idiocracy look more and more like Documentaries now.
Notable quotes:
"... Describing the protagonist Winston Smith's frugal London flat, he mentions an instrument called a 'telescreen', which sounds strikingly similar to the handheld 'smartphone' that is enthusiastically used by billions of people around the world today. ..."
"... At the same time, the denizens of 1984 were never allowed to forget they were living in a totalitarian surveillance state, under the control of the much-feared Thought Police. Massive posters with the slogan 'Big Brother is Watching You' were as prevalent as our modern-day advertising billboards. Today, however, such polite warnings about surveillance would seem redundant, as reports of unauthorized spying still gets the occasional lazy nod in the media now and then. ..."
"... In fact, just in time for 1984's anniversary, it has been reported that the National Security Agency (NSA) has once again been illicitly collecting records on telephone calls and text messages placed by US citizens. ..."
"... Another method of control alluded to in 1984 fell under a system of speech known as 'Newspeak', which attempted to reduce the language to 'doublethink', with the ulterior motive of controlling ideas and thoughts. ..."
"... Another Newspeak term, known as 'facecrime', provides yet another striking parallel to our modern situation. Defined as "to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offense." It would be difficult for the modern reader to hear the term 'facecrime' and not connect it with 'Facebook', the social media platform that regularly censors content creators for expressing thoughts it finds 'hateful' or inappropriate. ..."
"... 'Hate speech' is precisely one of those delightfully vague, subjective terms with no real meaning that one would expect to find in the Newspeak style guide. Short of threatening the life of a person or persons, individuals should be free to criticize others without fear of reprisal, least of all from the state, which should be in the business of protecting free speech at all cost. ..."
"... Another modern phenomenon that would be right at home in Orwell's Oceania is the obsession with political correctness, which is defined as "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." But since so many people today identify with some marginalized group, this has made the intelligent discussion of controversial ideas – not least of all on US college campuses , of all places – exceedingly difficult, if not downright dangerous. Orwell must be looking down on all of this madness with much surprise, since he provided the world with the best possible warning to prevent it. ..."
70 years ago, the British writer George Orwell captured the essence of technology in its ability to shape our destinies in his
seminal work, 1984. The tragedy of our times is that we have failed to heed his warning.
No matter how many times I read 1984, the feeling of total helplessness and despair that weaves itself throughout Orwell's masterpiece
never fails to take me by surprise. Although usually referred to as a 'dystopian futuristic novel', it is actually a horror story
on a scale far greater than anything that has emerged from the minds of prolific writers like Stephen King or Dean Koontz. The reason
is simple. The nightmare world that the protagonist Winston Smith inhabits, a place called Oceania, is all too easily imaginable.
Man, as opposed to some imaginary clown or demon, is the evil monster.
In the very first pages of the book, Orwell demonstrates an uncanny ability to foresee future trends in technology. Describing
the protagonist Winston Smith's frugal London flat, he mentions an instrument called a 'telescreen', which sounds strikingly similar
to the handheld 'smartphone' that is enthusiastically used by billions of people around the world today.
Orwell describes the ubiquitous device as an "oblong metal plaque like a dulled mirror" affixed to the wall that "could be dimmed,
but there was no way of shutting it off completely." Sound familiar?
It is through this gadget that the rulers of Oceania are able
to monitor the actions of its citizens every minute of every day.
At the same time, the denizens of 1984 were never allowed to forget
they were living in a totalitarian surveillance state, under the control of the much-feared Thought Police. Massive posters with
the slogan 'Big Brother is Watching You' were as prevalent as our modern-day advertising billboards. Today, however, such polite
warnings about surveillance would seem redundant, as reports of unauthorized spying still gets the occasional lazy nod in the media
now and then.
In fact, just in time for 1984's anniversary, it has been
reported that the National Security
Agency (NSA) has once again been illicitly collecting records on telephone calls and text messages placed by US citizens. This latest
invasion
of privacy has been casually dismissed as an "error" after an unnamed telecommunications firm handed over call records the NSA
allegedly "hadn't requested" and "weren't approved" by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. In 2013, former CIA employee
Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the NSA's intrusive surveillance operations, yet somehow the government agency is able to continue
– with the help of the corporate sector – vacuuming up the private information of regular citizens.
Another method of control alluded to in 1984 fell under a system of speech known as 'Newspeak', which attempted to reduce the
language to 'doublethink', with the ulterior motive of controlling ideas and thoughts. For example, the term 'joycamp', a truncated
term every bit as euphemistic as the 'PATRIOT Act', was used to describe a forced labor camp, whereas a 'doubleplusgood duckspeaker'
was used to praise an orator who 'quacked' correctly with regards to the political situation.
Another Newspeak term, known as 'facecrime', provides yet another striking parallel to our modern situation. Defined as "to wear
an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offense."
It would be difficult for the modern reader to hear the term 'facecrime' and not connect it with 'Facebook', the social media platform
that regularly censors content creators
for expressing thoughts it finds 'hateful' or inappropriate. What social media users need is an Orwellian lesson in 'crimestop',
which Orwell defined as "the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought." Those
so-called unacceptable 'dangerous thoughts' were determined not by the will of the people, of course, but by their rulers.
And yes, it gets worse. Just this week, Mark Zuckerberg's 'private company'
agreed to give French authorities the "identification
data" of Facebook users suspected of spreading 'hate speech' on the platform, in what would be an unprecedented move on the part
of Silicon Valley.
'Hate speech' is precisely one of those delightfully vague, subjective terms with no real meaning that one would expect to find
in the Newspeak style guide. Short of threatening the life of a person or persons, individuals should be free to criticize others
without fear of reprisal, least of all from the state, which should be in the business of protecting free speech at all cost.
Another modern phenomenon that would be right at home in Orwell's Oceania is the obsession with political correctness, which is
defined as "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people
who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." But since so many people today identify with some marginalized group, this
has made the intelligent discussion of controversial ideas – not least of all on US college
campuses , of all places – exceedingly difficult,
if not downright dangerous. Orwell must be looking down on all of this madness with much surprise, since he provided the world with
the best possible warning to prevent it.
For anyone who entertains expectations for a happy ending in 1984, be prepared for serious disappointment (spoiler alert, for
the few who have somehow not read this book). Although Winston Smith manages to finally experience love, the brief romance – like
a delicate flower that was able to take root amid a field of asphalt – is crushed by the authorities with shocking brutality. Not
satisfied with merely destroying the relationship, however, Smith is forced to betray his 'Julia' after undergoing the worst imaginable
torture at the 'Ministry of Love'.
The book ends with the words, "He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother." Will we too declare, like Winston Smith,
our love for 'Big Brother' above all else, or will we emerge victorious against the forces of a technological tyranny that appears
to be just over the horizon? Or is Orwell's 1984 just really good fiction and not the instruction manual for tyrants many have come
to fear it is?
An awful lot is riding on our answers to those questions, and time is running out.
"... When administrators make budget cuts, it isn't for recreational facilities and their own salaries -- it's the classics and history departments, and it's to faculty, with poorly paid part-time adjuncts teaching an unconscionable share of courses. ..."
"... So universities have been exacerbating the same unequal division between the people who actually do the work (faculty) and the people who allocate salaries (administrators) -- so too as in the business world, as you say. ..."
I don't think that's entirely accurate, and even if true, leaving students to the
predations of private lenders isn't the answer. Although I'm willing to entertain your
thesis, soaring tuition has also been the way to make up for the underfunding of state
universities by state legislatures.
At the same time, there's been an increase since the 70s in de luxe facilities and bloated
administrator salaries. When administrators make budget cuts, it isn't for recreational
facilities and their own salaries -- it's the classics and history departments, and it's to
faculty, with poorly paid part-time adjuncts teaching an unconscionable share of
courses.
So universities have been exacerbating the same unequal division between the people
who actually do the work (faculty) and the people who allocate salaries (administrators) --
so too as in the business world, as you say.
Thanks for the tip about the author Douglas Reed . He appears to have been
stifled so well that even learning he ever existed is accidental. By the way, most of his
books seem to be on the Internet Archive site, and I've downloaded all I can find. Want to
get a feeling for what kind of man he was. (In Nazis I have no interest)
Reed gives a record of his travels in the United States. With unusual flair and uncanny
prophetic insight, Reed takes us on a journey of the historical and political side of
America. So controversial was this book on Communism and Zionism that it sent the author
into indefinite retirement and forced his publisher out of business. 398 Pages.
Schools are teaching to the test. As someone who recently retrained as a secondary science
teacher - after nearly 30 years as a journalist - I know this to be true.
Education is a prime example of where neoliberalism has had a negative effect. It worked well
when labour was pumping billions into it and they invested in early intervention schemes such
as sure start and nursery expansion. Unfortunately under the tories we have had those
progressive policies scaled right back. Children with SEND and/or in care are commodities
bought and sold by local authorities. I've been working in a PRU which is a private company
and it does good things, but I can't help but think if that was in the public sector that it
would be in a purpose built building rather than some scruffy office with no playground.
The facilities aren't what you would expect in this day in age. If we had a proper
functioning government with a plan then what happens with vulnerable children would be
properly organised rather than a reactive shit show.
"Schools teach to the test, depriving children of a rounded and useful education."
Boy do they. I work in Business/IT training and as the years have rolled on I and every
colleague I can think of have noticed more and more people coming to courses that they are
unfit for. Not because they are stupid, but because they have been taught to be stupid. So
used to being taught to the test that they are afraid to ask questions. Increasingly I get
asked "what's the right way to do...", usually referring to situation in which there is no
right way, just a right way for your business, at a specific point in time.
I had the great pleasure of watching our new MD describe his first customer-facing project,
which was a disaster, but they "learned" from it. I had to point out to him that I teach the
two disciplines involved - businesss analysis and project management - and if he or his team
had attended any of the courses - all of which are free to them - they would have learned
about the issues they would face, because (astonishingly) they are well-known.
I fear that these incurious adult children are at the bottom of Brexit, Trump and many of the
other ills that afflict us. Learning how to do things is difficult and sometimes boring. Much
better to wander in with zero idea of what has already been done and repeat the mistakes of
the past. I see the future as a treadmill where the same mistakes are made repetitively and
greeted with as much surprise as if they had never happened before. We have always been at
war with Eastasia...
The term Casializatin was repced by more correct term "neoliberalization" for clarity.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalization, a word that says much in, and of, itself, is seen as analogue of broader outsourcing initiatives. Militaries do it, governments do it, and the university does it. Services long held to be the domain of the state, itself an animation of the social contract, the spirit of the people, have now become the incentive of the corporate mind, and, it follows, its associated vices. The entire scope of what has come to be known as outsourcing is itself a creature of propaganda, cheered on as an opportunity drawing benefits rather than an ill encouraging a brutish, tenuous life. ..."
"... Practitioners and policy makers within the education industry have become devotees of the amoral dictates of supply and demand, underpinned by an insatiable management class. Central to their program of university mismanagement is the neoliberal academic, a creature both embraced and maligned in the tertiary sectors of the globe. ..."
"... The neoliberal academic is meant to be an underpaid miracle worker, whose divining acts rescue often lax academics from discharging their duties. (These duties are outlined in that deceptive and unreliable document known as a "workplan", as tedious as it is fictional.) The neoliberal academic grades papers, lectures, tutors and coordinates subjects. The neoliberal provides cover, a shield, and an excuse for a certain class of academic manager who prefers the calling of pretence to the realities of work. ..."
"... Often, these neoliberal academics are students undertaking a postgraduate degree and subject to inordinate degrees of stress in an environment of perennial uncertainty. ..."
"... A representative sample of PhD students studying in Flanders, Belgium found that one in two experienced psychological distress, with one in three at risk of a common psychiatric disorder. Mental health problems tended to be higher in PhD students "than in the highly educated general population, highly education employees and higher education students." ..."
"... Neoliberalization can be seen alongside a host of other ills. If the instructor is disposable and vulnerable, then so are the manifestations of learning. Libraries and research collections, for instance, are being regarded as deadening, inanimate burdens on the modern, vibrant university environment. Some institutions make a regular habit of culling their supply of texts and references: we are all e-people now, bound to prefer screens to paper, the bleary-eyed session of online engagement to the tactile session with a book. ..."
Any sentient being should be offended. Eventually,
the Neoliberalization of the academic workforce was bound to find lazy enthusiasts who neither
teach, nor understand the value of a tenured position dedicated to that musty,
soon-to-be-forgotten vocation of the pedagogue. It shows in the designs of certain universities
who confuse frothy trendiness with tangible depth: the pedagogue banished from the podium, with
rooms lacking a centre, or a focal point for the instructor. Not chic, not cool, we are told,
often by learning and teaching committees that perform neither task. Keep it modern; do not
sound too bright and hide the learning: we are all equal in the classroom, inspiringly even and
scrubbed of knowledge. The result is what was always to be expected: profound laziness on the
part of instructors and students, dedicated mediocrity, and a rejection of all things
intellectually taxing.
Neoliberalization, a word that says much in, and of, itself, is seen as analogue of broader
outsourcing initiatives. Militaries do it, governments do it, and the university does it.
Services long held to be the domain of the state, itself an animation of the social contract,
the spirit of the people, have now become the incentive of the corporate mind, and, it follows,
its associated vices. The entire scope of what has come to be known as outsourcing is itself a
creature of propaganda, cheered on as an opportunity drawing benefits rather than an ill
encouraging a brutish, tenuous life.
One such text is Douglas Brown and Scott Wilson's The
Black Book of Outsourcing . Plaudits for it resemble worshippers at a shrine planning
kisses upon icons and holy relics. "Brown & Wilson deliver on the best, most innovative,
new practices all aimed at helping one and all survive, manage and lead in this new economy,"
praises
Joann Martin, Vice President of Pitney Bowes Management Services. Brown and Wilson take aim at
a fundamental "myth": that "Outsourcing is bad for America." They cite work sponsored by the
Information Technology Association of America (of course) that "the practice of outsourcing is
good for the US economy and its workers."
Practitioners and policy makers within the education industry have become devotees of the
amoral dictates of supply and demand, underpinned by an insatiable management class. Central to
their program of university mismanagement is the neoliberal academic, a creature both embraced and
maligned in the tertiary sectors of the globe.
The neoliberal academic is meant to be an underpaid miracle worker, whose divining acts rescue
often lax academics from discharging their duties. (These duties are outlined in that deceptive
and unreliable document known as a "workplan", as tedious as it is fictional.) The neoliberal
academic grades papers, lectures, tutors and coordinates subjects. The neoliberal provides cover, a
shield, and an excuse for a certain class of academic manager who prefers the calling of
pretence to the realities of work.
Often, these neoliberal academics are students undertaking a postgraduate degree and subject to
inordinate degrees of stress in an environment of perennial uncertainty. The stresses
associated with such students are documented in the Guardian's Academics
Anonymous series and have also been the subject of research
in the journal Research Policy . A representative sample of PhD students studying in
Flanders, Belgium found that one in two experienced psychological distress, with one in three
at risk of a common psychiatric disorder. Mental health problems tended to be higher in PhD
students "than in the highly educated general population, highly education employees and higher
education students."
This is hardly helped by the prospects faced by those PhDs for future permanent employment,
given what the authors of the Research Policy article describe
as the "unfavourable shift in the labour-supply demand balance, a growing popularity of
short-term contracts, budget cuts and increased competition for research sources".
There have been a few pompom holders encouraging the Neoliberalization mania, suggesting that it
is good for the academic sector. The explanations are never more than structural: a neoliberal
workforce, for instance, copes with fluctuating enrolments and reduces labour costs. "Using
neoliberal academics brings benefits and challenges," we find Dorothy Wardale, Julia Richardson and
Yuliani Suseno
telling us in The Conversation . This, in truth, is much like suggesting that
syphilis and irritable bowel syndrome is necessary to keep you on your toes, sharp and
streamlined. The mindset of the academic-administrator is to assume that such things are such
(Neoliberalization, the authors insist, is not going way, so embrace) and adopt a prostrate
position in the face of funding cuts from the public purse.
Neoliberalization can be seen alongside a host of other ills. If the instructor is disposable
and vulnerable, then so are the manifestations of learning. Libraries and research collections,
for instance, are being regarded as deadening, inanimate burdens on the modern, vibrant
university environment. Some institutions make a regular habit of culling their supply of texts
and references: we are all e-people now, bound to prefer screens to paper, the bleary-eyed
session of online engagement to the tactile session with a book.
The neoliberal, sessional academic also has, for company, the "hot-desk", a spot for temporary,
and all too fleeting occupation. The hot-desk has replaced the work desk; the partitions of the
office are giving way to the intrusions of the open plan. The hot-desker, like coitus, is
temporary and brief. The neoliberal academic epitomises that unstable reality; there is little need
to give such workers more than temporary, precarious space. As a result, confidentiality is
impaired, and privacy all but negated. Despite extensive research
showing the negative costs of "hot-desking" and open plan settings, university management
remains crusade bound to implement such daft ideas in the name of efficiency.
Neoliberalization also compounds fraudulence in the academy. It supplies the bejewelled short
cut route, the bypass, the evasion of the rigorous things in learning. Academics may reek like
piddling middle class spongers avoiding the issues while pretending to deal with them, but the
good ones at least make some effort to teach their brood decently and marshal their thoughts in
a way that resembles, at the very least, a sound whiff of knowledge. This ancient code, tested
and tried, is worth keeping, but it is something that modern management types, along with their
parasitic cognates, ignore. In Australia, this is particularly problematic, given suggestions that up to 80
percent of undergraduate courses in certain higher learning institutions are taught by neoliberal
academics.
The union between the spread sheet manager and the uninterested academic who sees promotion
through the management channel rather than scholarship, throws up a terrible hybrid, one
vicious enough to degrade all in its pathway. This sort of hybrid hack resorts to skiving and
getting neoliberals to do the work he or she ought to be doing. Such people co-ordinate courses but
make sure they get the wallahs and helpers desperate for cash to do it. Manipulation is
guaranteed, exploitation is assured.
The economy of desperation is cashed in like a reliable blue-chip stock: the skiver with an
ongoing position knows that a neoliberal academic desperate to earn some cash cannot dissent, will
do little to rock the misdirected boat, and will have to go along with utterly dotty notions.
There are no additional benefits from work, no ongoing income, no insurance, and, importantly,
inflated hours that rarely take into account the amount of preparation required for the
task.
The ultimate nature of the Neoliberalization catastrophe is its diminution of the entire
academic sector. Neoliberals suffer, but so do students. The result is not mere sloth but
misrepresentation of the worst kind: the university keen to advertise a particular service it
cannot provide sufficiently. This, in time, is normalised: what would students, who in many
instances may not even know the grader of their paper, expect? The remunerated, secure
academic-manager, being in the castle, can raise the drawbridge and throw the neoliberals to the
vengeful crowd, an employment environment made safe for hypocrisy.
Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT
University, Melbourne and can be reached at: [email protected] . Read other articles by Binoy .
A Dutch engineering university is taking radical action to increase its share of female
academics by opening job vacancies to women only. Starting on 1 July, the Eindhoven University
of Technology (TUE) in the Netherlands will not allow men to apply for permanent academic jobs
for the first 6 months of the recruitment process under a new fellowship program. If no
suitable applicant has been found within that time, men can then apply, but the selection
committee will still have to nominate at least one candidate of each gender. The [insane] plan
was
announced today and is already attracting controversy.
"You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard,
and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."
Who could have predicted that 70 years after Orwell typed the final words to his dystopian novel, "He loved Big Brother," we would
fail to heed his warning and come to love Big Brother.
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone
-- to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone: From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the
age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink -- greetings!"
-- George Orwell
1984 portrays a global society of total control in which people are not allowed to have thoughts that in any way disagree
with the corporate state. There is no personal freedom, and advanced technology has become the driving force behind a surveillance-driven
society. Snitches and cameras are everywhere. People are subject to the Thought Police, who deal with anyone guilty of thought crimes.
The government, or "Party," is headed by Big Brother who appears on posters everywhere with the words: "Big Brother is watching you."
We have arrived, way ahead of schedule, into the dystopian future dreamed up by not only Orwell but also such fiction writers
as Aldous Huxley, Margaret Atwood and Philip K. Dick.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
―George Orwell
Much like Orwell's Big Brother in 1984 , the government and its corporate spies now watch our every move. Much like Huxley's
A Brave New World , we are churning out a society of watchers who "have their liberties taken away from them, but rather enjoy
it, because they [are] distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing." Much like Atwood's
The Handmaid's Tale , the
populace is now taught to "know their place and their duties, to understand that they have no real rights but will be protected up
to a point if they conform, and to think so poorly of themselves that
they will
accept their assigned fate and not rebel or run away ."
And in keeping with Philip K. Dick's darkly prophetic vision of a dystopian police state -- which became the basis for
Steven
Spielberg's futuristic thriller Minority Report -- we are now trapped in a world in which the government is all-seeing,
all-knowing and all-powerful, and if you dare to step out of line, dark-clad police SWAT teams and pre-crime units will crack a few
skulls to bring the populace under control.
What once seemed futuristic no longer occupies the realm of science fiction.
Incredibly, as the various nascent technologies employed and shared by the government and corporations alike -- facial recognition,
iris scanners, massive databases, behavior prediction software, and so on -- are incorporated into a complex, interwoven cyber network
aimed at tracking our movements, predicting our thoughts and controlling our behavior, the
dystopian visions of past writers is fast becoming
our reality .
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
―George Orwell
The courts have
shredded the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. In fact, SWAT teams battering down doors
without search warrants and FBI agents acting as a secret police that investigate dissenting citizens are common occurrences in contemporary
America. And bodily privacy and integrity have been utterly eviscerated by a prevailing view that Americans have no rights over what
happens to their bodies during an encounter with government officials, who are allowed to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe,
pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible
to say which was which."
We are increasingly ruled by multi-corporations wedded to the police state.
What many fail to realize is that the government is not operating alone. It cannot. The government requires an accomplice. Thus,
the increasingly complex security needs of the massive federal government, especially in the areas of defense, surveillance and data
management, have been met within the corporate sector, which has shown itself to be a powerful ally that both depends on and feeds
the growth of governmental overreach.
In fact, Big Tech wedded to Big Government has become Big Brother, and we are now ruled by the Corporate Elite whose tentacles
have spread worldwide. For example, USA Today reports that five years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the homeland security
business was booming to such an extent that it
eclipsed mature
enterprises like movie-making and the music industry in annual revenue. This security spending to private corporations such as
Google, Amazon, Microsoft and others is
forecast to exceed
$1 trillion in the near future.
The government now has at its disposal technological arsenals so sophisticated and invasive as to render any constitutional protections
null and void. Spearheaded by the NSA, which has shown itself to care little to nothing for constitutional limits or privacy, the
"security/industrial complex" -- a marriage of government, military and corporate interests aimed at keeping Americans under constant
surveillance -- has come to dominate the government and our lives. At three times the size of the CIA, constituting one third of
the intelligence budget and with its own global spy network to boot, the NSA has a long history of spying on Americans, whether or
not it has always had the authorization to do so.
Money, power, control. There is no shortage of motives fueling the convergence of mega-corporations and government. But who is
paying the price? The American people, of course.
Orwell understood what many Americans, caught up in their partisan flag-waving, are still struggling to come to terms with: that
there is no such thing as a government organized for the good of the people. Even the best intentions among those in government inevitably
give way to the desire to maintain power and control over the citizenry at all costs. As Orwell explains:
The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power,
pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know
what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian
Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended,
perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there
lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know what no one ever seizes power with the intention
of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution;
one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture
is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.
"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it."
― George Orwell
How do you change the way people think? You start by changing the words they use.
In totalitarian regimes -- a.k.a. police states -- where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the
government dictates what words can and cannot be used. In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises
itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind.
Dystopian literature shows what happens when the populace is transformed into mindless automatons. In
Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451
, reading is banned and books are burned in order to suppress dissenting ideas, while televised entertainment is used to anesthetize
the populace and render them easily pacified, distracted and controlled.
In Huxley's Brave New World
, serious literature, scientific thinking and experimentation are banned as subversive, while critical thinking is discouraged through
the use of conditioning, social taboos and inferior education. Likewise, expressions of individuality, independence and morality
are viewed as vulgar and abnormal.
And in Orwell's 1984
, Big Brother does away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history
and punish "thoughtcrimes." In this dystopian vision of the future, the Thought Police serve as the eyes and ears of Big Brother,
while the Ministry of Peace deals with war and defense, the Ministry of Plenty deals with economic affairs (rationing and starvation),
the Ministry of Love deals with law and order (torture and brainwashing), and the Ministry of Truth deals with news, entertainment,
education and art (propaganda). The mottos of Oceania: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
All three -- Bradbury, Huxley and Orwell -- had an uncanny knack for realizing the future, yet it is Orwell who best understood
the power of language to manipulate the masses. Orwell's Big Brother relied on Newspeak to eliminate undesirable words, strip such
words as remained of unorthodox meanings and make independent, non-government-approved thought altogether unnecessary. To give a
single example, as psychologist Erich Fromm illustrates in his afterword to 1984 :
The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as "This dog is free from lice" or
"This field is free from weeds." It could not be used in its old sense of "politically free" or "intellectually free," since political
and intellectual freedom no longer existed as concepts .
Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where
only that which is "safe" and "accepted" by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will
pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.
This is the final link in the police state chain.
"Until they became conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."
-- George Orwell
Americans have been
conditioned to accept routine incursions on their privacy rights . In fact, the addiction to screen devices -- especially cell
phones -- has created a hive effect where the populace not only watched but is controlled by AI bots. However, at one time, the idea
of a total surveillance state tracking one's every move would have been abhorrent to most Americans. That all changed with the 9/11
attacks. As professor Jeffrey Rosen observes, "Before Sept. 11, the idea that Americans would voluntarily agree to live their lives
under the gaze of a network of biometric surveillance cameras, peering at them in government buildings, shopping malls, subways and
stadiums, would have seemed unthinkable,
a dystopian fantasy of a society that
had surrendered privacy and anonymity ."
Having been reduced to a cowering citizenry -- mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the
face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield,
and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all -- we have nowhere left to go.
We have, so to speak, gone from being a nation where privacy is king to one where nothing is safe from the prying eyes of government.
In search of so-called terrorists and extremists hiding amongst us -- the proverbial "needle in a haystack," as one official termed
it -- the Corporate State has taken to monitoring all aspects of our lives, from cell phone calls and emails to Internet activity
and credit card transactions. Much of this data is being fed through
fusion centers across the
country, which work with the Department of Homeland Security to make threat assessments on every citizen, including school children.
These are state and regional intelligence centers that collect data on you.
"Big Brother is Watching You."
―George Orwell
Wherever you go and whatever you do, you are now being watched, especially if you leave behind an electronic footprint. When you
use your cell phone, you leave a record of when the call was placed, who you called, how long it lasted and even where you were at
the time. When you use your ATM card, you leave a record of where and when you used the card. There is even a video camera at most
locations equipped with facial recognition software. When you use a cell phone or drive a car enabled with GPS, you can be tracked
by satellite. Such information is shared with government agents, including local police. And all of this once-private information
about your consumer habits, your whereabouts and your activities is now being fed to the U.S. government.
The government has nearly inexhaustible resources when it comes to tracking our movements, from electronic wiretapping devices,
traffic cameras and biometrics to radio-frequency identification cards, satellites and Internet surveillance.
Speech recognition technology now makes it possible for the government to carry out massive eavesdropping by way of sophisticated
computer systems. Phone calls can be monitored, the audio converted to text files and stored in computer databases indefinitely.
And if any "threatening" words are detected -- no matter how inane or silly -- the record can be flagged and assigned to a government
agent for further investigation. Federal and state governments, again working with private corporations, monitor your Internet content.
Users are profiled and tracked in order to identify, target and even prosecute them.
In such a climate, everyone is a suspect. And you're guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. To underscore this shift in
how the government now views its citizens, the FBI uses its wide-ranging authority to investigate individuals or groups, regardless
of whether they are suspected of criminal activity.
"Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull."
― George Orwell
Here's what a lot of people fail to understand, however: it's not just what you say or do that is being monitored, but how you
think that is being tracked and targeted. We've already seen this play out on the state and federal level with hate crime
legislation that cracks down on so-called "hateful" thoughts and expression, encourages self-censoring and reduces free debate on
various subject matter.
Total Internet surveillance by the Corporate State, as omnipresent as God, is used by the government to predict and, more importantly,
control the populace, and it's not as far-fetched as you might think. For example, the NSA is now designing an artificial intelligence
system that is designed to anticipate your every move. In a nutshell, the NSA will feed vast amounts of the information it collects
to a computer system known as Aquaint (the acronym
stands for Advanced QUestion Answering for INTelligence), which the computer can then use to detect patterns and predict behavior.
No information is sacred or spared.
Everything from cell phone recordings and logs, to emails, to text messages, to personal information posted on social networking
sites, to credit card statements, to library circulation records, to credit card histories, etc., is collected by the NSA and shared
freely with its agents in crime: the CIA, FBI and DHS. One NSA researcher actually quit the Aquaint program, "citing concerns over
the dangers in placing such a powerful weapon in the hands of a top-secret agency with little accountability."
Thus, what we are witnessing, in the so-called name of security and efficiency, is the creation of a new class system comprised
of the watched (average Americans such as you and me) and the watchers (government bureaucrats, technicians and private corporations).
Clearly, the age of privacy in America is at an end.
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever."
-- Orwell
So where does that leave us?
We now find ourselves in the unenviable position of being monitored, managed and controlled by our technology, which answers not
to us but to our government and corporate rulers. This is the fact-is-stranger-than-fiction lesson that is being pounded into us
on a daily basis.
It won't be long before we find ourselves looking back on the past with longing, back to an age where we could speak to whom we
wanted, buy what we wanted, think what we wanted without those thoughts, words and activities being tracked, processed and stored
by corporate giants such as Google, sold to government agencies such as the NSA and CIA, and used against us by militarized police
with their army of futuristic technologies.
To be an individual today, to not conform, to have even a shred of privacy, and to live beyond the reach of the government's roaming
eyes and technological spies, one must not only be a rebel but rebel.
Even when you rebel and take your stand, there is rarely a happy ending awaiting you. You are rendered an outlaw.
So how do you survive in the American surveillance state?
We're running out of options.
As I make clear in my book
Battlefield
America: The War on the American People , we'll soon have to choose between self-indulgence (the bread-and-circus distractions
offered up by the news media, politicians, sports conglomerates, entertainment industry, etc.) and self-preservation in the form
of renewed vigilance about threats to our freedoms and active engagement in self-governance.
Yet as Aldous Huxley acknowledged in
Brave New World Revisited
: "Only the vigilant can maintain their liberties, and only those who are constantly and intelligently on the spot can hope to govern
themselves effectively by democratic procedures. A society, most of whose members spend a great part of their time, not on the spot,
not here and now and in their calculable future, but somewhere else, in the irrelevant other worlds of sport and soap opera, of mythology
and metaphysical fantasy, will find it hard to resist the encroachments of those would manipulate and control it."
"... Sherman found that her interviewees, all in the top 1-2 percent of income or wealth or both, had thoroughly imbibed the narrative of meritocracy to rationalize their affluence and immense privileges. That is, they believed they deserved all their money because of hard work and individual effort. Most identified themselves as socially and political liberal and took pains to distinguish themselves from "bad" rich people who flaunt their wealth. ..."
"... Finally, meritocracy is the classic American foundation myth and provides the basis for an entire array of other fairy tales. Foremost, this illusion serves to justify policies that foster economic inequality and hinder the development of social movements. After so many decades of neoliberal ideology, this lie is now firmly lodged in the public's collective consciousness but I'm convinced that with effort and relying on the evidence, it can be expunged. ..."
In 2017,
Sociology Professor Rachel Sherman wrote Uneasy Street: The Anxiety of Affluence , a
book which drew upon 50 in-depth interviews with Uber-wealthy New Yorkers in order to obtain a
picture of just how they perceived their status.
Sherman found that her interviewees, all in the top 1-2 percent of income or wealth or both,
had thoroughly imbibed the narrative of meritocracy to rationalize their affluence and immense
privileges. That is, they believed they deserved all their money because of hard work and
individual effort. Most identified themselves as socially and political liberal and took pains
to distinguish themselves from "bad" rich people who flaunt their wealth. Although one
unselfconsciously acknowledged "I used to say I was going to be a revolutionary but then I had
my first massage."
One striking characteristic was that these folks never talk about money and obsess over the
"stigma of privilege." One typical respondent whose wealth exceeded $50 million told Sherman,
"There's nobody who knows how much money we spend. You're the only person I've ever said the
numbers to out-loud." Another couple who had inherited $50 million and lived in a penthouse had
the post office change their mailing address to the floor number because PH sounded "elite and
snobby." Another common trait was removing the price tags from items entering the house so the
housekeeper and and staff didn't see them. As if the nanny didn't know
Her subjects (who remained anonymous) readily acknowledged being extremely advantaged but
remained "good people, normal people," who work hard, are careful about ostentatious
consumption, and above all, "give back." They spend considerable time trying to legitimate
inequality and Sherman concludes they've largely succeeded in feeling "morally worthy."
As a follow-up to this study, Prof. Sherman has been conducting similar in-depth interviews
with young people whose parents or ancestors accumulated sizable fortunes, wealth they now have
or will soon inherit. Sherman's recent piece, "The Rich Kid Revolution," ( The New York
Times , 4/28/19) reveals a stark contrast in self-perception from her earlier findings.
First, her interviewees totally "get" the lie of meritocracy as they ruefully skewer family
myths about individual effort, scrimping and saving and the origins of wealth. One young woman
who's in line to inherit a considerable fortune told Sherman, "My dad has always been a CEO,
and it was clear to me that he spent a lot of time at work, but it has never been clear to me
that he worked a lot harder than a domestic worker, for example. I will never believe
that."
Sherman discovered that whether the immense fortunes came from "the direct dispossession of
indigenous people, enslavement of African-Americans, production of fossil fuels or obvious
exploitation of workers, they often express especially acute guilt." One response has been that
some wealthy people under age 35 have formed organizations to fund social justice
initiatives.
Second, many of her respondents have read about racialized capitalism and harbor no
illusions about their own success. From access to the "right" schools and acquiring cultural
capital to social networking and good, high paying jobs, they readily acknowledged that it's
all derived from their class (and race) privilege. Third, they are convinced the economic
system is "immoral," equality of opportunity does not exist and their wealth and privileges are
absolutely "unearned." Finally, they grasp, often from personal observation, that traditional
philanthropy is primarily about keeping those at the top in place, obtaining generous tax
breaks and treating symptoms while ignoring the causes rooted in the very social structures
from which they benefit.
Beyond the article's hyperbolic title and a certain vagueness about where this new
consciousness may lead, the piece -- whether intentionally or not -- does raise issues that
demand much wider public discussion.
First, a note about philanthro-capitalism or as Peter Buffet (Warren Buffet's son) terms it,
"conscience laundering." In Chris Rock's pithy phrase, "Behind every fortune is a great crime"
and given what we know about the sources of great wealth -- the collectivity -- these monies
should be supporting public needs that are democratically determined not the cherry-picked, pet
projects of billionaires. And this reveals another motive behind private charity: the desire to
stifle any enthusiasm for an activist government responsible to the public will.
I should add that whenever I hear a philanthropist piously proclaim, "I just wanted to give
something back," my first impulse is to shout "Why not give it all back?" That is, I've always
been partial to the moral injunction, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be
required" (Luke 12:48). And although I won't attempt to improve on scripture, I might suggest
"From whom much is taken, much is owed."
Second, one might ask about the case where a person of modest means succeeds at something
and accumulates a fortune? We've all heard or read ad infinitum, someone exclaim, "Damn it!
Nobody even handed me anything. I did it all on my own. I'm entirely self-made." Isn't that
evidence of individual merit? No. For starters, as Chuck Collins, heir to the Oscar Mayer
fortune, once put it, "Where would wealthy entrepreneurs be without taxpayer investments in the
Internet, transportation, public education, the legal system, the human genome project and so
on?" Herbert Simon, a Nobel Prize winner in Economics, has calculated the societal contribution
at ninety percent of what people earn in Northwest Europe and the United States.
In addition to the sources mentioned above, just off the top of my head I can list many
other factors that belie this powerfully seductive but wholly fictional narrative, one that's
also touted to and embraced by many members of the working class: Child labor, Chinese and
Irish immigrant labor (railroads), eminent domain, massacres of striking workers, state
repression of unions, Immigration Act of 1864, public land grabs, corporate welfare, installing
foreign dictators to guarantee cheap labor and resources, inheritance laws, public schools and
universities, public expense mail systems, property and contract laws, government tax breaks
incentives to business, Securities and Exchange Commission to ensure trust in the stock market,
the U.S. military, and a police state to keep the rabble from picking up pitchforks. Another
factor that almost merits its own paragraphs is pure luck. By any objective criteria, we can
conclude that absent this arrangement there would be no accumulation of private wealth.
Finally, meritocracy is the classic American foundation myth and provides the basis for an
entire array of other fairy tales. Foremost, this illusion serves to justify policies that
foster economic inequality and hinder the development of social movements. After so many
decades of neoliberal ideology, this lie is now firmly lodged in the public's collective
consciousness but I'm convinced that with effort and relying on the evidence, it can be
expunged.
"... America just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable. ..."
"... And after all our idiotic overcomplicated plots and schemes, they are but to mask simple truths ..."
"... What is more compelling than the average person captured in a truthful narrative, as counterpoint to a society that delves into the celebrity, the spectacle, the idiocy as Jason puts forth in his piece, "The Idiot." ..."
"... Yet, my friend, Joe the Farmer from Merced, hits the nail on the head by providing his own retort to example after example of the cruelty of capitalism and the US of I -- United States of Idiots? ..."
"... What in the fuck is wrong with this country? The republicans enact cruel legislation to protect criminal enterprises, slash taxes for the obscenely rich, while removing any social or environmental protections for the population, (the Flint Michigan water system for example). ..."
"... The democrats response to Trump is to promote Joe Biden, a compilation of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Strom Thurman and just about every other corporate whore they could steal parts off of to make their democratic very own version of Donald Trump. ..."
"... As if there were no real journalists working on all the pre-September 11 illegalities of the republican party and then the post-September 11 evisceration of the few rights the people of the world and USA had before full spectrum war on our planet. ..."
"... As if journalists hadn't cracked open the Koch brothers, the fake think tanks, all the pre-Truman/post-Truman lies of empire, from Roy Cohen, through to the rigged systems of oppression. Way before any trivial Hollywood wannabe open her eyes. ..."
"... Entertainment and a few laughs at the expense of millions of bombed-dead people, millions more suffering-a-lingering-death daily because of Hollywood and USA policies and the evangelicals and the Crypto-Christo-Zionists bombing "the other" back to the stone age. The movie, Vice. ..."
"... What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies , the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy . ..."
"... As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984 , Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World , they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us. ..."
"... The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. ..."
"... Huxley was right -- " Words can be like X-rays if you use them properly -- they'll go through anything. You read and you're pierced." Brave New World , "Chapter 4" ..."
America just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing
anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable.
Now I think poetry will save nothing from oblivion, but I keep writing about the ordinary because for me it's the home of the
extraordinary, the only home.
I'm digging the DV piece, " The Idiot " by
Jason Holland, since in a critical mass sort of black hole kind of way, his main thesis is reflective of the experiences many of
us in the bloody trenches of dying capitalism see/feel/believe minute by minute.
And after all our idiotic overcomplicated plots and schemes, they are but to mask simple truths the idiot facade tries so desperately
to avoid; the inner torments of being afraid of not being good enough, not measuring up to our peers, not meeting arbitrary expectations
we either accept from others or set for ourselves, or quite simply feeling like we are not worthy of love. So we play these pointless
high stakes games which have a rewards as meaningless and worthless as a plastic trophy just to prove our worth. The idiot is
a temporal state of being, although many are finer long term examples of displaying the behaviors of the idiot; however none of
us are the perfect idiot. To avoid the affectations of being in an idiotic state it takes conscious effort to live our lives moment
to moment with authenticity, to be in a state of awareness of our actions, to always be willing to suffer for something worthwhile
and to be consistently well reasoned examiners of what constitutes something worthwhile.
That authenticity, moment to moment existence -- and it should be a reveling of life -- is good, but there is a bifurcating of
sorts when many of us are still subject to the masters of Big Brother and Big Business. We are suffering the dualism of the Century,
and the more we know, the more we seek and the more we grapple, well, the more emancipated we are, but in that freedom comes some
pretty harsh treatment by the masters and their sub-masters and all the Little Eichmann's that keep the Capitalist's trains moving
like clockwork toward the global demise set in their plastic worlds!
And some of us think Dachau and Auschwitz were bad! We have already seen a hundred of them since 1945.
For me, I have the benefit of being a writer, and at this time, I have this new gig I created myself to bring to the Oregon Coast
a sense of the people who are here living or who come here to set down their own stories . . . people who do things to make this
world better and themselves better. Something in the draw that brings my subjects for my pieces here to the coast of Oregon. These
are people, and they are not perfections or cut-outs or pulverized remnants of humanity that Capitalism mostly demands in it shark
tank of inane media manipulation and marketing.
I crack open humanity and get people's contexts -- entire stories upon stories laid down, strata by strata, and cover their own
formula for the art of living in harmony in a world of disharmony. Reading my stuff, I hope, will allow readers of this rag, Oregon
Coast Today , and its on-line version a better sense of authenticity via people they may or may not even run across in their
own lives of being the consummate busy tourist and consumer.
A few of the pieces will be worthy of DV display, and I hope that my attempt at drilling down and "getting people" for
who they are and how they got here will better the world, in some small shape. Really small, but small wonders sometimes are the
ionic glue of a bettering world.
What is more compelling than the average person captured in a truthful narrative, as counterpoint to a society that delves into
the celebrity, the spectacle, the idiocy as Jason puts forth in his piece, "The Idiot."
In many ways, talking to people who have lived authentic (albeit struggle-prone) lives, or who are just embarking on a nascent
stage of multiple iterations of living, I get my sense of grounding in a very flummoxed world of inanity and crass disassociation,
as in the disease of pushing away humanity and pushing away the natural world to hitch oneself to the perversions of the billionaire
class.
Time and time again, daily, my friends who are still in struggle -- still trying to make sense of the perverted world of idiots
controlling the message, the economy, the environment, the culture, and the mental-physical-spiritual health of the world, as if
this is it, Trump 2.0 -- give me news feed after news feed of the quickening of not only idiocy that capitalism and consumerism and
war engender in our species, but also examples of the inhumanity driving the agendas of the Fortune 500 Class, the Davos crowd, the
Aspen Institute gatherings, et al .
Yet, my friend, Joe the Farmer from Merced, hits the nail on the head by providing his own retort to example after example of
the cruelty of capitalism and the US of I -- United States of Idiots?
If this doesn't slap the Hell out of you and rub your nose into the proverbial dog shit of what a criminally insane, inhumane,
cruel and thuggish enterprise our government has become, then there is absolutely no hope for your soul. The truth tellers like
Manning, Assange, Snowden and others, the brave young guys like Tim DeChristopher that monkey wrenched the sale of oil leases
to public lands to try and protect the environment, this fellow that is showing his human side by providing water and aid for
those dying in the desert sun, are all facing prison terms or maybe even the death penalty. Their crime? Being a compassionate
human being.
What in the fuck is wrong with this country? The republicans enact cruel legislation to protect criminal enterprises, slash
taxes for the obscenely rich, while removing any social or environmental protections for the population, (the Flint Michigan water
system for example).
The republicans are ruthlessly attacking the environment and endangered species, turning their backs on infrastructure that
is endangering peoples lives, while the spineless democrats sit idly by, wringing their hands. The democrats won't take action
against the most openly corrupt president we have ever had, that is daily destroying everything in this country as well as the
rest of the world with his insane military budgets, trade wars and climate policies. The democrats response to Trump is to promote
Joe Biden, a compilation of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Strom Thurman and just about every other corporate whore they
could steal parts off of to make their democratic very own version of Donald Trump.
Both the republicans and the democrats promote austerity for the working people and the poor, while stuffing the oligarchs
pockets with gold. Both political Parties support endless war and war profiteers but slash budgets for schools, infrastructure,
health care and the elderly. Both political Parties shower money on the police state and a corrupt system of justice and private
prisons. Both political Parties are turning their heads to what the oil industry is doing to our water and air with fracking and
are in fact have promoted legislation to let the oil industry off the hook when it causes unbelievable environmental damage. Both
political Parties are doing nothing to check the nuclear industry that is a environmental time bomb waiting to go off and have
promoted legislation to limit the industries liability when it does.
What is wrong with the American people that they sit on their collective asses and do nothing while all this is happening?
Are they that fucking stupid? Are they that lacking in human decency? Are they that politically dumbed-down that they won't even
fight for their own interests?
The fact that this government corruption has been allowed to go on for years evidently proves that Americans are that stupid
and lacking of compassion and politically dumbed-down. Thank God for guys like Dr. Warren the others that are trying to slap some
sense into the American public to show us what courage and being humane is all about. Dr. Warren and company shouldn't be put
in jail but our so called leaders sure as Hell should be for their crimes against humanity.
He's talking about a desert saint of sorts, Scott Warren, who has the power of his call to duty to give water in milk cartons
to anyone crossing the Arizona desert. Now that is a hero, yet, he is facing decades in prison. America!
The charges against Warren "are an unjust criminalization of direct humanitarian assistance" and "appear to constitute a politically
motivated violation of his protected rights as a Human Rights Defender," states Amnesty International's Americas regional director
Erika Guevara-Rosas .
"Providing humanitarian aid is never a crime," Guevara-Rosas added in a statement last week. "If Dr. Warren were convicted
and imprisoned on these absurd charges, he would be a prisoner of conscience, detained for his volunteer activities motivated
by humanitarian principles and his religious beliefs."
Yet how many humans in this crime country even give a rat's ass about one man who is doing the good that all men and women should
be doing?
So, here, whatever will come of my new column, "Deep Dive: Go Below the Surface with Paul Haeder," starting June 7, well, I hope
people reading this rag -- 18,000 and counting and as they are compelled to hit each longer version of each of my profiles on line,
Oregon Coast Today -- will understand that
life is the sum total of one's search for meaning and worthy work and community involvement.
Maybe this compulsion toward narrative has always been inside me during my early root setting living in Canada, Maryland, Paris,
Edinburgh, Arizona . . . then on that walkabout throughout Latin America, Europe, Vietnam, USA, Central America!
When times get tough, the storyteller gets writing. Ha. Believe you me, the stories we all have collected in this Marquis de Sade
world of capital and artery-clogging entertainment and constant death spiral the elites have banked as their Appian Way to Complete
Dominance, they make for so much more validation of humanity than anything Hollywood could make.
Point of fact -- I attempted to watch the film, Vice, about Dick Cheney, his perverse family, the perversity of neocons
fornicating with neoliberalism. It was one of Hollywood's "cutting edge" dramas. Written and directed by a Saturday Night Live
writer. All the usual suspects with Hollywood multi-millions stuffed in their jowls -- Christian Bale, Amy Adams, et al .
It wasn't that good, but I sensed that the filmmakers were all about trying to make something that was "different." I didn't nod
off during the viewing. But, I unfortunately had the DVD so I went to the extras section, and then, the behind-the-scenes of the
making of Vice . This is when things went south real quickly with neoliberal, Democrat-leaning Hollywood creeps. We get every
goofy platitude about each and every department's genius in making this film. Every actor fawns the other actor for his or her amazing
performance.
Then the Limey, Christian Bale, yammers on and on about he was all about making Dick Cheney human, going into his good side, being
cognizant of Cheney, the human. Rubbish and this is the quality of men, adults, in our society -- multimillionaires with gobs of
limelight and credit and awards and houses and yachts thrown at them, and they can't even begin to attack the cause -- capitalism,
rampant competitiveness, droll I-got-mine-too-bad-you-can't-get-yours thinking. Hollywood is the anti-culture, the flagging bumbling
money changers, the money makers, the money grubbers, and well, everything is about the pockets and the suits and the "executive
producers," i.e. Bankers.
Oh god, what a trip going into these Hollywood people's hot yoga, macrobiotic diet, four-hour-a-day workout minds. The director,
McKay, actually thinks this drama -- make-believe -- has given the world new stuff, new insights, new news about the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush-Reagan-Bush
world of prostitute politics.
As if there were no real journalists working on all the pre-September 11 illegalities of the republican party and then the post-September
11 evisceration of the few rights the people of the world and USA had before full spectrum war on our planet.
As if journalists hadn't cracked open the Koch brothers, the fake think tanks, all the pre-Truman/post-Truman lies of empire,
from Roy Cohen, through to the rigged systems of oppression. Way before any trivial Hollywood wannabe open her eyes.
Entertainment and a few laughs at the expense of millions of bombed-dead people, millions more suffering-a-lingering-death daily
because of Hollywood and USA policies and the evangelicals and the Crypto-Christo-Zionists bombing "the other" back to the stone
age. The movie, Vice.
Racists, misogynists, misanthropes, one and all. Yet, we gotta love these democrat-leaning guys and gals making films, having
millions stuffed up every possible orifice until their brains gel.
Insight into the flippancy that is Hollywood the Power Broker! Watching people like Amy Adams and Steve Carell and Sam Rockwell
play this soft-shoe goofball show, and then in the little "Making of the Movie Vice" documentary (sic-infomercial) blathering
on and on about the greatness of the script and every cog of the machine that churns out this pabulum, well, it steels me to continue
my small-time, no-fame, big-effing-deal gig writing people profiles to bring some sense to a world captured by capital . . . idiocy!
Oh, how we fall in line. Over at
Counterpunch
, that cloistered world of writers has the countdown for 2018 -- Best Films of the Year, as in the most conscious, socially (give
me a effing break!) that is. Nothing in American society once it floats on the offal barrel is sacred, socialist, communist.
Peak TV is creating more opportunities for independent film directors, and for new stories to be told. More films from around
the world are released on streaming every day, and Netflix spent an estimated 13 billion dollars on content just this year. More
cash available can sometimes mean more stories by and about communities of color, women, transgender and gender nonconforming
people, and other communities Hollywood has long ignored. But the movie industry is still primarily about making profit, and it's
main business is reinforcing the status quo, including churning out films that glorify capitalism, war, and policing.
Below are 2018's top ten conscious films that made it through these barriers, plus twenty more released this year that you
may want to check out.
[ ]
Hollywood doesn't have a great record in covering presidential politics (remember Kevin Costner in Swing Vote ?).
Vice , comedy director Adam McKay's follow up to The Big Short , explores the Bush/Cheney presidency, attempting to
make history and polemic accessible to a wide audience. It's not as effective as his previous film, but it's a good history, especially
for those less familiar with the ins and outs of the early 2000s corporate power grab.
Lighten up already , many a friend and acquaintance tell me. "You are going to burn out like one of the bulbs you use underwater
to do your night dives. Way too much shining the hoary light onto the more hoary caverns of American society. Let things go."
Ha, well, how can we? We are entertained to death, as
Neil Postman
states:
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for
there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those
who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed
from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture.
Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies , the orgy porgy, and
the centrifugal bumblepuppy .
As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert
to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984 , Orwell added,
people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World , they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short,
Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us.
This book [ Amusing Ourselves to Death ] is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.
And so it goes, as I trail the acrid dust devil of injustice -- my own and the veterans' and families' I helped just months ago
in Portland as a social worker for, drum roll, homeless veterans (and some came with families, including babies and service dogs).
I've written about it here and elsewhere -- the Starvation Army. The deceitful, unethical, possibly murderous Starvation Army.
You see, where I worked, I had these insane Nurse Ratched's lording over grown men and women treating them like criminals, and infantiles,
and the constant berating and recriminations. It was anything but social work 101. Anything but trauma-informed care. Anything but
caring people, enlightened helpers; instead, think mean, warped people who within their own broken self's, do all the wrong things
for veterans.
I decided to jump ship, and, alas, a few lawyers advised me I couldn't get far with a hostile workplace complaint until I went
through the state of Oregon's, Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) quasi-judicial pathway.
There was great harm put upon the veterans, great harm put upon the staff, because a director was all into herself and her self-described
Jesus Saves bullshit, yammering on about her former cocaine addiction and booze abuse and 350 pounds of flesh, as well as her own
failings as a mother. This place has 100 people living in it temporarily, while Starvation Army receives taxpayer money, all part
of the poverty pimping Starvation/Salvation Army's SOP.
In the end, relying on idiots in any state bureaucracy to carry forth an investigation was not my idea of justice. I did my due
diligence and filed grievances, first with the Starvation Army, and, then with BOLI. I contacted VA officials, state politicians,
and the media. To no avail. They too are accomplices!
To make a long and stupid Byzantine story short, my prediction of zero assistance and zero admonishing from the state to the executive
director and the higher ups of the Starvation Army played out. BOLI is a toothless and empty-hearted agency, staffed by soulless
Little Eichmann's counting their paychecks and amassing points to their state sourced pension fund.
I have moved on, as usual, and the injustice perpetrated upon me is minor in the scheme of things. The veterans, however, already
foisted with trauma, PTSD, administrative rape, etc., are still vulnerable to the Nurse Ratched's of the inhumane social services
that serves (sic) non-profits and religious crime syndicates like the Starvation Army.
Here , "How the Salvation Army Lives Off (and thrives with) a Special Brand of Poverty Pimping"
Here , "Alcohol, Atheism, Anarchy: The Triple A Threat to the Pro-Capitalist Salvation Army"
I have since my departure been in contact with a few veterans, and talked a few off the proverbial ledge -- several that wanted
to off themselves because of the Nurse Ratched's they encounter at the Starvation Army, in the VA, and in non-profits. This is the
reality, and it's sick, in real perverted American time -- "Hundreds witness veteran shoot and kill himself in VA waiting room"
In December, Marine Col. Jim Turner, 55, put his service uniform on, drove to the Bay Pines Department of Veterans Affairs,
and shot himself outside the medical center, leaving a note next to his body. "I bet if you look at the 22 suicides a day you
will see VA screwed up in 90 percent,"
it read.
This is Trump, this is Biden, this is Clinton, this is the lot of them, callous and broken capitalists, who have sold their souls
to the devil and brains to Jeff Bezos, et al . And it ain't going to get fixed until we cut away the cancer. Really cut away,
daily, in small acts of defiance, great collective acts of beating the system. Not sure what that great director Ava Duvernay says
about more and more movies like her 13th or this new Netflix mini-series on the
Central Park Five , When They See Us will do to eventually get enough Americans (70 percent are racist to the core) to
demand change in the criminal injustice system of private prisons, Incarceration Complex, Profitable Prosecutions. That all those
cops, dailies, elites, deplorables, Trumpies, and Trump said terrible terrible things about these 5 juveniles, calling them animals,
or super predators like the Clinton Klan, well, imagine, an insane 2016 runner for the highest crime lord position of the land, POTUS,
Donald Trump, after these five men were released after all the evidence found them innocent, sputtering with his big fat billionaire's
fourth grader's words that the Central Park Five are guilty, guilty, guilty.
The press coverage was biased. There was a study done by Natalie Byfield, one of the journalists at the time for the New York
papers who later wrote a book about covering the case, and it saw that a little more than 89 percent of the press coverage at
the time didn't use the word "alleged," that we had irresponsibility in the press corps at the time not to ask second questions
and literally take police and prosecutor talking points and turn those into articles that people read as fact, and proceeded to
shape their opinions about this case that essentially spoils the jury pool, so that these boys were never given a chance.
Trump's comments in his ads that he took out in 1989 were taken out just two weeks after the crime was announced -- they hadn't
even gone to trial, so it was impossible for them to have an impartial jury pool. The printing of their names in the papers for
minors, and where they lived, was a jaw-dropper. All of this was done by "reputable" papers in New York that we still read, so
I'm curious how these papers take responsibility for their part in this, and also possibly use this to review the part they play
in other cases that may not be as famous as this.
Thus, she makes my case -- the callous and racist and sexist and xenophobic US Press, and here we are today, 2019, enter Amusing
Ourselves to Death and a Brave New World .
The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is
truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.
-- Aldous Huxley, Brave New World , "Preface"
Alas, though, we have to keep those words coming, even sent to the great gray hearts and souls populating those state agencies
whose workers are supposed to investigate the workplace safety concerns of workers, and are supposed to prevent workplace harassment.
I write to break through the fog, and to envelop a new way of seeing my world, for me and for the few readers that dabble in even
attempting to start, let alone finish, these missives.
Huxley was right -- " Words can be like X-rays if you use them properly -- they'll go through anything. You read and you're pierced."
Brave New World , "Chapter 4"
Paul Kirk Haeder has been a journalist since 1977. He's covered police, environment, planning and zoning, county and city politics,
as well as working in true small town/community journalism situations in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Mexico and beyond. He's been
a part-time faculty since 1983, and as such has worked in prisons, gang-influenced programs, universities, colleges, alternative
high schools, language schools, as a private contractor-writing instructor for US military in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Washington.
He organized Part-time faulty in Washington State. His book, Reimagining Sanity: Voices Beyond the Echo Chamber (2016), looks at
10 years of his writing at Dissident Voice . Read his autobiography, weekly or bi-weekly musings and hard hitting work in
chapter installments, at LA Progressive
. He blogs from Otis, Oregon. Read other articles by Paul
, or visit Paul's website .
The trade in oil, gas, gems, metals and rare earth minerals wreaks havoc in Africa. During
the years when Brazil, India, China and the other "emerging markets" have transformed their
economies, Africa's resource states remained tethered to the bottom of the industrial supply
chain. While Africa accounts for about 30 per cent of the world's reserves of hydrocarbons and
minerals and 14 per cent of the world's population, its share of global manufacturing stood in
2011 exactly where it stood in 2000: at 1 percent.
Shaxson's introduction and preliminary chapters immediately prove that he is a bona fide
Africa expert. Having extensively lived and worked there, getting closely acquainted with the
politicians, industrialists and average joes, he knows his topic better than any ivory tower
academic or think tank regional "expert." His anecdotes and insights are accurate, concise
and reasonably centrist. His writing is excellent. And yet he failed to earn 5 stars because
the book itself delves too far into specific biographies of pivotal politicos and activists.
Shaxson is sharp and experienced enough to produce a country-by-country analytical handbook
documenting oil's impact on 21st Century Africa but instead he chose to take the
conversational, journalistic feature-article format. For professionals and novices seeking
accurate and timely information on Africa, this is a good start. Lutz Kleveman's "New Great
Game" was equally readable and informal but a far more informative example for Shaxson to
follow in his next book.
The book is very well written.It documents the authors expereinces with various African
countries in relation to the oil business and provides an insightful analysis of the impacts
of the sleazy dealings within the oil industry on the continent. An excellent read!!
Read more
Of the current crop of "what is wrong with Africa" books including "The Shackled
Continent", "The White Man's Burden" and "The Trouble with Africa", Nicholas Shaxson's
analysis and prescriptions for change are the most radical and on-the-money. Shaxson's book
should be widely read and discussed. Unfortunately, too much invested in the status quo by
all concerned to see much likelihood of change within the next few decades.
Every responsible reader and serious seeker of "enlightenment" usually applies a
"credibility check" to new information.
When author Nicholas Shaxson, in the opening chapter of his book, "Poisoned Wells," badly
mischaracterized the Biafra-Nigeria War of 1967-1970, I could not read any further.
In trying to support his assertion that Oil is the root cause (or at least, a major cause) of
post-colonial Africa's problems, he force-fits that terrible war into "Oil" context. How do I
know? Well, I was there: was old enough to live in Nigeria up to the War, live through that
War fighting in it on the Biafran side, and live after the war in Nigeria, until decided that
I am truly Biafran, not Nigerian.
This book has failed a critical credibility test.
Please send my comments to this author.
Oguchi Nkwocha, MD.
Nwa Biafra
A Biafran Citizen.
In this informative book, journalist Nicholas Shaxson looks at some African countries that
have suffered the curse of foreign-owned oil - Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Gabon, the
Congo Republic and São Tomé e Principe. In 1970, before the oil boom, 19
million Nigerians were poor; after $400 billion of oil earnings, 90 million (of a 130 million
population) were poor.
Each week sub-Saharan Africa's oil fields produce more than $1 billions' worth of oil. But
the oil money promotes not investment and development but capital flight and poverty. Greedy
foreign oil corporations ally with corrupt rulers.
The struggle of rival imperialisms for oil strips Africa bare. In 2005 the USA imported
more oil from Africa than from the Middle East, and it is intervening in Africa to control
its supplies, as now with its illegal attack on Libya. Oil comprises 87 per cent of US
imports from Africa. Angola is China's biggest source of imported oil.
France too is scheming and warmongering to keep its hold on Africa. France's former
colonies have to keep two-thirds of their reserves in France's treasury. Their central banks'
HQs are in Paris. Much EU `aid' funds French companies in Africa.
Shaxson also looks at the curse of tax havens. More than half of world trade passes
through tax havens. Over half of all banking assets and a third of foreign direct investment
by giant corporations are routed offshore. Terrorists and drug smugglers use the same
offshore system that corporations use.
Offshore finance is centred on Britain, the EU and the USA. The City of London runs half
the world's tax havens and holds more than $3.2 trillion in offshore bank deposits, half the
world total. When the Labour government signed the UN Convention against Corruption in 2000,
it exempted all the Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories.
The West's banks, mainly from the USA and Britain, take their cut too. They force
countries further into debt by making them take out new loans to pay off old ones, at ever
higher rates. The bankers make private gains out of public losses.
Well, this is a book that has all the attributes of a well researched book. It is
informative, entertaining but didn't dwell well enough on the historical perspectives that
gave rise to Africa's debilitating circumstances. The author's privileged upbringing may not
have accorded him the opportunities of seeing things with the eyes of the ordinary
dispossessed, repressed and oppressed African whose life is badly structured within the bogus
and fraudulent concept of Nation State. A concept that has robbed him of his due place and
left him stranded in cyclical malady of frightening dimensions! On the whole, the book is
worth reading!!
When I decided to read this book, I did so with the expectation of learning something only after wading through a great degree
of partisan political rhetoric. It did not take me long to realize that Mr. Roberts' book is not what I had expected.
He makes this complex issue accessible to the layman looking to familiarize himself with not only oil, but the energy economy.
Rather choose a side and engage in partisan sniping, he tells the good, the bad, and the ugly of the policies advocated by every
party involved in the energy debate. Not only does he analyze our present situation, but he also studies our several possible
ways forward into a new energy economy.
If I were pressed to make a complaint, it would be that I read the original hardcover edition of the book. A lot of the speculation
regarding "worst case" scenarios involve $50 a barrel oil. Now that we are nearly $100 past that worst case, the educated speculation
portrayed in the book should be coming to pass in the market. I would like to see either a completely updated 2008 edition or
at least one with an updated preface.
A prequel to "The End of Food", this is a most informative book that discusses our dependence on oil; its history, its politics
and its economics. After reading this piece there is much that is more easily understood. Much of international politics and economics
is more clear. The development of new energy sources and their tardiness, and the dependence of many sectors of the economy on
oil is more transparent.
Roberts' sequel, "The End of Food" is highly recommended after you read this book as the interdependence of these two great
industries is amazing.
Paul Roberts does an excellent job in not only telling about the coming troubles with oil, but doing so with an, at times,
humorous style.
He makes no assumptions about the reader's knowledge, and spends the first part of the book explaining how the world got to
be in this mess we are in, by deliniating the different energy eras throughout human history.
Common themes arise, in each era, and they combine to help the reader gain a perspective upon why things are they way they
are.
Mr. Roberts did his research well, with an extensive foot note and bibliography section, yet in the course of this research
he did more than just peruse reports and other books on the matter. He managed to gain access to the indutry leaders, talking
and touring the facilties of the Russians and the Saudis.
If there is any fault, it is that the last chapeters of the book, wherein he extrapolates from his knowledge and research what
he forsees occuring, seems a little less well developed than the earlier chapters. True, they are based upon fact and not prgnostication,
but the writing seems at times rushed, and not up to the level of some of the earlier chapters.
Regardless, this is a book that I highly recommend reading, and is one that I have bought extra copies of for insertion into
my "lending library" of books I share and recommend to friends.
I read this good book, here in Brazil.This book has many excellent parts.To example, about Hirohito, on page 39, this tells
the true:Hirohito was Japan's Hitler and ordered the attack to Pearl Harbor, China and rest of Asia.
On page 176, this book tell that more than 90% of new power plants in the USA burn gas.About american culture, the page 263 has
writen:"By contrast, although car manufactures offer more than thirty car models with with fuel economy of thirty miles for gallon
or better, the ten most fuel-efficient models sold in the United States make up just 2 percent of the sales."
Americans love the SUVs, but to combat the blood of islamic terrorism, the petro-dollars, has no place in american hearts.
About the corrupt and also supporter of terrorism Saudi Arabia, this book is correct.
**************************************************************
This book is weak, when forgets Brazil, that only on page 56 is remebered only one time, without no detail at all.I don't agree,
with this failure only because I'm a brazilian, but also because Brazil is among the world's leaders in oil reserves.See to example,
the site [...] to read about this fact.
About nuclear energy, this book is very weak.On part III, there's talks about replacement of coal and gas for electric energy,but
there's nothing about the fact that France, more than 20 years ago, closed all its coal and gas power plants an replaced all of
them for nuclear power plants.
About ethanol, there's almost nothing.Only on page 340, ethanol is remebered, without any detail.I'm an agronomist and I think
that biofuels are the answer for oil , at least on transportation.My family uses ethanol cars for more than 25 years, without
no problem.
Very readable....Roberts does an excellent job of presenting opinions fairly and from many pro/contra angles. He has fully
immersed himself in his topic and the book is chocked-full of fascinating energy facts.
What to do about our energy future has become as politically polarized as abortion - Conservatives favor fossil fuels and the
Moderate - Liberal folks want to go Renewable.
Roberts is bare-knuckled about what he feels the agendas are behind the current debate, which leads him to a (slightly) reserved
pessimism about our chances of making it out of the mess we've made, by putting all our energy eggs in one basket. He does not
hide his contempt for later-day politicians who can't see the forest for the trees and won't take action to avert the coming energy
drought.
"... "A century after World War I, the great war for oil is still raging, with many of the same fronts as before and also a few new ones. Throughout it all -- whether waged by realists, neoliberals, or neocons -- war has been extremely good for business" (225). ..."
The premise of this book is to say what most of the world's public has probably been thinking since the War on Terror began,
or that it is a "war for natural resources -- and that terrorism has little to do with it. Once the military became mechanized,
oil quickly became the most sought-after commodity on the planet, and the race for energy was eventually framed as a matter of
national security."
John Maszka argues that the "oil conglomerates" are the real "threats to national security". Demonizing "an entire religion"
is a repercussion of this policy. My own research in Rebellion as Genre a few years ago also attempted to point out the misuse
of the term terrorism in its current application, or as a weapon against one's enemies rather than as a reference to a type of
attacks intended to terrorize. Governments that accuse others of terrorism while legitimizing their own "acts of violence" as
"retributive" are clearly breaking human rights agreements and their stated commitments to freedom.
Maszka's perspective is of particular interest because he teaches this subject at the Higher Colleges of Technology in Abu
Dhabi, and has published widely his criticisms of the War on Terror, including Terrorism and the Bush Doctrine.
Many of the books I have read on terrorism from American supporters of this pro-War on Terror doctrine are troubling in their
references to spreading Christianity and other similarly questionable ideologies, so it is refreshing to hear from somebody with
a fresh perspective that is more likely to bring about world peace. The preface acknowledges that this book contrasts with the
bulk of other books in this field. It also explains that it focuses primarily on two "Islamic militant organizations -- al-Qaeda
and the Islamic State".
He explains that perception has a lot to do with who a country is willing to commit violence against, giving the example of
Nazis being able to commit violence on Jews in the Holocaust because of this blindness. Thus, violence against Muslims by the
West in the past two decade is shown as possibly a new Holocaust where the militaries are carrying out orders because Muslims
have been demonized.
Terrorism has historically been the work of a few extremists, or terms like "war" or "revolution" is employed to describe large
groups of such fighters; so it is strange that the West has entered the War on Terror with entire Muslim-majority countries, killing
so many civilians that it is not a stretch to call these Holocaust-like.
The Islamic State targets Muslims as well, also showing dehumanized traits that are even harder to explain (x-xi). The preface
also acknowledges that the author will be using "contractions and anecdotal digressions" as "intentional literary devices", shooing
the standard scholarly style (this is troubling for me personally, as I'm allergic to digressions, but at least he tells readers
what to expect).
As promised, Chapter One begins with a poet's story about the Tree of Life, then discusses the Boston Marathon bombings from
the perspective of the author as he worked in Kyrgyzstan, and goes off on other tangents before reaching this conclusion -- the
marathon's bombers were not terrorists: "They had no political aspirations. They weren't attempting to obtain concessions from
the government or provoke a reaction. They simply believed that they were 'wave sheaves' -- first fruits of God -- and that they
would be instrumental in ushering in the apocalypse" (5).
This conclusion explains the relationship between all of the digressions across this section, so these digressions were necessary
to prove this point, and thus are suitable for a scholarly book. And this is exactly the type of logical reasoning that is missing
in most of the oratory on terrorism. The entire book similarly uses specific acts of supposed terrorism to explain what really
happened and working to understand th motivations of the actors.
Since the author's digressions into his own life are typically very relevant to the subject, they are definitely helpful: "I
was stationed in Riyadh at an American military base that was attacked by an al-Qaeda suicide bomber" (135).
It would actually be unethical if Maszka did not explain that he has been personally affected by al-Qaeda in this context;
and since he has seen this War as a civilian living in the affected countries and as a member of the military that is attaching
these "terrorists", his opinions should be trustworthy for both sides. Given how emotional writing this book with detachment and
carefully crafted research must have been for somebody who has been bombed, it is only fitting that the final chapter is called,
"The Definition of Insanity."
And here is the final chapter:
"A century after World War I, the great war for oil is still raging, with many of the same fronts as before and also
a few new ones. Throughout it all -- whether waged by realists, neoliberals, or neocons -- war has been extremely good for
business" (225).
Very powerful words that are justly supported. I would strongly recommend that everybody in the West's militaries who is responsible
for making decisions in the War on Terror read this book before they make their next decision. Who are they shooting at? Why?
Who is benefiting? Who is dying? Are they committing war crimes as serious as the Nazis? If there is any chance these allegations
are true what kind of a military leader can proceed without understanding the explanations that Maszka offers here? This would
probably also work well in an advanced graduate class, despite its digressions, it will probably help students write better dissertations
on related topics.
The world is about to run out of cheap oil and change dramatically. Within the next few years, global production will peak. Thereafter,
even if industrial societies begin to switch to alternative energy sources, they will have less net energy each year to do all the
work essential to the survival of complex societies. We are entering a new era, as different from the industrial era as the latter
was from medieval times.
In The Party's Over , Richard Heinberg places this momentous transition in historical context, showing how industrialism
arose from the harnessing of fossil fuels, how competition to control access to oil shaped the geopolitics of the twentieth century
and how contention for dwindling energy resources in the twenty-first century will lead to resource wars in the Middle East, Central
Asia and South America. He describes the likely impacts of oil depletion and all of the energy alternatives. Predicting chaos unless
the United States -- the world's foremost oil consumer -- is willing to join with other countries to implement a global program of
resource conservation and sharing, he also recommends a "managed collapse" that might make way for a slower-paced, low-energy, sustainable
society in the future.
More readable than other accounts of this issue, with fuller discussion of the context, social implications and recommendations
for personal, community, national and global action, Heinberg's updated book is a riveting wake-up call for human-kind as the oil
era winds down, and a critical tool for understanding and influencing current US foreign policy.
Richard Heinberg , from Santa Rosa, California, has been writing about energy resources issues and the dynamics of cultural
change for many years. A member of the core faculty at New College of California, he is an award-winning author of three previous
books. His Museletter was nominated for the Best Alternative Newsletter award by Utne in 1993.
Well, how to describe something that is so drastic in predictions as to make one quiver? Heinberg spells out a future for humans
that is not very optimistic but sadly, is more accurate than any of us would like. The information and research done by the author
is first rate and irrefutable, which is as it should be. The news: dire. This is my first in a series of his work and indeed,
it's a love/hate experience since there is a lot of hopelessness in the outcome of our current path. Be that as it may, this is
a book to cherish and an author to admire.
Surprizingly its not about the rising cost of the energy that you personally use. Its about the whole economy that has been
built on using a non-replenishable energy supply. You know how those economists always count on the 3% growth in the GDP. Well
the book argues that this long term growth is fundamentally driven by our long term growth in energy usage, which everyone knows
will have to turn around at some point.
The other surprizing fact is that the turning point is long before you run out of oil. Heinberg shows data that indicates that
half of the oil is still left in the ground when the returns start to diminish. And it appears that that we are within a few years
of reaching that point.
So we've used up about half the "available" ( i.e. feasible to extract from an energy perspective ) oil. Now oil production
starts to decrease. What happens next is anyone's guess, but Heinburg presents some detailed discussions on the possiblities.
Don't assume that a coal, nuclear, or "hydrogen" economy are going to be as easy and profitable as the petroleum economy we are
leaving behind.
I've read lots of books about energy and the environment, and this is definitely one of the best.
Part history and part prophesy, this book is an outstanding summary of many major issues facing Western industrial society.
Author Richard Heinberg provides a scholarly critique of modern industrialism, focusing on its current use of energy, and a sobering
forecast based on predictable trends.
The key point of the book is that the Earth's crust can provide mankind with an essentially finite amount of fossil fuel energy,
with primary reference to oil. Drawing on the relatively unknown, and oft-misunderstood, concept of "peak oil," the book addresses
the imminent shortfall of petroleum that will not be available on world markets. That day of reckoning is far closer than most
people think. "Peak oil" is a global application of Geologist M. King Hubbert's (1903-1989) studies of oil production in "mature"
exploration districts. That is, exploration for oil in sedimentary basins at first yields substantial discoveries, which are then
produced. Additional exploration yields less and less "new" oil discovered, and that level of discovery coming at greater and
greater effort. Eventually, absent additional significant discovery, production "peaks" and then commences an irreversible decline.
This has already occurred in the U.S. in the 1970's, and is in the process of occurring in oil-producing nations such as Mexico,
Britain, Egypt, Indonesia and Malaysia. Ominously, "peak" production can be forecast in the next few years in such significant
producing nations as Saudi Arabia and Iraq (in addition to all of the other problems in those unfortunate nations.)
Much of the rise of industrial society was tied to increasing availability of high energy-density fuel, particularly oil. Western
society, and its imitators in non-Western lands, is based upon access to large amounts of energy-dense fuel, and that fuel is
oil. With respect to the U.S., the domestic decline in oil production has been made up, over the past thirty years, by increasing
imports from other locales, with concomitant political risk. When the world production "peaks" in the next few years, the competition
for energy sources will become more fierce than it already is. This book addresses issues related to what are commonly thought
of as "substitutes" for oil, such as coal, natural gas and natural gas liquids, and shatters many myths. The author also delves
deeply into energy sources such as "tar sand," "oil shale," nuclear and renewable sources. And thankfully, the author offers a
number of proposals to address the looming problem (although these proposals are probably not what an awful lot of people want
to hear.)
A book like this one could easily descend into a tawdry level of "chicken-little" squawks and utter tendentiousness. But thankfully
it does not do so. This is a mature, well-reasoned and carefully footnoted effort. I could take issue with some of the author's
points about "big business" and how decisions are made at high political levels, but not in this review. Instead I will simply
congratulate Mr. Heinberg for writing an important contribution to social discourse. I hope that a lot of people read this book
and start to look at and think about the world differently.
Maybe the most important book since Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species". This volume represents THE wakeup call for a
world society quite literally addicted to crude oil for its continuation, and, in most cases, it's very survival.
Heinberg has done his homework, and this volume should be required reading for anyone in an industrialized nation, or one just
getting started down that road. It is a proven scientific fact that within a few years, we will begin to run out of oil, and it
will be pretty much gone within 5 or 6 decades. Considering that we have built our entire society around an oil economy, the implications
are dire - far, far beyond not being able to drive through the coffee shop with the kids in your SUV on the way home from the
mall. Alternative energy sources? Dream on - read on.
The book is thoroughly researched, well-thought and organized and presents the often dissenting views at every side of this
hugely important issue. It is also delightfully written and composed, and is fun and quick to read.
I highly recommend this book, and I hope at least one person reads what I'm writing and buys this book. And I hope they tell
someone, too.
How universities, banks and the government turned student debt into America's next financial black hole...
On a wind-swept, frigid night in February 2009, a 37-year-old schoolteacher named Scott Nailor parked his rusted '92 Toyota Tercel
in the parking lot of a Fireside Inn in Auburn, Maine. He picked this spot to have a final reckoning with himself. He was going to
end his life.
Beaten down after more than a decade of struggle with student debt, after years of taking false doors and slipping into various
puddles of bureaucratic quicksand, he was giving up the fight. "This is it, I'm done," he remembers thinking. "I sat there and just
sort of felt like I'm going to take my life. I'm going to find a way to park this car in the garage, with it running or whatever."
Nailor's problems began at 19 years old, when he borrowed for tuition so that he could pursue a bachelor's degree at the University
of Southern Maine. He graduated summa cum laude four years later and immediately got a job in his field, as an English teacher.
Bu t he graduated with $35,000 in debt, a big hill to climb on a part-time teacher's $18,000 salary. He struggled with payments,
and he and his wife then consolidated their student debt, which soon totaled more than $50,000. They declared bankruptcy and defaulted
on the loans. From there he found himself in a loan "rehabilitation" program that added to his overall balance. "That's when the
noose began to tighten," he says.
The collectors called day and night, at work and at home. "In the middle of class too, while I was teaching," he says. He ended
up in another rehabilitation program that put him on a road toward an essentially endless cycle of rising payments. Today, he pays
$471 a month toward "rehabilitation," and, like countless other borrowers, he pays nothing at all toward his real debt, which he
now calculates would cost more than $100,000 to extinguish. "Not one dollar of it goes to principal," says Nailor. "I will never
be able to pay it off. My only hope to escape from this crushing debt is to die."
After repeated phone calls with lending agencies about his ever-rising interest payments, Nailor now believes things will only
get worse with time. "At this rate, I may easily break $1 million in debt before I retire from teaching," he says.
Nailor had more than once reached the stage in his thoughts where he was thinking about how to physically pull off his suicide.
"I'd been there before, that just was the worst of it," he says. "It scared me, bad."
He had a young son and a younger daughter, but Nailor had been so broken by the experience of financial failure that he managed
to convince himself they would be better off without him. What saved him is that he called his wife to say goodbye. "I don't know
why I called my wife. I'm glad I did," he says. "I just wanted her or someone to tell me to pick it up, keep fighting, it's going
to be all right. And she did."
From that moment, Nailor managed to focus on his family. Still, the core problem – the spiraling debt that has taken over his
life, as it has for millions of other Americans – remains.
Horror stories about student debt are nothing new. But this school year marks a considerable worsening of a tale that ought to
have been a national emergency years ago. The government in charge of regulating this mess is now filled with predatory monsters
who have extensive ties to the exploitative for-profit education industry – from Donald Trump himself to Education Secretary Betsy
DeVos, who sets much of the federal loan policy, to Julian Schmoke, onetime dean of the infamous DeVry University, whom Trump appointed
to police fraud in education.
Americans don't understand the student-loan crisis because they've been trained to view the issue in terms of a series of separate,
unrelated problems.
They will read in one place that as of the summer of 2017, a record 8.5 million Americans are in default on their student debt,
with about $1.3 trillion in loans still outstanding.
In another place, voters will read that the cost of higher education is skyrocketing, soaring in a seemingly market-defying arc
that for nearly a decade now has run almost double the rate of inflation. Tuition for a halfway decent school now frequently surpasses
$50,000 a year. How, the average newsreader wonders, can any child not born in a yacht afford to go to school these days?
In a third place, that same reader will see some heartless monster, usually a Republican, threatening to cut federal student lending.
The current bogeyman is Trump, who is threatening to slash the Pell Grant program by $3.9 billion, which would seem to put higher
education even further out of reach for poor and middle-income families. This too seems appalling, and triggers a different kind
of response, encouraging progressive voters to lobby for increased availability for educational lending.
But the separateness of these stories clouds the unifying issue underneath: The education industry as a whole is a con. In fact,
since the mortgage business blew up in 2008, education and student debt is probably our reigning unexposed nation-wide scam.
It's a multiparty affair, what shakedown artists call a "big store scheme," like in the movie The Sting : a complex deception
requiring a big cast to string the mark along every step of the way. In higher education, every party you meet, from the moment you
first set foot on campus, is in on the game.
America as a country has evolved in recent decades into a confederacy of widescale industrial scams. The biggest slices of our
economic pie – sectors like health care, military production, banking, even commercial and residential real estate – have become
crude income-redistribution schemes, often untethered from the market by subsidies or bailouts, with the richest companies benefiting
from gamed or denuded regulatory systems that make profits almost as assured as taxes. Guaranteed-profit scams – that's the last
thing America makes with any level of consistent competence. In that light, Trump, among other things, the former head of a schlock
diploma mill called Trump University, is a perfect president for these times. He's the scammer-in-chief in the Great American Ripoff
Age, a time in which fleecing students is one of our signature achievements.
It starts with the sales pitch colleges make to kids. The thrust of it is usually that people who go to college make lots more
money than the unfortunate dunces who don't. "A bachelor's degree is worth $2.8 million on average over a lifetime" is how Georgetown
University put it. The Census Bureau tells us similarly that a master's degree is worth on average about $1.3 million more than a
high school diploma.
But these stats say more about the increasing uselessness of a high school degree than they do about the value of a college diploma.
Moreover, since virtually everyone at the very highest strata of society has a college degree, the stats are skewed by a handful
of financial titans. A college degree has become a minimal status marker as much as anything else. "I'm sure people who take polo
lessons or sailing lessons earn a lot more on average too," says Alan Collinge of Student Loan Justice, which advocates for debt
forgiveness and other reforms. "Does that mean you should send your kids to sailing school?"
But the pitch works on everyone these days, especially since good jobs for Trump's beloved "poorly educated" are scarce to nonexistent.
Going to college doesn't guarantee a good job, far from it, but the data show that not going dooms most young people to an increasingly
shallow pool of the very crappiest, lowest-paying jobs. There's a lot of stick, but not much carrot, in the education game.
It's a vicious cycle. Since everyone feels obligated to go to college, most everyone who can go, does, creating a glut of graduates.
And as that glut of degree recipients grows, the squeeze on the un-degreed grows tighter, increasing further that original negative
incentive: Don't go to college, and you'll be standing on soup lines by age 25.
With that inducement in place, colleges can charge almost any amount, and kids will pay – so long as they can get the money. And
here we run into problem number two: It's too easy to find that money.
Parents, not wanting their kids to fall behind, will pay every dollar they have. But if they don't have the cash, there is a virtually
unlimited amount of credit available to young people. Proposed cuts to Pell Grants aside, the landscape is filled with public and
private lending, and students gobble it up. Kids who walk into financial-aid offices are often not told what signing their names
on the various aid forms will mean down the line. A lot of kids don't even understand the concept of interest or amortization tables
– they think if they're borrowing $8,000, they're paying back $8,000.
Nailor certainly was unaware of what he was getting into when he was 19. "I had no idea [about interest]," he says. "I just remember
thinking, 'I don't have to worry about it right now. I want to go to school.' " He pauses in disgust. "It's unsettling to remember
how it was like, 'Here, just sign this and you're all set.' I wish I could take the time machine back and slap myself in the face."
The average amount of debt for a student leaving school is skyrocketing even faster than the rate of tuition increase.
In 2016, for instance, the average amount of debt for an exiting college graduate was a staggering $37,172. That's a rise of six
percent over just the previous year. With the average undergraduate interest rate at about 3.7 percent, the interest alone costs
around $115 per month, meaning anyone who can't afford to pay into the principal faces the prospect of $69,000 in payments over 50
years.
So here's the con so far.
You must go to college because you're screwed if you don't.
Costs are outrageously high, but you pay them because you have to, and because the system makes it easy to borrow massive amounts
of money
The third part of the con is the worst: You can't get out of the debt.
Since government lenders in particular have virtually unlimited power to collect on student debt – preying on everything from
salary to income-tax returns – even running is not an option. And since most young people find themselves unable to make their full
payments early on, they often find themselves perpetually paying down interest only, never touching the principal. Our billionaire
president can declare bankruptcy four times, but students are the one class of citizen that may not do it even once.
October 2017 was supposed to represent the first glimmer of light at the end of this tunnel. This month marks the 10th anniversary
of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, one of the few avenues for wiping out student debt. The idea, launched by George
W. Bush, was pretty simple: Students could pledge to work 10 years for the government or a nonprofit and have their debt forgiven.
In order to qualify, borrowers had to make payments for 10 years using a complex formula. This month, then, was to start the first
mass wipeouts of debt in the history of American student lending. But more than half of the 700,000 enrollees have already been expunged
from the program for, among other things, failing to certify their incomes on time, one of many bureaucratic tricks employed to limit
forgiveness eligibility. To date, fewer than 500 participants are scheduled to receive loan forgiveness in this first round.
Moreover, Trump has called for the program's elimination by 2018, meaning that any relief that begins this month is likely only
temporary. The only thing that is guaranteed to remain real for the immediate future are the massive profits being generated on the
backs of young people, who before long become old people who, all too often, remain ensnared until their last days in one of the
country's most brilliant and devious moneymaking schemes.
Everybody wins in this madness, except students. Even though many of the loans are originated by the state, most of them are serviced
by private or quasi-private companies like Navient – which until 2014 was the student-loan arm of Sallie Mae – or Nelnet, companies
that reported a combined profit of around $1 billion last year (the U.S. government made a profit of $1.6 billion in 2016!). Debt-collector
companies like Performant (which generated $141.4 million in revenues; the family of Betsy DeVos is a major investor), and most particularly
the colleges and universities, get to prey on the desperation and terror of parents and young people, and in the process rake in
vast sums virtually without fear of market consequence.
About that: Universities, especially public institutions, have successfully defended rising tuition in recent years by blaming
the hikes on reduced support from states. But this explanation was blown to bits in large part due to a bizarre slip-up in the middle
of a controversy over state support of the University of Wisconsin system a few years ago.
In that incident, UW raised tuition by 5.5 percent six years in a row after 2007. The school blamed stresses from the financial
crisis and decreased state aid. But when pressed during a state committee hearing in 2013 about the university's finances, UW system
president Kevin Reilly admitted they held $648 million in reserve, including $414 million in tuition payments. This was excess hidey-hole
cash the school was sitting on, separate and distinct from, say, an endowment fund.
After the university was showered with criticism for hoarding cash at a time when it was gouging students with huge price increases
every year, the school responded by saying, essentially, it only did what all the other kids were doing. UW released data showing
that other major state-school systems across the country were similarly stashing huge amounts of cash. While Wisconsin's surplus
was only 25 percent of its operating budget, for instance, Minnesota's was 29 percent, and Illinois maintained a whopping 34 percent
reserve.
When Collinge, of Student Loan Justice, looked into it, he found that the phenomenon wasn't confined to state schools. Private
schools, too, have been hoarding cash even as they plead poverty and jack up tuition fees. "They're all doing it," he says.
While universities sit on their stockpiles of cash and the loan industry generates record profits, the pain of living in debilitating
debt for many lasts into retirement. Take Veronica Martish. She's a 68-year-old veteran, having served in the armed forces in the
Vietnam era. She's also a grandmother who's never been in trouble and consid?ers herself a patriot. "The thing is, I tried to do
everything right in my life," she says. "But this ruined my life."
This is an $8,000 student loan she took out in 1989, through Sallie Mae. She borrowed the money so she could take courses at Quinebaug
Valley Community College in Connecticut. Five years later, after deaths in her family, she fell behind on her payments and entered
a loan-rehabilitation program. "That's when my nightmare began," she says.
In rehabilitation, Martish's $8,000 loan, with fees and interest, ballooned into a $27,000 debt, which she has been carrying ever
since. She says she's paid more than $63,000 to date and is nowhere near discharging the principal. "By the time I die," she says,
"I will probably pay more than $200,000 toward an $8,000 loan." She pauses. "It's a scam, you see. Nothing ever comes off the loan.
It's all interest and fees. And they chase you until you're old, like me. They never stop. Ever."
And that's the other thing about lending to students: It's the safest grift around.
There's probably no better symbol of the bankruptcy of the education industry than Trump University. The half-literate president's
effort at higher learning drew in suckers with pathetic promises of great real-estate insights (for instance, that Trump "hand-picked"
the instructors) and then charged them truckfuls of cash for get-rich-quick tutorials that students and faculty later described as
"almost completely worthless" and a "total lie." That Trump got to settle a lawsuit on this matter for $25 million and still managed
to be elected president is, ironically, a remarkable testament to the failure of our education system. About the only example that
might be worse is DeVry University, which told students that 90 percent of graduates seeking jobs found them in their fields within
six months of graduation. The FTC found those claims "false and unsubstantiated," and ordered $100 million in refunds and debt relief,
but that was in 2016 – before Trump put DeVry chief Schmoke, of all people, in charge of rooting out education fraud. Like a lot
of things connected to politics lately, it would be funny if it weren't somehow actually happening.?"Yeah, it's the fox guarding
the henhouse," says Collinge. "You could probably find a worse analogy."
But the real problem with the student-loan story is that it's so poorly understood by people not living the nightmare. There's
so much propaganda that blames the borrowers for taking on the debt in the first place that there's often little sympathy for people
in hopeless situations. To make matters worse, band-aid programs that supposedly offer help hypnotize the public into thinking there
are ways out, when the "help" is usually just another trick to add to the balance.
"That's part of the problem with the narrative," says Nailor, the schoolteacher. "People think that there's help, so what are
you complaining about? All you got to do is apply for help."
But the help, he says, coming from a for-profit predatory system, often just makes things worse. "It did for me," he says. "It
does for a lot of people."
The real flaw is associating "higher" education with value. Get a job. Earn an income. Find an interest for your free time.
Raise a family. Spare the four years of wasted time and money.
If you want to take the risk of going into debt to attend college, you better come out with skills that are in high demand.
Otherwise you are much better off going into the military, or going to trade school. BTW, thank the Clintons for making it
impossible to get out of student debt through bankruptcy.
If you want to give out loans to kids then you should accept the risk that they might default on that debt and leave you
with the tab. Let's stop the coddling the banker bullshit. They lobbied to make this loans extremely difficult to discharge
in bankruptcy. They wanted all the profit and none of the risk. Let them assume risk and they'll stop handing out loans to
unqualified borrowers.
Amen! If the money for an "education" is more difficult to obtain, that ought to be a clue as to the value of the information
/ training one is purchasing. The fact it's so easy to get is all one needs to know about the worth of what's being spewed
by those dispensing their so-called knowledge / truth.
Allow the lawful discharge through bankruptcy and punish every single financial institution, (and especially their individual
persons who oversaw the process), that has profited off of ballooning "principle" amounts that even come close to doubling
an original amount with ties to any government official that voted to place these kind of loans in such a category.
This is madness! "Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees,..." Isaiah 10:1
Finally at least one person gets it. The inability to discharge student loan debt through the taint of bankruptcy is one
of the greatest financial crimes of the last century. Entirely unAmerican. America used to be all about fresh starts. That
is one reason our business life is more vibrant than say many places in Europe with less benign laws. Same goes for individuals.
If you go through the pain of bankruptcy there is no reason you shouldnt get that debt discharged. Whomever voted for that
law, whether Clintons or others should be beaten to death.
Hobart's 38-week combo welder program costs $16,625. A trained kid willing to travel and work in the field would make more
than an engineering graduate who paid a quarter-million for his degree.
No mention made of the rats nest Social Justice program$ infesting college and university campuses across the country, at
untold cost, worthless sullshit.
Not that the student loan thing isn't another banker scam, but the lead story doesn't make sense.
Firstly, educators get
loan forgiveness after a decade or two of public service. And there are income contingent repayment plans. And lawyers have,
in fact, been able to get these things discharged. None of this changes the scam that is giving out high interest loans to
kids to pursue an education. But you might want to start with a sob story that makes more sense. How about a pediatrician with
400k in loans and making 100k a year living in a coastal city? Or how about the art history majors at private liberal arts
schools with 200k in debt making $10/hour as a barista? But teachers are one of the few groups that has an actual federal out.
Maybe. My wife is a teacher in a Title I, low income school, and had been for 13 years..... She also has about 13K remaining in student loans, originally federal direct and Perkins loans. With her over 10 years in title I schools, she should be able to get them forgiven, except that she consolidated these loans
before I met her, and now they are "serviced" by AES, a private lender, and they are no longer eligible for discharge. This I call the "Consolidation Scam."
Pay off debt before you have children. There is no law that you must have children, if the debt makes it impossible. I would
have liked a lot of tings but could not afford them.
Taibbi has some gall to blame Trump, DeVos and others for the student debt explosion, but not one word about Obama or the
government's takeover of the student loan market as part of Obamacare? The student loan market was folded into the ACA as part
of the fake accounting to make the ACA numbers "work". Every market the govenrment insinuates itself into - housing, health
care, college tuition, etc. - gets distorted and costs explode. Taibbi's yet another dishonest liberal.
Yikes- is this factual? If so fuck him. All name, no cattle.
Obama began his turn as destroyer in chief at the height of the Great Recession, everyone & their brother was running into
the safety of college & student loans to pay the bills. I recall watching the local parking lots swell. :) So there's that.
But numbers are off the charts every year because younger millennials expect the govt to forgive all those loans at some
point. That's how many thought 20 years ago & it's worse today.
"The nexus between the student loan program and ObamaCare is purely opportunistic. As the Affordable Care Act was passing
through Congress, its wheels greased by the wholly fraudulent assertion that it didn't need 60 votes to pass the Senate, the
administration decided to put in a provision eliminating the private student loan industry, fully federalizing the program.
What was not widely understood at the time was that it hoped to raid the funds paid by students to provide money for the bottomless
pit known as ObamaCare"
In 1980, the states subsidized 70% of the cost per student. Today it is less than 30% and the amount of grants and scholarships
has likewise declined. Tax cuts for rich people and conservative hatred for education are the biggest problem.
Notable quotes:
"... "easy" student loans are a subsidy to colleges, ..."
"... 1965 median family income was $6900, more than 200% of the cost of a year at NU. Current median family income is about 75% of a year at NU. ..."
"... Allowing young adults to avoid challenging and uncomfortable and difficult subjects under the guise of compassion is the enemy of meritocracy. Financial illiteracy is the enemy of meritocracy. ..."
"... The specific market dynamics of health care expenditures are obviously different, but as categories of expenses they have some things in common. First, both are very expensive relative to most other household expenditures. Second, unlike consumer merchandise, neither lends itself very well to cost reduction via offshoring or automation. So in an economy where many consumer prices are held down through a corresponding suppression of real wage growth, they consume a correspondingly larger chunk of the household budget. ..."
"... JUST HAD AN IDEA THAT MIGHT LIMIT THE DAMAGE OF THESE PHONEY ONLINE COLLEGES (pardon shouting, but I think it's justified): ..."
"... of-paying) IF a built for that purpose government agency APPROVES said loan. What do you think? ..."
"... Kaplan Ed is among the worst of the worst of internet federal loan and grant sucking diploma mills. ..."
"... Because every event in today's economy is the wish of the wealthy. Do you see why they suddenly wish to deeply educate the proles? ..."
Thomas Piketty on a theme I've been hammering lately, student debt is too damn high!:
Student Loan Debt Is the Enemy
of Meritocracy in the US: ...the amount of household debt and even more recently of student debt in the U.S. is something
that is really troublesome and it reflects the very large rise in tuition in the U.S. a very large inequality in access to education.
I think if we really want to promote more equal opportunity and redistribute chances in access to education we should do something
about student debt. And it's not possible to have such a large group of the population entering the labor force with such a big
debt behind them. This exemplifies a particular problem with inequality in the United States, which is very high inequality and
access to higher education. So in other countries in the developed world you don't have such massive student debt because you
have more public support to higher education. I think the plan that was proposed earlier this year in 2015 by President Obama
to increase public funding to public universities and community college is exactly justified.
This is really the key for higher growth in the future and also for a more equitable growth..., you have the official discourse
about meritocracy, equal opportunity and mobility, and then you have the reality. And the gap between the two can be quite troublesome.
So this is like you have a problem like this and there's a lot of hypocrisy about meritocracy in every country, not only in the
U.S., but there is evidence suggesting that this has become particularly extreme in the United States. ... So this is a situation
that is very troublesome and should rank very highly in the policy agenda in the future in the U.S.
DrDick -> Jeff R Carter:
"college is heavily subsidized"
Bwahahahahahahaha! *gasp*
In 1980, the states subsidized 70% of the cost per student. Today it is less than 30% and the amount of grants and scholarships
has likewise declined. Tax cuts for rich people and conservative hatred for education are the biggest problem.
cm -> to DrDick...
I don't know what Jeff meant, but "easy" student loans are a subsidy to colleges, don't you think? Subsidies don't
have to be paid directly to the recipient. The people who are getting the student loans don't get to keep the money (but they
do get to keep the debt).
DrDick -> to cm...
No I do not agree. If anything, they are a subsidy to the finance industry (since you cannot default on them). More basically,
they do not make college more affordable or accessible (his point).
cm -> to DrDick...
Well, what is a subsidy? Most economic entities don't get to keep the money they receive, but it ends up with somebody else
or circulates. If I run a business and somebody sends people with money my way (or pays me by customer served), that looks like
a subsidy to me - even though I don't get to keep the money, much of it paid for operational expenses not to forget salaries and
other perks.
Just because it is not prearranged and no-strings (?) funding doesn't mean it cannot be a subsidy.
The financial system is involved, and benefits, whenever money is sloshing around.
Pinkybum -> to cm...
I think DrDick has this the right way around. Surely one should think of subsidies as to who the payment is directly helping.
Subsidies to students would lower the barrier of entry into college. Subsidies to colleges help colleges hire better professors,
offer more classes, reduce the cost of classes etc. Student loans are no subsidy at all except to the finance industry because
they cannot be defaulted on and even then some may never be paid back because of bankruptcies.
However, that is always the risk of doing business as a loan provider. It might be interesting to assess the return on student
loans compared to other loan instruments.
mrrunangun -> to Jeff R Carter...
The cost of higher education has risen relative to the earning power of the student and/or the student's family unless that
family is in the top 10-20% wealth or income groups.
50 years ago it was possible for a lower middle class student to pay all expenses for Northwestern University with his/her
own earnings. Tuition was $1500 and room + board c $1000/year. The State of Illinois had a scholarship grant program and all you
needed was a 28 or 29 on the ACT to qualify for a grant that paid 80% of that tuition. A male student could make $2000 in a summer
construction job, such as were plentiful during those booming 60s. That plus a low wage job waiting tables, night security, work-study
etc could cover the remaining tuition and expense burden.
The annual nut now is in excess of $40,000 at NU and not much outside the $40,000-50,000 range at other second tier or elite
schools.
The state schools used to produce the bedrock educated upper middle class of business and professional people in most states
west of the seaboard. Tuition there 50 years ago was about $1200/year and room and board about $600-800 here in the midwest. Again
you could put yourself through college waiting tables part-time. It wasn't easy but it was possible.
No way a kid who doesn't already possess an education can make the tuition and expenses of a private school today. I don't
know what the median annual family income was in 1965 but I feel confident that it was well above the annual nut for a private
college. Now it's about equal to it.
mrrunangun -> to mrrunangun...
1965 median family income was $6900, more than 200% of the cost of a year at NU. Current median family income is about
75% of a year at NU.
This allows a reader to understand how the graph was constructed and to work with the graph.
ilsm:
The US spends half the money the entire world spends on war, that is success!
Massive student debt, huge doses poverty, scores of thousands [of annual neglect related] deaths from the wretched health care
system etc are not failure!
tew:
Poor education is the enemy of meritocracy. Costly, bloated administrations full of non-educators there to pamper and pander
to every possible complaint and special interest - that is the enemy of meritocracy.
Convincing kids to simple "follow their dreams" regardless of education cost and career potential is the enemy of meritocracy.
Allowing young adults to avoid challenging and uncomfortable and difficult subjects under the guise of compassion is the enemy
of meritocracy. Financial illiteracy is the enemy of meritocracy.
Manageable student debt is no great enemy of meritocracy.
cm -> to tew...
This misses the point, aside frm the victim blaming. Few people embark on college degrees to "follow their dream", unless the
dream is getting admission to the middle class job market.
When I was in elementary/middle school, the admonitions were of the sort "if you are not good in school you will end up sweeping
streets" - from a generation who still saw street cleaning as manual labor, in my days it was already mechanized.
I estimate that about 15% or so of every cohort went to high school and then college, most went to a combined vocational/high
school track, and some of those then later also went college, often from work.
This was before the big automation and globalization waves, when there were still enough jobs for everybody, and there was
no pretense that you needed a fancy title to do standard issue work or as a social signal of some sort.
Richard H. Serlin:
Student loans and college get the bulk of the education inequality attention, and it's not nearly enough attention, but it's
so much more. The early years are so crucial, as Nobel economist James Heckman has shown so well. Some children get no schooling
or educational/developmental day care until almost age 6, when it should start in the first year, with preschool starting at 3.
Others get high quality Montessori, and have had 3 years of it by the time they enter kindergarten, when others have had zero
of any kind of education when they enter kindergarten.
Some children spend summers in high quality summer school and educational programs; others spend three months digressing and
learning nothing. Some children get SAT prep programs costing thousands, and high end educational afterschool programs; others
get nothing after school.
All these things should be available in high quality to any child; it's not 1810 anymore Republicans, the good old days of
life expectancy in the 30s and dirt poverty for the vast majority. We need just a little more education in the modern world. But
this also makes for hugely unequal opportunity.
One needs to differentiate between costs (total dollars spent per student credit hour or degree, or whatever the appropriate
metric is) and price (what fraction of the cost is allocated to the the end-user student).
Note that the level of state funding impacts price, not cost; that discussion is usually about cost shifting, not cost reduction.
I'd say that the rate of increase in costs is, more or less, independent of the percent of costs borne by the state. You can
indeed see this in the increase in private schools, the state funding is small/nil (particularly in schools without material endowments,
where actual annual fees (prices) must closely actual match annual costs). Price discounts and federal funding may both complicate
this analysis.
I think much more effort should be spent on understanding and controlling costs. As with health care, just saying "spend more
money" is probably not the wise or even sustainable path in the long term.
Costs were discussed at some length here a year(?) or so ago. There is at least one fairly comprehensive published analysis
of higher education costs drivers. IIRC, their conclusion was that there were a number of drivers - its not just food courts or
more administrators. Sorry, don't recall the link.
Syaloch -> to cm...
Actually for my first job out of college at BLS, I basically was hired for my "rounded personality" combined with a general
understanding of economic principles, not for any specific job-related skills. I had no prior experience working with Laspeyres
price indexes, those skills were acquired through on-the-job training. Similarly in software development there is no degree that
can make you a qualified professional developer; the best a degree can do is to show you are somewhat literate in X development
language and that you have a good understanding of general software development principles. Most of the specific skills you'll
need to be effective will be learned on the job.
The problem is that employers increasingly want to avoid any responsibility for training and mentoring, and to shift this burden
onto schools. These institutions respond by jettisoning courses in areas deemed unnecessary for short-term vocational purposes,
even though what you learn in many of these courses is probably more valuable and durable in the long run than the skills obtained
through job-specific training, which often have a remarkably short shelf-life. (How valuable to you now is all that COBOL training
you had back in the day?)
I guess the question then is, is the sole purpose of higher education to provide people with entry-level job skills for some
narrowly-defined job description which may not even exist in a decade? A lot of people these days seem to feel that way. But I
believe that in the long run it's a recipe for disaster at both the individual and the societal level.
Richard H. Serlin -> to Observer...
"Observer"
The research is just not on you side, as Heckman has shown very well. Early education and development makes a huge difference,
and at age 5-7 (kindergarten) children are much better off with more schooling than morning to noon. This is why educated parents
who can afford it pay a lot of money for a full day -- with afterschool and weekened programs on top.
Yes, we're more educated than 1810, but I use 1810 because that's the kind of small government, little spending on education
(you want your children educated you pay for it.) that the Republican Party would love to return us to if they thought they could
get away with it. And we've become little more educated in the last 50 years even though the world has become much more technologically
advanced.
Judging both from comments on this blog and from some of my mail, a significant number of Americans believe that the answer
to our health care problems - indeed, the only answer - is to rely on the free market. Quite a few seem to believe that this view
reflects the lessons of economic theory.
Not so. One of the most influential economic papers of the postwar era was Kenneth Arrow's "Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics
of Health Care," * which demonstrated - decisively, I and many others believe - that health care can't be marketed like bread
or TVs. Let me offer my own version of Arrow's argument.
There are two strongly distinctive aspects of health care. One is that you don't know when or whether you'll need care - but
if you do, the care can be extremely expensive. The big bucks are in triple coronary bypass surgery, not routine visits to the
doctor's office; and very, very few people can afford to pay major medical costs out of pocket.
This tells you right away that health care can't be sold like bread. It must be largely paid for by some kind of insurance.
And this in turn means that someone other than the patient ends up making decisions about what to buy. Consumer choice is nonsense
when it comes to health care. And you can't just trust insurance companies either - they're not in business for their health,
or yours.
This problem is made worse by the fact that actually paying for your health care is a loss from an insurers' point of view
- they actually refer to it as "medical costs." This means both that insurers try to deny as many claims as possible, and that
they try to avoid covering people who are actually likely to need care. Both of these strategies use a lot of resources, which
is why private insurance has much higher administrative costs than single-payer systems. And since there's a widespread sense
that our fellow citizens should get the care we need - not everyone agrees, but most do - this means that private insurance basically
spends a lot of money on socially destructive activities.
The second thing about health care is that it's complicated, and you can't rely on experience or comparison shopping. ("I hear
they've got a real deal on stents over at St. Mary's!") That's why doctors are supposed to follow an ethical code, why we expect
more from them than from bakers or grocery store owners.
You could rely on a health maintenance organization to make the hard choices and do the cost management, and to some extent
we do. But HMOs have been highly limited in their ability to achieve cost-effectiveness because people don't trust them - they're
profit-making institutions, and your treatment is their cost.
Between those two factors, health care just doesn't work as a standard market story.
All of this doesn't necessarily mean that socialized medicine, or even single-payer, is the only way to go. There are a number
of successful healthcare systems, at least as measured by pretty good care much cheaper than here, and they are quite different
from each other. There are, however, no examples of successful health care based on the principles of the free market, for one
simple reason: in health care, the free market just doesn't work. And people who say that the market is the answer are flying
in the face of both theory and overwhelming evidence.
I believe so, as I noted above. The specific market dynamics of health care expenditures are obviously different, but as categories
of expenses they have some things in common. First, both are very expensive relative to most other household expenditures. Second,
unlike consumer merchandise, neither lends itself very well to cost reduction via offshoring or automation. So in an economy where
many consumer prices are held down through a corresponding suppression of real wage growth, they consume a correspondingly larger
chunk of the household budget.
Another interesting feature of both health care and college education is that there are many proffered explanations as to why
their cost is rising so much relative to other areas, but a surprising lack of a really authoritative explanation based on solid
evidence.
anne -> to Syaloch...
Another interesting feature of both health care and college education is that there are many proffered explanations as to why
their cost is rising so much relative to other areas, but a surprising lack of a really authoritative explanation based on solid
evidence.
[ Look to the paper by Kenneth Arrow, which I cannot copy, for what is to me a convincing explanation as to the market defeating
factors of healthcare. However, I have no proper explanation about education costs and am only speculating or looking for an analogy.
]
anne -> to Syaloch...
The specific market dynamics of health care expenditures are obviously different, but as categories of expenses they have
some things in common. First, both are very expensive relative to most other household expenditures. Second, unlike consumer merchandise,
neither lends itself very well to cost reduction via offshoring or automation. So in an economy where many consumer prices are
held down through a corresponding suppression of real wage growth, they consume a correspondingly larger chunk of the household
budget.
[ Nicely expressed. ]
Peter K. -> to anne...
"As to increasing college costs, would there be an analogy to healthcare costs?"
Yes, exactly. They aren't normal markets. There should be heavy government regulation.
Denis Drew:
JUST HAD AN IDEA THAT MIGHT LIMIT THE DAMAGE OF THESE PHONEY ONLINE COLLEGES (pardon shouting, but I think it's justified):
Only allow government guaranteed loans (and the accompanying you-can-never-get-out-of-paying) IF a built for that purpose
government agency APPROVES said loan. What do you think?
Denis Drew -> to cm...
A big reason we had the real estate bubble was actually the mad Republican relaxation of loan requirements -- relying on the
"free market." So, thanks for coming up with a good comparison.
By definition, for the most part, people taking out student loans are shall we say new to the world and more vulnerable to
the pirates.
* * * * * * * * * *
[cut and paste from my comment on AB]
Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post.
According to an article in the Huffington Post At Kaplan University, 'Guerrilla Registration' Leaves Students Deep In Debt,
Kaplan Ed is among the worst of the worst of internet federal loan and grant sucking diploma mills. Going so far as to
falsely pad bills $5000 or so dollars at diploma time - pay up immediately or you will never get your sheepskin; you wasted your
time. No gov agency will act.
According to a lovely graph which I wish I could patch in here the Post may actually be currently be kept afloat only by purloined
cash from Kaplan:
earnings before corporate overhead
2002 - Kaplan ed, $10 mil; Kaplan test prep, $45 mil: WaPo, $100 mil
2005 - Kaplan ed, $55 mil; Kaplan test prep, $100 mil; WaPo, $105 mil
2009 - Kaplan ed, $255 mil; Kaplan test prep, $5 mil; WaPo negative $175 mil
Wonder if billionaire Bezos will reach out to make Kaplan Ed victims whole. Will he really continue to use Kaplan's pirated
money to keep WaPo whole -- if that is what is going on?
Johannes Y O Highness:
"theme I've been hammering lately, student debt is too damn high!: "
Too damn high
but why?
Because! Because every event in today's economy is the wish of the wealthy. Do you see why they suddenly wish to deeply
educate the proles?
Opportunity cost! The burden of the intelligentsia, the brain work can by carried by robots or humans. Choice of the wealthy?
Humans, hands down. Can you see the historical background?
Railroad was the first robot. According to Devon's Paradox, it was overused because of its increment of efficiency. Later,
excessive roadbeds were disassembled. Rails were sold as scrap.
The new robots are not heavy lifters. New robots are there to do the work of the brain trust. As first robots replaced lower
caste jokers, so shall new robots replace upper caste jokers. Do you see the fear developing inside the huddle of high rollers?
Rollers now calling the play?
High rollers plan to educate small time hoods to do the work of the new robots, then kill the new robots before the newbie
'bot discovers how to kill the wealthy, to kill, to replace them forever.
Terrifying fear
strikes
Observer:
Good bit of data on education costs here
http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/
This chart shows state spending per student and tuition ...
" overall perhaps the best description of the data is something along the lines of "sometimes state appropriations go up and
sometimes they go down, but tuition always goes up." "
Navient, spun off from Sallie Mae, has thrived as student loan debt spirals across the US.
Its story reveals how, instead of fighting inequality, the education industry is reinforcing
it
Nathan Hornes: 'Navient hasn't done a thing to help me. They just want their money. And
they want it now.' Photograph: Fusion
A mong the 44 million Americans who have amassed our nation's
whopping $1.4tn in student loan debt, a call from Navient can produce shivers of dread.
Navient is the primary point of contact, or the "servicer", for more student loans in the
United States than any other company, handling 12 million borrowers and $300bn in debt. The
company flourished as student loan debt exploded under the Obama administration, and its stock
rose sharply after the election of Donald Trump.
But Navient also has more complaints per borrower than any other servicer, according to a
Fusion analysis of data. And these mounting complaints repeatedly allege that
the company has failed to live up to the terms of its federal contracts, and that it
illegally harasses consumers . Navient says most of the ire stems from structural issues
surrounding college finance – like the terms of the loans, which the federal government
and private banks are responsible for – not about Navient customer service.
Navient has positioned itself to dominate the lucrative student loan industry in the midst
of this crisis, flexing its muscles in Washington and increasingly across the states. The story
of Navient's emerging power is also the story of how an industry built around the idea that
education can break down inequities is reinforcing them.The tension at the center of the
current controversy around student loans is simple: should borrowers be treated like any other
consumers, or do they merit special service because education is considered a public good?
Often, the
most vulnerable borrowers are not those with the largest debt, but low-income students,
first-generation students, and students of color – especially those who may attend less
prestigious schools and are less likely to quickly earn enough
to repay their loans, if they graduate at all.
Last year, Navient received 23 complaints per 100,000 borrowers, more than twice that of the
nearest competitor, according to Fusion's analysis. And from January 2014 to December 2016,
Navient was named as a defendant in 530 federal lawsuits. The vast majority were aimed at the
company's student loans servicing operations. (Nelnet and Great Lakes, the two other biggest
companies in the student loans market, were sued 32 and 14 times over the same period,
respectively.)
Many of the complaints and lawsuits aimed at the company relate to its standard practice of
auto-dialing borrowers to solicit payments.
Shelby Hubbard says she has long been on the receiving end of these calls as she has
struggled to pay down her debt. Hubbard racked up over $60,000 in public and private student
loans by the time she graduated from Eastern Kentucky University with a basic
healthcare-related degree.
"It consumes my every day," Hubbard said of the constant calls. "Every day, every hour,
starting at 8 o'clock in the morning." Unlike mortgages, and most other debt, student loans
can't be wiped away with bankruptcy.
These days, Hubbard, 26, works in Ohio as a logistics coordinator for traveling nurses.
She's made some loan payments, but her take-home pay is about $850 every two weeks. With her
monthly student loan bill at about $700, roughly half her income would go to paying the loans
back, forcing her to lean more heavily on her fiancé. "He pays for all of our utilities,
all of our bills. Because at the end of the day, I don't have anything else to give him," she
said. The shadow of her debt hangs over every discussion about their wedding, mortgage
payments, and becoming parents.
The power and reach of the student loan industry stacks the odds against borrowers. Navient
doesn't just service federal loans, it has a hand in nearly every aspect of the student loan
system. It has bought up private student loans, both servicing them and earning interest off of
them. And it has purchased billions of dollars worth of the older taxpayer-backed loans, again
earning interest, as well as servicing that debt. The company also owns controversial
subsidiary companies such as Pioneer Credit Recovery that
stand to profit from collecting the debt of loans that go into default.
label="How the Trump administration is undermining students of color | Mark Huelsman and
Vijay Das"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/15/trump-administration-students-color-debt">
And just as banks have done with mortgages, Navient packages many of the private and
pre-2010 federal loans and sells them on Wall Street as asset-backed securities. Meanwhile,
it's in the running to oversee the Department of Education's entire student debt web portal,
which would open even more avenues for the company to profit from – and expand its
influence over – Americans' access to higher education.
The federal government is the biggest lender of American student loans, meaning that
taxpayers are currently on the hook for more than
$1tn . For years, much of this money was managed by private banks and loan companies like
Sallie Mae. Then in 2010, Congress cut out the middlemen and their lending fees, and Sallie Mae
spun off its servicing arm into the publicly traded company Navient.
Led by former Sallie Mae executives, Navient describes itself as "a leading provider of
asset management and business processing solutions for education, healthcare, and government
clients." But it is best known for being among a handful of companies that have won coveted
federal contracts to make sure students repay their loans. And critics say that in pursuit of
getting that money back, the Department of Education has allowed these companies to all but run
free at the expense of borrowers.
"The problem is that these servicers are too big to fail," said Persis Yu, director of the
National Consumer Law Center's Student Loan Borrower Assistance Project. "We have no place to
put the millions of borrowers whom they are servicing, even if they are not doing the servicing
job that we want them to do."
In its last years, the Obama administration tried to rein in the student loan industry and
promoted more options for reduced repayment plans for federal loans. Since then, Donald Trump's
education secretary, Betsy
DeVos , has reversed or
put on hold changes the former education secretary John B King's office proposed
and appears bent on further loosening the reins on the student loan
industry , leaving individual students little recourse amid bad service.
In late August, DeVos's office announced
that it would stop sharing information about student loan servicer oversight with the federal
consumer watchdog agency known as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB.
Earlier this year, as complaints grew, the CFPB
sued Navient for allegedly misleading borrowers about the repayment options it is legally
obligated to provide.
A central allegation is that Navient, rather than offering income-based repayment plans,
pushed some people into a temporary payment freeze called forbearance. Getting placed into
forbearance is a good Band-Aid but can be a terrible longer-term plan. When an account gets
placed in forbearance, its interest keeps accumulating, and that interest can be added to the
principal, meaning the loans only grow.
Lynn Sabulski, who worked in Navient's Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, call center for five
months starting in 2012, said she experienced first-hand the pressure to drive borrowers into
forbearance.
"Performing well meant keeping calls to seven minutes or under," said Sabulski. "If you only
have seven minutes, the easiest option to put a borrower in, first and foremost, is a
forbearance." Sabulski said if she didn't keep the call times short, she could be written up or
lose her job.
Navient denies the allegations, and a spokeswoman told Fusion via email seven and a half
minutes was the average call time, not a target. The company maintains "caller satisfaction and
customer experience" are a significant part of call center representatives' ratings.
But in a 24 March motion it filed in federal court for the CFPB's lawsuit, the company also
said: "There is no expectation that the servicer will act in the interest of the consumer."
Rather, it argued, Navient's job was to look out for the interest of the federal government and
taxpayers.
Navient does get more per account when the servicer is up to date on payments, but getting
borrowers into a repayment plan also has a cost because of the time required to go over the
complex options.
The same day the CFPB filed its lawsuit, Illinois and Washington filed suits in state
courts. The offices of attorneys general in nine other states confirmed to Fusion that they are
investigating the company.
At a recent hearing in the Washington state case, the company defended its service: "The
State's claim is not, you didn't help at all, which is what you said you would do. It's that,
you could've helped them more." Navient insists it has forcefully advocated in Washington to
streamline the federal loan system and make the repayment process easier to navigate for
borrowers.
And it's true, Navient, and the broader industry, have stepped up efforts in recent years to
influence decision makers. Since 2014, Navient executives have given nearly $75,000 to the
company's political action committee, which has pumped money mostly into Republican campaigns,
but also some Democratic ones. Over the same timespan, the company has spent more than $10.1m
lobbying Congress, with $4.2m of that spending coming since 2016. About $400,000 of it targeted
the CFPB, which many Republican lawmakers want to do away with.
Among the 22 former federal officials who lobby for Navient is the former US representative
Denny Rehberg, a Republican, who once criticized
federal aid for students as the welfare of the 21st century. His fellow lobbyist and former GOP
representative Vin Weber sits on a board that has aired attack ads against the CFPB, as well as
on the board of the
for-profit college ITT Tech , which shuttered its
campuses in 2016 after Barack Obama's Department of Education accused it of predatory
recruitment and lending.
In response to what they see as a lack of federal oversight, California, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia recently required student loan servicers to get
licenses in their states. Not surprisingly, Fusion found a sharp increase in Navient's spending
in states considering such regulations, with the majority of the $300,000 in Navient state
lobbying allocated since 2016.
In Maine and Illinois, the legislatures were flooded with Navient and other industry
lobbyists earlier this year, after lawmakers proposed their own versions of the license bills.
The Maine proposal failed after Navient argued the issue should be left to the federal
government. The Illinois bill passed the legislature, but the Republican governor, Bruce
Rauner, vetoed it in August following lobbying from an
industry trade group . Rauner
said the bill encroached on the federal government's authority.
Researchers argue more data would help them understand how to improve the student loan
process and prevent more people from being overwhelmed by debt. In 2008, Congress made it
illegal for the Department of Education to make the data public, arguing that it was a risk for
student privacy. Private colleges and universities
lobbied to restrict the data. So, too,
did Navient's predecessor, Sallie Mae, and other student loan servicing companies.
Today, companies like Navient have compiled mountains of data about graduations, debt and
financial outcomes – which they consider proprietary information. The lack of
school-specific data about student outcomes can be life-altering, leading students to pick
schools they never would have picked. Nathan Hornes, a 27-year-old Missouri native, racked up
$70,000 in student loans going to Everest College, an unaccredited school, before he
graduated.
"Navient hasn't done a thing to help me," Hornes told Fusion. "They just want their money.
And they want it now."
label="The US cities luring millennials with promises to pay off their student debts"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/10/the-us-cities-luring-millennials-with-promises-to-pay-off-their-student-debts">
Hornes' loans were recently forgiven following state investigations into Everest's parent
company Corinthian. But many other borrowers still await relief.
Better educating teens about financial literacy before they apply to college will help
reduce their dependence on student loans, but that doesn't change how the deck is stacked for
those who need them. A few states have made
community colleges free , reducing the need for student loan servicers.
But until the Department of Education holds industry leaders like Navient more accountable,
individual states can fix only so much, insists Senator Elizabeth Warren, one of the industry's
most outspoken critics on Capitol Hill.
"Navient's view is, hey, I'm just going to take this money from the Department of Education
and maximize Navient's profits, rather than serving the students," Warren said. "I hold Navient
responsible for that. But I also hold the Department of Education responsible for that. They
act as our agent, the agent of the US taxpayers, the agent of the people of the United States.
And they should demand that Navient does better."
Laura Juncadella, a production assistant for The Naked Truth also contributed to this
article
The Naked Truth: Debt Trap airs on Fusion TV 10 September at 9pm ET. Find out where to
watch here
A fresh story at Bloomberg, which includes new analysis, shows the ugly student debt picture is getting uglier. The driver is
that higher education costs keep rising, often in excess of the likely wages for graduates. The article's grim conclusion: "The next
generation of graduates will include more borrowers who may never be able to repay."
Student debt is now the second biggest type of consumer debt in the US. At $1.5 trillion, is is second only to the mortgage market,
and is also bigger than the subprime market before the crisis, which was generally pegged at $1.3 trillion. 1 Bloomberg
also points out that unlike other categories of personal debt, student debt balances has shown consistent, or one might say persistent,
growth since the crisis.
From the article:
Student loans are being issued at unprecedented rates as more American students
pursue higher education . But the
cost of
tuition at both private and public institutions is touching
all-time
highs , while interest rates on student loans are also rising. Students are spending more time
working instead of studying . (Some 85 percent of current students now work
paid jobs while enrolled.) Experts and analysts worry that the next generation of graduates could default on their loans at
even higher rates than in the immediate wake of the financial crisis.
The last sentence is alarming. As graduates of the class of 2009 like UserFriendly can attest, the job market was desperate. And
for the next few years, the unemployment rate of new college graduates was higher than that of recent high school graduates. One
of the corollaries of that is that more college graduates than before were taking work that didn't require a college degree; this
is still a significant trend today. And on top of that, studies have found that early career earnings have a significant impact on
lifetime earnings. While there are always exceptions, generally speaking, pay levels key off one's earlier compensation, so starting
out at a lower income level is likely to crimp future compensation.
And on top of that, interest costs are rising. The rate for direct undergraduate loans is 5% and for graduate and professional
schools, 6.6%. So student debt costs will also go up even before factoring in inflating school costs. So the ugly picture of delinquencies
and defaults is destined to get worse.
Students attending for-profit universities and community colleges represented almost half of all borrowers leaving school and
beginning to repay loans in 2011. They also accounted for 70 percent of all defaults. As a result, delinquencies skyrocketed in
the 2011-12 academic year, reaching 11.73 percent.
Today, the student loan delinquency rate remains almost as high, which Scott-Clayton attributes to social and institutional
factors, rather than average debt levels. "Delinquency is at crisis levels for borrowers, particularly for borrowers of color,
borrowers who have gone to a for-profit and borrowers who didn't ultimately obtain a degree," she said, highlighting that each
cohort is more likely to miss repayments on their loans than other public and private college students.
Those most at risk of delinquency tend to be, counterintuitively, those who've incurred smaller amounts of debt, explained
Kali McFadden, senior research analyst at LendingTree. Graduates who leave school with six-figure degrees that are valued in the
marketplace -- such as post-graduate law or medical degrees -- usually see a good return on their investment.
I'm a little leery of cheerful generalizations like "big ticket borrowers for professional degrees do better." "Better" may still
not be that good. Recall that law school and in the last year, business school enrollments have fallen because candidates question
whether the hard costs and loss of income while in school will pay off. And there are some degrees, like veterinary medicine, that
are so pricey it's hard to see how they could possibly make economic sense.
What is distressing about this ugly picture is the lack of effective activism by the victims. I am sure some are trying, but in
addition to the burden of being so overwhelmed by the debt burden as to lack the time and energy to do anything beyond cope, is the
fact that being in debt is stigmatized in our society, and borrowers may not want to deal with condescension and criticism. Another
obstacle to organizing is that most of the victims are lower income and/or from minority groups, which means Team Dem can ignore
them on the usual assumption that they have nowhere else to go. It is also harder to create an effective coalition across disparate
economic, geographic, and age groups
But the experience of the post-Civil War South says things could get a lot worse. From Matt Stoller in 2010:
A lot of people forget that
having debt you can't pay
back really sucks. Debt is not just a credit instrument, it is an instrument of political and economic control.
It's actually baked into our culture. The phrase 'the man', as in 'fight the man', referred originally to creditors. 'The man'
in the 19th century stood for 'furnishing man', the merchant that sold 19th century sharecroppers and Southern farmers their supplies
for the year, usually on credit. Farmers, often illiterate and certainly unable to understand the arrangements into which they
were entering, were charged interest rates of 80-100 percent a year, with a lien places on their crops. When approaching a furnishing
agent, who could grant them credit for seeds, equipment, even food itself, a farmer would meekly look down nervously as his debts
were marked down in a notebook. At the end of a year, due to deflation and usury, farmers usually owed more than they started
the year owing. Their land was often forfeit, and eventually most of them became tenant farmers.
They were in hock to the man, and eventually became slaves to him. This structure, of sharecropping and usury, held together
by political violence, continued into the 1960s in some areas of the South. As late as the 1960s, Kennedy would see rural poverty
in Arkansas and pronounce it 'shocking'. These were the fruits of usury, a society built on unsustainable debt peonage.
Sanders has made an issue of student debt, but politicians who want big bucks from financiers and members of the higher education
complex pointedly ignore this issue. As we've pointed out, top bankruptcy scholar Elizabeth Warren won't even endorse a basic reform,
that of making student debt dischargable in bankruptcy. So it may take student debtors becoming a bigger percentage of voters for
this issue to get the political traction it warrants.
______
1 Higher estimates typically included near subprime mortgages then called "Alt A".
There are many, many passages in this obscure old book called The Bible speaking of usury as a grave sin. So many it is actually
one of the most clear and condemned sins in the entire book. Maybe we could see if any of our Congress persons have ever heard
of it? They could learn something from it regarding this topic.
That said, it's passages on gender equality and family structures are pretty outdated and abhorrent so I wouldn't want them to
get any bad ideas from this book on those subjects.
Indeed, all of the old "Iron Age religions" (Judaism, Early Christianity, and Islam) explicitly denounce usury.
The great irony of the Deep South in te USA is that they've been frequently banning Sharia law, even when Sharia law is one
of the few types of law in the world which explicitly bans charging interest.
It is always intriguing how many politicians are so eager to endorse a literalist fealty to the social structures of the bible
but ignore, or even vehemently rail against, the more balanced social restrictions on things like usury or the old idea of a debt
jubilee. But then Jesus himself railed (physically) against embedding money in religion and now we have "entrepreneurial churches"
who preach a "doctrine of prosperity" so I guess times have changed.
I graduated 10 years ago and the most frustrating part was everyone telling me it would be alright and ignoring thw whole you
never recover thing. I am still unable to find worthwhile employment and probably never will be able to.
You really can't listen to many of us over 40.. we really lived in complete my different conditions. When I got out of college
in the 90's they were basically hiring everyone with a pulse in tech. From what I have seen from recent graduates it's getting
easier, as I am seeing a lot more intershops turn into job offers. But for the generation that you are part of, it's an economic
hole that may never be recovered from simply because you were born at the wrong time.
Looking at that graph, notice how the only debt that is backstopped completely by the federal government is growing the fastest.
The no default on student loans rules have to be rescinded.
Extrapolating from these trends, then in a few years the only young people that would be able to afford higher education in
the United States would the the children of the ten per cent – plus a smattering of scholarships to talented individuals found
worthy of supporting. It follows then that as these educated people entered the workforce, that over time that the people that
would be running the country would be children of the elite in a sort of inbred system. It sounds a lot like 19th century class-based
Britain that if you ask me.
As for the country itself it would be disastrous. Going by present population levels, it would mean that instead of recruiting
the leaders and thinkers of the country from the present population of 325 million, that at most you would be recruiting them
from a base level of about 30-40 million. It is to be hoped that these people are not from the shallow end of the gene pool. You
can forget about any idea of an even-handed meritocracy and America would be competing against countries that might employ the
idea of a full meritocracy in the recruitment of their leaders. I wonder how that might work out.
"America would be competing against countries that might employ the idea of a full meritocracy in the recruitment of their
leaders. I wonder how that might work out"
Would the performance of U. S. men in international soccer competition be a similar situation?
The concept of student debt as it exists today would be repulsive to our Founders. Not just for the larger issue of our country
being on the trajectory of becoming an economic aristocracy, but specifically because the Federal government is profiting tremendously
from this crushing usury being applied to majority and the least among us.
Our Founders had no problem with the conquest and seizure of Native Americans land, and they fully respected the rights and claims
of other European countries to do the same. One of their strongest repudiations of the aristocracy was the expansion of private
property rights beyond what was known under any monarchy on the planet to that point in history. In the pre-industrial world the
vast majority of people lived in an agrarian society and economy. Owning land secured you with your livelihood, your living, and
much of your resources; it fully supported most families.
For its founding and for generation after generation the United States government gave land to countless men for military service,
government service, homesteds, etc. Expansions by the Louisiana Purchase and war and treaties with other European nations, quickly
resulting in making these lands available for settlement to our citizens and to immigrants.
The point is that for well over 100 years the government provided to its citizens a huge amount of what our citizens needed
to live their lifetimes through these grants of land. These land grants were then passed from generation to generation and formed
the economic foundations for millions of people, their children and their next generations.
Our Government did this.
The United States ceased to be a predominantly agrarian country in the mid 20th century. But they did not stop aiding our people
and their economic needs. Our government (Federal and states) did continue to provide to our population through public education
(very affordable college), the GI Bill that served millions with income, housing and educational benefits, Social Security, Medicare,
etc.
Since our country's very founding our government has recognized the benefit and need to facilitate the support of its citizens.
The American economy became the greatest on earth because of our land conquest heritage and our collective investments as a nation.
No one did it all on their own, and no one pretended they did.
Reagan killed this legacy. Reagan claimed that our nations success and our heritage was built on our history of rugged individualism
and that our government was the obstacle to returning to these roots. It was a lie; nothing could have been further from the truth.
Student debt, as it exists to day, is crippling the economic futures of the millions who have accrued this debt and the millions
to come, year after year, who will do the same. The student is debt is robbing our nation of the economic activity that historically
matriculated out from those passing from college to the world. That has come almost to an end. Worse yet, our government has positioned
itself to also profit off this debt, and to prevent the indebted from escaping this type of debt through the legal means available
for virtually all other forms of debt.
Our student debt is un-American. It is a cancer on our economy. It exists for the vast short term profit of the few at the
expense of our nations future.
I hope people keep in mind it was the Democrats, specifically Joe Biden, who made student debt even more crippling and heartless
by changing the bankruptcy laws so that creditors can garnish your Social Security benefits (assuming Mitch McConnell doesn't
gut them first).
Republicans are open about what they hope to accomplish, you have to clear the verbal BS that clouds what Democrats are after,
but at the end of the day they are both about enslavement and debt bondage over unwashed masses.
I'm sure it's often the parents that end up paying the debt, as my sister is doing. Parents have deep pockets and are desperate
to help their loved ones get a good start in life.
In my sister's case, they sent their girls to private high school, where they spent the money that could have paid for college.
Not a smart decision. But they love their children and really wanted to do give them the best.
Now the girls are struggling to make a living and my sister cannot afford to retire.
There are so many feedback loops, multipliers, and perverse incentives driving forward this bubble (and its calamitous social
and cultural effects) that it's hard to know where to begin.
As Goldman Sachs
have pointed
out , student-loan-based securities are increasingly "attractive" investments for speculators:
Although the "bubble" is getting bigger, it's not a risk to overall financial stability, Goldman's Marty Young and Lotfi
Karoui said in a recent note. In fact, there's one segment of the market that's emerging as an attractive investment.
It's the $190 billion of outstanding [student] loans that are held within asset-backed securities (ABS) refinanced by private
lenders such as SoFi.
With these securities, lenders pool loans that have similar risk profiles and sell them as instruments in the public markets.
Investors profit as graduates pay back their principal and interest.
So the more student debt there is, and the higher the interest rates are, the better, from that perspective.
It's undeniable, too, that high student loan burdens mean graduates are slower to form households and will probably have fewer
children than they would otherwise. Their diminished spending power, meanwhile, adds to the ongoing erosion of the "real economy,"
in favour of the financial one. Student loans therefore disrupt the basic means of social reproduction. The resulting declines
in fertility then demand high rates of immigration to compensate. A fact cheered on, inevitably, by the open borders crowd (a
substantial number of whom, oddly or not, seem to work in or for universities).
So we see yet another instance in which "right" neoliberalism and "left" identitarianism go hand in hand–forming, indeed, two
heads of the same beast. Student loans have enabled the enormous inflation in tuition costs that have plagued the Anglosphere
over the last couple of decades. This fees income feeds the academic beast (or at least its administrators and senior managers),
while driving the one economic and social crisis (mass migration and the resulting populist backlash) that "left neoliberals,"
centrists, and Clinton/Progress types appear to care about. It's a self-licking ice cream of catastrophic size and reach.
One specific example: hospital chaplains are facing a big retirement crisis. And yet the job requires (to be hoard certified):
an undergraduate degree & then a Master's of Divinity degree, plus a year-long residency. For a job that pays around $60,000 to
$70,000. At least one school, Princeton, funds almost all of their divinity students. But I don't think it's the norm. And then
you throw in the fact that such person ideally would be emotionally & spiritually mature, with enough life experience to meet
with a wide range of people, who are often facing financial hardship due to being sick (as well as existential concerns). I don't
even know how to begin reframing the job or the qualifications or the salary to fit America in 2020. There are a lot of other
angles, such as: what about well-qualified people who can't afford seminary? I know there needs to be a way to screen-out and
screen-in the best people (who won't proselytize), but is a Master's degree the right hurdle? But, I must say, the need for access
to interfaith Spiritual Care is only increasing, as times get tougher & other hospital staff (RNs) don't have time to sit and
listen. People are in pain, not only in their bodies. One thought leader in the field has speculated that the job will just go
away due to lack of advocacy & inability to evolve into a profit center.
It would be interesting to see that student loan debt chart superimposed over %adjuncts and number of administrators. Its pretty
easy to guess what that would look like, but seeing that would be decisive.
I think a little delineation is in order. I've been an adjunct professor and believe the increasing use of adjuncts at universities
has been very beneficial overall -- in terms of the quality of education students are getting. Unfortunately, as we know, that's
not why universities are hiring so many more adjuncts; they're being hired because schools can get away with paying them abysmally.
The situation is so embarrassing that, at the university where I was teaching five years ago, the full-time faculty passed
a resolution asking the administration to give the entire projected increase in teaching salaries entirely to the adjuncts, an
amazing act of selflessness.
The relevance to our discussion here, of course, is the insupportable increase in the annual cost of attending college even
as the schools radically reduce their overall expenditures on faculty salaries.
So how long before this leads to a mass "We Won't Pay" movement? I'm stuck on the dumb treadmill myself, but I wouldn't begrudge
an entire generation for just saying no. Sure, they can garnish wages and the like, but if 30 million people simultaneously say
'eff this', it's more than just a wrench in the works it's drastic enough to force action.
Why DO they keep paying? The debts are always bought by debt collectors who don't even have COPIES promissory notes. Let them
sue you and show up for the hearing and demand proof. They can still ruin your "credit" but if student loans haven't taught you
to eschew credit nothing will. If EVERYONE "walked away" what could they do?
Unfortunately that is never going to happen. This society has been trained to worship at the altar of the FICO score, and most
job seekers cannot afford to have a low score. Said score will be examined and potentially held against you when pursuing employment.
Also, employers frown upon employees who do not pay their bills and then have their wages garnished – at least the smaller
emlpoyers do. This creates extra work for the employer and makes the employee suspect, as in irresponsible.
This problem was created by the political class and is going to require a political solution, i.e. legislation to assist the
student loan borrower or a debt jubilee. Unfortunately, there's too much money being made off the student borrower – even if the
practice is killing the host. And the "I got mine" crowd will not allow a jubilee even if it is for the greater good of society.
Lastly, student loan borrowers coming from a different era (who have paid off their loans) will begrudge the forgiving of the
loans and consider them undeserved. In this case, perhaps the best resolution is to give everyone money toward their student loans
– whether they are currently paid or unpaid.
I cannot jeopardize my employment by joining in a "eff this" movement as much as I would like to. Instead, I will continue
on this treadmill called life, pay my bills and hope to escape as unscathed as possible.
I work for a company that contracts with department of Ed to get student loan borrowers out if default and back into the hands
of loan servicers. The amount of money sloshing around is stunning. I'm sure they've got well paid lobbyists telling legislators
that people will be unemployed if student loans are reformed. I owe well over six figures so the irony is not lost on me. Hiring
one half of the working class to debt collect from the other.
Who pays for diploma-mill educations, and why? I have always assumed that people attended cash-n-carry schools because they
did not qualify aptitude/grade-wise for entrance to a state school, OR a 3rd party like DOD or VA was footing the tab. Both assumptions
appear to be supported by data. Given the far-above-average drop/flunkout rate of diploma mills. I know from my military career
that enlisted members sign up for courses (local or online) at diploma mills to get extra points toward promotions – at Navy expense.
Personally, I would not pay to send my dog to such institutions to learn how to sit up and beg.
One thing is certain, collich kidz do not appear to spend nearly as much time researching where they go to $chool as they do
buying the car they drive.
Jumping into the conversation a little late, but my alma mater recently embarked on a major rethink of the college business
model, and cut tuition from around 50k to around 30k. We even got
a writeup from Frank Bruni
for it .
College officials (I'm relatively active as a fundraiser for my class) describe it as a shift to a "philanthropy model" of
funding. Which worries me for lots of reasons. But at least it's a conversation-starter.
It's also very much a school that is not for people looking to buy a future income flow, but rather an education.
The person was definitely taken for a ride. He does not write how he obtained such a huge debt. It is difficult to do
attending state college.
Also when you are young you often stupid, and when
you became wiser, it's too late.
Notable quotes:
"... The price of a college education has quadrupled since the 1980s while wages haven't budged and rents went up by 50 percent. No wonder nearly 5 million American are in default on their student loans. At this rate, 40 percent of borrowers are expected to be in default by 2023. ..."
"... College was supposed to be about getting ahead in life. But it's become a driver of inequality . It does not have to be this way. ..."
"... Got to call BS on the 120k debt from a "state school". ..."
"... I do not understand how you got $120k of debt attending a state school for undergraduate. Either your stayed there 6 or more years or you basically earned no money during any summer or school year of your entire undergraduate and went to a really expensive school. ..."
I have $235,000 of student debt. The first $120,000 came with a bachelor's degree from my
state school. Another $70,000 or so came with my master's degree. The remainder is accrued
interest.
The suggested minimum monthly payment on my private debt alone is approximately $1,200. For
reference: that's nearly rent for the 600-square-foot apartment where I live with my partner in
New Jersey.
Without income driven repayment, the minimum payment amount for my federal student debt
would be around $1,000.
I would have to begin devoting half of my income to debt payment if I cared to pay it off by
2042. I can't do that because I make just under $4,000 per month. And that income is a fairly
new development in my life. Why would I choose to pay down my debt if it meant I wouldn't be
able to afford basic living expenses?
Short of winning the lottery, there's no way I could ever afford to pay off my debt. And
though I have a higher debt burden than most, I'm certainly not alone.
Meanwhile more and more people can't make their minimum payments.
The price of a college education has quadrupled
since the 1980s while
wages haven't budged and rents went up by 50
percent. No wonder nearly 5 million American are in default on their student loans. At this
rate, 40 percent of borrowers are expected to
be in default by 2023.
I'm privileged to have made it through the first few years of repayment. With a financial
hardship agreement with Sallie Mae, my parents – cosigners on my private loans –
pay $600 per month to keep default at bay from our family and allow me to live a decent life.
And through an income driven repayment plan (IDR) with Navient, I've been paying less than $50
per month on my public loans, though that could change as my income changes.
My parents cosigned my loans because we're first-generation immigrants. Moving to the U.S.
was about giving me a chance to live my best life. College was a critical component and we
couldn't afford it any other way. The only reason they can afford those $600 monthly payments
now is because they paid off their 30-year mortgage just a few years ago.
My parents are in their 60s and 70s and will live the rest of their lives with my student
debt. Likely so will I. Again – we won't be alone.
Three million Americans over the age of 60 are
paying off student debt . Approximately 40,000 of them are having Social Security or other
government payments garnished
.
College was supposed to be about getting ahead in life. But it's become a driver
of inequality . It does not have to be this way.
Some economists say that forgiving student debt would boost GDP by $100 billion per year for
ten years and add several million jobs to the economy. It would unlock the capacity of 44
million Americans to buy
homes , launch small businesses , and
retire with dignity.
Congress could pay for it by repealing the $1.5 trillion tax
cut it passed in 2017. Primarily
benefiting the wealthy and corporations, even
Goldman Sachs says that whatever economic boost the tax cut brought with it has passed.
And to keep future generations from suffering under the burden of student debt, Congress
could make public colleges, universities, and trade schools in the United States free.
The federal government already spends
$80 billion per year on grants and tax breaks for students pursuing higher education. It
spends another
$100 billion every year issuing new student loans.
That's $180 billion the U.S. could stop spending on a broken system if it decided to invest
it in a new one. Coincidently, that amount is more than enough to cover the cost of that new
system.
Tuition at public institutions of higher education totals
$63 billion . Add cost of living and that number reaches
$127 billion . With the remaining $53 billion, the U.S. can invest in expanding access to
higher education with job training and small business accelerators.
Until then, I'm focused on keeping the cost of servicing my debt low while I do other things
a 29-year-old should be doing, like saving for an emergency
fund or a down payment on a
house.
I'm spending my money in a way that invests in my future. Can the country do the same?
J Jive Turkey 7 hours ago
$235k for a job that pays less than $48k/year. I'm sure there was no cheaper way to go
about this, like, say, taking general education credits at a community college before
transferring over to the 'State School'. Millennials are awesome.
W WillyWonga 7 hours ago
I had around $3K in student loan debt when I graduated. That's because I received some
grants (partly based on my grades) and I WORKED...and WORKED SOME MORE...while I was
studying. Two P/T jobs that were the equivalent of a full-time job, maybe more on certain
weeks, whenever I could get the extra work.
My parents didn't co-sign anything for me. My dad passed long before I graduated high
school, and my family home went into foreclosure so my mom had a horrible credit rating
and didn't have two dimes to rub together.
Your story is an example of why we should NOT forgive student loan debt. No one forced
you to take the loans out, and given your somewhat cavalier attitude towards it there's a
good chance you'll ring up debt someplace else and expect others to pay for that too.
J James 6 hours ago
I'm playing my tiny little violin for you. I worked night shifts to pay my way through
college. Then for my second degree in engineering, I co-oped and graduated with money in
the bank. Seven years of 60 hour weeks, but it was worth it. I retired in my mid-50s.
j jim 7 hours ago
so a state school plus masters and you are making $4k a month?
And "Some economists say that forgiving student debt would boost GDP by $100 billion per
year for ten years and add several million jobs to the economy" Sure in the Bernie
Sanders way of how things work.
R R 5 hours ago
Got to call BS on the 120k debt from a "state school". This is a problem with the younger
generations. They do not want to work while going to college so they take out a ton of
loans and then complain when they get out and have a life long debt barring some
windfall. I say the issue is the government and companies giving these loans without
making sure they pay them back. That is an investment for them so they should have
programs to help them stay on track and make sure they get well paying jobs. I retired
from a company after 32 years at 50. They paid for my education and I moved up the ladder
pretty fast. I was over their clinical labs when I retired and I started in the
warehouse.
T Theo the Cat 7 hours ago
I do not understand how you got $120k of debt attending a state school for undergraduate.
Either your stayed there 6 or more years or you basically earned no money during any
summer or school year of your entire undergraduate and went to a really expensive school.
R Really 7 hours ago
Maybe your partner ought to be helping you pay off your debt. I helped my partner. That's
how "partner" is defined.
Also, the notion that if we all absorb your debt will allow you to buy a house, I say,
BS. I don't want to take any risk financing your house buy (through any government
support -- FHA, VA, FDIC insurance on banks covering your mortgage, etc.) since you were
not good for your student loan debt. No way.
P Paul 7 hours ago
My kids are in their 20s and they are in community school to get associate degrees. They
wanted to go to a university and get bachelor's but we can't afford it. So we lived
within our means and our kids deprived themselves of that "college experience". And now
thru our taxes, we will have to pay for someone else's student loans? How is that fair?
D Dustin 6 hours ago
Typical millennial....doesn't want to have to pay for anything. My wife and I are in our
40's and we made the last payment on her student debt this year. I didn't complain about
it for the last 15 years, I just paid it off.
P Pete 7 hours ago
The parents busted their hump to pay off their mortgage then get saddled with a $600 per
month payment because of the kid's degree that lead to nowhere?
"... Surveillance cameras are everywhere. Government agents listen in on our telephone calls and read our emails. Political correctness -- a philosophy that discourages diversity -- has become a guiding principle of modern society. ..."
"... We are increasingly ruled by multi-corporations wedded to the police state. ..."
"... What many fail to realize is that the government is not operating alone. It cannot. The government requires an accomplice. Thus, the increasingly complex security needs of the massive federal government, especially in the areas of defense, surveillance and data management, have been met within the corporate sector, which has shown itself to be a powerful ally that both depends on and feeds the growth of governmental overreach. ..."
"... In fact, Big Tech wedded to Big Government has become Big Brother, and we are now ruled by the Corporate Elite whose tentacles have spread worldwide. For example, USA Today reports that five years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the homeland security business was booming to such an extent that it eclipsed mature enterprises like movie-making and the music industry in annual revenue. This security spending to private corporations such as Google, Amazon, Microsoft and others is forecast to exceed $1 trillion in the near future. ..."
"... Everything from cell phone recordings and logs, to emails, to text messages, to personal information posted on social networking sites, to credit card statements, to library circulation records, to credit card histories, etc., is collected by the NSA and shared freely with its agents in crime: the CIA, FBI and DHS. One NSA researcher actually quit the Aquaint program, "citing concerns over the dangers in placing such a powerful weapon in the hands of a top-secret agency with little accountability." ..."
"You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard,
and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized." -- George Orwell, 1984
Who could have predicted that 70 years after Orwell typed the final words to his dystopian novel, "He loved Big Brother," we would
fail to heed his warning and come to love Big Brother.
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone
-- to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone: From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the
age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink -- greetings!" -- George Orwell
1984 portrays a global society of total control in which people are not allowed to have thoughts that in any way disagree
with the corporate state. There is no personal freedom, and advanced technology has become the driving force behind a surveillance-driven
society. Snitches and cameras are everywhere. People are subject to the Thought Police, who deal with anyone guilty of thought crimes.
The government, or "Party," is headed by Big Brother who appears on posters everywhere with the words: "Big Brother is watching
you."
We have arrived, way ahead of schedule, into the dystopian future dreamed up by not only Orwell but also such fiction writers
as Aldous Huxley, Margaret Atwood and Philip K. Dick.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."―George Orwell
Much like Orwell's Big Brother in 1984 , the government and its corporate spies now watch our every move. Much like Huxley's
A Brave New World , we are churning out a society of watchers who "have their liberties taken away from them, but rather enjoy
it, because they [are] distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing." Much like Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale
, the populace is now taught to "know their place and their duties, to understand that they have no real rights but will be protected
up to a point if they conform, and to think so poorly of themselves that
they will
accept their assigned fate and not rebel or run away ."
And in keeping with Philip K. Dick's darkly prophetic vision of a dystopian police state -- which became the basis for
Steven
Spielberg's futuristic thriller Minority Report -- we are now trapped in a world in which the government is all-seeing,
all-knowing and all-powerful, and if you dare to step out of line, dark-clad police SWAT teams and pre-crime units will crack a few
skulls to bring the populace under control.
What once seemed futuristic no longer occupies the realm of science fiction.
Incredibly, as the various nascent technologies employed and shared by the government and corporations alike -- facial recognition,
iris scanners, massive databases, behavior prediction software, and so on -- are incorporated into a complex, interwoven cyber network
aimed at tracking our movements, predicting our thoughts and controlling our behavior, the
dystopian visions of past writers is fast becoming
our reality .
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."―George
Orwell
The courts have
shredded the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. In fact, SWAT teams battering down doors
without search warrants and FBI agents acting as a secret police that investigate dissenting citizens are common occurrences in contemporary
America. And bodily privacy and integrity have been utterly eviscerated by a prevailing view that Americans have no rights over what
happens to their bodies during an encounter with government officials, who are allowed to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe,
pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible
to say which was which."―George Orwell, Animal Farm
We are increasingly ruled by multi-corporations wedded to the police state.
What many fail to realize is that the government is not operating alone. It cannot. The government requires an accomplice.
Thus, the increasingly complex security needs of the massive federal government, especially in the areas of defense, surveillance
and data management, have been met within the corporate sector, which has shown itself to be a powerful ally that both depends on
and feeds the growth of governmental overreach.
In fact, Big Tech wedded to Big Government has become Big Brother, and we are now ruled by the Corporate Elite whose tentacles
have spread worldwide. For example, USA Today reports that five years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the homeland security
business was booming to such an extent that it
eclipsed mature
enterprises like movie-making and the music industry in annual revenue. This security spending to private corporations such as
Google, Amazon, Microsoft and others is
forecast to exceed
$1 trillion in the near future.
The government now has at its disposal technological arsenals so sophisticated and invasive as to render any constitutional protections
null and void. Spearheaded by the NSA, which has shown itself to care little to nothing for constitutional limits or privacy, the
"security/industrial complex" -- a marriage of government, military and corporate interests aimed at keeping Americans under constant
surveillance -- has come to dominate the government and our lives. At three times the size of the CIA, constituting one third of
the intelligence budget and with its own global spy network to boot, the NSA has a long history of spying on Americans, whether or
not it has always had the authorization to do so.
Money, power, control. There is no shortage of motives fueling the convergence of mega-corporations and government. But who is
paying the price? The American people, of course.
Orwell understood what many Americans, caught up in their partisan flag-waving, are still struggling to come to terms with: that
there is no such thing as a government organized for the good of the people. Even the best intentions among those in government inevitably
give way to the desire to maintain power and control over the citizenry at all costs. As Orwell explains:
The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power,
pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know
what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian
Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended,
perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there
lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know what no one ever seizes power with the intention
of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution;
one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture
is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.
"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." ― George Orwell
How do you change the way people think? You start by changing the words they use.
In totalitarian regimes -- a.k.a. police states -- where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the
government dictates what words can and cannot be used. In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises
itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind.
Dystopian literature shows what happens when the populace is transformed into mindless automatons. In
Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 , reading is banned
and books are burned in order to suppress dissenting ideas, while televised entertainment is used to anesthetize the populace and
render them easily pacified, distracted and controlled.
In Huxley's Brave New World , serious literature,
scientific thinking and experimentation are banned as subversive, while critical thinking is discouraged through the use of conditioning,
social taboos and inferior education. Likewise, expressions of individuality, independence and morality are viewed as vulgar and
abnormal.
And in Orwell's 1984 , Big Brother does
away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history and punish "thoughtcrimes."
In this dystopian vision of the future, the Thought Police serve as the eyes and ears of Big Brother, while the Ministry of Peace
deals with war and defense, the Ministry of Plenty deals with economic affairs (rationing and starvation), the Ministry of Love deals
with law and order (torture and brainwashing), and the Ministry of Truth deals with news, entertainment, education and art (propaganda).
The mottos of Oceania: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
All three -- Bradbury, Huxley and Orwell -- had an uncanny knack for realizing the future, yet it is Orwell who best understood
the power of language to manipulate the masses. Orwell's Big Brother relied on Newspeak to eliminate undesirable words, strip such
words as remained of unorthodox meanings and make independent, non-government-approved thought altogether unnecessary. To give a
single example, as psychologist Erich Fromm illustrates in his afterword to 1984 :
The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as "This dog is free from lice" or
"This field is free from weeds." It could not be used in its old sense of "politically free" or "intellectually free," since political
and intellectual freedom no longer existed as concepts .
Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where
only that which is "safe" and "accepted" by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will
pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.
This is the final link in the police state chain.
"Until they became conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious." --
George Orwell
Americans have been
conditioned to accept routine incursions on their privacy rights . In fact, the addiction to screen devices -- especially cell
phones -- has created a hive effect where the populace not only watched but is controlled by AI bots. However, at one time, the idea
of a total surveillance state tracking one's every move would have been abhorrent to most Americans. That all changed with the 9/11
attacks. As professor Jeffrey Rosen observes, "Before Sept. 11, the idea that Americans would voluntarily agree to live their lives
under the gaze of a network of biometric surveillance cameras, peering at them in government buildings, shopping malls, subways and
stadiums, would have seemed unthinkable,
a dystopian fantasy of a society that
had surrendered privacy and anonymity ."
Having been reduced to a cowering citizenry -- mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the
face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield,
and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all -- we have nowhere left to go.
We have, so to speak, gone from being a nation where privacy is king to one where nothing is safe from the prying eyes of government.
In search of so-called terrorists and extremists hiding amongst us -- the proverbial "needle in a haystack," as one official termed
it -- the Corporate State has taken to monitoring all aspects of our lives, from cell phone calls and emails to Internet activity
and credit card transactions. Much of this data is being fed through
fusion centers across the
country, which work with the Department of Homeland Security to make threat assessments on every citizen, including school children.
These are state and regional intelligence centers that collect data on you.
"Big Brother is Watching You."―George Orwell
Wherever you go and whatever you do, you are now being watched, especially if you leave behind an electronic footprint. When you
use your cell phone, you leave a record of when the call was placed, who you called, how long it lasted and even where you were at
the time. When you use your ATM card, you leave a record of where and when you used the card. There is even a video camera at most
locations equipped with facial recognition software. When you use a cell phone or drive a car enabled with GPS, you can be tracked
by satellite. Such information is shared with government agents, including local police. And all of this once-private information
about your consumer habits, your whereabouts and your activities is now being fed to the U.S. government.
The government has nearly inexhaustible resources when it comes to tracking our movements, from electronic wiretapping devices,
traffic cameras and biometrics to radio-frequency identification cards, satellites and Internet surveillance.
Speech recognition technology now makes it possible for the government to carry out massive eavesdropping by way of sophisticated
computer systems. Phone calls can be monitored, the audio converted to text files and stored in computer databases indefinitely.
And if any "threatening" words are detected -- no matter how inane or silly -- the record can be flagged and assigned to a government
agent for further investigation. Federal and state governments, again working with private corporations, monitor your Internet content.
Users are profiled and tracked in order to identify, target and even prosecute them.
In such a climate, everyone is a suspect. And you're guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. To underscore this shift in
how the government now views its citizens, the FBI uses its wide-ranging authority to investigate individuals or groups, regardless
of whether they are suspected of criminal activity.
"Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull." ― George Orwell
Here's what a lot of people fail to understand, however: it's not just what you say or do that is being monitored, but how you
think that is being tracked and targeted. We've already seen this play out on the state and federal level with hate crime
legislation that cracks down on so-called "hateful" thoughts and expression, encourages self-censoring and reduces free debate on
various subject matter.
Total Internet surveillance by the Corporate State, as omnipresent as God, is used by the government to predict and, more importantly,
control the populace, and it's not as far-fetched as you might think. For example, the NSA is now designing an artificial intelligence
system that is designed to anticipate your every move. In a nutshell, the NSA will feed vast amounts of the information it collects
to a computer system known as Aquaint (the acronym
stands for Advanced QUestion Answering for INTelligence), which the computer can then use to detect patterns and predict behavior.
No information is sacred or spared.
Everything from cell phone recordings and logs, to emails, to text messages, to personal information posted on social networking
sites, to credit card statements, to library circulation records, to credit card histories, etc., is collected by the NSA and shared
freely with its agents in crime: the CIA, FBI and DHS. One NSA researcher actually quit the Aquaint program, "citing concerns over
the dangers in placing such a powerful weapon in the hands of a top-secret agency with little accountability."
Thus, what we are witnessing, in the so-called name of security and efficiency, is the creation of a new class system comprised
of the watched (average Americans such as you and me) and the watchers (government bureaucrats, technicians and private corporations).
Clearly, the age of privacy in America is at an end.
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever." -- Orwell
So where does that leave us?
We now find ourselves in the unenviable position of being monitored, managed and controlled by our technology, which answers not
to us but to our government and corporate rulers. This is the fact-is-stranger-than-fiction lesson that is being pounded into us
on a daily basis.
It won't be long before we find ourselves looking back on the past with longing, back to an age where we could speak to whom we
wanted, buy what we wanted, think what we wanted without those thoughts, words and activities being tracked, processed and stored
by corporate giants such as Google, sold to government agencies such as the NSA and CIA, and used against us by militarized police
with their army of futuristic technologies.
To be an individual today, to not conform, to have even a shred of privacy, and to live beyond the reach of the government's roaming
eyes and technological spies, one must not only be a rebel but rebel.
Even when you rebel and take your stand, there is rarely a happy ending awaiting you. You are rendered an outlaw.
So how do you survive in the American surveillance state?
We're running out of options
As I make clear in my book
Battlefield America: The
War on the American People , we'll soon have to choose between self-indulgence (the bread-and-circus distractions offered
up by the news media, politicians, sports conglomerates, entertainment industry, etc.) and self-preservation in the form of renewed
vigilance about threats to our freedoms and active engagement in self-governance.
Yet as Aldous Huxley acknowledged in Brave New World Revisited : "Only the vigilant can maintain their liberties, and only
those who are constantly and intelligently on the spot can hope to govern themselves effectively by democratic procedures. A society,
most of whose members spend a great part of their time, not on the spot, not here and now and in their calculable future, but somewhere
else, in the irrelevant other worlds of sport and soap opera, of mythology and metaphysical fantasy, will find it hard to resist
the encroachments of those would manipulate and control it."
-----------------------------------------------------
The corrupt establishment will do anything to suppress sites like the Burning Platform from revealing the truth. The corporate media
does this by demonetizing sites like mine by blackballing the site from advertising revenue. If you get value from this site, please
keep it running with a donation. [Jim Quinn - PO Box 1520
Every hour taxpayers in the United States are paying $32,077,626 for
Total Cost of Wars Since 2001.
I'm going through a Department of Defense background check right now and it's not so bad. The thing is they already know everything
damn there is to know about me. How do I know this ? Because I can pull up on their computers what they already know. It's to
help guys like me pass or at least that's what they say.
They got us by the balls now . How can you fight something like this Unless you take down the whole electric grid. Only God knows
the horror that would bring.
"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." – Orwell
Galatians 4:16 KJB "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" – Paul
Boat Guy
It is serious concern the move from a free republic to a corporate state with armed government badge wearing just doing my
job minions existing in comfort thanks to the confiscatory tax and asset forfeiture programs in play by the circle jerk of Wall
Street to K-Street to Capitol Street .
Sadly the people of honor and integrity that could initiate a Nuremberg style justice system upon those in power and control will
quickly be stricken down by minions unaccountable thanks to nonsense like the patriot act and FISA courts . So much for the bill
of Rights that is supposed to be the impenetrable shield protecting Americans from government . Our alleged honor and oath bound
representatives have been able to turn it into Swiss cheese !
Refuse & Resist , Forget Me Not !
"... Still this is a clear and provable case of racket. Academic racket but still a racket. ..."
"... But even minor prosecution of those academic rentiers is impossible under neoliberalism as regulators are captured and corrupted. ..."
"... And students mostly are too badly informed and too naïve to shop around and find a better price. Which is still possible. For example using community college for the first two years and then transferring credits to a state university. And if student is talented enough he always can get masters at Ivy League school later and it will cost less. ..."
"... 8% insurance policy, ..."
"... The explosion in administrative employment and the resulting bureaucratic bloat and costs is ridiculous and unsustainable, including the promised pension and benefit payouts in the years to come. ..."
"... Young people borrowing tens of thousands of dollars to attend private, for-profit colleges (???) or to study the humanities, social sciences, or business is a waste of time and money for the vast majority. ..."
"... Most urban/suburban high schools have evolved into what might be described as college preparatory girls schools where a large majority of males are marginalized as necessary nuisances and the vast majority of kids learn little that is practical to participating as gainfully employed and self-supporting adults. ..."
"... But that is not an accident, of course. Feminization and infantilization of the society and economy has been underway coincident with deindustrialization and financialization since the 1970s-80s. ..."
"... The cost containment of colleges is the same as what is needed for healthcare. The government should intervene since it is the principal financier in more ways than one. ..."
"... To my knowledge and experience with Federal Direct Loans, students can go into forbearance at any time. There is also a 3 year window of no interest accumulation. After the 3 years, interest accumulates. ..."
The private enterprise system is built to limit overborrowing by sharing risk between lenders and borrowers. ... They charge more
interest when they take on more risk. Because most loans can be discharged in bankruptcy, lenders share the cost of default. ...
But the federal student loan program doesn't work that way. Those ads that run on bus stop signs and on late-night television
- "No Cash? No Credit? No Problem!" - are essentially the Department of Education's official policy on student loans.
On the front end, the department is the world's nicest, most accommodating lender. Interest rates ... are lower than banks charge...
Borrowing for college is essentially an entitlement...
When the loan bill finally comes due, the federal government transforms into a heartless loan collector. You don't need burly
men with brass knuckles to enforce debts when you have the Internal Revenue Service..., which can and will follow you as long as
you live.
The government acts this way because the federal student loan program has been removed from the norms and values of prudent lending.
Because the Department of Education doesn't consider risk, it takes no responsibility. If life, luck and bad choices leave you ...
in the hole, it's all on you. ...
Most college students ... pay back their loans and enjoy the fruits of their degrees. But most pack-a-day smokers don't die of
lung cancer. And most people who bought cars with Takata airbags from 2002 to 2008 weren't killed by shrapnel from explosions. Nevertheless,
we still regard small risks of catastrophic outcomes as problems to be solved. ...
Just one quick comment. We need to solve the student loan problem for existing loans, but I wish talk about how to address this
problem going forward was more about how to provide adequate funding for colleges so that large loans aren't needed in the first
place rather than focusing on how to change the loan program itself.
The cost containment of colleges is the same as what is needed for healthcare. The government should intervene since it is the
principal financier in more ways than one.
=== end of quote ===
Very true. May be even the idea of the net of eligible providers (in network vs out of network) can be borrowed form healthcare.
As this is a public good, it should be severe punishment including jail terms for inflating the cost of education. For example
I think Mankiw should be at investigated using RICO act for the cost of his textbook. But I think that students who enroll into Mankiw
class are already second rate students because at this point they should do some research about who Mankiw really is and avoid his
classes like a plague.
Still this is a clear and provable case of racket. Academic racket but still a racket.
But even minor prosecution of those academic rentiers is impossible under neoliberalism as regulators are captured and corrupted.
And students mostly are too badly informed and too naïve to shop around and find a better price. Which is still possible. For
example using community college for the first two years and then transferring credits to a state university. And if student is talented
enough he always can get masters at Ivy League school later and it will cost less.
Please note that quality of university education is already very problematic. Switching to preparing "ready for jobmarket" graduates
backfired. I would say that quality now is dismal as student lacks fundamentals. They are now kind of "bug of tricks" degree holders.
So the idea of cost control of college education can't be refuted with the hypothesis that it will lower the quality of education.
Essentially what Ivy league college degree buys is the first place in a heap of resumes to major companies (some companies simply
discard resumes from applicant who do not have Ivy League education).
Now about subsidies. Neoliberal colleges are for profit business with academic sharks no different that sharks in chemical or
pharmaceutical companies. They do not care about education, only about lining this own pockets. As simple as that.
That means that in a current environment any "broad" subsidies will result in raising of the cost of education. I would make subsidies
more focused, subject to means test as well as passing a qualifying exam similar to GED. After all at this point the society invests
some money into student.
djb
so is he saying that we shouldn't give student loans unless a bank would loan the money
that's means many people who can now afford college wont be able to
and this:
"Most college students don't end up like Ms. Kelley. They pay back their loans and enjoy the fruits of their degrees. But most
pack-a-day smokers don't die of lung cancer. And most people who bought cars with Takata airbags from 2002 to 2008 weren't killed
by shrapnel from explosions. Nevertheless, we still regard small risks of catastrophic outcomes as problems to be solved."
is he kidding me??? My student loans required an 8% insurance policy, money I didn't even get to use, came out before
I could pay tuition room and board, but I still owed it. The fact that most people pay their student loans means the government doesn't
lose anything from student loans
Dan Berg
Rather than "provide adequate (more) funding (taxes)for colleges" - how about ways to reduce cost? Beginning with the absurd costs
of textbooks; administrative bloat; disparities between tenured and part-time teachers; etc
Here is where Greg Mankiw will tell you he needs to charge $300 a book for his text because he wants his kids to be rich.
A Thomas
And how does anyone propose to remedy monies being deducted from Social Security for delinquent student loans when the person
(victim) cannot make timely payments because of AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT. While illegal, it is practiced by a majority of
employers. Often the Soc Sec recipient is reduced to living at poverty level - even though they want to work and would if they could
find paying employment.
Or does anyone want to remedy this? Just let the "old folks" starve and become homeless!!!!!!
RGC
"As a senator from Delaware -- a corporate tax haven where the financial industry is one of the state's largest employers -- Biden
was one of the key proponents of the 2005 legislation that is now bearing down on students like Ryan. That bill effectively prevents
the $150 billion worth of private student debt from being discharged, rescheduled or renegotiated as other debt can be in bankruptcy
court.
Biden's efforts in 2005 were no anomaly. Though the vice president has long portrayed himself as a champion of the struggling
middle class -- a man who famously commutes on Amtrak and mixes enthusiastically with blue-collar workers -- the Delaware lawmaker
has played a consistent and pivotal role in the financial industry's four-decade campaign to make it harder for students to shield
themselves and their families from creditors, according to an IBT review of bankruptcy legislation going back to the 1970s."
80-85% of jobs today and in the future will not require post-secondary training or a university credential. If accelerating automation
and elimination of service employment (retail, health care, education, gov't, legal, etc.) continues apace as anticipated, including
middle- and upper-income employment, there will be still fewer jobs requiring post-secondary "education" that pay what was once perceived
as breadwinner compensation.
Universities all over the US have since the 1970s-80s become costly public jobs programs primarily for females at low or no productivity
and increasing cost to the private sector (as in the case of "health" care). The explosion in administrative employment and the
resulting bureaucratic bloat and costs is ridiculous and unsustainable, including the promised pension and benefit payouts in the
years to come.
Young people borrowing tens of thousands of dollars to attend private, for-profit colleges (???) or to study the humanities,
social sciences, or business is a waste of time and money for the vast majority.
Most urban/suburban high schools have evolved into what might be described as college preparatory girls schools where a large
majority of males are marginalized as necessary nuisances and the vast majority of kids learn little that is practical to participating
as gainfully employed and self-supporting adults.
But that is not an accident, of course. Feminization and infantilization of the society and economy has been underway coincident
with deindustrialization and financialization since the 1970s-80s.
there should be a subsidy for college, because otherwise people tend to underinvest in education. Individuals are often liquidity
constrained or just short sighted.
But IMO we are doing the subsidies all wrong. We are offering subsidized loans and tax deductions. We should instead be using
plain old grants more often. That's how you ensure access to people who would otherwise lack it.
But the grants should be relatively small. They should just be sufficient to coverage get of a public university education, without
a little t of extra amenities. The critics of higher ed who say that subsidies are driving up the costs are half right. It's really
consumer preferences, for the most part. But that doesn't mean government should contribute to that problem, of that taxpayers should
pay limitless amounts. Some price pressure should still be left to exist.
The cost containment of colleges is the same as what is needed for healthcare. The government should intervene since it is the
principal financier in more ways than one.
There is a movement afoot from the Jason Delisles, Matt Chingos, and the Beth Akers of both the New America Foundation and Brookings
who advocate interest rates do not matter, higher interest rates make sense for advanced degrees, and student loans should be risk
sensitive using Fair Market Valuation techniques.
Getting a student loan is like checking into a Roach Motel. You can sign in via your signature; but, you can never check out without
paying it off. If you default, it gets worst for you as stated in the story. So the risk to the Federal Gov and taxpayers is minimal.
Indeed some would tell you, the Gov makes more money in default than in payoff. I also think there is more to the story than being
revealed.
The highest default rate is with those who have student loans of < $10,000 [~39% of them have loans of less than $10,000 (NY Fed)]
and are the result of Community Colleges. Potentially these are people attempting to improve their status in life. Student loan borrowers
with $100,000 of debt had a default rate of 18% and are also the higher earners after graduation.
To my knowledge and experience with Federal Direct Loans, students can go into forbearance at any time. There is also a 3 year
window of no interest accumulation. After the 3 years, interest accumulates. The 3 year window of no interest accumulation needs
to be expanded to cover what we experienced since 2008 and perhaps go as long as 10 years. The 20-25 life time of IBR should be shortened
to 10 - 15 years. This is not like students ordered up a 2008 recession, they were penalized unknowingly and were encouraged to seek
a college education of sorts. The same holds true for those returning to college to better themselves.
Not only does student debt hurt the student, it is also playing out in the overall economy as I reported using NY Fed information
at AB. Households with Student Loan Debt are a higher risk than those without Student Loan Debt. They are buying fewer homes and
autos than households without Student Loan debt.
State financing has decreased. In Michigan it has gone from ~60% to ~30% with families picking up the load through various sources.
Perhaps expanding the public service to erase college debt after 10 years would make more sense than doing so with strings attached.
Colleges do not appear to be cost sensitive to what the market may bear. There has always been a need for them and like healthcare
colleges are allowed to increase as needed in cost without question. If you can not pay it upfront, you can always borrow it seems
to rule. The new programs was supposed to hold colleges accountable for default rates. From the get-go, the administration let some
of them off the hook.
According
to a
brand new Pew survey, approximately 7 out of every 10 Americans believe that "debt is a necessity
in their lives", and approximately 8 out of every 10 Americans actually have debt right now.
Most of us like to think that "someday" we will get out of the hole and quit being debt slaves, but
very few of us ever actually accomplish this.
That is because the entire system is
designed to trap us in debt before we even get out into the "real world" and keep us in debt until
we die. Sadly, most Americans don't even realize what is being done to them.
In America today, debt is considered to be just part of normal life. We go
into debt to go to college, we go into debt to buy a vehicle, we go into debt to buy a home, and
we are constantly using our credit cards to buy the things that we think we need.
As a result, this generation of Americans is absolutely swimming in debt. The
following are some of the findings of
the Pew survey that I mentioned above
*"8 in 10 Americans have debt, with mortgages the most common liability."
*"Although younger generations of Americans are the most likely to have debt (89 percent of
Gen Xers and 86 percent of millennials do), older generations are increasingly carrying debt into
retirement."
*"7 in 10 Americans said debt is a necessity in their lives, even though they prefer not to
have it."
Most of us wish that we didn't have any debt, but we have bought into the lie that it
is a necessary part of life in America in the 21st century.
It has been estimated that 43 percent of all American households spend more money than they make
each month, and U.S. households are
more than 11 trillion dollars in debt at this point.
When it comes to government debt, that is easy for us to blame on someone else, but all of this
household debt is undoubtedly something that we have done to ourselves.
It all starts at a very early age for most of us. When we are still in
high school, we are endlessly told about how important a college education is. All of the authority
figures in our lives insist that we should just try to get into the best school that we possibly
can and to not even worry about how much it will cost.
So many of us go into staggering amounts of debt before we even get out into the working world.
We had faith that the "good jobs" that were being promised to us would be there when we graduated.
Unfortunately, in this day and age those "good jobs" end up being a mirage more often than not.
But whether or not we can find a good job, we still have to pay off all that debt.
According to new data that was recently released, the total amount of student loan debt in the
United States has risen to a grand total 1.2 trillion dollars. If you can believe it, that
total has
more than doubled over the past decade.
Right now, there are approximately
40 million Americans that are paying off student loan debt. For many of them, they will
keep making payments on this debt until they are senior citizens.
Another way that they get you while you are still in school is with credit card debt.
I got my first credit card while I was in college, and nobody ever taught me about the potential
dangers.
Today, the average U.S. household that has at least one credit card has approximately
$15,950 in credit card debt.
So let's say that you have that much credit card debt and you are paying an annual interest rate
of 17 percent. If you only pay the minimum payment each month, it will take you 229 months
to pay your credit card off, and during that time you will have paid $13,505.82 in interest charges.
In other words, you will almost have paid twice as much for everything that you originally bought
with your credit card by the time it is all said and done.
This is why banks love to give you credit cards. If they can get back nearly twice as much
money as they originally give you, they get rich and you get poor.
Most of us get loaded down with even more debt when we go to buy a vehicle. Instead of saving
up and getting what we can afford, many of us end up getting the largest loans that we can qualify
for.
In a
previous article, I discussed the fact that the average auto loan at signing in America
today is
approximately $27,000. In order to get the monthly payments down to a level where we can
afford them, many of these auto loans are now being stretched out for six or seven years.
In fact, the number of auto loans that exceed 72 months
has hit at an all-time high of 29.5 percent.
It is the same thing with home loans.
In the old days, it was extremely rare for a mortgage to be stretched over 30 years, but today
that is pretty much the standard.
Sadly, most people don't understand how much money this is costing them.
If you take out a $300,000 mortgage at 3.92 percent and stretch it over 30 years, you will end
up paying back a grand total of $510,640.
In other words, you will pay for two houses by the time you are done.
Yes, we all need somewhere to live, and there are definitely negatives to renting as well.
But it is very important that we all understand what is being done to us.
And I haven't even discussed one of the most insidious forms of debt yet.
Have you noticed that most doctors and most hospitals will never tell you how much something is
going to cost in advance?
They get us when we are at our most vulnerable. When there is something wrong with us physically,
we are often desperate to get help. So we don't ask too many questions and we just go along
with whatever they say.
But then later we get the bill and we are often
completely shocked by what they have charged us.
If you are completely unethical, it is a great business model. People that are extremely
desperate and needy come to you and you don't even have to tell them how much your services are going
to cost. And then once they leave, you send them an absolutely outrageous bill for whatever
you feel like charging.
Frankly, I don't know how a lot of people working in the medical field live with themselves.
In their extreme greed, they are ruining the lives of millions of ordinary American families.
One very disturbing study found that
approximately 41 percent of all working age Americans either currently have medical bill problems
or are paying off medical debt. And collection agencies seek to collect unpaid medical bills
from about 30 million of us each and every year.
Most of us will spend our entire lives paying off debt.
That is why we are called debt slaves – our hard work makes others extremely wealthy.
ebworthen
All by design. The great lie is that you should "work hard and be responsible".
Yeah? Why? Because it feeds the beast in Wall Street and Washington? The bailouts and free money
for the banks/corporations/insurers wiped that idea off the slate.
Give me sound money and start producing again while offering me interest on my savings and we
can start talking about responsibility. The example set by Wall Street and Washington is that
debt is good, so what the fuck do they expect regular folks to do, keep carrying their bags?
Fuck you assholes, to Hell and back on a bed of nails.
European American
I must confess. I declared bankruptcy back in the late 80's. Not proud of that time in my life
but it was legal and it literally saved me. Since then, "If I can't buy that product/service with
the cash in my wallet, then I wasn't suppose to have it." has been my philosophy for the last
25 years, and even though the State stills owns my real estate, more or less (various taxes),
I'm basically free. Debt is a killer of ones mental, physical and emotional immune system. I highly
recommend avoiding IT at all costs. Debit card is the only plastic money in my wallet, along with
some fiat currency. My bank is the color of Gold and SIlver.
Welcome to the club. Been a member for about that long myself.
I knew I'd like the financial freedom. I knew I'd like how much money it saved me.
What it took a few years debt-free to understand was that in a world measured in debt, I
would become invisible. I can not be viewed using their technology any more. I'm
a steath bomber with glider wings and a zero coefficient of drag.
If the 100th monkey effect applies here, we will be part of an awakened populace that watches
the ctrl+alt+del of USD and the resultant house of cards.
As we know debt is not always a bad thing. Sometimes it is worth becoming an indentured
servent for a payout later.
We take out a loan, or at least most of us, for a house. This helps us build up equity
instead of wasting it all on rent every month. By retirement people should own their
home outright and not have to pay rent during their retirement. Most smart people are
even able to downsize and stick some money in their savings.
A large percentage of people take out a loan for school. We have all read articled
of idiots getting a 4 year degree in women's studies at a fancy private school, having a loan
of $120,000, and never being able to pay it off. But the smart people who go to school
maybe a state school, for a degree that is marketable do better than those without a degree.
A reliable car can help us save time, thus money, getting to and from work and other places.
The key buying something basic and reliable and not a brand new sports car.
I'm glad we have the ability to borrow money. It has helped me immensily in my own
personal life. And I would say, I would be worse off without it.
Ugh. You all know my screen name, what it stands for and my opinions on debt. Posting
up on this subject borders on the tedious for me, but for those who haven't heard it yet, here
it is....
If you have a valid financial reason for going into debt, that is to say you have a well-considered
goal for your debt exposure, debt is not necessarily bad. For instance, if you are going
to be a professional photographer you might need to buy some cameras and photography equipment
that will be necessary for you to exist in that world. You are INVESTING in yourself.
Nothing wrong with using debt for that if you can't pay as you go straight out of pocket.
Further down the totem pole is something like buying a house. A collateralized obligation.
One you have the USE of the asset while you pay it off. I'm less enthusiastic about this
sort of stuff but if it's a necessity (like having a place to live) I can't fault you for
doing it. BUT IT WILL NEVER MAKE YOU MORE PRODUCTIVE OR INCREASE YOUR EARNING POWER.
You feeling me on this? The key here is to pay that bitch down as fast as possible and minimize
your interest expense because it's a pure dead-weight loss to you.
ANYTHING else, you don't need to go into debt over. So just don't. Better to do
without than go into debt over anything beyond this point.
There really are very few exceptions to these simple rules (unless you are a government in
which case everything is an excuse to go into debt since you're just spending other people's money).
We should object to the neoliberal complete "instumentalization" of education: education became just a mean to get nicely paid job.
And even this hope is mostly an illusion for all but the top 5% of students...
And while students share their own part of responsibility for accumulating the debt the predatory behaviour of neoliberal universities
is an important factor that should not be discounted and perpetrators should be held responsible. Especially dirty tricks of ballooning
its size and pushing students into "hopeless" specialties, which would be fine, if they were sons or daughters of well to do and parent
still support then financially.
Actually neoliberalism justifies predatory behaviour and as such is a doomed social system as without solidarity some members of
financial oligarchy that rules the country sooner or later might hand from the lampposts.
Notable quotes:
"... It also never ceases to amaze me the number of anti-educational opinions which flare up when the discussion of student loan default arises. There are always those who will prophesize there is no need to attain a higher level of education as anyone could be something else and be successful and not require a higher level of education. Or they come forth with the explanation on how young 18 year-olds and those already struggling should be able to ascertain the risk of higher debt when the cards are already stacked against them legally. ..."
"... There does not appear to be much movement on the part of Congress to reconcile the issues in favor of students as opposed to the non-profit and for profit institutes. ..."
"... It's easy to explain, really. According to the Department of Education ( https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/understand/plans ) you're going to be paying off that loan at minimum payments for 25 years. Assuming your average bachelor's degree is about $30k if you go all-loans ( http://collegecost.ed.gov/catc/ ) and the average student loan interest rate is a generous 5% ( http://www.direct.ed.gov/calc.html ), you're going to be paying $175 a month for a sizable chunk of your adult life. ..."
"... Majoring in IT or Computer Science would have a been a great move in the late 1990's; however, if you graduated around 2000, you likely would have found yourself facing a tough job market.. Likewise, majoring in petroleum engineering or petroleum geology would have seemed like a good move a couple of years ago; however, now that oil prices are crashing, it's presumably a much tougher job market. ..."
"... To confuse going to college with vocational education is to commit a major category error. I think bright, ambitious high school graduates– who are looking for upward social mobility– would be far better served by a plumbing or carpentry apprenticeship program. A good plumber can earn enough money to send his or her children to Yale to study Dante, Boccaccio, and Chaucer. ..."
"... A bright working class kid who goes off to New Haven, to study medieval lit, will need tremendous luck to overcome the enormous class prejudice she will face in trying to establish herself as a tenure-track academic. If she really loves medieval literature for its own sake, then to study it deeply will be "worth it" even if she finds herself working as a barista or store-clerk. ..."
"... As a middle-aged doctoral student in the humanities you should not even be thinking much about your loans. Write the most brilliant thesis that you can, get a book or some decent articles published from it– and swim carefully in the shark-infested waters of academia until you reach the beautiful island of tenured full-professorship. If that island turns out to be an ever-receding mirage, sell your soul to our corporate overlords and pay back your loans! Alternatively, tune in, drop out, and use your finely tuned research and rhetorical skills to help us overthrow the kleptocratic regime that oppresses us all!! ..."
"... Genuine education should provide one with profound contentment, grateful for the journey taken, and a deep appreciation of life. ..."
"... Instead many of us are left confused – confusing career training (redundant and excessive, as it turned out, unfortunate for the student, though not necessarily bad for those on the supply side, one must begrudgingly admit – oops, there goes one's serenity) with enlightenment. ..."
"... We all should be against Big Educational-Complex and its certificates-producing factory education that does not put the student's health and happiness up there with co-existing peacefully with Nature. ..."
"... Remember DINKs? Dual Income No Kids. Dual Debt Bad Job No House No Kids doesn't work well for acronyms. Better for an abbreviated hash tag? ..."
"... I graduated law school with $100k+ in debt inclusive of undergrad. I've never missed a loan payment and my credit score is 830. my income has never reached $100k. my payments started out at over $1000 a month and through aggressive payment and refinancing, I've managed to reduce the payments to $500 a month. I come from a lower middle class background and my parents offered what I call 'negative help' throughout college. ..."
"... my unfortunate situation is unique and I wouldn't wish my debt on anyone. it's basically indentured servitude. it's awful, it's affects my life and health in ways no one should have to live, I have all sorts of stress related illnesses. I'm basically 2 months away from default of everything. my savings is negligible and my net worth is still negative 10 years after graduating. ..."
"... My story is very similar to yours, although I haven't had as much success whittling down my loan balances. But yes, it's made me a socialist as well; makes me wonder how many of us, i.e. ppl radicalized by student loans, are out there. Perhaps the elites' grand plan to make us all debt slaves will eventually backfire in more ways than via the obvious economic issues? ..."
It also never ceases to amaze me the number of anti-educational opinions which flare up when the discussion of student loan
default arises. There are always those who will prophesize there is no need to attain a higher level of education as anyone could
be something else and be successful and not require a higher level of education. Or they come forth with the explanation on how young
18 year-olds and those already struggling should be able to ascertain the risk of higher debt when the cards are already stacked
against them legally. In any case during a poor economy, those with more education appear to be employed at a higher rate than
those with less education. The issue for those pursuing an education is the ever increasing burden and danger of student loans and
associated interest rates which prevent younger people from moving into the economy successfully after graduation, the failure of
the government to support higher education and protect students from for-profit fraud, the increased risk of default and becoming
indentured to the government, and the increased cost of an education which has surpassed healthcare in rising costs.
There does not appear to be much movement on the part of Congress to reconcile the issues in favor of students as opposed
to the non-profit and for profit institutes.
Ranger Rick, November 9, 2015 at 11:34 am
It's easy to explain, really. According to the Department of Education (
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/understand/plans
) you're going to be paying off that loan at minimum payments for 25 years. Assuming your average bachelor's degree is about $30k
if you go all-loans ( http://collegecost.ed.gov/catc/ ) and the
average student loan interest rate is a generous 5% ( http://www.direct.ed.gov/calc.html
), you're going to be paying $175 a month for a sizable chunk of your adult life.
If you're merely hitting the median income of a bachelor's degree after graduation, $55k (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=77
), and good luck with that in this economy, you're still paying ~31.5% of that in taxes (http://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-policy/taxing-wages-20725124.htm
) you're left with $35.5k before any other costs. Out of that, you're going to have to come up with the down payment to buy a
house and a car after spending more money than you have left (http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann13.pdf).
Louis, November 9, 2015 at 12:33 pm
The last paragraph sums it up perfectly, especially the predictable counterarguments. Accurately assessing what job in demand
several years down the road is very difficult, if not impossible.
Majoring in IT or Computer Science would have a been a great move in the late 1990's; however, if you graduated around
2000, you likely would have found yourself facing a tough job market.. Likewise, majoring in petroleum engineering or petroleum
geology would have seemed like a good move a couple of years ago; however, now that oil prices are crashing, it's presumably a
much tougher job market.
Do we blame the computer science majors graduating in 2000 or the graduates struggling to break into the energy industry, now
that oil prices have dropped, for majoring in "useless" degrees? It's much easier to create a strawman about useless degrees that
accept the fact that there is a element of chance in terms of what the job market will look like upon graduation.
The cost of higher education is absurd and there simply aren't enough good jobs to go around-there are people out there who
majored in the "right" fields and have found themselves underemployed or unemployed-so I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of
many people in my generation.
At the same time, I do believe in personal responsibility-I'm wary of creating a moral hazard if people can discharge loans
in bankruptcy. I've been paying off my student loans (grad school) for a couple of years-I kept the level debt below any realistic
starting salary-and will eventually have the loans paid off, though it may be a few more years.
I am really conflicted between believing in personal responsibility but also seeing how this generation has gotten screwed.
I really don't know what the right answer is.
Ulysses, November 9, 2015 at 1:47 pm
"The cost of higher education is absurd and there simply aren't enough good jobs to go around-there are people out there who
majored in the "right" fields and have found themselves underemployed or unemployed-so I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of
many people in my generation."
To confuse going to college with vocational education is to commit a major category error. I think bright, ambitious high
school graduates– who are looking for upward social mobility– would be far better served by a plumbing or carpentry apprenticeship
program. A good plumber can earn enough money to send his or her children to Yale to study Dante, Boccaccio, and Chaucer.
A bright working class kid who goes off to New Haven, to study medieval lit, will need tremendous luck to overcome the
enormous class prejudice she will face in trying to establish herself as a tenure-track academic. If she really loves medieval
literature for its own sake, then to study it deeply will be "worth it" even if she finds herself working as a barista or store-clerk.
None of this, of course, excuses the outrageously high tuition charges, administrative salaries, etc. at the "top schools."
They are indeed institutions that reinforce class boundaries. My point is that strictly career education is best begun at a less
expensive community college. After working in the IT field, for example, a talented associate's degree-holder might well find
that her employer will subsidize study at an elite school with an excellent computer science program.
My utopian dream would be a society where all sorts of studies are open to everyone– for free. Everyone would have a basic
Job or Income guarantee and could study as little, or as much, as they like!
Ulysses, November 9, 2015 at 2:05 pm
As a middle-aged doctoral student in the humanities you should not even be thinking much about your loans. Write the most
brilliant thesis that you can, get a book or some decent articles published from it– and swim carefully in the shark-infested
waters of academia until you reach the beautiful island of tenured full-professorship.
If that island turns out to be an ever-receding mirage, sell your soul to our corporate overlords and pay back your loans!
Alternatively, tune in, drop out, and use your finely tuned research and rhetorical skills to help us overthrow the kleptocratic
regime that oppresses us all!!
subgenius, November 9, 2015 at 3:07 pm
except (in my experience) the corporate overlords want young meat.
I have 2 masters degrees 2 undergraduate degrees and a host of random diplomas – but at 45, I am variously too old, too qualified,
or lacking sufficient recent corporate experience in the field to get hired
Trying to get enough cash to get a contractor license seems my best chance at anything other than random day work.
MyLessThanPrimeBeef, November 9, 2015 at 3:41 pm
Genuine education should provide one with profound contentment, grateful for the journey taken, and a deep appreciation
of life.
Instead many of us are left confused – confusing career training (redundant and excessive, as it turned out, unfortunate
for the student, though not necessarily bad for those on the supply side, one must begrudgingly admit – oops, there goes one's
serenity) with enlightenment.
"I would spend another 12 soul-nourishing years pursuing those non-profit degrees' vs 'I can't feed my family with those paper
certificates.'
jrs, November 9, 2015 at 2:55 pm
I am anti-education as the solution to our economic woes. We need jobs or a guaranteed income. And we need to stop outsourcing
the jobs that exist. And we need a much higher minimum wage. And maybe we need work sharing. I am also against using screwdrivers
to pound in a nail. But why are you so anti screwdriver anyway?
And I see calls for more and more education used to make it seem ok to pay people without much education less than a living
wage. Because they deserve it for being whatever drop outs. And it's not ok.
I don't actually have anything against the professors (except their overall political cowardice in times demanding radicalism!).
Now the administrators, yea I can see the bloat and the waste there. But mostly, I have issues with more and more education being
preached as the answer to a jobs and wages crisis.
MyLessThanPrimeBeef -> jrs, November 9, 2015 at 3:50 pm
We all should be against Big Educational-Complex and its certificates-producing factory education that does not put the
student's health and happiness up there with co-existing peacefully with Nature.
"You must be lazy – you're not educated."
"Sorry, you are too stupid for our elite university to admit, just as your brother was too poor for our rich club to let
in."
"I am going to kill you intellectually. I will annihilate you intellectually. My idea will destroy you and I don't have
to feel sorry at all."
Kris Alman, November 9, 2015 at 11:11 am
Remember DINKs? Dual Income No Kids. Dual Debt Bad Job No House No Kids doesn't work well for acronyms. Better for an abbreviated
hash tag?
debitor serf, November 9, 2015 at 7:17 pm
I graduated law school with $100k+ in debt inclusive of undergrad. I've never missed a loan payment and my credit score
is 830. my income has never reached $100k. my payments started out at over $1000 a month and through aggressive payment and refinancing,
I've managed to reduce the payments to $500 a month. I come from a lower middle class background and my parents offered what I
call 'negative help' throughout college.
my unfortunate situation is unique and I wouldn't wish my debt on anyone. it's basically indentured servitude. it's awful,
it's affects my life and health in ways no one should have to live, I have all sorts of stress related illnesses. I'm basically
2 months away from default of everything. my savings is negligible and my net worth is still negative 10 years after graduating.
student loans, combined with a rigged system, turned me into a closeted socialist. I am smart, hard working and resourceful.
if I can't make it in this world, heck, then who can? few, because the system is rigged!
I have no problems at all taking all the wealth of the oligarchs and redistributing it. people look at me like I'm crazy. confiscate
it all I say, and reset the system from scratch. let them try to make their billions in a system where things are fair and not
rigged...
Ramoth, November 9, 2015 at 9:23 pm
My story is very similar to yours, although I haven't had as much success whittling down my loan balances. But yes, it's
made me a socialist as well; makes me wonder how many of us, i.e. ppl radicalized by student loans, are out there. Perhaps the
elites' grand plan to make us all debt slaves will eventually backfire in more ways than via the obvious economic issues?
University of Phoenix is a typical diploma mill designed for producing debt-slaves... Private equity sharks like Mark DeFusco
try to devour weaker colleges, which no longer get enough state support.
The game plan is to strips assets like land and buildings. Essentially nobody can stop them.
Notable quotes:
"... Mr. DeFusco, 51, is a veteran of the for-profit-college industry. For the past five years, he's been a deal maker with Berkery Noyes, an investment bank that handles many mergers and acquisitions of education and information companies that often don't get publicized. From 2002 to 2005, as a new wave of private-equity investors came onto the scene, he was president of Vatterott College, a privately held institution based in St. Louis. He was a top manager at the University of Phoenix for 10 years before that, at a time when it was broadening its footprint and becoming the national powerhouse it is today. ..."
"... Voluble and refreshingly unslick, Mr. DeFusco was the guy on the PBS Frontline documentary College Inc. who, with just a little coaxing, memorably discussed how "very, very well" he and his University of Phoenix colleagues made out financially as the university expanded. "I did better than I ever imagined," he said on the show. ..."
"... It wasn't a pipe dream, he says. Working with a colleague with years of experience at Catholic colleges, Jack P. Calareso, president of Anna Maria College, he had identified 25 Catholic colleges, with enrollments ranging in size from 400 to 3,000, as acquisition targets. ..."
"... Two East Coast private-equity investors, he says, "committed more resources than I could spend"-about $500-million over four years. And he says they weren't the sort of investors looking for a fast buck. (The investors asked him not to reveal their identities; Mr. Calareso, who sat in on some of the meetings with investors and colleges, confirmed the details of the venture in an interview.) ..."
"... The idea, Mr. DeFusco says, was to operate the colleges with "a portfolio view," taking advantage of their strengths and economies of scale on things like marketing and student recruiting, keeping their Catholic mission, investing in new programs and facilities where it made sense, and eventually scrapping some programs that underperformed. ..."
Courtesy of Frontline, (c) 1995-2010 WGBH Educational Foundation
Mark DeFusco has worked with an investment bank and was a top manager at the U. of Phoenix.
Mark DeFusco has a new gig, and it may speak volumes about the evolving higher-education landscape and the fate of financially struggling
private colleges.
Until a few months ago, Mr. DeFusco was working with major investors on plans to buy and bundle up ailing regionally accredited colleges.
Now, believing that the once-friendly climate for such nonprofit conversions has grown chilly, he's shifted gears. Instead of buying
up troubled colleges, he's going to work with two veteran academics at the University of Southern California to form a consultancy focused
on saving them.
"I've been very busy these last five years telling for-profit businesses what's valuable" about themselves, says Mr. DeFusco. The
goal of the consultancy is to help nonprofits capitalize on their most valuable traits, too.
"We don't want to see potentially good assets fail," says Mr. DeFusco of the new venture, which will be run out of Southern Cal's
Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis and headed by Mr. DeFusco and the professors Guilbert C. Hentschke and William G. Tierney.
Considering how Mr. DeFusco has been in the thick of the education industry's most important trends for two decades, this latest
move is worth watching.
Mr. DeFusco, 51, is a veteran of the for-profit-college industry. For the past five years, he's been a deal maker with Berkery
Noyes, an investment bank that handles many mergers and acquisitions of education and information companies that often don't get publicized.
From 2002 to 2005, as a new wave of private-equity investors came onto the scene, he was president of Vatterott College, a privately
held institution based in St. Louis. He was a top manager at the University of Phoenix for 10 years before that, at a time when it was
broadening its footprint and becoming the national powerhouse it is today.
Voluble and refreshingly unslick, Mr. DeFusco was the guy on the PBS Frontline documentary College Inc. who, with just
a little coaxing, memorably discussed how "very, very well" he and his University of Phoenix colleagues made out financially as the
university expanded. "I did better than I ever imagined," he said on the show.
Until a few months ago, he thought he might have found another gold mine of a business, one that would be not only lucrative for
him and his enthusiastic investors, but also, he says, beneficial to higher education writ large.
His plan was to form an investor-backed "roll-up"-a company comprising several small nonprofit colleges that it would buy, and then
continue to operate, but with a single back-office operation for administrative functions.
"You could really have efficiencies" without each college having its own bursar, its own registrar, he says, replaying a theme that
many higher-education reformers before him have espoused.
It wasn't a pipe dream, he says. Working with a colleague with years of experience at Catholic colleges, Jack P. Calareso, president
of Anna Maria College, he had identified 25 Catholic colleges, with enrollments ranging in size from 400 to 3,000, as acquisition targets.
"I wanted to get to them before they got onto your list," he says, referring to
the list published in The Chronicle
last year citing the 100-plus nonprofit colleges that had failed the Department of Education's financial-responsibility test.
On Second Thought
Two East Coast private-equity investors, he says, "committed more resources than I could spend"-about $500-million over four
years. And he says they weren't the sort of investors looking for a fast buck. (The investors asked him not to reveal their identities;
Mr. Calareso, who sat in on some of the meetings with investors and colleges, confirmed the details of the venture in an interview.)
The idea, Mr. DeFusco says, was to operate the colleges with "a portfolio view," taking advantage of their strengths and economies
of scale on things like marketing and student recruiting, keeping their Catholic mission, investing in new programs and facilities where
it made sense, and eventually scrapping some programs that underperformed.
"I really wanted to get into heaven," he says. And the moves might have helped keep some traditional colleges alive, along with the
values they perpetuate. "When my kids go to college, I hope there is still tenure and there's still academic freedom."
Mr. DeFusco says he had support from two bishops and actually had in hand three letters of intent from colleges willing to be acquired.
(He wouldn't name them.) Then his lawyers advised him in early spring that the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association
of Colleges and Schools, a regional accreditor that had been known for allowing such conversions over the past five years, had begun
to take a tougher line. Eighteen of his 25 targets were in that accreditors' region.
The Higher Learning Commission rejected the conversion of nonprofit Dana College in July and of Rochester College in February, based
on new policies it adopted in June 2009 and toughened in February.
Mr. DeFusco says he got the message. Before that commission approves another conversion, he believes, "it's going to be a couple
of years-guaranteed."
Sylvia Manning, president of the commission since June 2008, says the new policy does not ban nonprofit-to-for-profit conversions-in
fact the continued reaccreditation of two converted institutions, Waldorf College in January and the College of Santa Fe in October,
came after the policy was adopted in June.
It was under her predecessor Steven D. Crow that institutions including the American College of Education (formerly Barat College),
Grand Canyon University, and Ashford University (formerly the Franciscan University of the Prairies) were acquired by companies and
allowed to significantly shift their emphasis to online education while keeping their accreditation.
She allows that in general, the new policy creates a much higher bar than what existed under her predecessor.
"It's quite possible people are reading this and are saying, 'Oh my God,'" Ms. Manning says, The new standards are not intended to
block purchases or keep new owners from introducing new styles of management and curricula to the institutions they're acquiring, she
says. "We're not saying you can't change them," she says of the colleges. But for colleges' accreditation to transfer upon a sale, "you
can't transform them."
Ms. Manning says she never spoke with Mr. DeFusco and declined to comment on his assessment of her commission's stance, or of his
sense that other regional accreditors are following suit. "My guess is that he's doing his own reading of tea leaves," says Ms. Manning.
A New Deal
Mr. DeFusco says many of the forces that would have made his roll-up venture a success lead him to believe that his shift in gears
toward a hands-on consulting project focused on struggling colleges will also keep him very busy, albeit probably with a smaller payday.
"A lot of schools are in trouble," says Mr. DeFusco. In the course of his research for his new venture, he and his team estimated
that 15 to 45 colleges could fail each year for the next five years.
Too many colleges are discounting their tuition too heavily in pursuit of students, needlessly holding onto underutilized property
that could better used to raise capital ("In this climate, those buildings are an anchor that drown you," he says), and maintaining
administrative functions that could be better handled through outsourcing or collaboration.
Worse, he says, many boards of trustees are unaware of the severity of their institutions' problems. If you were on the board of
a for-profit company operating like that, "you'd be sued," he says.
A tad less bluntly, Southern Cal's Mr. Tierney, a professor of higher education, echoes much of Mr. DeFusco's concern about the prospects
for higher education, especially in the near term. "Some of us are getting very sober about a rebound," he says. The policy-analysis
center has had a long interest in business-focused approaches and the role of markets in higher education. Mr. Tierney and Mr. Hentschke
have written or co-edited two books on for-profit colleges.
So the idea of teaming up with Mr. DeFusco (who himself received a Ph.D. from Southern Cal) to work as turnaround consultants and
help some colleges "stop the bleeding" was appealing, says Mr. Tierney. This month Mr. DeFusco will join the university as a senior
research associate at the center.
Although there is no shortage of consultants already mining this territory-Bain, Huron, the Education Advisory Board, and advisers
organized by the Association of Governing Boards, to name just a few-Mr. Tierney says the combination of Mr. DeFusco's business experience
and his and Mr. Hentschke's understanding of academic culture and the role of shared governance gives their venture a niche. Also, he
notes, it may be the first such higher-education consulting group to operate from within a university.
The consultants will help with short-term strategies, governance, and operational audits. They will also offer "workout" expertise;
workout is the term used when companies go out of business. As a university effort, the consultancy can also call upon the expertise
of other academics in the School of Education and the rest of the university. The consulting entity will pay a portion of its earnings
as overhead to Southern Cal in return for administrative support.
Mr. Tierney says he hopes to begin signing up clients by Labor Day. "If nobody calls by January 1, well, then this was an interesting
idea."
It all seems pretty fast-paced to Mr. Tierney. But that's been a lesson in itself for Mr. DeFusco, as he prepares to immerse himself
more directly in traditional academe. "August off?" he responded incredulously when Mr. Tierney told him the schedule. August is when
colleges are sweating the most over whether enough students will show up to cover the budget. "This is your most important month," he
says.
For higher education, this new gig may or may not be a bellwether. For Mr. DeFusco, it will certainly require some adjusting.
"... Despite somewhat different tactics, both the Republicans and the Democrats, as parties of Wall Street, aim to impose austerity on the working class in order to deal with the fiscal crisis of the state. The aim is to cut domestic programs and public services, and teacher unions are a prime target. Merit pay for teachers and union "flexibility" is a part of the Obama administration's education program. From this perspective, compliant union officials are a means to instruct teachers and other public employees to make concessions "voluntarily." This approach was articulated by a Wisconsin public official who defended teacher and other public unions' right to exist because unions have been a means to negotiate concessions in wages and benefits peacefully. But some ideologically driven Republican legislators want to go further to make deep cuts in the education budget and break teacher unions and organized labor entirely. This would eliminate the remaining organized working-class resistance against the attempt to make workers pay for the crisis, and would undermine a key support for the Democratic Party. ..."
Jammed into a thundering crowd of thousands of chanting people in Madison, Wisconsin, it looks
like a dam has broken. The new Wisconsin Tea Party governor brazenly accelerated what has been a
bipartisan agenda to undermine public education and weaken teacher and other public employee unions.
His "budget repair bill"-an assault on public employee unions, schools, and low-income health care-was
met with immediate, massive, determined resistance that began with a walkout by Madison public school
teachers.
Over three weeks, thousands of teachers, social workers, firefighters, and public and private
sector workers of every stripe have demonstrated in communities across the state and piled into busses
headed to the state capital. Protesters occupied the capital building for more than two weeks. Two
of the rallies were estimated at over one hundred thousand people. There were many signs, such as
"Recall Walker," "If you can read this, thank a teacher," and "Stop the War on Workers," but also
something more: handmade signs saying "This is Class War" and "End Corporate Greed." A young woman
at the rally on March 11 after the state legislature passed the governor's union-busting bill, held
up a placard proclaiming, "Teacher by Day, Freedom Fighter by Night."
As I write this, in March 2011, a sleeping giant is stirring. The broad U.S. working class has
absorbed blow after blow, concessions and job losses one after the other, stagnating wages for thirty
years, and two wars costing trillions of dollars. The greatest capitalist crisis since the Great
Depression brought a trillion-dollar bailout of the biggest banks and investment houses, the loss
of ten million homes to foreclosure by the banks, and 10 percent official unemployment. A broad process
of structural adjustment is under way to make the working and middle classes pay for the crisis created
by Wall Street. But recent attempts at the state level to impose austerity measures may be just too
much for people to take. The attack on public workers and sell-off of public assets-from schools,
to municipal utilities, to bridges and roads-may go too far. This is a watershed moment.
Despite somewhat different tactics, both the Republicans and the Democrats, as parties of
Wall Street, aim to impose austerity on the working class in order to deal with the fiscal crisis
of the state. The aim is to cut domestic programs and public services, and teacher unions are a prime
target. Merit pay for teachers and union "flexibility" is a part of the Obama administration's education
program. From this perspective, compliant union officials are a means to instruct teachers and other
public employees to make concessions "voluntarily." This approach was articulated by a Wisconsin
public official who defended teacher and other public unions' right to exist because unions have
been a means to negotiate concessions in wages and benefits peacefully. But some ideologically driven
Republican legislators want to go further to make deep cuts in the education budget and break teacher
unions and organized labor entirely. This would eliminate the remaining organized working-class resistance
against the attempt to make workers pay for the crisis, and would undermine a key support for the
Democratic Party.
In Wisconsin, union responses to the Tea Party agenda were mixed. Despite the fact that their
own data show real earnings for Wisconsin teachers declined by 2.3 percent over the last decade,1
the leadership of the Wisconsin Education Association Council and some other unions gave in to Walker's
demand for financial concessions early on. They drew the line, however, at automatic union dues collection
and the right to bargain collectively over working conditions such as class size, that affect children's
learning. Their slogan was "It's not about the money, it's about our rights [to bargain collectively]."
Other labor organizations, notably the South Central Federation of Labor in Wisconsin and the National
Nurses United, put the blame on Wall Street and called for closing corporate tax loopholes. The nurses
union said, "Working people did not create the recession or the budgetary crisis facing federal,
state and local governments-and there can be NO more concessions, period."2
There is a long and complex road ahead with no clear outcome. But education is the frontline in
class warfare by the rich against the working class. The assault on public education, teachers, and
their unions has been evolving over the past thirty years as part of the neoliberal restructuring
of the global capitalist economy, but the current crisis of capitalism has accelerated this assault.3
Education has been a key sector in the neoliberalization of social policy and the neoliberal political
economy of cities. The resistance to these policies has been broad at classroom and school levels
and in a growing movement of education activists allied with parents and students. Education, for
those in power, plays a key role in social reproduction of the labor force and in ideological legitimation
of the social order. Those who, conversely, have seen education as a way to strengthen democratic
participation in society and human liberation have always contested these goals. There is a rich
history of people of color, women, workers, educators, and social movements fighting for democratic,
inclusive, liberatory education. The crisis and the accelerated assault on teachers and public education
are sharpening the contest over the right to public education and the role of education in society.
In this article, I review the neoliberal project to restructure education, particularly its relationship
to neoliberal urban development, and responses to it. I discuss implications of privatization and
austerity measures for public education and its function in social reproduction. I argue that this
crisis is a moment of danger but also opportunity, not only to defend public education, but also
to reshape it as part of the struggle for a new social order based on human liberation.
Neoliberal Restructuring of Public Education
When President Obama appointed Arne Duncan, former-CEO of Chicago Public Schools, to head the
U.S. Department of Education in 2008, he signaled an intention to accelerate a neoliberal education
program that has been unfolding over the past two decades. This agenda calls for expanding education
markets and employing market principles across school systems. It features mayoral control of school
districts, closing "failing" public schools or handing them over to corporate-style "turnaround"
organizations, expanding school "choice" and privately run but publicly funded charter schools, weakening
teacher unions, and enforcing top-down accountability and incentivized performance targets on schools,
classrooms, and teachers (e.g., merit pay based on students' standardized test scores). To spur this
agenda, the Obama administration offered cash-strapped states $4.35 billion in federal stimulus dollars
to "reform" their school systems. Competition for these "Race to the Top" funds favored states that
passed legislation to enable education markets.
Race to the Top, although originating in U.S. government, is actually part of a global neoliberal
thrust toward the commodification of all realms of existence. In a new round of accumulation by dispossession,
liberalization of trade has opened up education, along with other public sectors, to capital accumulation,
and particularly to penetration of the education sectors of the periphery (e.g., Latin America, parts
of Asia, Africa). Under the Global Agreement on Trade in Services, all aspects of education and education
services are subject to global trade.4
The result is the global marketing of schooling from primary school through higher education. Schools,
education management organizations, tutoring services, teacher training, tests, curricula online
classes, and franchises of branded universities are now part of a global education market. Education
markets are one facet of the neoliberal strategy to manage the structural crisis of capitalism by
opening the public sector to capital accumulation. The roughly $2.5 trillion global market in education
is a rich new arena for capital investment.5
In the United States, charter schools are a vehicle to commodify and marketize education. Charter
schools are publicly funded but privately operated. They eliminate democratic governance, and, although
they may be run by nonprofit community organizations or groups of teachers or parents, the market
favors scaling up franchises of charter school management organizations or contracting out to for-profit
education management organizations that get management fees to run schools and education programs.6
For example, EdisonLearning, a transnational for-profit management organization, claims it serves
nearly one-half million students in twenty-five states in the United States, the United Kingdom,
and Dubai.7
The market mechanisms and business management discourses and practices that are saturating public
education in the United States are all too familiar to teachers and students worldwide. Globally,
nations are restructuring their education systems for "human capital" development to prepare students
for new types of work and labor relations.8
This policy agenda has been aggressively pushed by transnational organizations such as the World
Bank, International Monetary Fund, and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Objectives
and performance targets are the order of the day, and testing is a prominent mechanism to steer curriculum
and instruction to meet these goals efficiently and effectively.
In the United States, the neoliberal restructuring of education is deeply racialized. It is centered
particularly on urban African American, Latino, and other communities of color, where public schools,
subject to being closed or privatized, are driven by a minimalist curriculum of preparing for standardized
tests. The cultural politics of race is also central to constructing consent for this agenda. As
Stephen Haymes argues, the "concepts 'public' and 'private' are racialized metaphors. Private is
equated with being 'good' and 'white' and public with being 'bad' and 'Black.'"9
Disinvesting in public schools, closing them, and opening privately operated charter schools in African-American
and Latino communities is facilitated by a racist discourse that pathologizes these communities and
their public institutions. But "failing" schools are the product of a legacy of educational, economic,
and social inequities experienced by African Americans, Latinos/as, and Native Americans.10
Schools serving these communities continue to face deeply inequitable opportunities to learn, including
unequal funding, curriculum, educational resources, facilities, and teacher experience. High stakes
accountability has often compounded these inequities by narrowing the curriculum to test preparation-producing
an exodus of some of the strongest teachers from schools in low-income communities of color.11
Neoliberalization of public education is also an ideological project, as Margaret Thatcher famously
said, to "change the soul," redefining the purpose of education and what it means to teach, learn,
and participate in schooling. Tensions between democratic purposes of education and education to
serve the needs of the workforce are longstanding. But in the neoliberal framework, teaching is driven
by standardized tests and performance outcomes; principals are managers, and school superintendents
are CEOs; and learning equals performance on the tests with teachers, students, and parents held
responsible for "failure." Education, which is properly seen as a public good, is being converted
into a private good, an investment one makes in one's child or oneself to "add value" in order better
to compete in the labor market. It is no longer seen as part of the larger end of promoting individual
and social development, but is merely the means to rise above others. Democratic participation in
local schools is rearticulated to individual "empowerment" of education consumers-as parents compete
for slots in an array of charter and specialty schools. In Chicago, twelve thousand parents and students
attended the 2010 "High School Fair" sponsored by Chicago Public Schools, and six thousand attended
the "New Schools Expo" of charter and school choice options. The political significance of this neoliberal
shift stretches beyond schools to legitimize marketing the public sector, particularly in cities,
and to infuse market ideologies into everyday life.
Nowhere did the rollback of social welfare policies and public institutions occur with greater
force than in hurricane-devastated New Orleans. In the words of George Lipsitz, the aftermath of
hurricane Katrina ushered in an orgy of "legalized looting to enable corporations to profit from
the misfortunes of poor people."13
Education was at the leading edge. The state at all levels, in alliance with local and national capital
and neoliberal think tanks, took advantage of the chaos wreaked by Katrina and the exodus of low-income
working-class African Americans from the city to dismantle their public schools. This was a strategic
move to exclude low-income African Americans from the city altogether. They not only had no homes
to return to, they had no schools. Before Katrina hit in August 2005, there were sixty-three thousand
students in New Orleans public schools; about twenty-four thousand began classes there in the fall
of 2008.14
Just weeks after the hurricane, the state of Louisiana took over one hundred public schools and
began turning over millions of dollars of taxpayer money to private organizations to run them. The
state dismissed all forty-five hundred public school teachers, broke the city's powerful black-led
teachers' union, and dismantled the school system's administrative infrastructure.15
Right-wing foundations quickly issued reports calling for vouchers, and President Bush proposed $1.9
billion for K-12 students with $488 million targeted for vouchers to be used in schools anywhere
in the country. An influential report by the Urban Institute hailed New Orleans as an opportunity
for a grand experiment to decentralize and privatize the public school system through vouchers and
charter schools.16
Less than a month after the hurricane devastated the city, the U.S. Department of Education gave
the state of Louisiana $20.9 million to reopen existing charter schools and open new ones, and nine
months later, the department gave the state an additional $23.9 million for new charter schools,
most in New Orleans. Prior to Katrina, there were five charter schools in the city. After the hurricane,
the state took over most of the schools and established the Recovery School District, an open arena
for charter schools. Of the fifty-five schools opened in New Orleans in 2006-2007, thirty-one were
public charter schools.17
In 2010, out of eighty-eight public schools in New Orleans, sixty-one were charters run by a variety
of operators.18
The pro-market Fordham Foundation judged New Orleans the best city in the United States for charter
school expansion.19
All this was done by government fiat guided by think tanks such as the Urban Institute, and backed
by corporate foundations such as the Gates Foundation. Excluded were the working-class African American
and Latino/a parents, students, teachers, and community members, many of whom had been literally
excluded from the city itself by redevelopment policies that made it impossible to return.20
It would be hard to deny that New Orleans's schools were in bad shape before the hurricane. In
1997 per-pupil school funding was 16 percent lower than the average of poorly funded urban districts
nationally.21
The New Orleans situation reflects a long-term pattern of disinvestment in inner-city areas, beginning
with cuts in federal funding to cities in the 1980s, followed by the shift to an entrepreneurial
model of urban governance that prioritizes attracting private investment, tourism, and real estate
investment.22
Today charter schools in New Orleans are part of creating a "good business climate" in a "revitalized"
(gentrified) whiter New Orleans.
Chicago–Disinvestment, Privatization, and Gentrification
Chicago is another exemplar of the logic of disinvestment and privatization that is playing out
in urban school districts.23
Chicago's Renaissance 2010 education plan was carried out in partnership with the state and the Commercial
Club of Chicago, an organization of the powerful corporate and financial interests in the city. The
object was to close public schools and expand charter schools. It has become a national model enshrined
in the propagandistic claim of "the Chicago Miracle." Across African-American communities, the mayoral-appointed
school board has closed schools on the grounds of low achievement. Others, particularly in gentrifying
Latino/a communities, have been closed for low enrollment, despite evidence to the contrary. The
board has replaced neighborhood schools with charter schools or selective enrollment schools that
most neighborhood children are unable to attend. School closings have resulted in increased mobility,
spikes in violence, and neighborhood instability as children are transferred to schools out of their
neighborhoods.24
Moreover, Renaissance 2010 has not increased educational opportunities for most students, with 80
percent of displaced students attending schools no better than the ones that were closed.25
This policy eliminates schools that are anchors in their communities, contributing to further
disinvestment. In gentrifying areas, closing neighborhood schools and replacing them with schools
branded for the middle class facilitates the displacement of working-class families. Chicago, like
New Orleans, is an example of the intertwining of education policy and neoliberal urban development.
Real estate development is a pivotal sector in urban economies, and closing neighborhood public schools
in disinvested areas to open up elite, selective-enrollment public schools or prestigious charter
schools is part of the neoliberal restructuring of urban space.26
This nexus of education policy and real estate development is located in the spatial logics of capital-the
physical location of production facilities, the built environment of cities, and places of consumption
are devalued and selectively rebuilt in order to establish a "new locational grid" for capital accumulation.27
In other disinvested, low-income neighborhoods, students attending under-resourced and struggling
public schools are a ready consumer base for the proliferation of charter schools, particularly large
charter school chains that target these areas.
In response, parents, teachers, and students are challenging school closings and market solutions,
and are demanding democratic participation and community-driven processes to improve public schools
and increase resources. In fall 2010, parents at an elementary school in a Mexican immigrant community
in Chicago occupied a school field house for forty-three days to force the school board to agree
to construct a school library. In 2001 parents in another working-class Mexican neighborhood were
compelled to conduct a nineteen-day hunger strike to get a new high school in their community, after
the school board had used funds allocated for their school to build two state-of-the-art, selective-enrollment
high schools in gentrifying areas of the city. Both of these actions followed years of petitioning
the mayor-appointed board of education with no results. Organized resistance to neoliberal policies
has prevented some school closings and, most significantly, also spawned a progressive caucus that
won the leadership of the Chicago Teachers Union, the third largest teachers' union local in the
country.
The "Good Sense" in Neoliberal Education Policy
Yet some measures to reign in teacher unions have support on the ground, as teachers and parents
have gravitated to privately run charter schools and vouchers. Certainly venture philanthropists
(such as the Gates and Fordham Foundations), charter school operators, business federations (such
as Chicago's Commercial Club), and politicians of both parties have deployed enormous economic, political,
and symbolic resources to promote education markets and performance pay for teachers as the only
alternative to struggling neighborhood public schools and "bad" teaching.28
They have raised the cap on charter school expansion, funded charter school ventures, and established
policies like those in New Orleans and Chicago to expand education markets. However, neoliberal policies
are not simply imposed from above. They also materialize through the actions of parents and teachers
navigating a disinvested, degraded, and often racist public school system. Looked at this way, neoliberalism
is a process that works its way into the discourses and practices of schools, through the actions
of not only elites, but also marginalized and oppressed people acting in conditions not of their
own making.
Tom Pedroni demonstrates this in his study of African-American parents' participation in the Milwaukee
voucher movement.29
Pedroni interprets the participation of African-American parents in the voucher program against a
background of prolonged struggles and failures to win a modicum of educational equity and respect
for their children and themselves as public school parents. Pedroni argues that, for these parents,
the identity of educational consumer offers greater dignity and agency than that of citizen-supplicant
to an unresponsive and racist public school system that has never fully included African-American
children. Like charter school parents and teachers I interviewed in Chicago, Pedroni proposes that
parents see themselves as education consumers in the face of a post-welfare state that offers no
real alternative.30
Drawing on Gramsci's theory of "good sense" in the ideological construction of hegemonic social alliances,
this insight is an opening to reframe the struggle to defend public education by drawing on the real
concerns of parents who ally themselves with education markets.
There is no point in romanticizing public schools (or other welfare state institutions). While
they have provided free universal education and spaces where people can make claims for justice,
and are sometimes empowering and liberating, they have historically been saturated with inequalities
and exclusions.31
The benefits the white middle class has had from public schools have often been allowed it to ignore
a thoroughly inequitable public school system. Critical education scholars have long criticized public
schools for reproducing a stratified labor force and the dispositions and ideologies that support
capitalism, racism, and gender oppression. Exclusionary, paternalistic, disrespectful, even brutal
treatment of African American, Latino/a, and other people of color and women at the hands of public
housing authorities, public hospitals, the police and judicial systems, public welfare agencies,
elected officials, city agencies, and schools make existing public institutions deeply problematic
places. And teacher union leaders have too often failed to take up progressive causes and ally themselves
with working-class parents and communities of color.32
Understanding the appeal of charter schools, choice, and teacher accountability is essential to
build alliances not only to defend public education in this period but to develop a program for democratic
and just public schools, as well. Resisting predatory neoliberal policies requires acknowledging
and grappling with the exclusions and inequities of public institutions.33
This raises the questions: What of public education do we wish to defend; what must be reconstructed,
and how can it fulfill its democratic potential?34
Structural Adjustment and Education
As the Great Financial Crisis of 2007-08 hit, the Bush and Obama administrations, in league with
Wall Street, moved swiftly to socialize the losses of investors through massive taxpayer funded bailouts.
This was followed by furloughs (wages cuts) for public workers and worker concessions in the bailed-out
private sector (e.g., auto) under the rationale that "there is no alternative" and "we all have to
sacrifice."
As the crisis continues to reverberate, states and municipalities face fiscal crises of monumental
proportions. The loss of tax revenues combined with government losses in the financial markets have
thrown state budgets across the country into massive debt. Public worker pension funds, health insurance
benefits, and funding for public services are in real trouble. At the time of this writing, California
has a projected budget deficit of $28 billion over the next eighteen months.35
Instead of raising taxes on the rich and corporations, state governments are selling off public assets
and imposing austerity measures on the poor, workers, and the middle class, with public-sector workers
an immediate target. The state of California is instituting draconian cuts in education, health,
and programs for youth and the elderly. This scenario is repeated in state legislatures and city
halls across the country. In Wisconsin, Walker pushed through $100 million in tax cuts to corporations,
while his bill would cut over $800 million for education alone.36
The broad working class is expected to endure repeated reductions in wages, pensions, and hard-won
benefits, drastic cuts in public services, and further loss of personal assets, particularly homes,
while municipal services and infrastructure such as bridges and roads are sold off to investors.
City governments are particularly hard hit by the crisis because of their reliance on real estate
taxes, housing markets, and investments in financial markets. Urban school districts have already
laid off thousands of teachers, increased class sizes, pushed to reduce teacher pensions, and cut
out music, gym, kindergarten, bilingual programs, after-school and youth programs, and more. These
austerity measures are certain to hit hardest those least able to bear them, low-income schools of
color, where these are the very programs that offer some hope.37
Dangers and Opportunities of the Present Moment
Social austerity ultimately creates contradictions for capital as well. As capital continues to
flow into the inflated financial sector at the expense of the productive sector, and as the state
pays for the crisis with cuts in education and general social welfare, there is an unfolding crisis
of social reproduction.38
Public education plays an important role in the reproduction of the labor force, political legitimation,
and social stability. The problem with franchising and contracting out schools to an assortment of
private operators is that the state has less control over these functions of schools. Inflated class
sizes, cuts in education programs, and teachers' eroding salaries and working conditions can only
degrade public education, particularly in low-income schools. This will exacerbate an already two-tiered
education system. Detroit's Emergency Financial Manager Robert Bobb (a graduate of the Broad Foundation's
Superintendent Academy) has proposed closing half the district's schools and putting up to sixty
students in a classroom.39
Under Governor Walker's plan, two thousand Wisconsin teachers and school staff would lose their
jobs, and the average teacher would lose $5500 to $7000 in net compensation. The average 2011 teacher
salary in Wisconsin is $50,627.40
According to a new report by the OECD (Paine & Schleicher, 2011), the pay, working conditions, and
qualifications of U.S. teachers are already low in comparison with those of teachers in other advanced
economies.41
From the standpoint of capital, serious disinvestment in public education has consequences for the
preparation of its workforce. It also has implications for social stability, with more students in
affected schools dropping out. The security state is a looming presence in this scenario.
Wisconsin foreshadows the political cost of undermining the living standards and expectations
of those who have come to be defined as "middle class," such as teachers. The Tea Party agenda is
laying bare the capitalist offensive against the working class. A twenty-foot long banner proclaiming,
"Tax the Rich" hung from the third floor of the Wisconsin State Capitol rotunda throughout the people's
occupation. With leaflets and treatises plastering the walls of the capitol, rallies filled with
home-made placards, and hours of conversation between unlikely allies, the three-week-long Wisconsin
occupation and rallies were a giant democratic political forum. And this was replicated in town squares
throughout the state. For many, this was their first political protest.
The results of this politicization are yet to be seen, but the budget bills themselves are making
connections for people between cuts in education and the assault on teacher unions with those of
other public- and private-sector workers and farmers. Legions of firefighters and their families
from towns around the state marched militantly through the capitol building, fists pumping the air
as they chanted, "The workers united will never be defeated."
In addition to slashing state aid to public schools by nearly $834 million, Walker has proposed
sweeping changes to Medicaid-funded programs including BadgerCare, which provides health coverage
to low-income Wisconsin families, and a $96 million cut in aid to local governments, including cities,
towns, and counties. At the rally of over one hundred thousand on March 12, farmers, in a show of
"Farm Labor Unity," drove their tractors to Madison for a "tractorcade" around the capitol building.
Roughly eleven thousand farmers receive BadgerCare. This is a compelling moment to connect attacks
on education to the capitalist crisis, particularly the parasitic financialization, war spending,
and tax cuts for the rich that have looted the public coffers, bankrupted states, and threaten our
schools. This is, moreover, an opportunity to expose the crisis-ridden logic of capitalism itself
and to engage in serious discussion about the world we wish to see.
The Potential of an Education Movement
In the past few years, a multifaceted education movement in and outside classrooms has emerged
against neoliberal education restructuring and in resistance to racism, gender and heterosexist oppression,
and militarization of schools. Liberatory education projects and social-justice-oriented schools
have sprouted up in cracks in the public system. There are freedom schools and popular education
projects outside public schools, and community-based youth activist organizations across the country.
The immigrant rights movement and organized opposition to the criminalization of youth through the
"school to prison pipeline" have begun to link political and educational issues. Organizations of
activist teachers and community educators in a number of cities have joined together to form national
networks. (The Education for Liberation Network and Teacher Activist Groups are examples.) These
groups have joined parents and students in community coalitions to stop school closings and privatization,
prevent mayoral takeovers of urban school districts, defend undocumented students, and challenge
high-stakes testing. With the victory of a progressive caucus to lead the Chicago Teachers Union,
there is also a significant progressive force in the heart of the American Federation of Teachers.
Although there is some overlap, these various streams are not yet organized around a coherent program
or analysis of the problem.42
The outpouring of teachers and other workers against union busting and austerity budgets has changed
the terrain. Thousands of people who have never attended a protest before are in the streets and
engaged politically. So far, this motion is mainly defensive, and some are willing to make concessions
to help capitalism extricate itself from the crisis.43
On the one hand, there is the possibility that the protests will be subsumed by the electoral politics
of the Democratic Party, much like the current focus in Wisconsin on recalling Republican legislators,
or diverted to scapegoating people of color and immigrants. On the other hand, the challenge to taken-for-granted
living standards opens a space to see social arrangements differently. This is a moment that can
reveal the systemic connections between the bailout of Wall Street and social privations, a moment
to connect attacks on workers with other social struggles-particularly to see the common threads
between wars for domination, oppression of people of color, and the unfolding austerity regime.44
Buried in Governor Walker's proposed 2012-2013 budget is a measure to repeal access to in-state
tuition for undocumented students and eliminate Food Share benefits (food stamps) for documented
("legal")immigrants.45
How Wisconsin's majority white teachers, union members, and farmers will respond will be important.
Bridging deep divisions along lines of race, ethnicity, and immigrant status, and challenging racial
oppression are central to building a counter-hegemonic alliance with the power to defeat austerity
measures and move toward a proactive politics that challenges capitalism itself. Although it is only
now coalescing, a movement that links education with immigrant rights and other social struggles
can play an important role in teacher unions and in student community, and parent organizations.
In classrooms, critical educators are positioned to help young people understand why their schools
are under attack and to "connect the dots" to the structural crisis of capitalism. Revitalized teacher
unions are in a strategic position to insist that Wall Street pay for the crisis. Although the U.S.
context is different, there is much to learn from social movement teacher unionism outside the United
States (e.g., in Oaxaca, Honduras, and South Africa) and its central role in social struggles for
democracy, against neoliberalism, and for social liberation.46
This is a moment not simply to defend the public education we have, but to advocate for a just, inclusive,
democratic, humanizing education that prefigures the society we wish to have-one premised not on
exploitation but on the full development of human beings in social solidarity.
Pauline Lipman (plipman [at] uic.edu) is an education activist and professor of educational
policy studies at University of Illinois at Chicago. Her latest book is The New Political Economy
of Urban Education: Neoliberalism, Race, and the Right to the City (2011).
"... Well, we all know thats ********. The real unemployment rate is 21.2% (shadow stats). ..."
"... Fields of occupation that do make money are saturated. You get your foot in the door via 2 ways: sheer luck or you know someone in that field. ..."
"... Most jobs offered are at minimum wage. Another big secret that is never told. The average hours worked in the US is 34.5. Part time. Also, missing here is what kind of degree students in the study are graduating with. So I assume this is bachelor degrees. Something looked upon today as increasingly like an associate's degree, meaning if you really want to risk more debt & RISK that you MIGHT find a job when you graduate, you will need a Masters or a doctorate. This increases your loan burden to 60,000 for your average masters or more. 100,000+ for a doctorate. ..."
"... Student loans and the increasing need for a Masters degree is a major scam to accrue more debt slavery. A Masters DOES NOT increase your chances Today of a job in your field of study. Ten years ago my daughter graduated with 8 friends and only 2 got jobs in their chosen fields of study, one a teacher who doesn't make much at 37,000 a year and the other went on to get a doctorate and did get a job in her chosen field of study at great pay but with nearly 200,000 in student loan debt ..."
"... Parents need to get involved in all facets of determining aptitude and major selection that can pay dividends in the job market. Too many kids just go to college as an extension of high school with the "I'll figure it out later" attitude. These are also the ones you see working as cashiers ..."
American students carry an aggregate pile of student loan debt equivalent to roughly $1.5 trillion,
a
generational burden
that has helped contribute to plunging birth rates, lower home-ownership rates among young
people, and even lower rates of stock ownership, as more young people dedicate more financial resources to paying down
debt.
But to gauge
exactly
how much a students' finances factor into their decisions
about which school to attend and which majors to choose,
MidAmerica Nazarene University surveyed 2,000 recent graduates from around the country to learn more about how they
financed their degrees, and how much they will owe after graduation.
Given the cost of higher education in the US, the majority of students answered that post-grad job prospects influenced the
major they selected (those who answered 'no' either really enjoy studying STEM, or majored in gender studies).
Recommended videos
Powered by
AnyClip
The Best Way To Check And Boost Credit Scores
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
0:49
Loaded
:
100.00%
Fullscreen
Up Next
It might seem surprising given the financial stakes, but the survey also showed that more than 60% of recent grads didn't
have jobs lined up when they received their diplomas.
For those who did choose their careers based on financial considerations, a majority said they would have picked another
line of work if finances weren't a consideration (but hey, we can't all be artists).
Once upon a time, there wasn't as much of a correlation between a students' field of study and their eventual chosen career
(investment bankers who studied English at Middlebury College wound up on Wall Street thanks to 'Uncle Jim's' connections).
But as the world of higher education becomes increasingly costly and cut throat, situations like this are becoming
increasingly rare.
One of the more telling data points in the study was the gauge of graduates' feelings about the job market.
Even
with unemployment at multi-decade lows, a majority of graduates had a negative outlook on the job market.
PhD Millionaire who called Dotcom crash, housing bust, and market's surge since '09 is now predicting a 'cash
panic' in 2019. Here's how to prepare.
Sponsored By Stansberry Research
The overwhelming majority of students took out loans to pay for some or all of college, with 71% taking out loans and the
average amount borrowed equivalent to just over $25,000.
In addition to taking on loans, most college students receive at least some help from family members or other sources, as
only one-quarter of respondents said they completely self-financed their degree.
On average, students expect to pay off their loans in 9.5 years, meaning that most of these students will be in their
mid-30s when they finally reach a zero balance.
Imagine what that number would be if students had no help from their families?
Even with unemployment at multi-decade lows, a majority of
graduates had a negative outlook on the job market."
Well, we
all know thats ********. The real unemployment rate is 21.2% (shadow
stats).
There is a gap here as to why these graduates don't have jobs
lined up when they graduate, which is not mentioned in the article.
1. Fields of occupation that do make money are saturated. You get
your foot in the door via 2 ways: sheer luck or you know someone in
that field.
2. Most jobs offered are at minimum wage. Another big secret that
is never told. The average hours worked in the US is 34.5. Part time.
Also, missing here is what kind of degree students in the study are
graduating with. So I assume this is bachelor degrees. Something
looked upon today as increasingly like an associate's degree, meaning
if you really want to risk more debt & RISK that you MIGHT find a job
when you graduate, you will need a Masters or a doctorate. This
increases your loan burden to 60,000 for your average masters or
more. 100,000+ for a doctorate.
3. Student loans and the increasing need for a Masters degree is a
major scam to accrue more debt slavery. A Masters DOES NOT increase
your chances Today of a job in your field of study. Ten years ago my
daughter graduated with 8 friends and only 2 got jobs in their chosen
fields of study, one a teacher who doesn't make much at 37,000 a year
and the other went on to get a doctorate and did get a job in her
chosen field of study at great pay but with nearly 200,000 in student
loan debt.
Before offshoring Americans not cut out for college went to work
at the local plants like their parents did. The propaganda ever since
has been you're a nobody and has been, only to attend college
accruing tens of thousands of debt, to wind up in some **** minimum
wage job because you can't find one in YOUR field of study or you can
and learn that starting pay is minimum wage but you take whatever is
offered because if you don't you're in trouble when loans come due 6
months later.
And that right there turns promising young people into debt
slaves. Just as is planned by *** oligarchs at the FED RESERVE.
Parents need to get involved in all facets of determining aptitude
and major selection that can pay dividends in the job market. Too
many kids just go to college as an extension of high school with the
"I'll figure it out later" attitude. These are also the ones you see
working as cashiers who damn near have a **** hemorrhage when they
have to make change without the help of the register. Do your kids a
solid and work with them in their career quests and by all means, get
involved with their education and most important, read to them when
they're young. It is ******* criminal to charge tremendous
tuition and graduate students ill prepared for the challenges of
life. Then again if you got the cash, you can probably buy a degree
from some Cuck in the Dean's office!
when I graduated College (Cumlaude btw) nobody lined up to hand me
decent job with nice salary. AND we didn't have Lyft or Uber back
then. so what's changed besides the fact that we have Uber and
Lyft?
Here in shitinois, there is harper college, which is free if you pay
your real estate taxes and maintain good grades. Why the **** would
anyone pay for a university to bend you over.
Because the economy never recovered from 2008-2009. The only thing
that came out of that crisis is cheaper and easier debt.
People
bash millennials but then neglect to acknowledge the generation that
raised them. This **** storm started with the Baby Boomers and has
only gotten worse.
Here's things most millennials weren't doing in 2008/2009:
1.) Buying more house than they could afford with those great
teaser rates
2.) Selling mortgages for houses people couldn't afford.
3.) Running TBTF banks.
4.) Using derivatives to hedge derivatives to hedge derivatives.
5.) Working in Washington, voting to bail out said TBTF banks,
even though we operate in a "capitalist" country.
I'm not making up excuses for my situation because I'm not saddled
with loan debt, have a good job, and am self-supporting. But let's
lay the blame where it should be. On the Boomers. The generation
that had it the easiest out of all of them and basically contributed
nothing positive to society other than piling up debt.
What should be pointed out imo, is that a major amounts of Graduates
have just went thru 4-6 years of a Liberal Borg.
They are
un-hire-able, brain washed, worthless air breathing parasites.
Those who have interned or worked at firms within their chosen
profession, built relationship's, showed ability to perform and
contribute, will be hired if not already.
Those Libtard Borg stooges will have to go back to Mom's Basement
for further instruction..............
very wrong. american engineers and computer science graduates stay
jobless while corps hire from india and china. look at youtube
vids of google staff meetings...
Not wrong at all, I have worked with freshly graduated
Mechanical and Electrical Engineers. For years they were
actually put with me once per month for a full 5 days. 3 at a
time usually for training.
Everything I stated above is 100
% spot on, Fact. They usually are complete idiots. Not worth
having around, at all.
There is nothing more useless than a newly graduated
engineer. I was useless when I graduated with my BSCHE 40+
years ago. It takes around five to ten years before an
engineer is really contributing.
I actually had a few but each and everyone of them grew
up within family trades, or worked at a trade so they had
great hands on experience way prior to going to College.
Most put their way through school or contributed at
similar trades to sharpen their skills.
I was very
similar and was lucky to have some guide me in the
correct direction at that age imo. It did help, a
lot...........
So social justice gender studies doesn't have a real job? Well No
****!!!!
These universities aren't teaching these kids ANYTHING of
any use for the real world and employers know that! Within the next
few years, a liberal degree in whatever will be completely useless.
Enjoying payback your loans dumbasses
The next generation better be taking notes and looking at a trade
for high school!
I have a a job for a fresh college grad. If you are cute, haven't
slept with all the college athletes, have a non-land-whale decent
body and can cook a meal that doesn't taste like crap.
Reply to my comment here and I have an opening for a sugar bay - aka
sexy college girl wifey ;)
In return I will provide you with a free place to live, feed you,
take care of you and this will be a temporary arrangement until you
can prove that you won't leave me with 50% of my life savings by
going to court.
Roomate prenup shall be signed electronically before you move in with
me.
They don't have jobs lined up because the want ads aren't hiring
300lb, green and purple haired, nose ring wearing, transgendered
justice warrior promoting, half-vegan, pedo, ***, basket weavers for
their company.
I didn't either. Took the whole summer off to party. Sometime
around September I started looking for a job. Not one God damned job
offered for an economist (that was my major). What a rip, I
thought. So I ended up where everyone else ends up- sales. It was
at that job I actually got an education.
Most college grads had no buisness going to college in the first
place.
Some of the dumbest people got into these colleges. Then
they took out loans so they could get a job to pay off their student
loan debt. Congratulations, you played yourselves.
Out of high school they would have had the ability to dig
ditches. But after 4 years of liberal arts and feminism
training, they aren't even capable of stringing together a
coherent sentence.
How about showing WHICH majors these idiots went for and then
correlate that to the jobs and salaries that are ACTUALLY available
for those majors......a major in Art History WON"T FIND A JOB... .a
Engineering major is ALREADY GETTING OFFERS, their junior year. QUIT
WASTING MONEY ON WORTHLESS DEGREES. That alone solves EVERY problem
in this article
In this article, we explore commodities and consumption , two concepts that
are central to critiques of the neoliberal university. By engaging with these concepts, we
explore the limits of neoliberal logic. We ground this conceptual entanglement in Marxist and
post-Marxist traditions given our understanding of neoliberalism both as an extension of and as
a meaningfully different form of capitalism. As colleges and universities enact neoliberal
economic assumptions by focusing on revenue generation, understanding students as customers,
and construing their faculty as temporary service providers, the terms commodity and
consumption have become commonplace in critical higher education literature. When
critiques concerning the commodification and consumption of higher education are connected with
these theoretical and conceptual foundations, they not only become more effective but also
provide a more meaningful guide upon which current and future scholars can build.
"... The solution is the privatization of everything (hence the slogan "let's get governments off our backs"), which would include social security, health care, K-12 education, the ownership and maintenance of toll–roads, railways, airlines, energy production, communication systems and the flow of money. (This list, far from exhaustive, should alert us to the extent to which the neoliberal agenda has already succeeded.) ..."
"... The assumption is that if free enterprise is allowed to make its way into every corner of human existence, the results will be better overall for everyone, even for those who are temporarily disadvantaged, let's say by being deprived of their fish. ..."
"... the passage from a state in which actions are guided by an overarching notion of the public good to a state in which individual entrepreneurs "freely" pursue their private goods, values like morality, justice, fairness, empathy, nobility and love are either abandoned or redefined in market terms. ..."
"... Neoliberalism, David Harvey explains, delivers a "world of pseudo-satisfactions that is superficially exciting but hollow at its core." ("A Brief History of Neoliberalism.") ..."
"... Harvey and the other critics of neoliberalism explain that once neoliberal goals and priorities become embedded in a culture's way of thinking, institutions that don't regard themselves as neoliberal will nevertheless engage in practices that mime and extend neoliberal principles -- privatization, untrammeled competition, the retreat from social engineering, the proliferation of markets. These are exactly the principles and practices these critics find in the 21st century university, where (according to Henry Giroux) the "historical legacy" of the university conceived "as a crucial public sphere" has given way to a university "that now narrates itself in terms that are more instrumental, commercial and practical." ("Academic Unfreedom in America," in Works and Days.) ..."
"... This new narrative has been produced (and necessitated) by the withdrawal of the state from the funding of its so-called public universities. If the percentage of a state's contribution to a college's operating expenses falls from 80 to 10 and less (this has been the relentless trajectory of the past 40 years) and if, at the same time, demand for the "product" of higher education rises and the cost of delivering that product (the cost of supplies, personnel, information systems, maintenance, construction, insurance, security) skyrockets, a huge gap opens up that will have to be filled somehow. ..."
"... Faced with this situation universities have responded by (1) raising tuition, in effect passing the burden of costs to the students who now become consumers and debt-holders rather than beneficiaries of enlightenment (2) entering into research partnerships with industry and thus courting the danger of turning the pursuit of truth into the pursuit of profits and (3) hiring a larger and larger number of short-term, part-time adjuncts who as members of a transient and disposable workforce are in no position to challenge the university's practices or agitate for an academy more committed to the realization of democratic rather than monetary goals. In short , universities have embraced neoliberalism. ..."
Here is an often cited definition by Paul Treanor: "Neoliberalism is a philosophy in which
the existence and operation of a market are valued in themselves, separately from any previous
relationship with the production of goods and services . . . and where the operation of a
market or market-like structure is seen as an ethic in itself, capable of acting as a guide for
all human action, and substituting for all previously existing ethical beliefs."
("Neoliberalism: Origins, Theory, Definition.")
In a neoliberal world, for example, tort questions -- questions of negligence law -- are
thought of not as ethical questions of blame and restitution (who did the injury and how can
the injured party be made whole?), but as economic questions about the value to someone of an
injury-producing action relative to the cost to someone else adversely affected by that same
action. It may be the case that run-off from my factory kills the fish in your stream; but
rather than asking the government to stop my polluting activity (which would involve the loss
of jobs and the diminishing of the number of market transactions), why don't you and I sit down
and figure out if more wealth is created by my factory's operations than is lost as a
consequence of their effects?
As Ronald Coase put it in his classic article, "The Problem of Social Cost" (Journal of Law
and Economics, 1960): "The question to be decided is: is the value of the fish lost greater or
less than the value of the product which the contamination of the stream makes possible?" If
the answer is more value would be lost if my factory were closed, then the principle of the
maximization of wealth and efficiency directs us to a negotiated solution: you allow my factory
to continue to pollute your stream and I will compensate you or underwrite the costs of your
moving the stream elsewhere on your property, provided of course that the price I pay for the
right to pollute is not greater than the value produced by my being permitted to continue.
Notice that "value" in this example (which is an extremely simplified stand-in for
infinitely more complex transactions) is an economic, not an ethical word, or, rather, that in
the neoliberal universe, ethics reduces to calculations of wealth and productivity. Notice too
that if you and I proceed (as market ethics dictate) to work things out between us -- to come
to a private agreement -- there will be no need for action by either the government or the
courts, each of which is likely to muddy the waters (in which the fish will still be dying) by
introducing distracting moral or philosophical concerns, sometimes referred to as "market
distortions."
Whereas in other theories, the achieving of a better life for all requires a measure of
state intervention, in the polemics of neoliberalism (elaborated by Milton Friedman and
Friedrich von Hayek and put into practice by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher), state
interventions -- governmental policies of social engineering -- are "presented as the problem
rather than the solution" (Chris Harman, "Theorising Neoliberalism," International Socialism
Journal, December 2007).
The solution is the privatization of everything (hence the slogan "let's get governments off
our backs"), which would include social security, health care, K-12 education, the ownership
and maintenance of toll–roads, railways, airlines, energy production, communication
systems and the flow of money. (This list, far from exhaustive, should alert us to the extent
to which the neoliberal agenda has already succeeded.)
The assumption is that if free enterprise is allowed to make its way into every corner of
human existence, the results will be better overall for everyone, even for those who are
temporarily disadvantaged, let's say by being deprived of their fish.
The objection (which I am reporting, not making) is that in the passage from a state in
which actions are guided by an overarching notion of the public good to a state in which
individual entrepreneurs "freely" pursue their private goods, values like morality, justice,
fairness, empathy, nobility and love are either abandoned or redefined in market terms.
Short-term transactions-for-profit replace long-term planning designed to produce a more
just and equitable society. Everyone is always running around doing and acquiring things, but
the things done and acquired provide only momentary and empty pleasures (shopping, trophy
houses, designer clothing and jewelry), which in the end amount to nothing. Neoliberalism,
David Harvey explains, delivers a "world of pseudo-satisfactions that is superficially exciting
but hollow at its core." ("A Brief History of Neoliberalism.")
Harvey and the other critics of neoliberalism explain that once neoliberal goals and
priorities become embedded in a culture's way of thinking, institutions that don't regard
themselves as neoliberal will nevertheless engage in practices that mime and extend neoliberal
principles -- privatization, untrammeled competition, the retreat from social engineering, the
proliferation of markets. These are exactly the principles and practices these critics find in
the 21st century university, where (according to Henry Giroux) the "historical legacy" of the
university conceived "as a crucial public sphere" has given way to a university "that now
narrates itself in terms that are more instrumental, commercial and practical." ("Academic
Unfreedom in America," in Works and Days.)
This new narrative has been produced (and necessitated) by the withdrawal of the state from
the funding of its so-called public universities. If the percentage of a state's contribution
to a college's operating expenses falls from 80 to 10 and less (this has been the relentless
trajectory of the past 40 years) and if, at the same time, demand for the "product" of higher
education rises and the cost of delivering that product (the cost of supplies, personnel,
information systems, maintenance, construction, insurance, security) skyrockets, a huge gap
opens up that will have to be filled somehow.
Faced with this situation universities have responded by (1) raising tuition, in effect
passing the burden of costs to the students who now become consumers and debt-holders rather
than beneficiaries of enlightenment (2) entering into research partnerships with industry and
thus courting the danger of turning the pursuit of truth into the pursuit of profits and (3)
hiring a larger and larger number of short-term, part-time adjuncts who as members of a
transient and disposable workforce are in no position to challenge the university's practices
or agitate for an academy more committed to the realization of democratic rather than monetary
goals. In short , universities have embraced neoliberalism.
Meanwhile, even those few faculty members with security of employment do their bit for
neoliberalism when they retire to their professional enclaves and churn out reams of
scholarship (their equivalent of capital) that is increasingly specialized and without a clear
connection to the public interest: "[F]aculty have progressively . . . favored professionalism
over social responsibility and have . . . refused to take positions on controversial issues";
as a result they have "become disconnected from political agency and thereby incapable of
taking a political stand" (McClennen, Works and Days).
... ... ...
Stanley Fish is a professor of humanities and law at Florida International University, in Miami. In the Fall of 2012,
he will be Floersheimer Distinguished Visiting Professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. He has also taught at the
University of California at Berkeley, Johns Hopkins, Duke University and the University of Illinois, Chicago. He is the author
of 15 books, most recently “Versions of Antihumanism: Milton and Others”; “How to Write a Sentence”; “Save the World On Your Own
Time”; and “The Fugitive in Flight,” a study of the 1960s TV drama. “Versions of Academic Freedom: From Professionalism to
Revolution” will be published in 2014.
DETROIT (WWJ) – According to a new report, 47 percent of Detroiters are
"functionally illiterate." The alarming new statistics were released by the Detroit Regional
Workforce Fund on Wednesday.
WWJ Newsradio 950 spoke with the Fund's Director, Karen Tyler-Ruiz, who explained exactly
what this means.
"Not able to fill out basic forms, for getting a job -- those types of basic everyday
(things). Reading a prescription; what's on the bottle, how many you should take just your
basic everyday tasks," she said.
"I don't really know how they get by, but they do. Are they getting by well? Well, that's
another question," Tyler-Ruiz said.
Some of the Detroit suburbs also have high numbers of functionally illiterate: 34 percent
in Pontiac and 24 percent in Southfield.
"For other major urban areas, we are a little bit on the high side We compare, slightly
higher, to Washington D.C.'s urban population, in certain *** codes in Washington D.C. and in
Cleveland," she said.
Tyler-Ruiz said only 10 percent of those who can't read have gotten any help to resolve
it.
The report will be used to provide better training for local workers.
"... In the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four , there is an all-encompassing surveillance state that keeps a watchful eye on everyone, in search of possible rebels and points of resistance. ..."
"... Censorship is the norm in this world, and is so extreme that individuals can become "unpersons" who are essentially deleted from society because their ideas were considered dangerous by the establishment. This is an idea that is very familiar to activists and independent journalists who are being removed from the public conversation for speaking out about government and corporate corruption on social media. ..."
"... Orwell is famous for coining the term "double-speak," which is a way to describe the euphemistic language that government uses to whitewash their most dirty deeds. For example, in Orwell's story, the ministry of propaganda was called the Ministry of Truth, just as today the government agency that was once known as "The Department of War," is now called the "Department of Defense." ..."
"... "Sometimes the man who looks happiest in town, with the biggest smile, is the one carrying the biggest load of sin. There are smiles and smiles; learn to tell the dark variety from the light. The seal-barker, the laugh-shouter, half the time he's covering up. He's had his fun and he's guilty. And men do love sin, oh how they love it, never doubt, in all shapes, sizes, colors, and smells." ..."
"... Unfortunately, just like in Orwell's book, people in the modern world are so distracted by entertainment and the divided by politics that they have no idea they are living in a tyrannical police state. ..."
"... "We are not at war with Eurasia. You are being made into obedient, stupid slaves of the Party." -Emmanuel Goldstein ..."
This month, George Orwell's legendary novel
Nineteen Eighty-Four turns
70 years old, and the warnings contained within the story are now more relevant than ever. Orwell's predictions were so spot on that
it almost seems like it was used as some type of accidental instruction manual for would-be tyrants.
In the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four , there is an all-encompassing surveillance state that keeps a watchful eye on everyone,
in search of possible rebels and points of resistance.
Censorship is the norm in this world, and is so extreme that individuals can become "unpersons" who are essentially deleted
from society because their ideas were considered dangerous by the establishment. This is an idea that is very familiar to activists
and independent journalists who are being removed from the public conversation for speaking out about government and corporate corruption
on social media.
Orwell is famous for coining the term "double-speak," which is a way to describe the euphemistic language that government
uses to whitewash their most dirty deeds. For example, in Orwell's story, the ministry of propaganda was called the Ministry of Truth,
just as today the government agency that was once known as "The Department of War," is now called the "Department of Defense."
There was also never-ending war in Orwell's story, the conditions of which would change on a regular basis, keeping the general
population confused about conflicts so they give up on trying to understand what is actually going on. Some of these predictions
were merely recognitions of patterns in human history, since the idea of "unpersons" and war propaganda is nothing new. However,
Orwell had an incredible understanding of how technology was going to progress over the 20th century, and he was able to envision
how technology would be used by those in power to control the masses.
The technological predictions made in the book were truly uncanny, as they give a fairly accurate description of our modern world.
Orwell described "telescreens," which acted as both an entertainment device and a two-way communication device. This type of technology
was predicted by many futurists at the time, but Orwell's prediction was unique because he suggested that these devices would be
used by the government to spy on people, through microphones and cameras built into the devices.
Unfortunately, just like in Orwell's book, people in the modern world are so distracted by entertainment and the divided by politics
that they have no idea they are living in a tyrannical police state. This police state was also a strong deterrent in the world of
Nineteen Eighty-Four , because although many of the citizens in the book had a positive opinion of "big brother," it was still something
that they feared, and it was a force that kept them in control. Of course, this is not much different from the attitude that the
average American or European has when confronted with police brutality and government corruption.
Many of the ideas about power and authority that were expressed in Orwell's classic are timeless and as old as recorded history
; but his analysis of how technology would amplify the destructive nature of power was incredibly unique, especially for his time.
Not to stray too far, I always liked the part in Ray Bradbury's "Something Wicked This Way Comes":
"Sometimes the man who looks happiest in town, with the biggest smile, is the one carrying the biggest load of sin.
There are smiles and smiles; learn to tell the dark variety from the light. The seal-barker, the laugh-shouter, half the time
he's covering up. He's had his fun and he's guilty. And men do love sin, oh how they love it, never doubt, in all shapes,
sizes, colors, and smells."
The laugh shouter is one of those government or corporate chuckle-heads that goes along, gets along, and usually spends less
than an hour a day actually doing his job. You see them on TV and in every office. Everything out of their mouths has to be punctuated
with a chuckle.
The thing I remember from the novel was the "versificator" which was a typewriter-like device that allowed historical events
to be changed as needed . . . very much like the networked computer.
Facebook recently made me an UnPerson, not joking. I had deleted my acct some years ago, re-registered to man a business page
and...haha they rejected me, recent photo and all.
There are a few other books and booklets and letters that also seem eerily prescient. Following modern-day protocols, however,
it's best not to mention them in polite company. ;-)
Unfortunately, just like in Orwell's book, people in the modern world are so distracted by entertainment and the divided
by politics that they have no idea they are living in a tyrannical police state.
Exactly...
"We are not at war with Eurasia. You are being made into obedient, stupid slaves of the Party." -Emmanuel Goldstein
I plan on voting in the local elections, especially for Sheriff and the bond issues. Also, I still think that voting for the
quality Libertarian candidates is a better option than not voting, but I do understand your point. But when all else fails, you
better be prepared to vote from the rooftops...
"Excessive zeal" is really a problem with people on their first job. But at the same the
companies try to pressure new hires to do more.
Notable quotes:
"... "Patience is the one word I would tell [new grads] to think about and remember," Wolfe says. "You're not going to know everything walking in the door, especially if you've just graduated college. Really be a sponge and ask tons of questions." ..."
A new pack of college grads are gearing up to enter the job market -- this year, 1.9 million people will
graduate with a bachelor's degree, and another 1 million will graduate with a master's or
doctorate degree, according to the National
Center for Education Statistics .
It's important to have
your resume ready and your interview skills polished as you start the application process.
It typically takes five months to find a job, according to a
study by Ranstad Recruiting . But once you secure a position, it's important to prepare for
the professional world by keeping your expectations in check, says Paul Wolfe , senior vice president at Indeed .
"Patience is the one word I would tell [new grads] to think about and remember," Wolfe
says. "You're not going to know everything walking in the door, especially if you've just
graduated college. Really be a sponge and ask tons of questions."
Access to the college is a privilege that typically is granted to children with high IQ. In
europlpe that is doene via entrance exams. If you pass you are in, if not, so be it. So the very
notion of college is discriminative in this sense, as it should be. All this posturing about
neighborhoods with bad schools does not change the fact that individual with high IQ can prosper
and pass entrance earn to the college even graduating from "bad schools", so mostly marginal
individual are affected.
But if you need to pay for the college that poor kids with high IQ are cut out. Forever. and
that's grossly unfair (as many things under neoliberalism)
Notable quotes:
"... As a matter of principle, an egalitarian society of the future that I'd want to help building would in fact contain free or inexpensive access to any level of education, at a high base standard of quality. Like, every school is a good school, there is a mechanism for tackling exceptions, and everyone can access whatever level of basic education or fundamental vocational training without having to pay for it in major financial hardship. (There are of course many ways to implement such a system.) ..."
"... I'm surprised at the number of people on this thread who seem to think the purpose of free university education is to help lift people out of poverty. How many times do you have to be shown that this upward mobility thing is a Ponzi scheme? The goal of free education is to ensure that poor people can get access to the same things rich people can, so that everyone is able to live a fulfilling life. ..."
"... Harry @82 -- my understanding is that while the NHS has improved health outcomes for everyone, it has also (counter-intuitively) increased health inequality. More affluent people are better able to take advantage of healthcare. The interventions which tend to reduce health inequality are things like clean water and closing the sewers, not universal access to care. ..."
"... (*) Under German law, students can sue their parents if they have the means but refuse to fund an adequate education. But of course you would rather not sue your parents. ..."
"... Poor children should be able to go to university. That's a simple statement of what is right. Warrens offering a fix for ONE of the two big barriers to doing that. Her fix also helps middle class kids. Lucky them! Why should a poor kid care? ..."
"... I think focusing on high income parents is a bit misleading. Yes the very poorest don't go to college, but plenty of kids from median income, and sub-median income, households do. And plenty of kids are graduating from college and getting jobs that don't pay particularly well, and probably will never pay brilliantly. ..."
"... Also once again: we target income inequality, not variation. We don't oppose a program because 30% of the population won't use it. If you're going to make that your yardstick for public investment then you should at least try to address the consequences for public funding of women's health, childcare, and indeed universal health coverage! ..."
@Christina.H
"Having grown up and gone to university in Germany it is simply incomprehensible to me that
there is tuition supporters on the political left in the U.S".
"Having grown up in the US, Italy and Germany and gone to university in Germany -(for
FREE) I very well understand -- that there are tuition supporters on the so called political
left in the U.S. -- as firstly -- if you ever have grown up in a family where most of the
members have such a emotional -(and funny) attachment to "their schools" -(and universities)
-- as "them Anglo-Saxons" you very well understand that:
2. -- how far the so called "left" in the U.S. is -- concerning "being progressive" -- so
"many moons" behind the European Left -- which get's illustrated by this what did Nia Psaka
write: "one of those supposedly-left-but-actually-right arguments that I get so tired
of."
"Opportunity cost" is bearing a huge load in the argument, and it can't take the weight
Is there an opportunity cost in the sense that the US can't afford to do Warren's plan and
also spend the same amount on prek-12 ? No.
Is there an opportunity cost politically? Also no. An administration that can create a new
wealth tax ex nihilio to free wage slaves from debt bondage -- for this what this is -- is
also an administration that can spend huge sums on prek-12 at the same time
We're left with an opportunity cost for airing policy ideas during a campaign. Here there
*are* actual trade offs involved; attention / time is limited etc.
What we're left with is an argument that "Warren's proposal for universal prek and writing
down college debt / cheap state college is crowding out talk during the campaign for
increased k-12 spending"
Which rests on the assumptions 1) "a campaign which talks about universal prek / fixing
college debt won't increase k-12 spending on the same scale once in power unless it's talked
about during the campaign"
and
2) "the best way to get k-12 spending talked about during the campaign is to denigrate the
fixing college debt proposal"
Neither of which, at least to me, is obvious or that coherent.
Contrast this with a shrewd political calculation for *not* mentioning massive k-12
funding increases during the campaign. It's a charged issue which cuts across usual
infra-coalition groups, so the effect of bringing it up is complex and the positives are
mitigated more than prek / college. And, as explored above, an admin which can do prek /
college can also do k-12. (The Arne Duncan example cuts both ways; the 08 campaign wasn't
caught over massive changes in fed education policy, but it still happened.)
Lastly, prek/fixing college debt are *overwhelmingly popular*. It's *tremendous political
terrain to occupy*. It gets people used to spending huge sums of money on education, and it
does so in a way that even non-brain-worked Republicans have to nod in agreement makes good
fiscal sense.
Muddying those waters based on the dubious assumptions above, and ignoring the other
political dynamics, seems unwise.
Somehow I thought the main topic of the OP was how Warren's plan would increase
inequality, which still strikes me as highly dubious, especially as argued in the link.
Apparently the real topic is supposed to be how funding public college tuition for all
students increases inequality by diverting funds from primary education (and maybe
secondary?)
I'm not convinced the implicit premise that a poor education is the main generator of
inequality. I rather think lack of high-paying jobs, unemployment, inordinate rewards to
owners of property, a multitude of secondary forms of exploitation such as higher prices for
necessities in poor neighborhoods and so on, endlessly, have much more to do with that.
Improvements to primary and secondary education like Warren's improvements to tertiary
education, are a reform, of minor effect in the end as regards to reducing inequality.
Insofar as some colleges and universities graduate credentials more acceptable to the
bosses, credentialism is not to be reformed by increasing funding to preK12 schooling. The
fact that you can't say "a degree from a comprehensive regional university is worth as much
as a degree from a public flagship" also reduces all benefit of education to simple monetary
returns. Further, it abstracts from the benefits to social mobility in the lower ranks of
society. Personally I think economic anxiety fuels status anxiety, that the prospect of no
change or even descent goads people into seeking scapegoats who will be the historical
ones.
In short, I tend to think the primary inequality in other words is in property.
Further the massive funding increases imagined as the alternative excluded by Warren will
still have their effects undercut but a multitude of structural deficits. The lesser revenues
from the poor districts are bad enough. Any reform that could help that would be desirable.
But in the long run the suburbs need to be reintegrated into urban life, the elite need to be
reintegrated into common life and those areas where social decay has rotted the fabric of
society need to be rebuilt. And by the way, those rotted areas also include rural ones and
deindustrialized ones as well as inner cities.
The break in the pipeline comes well before college. Poor neighborhoods have bad schools
and rich neighborhoods have good schools, because they're locally funded. This is not to
say that the cost of education from a state college is not a problem, but rather that there
is a bigger problem which might be easily solved with a lot of money.
I think it's even harder than equalizing funding. According to Ballotpedia's
analysis of spending in America's largest school districts , the Baltimore City Public
School System actually spends more per student than the Palo Alto Unified School District.
But it has a lower graduation rate and I suspect that their graduates would not fare well
against the Palo Alto graduates on measures of academic skills. Comparisons like this are a
right-wing favorite for showing that the "real" problem is not insufficient spending on
students but actually unions, or bureaucracy, or big city corruption
I think that the problem is that some school districts have much harder jobs than others,
because some students live desperate lives outside of school. Desperation among students is
not uniformly distributed across school districts.
Some students start the school year prepared to acquire and apply academic knowledge from
day 1. Some students start with a raft of unmet basic needs. Like food, shelter, and
safety.
You can deliver more education-per-dollar if the schools just focus on education and
medical services/psychological counseling/basic nutrition/law enforcement are well-handled
elsewhere. That seems to me the greatest advantage of affluent school districts, charter
schools, and schools in other developed nations: they don't have to compensate as often for
overwhelming problems in their students' lives that come from outside the campus. Affluent
districts also having newer books, more electives, and less crowded classrooms is just
the icing on the cake.
Ben2@72 writes of "tools to resist " This would be one of the nonmonetary benefits to
Warren's college reform excluded from Baum and Turner's presentation. It's one reason why I
think the benefit of the college education to the lower income families isn't measured by the
extra $7 700 higher (not highest, though,) income families would receive. But even solely in
money terms, I still fancy that most under $35 000 families will find $2 300 makes a bigger
difference in meeting necessities than the over $120 000 families will get from $11 000.
To quote from the link, again:
""'Free tuition' is the opposite of progressive policymaking
It's presented as leveling the playing field. It would worsen economic inequality."
Baum and Turner's essential criticism is about the money payments, discussed in a
misleading way. Two working parents, both with an income about $60 000, would get maybe, at
most, $11 000 in a year. IN US politics this is supposed to be middle class, but I think real
middle class people own property (not a mortgage.) No, I don't think we're talking about
Warren making the world more unequal.
Most of the other thrown in criticisms, like the different monetary values of credentials
from regional comprehensive vs. public flagship, do indeed implicitly assume that educational
inequality is a prime cause, if not the cause, of inequality. I still haven't followed the
logic of how Warren's college reform makes this worse.
Warren's plan is a school voucher plan for that part of the school system that isn't free.
Extra subsidies to some parents when there is a publicly provided alternative, as in primary
and secondary education, does actually have the regressive effects wrongly claimed by Baum
and Turner. Doing away with this bug in Warren's proposed college system could be resolved by
price controls to equalize college tuitions, which requires public provision of schools in
the long run to keep the system from collapsing, which to be effective would probably require
in the long run some sort of industrial policy giving a better idea of labor needs. And that
might end up giving students stipends to go into areas where anticipated needs are highest.
Etc. Etc.
I think one of the reasons this policy proposal isn't discussed in these terms, and comes
across as progressive, is that it is being framed not as higher education funding, but as
debt relief.
And I think that the levels of debt that people get themselves into just for wanting an
education in line with their interests and talents (even leaving aside the whole aspects of
preparing for certain types of jobs) is, to me, a problem. As a first generation higher
education graduate (from Europe, now living in the US) with no family money this sort of
situation would have put me into even more of a state of permanent anxiety. College graduates
of not even very long ago talk of times where you could finance a year of tuition at a solid
state school by working through the summer. This time is very far from the realities of
today, even in places where in-state tuition is considered "affordable" (as in the
institution I consider my home).
As a matter of principle, an egalitarian society of the future that I'd want to help
building would in fact contain free or inexpensive access to any level of education, at a
high base standard of quality. Like, every school is a good school, there is a mechanism for
tackling exceptions, and everyone can access whatever level of basic education or fundamental
vocational training without having to pay for it in major financial hardship. (There are of
course many ways to implement such a system.)
I'm not really fundamentally feeling much in conflict with Harry's argument, though,
because OF COURSE PreK-12 has the bigger impact for fighting inequality. So we'd disagree
about priorities, mostly. (I hope, because I hope that inexpensive access to tertiary and
non-tertiary post-secondary education is also something Harry subscribes to.)
A twist, though, is that I'm not sure it's only money that K-12 is missing. Sure, there
are means-starved districts that first and foremost need MONEY. But others have, at least on
an international scale, a lot of funding, but it doesn't lead to good educational outcomes.
The reasons for this are myriad: For good outcome, you also need high-quality curricula,
teaching being a valued profession, and students who are psychologically and physically in a
position to focus on learning. Schools alone can't heal traumatized communities. So much as I
will always join the cries for more funds for education, it would be a mistake to think you
can just throw money at the problem, at least not through the channels that money has been
used traditionally.
I'm surprised at the number of people on this thread who seem to think the purpose of free
university education is to help lift people out of poverty. How many times do you have to be
shown that this upward mobility thing is a Ponzi scheme? The goal of free education is to
ensure that poor people can get access to the same things rich people can, so that everyone
is able to live a fulfilling life.
Also I'm surprised at the number of people who, after the last 30 years of vicious
anti-poor rhetoric from the right and from "centrists" (i.e. crypto-rightists), still think
it's a good idea to propose programs that target only the very poor through tight means
testing. Yes, they are ultimately more "progressive" since they definitely help the poor more
than those on middle incomes. They are also extremely vulnerable to political attack because
the majority of the population doesn't benefit from them.
I mean, does anyone on here seriously think that if the UK National Health Service (NHS)
were designed only to benefit people on welfare, it would still be around now after Thatcher?
The only thing that stopped her from completely killing it was the fact that her own
constituency depended on it.
Also, imagine someone in the Labour left in 1944, talking like Harry (and others) about
the NHS: saying that this universal health coverage thing is not progressive because middle
class people would also benefit. They would be laughed out of the party room. It's madness to
talk this way. If something -- education, healthcare, transportation, environmental
protection -- is a public good you fund it publicly so everyone can afford it and access it,
and then no matter how much the rich and their centrist shills may hate it, they'll never be
able to cancel it.
Harry @82 -- my understanding is that while the NHS has improved health outcomes for
everyone, it has also (counter-intuitively) increased health inequality. More affluent people
are better able to take advantage of healthcare. The interventions which tend to reduce
health inequality are things like clean water and closing the sewers, not universal access to
care.
This is also part of why I think an absolute prioritarian/progressivism is misguided.
Beyond the working poor who were helped by the NHS, just less than the middle and upper
classes were, the genuinely worst off people are another group entirely: the mentally ill,
homeless, addicted, those trapped in domestic violence and sex trafficking, etc. They will
often fail to benefit from even generally downward distribution programs because the problems
with reaching and helping them are technical and complex. But we should not wait on the
problems resolution or, worse yet, political resolution before pursuing other moderate forms
of downward distribution aimed at helping eg the working poor.
With respect to Warren's proposal, it is not maximally progressive but is more progressive
than the status quo and additionally strikes me as an excellent way to convince lower middle
through upper class people that they, too, are part of the Great Society, which is important
given that their political influence is considerable. People still wax nostalgic about the
days that a tradesman's kid could go to a flagship state school on summer job money and enter
into the professional world -- despite the fact that a tradesman's kid, and presumably
bright, is far from the worst off, that still seems worth bringing back.
Isn't it true that the wealthy can get substantial tax reductions by deducting educational
expenses, and those deductions are higher the wealthier the parents and the more expenses
their education? If I understand correctly, those tax savings need to be counted against the
benefits that would accrue to the wealthy.
I studied at University in Germany on a means tested benefit (for living expenses --
remember there was and is no tuition) which unfortunately was converted to a repayable grant
in the 1980s and later to 50% repayable. Wealthy parents of students could actually get
higher benefits from tax deductions than the poor students could get from this program. I
wouldn't have begrudged the affluent kids the same benefit that I enjoyed -- in fact I felt
it was unfair that they had to depend on their parents while I was entitled to my own money
(*). But I think it exceedingly unfair that their parents could get those tax deductions.
Best would be to raise the taxes and fund a living wage for all.
(*) Under German law, students can sue their parents if they have the means but refuse to
fund an adequate education. But of course you would rather not sue your parents.
Mrmister is wrong, the NHS helped all people in Britain including the very poor.
Harry, I don't get your response. Are you trying to say that free education only helps the
most educated? This is true in the trivial sense that it only helps people who can qualify
for university. Similarly free cancer care only helps those with cancer! What of it? Unless
you think anyone who wants to go to university should be allowed in, this is irrelevant.
Perhaps you're trying to imply that warrens proposal only helps the wealthy because only the
wealthy get good high school? Well yes, and the nhs gave better health outcomes to wealthier
people and non-smokers, so what? That's not an argument against making it universal, it's an
argument for banning smoking. You shouldn't conflate the problems in high school funding with
university funding, because the upshot of that is that the few poor kids (of whom I am one)
who manage to fight free of our shit high school education have done it for nothing because
we can't get into uni because it's too expensive. Yes it's better to do both! But as people
above have observed it's hard for the federal govt to fix secondary education (fuck, they
can't even stop school shootings!) So fix what you can and come back to the next stages
later. America has sooooo many problems that it's madness to oppose fixing the ones you can
because some people who are benefiting from an inequality the federal govt can't fix will
benefit a little more from its efforts to fix the ones it can fix.
Poor children should be able to go to university. That's a simple statement of what is
right. Warrens offering a fix for ONE of the two big barriers to doing that. Her fix also
helps middle class kids. Lucky them! Why should a poor kid care?
I think focusing on high income parents is a bit misleading. Yes the very poorest don't go to
college, but plenty of kids from median income, and sub-median income, households do. And
plenty of kids are graduating from college and getting jobs that don't pay particularly well,
and probably will never pay brilliantly.
Secondly there is the way that college has increased very rapidly in the past 10 years,
mostly at the state level. There are a range of reasons for this, but a generation of
students have been forced to pay more money than previous generations for higher education,
during a period when college education is becoming necessary for a wider range of jobs.
Thirdly there is the debt element. Not only is student debt becoming a more and more
significant problem (affecting career choices and the economy), but the way that students are
unable to escape it even into bankruptcy is an outrage.
I don't particularly care if wealthier parents also benefit from this. The solution would
seem to be to tax them more. And one could also craft this in ways which would be less
helpful to them (for example focus solely on state colleges and remove tax savings for
education).
I also think we should spend more on K-12 schooling, preschool and a range of other
things. I don't see these two things as particularly incompatible. The advantage of this
policy is (like healthcare) is that it is good politics as it would have a quick and
measurable impact, which would build political credibility (which could then be used for
tougher fights, like increased taxation for education, infrastructure, transport, etc). There
was an interesting interview with one of Corbyn's ex-advisors recently, who pointed out that
you can't just raise taxes immediately. Instead you have to build people's trust that taxes
will be used in ways that benefit them, and that will then change the way people think about
taxes. This is one way to change that conversation.
You also need to be careful interpreting recent studies like those by Dixon et al (I used
to work with Anna and I know the context of her studies). The NHS has gone backward since the
end of the Labour government, and a lot of studies published in the last 10 years are
actually showing the consequence of Tory attacks on the system, not the long-term outcomes of
the NHS as a whole. Also the NHS was massively underfunded relative to European systems
during the Thatcher era, and that has long-term implications for the structure of the system
and its effects on inequality, which New Labour was not in power long enough to reverse.
Harry I think this is important:
Warren or any other President in the near future is going to do more than one big thing
altogether, let alone in education, and I want people to take seriously the opportunity
cost of this being the one big thing in education.
But I think you're underestimating how transformative the end of student debt will be for
a lot of poor people. And given that a lot of the other strategies you identify are not
feasible for the federal government (due to the states), I think you overstate this issue in
this case.
The problem with "vouchers" in a K-12 context is that they are used to steal funding from
public schools and give it to private and/or religious schools. They're a scam. If you are
doing vouchers for public college, they don't have that problem. (Leo Casey has this right.)
Also, on means testing. I think that means testing is largely a bad idea. If you are
funding things from a progressive income tax, then the very rich are getting much less back
than they are putting in, and that's fine. Also, it's easy for means testing to be made
demeaning to recipients of the aid. If everyone gets and has to use vouchers*, that can't
happen. Also, implementing means testing isn't free, and a lot of the time, it'll cost as
much as it saves. And finally, if you can force rich folks to declare the benefit as income,
you can tame much of it back in taxes (this works great for the sort of childbearing
encouragement programs the Japanese ought to be implementing, i.e. direct, generous, flat
rate (same amount for any child) child support payments to everyone who has a child.)
*: In my fantasy world here, the vouchers are more of payments to the schools for
educating people than benefits to the students. Sort of like how Obamacare only pays insurers
if they actually pay for medical care. (Obamacare is way more wonderful than you think.)
TJ 93: "There are some tax breaks available, but these income out for a couple at earned
income of around $230,000"
Can you tell us how much in annual college cost an affluent family could at the most
deduct? And is it restricted to tuition? Until what age do the parents get a dependent
deduction for a child in college and how much does it save them in taxes?
I don't know the details of the plan discussed here but if it is true that the parents can
save taxes by having a child in college/uni (as is the case in Germany) then it would seem
fair to me to publicly fund the college expenses for everybody while at the same time denying
affluent parents the deduction (as is not the case in Germany).
Also, on means testing. I think that means testing is largely a bad idea.
Means testing for education specifically is a problem because basically nobody has "means"
when they're twenty. [and absolutely nobody has means when they're fifteen]. Practically when
people say means-testing here they mean -- although they may not recognise it or admit it --
parental means testing, and
Remember: the core of opposition to welfare is that it weakens dependence on rich
relatives and other patronage networks, and thus reduces the ability of abusers to find
people willing to subject themselves to abuse. Because education and student means-testing
effectively means parental means-testing, a means-testing framework basically eliminates the
children-of-the-rich -- a-fortiori the children-of-rich-abusers -- from protection. Of
course the abusers are OK with means-tested welfare here, it leaves their targets
unprotected. [see slavery: more expensive and lower productivity than free labour, but you
can rape people and beat them to death, which some find more attractive than money, enough to
fight a war over.]
[which is to say: if you make a model of right-wing thinking that supposes the sole
motivation of right-wingers is to emotionally and physically abuse people and to create
spaces and situations where that can happen, you get something that's like 90% accurate to
what the actual right actually propose and implement. I mean, slavery! Free workers are more
productive and cost about the same or less [lower overheads through savings in chains] but
you can't rape them or beat them to death and that was worth fighting a war over.]
[I did once consider an education voucher that was structured with a taper like some
welfare payments: for every extra dollar put in by the parents/holder, the voucher goes down
fifty cents ]
[vouchers rely on individual selection, of course, and there are well-known problems with
quality guarantees here with education, given the long timeframes and &c]
[the thought just struck me that the education and professional-development elements of
employment -- which have to be hugely important if we're not doing lifetime jobs -- are also
underserved by market self-regulation ]
Harry, what is this? You say it's means tested and you also say it doesn't help the poor. Are
you saying warrens plan is means tested to ensure it only goes to the wealthy? Because that
doesn't seem likely to me.
Also once again: we target income inequality, not variation. We don't oppose a program
because 30% of the population won't use it. If you're going to make that your yardstick for
public investment then you should at least try to address the consequences for public funding
of women's health, childcare, and indeed universal health coverage!
@
"I want the most talented kids taking the course they're most suited for."
Me too -- and as "Free Public Education" in "Civilised Western Democracies" wants exactly
the same thing -- there is no reason -- for anybody -- to support any kind of educational
system which depends on "privatized" -- aka "privately financed" education" -- as it allows
"Rich kids --
even if they are NOT the most talented --
to become doctors and vets".
So "the most talented kids" should become doctors and vets --
Right? --
And they only can become doctors and vets -- if they don't have to buy themselves into
becoming doctors and vets.
Right?
As buying yourself -(without talent) into "better education" --
(of whatever level) --
is only possible in a society where school kids and students have to pay for their
education.
Right?
It's like currently trying to get a Green Card for my homeland -(or a permit to reside in
the UK)
You can buy it with absolutely NO talent.
Or in other words:
That's why (civilised and social) countries like France -(or Germany) never will go back to
any type of education where -- YOUR -(or your families) dough matters MORE -- than your
talent.
One of the major ("policies"?) in fighting inequality!
Not all specialties are created equal. It is clear that a person who take loan to became
obtain a degree in communications is deeply misguided as chances to get a well paying job with
this specially are close to zero. Many "humanitarian" specialties are similar -- unemployment is
almost guaranteed and if a person was misled we should prosecute greedy university administrators
and jail some of them. Such specialties should have a disclaimer: employment is difficult to
obtain. Unemployment is almost garanteed. Take the courses at your own risk.
At the same time for STEM degrees Warren proposal makes more sense as people who enrolled
into those specialties tried a more realistic approach, but probably job market turned bad or
level of talent is not enough or both. while people in this specialties are needed but their
chances for employment are crippled by the flow of H1B applicants so part of those costs should
be subsidized by fees for large H1B employers, such as Microsoft and Google. Or something like
that.
At the same time why we should forgive a person the debt if the particular person specialized
in, say, dance? What is the social value of oversupply of dancers? So probably subsidies should
be selective and limited to STEM specialties and selected "high social value" humanitarian
specialties.
So the loan forgiveness is a crippled, somewhat unfair but still a reasonable approach.
But the key problem is not loads but greed of neoliberal educational institutions. Cost of
tuition skyrocketed after 1980 and that's not accidental: this is drect result of neoliberalism
corruption of higher education. The ability of government to prosecute "too greedy" colleges is
important. Limits of salary of administrators and especially president and vice president and
deens are critical.
Notable quotes:
"... The total cost of Warren's plan would be $1.25 trillion over 10 years, with the debt forgiveness portion consisting of a one-time cost of $640 billion. Warren plans to pay for her plan by imposing an annual tax of 2 percent on all families that have $50 million or more in wealth. ..."
"... Warren is right to focus attention on the matter of student loans. This is a major issue for young people and experts have been warning of a crisis for years. ..."
"... After all, they are victims of a scam perpetrated by the education cartel and the federal government. ..."
"... Here's how it works: the education cartel sells the lie that only those with four-year college degrees can succeed in life. Then they steer everyone with a pulse towards a university. ..."
"... The government steps in and subsidizes student loans that allow almost anyone to go to college, regardless of their ability to pay the loans back. ..."
"... College is not for everyone and there's no reason to keep promoting that idea. ..."
"... Reduce the overabundance of administrators. The number has exploded since the 1990s. ..."
"... A lot of required courses are just padding to make the experience drag on for four years. That creates unneeded expenditures of time and money. ..."
"... several nations currently do offer virtually free college educations & I don’t believe their diplomas are of less value for it. ..."
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren recently jolted the Democratic presidential primary
race by tackling one of the most important issues of our time: student loans and the cost of
higher education. Warren called for
canceling up to $50,000 of student loan debt for every American making under $100,000 a
year. In addition, she would make two- and four-year public college tuitions free for all new
students.
The total cost of Warren's plan would be $1.25 trillion over 10 years, with the debt
forgiveness portion consisting of a one-time cost of $640 billion. Warren plans to pay for her
plan by imposing an annual tax of 2 percent on all families that have $50 million or more in
wealth.
Warren is right to focus attention on the matter of student loans. This is a major issue
for young people and experts have been warning of a crisis for
years.
But in most cases, it isn't right to blame student loan borrowers for their predicaments.
After all, they are victims of a scam perpetrated by the education cartel and the federal
government.
Here's how it works: the education cartel sells the lie that only those with four-year
college degrees can succeed in life. Then they steer everyone with a pulse towards a
university.
The government steps in and subsidizes student loans that allow almost anyone to go to
college, regardless of their ability to pay the loans back. These loans are a trap, and
not just with regard to their cost. The government, which
took over the student loan industry , forbids borrowers from discharging that debt in
bankruptcy proceedings.
How do such cheap and easy student loans affect universities? For starters, they have caused
a proliferation of degrees that offer poor returns on
investment . In addition, they have led to the dilution of the value of previously
marketable degrees such as those in the humanities and international relations, as more
students enter those programs than could ever hope to work in their respective fields. For
example, in 2013, half of all those who had graduated from college were working in jobs that
did not require degrees .
But worst of all, the easy access to student loans has destroyed the price mechanism, which
is so important for determining the real supply and demand of a product. Since government is
the ultimate payer, tuition has been pushed sky high. The rate of tuition increase has
actually
outpaced inflation threefold .
Is Elizabeth Warren's plan the solution? No! It will only make things worse.
For starters, the wealth tax that she would use to fund her plan is likely
unconstitutional . But even if it was upheld by the Supreme Court, it would still be bad
policy. Countries that have imposed wealth taxes like France and Sweden have found that the
rich simply
leave and take their assets with them rather than pay more.
As for the idea of universal student loan debt forgiveness, it is a bad policy on the
merits. For starters, it does not make economic sense to forgive the debts of those who will
earn at least $17,500 more a year than those who don't go to college.
Also, although the student loan bubble has been inflated by the actions of both the
education cartel and government, at the end of the day, loans are a contract. Those who are
able to pay them down should and not be bailed out.
... ... ...
Finally, we need to promote alternatives to college. There are many well-paying jobs out
there that
don't require degrees . There are also apprentice programs offered by organizations like
Praxis . We should encourage
entrepreneurship, which is how so many in this country have lifted themselves out of poverty.
College is not for everyone and there's no reason to keep promoting that idea.
Kevin Boyd is a freelance writer based in Louisiana. He is a contributor to The
Hayride, a southern news and politics site. He has also been published in , The Federalist, The
Atlanta Journal-Constitution , and The New York Observer among other publications.
How to make college cost effective. Two major reforms
1. Reduce the overabundance of administrators. The number has exploded since the
1990s.
2. Restructure college. Most programs don’t need to be four years long. Most can be
cut to 2 1/2 – 3 years. A chemistry student should be taking courses required for a
chemistry degree, nothing more (unless he/she wants to). A lot of required courses are just
padding to make the experience drag on for four years. That creates unneeded expenditures of
time and money.
After doing the above, then maybe we can talk about “free” college.
I personally believe that we should each pay our own way through life as much as possible,
but several nations currently do offer virtually free college educations & I don’t
believe their diplomas are of less value for it.
I agree with you that other avenues like trades should be encouraged. A four year degree
isn’t necessary for everyone.
"... Most student debt is held by people with balances on the lower end of the scale, with only 0.8 percent of the U.S. population owing more than $100,000, according to Deutsche Bank economists. They have labeled the issue as a "micro problem" for individuals, rather than a macro problem for the economy. ..."
"... Yet that still equates to 2.8 million people with around $495 billion in debt as of March, according to Department of Education data. Even more worrying is that it's an increase of almost $61 billion since the end of 2017. ..."
"... In the second scenario, loans are shown over a 20-year term with rates at 7 percent. Monthly payments are smaller but the overall burden is bigger, with total interest payments on $100,000 of debt rising above $86,000. ..."
The $1.6 trillion in U.S. student debt may not pose a direct threat to the economy, but it's causing anguish that goes far beyond
financial concerns for the people who owe it.
One in 15 borrowers has considered suicide due to their school loans, according to a survey of 829 people conducted last month
by Student Loan Planner, a debt advisory group.
Most student debt is held by people with balances on the lower end of the scale, with only 0.8 percent of the U.S. population
owing more than $100,000, according to Deutsche Bank economists. They have labeled the issue as a "micro problem" for individuals,
rather than a macro problem for the economy.
Yet that still equates to 2.8 million people with around $495 billion in debt as of March, according to Department of Education
data. Even more worrying is that it's an increase of almost $61 billion since the end of 2017.
Student loans are the second-biggest kind of debt in America behind home mortgages and often more expensive to service relative
to the amount owed because interest rates are generally higher. Not to mention that unlike buying a home, an education isn't a tangible
asset that can be sold.
It's also turning into a hot political issue as next year's presidential election approaches. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has proposed
a plan to cancel loans for many borrowers, while former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper addressed some of the knock-on effects for
the economy in a presentation at the Milken Institute conference earlier this week.
"Of course millennials would love to buy a house," Hickenlooper said April 30 in Los Angeles. But, "they're buried in debt!"
The following scenarios show the monthly costs associated with different levels of student debt. The first envisages a 10-year
loan at 6 percent. To put the figures into perspective, a 30-year mortgage of $400,000 at current interest rates would cost about
$2,000 per month.
In the second scenario, loans are shown over a 20-year term with rates at 7 percent. Monthly payments are smaller but the
overall burden is bigger, with total interest payments on $100,000 of debt rising above $86,000.
Lobbying and campaign finance are two forms of legalized bribery. Citizens United
legalized political corruption for corporations and showed the complete corruption of the
Supreme Court which decided it. Astroturfed political organizations, the manufacture of
"popular consent", are another form of corruption in politics. The hiding of contributors to
these and other groups gives cover to their corruption.
The media are corrupt, even a lot of the blogosphere is. It is all propaganda all the
time, just segmented and tailored to different audiences of rubes.
Universities are corrupt. They no longer fulfill an educational mission rather they are
purveyors of the status quo. They are corrupt in their corporate structure, in their
alliances with other corporations, and in their foisting of debt on to their
students.
Academia is corrupt. There is the whole publish or perish thing that results in most of
academia's research product being worthless and useless. This is even before we get to the
quack sciences like economics. Academic economics is completely corrupt. The dominant
politico-economic system of our times is kleptocracy. Yet almost no academic economist will
acknowledge it let alone make it central to their point of view.
The judicial system and the judiciary are corrupt. How else to explain our two-tiered
justice system? The great criminals of our times, the largest frauds in human history, are
not only not prosecuted, they are not even investigated. And how can anyone take the Supreme
Court to be anything but corrupt? This is an institution that except for a couple of decades
around the Warren Court has, for more than 200 years, always been on the side of the haves
against the have-nots, for the powerful, against the powerless, pro-slavery, pro-segregation,
and anti-worker. How can anyone take decisions like Bush v. Gore or Citizens United to be
anything other than corrupt, politics dressed up as legal thinking?
In a kleptocracy, all the institutions, at least those controlled by the rich and elites,
are put into the service of the kleptocrats to loot or justify and defend looting and the
looters. So corruption is endemic and systemic.
I know: who cares about the education of our kids as the redacted Mueller Report dominates the airwaves on CNN, MSNBC, and similar
cable "news" networks?
I care. I spent fifteen years as a history professor, teaching mostly undergraduates at technically-oriented colleges (the
Air Force Academy
; the Pennsylvania College of Technology). What I experienced was the slow death of education in America. The decline of the ideal
of fostering creative and critical
thinking ; the abandonment of the notion of developing and challenging young people to participate intelligently and passionately
in the American democratic experiment. Instead, education is often a form of
social control , or merely
a means to an end, purely
instrumental rather than inspirational.
Zombie education .
Nowadays, education in America is about training for a vocation, at least for some. It's about learning for the sake of earning,
i.e. developing so-called marketable skills that end (one hopes) in a respectable paycheck. At Penn College, I was encouraged to
meet my students "at their point of need." I was told they were my "customers" and I was their "
provider ." Education,
in sum, was transactional rather than transformational. Keep students in class (and paying tuition) and pray you can inspire them
to see that the humanities are something more than "filler" to their schedules -- and their lives.
As a college professor, I was lucky. I taught five classes a semester (a typical teaching load at community colleges), often in
two or three subjects. Class sizes averaged 25-30 students, so I got to know some of my students; I had the equivalent of tenure,
with good pay and decent benefits, unlike the adjunct professors of today who suffer from low pay and few if any benefits. I liked
my students and tried to challenge and inspire them to the best of my ability.
All this is a preface to Belle Chesler's stunning article at
TomDispatch.com , "Making American Schools Less Great Again: A Lesson in Educational Nihilism on a Grand Scale." A high school
visual arts teacher, Chesler writes from the heart about the chronic underfunding of education and how it is constricting democracy
in America. Here she talks about the frustrations of classes that are simply too big to teach:
[ Class sizes grew so large ] I couldn't remember my students' names, was unable to keep up with the usual grading and assessments
we're supposed to do, and was overwhelmed by stress and anxiety. Worst of all, I was unable to provide the emotional support I
normally try to give my students. I couldn't listen because there wasn't time.
On the drive to work, I was paralyzed by dread; on the drive home, cowed by feelings of failure. The experience of that year
was demoralizing and humiliating. My love for my students, my passion for the subjects I teach, and ultimately my professional
identity were all stripped from me. And what was lost for the students? Quality instruction and adult mentorship, as well as access
to vital resources -- not to mention a loss of faith in one of America's supposedly bedrock institutions, the public school
The truth of the matter is that a society that refuses to adequately invest in the education of its children is refusing to
invest in the future. Think of it as nihilism on a grand scale.
Nihilism, indeed. Why believe in anything? Talk about zombie education!
What America is witnessing, she writes, is nothing short of a national tragedy:
Public schools represent one of the bedrock institutions of American democracy. Yet as a society we've stood aside as the very
institutions that actually made America great were gutted and undermined by short-term thinking, corporate greed, and unconscionable
disrespect for our collective future.
The truth is that there is money for education, for schools, for teachers, and for students. We just don't choose to prioritize
education spending and so send a loud-and-clear message to students that education doesn't truly matter. And when you essentially
defund education for more than 40 years, you leave kids with
ever less faith in American
institutions, which is a genuine tragedy.
Please read all of her article here at
TomDispatch.com . And ask yourself, Why are we shortchanging our children's future? Why are we graduating gormless zombies rather
than mindful citizens?
Perhaps Trump does have some relevance to this article after all: "I love the poorly educated,"
sayeth Trump . Who says Trump always lies?
Now if these six words "gainful employment in a
recognized occupation" magically disappeared (psst and they did), what would it take for a
career
education program to lose its eligibility for federal student aid under DeVos? . . . a
for-profit institution could not lose its financial lifeline or federal student aid no matter
how poorly it performed its mission as spelled out in a statute to prepare students for
"gainful employment in a recognized occupation" resulting from that education as stipulated
previously.
One hundred percent of students could be dropped from their career program with all of them
deeply in debt, or perhaps no single graduate landing a job in their field of training, and
still . . . still the federal government would keep the pipeline of guaranteed federal student
loans and Pell Grants flowing in to the school.
With DeVos's reversal, the NYT surmised: "Executives in the for-profit education industry
would be sleeping better, secure in the knowledge that even the worst schools and programs were
no longer at risk of "magically" being thrown off the taxpayer-backed gravy train, no matter
how epically they failed and robbed their students." This AB author took liberty and added
words to make his point.
Under Obama, "the Job Training industry was on its heels. Under DeVos, they had been given a
magical new life, a second chance by the department," said Eileen Connor, the director of
litigation at Harvard Law School's Project on Predatory Student Lending.
Ms. DeVos, who invested in companies with ties to for-profit colleges before taking office,
has made it an agency priority to unfetter schools offering training in professional jobs and
trades by eliminating restrictions on them and also nonprofits. She also allowed a growing
number of for-profit schools to magically evade those loosened rules by converting to
nonprofits.
That is what the Los Angeles Pentecostal megachurch's affiliate Dream Center wanted to do in
2017 when it asked to buy the remains of Education Management Corporation . . . change it from
for-profit to nonprofit and use the profits to fund its other programs. One year after taking
over a chain of for-profit schools, dozens of Dream Center schools are near bankruptcy and
others have been sold with a hope they can survive.
Collectively
Argosy University, South University and the Art Institutes have ~26,000 students in
programs resulting in associate degrees in dental hygiene and doctoral programs in law and
psychology. Fourteen campuses of mostly Art Institute schools have a new owner after an
arranged transfer involving private equity. Another 40 or so others are now under the control
of a court-appointed receiver who has accused school officials of trying to keep the doors open
by taking millions of dollars earmarked for students to pay operating expenses.
Federal funding for Argosy ceased from the Department of Education when the court-appointed
receiver discovered school officials had taken about $13 million owed to students at 22
campuses and used it for payroll expenses, etc. Lauren Jackson seeking a doctorate at Argosy's
Illinois School of Professional Psychology in Chicago did not receive the $10,000 she was due
in January. She was paying expenses for herself and her 6-year-old daughter with borrowed money
and GoFundMe donations.
26,000 students being defrauded by schools offering programs meant to teach them a skill
leading to "gainful employment in a recognized occupation" is only a start to which DeVos has
failed to account for in the Department of Education. DeVos does profit by this failure due to
her own dabbling in areas feeding off of these failures. There is money to be made in preying
on defrauded students, so many of them, and larger than the baby boomer generation. The most
tragic consequence of conservatives'
abandonment of federal accountability of career programs is just that and the devastating
personal toll it will take on hundreds of thousands of hopelessly indebted students" for whom
there is no relief.
You're welcome. Two other titles I was going to recommend you watching for at your library
are these:
"From Haven To Conquest" by Walid Khalidi and The Transfer Agreement by
Edwin Black
The former is a 900 page source book which includes 80 short pieces, one of which is from
Jeffries "Palestine: The Reality". The second is about the agreement Hitler made with the
Zionists to evade a world-wide Jewish boycott of Germany at a time when this would have
hurt . Neither book is inexpensive, so I was surprised to see both of them at the
Internet Archive available for downloading.
This is just a short magazine article from 1939 describing life in a Jewish town in
Palestine. The last two pages give a hint of the way the Zionists used violence and even
terror against their fellow Jews to keep them in line.
Another topic altogether, but this 1854 newspaper essay gives a taste of what the South
planned for Central and South America. The Northern victory in the Civil War turned out to be
badly flawed, but a Southern one would have brought on evils beyond imagining.
Fukuyama offers a general theory of prosperity that provides provocative answers to certain
of the questions he raised in The End of History and the Last Man (1992).
While conceding that neoclassical economists have uncovered important truths about markets
and money, the RAND Corp. analyst argues that they give a poor account of human behavior. In
search of links missed by these practioners of the dismal science, Fukuyama probes the impact
of culture (broadly speaking, any society's inherited ethical habits) on economic life.
Focusing on such factors as trust (a community's shared expectation of honest, cooperative
behavior outside the family) and social capital (the values created by tradition, religion, or
other means), the author examines the ability of various peoples to organize effectively for
commercial purposes without relying on blood ties or government intervention. Fukuyama surveys
emergent as well as established industrial powers (the US, Canada, China, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Korea, et al.) to determine which might have superior reserves of social capital.
These reserves are important, he points out, because market-oriented societies in which
there is a high degree of moral consensus and cooperation have lower transaction costs and
hence greater competitiveness.
The author puts paid to any idea that the US is a nation of rugged individualists; indeed,
Americans are joiners without peer. He warns, though, that ongoing deterioration in the ties
that bind (e.g., declines in church attendance and membership in fraternal or voluntary
organizations), coupled with a persistent rise in divorce rates and special-interest groups,
could deplete the nation's social capital and over time levy an economic toll.
In turn, he cautions, the weakening of civil authority could strengthen the state's
judiciary and executive branches, an outcome that, he says, is in nobody's best interest.
A challenging, elegant exegesis that puts intellectual meat on the bones of Benjamin
Franklin's tip to his fellow revolutionaries at the signing of the Declaration of Independence:
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
One source said some of the parents are being
given a short window to consider a deal or potentially face additional charges.
It's unclear which parents prosecutors hope to seek out for cooperation, but sources said
authorities were interested in getting a better picture of how the scam worked. The sources
requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.
"... In Orwell's imagination, society was ruled in the future by Big Brother. It wasn't a computer, but rather the collective expression of the Party. But not like the Republicans; this Party was an autonomous bureaucracy and advanced surveillance state interested only in perpetuating itself as a hierarchy. In this dystopia, "the people" had become insignificant, without the power of "grasping that the world could be other than it is." ..."
"... Concepts like freedom were perverted by a ruthless Newspeakperpetuated by the Party through the media. A Goodthinker was someone who followed orders without thinking. Crimestop was the instinctual avoidance of any dangerous thought, and Doublethink was the constant distortion of reality to maintain the Party's image of infallibility. ..."
"... Writing in 1948, Orwell was projecting what could happen in just a few decades. By most measures, even 70 years later we're not quite there yet. But we do face the real danger that freedom and equality will be seriously distorted by a new form of Newspeak, a Trumpian version promoted by the administration and its allies through their media. We already have Trumpian Goodthinkers -- the sychophantic surrogates who follow his lead without thinking, along with Crimestop -- the instinctual avoidance of "disloyal" thought, and Doublethink -- the constant distortion of reality to maintain Trump's insatiable ego and image of infallibility. Orwellian ideas are simply resurfacing in a post-modern/reality TV form. ..."
"... As community life unravels and more institutions fall into disrepute, media have become among of the few remaining that can potentially facilitate some social cohesion. Yet instead they fuel conflict and crisis. It's not quite Crimestop, but does often appeal to some of the basest instincts and produce even more alienation and division. ..."
"... In 1980, Ralph Nader called the race for president at that time -- between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan -- a choice between mediocrity and menace. It was funny then, but now we can see what real menace looks like. Is Trump-ism what Orwell warned us about? Not quite, though there are similarities. Like Trump, you can't talk to Big Brother. And he rarely gives you the truth, only doublespeak. But Trump is no Big Brother. More like a Drunk Uncle with nukes. ..."
"... Security is tight and hard to avoid, on or offline. There are cameras everywhere, and every purchase and move most people make is tracked by the state. Still, there are four bombings in the first week of the Games. There is also another kind of human tragedy. Four runners collapse during preliminary rounds as a result of a toxic mix -- heat and pollution. ..."
"... Greg Guma is the Vermont-based author of Dons of Time, Uneasy Empire, Spirits of Desire, Big Lies, and The People's Republic: Vermont and the Sanders Revolution. ..."
"... This article was originally published by Greg Guma: For Preservation & Change . ..."
More people are becoming alienated, cynical, resentful or resigned, while too much of
mass and social media reinforces less-than-helpful narratives and tendencies. The frog's in the
frying pan and the heat is rising.
On the big screens above us beautiful young people demonstrated their prowess. We were
sitting in the communications center, waiting for print outs to tell us what they'd done before
organizing the material for mass consumption. Outside, people were freezing in the snow as they
waited for buses. Their only choice was to attend another event or attempt to get home.
The area was known as the Competition Zone, a corporate state created for the sole purpose
of showcasing these gorgeous competitors. Freedom was a foreign idea here; no one was more free
than the laminated identification card hanging around your neck allowed.
Visitors were more restricted than anyone. They saw only what they paid for, and had to wait
in long lines for food, transport, or tickets to more events. They were often uncomfortable,
yet they felt privileged to be admitted to the Zone. Citizens were categorized by their
function within the Organizing Committee's bureaucracy. Those who merely served -- in jobs like
cooking, driving and cleaning -- wore green and brown tags. They could travel between their
homes and work, but were rarely permitted into events. Their contact with visitors was also
limited. To visit them from outside the Zone, their friends and family had to be screened.
Most citizens knew little about how the Zone was actually run, about the "inner community"
of diplomats, competitors and corporate officials they served. Yet each night they watched the
exploits of this same elite on television.
The Zone, a closed and classified place where most bad news went unreported and a tiny elite
called the shots through mass media and computers, was no futuristic fantasy. It was Lake
Placid for several weeks in early 1980 -- a full four years before 1984.
In a once sleepy little community covered with artificial snow, the Olympics had brought a
temporary society into being. Two thousand athletes and their entourage were its royalty, role
models for the throngs of spectators, townspeople and journalists. This convergence resulted in
an ad hoc police state, managed by public and private forces and a political elite that
combined local business honchos with an international governing committee. They dominated a
population all too willing to submit to arbitrary authority.
Even back then, Lake Placid's Olympic "village" felt like a preview of things to come. Not
quite George Orwell's dark vision, but uncomfortably close.
In Orwell's imagination, society was ruled in the future by Big Brother. It wasn't a
computer, but rather the collective expression of the Party. But not like the Republicans; this
Party was an autonomous bureaucracy and advanced surveillance state interested only in
perpetuating itself as a hierarchy. In this dystopia, "the people" had become insignificant,
without the power of "grasping that the world could be other than it is."
Concepts like freedom were perverted by a ruthless Newspeakperpetuated by the Party through
the media. A Goodthinker was someone who followed orders without thinking. Crimestop was the
instinctual avoidance of any dangerous thought, and Doublethink was the constant distortion of
reality to maintain the Party's image of infallibility.
Writing in 1948, Orwell was projecting what could happen in just a few decades. By most
measures, even 70 years later we're not quite there yet. But we do face the real danger that
freedom and equality will be seriously distorted by a new form of Newspeak, a Trumpian version
promoted by the administration and its allies through their media. We already have Trumpian
Goodthinkers -- the sychophantic surrogates who follow his lead without thinking, along with
Crimestop -- the instinctual avoidance of "disloyal" thought, and Doublethink -- the constant
distortion of reality to maintain Trump's insatiable ego and image of infallibility. Orwellian
ideas are simply resurfacing in a post-modern/reality TV form.
Our fast food culture is also taking a long-term toll. More and more people are becoming
alienated, cynical, resentful or resigned, while too much of mass and social media reinforces
less-than-helpful narratives and tendencies. The frog's in the frying pan and the heat is
rising.
Much of what penetrates and goes viral further fragments culture and thought, promoting a
cynicism that reinforces both rage and inaction. Rather than true diversity, we have the mass
illusion that a choice between polarized opinions, shaped and curated by editors and networks,
is the essence of free speech and democracy. In reality, original ideas are so constrained and
self-censored that what's left is usually as diverse as brands of peppermint toothpaste.
When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the notion that freedom of speech and the press should
be protected meant that the personal right of self-expression should not be repressed by the
government. James Madison, author of the First Amendment, warned that the greatest danger to
liberty was that a majority would use its power to repress everyone else. Yet the evolution of
mass media and the corporate domination of economic life have made these "choicest privileges"
almost obsolete.
As community life unravels and more institutions fall into disrepute, media have become
among of the few remaining that can potentially facilitate some social cohesion. Yet instead
they fuel conflict and crisis. It's not quite Crimestop, but does often appeal to some of the
basest instincts and produce even more alienation and division.
In general terms, what most mass media bring the public is a series of images and anecdotes
that cumulatively define a way of life. Both news and entertainment contribute to the illusion
that competing, consuming and accumulating are at the core of our aspirations. Each day we are
repeatedly shown and told that culture and politics are corrupt, that war is imminent or
escalating somewhere, that violence is random and pervasive, and yet also that the latest
"experts" have the answers. Countless programs meanwhile celebrate youth, violence, frustrated
sexuality, and the lives of celebrities.
Between the official program content are a series of intensely packaged sales pitches. These
commercial messages wash over us, as if we are wandering in an endless virtual mall, searching
in vain for fulfillment as society crumbles.
In 1980, Ralph Nader called the race for president at that time -- between Jimmy Carter and
Ronald Reagan -- a choice between mediocrity and menace. It was funny then, but now we can see
what real menace looks like. Is Trump-ism what Orwell warned us about? Not quite, though there
are similarities. Like Trump, you can't talk to Big Brother. And he rarely gives you the truth,
only doublespeak. But Trump is no Big Brother. More like a Drunk Uncle with nukes.
So, is it too late for a rescue? Will menace win this time? Or can we still save the
environment, reclaim self-government, restore communities and protect human rights? What does
the future hold?
It could be summer in Los Angeles in 2024, the end of Donald Trump's second term. The
freeways are slow-moving parking lots for the Olympics. Millions of people hike around in the
heat, or use bikes and cycles to get to work. It's difficult with all the checkpoints, not to
mention the extra-high security at the airports. Thousands of police, not to mention the
military, are on the lookout for terrorists, smugglers, protesters, cultists, gangs, thieves,
and anyone who doesn't have money to burn or a ticket to the Games.
Cash isn't much good, and gas has become so expensive that suburban highways are almost
empty.
Security is tight and hard to avoid, on or offline. There are cameras everywhere, and every
purchase and move most people make is tracked by the state. Still, there are four bombings in
the first week of the Games. There is also another kind of human tragedy. Four runners collapse
during preliminary rounds as a result of a toxic mix -- heat and pollution.
... ... ...
Greg Guma is the Vermont-based author of Dons of Time, Uneasy Empire, Spirits of Desire,
Big Lies, and The People's Republic: Vermont and the Sanders Revolution.
They know, however, that they've been conned, played, and they're absolute fools in the
game.
Thank you Mr. Black for the laugh this morning. They know exactly what they have been
doing. Whether it was deregulating so that Hedge funds and vulture capitalism can thrive, or
making sure us peons cannot discharge debts, or making everything about financalization. This
was all done on purpose, without care for "winning the political game". Politics is
economics, and the Wall Street Democrats have been winning.
For sure. I'm quite concerned at the behavior of the DNC leadership and pundits. They are
doubling down on blatant corporatist agendas. They are acting like they have this in the bag
when objective evidence says they do not and are in trouble. Assuming they are out of touch is
naive to me. I would assume the opposite, they know a whole lot more than what they are letting
on.
I think the notion that the DNC and the Democrat's ruling class would rather lose to a
like-minded Republican corporatist than win with someone who stands for genuine progressive
values offering "concrete material benefits." I held my nose and read comments at the kos straw
polls (where Sanders consistently wins by a large margin) and it's clear to me that the
Clintonista's will do everything in their power to derail Bernie.
Keynes' "animal spirits" and the "tragedy of the commons" (Lloyd, 1833 and Hardin, 1968)
both implied that economics was messier than Samuelson and Friedman would have us believe
because there are actual people with different short- and long-term interests.
The behavioral folks (Kahnemann, Tversky, Thaler etc.) have all shown that people are even
messier than we would have thought. So most macro-economic stuff over the past half-century has
been largely BS in justifying trickle-down economics, deregulation etc.
There needs to be some inequality as that provides incentives via capitalism but
unfettered it turns into France 1989 or the Great Depression. It is not coincidence that the
major experiment in this in the late 90s and early 2000s required massive government
intervention to keep the ship from sinking less than a decade after the great unregulated
creative forces were unleashed.
MMT is likely to be similar where productive uses of deficits can be beneficial, but if the
money is wasted on stupid stuff like unnecessary wars, then the loss of credibility means that
the fiat currency won't be quite as fiat anymore. Britain was unbelievably economically
powerfully in the late 1800s but in half a century went to being an economic afterthought
hamstrung by deficits after two major wars and a depression.
So it is good that people like Brad DeLong are coming to understand that the pretty
economic theories have some truths but are utter BS (and dangerous) when extrapolated without
accounting for how people and societies actually behave.
I never understood the incentive to make more money -- that only works if money = true value
and that is the implication of living in a capitalist society (not economy)–everything
then becomes a commodity and alienation results and all the depression, fear, anxiety that I
see around me. Whereas human happiness actually comes from helping others and finding meaning
in life not money or dominating others. That's what social science seems to be telling us.
" He says we are discredited. Our policies have failed. And they've failed because
we've been conned by the Republicans."
That's welcome, but it's still making excuses. Neoliberal policies have failed because
the economics were wrong, not because "we've been conned by the Republicans." Furthermore, this
may be important – if it isn't acknowledged, those policies are quite likely to come
sneaking back, especially if Democrats are more in the ascendant., as they will be, given the
seesaw built into the 2-Party.
Might be right there. Groups like the neocons were originally attached the the left side of
politics but when the winds changed, detached themselves and went over to the Republican right.
The winds are changing again so those who want power may be going over to what is called the
left now to keep their grip on power. But what you say is quite true. It is not really the
policies that failed but the economics themselves that were wrong and which, in an honest
debate, does not make sense either.
"And they've failed because we've been conned by the Republicans.""
Not at all. What about the "free trade" hokum that DeJong and his pal Krugman have been
peddling since forever? History and every empirical test in the modern era shows that it fails
in developing countries and only exacerbates inequality in richer ones.
That's just a failed policy.
I'm still waiting for an apology for all those years that those two insulted anyone who
questioned their dogma as just "too ignorant to understand."
It's intriguing, but two other voices come to mind. One is Never Let a Serious Crisis Go To
Waste by Mirowski and the other is Generation Like by Doug Rushkoff.
Neoliberalism is partially entrepreneurial self-conceptions which took a long time to
promote. Rushkoff's Frontline shows the Youtube culture. There is a girl with a "leaderboard"
on the wall of her suburban room, keeping track of her metrics.
There's a devastating VPRO Backlight film on the same topic. Internet-platform
neoliberalism does not have much to do with the GOP.
It's going to be an odd hybrid at best – you could have deep-red communism but enacted
for and by people whose self-conception is influenced by decades of Becker and Hayek? One place
this question leads is to ask what's the relationship between the set of ideas and material
conditions-centric philosophies? If new policies pass that create a different possibility
materially, will the vise grip of the entrepreneurial self loosen?
Partially yeah, maybe, a Job Guarantee if it passes and actually works, would be an
anti-neoliberal approach to jobs, which might partially loosen the regime of neoliberal advice
for job candidates delivered with a smug attitude that There Is No Alternative. (Described by
Gershon). We take it seriously because of a sense of dread that it might actually be powerful
enough to lock us out if we don't, and an uncertainty of whether it is or not.
There has been deep damage which is now a very broad and resilient base. It is one of the
prongs of why 2008 did not have the kind of discrediting effect that 1929 did. At least that's
what I took away from _Never Let_.
Brad DeLong handing the baton might mean something but it is not going to ameliorate the
sense-of-life that young people get from managing their channels and metrics.
Take the new 1099 platforms as another focal point. Suppose there were political measures
that splice in on the platforms and take the edge off materially, such as underwritten
healthcare not tied to your job. The platforms still use star ratings, make star ratings seem
normal, and continually push a self-conception as a small business. If you have overt DSA plus
covert Becker it is, again, a strange hybrid,
Your comment is very insightful. Neoliberalism embeds its mindset into the very fabric of
our culture and self-concepts. It strangely twists many of our core myths and beliefs.
This is nothing but a Trojan horse to 'co-opt' and 'subvert'. Neoliberals sense a risk to
their neo feudal project and are simply attempting to infiltrate and hollow out any threats
from within.
There are the same folks who have let entire economics departments becomes mouthpieces for
corporate propaganda and worked with thousands of think tanks and international organizations
to mislead, misinform and cause pain to millions of people.
They have seeded decontextualized words like 'wealth creators' and 'job creators' to
create a halo narrative for corporate interests and undermine society, citizenship, the social
good, the environment that make 'wealth creation' even possible. So all those take a backseat
to 'wealth creator' interests. Since you can't create wealth without society this is some
achievement.
Its because of them that we live in a world where the most important economic idea is
protecting people like Kochs business and personal interests and making sure government is not
'impinging on their freedom'. And the corollary a fundamental anti-human narrative where
ordinary people and workers are held in contempt for even expecting living wages and conditions
and their access to basics like education, health care and living conditions is hollowed out
out to promote privatization and become 'entitlements'.
Neoliberalism has left us with a decontextualized highly unstable world that exists in a
collective but is forcefully detached into a context less individual existence. These are not
mistakes of otherwise 'well meaning' individuals, there are the results of hard core ideologues
and high priests of power.
Two thumbs up. This has been an ongoing agenda for decades and it has succeeded in
permeating every aspect of society, which is why the United States is such a vacuous,
superficial place. And it's exporting that superficiality to the rest of the world.
I read Brad DeLong's and Paul Krugman's blogs until their contradictions became too
great. If anything, we need more people seeing the truth. The Global War on Terror is into its
18th year. In October the USA will spend approximately $6 trillion and will have accomplish
nothing except to create blow back. The Middle Class is disappearing. Those who remain in their
homes are head over heels in debt.
The average American household carries $137,063 in debt. The wealthy are getting richer.
The Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates families together have as much wealth as the
lowest half of Americans. Donald Trump's Presidency and Brexit document that neoliberal
politicians have lost contact with reality. They are nightmares that there is no escaping. At
best, perhaps, Roosevelt Progressives will be reborn to resurrect regulated capitalism and debt
forgiveness.
But more likely is a middle-class revolt when Americans no longer can pay for water,
electricity, food, medicine and are jailed for not paying a $1,500 fine for littering the
Beltway.
A civil war inside a nuclear armed nation state is dangerous beyond belief. France is
approaching this.
"... Time Warner already offers Nomorobo as a free service, and the only reason I tried the Sentry was to eliminate the one ring you get for blacklisted callers when you're using Nomorobo). ..."
I am an electrical
engineer, and I can tell you I searched high and low for the best device to defeat robocalls.
Forget the other devices like nomorobo that compare the incoming phone number to a big
blacklist..... telemarketers are just faking random caller id's.
This device has a recording that immediately tells callers to hit the '0' key while a robot
dialer is still searching for a telemarketer to connect the call to after it has been
answered.
Since the telemarketer doesn't hear that message, they never press '0', and the call is
never connected to you.
Once your friends and family press '0' and are in the system, their calls are passed through
directly to you without interruption.
The device also has a huge blacklist number memory for blocking certain numbers.
The unit also has a two memory answering machine function which ONLY works after a caller
has pressed '0'. Your regular answering machine will pick up all other legit calls. (The device
manual does not mention this feature.)
The Sentry-3 has been in service for one month. Black listed callers have been blocked and
white listed callers have rung through normally. Callers on neither list have been greeted by a
custom recorded message inviting them to press "zero" to ring my home phone. Only one caller
has pressed zero, rang through, and left a desired recorded message on my home recorder. The 35
other callers who did not press "zero" were blocked, and then I added them to the black list.
In short, the Sentry-3 handled all calls flawlessly.
Two items which warrant improvement are 1) the poor audio quality of the built-in incoming
and outgoing voice message recorders and 2) the surprisingly scanty and inadequate unit
operations documentation. Many of the needed Sentry-3 installation and operational details that
are not covered clearly, or not covered at all, can be gleaned from reading and interpolating
the documentation for the earlier Sentry models and by reading the reviews/questions/answers
for all of the models.
Initially I installed the base station of my Panasonic cordless phone system in series with
the S-3 as illustrated in the S-3 manual. With this arrangement no caller identifications or
numbers were displayed on any of the phones. After noting that an optional parallel S-3 setup
was mentioned in the earlier S-2 documentation I converted to a parallel setup and then the
Caller ID and number data were displayed.
To minimize the inconvenience and time required for a real person, not on the white or black
lists, to connect to my home phone I recorded this brief OGM: "This is (given name)" [Hopefully
the party would recognize the name and voice and not hang up without listening further]; "To
ring my home phone" [This is what they intended to do]; "Press zero, hang up, and redial my
number. Thank you". To improve the likelihood that the caller would be able to understand my
message I chose not to speak in conversational tones but instead pronounced each word as loudly
and as clearly as I could without yelling. This approach in effect partially compensated for
the poor quality of the voice recorder.
The two needed performance improvement items described earlier are of minor import compared
with the truly impressive ability of the S3 to eliminate unwanted calls. The unit does perform
as advertised. In my opinion it is fairly priced and offers a blocking capability not found in
any other landline blocker of which I am aware. Based on my experience to date I do recommend
it for consideration by anyone seeking an effective landline call blocker.
This is about my fourth edit of this review. Unfortunately, at this point
the unit is being returned, but it shows great promise and it's possible, if not likely, that my
home phone set up was the problem and others will not experience the same issues I did.
Initially, the Sentry 3 introduced significant background static when I inserted it inline
between my wall jack and my base phone and I thought it would have to go back. I'm on Time Warner
VOIP in NYC, and I'm using a Panasonic modular system with a base unit, so I thought that one of
those might have been the problem. But, after some more trial and error, the problem appeared to
have been because I introduced the Sentry Unit too far down the line, so to speak, in my interior
wiring. Once I installed it directly to the cable modem, and ran my complicated internal wiring
(which splits later on) directly out of the Sentry Unit at that initial point, the static was
gone. So that was good.
Unfortunately, this morning, I picked up my phone line and it was full of static and clicks
until I disconnected the Sentry. So then, based on someone else's review, I searched for the
instructions for the Sentry 2, which shows how to set up the unit in parallel (I've uploaded a
picture of it). Basically you just use a splitter to add the Sentry, but you don't run your
connection through it. This cleared all the static and clicks and returned my clarity of
sound.
But it comes at a cost. Because of the parallel wiring (and unlike when the unit was set up
in-line), my home phone rings at least once before the Sentry unit kicks in (notwithstanding that
I have the Sentry ringer setting, accessed by holding the ringer button down from the home
screen, set to "allow 0 rings"). For me, but maybe not for others, this defeats the purpose of
the system.
Time Warner already offers Nomorobo as a free service, and the only reason I tried
the Sentry was to eliminate the one ring you get for blacklisted callers when you're using
Nomorobo).
But if your system is different from mine (the Sentry, per its FAQs, seems to like AT&T
and VTech phones), you might want to give it a try. In which case, a few other notes.
First, Caller ID continued to come through on my Panasonic system.
Second, notwithstanding other reviews here, I thought the Sentry instructions were
straight-forward and fine. But, if you are having problems, there's a video on their web site
that walks you through the basics. I easily recorded my own custom message (e.g., "we're blocking
all Robocalls, but if you're a live person that we might want to talk to, please press zero,
hang-up, and redial and you'll be put through. You'll only have to do this one time"), and easily
entered a bunch of whitelisted numbers (without a prefix 1 in my case -- test whether you need it
before you enter all your whitelisted numbers!).
My custom message requires some explanation: you don't have to tell people to hang up and
redial -- if they press 0, then the Sentry unit will begin ringing -- I counted 9 very loud rings
(there doesn't seem to be way to change either the number of rings or the volume), before it
beeps (which the caller can hear) and its message machine kicks in -- and, if you pick up on your
own phone before this point (which does NOT ring in this context), you're connected. And,
regardless of whether you picked up or not, the caller is whitelisted for next time by having
pressed 0.
I didn't want this sequence -- specifically, the need to work with 2 answering machines -- or
the possibility of hearing the Sentry's rather obnoxious sounding ring -- hence the message to
hang up and call back.
As others have said, two improvements would make this a 5 star device (assuming it works with
your set-up): 1) better recording and playback quality on the OGM -- it's really a chore to get
it even reasonably clear and audible, and 2) the ability to have a caller press 0 and directly
ring your own phone. One star deducted for those flaws. And one star deducted for, when it's set
up in parallel, not being able to keep your phone from ringing once (although I'm not sure that's
technically feasible on Sentry's end given the signal is split and hitting both units at the same
time).
But, all in all, if it works with your set up, and you're willing to do the whitelist set-up
work and maybe have the occasional overlooked caller have to go through the 0 pressing process to
be added, it's a pretty amazing device for ending the plague that our home phone lines have
become thanks to all the telemarketers and scam artists.
Jeff 4 months ago
Report abuse Blocking the 1st ring in parallel isn't possible. Sentry uses the 1st ring to
recognize that there is an incoming call, so setting it to pickup on ring 0 is like saying pick
up before the call actually arrives. However, as someone else suggested, you can check your phone
to see if it has the option to not ring on the first ring... or buy one that does have this
feature. I think most of the current Panasonic phones do.
Manufacturer Account of Tel-Sentry Inc. 1 year ago
Report abuse Hi.
Thank you for your valuable feedback. Your suggestions for how we can improve are always
welcomed and appreciated. We also wanted to apologize that the device could not accommodate to
your preference. We are truly grateful that you gave our product a try. Should you have any questions or would
like to share some thoughts regarding your experience, please feel free to contact us. Thank
you.
Sincerely,
Michael Sentry Call Screener Support (714)-361-4615 M-Fr 9am-4pm PST [email protected]
It does effectively block both robo calls and telelmarketing calls by the use of "Accept"
and "Reject" lists and an "Advanced" mode for callers not on either list. In "Advanced" mode, a
pre-recording asks live telemarketers to remove your number from their list, and then leaves
the option for important callers to press "0".
If a caller chooses to press "0", the first time the caller presses "0", only the Sentry
device rings and the caller's number automatically gets saved to the whitelist. This is new
with version 2. The reasoning for the auto save is that important calls from live people (such
as family and friends) aren't totally blocked out from reaching you, but that on a second try,
they will get through and not get stopped by the pre-recorded screening. Of course, this opens
up the possibility that a persistent telemarketer or former friend can press "0" to
automatically get on your whitelist. Yet, if they do, placing them on the reject list manually
is as easy as scrolling to that number on the call list or accept list and holding down the
reject button until the "done" indicator shows up on the LCD.
From an email response received from the manufacturer, according the them, live
telemarketers rarely, if ever go to the effort of pressing "0" when encountering the
pre-recording.
Though made in China (aren't most things today?), the call blocker is designed in the USA.
The call blocker is actually quite intuitive and easy to use. The instruction sheet is only a
few pages and contains instructions on how to set up and use the different features. There are
easy to read lettering indicating a button's function above or below each button. The buttons
on the device doesn't feel cheap as in breaking anytime soon. The buttons are responsive and
don't feel like they are about to cave in when pressed.
Version 2 of the Sentry call blocker tackles many of the concerns of the earlier model.
First, now there are 3 ways to have numbers added to the whitelist. They are (a) view the
call list and press the "Accept" button (this is the same method as with version 1), (b) Add
whitelist numbers directly using the buttons on the device (the instructions are straight
forward. I was able to add about 20 numbers in 30 minutes), and (c) in "Advanced" mode, a
caller presses "0". This automatically saves the caller's number to the whitelist.
Second, by using the Down button, it's easy to toggle the Sentry ringer on or off.
Third, the screen brightness is easier to adjust. There are three levels and the LCD screen
is easy to read during adjustment.
Fourth, the recorded Sentry greeting no longer uses a British sounding male voice, but
instead has an authoritative sounding American male voice which clearly says to the caller that
this number is screened by Sentry and only if the caller has a valid reason, then press
"0".
Fifth, if receiving a call, and the caller presses "0", the alarm rings as usual. But unlike
the Sentry 1 version where the alarm rings even after pick up, with Sentry 2, once the phone is
picked up, the alarm stops and one can talk to the caller freely.
Sixth, to correct issues of the Sentry needing to reset due to power fluctuations (the
Sentry 1 version ran strictly off the phone line's power), the Sentry 2 version, in addition to
using the phone line, uses two AAA batteries as a back up power source, which should last about
6 months before needing a change. Not only does using batteries eliminate the need to unplug
and plug back in occasionally with the Sentry 1 model, but this is also handy when inputting
numbers on the whitelist as now one can do so without being connected to the phone line.
In summary, here is what I like and dislike about the Sentry Call Blocker version 2:
Likes
-----
- Effective call blocking, easy to use, should last, competitively priced
- a large capacity limit (9999 each) of numbers for both "Accept" and "Reject" calls
- Advanced mode blocks automated, robo calls
- (new with version 2) Battery backup eliminates freeze up and resetting issues. Can use device
cord free to input whitelist numbers
- Numbers are retained even if phone line disconnected
- (new with version 2) clear, American accented greeting (though I kinda of miss the English
butler's voice!)
- (new with version 2) ability to add numbers to the call blocker directly to the device
- (new with version 2) auto save to white list gives important callers not yet on the white
list a
second chance to reach you
- (new with version 2) easier to use LCD setting. Even during set up, as long as three is
surrounding light, the LCD isn't too dim to read. The LCD display shows a sharper contrast
- (new with version 2) ability to turn off the ringer
Dislikes
--------
- Only captures the phone number and not the name
- In darker areas, LCD may be a bit dim, would like a backlight button, especially now since
there is battery backup
Overall, I really like the Sentry call blocker, version 2. It feels nice reminding myself
that the phone usage belongs to me and not the telemarketers. In other words, "bring it on"
robo callers and telemarketers, the sheriff is ready for you!
Verified Purchase I just got my Sentry 2 call blocker
and so far I am very excited about this device. There was some confusing terminology about
this device before I purchased that has become clear to me now that I own the device. To
clarify the situation for others, the Sentry 2 works a couple of independent modes that make
the documentation confusing. The documentation referees to dual mode. But there seems to be
more then one dual mode. So which dual mode they are referring to at this point is unknown.
the parallel versus series modes
The first mode pair I will talk about is the parallel versus series modes. This means
there are two ways you can hook up the Sentry 2 to your home phones.
In parallel mode, the Sentry 2 acts like another handset, and you will hear the first ring
of every call that comes in. That means every call. Black listed, white listed, or unknown.
You plug the Sentry 2 into an unused phone jack. Or if you don't have an open phone jack, you
will need to use a splitter. A splitter did not come in my box which is strange because
parallel mode is probably the most common mode people will be able to hook up with. When a
call comes in, all your phones in your house ring instantly just like before. Caller ID with
names show up on all the phones which is a good situation.
The Sentry 2 monitors the Caller ID that comes in during the first ring and if it doesn't
like the number, it will "pick up the phone" and either play it's message or (if the number
is on the block list) hangs up immediately.
If the Sentry 2 is playing it's message, you still have a chance to pick up a phone
elsewhere in your house. This should stop the message playback and you can immediately talk
to the caller. After your call is done, you can then walk over to the Sentry 2 and accept the
last call (in the call history) into your white list, or stick it in the black list.
In series mode, the Sentry 2 sits between your incoming phone line and the rest of the
telephones in your house. In this mode, you will not hear the first ring of every call
because it appears the Sentry 2 will block the ring of every call until it gets a chance to
see the caller ID. This mode would probably make most people happy since more silence is good
right? Let me say right off if you have multiple phone brands scattered throughout your house
like I do chances are most likely you will not be able to use series mode. It seems if you
have even one incompatible phone in your system, or perhaps just too many phones in your
house, series mode probably will not work. While I would have hoped that I could have used
series mode (avoiding the first ring) I am still very glad to have a well functioning
parallel mode setup.
The other mode pair is the basic versus advanced modes.
The so called basic mode is like a standby mode or as it reads on the display of the
device it is the "off" mode. In basic (or "off") mode, all calls are let through except for
black listed numbers which still get blocked. So the part that is "off" is the white listing
capability. You may want to use this mode if your white list is incomplete, or if you are
expecting a call from someone who you don't know their phone number. For example, if you call
a refrigerator repair man. The operator tells you the repair man will call 15 minutes before
he arrives. You can then stick the Sentry 2 into basic "off" mode so that the repair man's
call gets let through. Basic mode can also be used to collect phone numbers from friends and
family, so you don't have to enter them in manually. Just leave Sentry 2 in basic (off) mode
for a few weeks. As the Sentry 2 collects numbers in it's call history, you can scroll
through the call history and add the numbers to your white (or black) list.
The other mode is called advanced mode. Advanced mode is when "off" is not displayed in
the upper right hand corner of the display. Let's be honest. Advanced mode is why we all
decided to purchase the Sentry 2. Advanced mode means the white list is actively checked.
White listed phone numbers are allowed to ring your phones. The black list is also checked.
Black listed numbers get an instant automatic good bye slam and no apology either.
Unknown numbers get a long somewhat annoying message telling them to go away, or press
"0" to be added to the white list. So why is it called advance mode anyway? Well to be
honest, most people will not want their friends or family members to encounter the Sentry 2's
go away message.
If someone presses "0" the Sentry 2 does not hang up. It will stop playing it's message
and the caller will hear silence. This will probably confuse the caller, since the Sentry 2
just told them to hang up. The Sentry 2 will then make a noise, like an alarm which the
caller can't hear. If you are fortunate enough to be able to hear the alarm, then you can
pick up a phone and start talking.
"Sometimes [two and two are four], Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are
three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become
sane."
One of the key themes from George Orwell's dystopic novel 1984 is that the Party can do and
say whatever it wants.
And more importantly, you must believe it, with all your heart. No matter how absurd.
That's doublethink . It is impossible for two plus two to equal three, four, and five
simultaneously. But if the Party says it is so, it is so.
If you can't make yourself believe two contradictory facts simultaneously, that makes you a
thought criminal– an enemy of the Party.
Thoughtcrime is thinking any thought that contradicts the Party.
Facecrime is when you have the wrong expression on your face. For instance, if captured
enemy soldiers are being paraded through the streets, looking sympathetic is a facecrime.
Newspeak is the language of the Party–one that has painstakingly been removed of
unnecessary words, or words that might contradict the Party's ideals.
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end
we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to
express it."
During daily two minutes hate , citizens shout and curse whatever enemies the Party shows
them.
And the face of the Party, Big Brother , is watching you. He helps you be a better
citizen.
This isn't just some random literature lesson. Understanding Orwell's 1984 will help you
understand 2019 America.
For instance, one California state senator is working on her own version of Newspeak.
She has banned the members of her committee from using gender pronouns, such as he, she,
her, and him. Instead they must use "they and them" to respect non-binary gender choices.
So Billy Joel's famous song "She's always a woman" would become "They're always a non-binary
gender. . ." Somehow that just doesn't ring with the same sweetness.
Last month a high school student famously committed a facecrime when he stood, apparently
smirking, while a Native American activist beat a drum in his face.
The 16-year-old was then subjected to "two minutes hate" by the entire nation. The Party
labeled him an enemy, and Twitter obliged.
Of course when I reference the 'Party', I don't mean to imply that all these Orwellian
developments are coming from a single political party.
They've ALL done their parts to advance Orwellian dystopia and make it a reality.
Senators Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders want to
limit corporate stock buybacks and share payouts. But the tax code already has the
accumulated profits tax, which punishes corporations for NOT engaging in stock buybacks and
share payouts
It's like doublethink you have to simultaneously pay and not pay out dividends.
When Matt Damon pointed out that we should not conflate a pat on the butt with rape, he was
met with "two minutes hate" for expressing the wrong opinion.
"... Administration bloat and academic decline is another prominent feature of the neoliberal university. University presidents now view themselves as CEO and want similar salaries. ..."
This book is the collection of more than dozen of essays of various authors, but even the
Introduction (Privatizing the Public University: Key Trends, Countertrends, and Alternatives)
is worth the price of the book
Trends in neo-liberalization of university education are not new. But recently they took a
more dangerous turn. And they are not easy to decipher, despite the fact that they are
greatly affect the life of each student or educator. In this sense this is really an
eyes-opening book.
In Europe previously higher education as assessable for free or almost free, but for
talented student only. Admission criteria were strict and checked via written and oral
entrance exams on key subjects. Now the tend is to view university as business that get
customers, charge them exorbitant fees and those customers get diploma as hamburgers in
McDonalds at the end for their money. Whether those degree are worth money charged, or not
and were suitable for the particular student of not (many are "fake" degrees with little or
no chances for getting employment) is not university business. On the contrary marketing is
used to attract as many students as possible and many of those student now remain in debt for
large part of their adult life.
In other words, the neoliberalization of the university in the USA creates new, now
dominant trend -- the conversion of the university into for-profit diploma mills, which are
essentially a new type of rent-seeking (and they even attract speculative financial capital
and open scamsters, like was in case of "Trump University" ). Even old universities with more
than a century history more and more resemble diploma mills.
This assault on academic freedom by neoliberalism justifies itself by calling for
"transparency" and "accountability" to the taxpayer and the public. But it operates used
utter perversion of those terms. In the Neoliberal context, they mean "total surveillance"
and "rampant rent-seeking."
Neoliberalism has converted education from a public good to a personal investment in the
future, a future conceived in terms of earning capacity. As this is about your future earning
potential, it is logical that for a chance to increase it you need to take a loan.
Significantly, in the same period per capita, spending on prisons increased by 126 percent
(Newfield 2008: 266). Between the 1970s and 1990s there was a 400 percent increase in charges
in tuition, room, and board in U.S. universities and tuition costs have grown at about ten
times the rate of family income (ibid.). What these instances highlight is not just the
state's retreat from direct funding of higher education but also a calculated initiative to
enable private companies to capture and profit from tax-funded student loans.
The other tendency is also alarming. Funds now are allocated to those institutions that
performed best in what has become a fetishistic quest for ever-higher ratings. That creates
the 'rankings arms-race.' It has very little or nothing to do with the quality of teaching of
students in a particular university. On the contrary, the curriculums were "streamlines" and
"ideologically charged courses" such as neoclassical economics are now required for
graduation even in STEM specialties.
In the neoliberal university professors are now under the iron heel of management and
various metrics were invented to measure the "quality of teaching." Most of them are very
perverted or can be perverted as when a measurement becomes a target; teachers start to focus
their resources and activities primarily on what 'counts' rather than on their wider
competencies, professional ethics and societal goals (see Kohn and Shore, this volume).
Administration bloat and academic decline is another prominent feature of the neoliberal
university. University presidents now view themselves as CEO and want similar salaries. The
same is true for the growing staff of university administrators. The recruitment of
administrators has far outpaced the growth in the number of faculty – or even students.
Meanwhile, universities claim to be struggling with budget crises that force to reduce
permanent academic posts, and widely use underpaid and overworked adjunct staff – the
'precariat' paid just a couple of thousand dollars per course and often existing on the edge
of poverty, or in real poverty.
Money now is the key objective and the mission changed from cultural to "for profit"
business including vast expenses on advancement of the prestige and competitiveness of the
university as an end in itself. Ability to get grants is now an important criteria of getting
the tenure.
Trigger warning: This post contains the discussion of depression and other mental
health issues, and suicide. If you or anyone you know needs help or support for a mental
health concern, please don't suffer in silence. Many countries have confidential phone
helplines (in Australia you can call Lifeline on 13 11 14, for example);this organisationprovides
worldwide support, whilethis websitecompiles a
number of helpline sites from around the world.
I am writing today from a place of anger; from a rage that sits, simmering on the surface of
a deep well of sadness. I didn't know Dr. Malcolm Anderson, the senior accountancy lecturer
from Cardiff University whose death, after falling from the roof of his university building,
was last week ruled
a suicide . I obviously have no way to know the complexity of his feelings or what sequence
of events led up to his decision to end his own life. However, according to the results of an
inquest, we can know what Dr. Anderson wanted his university to understand about his death
– that it was, at least in part, because of the pressures of his academic work.
The media reports that Dr. Anderson had recently been appointed to Deputy Head of his
department, significantly increasing his administrative load. Nonetheless, he was still
teaching 418 students and needed to mark their work within a 20-day turnaround. To meet that
deadline, he would have needed to work approximately 9 hours a day without food or toilet
breaks, for 20 days straight, and not do ANY other kind of work during that time (such as the
admin that comes with being a Deputy Head). Practically impossible, given he was also a human
being, with a home life, and physical needs like food, in addition to work
responsibilities.
His wife, Diane, has been quoted saying that Dr. Anderson worked very long hours and often
took marking to family events. She has said that although he was a passionate educator who won
teaching awards every year, he had been showing signs of stress and had spoken to his managers
about his difficulty meeting deadlines. A colleague told the inquest that he was given the same
response each time he asked for help, and staffing cuts had continued.
A Marked
Problem
... ... ...
And look, I get it. To someone outside the academy, I'm sure the perception
remains that academics sit in leather armchairs, gazing out the gilded windows of our ivory
towers, thinking all day.
That has not been my experience, nor that of anyone I know.
My colleagues and peers have, however , experienced levels of anxiety and
depression that are
six times higher than experienced in the general population (Evans et al. 2018). They
report
higher levels of workaholism , the kind that has a negative and unwanted effect on
relationships with loved ones (Torp et al. 2018). The picture is often even bleaker for
women
,
people of colour , and other non-White, non-middle-class, non-males. So whether you think
academics are 'delicate woeful souls' or not, it's difficult to deny that there is a real
problem to be tackled here.
Obviously, marking load is only one issue amongst many faced in universities the world over.
But it's not bad as an illustration, partly because it's quantifiable . It's somewhat
ironic that the neoliberal metrics that we rail against, the audit culture that causes these
kinds of examples to happen, could also help us describe to others why they are a problem for
us. So quantifiability brings us to neoliberalism. How did neoliberalism become so pervasive
that it's almost impossible to imagine how the world could look different?
Neoliberalism,
then and now
These last two weeks I've been working out of the Stockholm Centre for Organisational Research in Sweden,
which, by coincidence, is where Professor Cris Shore , anthropologist of
policy and the guest on our next podcast episode is
currently based. I was chatting to him the other day about the interview we recorded last
December, which centres around many of the ideas I'm discussing in this blog post. I had to
admit, I hadn't realised until we did that interview how angry many people still feel towards
the
Thatcher government for introducing neoliberal ideologies and practices into the public
sector. Despite doing a Ph.D. about modern university life, it hadn't fully registered for me
that events of the past , specifically the histories of politics and economics in 'the
West', were such active players in the theatre of higher education's present .
To understand today's neoliberal universities, let's explore a little history in the UK and
the US, two of the biggest influencers in the global higher education sector today. In 1979,
Margaret Thatcher rose to power on a platform of reviving the stagnant British economy by
introducing market-style competition into the public sector. This way, she claimed, she was
ensuring, that "the state's power [was] reduced and the power of the people, enhanced"
(Edwards,
2017) . For universities, this meant increased "accountability" and quality assurance
measures that would
drag universities out of their complacency .
Meanwhile, in the US, Ronald Reagan was also arriving at neoliberalism via a different path.
Americans historically don't trust central government (Roberts,
2007) , so in 1981, Reagan introduced tax cuts (especially for the rich) for the first time
in American history, therefore "protecting" the American people from the rapacious spending
habits of the state (Prasad,
2012) . In American universities, this manifested over the next 30 years in reduced public
spending on higher education, transferring the costs for tuition to student-consumers, and
encouraging partnerships with industry and endorsements from philanthropists (often with
agendas) to cover research costs (Shumway, 2017) .
Then in the 90s, there was a moral panic about the public sector caused by scandals such as
" the collapse of Barings
Bank in 1995 , the failures of the medical profession revealed by investigations into the
serial murders by Dr
Harold Shipman , and the numerous cases of child abuse
that have plagued the Catholic Church " (Shore, 2008) . Frankly, it
seems pretty understandable that people were looking for greater transparency, a bit of
accountability, and a whole lot less of, "leave it to the professionals, they seem like alright
blokes, don't they?" from their public sector.
The official rationale for [neoliberal ideologies and actions] appears benign and
incontestable: to improve efficiency and transparency and to make these institutions more
accountable to the taxpayer and public (and no reasonable person could seriously challenge
such commonsensical and progressive objectives). The problem, however, is that audit confuses
'accountability' with 'accountancy' so that 'being answerable to the public' is recast in
terms of measures of productivity, 'economic efficiency' and delivering 'value for money'
(VFM).
The trouble with neoliberalism and its offshoot, New Public Management , is that
much like the Newspeak of
Orwell's 1984 , the words that were used to sell it – quality, accountability,
transparency etc. – in practice, mean the opposite of what they appear to mean.
For example, as Chris Lorenz (2012) points out in an article that convincingly compares New Public
Management in universities to the outcomes of a Communist regime , there has been no
evidence, statistical or otherwise, that increasing 'quality control measures' in universities
has actually improved quality in universities by any objective criteria – and often just
the opposite.
What has "improved" in universities because of neoliberal practices is efficiency,
often through measures like restructures and reviews. Again, taking steps to save money and
time sounds like a positive. However, the problem with 'efficiency' is that, unlike its
counterpart 'effectiveness' (the ability to bring about a specific effect), 'efficiency' has no
end point – it is a goal unto itself. As Lorenz phrases it, "efficient, therefore, is
never efficient enough," (2012, p. 607).
Bringing this back, then, to issues of mental health and increasing workloads on campus. Liz
Morrish of Academic
Irregularities pointed out last week that when tragedies such as the death of Malcolm
Anderson occur in universities, the most common response is for said university to announce a
review. As anticipated, two days after the results of Dr. Anderson's inquest were first
reported in the media, Cardiff University
announced that they would be reviewing the 'support, information, advice and specialist
counselling' available to all staff, but also urged any academic "who has any concerns
regarding workload, to raise them with their line manager, in the first instance, so all
available advice and support can be offered."
This platitude has been taken by many online as exactly that – a platitude. Several commenters
on Twitter have pointed out that providing more mental health support doesn't actually
reduce workload, while others have noted that there has been no discussion by Cardiff U of
attempting to fix the underlying cause. I agree with them, and it's part of the reason I'm so
angry. Malcolm Anderson could easily be any one of us.
Yet, I have to admit, I'd also hate to be part of the executive team at Cardiff University
right now. Can you imagine the anguish of knowing that someone had taken their life, and held
you directly responsible? You'd have to feel so helpless, so powerless in the shadow of
neoliberal forces that permeate every last aspect of the global higher education sector. I
don't know, I haven't been a Vice Chancellor, maybe you wouldn't have to feel that way. But
it's easy to imagine how one could.
The path to neoliberal hell is paved with good
intentions
So, what's the answer? I wish I knew. What I do know is that anthropological thinking has a
lot to offer in the exploration of big immutable mobiles
2 like neoliberalism. As Sherry Ortner asks in her 2016 article " Dark anthropology and
its others: Theory since the eighties ", who better to question the power structures
inherent in 'dark' topics such as neoliberalisation or colonialism than anthropologists? Yet,
she urges an approach that also acknowledges the possibility of goodness in the world,
quoting from the opening to Michael Lambek's Ordinary Ethics as rationale:
Ethnographers commonly find that the people they encounter are trying to do what they
consider right or good, are being evaluated according to criteria of what is right and good,
or are in some debate about what constitutes the human good. Yet anthropological theory tends
to overlook all this in favor of analyses that emphasize structure, power, and interest.
(Lambeck, 2010, p. 1)
And this is where I have to deviate from the majority of the neoliberal university critiques
I've read. In these pieces, it's all too common to read criticisms of academic managers, or
administrators, or university 'service providers' as if they are The Reason that neoliberal
ideologies get enacted in university contexts. But usually, they're just human beings too, also
subject to KPIs and managerial demands and neoliberal ideologies.
Having worked at different times as an educator, a researcher, and a communications manager
in various universities for more than 10 years, and now having conducted fieldwork at a
university for my PhD, I have had the chance to observe and conduct research on at least nine
different university campuses, in at least five countries. Based on those experiences, I am in
complete agreement with Lambek: the majority
3 of non-academics that I have encountered, in every type of department, and at every
level of universities from Level 1 administrative officers to Presidents and Vice Chancellors,
"are trying to do what they consider right or good" (2010, p. 1).
They demonstrate, both through words and their actions, their beliefs that education is
valuable, and that students are important as human beings, not just as cash cows. They are
often working long hours themselves, trying to keep up with the demands that neoliberal
university life is placing on them. I just can't get on board with the idea that they are,
universally, the villains of the neoliberal horror story.
It seems much more likely, to me, that neoliberal ideologies continue to get enacted and
reinforced by academic managers because these practices have become the norm. Throughout and
because of the historical growth pattern neoliberalism has experienced, these ideologies have
put down roots, and these roots have become so entangled with other aspects of university life
as to be inseparable. For many working-aged people, neoliberalism is the water we were born
swimming in. Even presented with its inadequacies, it's difficult to imagine an
alternative.
What I can agree with the critics about, however, is that non-academics often don't
understand or appreciate – or perhaps remember (if they had worked in that capacity in
the past) – the demands of being an academic, just like academics don't tend to
understand or appreciate the demands that non-academics within the university are facing.
In their recently published book
Death of the Public University (2017), Susan Wright and Cris Shore refer to the idea of
'Faculty Land' – a place synonymous with 'La La Land', where non-academic employees of
universities think academics live. This really resonates with what I saw on fieldwork at
an international university in Vietnam, but not only from administrators – academics
too.
As I've said in a previous
post , all the actors in universities are trying to abrogate responsibility sideways or
upwards until they can only blame 'the neoliberal agenda', and once they get there, all they
can see is a towering, monolithic idea , and it becomes like trying to have a fist fight
with a cloud. Most people don't ever get to that point though, because the world feels more controllable if
we believe that there is another human to blame .
The thing is though, blaming others almost never works . It doesn't make things
better, it just creates a greater divide between groups, encourages isolationism and othering,
and decreases the likelihood that either side will ever want to work together to fix the
problem.
Dr Anderson's tragic death, and the similarly tragic statistics that tell us that the
collective mental health of our academics is in crisis, should be a wake up call to all
of us who work or study in universities, in any capacity. Whether it will be remains to be
seen.
Again: If you or anyone you know needs help or support for a mental health concern,
please don't suffer in silence . Sometimes talking about things with an objective
outsider can help.
If you work in a university with a counselling service, consider seeking them out.
Many have emergency sessions set aside each day.
Many countries have confidential phone helplines (in Australia you can call
Lifeline on 13 11 14, for example).
If you (or your department) have the financial means, psychologists who
specialise in working with HDR students and academics, such asDr Shari Walsh of Growth
Psychologysometimes offer Skype appointments. (I have had Skype sessions with
Shari myself; she's lovely. PS. I don't get anything out of plugging her services, I
just think what she offers is valuable.)
Yes, I know, this is a structural problem and we shouldn't have to take care of it as
individuals (see Grace Krause's moving
poem about this here ). But in the meantime, while we work on that, please seek help
if you need it .
"... Neoliberalism has transformed education from a social good into a production process where the final product is a reserve army of workers for the information economy. What David Harvey calls the "state-finance nexus" pushes universities to play the part by withholding state funds until they expand their enrollment and increase the number of college graduates entering the workforce.[13] In 2012, the Obama Administration identified increasing the number of undergraduate STEM degrees by one million over the next decade as a 'Cross-Agency Priority Goal' on the recommendation of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). ..."
"... The present relationship between the university and the state flows from the dynamics of financialization. As financialization transforms the role of the United States in the global economy, it appropriates higher education to suit the needs of finance capital. Compared to the ever-expanding administrative apparatus responsible for managing contracts and investments, programs outside of STEM and business fields are considered superfluous. Humanities programs are often downsized and tenure tracks closed to push professors into permanent part-time employment arrangements.[15] Meanwhile, schools like Northeastern and MIT are surrounded by high-tech and business firms that rely on students and research facilities for cheap labor and productive capital. ..."
"... The position of financial and credit institutions as the financiers of America's productive infrastructure has far-reaching consequences for social institutions like universities with the potential to absorb surplus capital in the form of credit or produce the 21st-century 'information' workforce. Students, and faculty at universities like Northeastern will struggle against market pressures on universities to attract outside investors while downsizing education for as long as the U.S. economy is dominated by finance. ..."
Last month at Northeastern University, the adjunct union reached a
tentative agreement with the university administration to avert a planned walkout after
more than a year of unsuccessful negotiations. Those familiar with the adjunct campaign know
that adjunct professors are contingent workers who comprise more than half of the teaching
staff at Northeastern and are paid a couple thousand dollars for each class that they teach.[1]
From a budgetary standpoint, contingent workers are economical because they are easily replaced
and therefore can be paid less. Still, at a school like Northeastern University with an
operating budget of more than $2.2 billion, it is hard to argue that more than half of all
professors need to earn poverty wages for the school to remain profitable.[2]
In today's neoliberal landscape -- a term which refers to the coordinated effort by capital
and financial interests after the 1980s to privatize public institutions and deregulate markets
-- Northeastern is not unusual in its treatment of adjunct professors. The neoliberal
university model of high tuitions, bloated administrative departments, and upscale student
facilities -- along with assaults on the job security and pay of professors -- is the new norm.
It is the image of a thoroughly financialized economy that has transformed the relationship
between universities and the state.
From the 19th century through the 1970s, the relationship between universities and the state
remained constant. There was an informal arrangement of mutual independence: Academics operated
autonomously with state funding on the understanding that they were willing to pursue research
in which the state had an interest, such as medicine or space exploration.[3] Underlying this
arrangement was the assumption that as a social good, education should drive public research
and development.
The story of how universities became neoliberalized begins with the economic crisis of the
1970s and the subsequent free-market discourse that invoked capitalism's insatiable need for
economic growth in order to equate the interests of working people with the interests of
financiers.
In the three decades after World War II, the U.S. established economic hegemony over the
global capitalist world. The Fordist
compromise between strong manufacturers and a strong, suburbanizing working class yielded
unprecedented wage growth.[4] However, the Fordist model could not last forever. As a general
rule, whenever compound economic growth falls below three percent, people
begin to get scared . In order to sustain three percent compound growth, there must be no
barriers to the continuous expansion and reinvestment of capital.
The suburbanization of postwar America did sustain high demand for American-made automobiles
and home products, but reinvestment in manufacturing eventually became difficult for capital
because a widely-unionized and militant working class created a labor shortage (i.e. near-full
employment) which drove up wages and hurt profitability.[5][6] To the extent that productivity
could be improved by technological innovations, organized labor insisted on "productivity
agreements" that ensured that machines would not be used to undermine wages or benefits. To
make matters worse for U.S. manufacturers, monopolies like the Big Three auto companies were
broken by foreign imports from a newly rebuilt Europe and Japan.[7]
In The Grundrisse , Karl Marx remarked that "every limit [to capital accumulation]
appears as a barrier to be overcome."[8] For Marx, sustained capital accumulation requires an
"industrial reserve army" to keep the cost of labor (i.e. wages) from impeding profitability.
To restore profits, American capital had to discipline labor by drawing from the global working
population. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 addressed U.S. labor scarcity by
abolishing immigration quotas based on nationality so that cheap labor would flood the market
and drive down wages.[9] However, it proved more effective for manufacturing capital to simply
relocate to countries with cheaper labor, and throughout the 1970s and 1980s capital did just
that -- first to South Korea and Thailand, and then to China as wages in those countries became
too high.[10]
"Globalization" entailed removing barriers to international capital relocation such as
tariffs and quotas in order to construct a global market where liquid money capital could flow
internationally to wherever it yielded the most profits. Of course, wage suppression eventually
lowers consumer demand. The neoliberal solution was for financial institutions to sustain
middle-class purchasing power through credit. In The Enigma of Capital , David Harvey
writes that "the demand problem was temporarily bridged with respect to housing by
debt-financing the developers as well as the buyers. The financial institutions collectively
controlled both the supply of, and demand for, housing!"[11]
The point of this history though, is that the financialization of the American economy,
through which financial markets came to dominate other forms of industrial and agricultural
capital, served as the backdrop for the transformation of higher education into what it is
today. Neoliberal ideology reframed the social value of higher education as a tool for building
the next workforce to serve the new "information economy" -- a term that emerged in the midst
of globalization to describe the role of U.S. suburban professionals in the global economy.
Simultaneously, finance capital repurposed universities as points of capital accumulation and
investment.
The discourse around the information economy sought to rationalize the offshoring of
manufacturing from the U.S. The idea was that due to globalization, America has reached a stage
of development where its participation in the global economy is as a white-collar work force,
specializing in technology and the spread of information.[12] In this telling, there is nothing
to critique about the deindustrialization of the American economy because it was inevitable. It
was then simple to realign the social goals of universities with the economic goals of Wall
Street because the state repression of radical civil rights movements on the Left and the
emergent free-market discourse of the Right formed a widespread perception of the state as
inherently
problematic . State research and development at universities was easily dismissed as
inefficient, which cleared space for a neoliberal redefinition of higher education.
Neoliberalism has transformed education from a social good into a production process
where the final product is a reserve army of workers for the information economy. What David
Harvey calls the "state-finance nexus" pushes universities to play the part by withholding
state funds until they expand their enrollment and increase the number of college graduates
entering the workforce.[13] In 2012, the Obama Administration identified increasing the number
of undergraduate STEM degrees by one million over the next decade as a 'Cross-Agency Priority
Goal' on the
recommendation of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST).
At the same time that neoliberalism transforms education into a production process for
high-tech workers, it transforms the university itself into a site for surplus capital
absorption through the construction of new labs, facilities, and houses to draw wealthy
students and faculty capable of attracting federal grants. In December 2015, Northeastern filed
a letter of intent with the Boston Redevelopment Authority to propose building a residence hall
for approximately 800 students. The Boston Globe
reported that the project is currently under review by American Campus Communities, the
largest developer of private student housing in the U.S. To an economizing university
administrator, private developers are very appealing because they assume the debt generated by
construction projects. The circular process whereby a large university endowment comprised of
financial assets is used to contract a debt-financed independent developer reveals how
neoliberalism integrates universities into the circulatory system of capital as circuits of
accumulation and investment.[14]
The present relationship between the university and the state flows from the dynamics of
financialization. As financialization transforms the role of the United States in the global
economy, it appropriates higher education to suit the needs of finance capital. Compared to the
ever-expanding
administrative apparatus responsible for managing contracts and investments, programs
outside of STEM and business fields are considered superfluous. Humanities programs are
often
downsized and tenure tracks closed to push professors into permanent part-time employment
arrangements.[15] Meanwhile, schools like Northeastern and MIT are surrounded by high-tech and
business firms that rely on students and research facilities for cheap labor and productive
capital.
The position of financial and credit institutions as the financiers of America's
productive infrastructure has far-reaching consequences for social institutions like
universities with the potential to absorb surplus capital in the form of credit or produce the
21st-century 'information' workforce. Students, and faculty at universities like Northeastern
will struggle against market pressures on universities to attract outside investors while
downsizing education for as long as the U.S. economy is dominated by finance.
Bill said that the thing killing off the textbook
is very same invention which helped make his fortune: Software.
"When I told you about this type of software in previous letters, it was mostly speculative.
But now I can report that these tools have been adopted in thousands of U.S. classrooms from
kindergarten through high school. Zearn, i-Ready, and LearnZillion are examples of digital
curricula used by students and teachers throughout the US," he writes.
IMHO there is no economics, only "political economy" and mathiness and "cult of measurement" especially with all those some
fuzzy metrics currently in use, are just a part of the ideological smokescreen over "naked neoliberalism." Like shaman dances
around the fire. Impressive and useless simultaneously.
In other words, many current practitioners of neoliberal economic theories (including but not limited to neoclassical
economics) are practicing pseudoscience and are, directly or indirectly, bought and paid by financial oligarchy. That does not
exclude possibility of some, occasional, useful insight.
Notable quotes:
"... The counterargument that I will elaborate here, is that neoliberalism and social democracy should be treated as two distinct and internally consistent thought and value systems. The integrity of the two ideologies must neither be reduced to practices/policies, which occasionally may overlap, nor to individual representatives, who, over the course of a lifetime, can move from one pole to the other. ..."
"... Robbins Report ..."
"... Underpinning this analysis is a bleak diagnosis of what purpose the university system and its employees serve. It is a diagnosis that Fuller, by his own admission, has gleaned from the Virginia-style neoliberal Gordon Tullock. ..."
"... The task assigned to the university, i.e. to certify bodies of trustworthy knowledge, is not called for by any intrinsic property of that knowledge (it being true, safe etc.), but is rather a form of rent-seeking. The rent is extracted from the university's state-induced monopoly over the access rights to future employment opportunities. Rent-seeking is the raison-d'être of the university's claim to be the royal road to knowledge. ..."
"... Granted, the cynical reading of the university system as a rent-seeking diploma-mill has a ring of truth to it when we, for instance, think of how students are asked to pay higher and higher tuition fees, while the curriculum is successively being hollowed-out. ..."
"... this is the result of the consecutive waves of university reforms since the 1990s to ground knowledge production on market principles. If university employees behave like self-interested rent-seekers, it is because they are forced to do so by the incentive structures that have been imposed on them. ..."
"... Thirty years of neoliberal politics have created the conditions under which categories such as "human capital" and "rent-seeking" start to make good sense... ..."
The counterargument that I will elaborate here, is that neoliberalism and social democracy
should be treated as two distinct and internally consistent thought and value systems. The
integrity of the two ideologies must neither be reduced to practices/policies, which
occasionally may overlap, nor to individual representatives, who, over the course of a
lifetime, can move from one pole to the other.
Neoliberalism and the university system
Fuller's argument pivots on the mixed legacy of Lionel Robbins. On the one hand, Robbins'
credentials as a neoliberal are firmly established by his decision to recruit Friedrich Hayek
to the LSE. On the other hand, Robbins authored the government report whereby many regional
universities in the UK were founded, in keeping with a classic social democratic agenda of
enrolling more students from the working class. This encourages Fuller to draw an arc from the
1963 Robbins
Report to university reforms of a more recent date (and with a more distinct,
neoliberal flavour).
The common denominator of all the reforms, Fuller says, is the ambition to enhance human
capital. Alas, the enhancement of human capital is blocked on all sides by incumbent traditions
and rent-seeking monopolies. From this problem description – which Fuller attributes to
the neoliberals, but which is also his own – follows the solution: to increase the
competition between knowledge providers. Just as the monopoly that Oxbridge held over higher
education was offset by the creation of regional universities in the 1960s, so is the current
university system's monopoly over knowledge acquisition sidelined by reforms to multiply and
diversify the paths to learning.
Underpinning this analysis is a bleak diagnosis of what purpose the university system and
its employees serve. It is a diagnosis that Fuller, by his own admission, has gleaned from the
Virginia-style neoliberal Gordon Tullock.
The task assigned to the university, i.e. to certify
bodies of trustworthy knowledge, is not called for by any intrinsic property of that knowledge
(it being true, safe etc.), but is rather a form of rent-seeking. The rent is extracted from
the university's state-induced monopoly over the access rights to future employment
opportunities. Rent-seeking is the raison-d'être of the university's claim to be the
royal road to knowledge.
In this acid bath of cynicism, the notions of truth and falsehood are dissolved into the
basic element that Tullock's world is made up of – self-interest. This reasoning lines up
with a 19 th century, free market epistemology, according to which the evolutionary
process will sift out the propositions that swim from those that sink. With a theory of
knowledge like that, university-certified experts have no rationale for being. Their knowledge
claims are just so many excuses for lifting a salary on the taxpayers' expense. It bears to
stress that this argument can easily be given a leftist spin, by emphasising the pluralism of
this epistemology. This resonates with statements that Steve Fuller has made elsewhere , concerning the
claimants of alternative facts.
Granted, the cynical reading of the university system as a rent-seeking diploma-mill has a
ring of truth to it when we, for instance, think of how students are asked to pay higher and
higher tuition fees, while the curriculum is successively being hollowed-out. However, as was
pointed out to Fuller by many in the audience in Lancaster, this is the result of the consecutive waves of university
reforms since the 1990s to ground knowledge production on market principles. If university employees behave like self-interested
rent-seekers, it is because they are forced to do so by the incentive structures that have been imposed on them.
Thirty years of neoliberal politics have created the conditions under which categories such
as "human capital" and "rent-seeking" start to make good sense...
... ... ...
The author would like to thank Adam Netzén, Karolina Enquist Källgren and
Eric Deibel for feedback given on early drafts of this blog post, and especially Steve Fuller,
for having invited a response to his argument.
"... Higher education was being made to conform to the norms of efficiency, value for money, customer service, audit and performance targets. One of the consequences of this was the substitution of the authority of the academic, which is based on his or her professional knowledge of the discipline, for the authority of the line manager. ..."
"... I don't think that there has been a more sinister assault on academic freedom than this colonisation of higher education by neoliberalism. It justifies itself by calling for "transparency" and "accountability" to the taxpayer and the public. But it operates with a perverted sense of these words (since what it really means is "discipline and surveillance" and "value for money"). ..."
"... Let me explain. One of the central aspects of neoliberalism is the disappearance of the distinction between the worker and the capitalist. In the neoliberal setting, the worker is not a partner of exchange with the capitalist. She does not sell her labour-power for a wage. ..."
"... The labourer's ability to work, her skill, is an income stream. It is an investment on which she receives a return in the form of wages. The worker is capital for herself. She is a source of future earnings. In the neoliberal market, as Michel Foucault remarks, everyone is a capitalist. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has converted education from a public good to a personal investment in the future, a future conceived in terms of earning capacity. ..."
Many
of the students I have taught in Britain and South Africa see higher education as a place where
they "invest" in themselves in the financial sense of the word. "Going to university," one
student said, was a way of "increasing" his "value" or employability in the labour market.
This perception of the university has not arisen by chance.
Capitalism entered a new phase with the Thatcher and Reagan governments in Britain and the
United States during the 1980s. The managerial practices used to run businesses were applied to
the public sector, in particular to education and healthcare.
This reform of the public sector (called "new public management")
introduced a new way of thinking about the university.
Higher education was being made to conform to the norms of efficiency, value for money,
customer service, audit and performance targets. One of the consequences of this was the
substitution of the authority of the academic, which is based on his or her professional
knowledge of the discipline, for the authority of the line manager.
Since then, everything has come to depend on audits and metric standards of so-called
quality assessment (student satisfaction, pass rates, league tables, et cetera). Academics have
little, if any, say on whether departments should continue to exist, what degrees and courses
should be on offer and even what kind of assessment methods should be used.
I don't think that there has been a more sinister assault on academic freedom than this
colonisation of higher education by neoliberalism. It justifies itself by calling for
"transparency" and "accountability" to the taxpayer and the public. But it operates with a
perverted sense of these words (since what it really means is "discipline and surveillance" and
"value for money").
Its effect, if not its aim, has been to commodify higher education and produce a new kind of
social identity. This is the identity of the self as entrepreneur.
Let me explain. One of the central aspects of neoliberalism is the disappearance of the
distinction between the worker and the capitalist. In the neoliberal setting, the worker is not
a partner of exchange with the capitalist. She does not sell her labour-power for a wage.
The labourer's ability to work, her skill, is an income stream. It is an investment on which
she receives a return in the form of wages. The worker is capital for herself. She is a source
of future earnings. In the neoliberal market, as Michel Foucault remarks, everyone is a
capitalist.
Neoliberalism has converted education from a public good to a personal investment in the
future, a future conceived in terms of earning capacity.
How did we get to this situation?
The modern university came into existence at the start of the 19th century as an extension
of the state. The aim of the state during the colonial and imperial age was to constitute the
identity of the national subject. As a public institution, the university was designed to teach students to see their life in
a specific way. They would learn to see that it is only as members of a national community and
culture that their individual life has a meaning and worth. This was the aim of the educational programme that German philosophers such as Wilhelm von
Humboldt and Johann Gottlieb Fichte envisaged for the University of Berlin. For them, science
was in the service of the moral and intellectual education of the nation.
Established in 1810, the University of Berlin was the first modern university. It was
founded on the principles of academic freedom, the unity of research and teaching, and the
primacy of research over vocational training. It functioned as the prototype for universities in both the United States and Europe during
the second half of the 19th century.
Once transnational corporations started to control more capital than nation-states in the
1980s, the university ceased to be one of its principal organs. It lost its ideological mission
and entered the market as a corporation. It started to encourage students to think of
themselves as customers rather than as members of a nation. This history shows that the university is today the site of two competing social
identities.
On the one hand, because of globalisation, the student who enters university sees herself as
someone who is there to increase her human capital, as an enterprise to invest in.
It must be remarked that, for the entrepreneur (taken as a social figure) who invests in
herself, differences of class, religion, ethnicity or race are phantasms of a bygone age. The
differences in the name of which wars were waged and social movements organised in the past
have no more meaning in her eyes than cheap advertising.
There is, for her, something improper or inauthentic about them, as Giorgio Agamben says of
the new petty bourgeoisie in The Coming Community. Like Britain's former prime minister, David
Cameron, she is sceptical of multiculturalism.
On the other hand, the university has not ceased to draw on its modern role as a producer,
protector and inculcator of national identity and culture. Much of what is going on today in
South African universities under the name of decolonisation and Africanisation draws on this
heritage and understanding of the modern university, even if tacitly. That is why students will
politicise themselves by identifying with an ethnicity or nationality.
Nationalism was an emancipatory political project during the anti-colonial struggles of the
second half of the 20th century. It was not tribalist or communalist.
According to Eric Hobsbawm in Nations and Nationalism since 1780, its aim was to extend the
size of the social, cultural and political group. It was not to restrict it or to separate it
from others. Nationalism was a political programme divorced from ethnicity.
Is this political nationalism a viable way of resisting neoliberalism today? Can it gainsay
the primacy of economic rationality and the culture of narcissist consumerism, and restore
meaning to the political question concerning the common good? Or has nationalism irreversibly become an ethnic, separatist project? It is not easy to say. So far, we have witnessed one kind of response to the social
insecurities generated by the global spread of neoliberalism. This is a return to ethnicity and
religion as havens of safety and security.
When society fails us owing to job insecurity, and, concomitantly, with regard to housing
and healthcare, one tends to fall back on one's ethnicity or religious identity as an ultimate
guarantee.
Moreover, nationalism as a political programme depends on the idea of the state. It holds
that a group defined as a "nation" has the right to form a territorial state and exercise
sovereign power over it. But given the decline of the state, there are reasons to think that
political nationalism has withdrawn as a real possibility.
By the "decline of the state" I do not mean that it no longer exists. The state has never
been more present in the private life of individuals. It regulates the relations between men
and women. It regulates their birth and death, the rearing of children, the health of
individuals and so forth. The state is, today, ubiquitous.
What some people mean by the "decline of the state" is that, with the existence of
transnational corporations, it is no longer the most important site of the reproduction of
capital. The state has become managerial. Its function is to manage obstacles to liberalisation
and free trade.
Perhaps that is one of the challenges of the 21st century. How is a "nation" possible, a
"national community" that is not defined by ethnicity, on the one hand, and, on the other, that
forsakes the desire to exercise sovereign power in general and, in particular, over a
territorial state?
The university is perhaps the place where such a community can begin to be thought.
Rafael Winkler is an associate professor in the philosophy department at the University
of Johannesburg
War, Peace, and the Social Order. By Brian E. Fogarty. Westview Press, 2000.
236 pp. Cloth, $65.00; paper, $23.00.
A tank could be driven through the cleft of resources available for teaching about the
intersection of peace, war, and military instructions from a sociological perspective.
Filling this pedagogical gap is especially important in the so-called post-Cold War era where
lines between war and peace have become increasingly blurred.
War, Peace, and Social Order (WPSO) begins to fill the gap. WPSO contains a list of
acronyms, two hemispheric maps of the world, six tables, 11 figures, an index, and eight
chapters. Each chapter concludes with a brief chapter summary, a list of questions for
review, and references for further reading.
WPSO begins by making the sociological link between war and peace with emphasis on how war
and peace are created. Chapter 2 provides depth on the social definition of war contrasting
it with violence. Further, peace is defined not as the absence of war, but more as
intersubjective -- a social process that occurs at multiple levels of society. The next
chapter explains war from numerous social and political approaches. This chapter anchors war
in Functional, Marxian, Feminist, International Relations, and Internal-Control theories as
well as more inductive and "human-nature" approaches. Chapter 4 discusses militarism at the
intersection of social institutions including education, popular culture, mass media, sports,
and economics. The relationship between the family and the military is not addressed despite
the knowledge of military families providing a disproportionate number of young people for
careers in military service. (Morris Janowitz [1960/71] The Professional Soldier: A Social
and Political Portrait . Free Press.)
Chapter 5, "The Military Industrial Complex," is the longest and most dense chapter. Here
Fogarty's six years working as an army civilian aircraft buyer and cost analyst shine
through. He deftly navigates the reader through the complex maze of defense spending and
acquisition. He provides simple figures and charts, focuses on the process as wasteful,
exploits five complementary explanations to elucidate defense waste spending, and guides the
reader home by connecting the analysis to both functional and conflict theory.
The next three chapters focus more on the peace process and include a chapter on avoiding
war, promoting peace, and empowering people to make peace. Of special note in the first of
these is the discussion of nonsovereign forms of steering clear of war such as
nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and civilian-based defense ineterventions , for
example Peace Brigades International. The chapter on promoting peace is unique for couching
Ghandi's nonviolent action in sociological terms and noting that a number of social movements
have since used this technique successfully, including Martin Luther King Jr. Fogarty could
have promoted the little-known fact that a very young King earned a B.A. in Sociology at
Morehouse College in 1948. The final chapter inspires the reader with ways of becoming active
through both education and experiences.
The strengths of WPSO for students are many. Foremost, he substantively links the study of
war and peace. Second, the book is well organized, with tight chapters, numerous headings and
subheadings, and a summary concluding each chapter. In addition, but beginning with chapter
3, key terms ( N = 37) are italicized in each of the summary sections.
Some chapters are denser than others. Fogarty also is less attentive to referencing
chapters related to war than in chapters related to peace. For example, other than noting a
film and novel, there are no references in the section on the social psychology of combat
despite a rich research tradition dating back to and including WWII on the social psychology
of war. Finally, the focus may be too American in orientation for some sociologists.
WPSO is oriented toward upper-level undergraduate students and newcomers to the peace and
war literature. It is an excellent supplemental or primary reader for Peace Studies. It could
make a refreshing contribution to Military Sociology courses that have traditionally focused
on peacekeeping/peace enforcing from a military institution perspective (including my own).
The book could be stretched to use in Organization Studies courses and...
My G600 (which I used for the left hand although it is not ambidextrous) died (right button
became "flaky" after three years of daily use; and that's typical for G600 -- it just does
not last that long) and I bought this one saving ,say, $15.
But there is no free lunch and one important defect of this mouse is that the wheel does
not have "clicks" for left and right tilt ) like say all expensive mice from Logitech, and
thus you can't assign macros to tilts. For those who do not use them it's OO, but for m this
is a big shortcoming. I deducted one star for this.
Please be aware that this mouse looks cheap in comparison wit, say $36 Logitech mice like
G602 , but it does work and is more conviniet to use with the left hand.
But you simply can't compare "look and feel" quality to G600 of G602 to this "student"
model. You can still use 6 macros with it and Logitech Gaming Software which allows you to
program macros in Lua, which are individualized for each application you use (not just games,
but any application)
As such this mouse is not only for gamers. It is perfectly suitable, for example, for Unix
sysadmins as it allows execute complex macros in Windows Terminal emulator such as
Teraterm.
Also helps for people with RSI who need to change hands in order give affected with RSI
hand time to recover.
I wish the industry would produce more models of ambidextrous mouse, as RSI is a real
epidemic among heavy computer users and professionals, but we have what we have.
Boot this mini pc and press "Delete" key -- -- Enter into "BIOS Interface" -- -- Select
"Boot" in the interface -- -- Select "Automatic Power On" -- -- Select "Enabled" -- -- "Save
& Exit"
Restore Factory Settings:
Boot this mini pc and press "Alt + F10" -- -- Choose an option -- -- Troubleshoot -- --
Reset this PC -- -- Keep my files or Remove everything -- -- Just remove my files or Fully
clean the drive -- -- Reset -- -- Star reset and wait for 100% completed -- -- Enter Text
Interface and choose "Esc" -- -- Waiting for "Installing Windows" finished. The whole process
will lasts for more than 2 hours. Please be patient.
The AP34 device is an N3450 SOC system. I had some troubles with the AP34 because the video
is only 1080p (and thus some older monitors and older TV's can't sync the video). I also had
issues with getting Ubuntu/Linux running or installed.
The seller provided an email with instructions that helped.
BUT there is a guy who wants to run linux on every smart device (search for Ian MORRISON
(Linuxium)).
Ian has Linux repacked distros that boot, work and install.
I am now running Ubuntu 17.10 with Cinnamon! It is beautiful. The AP34 hardware is a great
fit for Linux. I have added an M.2 drive based on instructions found on the Kodlix website.
Overall, this is a good buy for the sub $200 market.
If you are willing to spend 10-20% more, you might look at a N4200 mini-pc.
I'm a left handed gamer and as all us lefties know, there are no gaming mice made for us. The
best available are "ambidextrous" mice. Which drives me nuts since there is no reason for an
ambidextrous mouse. An ambidextrous person could use either a right or left handed mouse. An
ambidextrous mouse is just a poor compromise between the two, so why not just make a real
left handed mouse?
I tied many and while this mouse leaves much to be desired, its probably the best that can
be hoped for. At least all the buttons are accessible, if not entirely comfortable. It lacks
any thumb buttons, which means all nine buttons are most easily pressed with the index and
middle fingers. Some are really quite well placed and comfortable, other not so much.
However, it is much faster and easier than using key binds on the keyboard, and that is
what's important.
Otherwise the mouse is really nice. The software installs easily and is intuitive. The LED
color on the side can be changed. Its light, moves smoothy. All buttons feel solid and have a
positive response. It works great for gaming as well as les intense internet surfing and word
processing.
"... The title of the book is from Parkinson's statement that "Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion." He explains that "an elderly lady of leisure can spend the entire day in writing and dispatching a postcard to her niece at Bognor Regis." In contrast if all you have is five minutes to write a postcard, it takes just five minutes to write the postcard. ..."
Parkinson's Law, written by C. Northcote Parkinson, is a wonderful book which explores the realities of human behavior within
a bureaucracy. The author doesn't pay attention to theories or the idealized world, but instead writes about how people really
function in organizations.
The title of the book is from Parkinson's statement that "Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion."
He explains that "an elderly lady of leisure can spend the entire day in writing and dispatching a postcard to her niece at Bognor
Regis." In contrast if all you have is five minutes to write a postcard, it takes just five minutes to write the postcard.
At a higher level this idea applies to many situations. For example people's stuff expands to fill their house and use up their
income. Or in the computer world: Data expands to fill the space available for storage
Parkinson writes that it takes great discipline to fight the tendency to use up all the time available to do some job. And
likewise it takes great discipline to save some of your income, or to avoid buying stuff just because you have room for it.
Parkinson has a number of other interesting observations. For example in his Law of Triviality he explains how a group of managers
might spend hours on selecting a coffeepot and minutes on deciding matters of much greater importance.
I also appreciated his explanation on the effective size of a governing group. He says that the right number of people to lead
an organization, like a business or a country, is about five. As the group gets larger, it takes longer and longer to get together
and to agree on matters.
There are many other insightful comments on a variety of topics related to organizations. This is a great book to have teenagers
read, and then to be reread every couple years. Just over a hundred pages it is a quick read, as well as being enjoyable.
If you haven't read Parkinson's Law before, I encourage you to read it this week.
I first received a copy of "Parkinson's Law" from a retired three-star general. Since that time, I've seen copies on the shelves
of almost every powerful person I know, from professors and deans to lawyers and businesspeople. Based on this wide-spread popularity,
I can safely conclude that C. Northcote Parkinson has written something that transcends his time and profession to become a true
classic. He has written, in short, the definitive work on bureaucracy.
Chapter one contains the titular law, which is frequently misquoted. The actual law gives a mathematical formula for how fast
an office will grow, simply by observing that every bureaucrat will demand two subordinates at certain times. Parkinson backs
this up with analysis of various British government bodies. The Colonial Office, for instance, more than doubled in size even
as the number of colonies was shrinking. This is a rock-solid rule, as far as I can tell, and particularly relevant to an America
where we somehow spend $728 billion despite having fewer actual soldiers than at any time in the past sixty years.
Chapter three famously looks at budget meetings. The conclusion is that up to a certain point, committees will spend more time
on items that cost less. Some trivially small item, such as coffee, is easily understood, so every committee member has an opinion
about it. On the other hand, nobody really understands expensive items such as reactors, so nobody has much to say about them.
This is a phenomenon which I've seen arising in real life time and time again.
Chapter four is perhaps the most fascinating and devastatingly accurate one in the book. The hypothesis is that whenever an
organization builds a fancy new headquarters, its time is up. Parkinson offers mainly British examples, but we can see the truth
of this in America. The Sears Tower went up at precisely the moment when the Sears Corporation went down. When construction began
on the AOL Time Warner Center in 2000, that should have been our indication that the dot-com boom was on its last legs.
There are ten chapters in all, but I'll let you discover the delights of the later ones on your own. For sure, some chapters
aren't quite so hard-hitting. Chapter two on the French Parliament may strike some as no longer relevant, while chapter nine on
crime and economics in China contains some cringe-inducing racism. But on the whole, "Parkinson's Law" is a delightful little
book (150 pages) that will explain while it amuses you. "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" and "Who Moved My Cheese"
may rule the bestseller lists, but C. Northcote Parkinson has the real answers for the business world.
Cyril Northcote Parkinson was a naval historian and writer with experience in the British Civil Service in 1955, when he wrote
a humorous article for the "Economist" on the idiosyncrasies of administration. Parkinson was Raffles Professor of History at
the University of Malaya in Singapore during this time, and, two years later, he expanded on that essay with the publication of
"Parkinson's Law and Other Studies in Administration". "Heaven forbid that students should cease to read books on the science
of public or business administration -provided that these works are classified as fiction," he says. Parkinson's own satirical
take on the subject provides, "for those interested, a glimpse of reality."
There are 10 short chapters, each dedicated to a different quirk of business or public administration, beginning with the one
we all know: Parkinson's Law: "Work expands so as to fill the time available for completion." -which the author reduces to a mathematical
formula. Parkinson claims, tongue in cheek, to omit the statistical proof of his laws and observations out of consideration for
space, but he often provides examples from the British military and civil service that do, indeed, seem to support his analysis.
That's why this book has been popular for 50 years. Like all great satire, it distills the truth rather than creating a fiction.
Some other subjects that Parkinson addresses are: the function of British Parliament dictated by the seating arrangements,
the Law of Triviality ("the time spent on any item of the agenda will be in inverse proportion to the sum involved"), a committee's
power diminishes as its numbers grow, a well-designed building is a sure sign of the institution's demise, "injelititis" (organizational
paralysis due to "induced inferiority"), and how to force older workers to retire in time for their successors to have a career.
Some of this stuff is peculiar to the time and place it was written. For example, I have no idea if comments on how wealthy Chinese
vs British evade taxes had any truth to them. But most aspects of administration haven't changed in 50 years, and Parkinson's
take is still laugh-out-loud funny.
I've always considered Parkinson's Law to be the chief weapon of inept managers who "schedule aggressively" in an attempt
to squeeze blood from stones, and thus compromise their project's effeciency, morale, and the like. After reading this book I've
discovered that Parkinson's Law is *not* the often misquoted "Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion"
but (paraphrasing:) "the number of administrators in an organization will grow at a steady rate irrespective of the amount of
work that organization needs to do." Not only does Parkinson never suggest that we should "schedule aggressively" (he never suggests
that work can contract indefinitely no matter how little time is made available), he ridiculues nice offices, large meetings,
top-heavy management, insecure leadership, penny-wiseness and pound-foolishness, typical hiring practices, and more.
While reading most of this book I had a wry grin on my face, and I laughed loud belly laughs at a couple of points. My only
complaints stem from the last two chapters, which indulged in both racism and ageism, respectively. I only skimmed those. Still,
an enjoyable and motivational read, and useful knowledge when confronted by a manager who thinks of themself as Parkinsonian but
hasn't actually read (or understood) Parkinson.
Parkinson's Law is a classic work concerning the dynamics of large administrative organizations. The vernacular of the book
often felt dated to this reader, based it is on the inner workings of the British Empire, but that in no way took away from its
overall impact and timeless message. This is a marvelously honest and insightful, also delightfully sardonic, look at how human
nature and institutional politics really work on a grand scale.
The book starts with the most well-known of Parkinson's laws, which is, "work expands to fill the time allotted to it." But
there are several other chapters in this very short book with other wonderful information as well. There's a whole chapter devoted
to how to phrase a help wanted ad in order to get only one perfect candidate for the job. One chapter explains why bureaucracies
grow at a standard rate of 5% a year regardless of workload. There are also wonderfully complex formulas concerning how to calculate
the correct age of retirement, which has a lot to do with the age of the person who is hoping to edge you out and take your place
as soon as possible. The mathematical analysis of at what time the truly powerful people arrive and leave a cocktail party was
also a lot of fun.
While this is a fairly short book, my version was only 101 pages, I found I could not read it straight through because each
chapter was so enlightening, I had to take a break in between. But that is hardly a complaint.
It's not so much the specific information that makes this book what it is. What makes the book is its honest appraisal of human
nature. A wonderful thing to be reminded of as you go to that next meeting. A now somewhat forgotten classic, highly recommended.
"Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion." Another way of saying "people spend what they can afford".
That statement makes certain simplifying assumptions in describing the action. Parkinson claims that Administrator A will, when
overworked, call for subordinates C and D. And each of these, when overworked, call for two subordinates. Perhaps only a third
subordinate E is more likely to be hired? Unless its a monopoly running on a "cost plus" economy.
The increase in Admiralty officials may be due to political decisions that reflect the feudal system and its pride in larger
numbers. This increase from 1914 to 1928 may reflect the rise needed for The Great War, and a reluctance to cut back afterwards.
The author notes the growth in the Colonial Office from 1935 to 1954, while the size of the Empire decreased. But it assumes
there was no longer any involvement in the colonies, and no new work assigned to them. Perhaps a need for political appointees?
In Chapter Four the author discusses the optimal number of members in a committee: somewhere between 3 and 21. Assume a committee
meets to do work, not to make work. There is a limited number of hours in a day; if each member speaks for 15 minutes, then 12
will take up half a work day. Time constraints will limit the number who will speak; those who only listen can be given a printed
report. Somebody must control the topics and meeting.
Chapter Five answers the question: why are students of the "Liberal Arts" generally considered for top positions? The answer
is the adoption of the Chinese system for competitive examinations. Those with a Classics background were perceived as fittest
to rule; those with a scientific background were perceived as followers. The author does not discuss the class differences usually
covered by this distinction. His comments on advertising positions is interesting, but ignores the fact that an acceptable candidate
may chose another firm. His final advice on choosing a Prime Minister is not always followed.
Chapter Six claims the health of an institution can be gauged by its buildings, and cites St. Peter's in Rome. A more modern
edition might cite the former AT&T and IBM buildings in midtown Manhattan, instead of the Palace of Nations in Geneva. But office
buildings are recyclable commodities. A monumental edifice can be the mausoleum of an organization. Does this apply to the Department
of Agriculture building in Washington?
Chapter Seven shows his wit and powers of observation by summarizing the cocktail parties that he attended. Chapter Eight discusses
the question of why organizations decline. One way to judge an organization is by the quality of their cafeteria. Chapter Ten
claims the compulsory retirement age is set at 3 years past the age when people begin to decline. More simplifying assumptions
and playing with numbers? If not, what objective facts were used to arrive at this conclusion?
The value of this book is its observations on the common activities that are not often studied.
Basically, this book may be distilled down into a few statements (below). The examples used are from the late 1950's, and not
in touch with the culture of 2007.
**The work expands to fill the time available.
**People will attempt to hire more subordinates regardless of workload.
**Large committees will spend more time arguing over small line item expenses they understand, as opposed to huge expenditures
they don't.
**Have two issue supporters sit next to and kibitz an undecided yahoo -- this will sway the yahoo into voting their way.
**Approximately five - eight people are the ideal number to run a huge endeavor.
**The best want-ad will only be answered by one (qualified) person.
**Rich men avoid taxes.
**Younger people force older conservatives to retire.
If you are interested in Parkinson's Law, I'd suggest buying a later edition with examples more in tune with modern computerized
business. This older edition is for collector's and has limited business value. 6 people found this helpful
This was a popular book in the late 1950s. It is a collection of essays with a humorous look at common events. Parkinson criticizes
the writers of text books who have an idealistic view about management (`Preface'). [Doesn't this fault still go on?] Chapter
1 claims "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion". This is stated without supporting facts, so it just
anecdotes. Does a growing number of civil servants reflect more work being done? Not if jobs are created for friends or relatives.
No mention of a budget or bottom line here. Who approved this? ["Charlie Wilson's War" provides one example.] Those Admiralty
Statistics suggest that some Officers in the R.N. were redeployed as Dockyard or Admiralty officials (p.8). The increase in the
Colonial Office could represent more redeployment (p.11). [Statistics can't be trusted unless you understand the facts that were
used or avoided.] Seating representatives in a half-circle is the rational rule used in most countries (Chapter 2). It allows
better hearing, as in a theatre.
Chapter 3 discusses proposals before a Committee. The big ticket items are approved [the fix is in], the small items do not
have as much support (p.29). Chapter 4 discusses the size of a Cabinet as it relates to its power; more members dilute its power.
Chapter 5 discusses the best way to select candidates for a job. Parkinson recommends an advertisement phrased so only a few apply.
But what if an important qualification can't be measured on paper (p.58)? There is a way to measure the status of an institution
(Chapter 6). But this perfect layout is a sign of impending collapse (p.60). [Think of those Wall Street firms in 2008.] That
big Department of Agriculture building in Washington DC marked the decline of family farms. One reason for this may be a perfected
building no longer has the operational flexibility to expand (or contract) for current needs.
Parkinson explains how a cocktail party can reveal the real importance of the guests. The people who matter circulate with
the general movement (Chapter 7), and arrive 30 minutes late. They cluster around an area at the far right, then leave. Chapter
8 discusses the "palsied paralysis" of organizations. The man at the top seeks to eliminate any possible rivals or successors.
The result after about 20 years is failures when the leader grows senile or dies (p.81). That is why there are takeovers, or company
subsidiaries are sold off. Can you judge an institution by its cafeteria (p.850? [If the managers have a separate dining room,
beware.] Parkinson's advice on taking over an institution seems unrealistic (p.90). Corporations do buy up other businesses and
integrate their buildings and personnel. This may be to eliminate competition.
Chapter 9 imagines the anthropological study of the rich. [Those who study primitive people are likely investigating mineral
wealth.] He suggests a solution for lower taxes, but its only a theory. Chapter 10 discusses the mandatory retirement age. Parkinson
claims that a person starts to decline three years before this age. [No proofs are given.] He suggests a method to force a retirement:
nearly constant travel to foreign lands, and filling in forms like customs declaration. [This may tell you more about Parkinson
than as a general statement.] This must be the least entertaining of these humorous essays.
These articles provide humor, they are not a scientific or practical guide. They should not be used for any college course.
This same type of humor was found in "Freakonomics", whose essays are based on the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy
(after this therefore because of this). They are not a reliable guide to knowledge.
This book attempts to decrypt the enigma of hierarchies in a far too simplistic manner. One sentence to describe the whole
book would be 'we keep getting promoted at work because we know how to do the job we are assigned, and stop getting promoted when
we don't know how to'. The book is elaborate with supporting arguments.
One concept this book seem to assume is, all of us have a set of competencies and it is fixed. That is why we stop growing.
But, in reality our skills continue to improve throughout our life time. Hence, accepting Peter Principle as a fact may be detrimental
to our career, thus fulfilling his prophecy. I choose to accept his principle as a fact, only if I stop expanding my competencies
(probably by freezing my brain). If I keep expanding my competencies, there is nothing but endless growth for everyone.
RW: Well at this point I think it really depends on what indexes you're looking at. The
biggest thing that's kept this economy going in the last few years should make everybody
tremble. It's called debt, let me give you just a couple of examples.
Ten years ago, at the
height of the crash, the total debt carried by students in the United States was in the
neighborhood of $700 billion, an enormous sum.
What is it today? Over twice that,
one-and-a-half trillion dollars.
The reason part of our economy hasn't collapsed is that
students have taken up an enormous amount of debt that they cannot afford, in order to get
degrees which will let them get jobs whose incomes will not allow them to pay back the debts.
And forget about getting married, forget about having a family.
We have paid an enormous price in hobbling the generation of people who would have otherwise
lifted this economy and made us more productive. It is a disastrous mistake historically, and
if you face that, and if you add to it the increased debt of our businesses, and the increased
debt of our government, you see an economy that is held up by a monstrous increase in debt, not
in underlying productivity, not in more jobs that really produce anything, but in debt.
That should frighten us because it was the debt bubble that burst in 2008 and brought us the
crash. It is as if we cannot learn in our system to do other than we've always done and that's
taking us into another crash coming now.
LC: Yeah. This is the land of the free, but it seems like most of us are chained down by
debt peonage.
"Winners Take All" is one of
several recently published books raising difficult
questions about how the world's
biggest donors approach their giving. As someone who studies, teaches and believes in
philanthropy, I believe these writers have started an important debate that could potentially
lead future donors to make make a bigger difference with their giving.
Giridharadas to a degree echoes
Ford Foundation President Darren Walker , who has made a stir by denouncing a "
paradox of privilege " that "shields (wealthy people) from fully experiencing or
acknowledging inequality, even while giving us more power to do something about it."
Like Walker , Giridharadas finds it hard to shake the words of Martin Luther King Jr., who
spoke of "the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary."
To avoid changes that might endanger their privileges, mega-donors typically seek what they
call win-win solutions. But however impressive the quantifiable results of those efforts may
seem, according to this argument, those outcomes will always fall short. Fixes that don't
threaten the powers that be leave underlying issues intact.
As long as school systems are funded locally, based on property values, students in wealthy
communities will have advantages over those residing in poorer ones. However, creating a more
equal system to pay for schools would take tax dollars and advantages away from the rich. The
wealthy would lose, and the disadvantaged would win.
So it's possible to see the
nearly $500 million billionaires and other rich people have pumped into charter schools and
other education reform efforts over the past dozen years as a way to dodge this problem.
Charters have surely made a difference for some kids, such as those in rural
Oregon whose schools might otherwise have closed. But since the bid to expand charters
doesn't address
childhood poverty or challenge the status quo – aside from diluting the power of
teacher
unions and raising the stakes in
school board elections – this approach seems unlikely to help all schoolchildren.
Indeed, years into the quest to fix this problem without overhauling schoolPaying for Tuition
Bloomberg's big donation raises a similar question.
He aims to make a Johns Hopkins education more accessible for promising low-income students.
When so many Hopkins
alumni have enjoyed success in a wide range of careers, what can be wrong with that?
Well, paying tuition challenges millions of Americans, not just the thousands who might
attend Hopkins .
Tuition, fees, room and board at the top-ranked school cost about $65,000 a year.
Only 5 percent
of colleges and universities were affordable , according to the Institute for Higher
Education Policy, a nonpartisan global research and policy center, for students from families
earning $69,000 a year or less.
Like Giridharadas, the institute argues paying for college is "largely a problem of
inequity."
Bloomberg's gift will certainly help some people earn a Hopkins degree. But it does nothing
about the bigger challenge of making college more affordable for all in a country where student
debt has surpassed $1.5
trillion .
One alternative would be to finance advocacy for legislative remedies to address
affordability and inequity. For affluent donors, Giridharadas argues, this could prove to be a
nonstarter. Like most of what he calls " win-lose
solutions ," taking that route would lead to higher taxes for the wealthy.
Subsidies for Gifts from the Rich
Similarly, who could quibble with Bezos spending $2 billion to fund
preschools and homeless shelters? Although he has not yet made clear what results he's
after, I have no doubt they will make a difference for countless Americans.
No matter how he goes about it, the gesture still raises questions. As Stanford University
philanthropy scholar Rob Reich explains in his new book "
Just Giving ," the
tax break rich Americans get when they make charitable contributions subsidizes their favorite
causes.
Or, to phrase it another way, the federal government gives initiatives supported by Bezos
and other wealthy donors like him preferential treatment. Does that make sense in a democracy?
Reich says that it doesn't.
The elected representatives in democracies should decide how best to solve problems with tax
dollars, not billionaires who are taken with one cause or another, the Stanford professor
asserts.
That's why I think it's so important to ask the critical questions that Giridharadas and
Reich are raising, and why the students taking my philanthropy classes this semester will be
reading "Winners Take All" and "Just Giving."
Editor's note: Johns Hopkins University Press provides funding as a member of The
Conversation US, which also has a grant from the Walton Family Foundation. The Gates Foundation
is a funder of The Conversation Media Group.
None of the common tactics of the "reformers" have scientific backing. So (union-busting)
charter schools, merit pay (because teachers are motivated by money), and testing kids until
their eyeballs bleed are all bogus, and do not have an impact on educational outcomes.
The plutocrats have even funded a propaganda film called "Waiting for Superman" in which
Michelle Rhee applies "tough love" to reform failing Washington D.C. schools, firing lots of
teachers because their students' test scores didn't make the cut, etc.
Waiting for Superman touts the Finnish schools as the ones to emulate and they are very
good ones, too. Omitted from their account is the fact that Finnish teachers are tenured,
unionized, respected and quite well paid.
So what does correlate with educational outcomes? Childhood poverty. In Finland, only 2%
of their children are poor. In the U.S. it's 23%.
The problem is systemic, not the teachers, or the types of schools.
In some sense this is nothing new. Back when Pittsburgh was a network of steel mills and
mine tailings Carnegie funded meuseums, libraries, arboretums, and strike-breakers who shot
workers that complained. He was public about the need to "give back" and made a point of
demanding that the places were open on Sundays because he forced his workers to do 12 hour
days six days a week.
No doubt he may have felt he was helping, and no doubt the institutions have been and
still are a positive benefit, but they also did nothing to attack the root cause of the
suffering nor did they make any fundamental change in society. That would upset his apple
cart. By the same token the fact that private donors needed to fund public institutions was
based upon the simple fact that they had all the money.
It is also notable that some of the more recent endeavors such as Gates' tech-driven
charter schools, or Facebook's donation to the same, or for that matter Apple's donation of
iPads to LAUSD have a direct commercial component. The intial gift may be free but in the end
it is market-making as much of the cash routes back to the company. They may genuinely
believe in the solution but the financial connection is also clear.
More interesting though Pierre Omidyar who combined his business and "philanthropy" more
directly by putting money into a foundation that then invests in startups he runs which "do
social good" or which sell technology to those that do so.
Ultimately Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos may have more to play with than Carnegie ever dreamed
of but at the end of the day much of what they are doing is the same, starving necessary
institutions of funds, smoothing out the rough edges of their PR (especially when, like
Bezos, they are in the crosshairs), and then peddling "solutions" that look good but only
reinforce the conditions that make them rich.
" have a direct commercial component. The intial gift may be free but in the end it is
market-making as much of the cash routes back to the company."
How true, but you might not even be cynical enough. Back in 2012 (I believe) there was
reportage about large banks quitely lobbying Bloomberg to make big cuts to the New York
City's funding of local charities and non-profits. Several million dollars were cut as a
result of the austerity lobbying by the banks. The same week the food pantry where I
volunteered, which lost $40,000 of City funding if memory serves me correctly, received a
"generous" gift of a folding table from Citibank. My wife who at the time worked at a large
non-profit dedicated to community issues in the South Bronx, had to attend a presentation by
a Citibank employee with a name like "How the Nonprofit Community Has Failed the Community".
Her attendance was a courtesy demanded in exchange for a several thousand dollar donation
from Citibank to her nonprofit. Her non-profit lost much more in funding from the City due to
the banks' lobbying efforts, and surprise surprise, what was the main thrust of the Citibank
presentation? How micro-finance lending can help historically marginalized communities of
course! My wife's organization was engaged in several programs aimed at encouraging and
aiding entrepreneurship and financial literacy. Citibank saw local non-profits that were
helping the community keep their collective heads above the water as competition. Their
programatic work was harmful to the bank's business model of luring people into odious debt
by promulgating an environment of despair and desperation.
Beware of billionaires and bankers bearing gifts. Their vast fortunes should be trimmed
down to size with taxation/force and distributed democratically according to the needs of the
community, not the whims of the market or the misguided opinions of non-expert, know-it-all
billionaires who have never lived nor worked in the communities they claim to care about.
Charity makes people supplicants which is a form of servitude. "Thank you kindly, sir, for
you gracious gift." That is not a "free" society. We should have a society where no one needs
some good folks' trickle downs. A basic guaranteed income might work better than the system
we have now especially with an affordable heath care system. It would eliminate food banks
and homeless shelters and jobs involving making lists and forms and graphs for the Medical
Insurance Business. And it would eliminate a lot of other stupid and bullsh*t jobs. Yes, I've
been rereading David Graeber's "Bullsh*t Jobs."
Several years ago I collected signatures for Move to Amend, an organizations which
advocates for an anti-corporate personhood amendment to the US Constitution. I learned two
things:
1. ordinary citizens 'get it' about corporations running the show, and they are enthusiastic
about bringing them to heel, and
2. ordinary citizens who work in 501(c)3 non-profits are far less enthusiastic about the
possible withering away of their cozy corporate dole.
So, while the giant vampire squids of the world drift lazily along on a fine current of their
own making, keep in mind that there are huge schools of pilot fish that depend on their
leavings for survival. All of these small fish will surely resist any effort to tenderize
this calamari.
No one said it better than William Jewett Tucker, a contemporary critic of Carnegie:
"I can conceive of no greater mistake, more disastrous in the end to religion if not to
society, than of trying to make charity do the work of justice."
This was a terrific post on a very important issue.
Even in my insignificant little burg we have experienced this problem first-hand. A local
Charter School was doing a very good job of "keeping out the brown people" and publishing a
"walk of shame" of all who made "voluntary" contributions to their coffers, thus "outing"
those who didn't (the California constitution forbids schools that spend public money from
requiring fees). They even went so far as to hire a Head of School from one of the last
Mississippi Segregation Acadamies, just in case their "mission" wasn't clear. Admission was
by lottery ("because lotteries are fair!"), unless you happened to be on their
massively bloated and self-appointed Board (including influential local officials, quelle
surprise !). Those with learning differences or languages other than English were
"strongly discouraged" from even applying.
The Charter covered their operating budget with all those "voluntary" contributions, and
had sequestered all the cash squeezed out of the local public schools, in order to buy an
office building (because kids just love preparing for the world of work by going to
school in office buildings!). A local billionaire whose name rhymes with "Netflix" bailed
them out with a $10M donation for the building when it appeared that some in authority might
look askance at who would be the beneficiaries of this insider real estate deal using
skimmed-off public monies.
Scratch a Charter School and 9 times out of 10 there's a real estate deal underlying it
("Because, the children !"). Billionaires should have no more influence than any
other individual voter in making public policy.
Grrrrr, Charter Schools are making me angry. The real estate deal(s), you mention are
absolutely true. Here's another sweet scheme in Arizonia: "The Arizona Republic has reported
that Rep. Eddie Farnsworth stands to make about $30 million from selling three charter
schools he built with taxpayer money.
The toothless Arizona State Board for Charter Schools approved the transfer of his for-profit
charter school to a new, non-profit company. He might collect up to $30 million -- and maybe
even continue running the operation in addition to retaining a $3.8 million share in the new
for-profit company.
The Benjamin Franklin charter schools operate in wealthy neighborhoods. The 3,000 students
have good scores and the schools have a B rating. But that's not surprising, since most of
the parents have high incomes and college educations. If the schools are like most charters
in the state, they're more racially segregated than the campuses in the surrounding school
districts. The state pays the charter schools $2,000 per student more than it pays
traditional school districts like Payson -- which is supposedly to make up for the charter's
inability to issue bonds and such.
However, converting the charters to a non-profit company will enable the schools to avoid
property taxes and qualify for federal education funds. Taxpayers will essentially end up
paying for the same schools twice, since taxpayers have footed the bills for the lease
payments to the tune of about $5 million annually. Now, the new owners will use taxpayer
money to finance the purchase of buildings already paid for by taxpayers."
Stevenson school in Mountain View CA, a public school with PACT (parents and children
together), has a lottery. Its students are 70% white. Across the street, Theuerkauf, which
does not have PACT, is 30% white and no lottery. And a huge difference in the two schools
test scores. Smells illegal.
Also, Google took the former building of the former PACT program hosting school, which
resulted in this grotesque distortion of the supposed public service the school district
provides.
As a former NYC public school teacher who fought against the billionaire-funded hostile
takeover of public education for two decades, I'm gratified to see the beginnings of a
harsher critique of so-called philanthropy, in education and everywhere else.
But the next hurdle is to overcome the tic of always qualifying critique and pushback with
talk of the "good intentions" of these Overclass gorgons. Their intention are not "good" in
the way most human beings construe that word, and are the same as they've always been:
accumulation and establishing the political wherewithal to maintain/facilitiate the same.
This hustle does the added trick of getting the public to subsidize it's own impoverishment
and loss of political power (as in Overclass ed reformers funding efforts to eliminate local
school boards).
When there is near-total congruence between your financial/political interests and the
policies driven by your "philanthropy," the credibility of your "good intentions" transacts
at an extremely high discount, no matter how much you try to dress it up with vacuous and
insipid social justice cliches. For a case in point, just spend five minutes researching the
behavior and rhetoric of Teach For America.
Malanthropy (n): the systemic use of non-profit, tax-exempt entities to facilitate the
economic and political interests of their wealthy endowers, to the detriment of society at
large. See also, Villainthropy.
The critical thing, I have found, is to see "philanthropy" and charitable endeavor as a
cornerstone of capitalism, without which the system would–without any doubt–fail.
Engels and others documented, contemporary scholars have continued to document, the way that
the wives of the first factory owners established almshouses and lying in hospitals where the
deserving poor were separated from the undeserving, dunned with religion and political cant,
and channelled into various forms of work, including reproductive labor. A very big piece of
the neoliberal puzzle involves the rise of the NGO during the Clinton/Blair period, and its
integration with works of the like of the IMF and USAID, the increasing sophistication of
this enterprise which has at times also included union-busting (see Grenada in the aftermath
of the US invasion) and worse. As a State Department function, the Peace Corps integrates the
best of charity, grassroots capitalism, and good old Protestant cant.
I've read the Winners Take All book and it's terrific! Even if you understand the general
outlines, the author will make you see things differently because of his intimate knowledge
of how this ecosystem works. Highly recommended! Also recommend his twitter account,
@AnandWrites
He's really good on "pinkerizing" too, and "Thought Leaders" and how they comfort the
comfortable.
For the first time in over 20 years, on January 1, 2019, published works will enter the US
public domain. 1
Works from 1923 will be free for all to use and build upon, without permission or fee. They
include dramatic films such as The Ten Commandments , and comedies featuring Charlie
Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Harold Lloyd. There are literary works by Robert Frost, Aldous
Huxley, and Edith Wharton, the "Charleston" song, and more. And remember, this has not happened
for over 20 years. Why? Works from 1923 were set to go into the public domain in 1999, after a
75-year copyright term. But in 1998 Congress hit a two-decade pause button and extended their
copyright term for 20 years, giving works published between 1923 and 1977 an expanded term of
95 years. 2
But now the drought is over. How will people celebrate this trove of cultural material?
Google Books will offer the full text of books from that year, instead of showing only snippet
views or authorized previews. The Internet Archive will add books, movies, music, and more to
its online library. Community theaters are planning screenings of the films. Students will be
free to adapt and publicly perform the music. Because these works are in the public domain,
anyone can make them available, where you can rediscover and enjoy them. (Empirical studies
have shown that public domain books are less expensive, available in more editions and formats,
and more likely to be in print -- see
here , here , and here .) In addition, the
expiration of copyright means that you're free to use these materials, for education, for
research, or for creative endeavors -- whether it's translating the books, making your own
versions of the films, or building new music based on old classics.
Here are some of the works that will be entering the public domain in 2019. A fuller (but
still partial) listing of over a thousand works that we have researched can be found
here .
Films
Safety Last! , directed by Fred C. Newmeyer and Sam Taylor, featuring Harold Lloyd
The Ten Commandments , directed by Cecil B. DeMille
The Pilgrim , directed by Charlie Chaplin
Our Hospitality , directed by Buster Keaton and John G. Blystone
The Covered Wagon , directed by James Cruze
Scaramouche , directed by Rex Ingram
Books
Edgar Rice Burroughs, Tarzan and the Golden Lion
Agatha Christie, The Murder on the Links
Winston S. Churchill, The World Crisis
e.e. cummings, Tulips and Chimneys
Robert Frost, New Hampshire
Kahlil Gibran, The Prophet
Aldous Huxley, Antic Hay
D.H. Lawrence, Kangaroo
Bertrand and Dora Russell, The Prospects of Industrial Civilization
Carl Sandberg, Rootabaga Pigeons
Edith Wharton, A Son at the Front
P.G. Wodehouse, works including The Inimitable Jeeves and Leave it to
Psmith
March 12, 1993, Page 00019
The New York Times Archives
C. Northcote Parkinson, the British historian and writer who propounded the notion that "work expands so as to fill the
time available for its completion," died Tuesday at a clinic near his home in Canterbury, England. He was 83.
The cause of death was not announced.
Mr. Parkinson first put forth his famous dictum in an article for The Economist magazine in 1955. The article brought him
considerable attention, and in 1958 he published an expanded version, "Parkinson's Law."
The book, which included the corollary that work expands to occupy the people available for its completion, became a
best-seller. Mr. Parkinson once expressed surprise that the book seemed to be so well received by its implicit targets,
business executives and government officials, at a time when corporate and state bureaucracies were growing rapidly. Where
Six Do the Work of One
Mr. Parkinson said the theory had its roots in his experience in World War II, when he worked in training and
administration for the War Office and the Royal Air Force.
"I observed, somewhat to my surprise, that work which could be done by one man in peacetime, was being given to about six
in wartime," he told The Times of London. "I think this was mainly because there wasn't the same opportunity for other
people to criticize. You could always riposte: 'Don't you know there's a war on?' "
His work was a mixture of serious economic analysis and satire. He argued that administrators and executives tend to make work
for each other, and that because executives prefer to have subordinates rather than rivals, they create and perpetuate
bureaucracies in which power is defined by the number of subordinates.
A committee, he said, "grows organically, flourishes and blossoms, sunlit on top and shady beneath, until it dies, scattering the
seeds from which other committees will spring."
No matter how much work is actually getting accomplished, Mr. Parkinson wrote, the number of workers in an organization would
relentlessly expand at a rate that he calculated, perhaps tongue in cheek, between 5.7 percent and 6.56 percent a year. From
Cambridge to Singapore
Cyril Northcote Parkinson was born on July 30, 1909, in northern England. He attended Cambridge University and received a
doctorate in history from Kings College in London.
He taught at Cambridge and at a private boys' school in the late 1930's, before his wartime service. After the war he became a
lecturer in naval history at the University of Liverpool, then moved to Singapore in 1950, where he became the Raffles Professor
of History at the University of Malaya. After the publication of "Parkinson's Law," he went on to complete scholarly works,
including "British Intervention in Malaya, 1867 to 1877."
He wrote more than 60 books, including "Mrs. Parkinson's Law" (1968), which applied his principle to the household level. He also
wrote business histories and fiction, including "Jeeves: a Gentleman's Personal Gentleman" (1979), the "biography" of the hero of
the P. G. Wodehouse novels.
Mr. Parkinson is survived by his third wife, Iris Hilda Waters, whom he married in 1985, a son and a daughter from his first
marriage and two sons and a daughter from his second marriage.
" New Book by C. Northcote Parkinson ",
a review by Carroll Quigley in The Washington Sunday Star , November 18, 1963,
of a book:
EAST AND WEST ,
by C. Northcote Parkinson.
Houghton Mifflin: New York, 1963
"New Book by C. Northcote Parkinson"
East and West, by C. Northcote Parkinson
(Houghton, Mifflin, 1963, $5.00),
a history of the contact of Europe and Asia since the fall of Troy, is the author's thirteenth
book.
Carroll Quigley, author of The Evolution of Civilizations, teaches history at Georgetown
University.
C. Northcote Parkinson, one-time Professor at the University of Malaya (but now removed from
academic halls to the more remunerative work of an economic consultant in London), has produced
more than a dozen books over the last 29 years. Most of these sank with scarcely a ripple,
until, in 1957, his Parkinson's Law roused widespread enthusiasm. Its attack on bureaucracy and
Big Government was kept afloat in a sea of jokes which helped to conceal the fact that the
author's basic outlook was contemporary with Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). Three years later,
Parkinson shifted his attention from politics to economics, and, in The Law and the Profits ,
attacked the basic principle of twentieth century taxation from a Spencerian (or John Birchite)
point of view. He deplored the graduated income tax and any tax of over 25 per cent. This book,
with fewer and poorer jokes, revealed its author's old-fashioned outlook to anyone who reads
with both eyes.
Now Mr. Parkinson has shifted his field once again, this time to history. Lacking his
earlier camouflage of jokes, except in isolated spots, East and West shows that Parkinson's
historical training is as dated as his politics and economics, almost pure Oxbridge, vintage
1880. And unfortunately, not one of the better samples of that year. Except for its length,
this work might pass for an undergraduate tutorial essay worthy of a "gentleman's C" or of a
Third Class in the Final Schools examination.
The characteristics of a mediocre book are not very much different from those of a merely
"passing" undergraduate essay and are fully evident in this volume: (1) underlying confusion of
thought, and thus of organization; (2) inadequate knowledge of the evidence; (3) limited
reading of up-to-date authorities; and (4) masses of factual information without strict control
of its relevancy.
For Parkinson, as for his Victorian contemporaries, the meeting of East and West begins with
the Iliad (on page 1) and advances chronologically, based on the writings of Herodotus,
Xenophon, Plutarch, and the lesser historians of the wars against Carthage and the achievements
of the Caesars, with much borrowing from that up to date writer, Edward Gibbon. More than half
the volume is concerned with the period from the fall of Troy to the fall of Constantinople,
and much of the rest is a prosaic account of the expansion of Europe to Asia (especially
southern Asia) since the fifteenth century. The period before 1000 B.C., the immense impact of
archaeological discoveries since 1880, the newer literary evidence obtained from the twentieth
century's deciphering of papyrus and archaeological inscriptions are ignored. As a result,
Parkinson believes (galley 45) that the "first wave of oriental influence to reach Europe came
from Persia....Zoroaster [about 500 B.C.]" Such a statement wipes aside almost the whole of
European, including Greek, culture as non-existent even when, like the alphabet, it was called
by an Asiatic name. Parkinson has a whole chapter on Alexander the Great, but ignores all
recent work on the subject going back to W. W. Tarn (1938). His extensive attention to military
exploits may seem to reflect the present (1963) concern with military history, but Parkinson's
approach is biographical not tactical, and his treatment of war recalls my own happy days
reading G. A. Henty. There are scattered footnote references to books on the history of
armaments but no evidence that Parkinson really read them, for he tells us such untruths as
that the crossbow could be "shot with accuracy from a horse ridden at a gallop" (gal. 59), that
"the real cavalryman" was invented by Macedonia before Alexander the Great's time (galley 21)
(when real cavalry could, in fact, come into action only with the invention of stirrups many
centuries after Alexander).
Much of the amorphous character of this volume arises from failure to define its terms. The
first five words of the Introduction read, "This book deals with civilizations," but there is a
firm refusal to demark any civilizations or culture areas. Instead, it soon appears that the
author is thinking of Asia and Europe as geographic areas (which he mistakenly divides at the
Ural Mountains and the Caspian Sea instead of at the Pripet Marshes, which form the only
meaningful boundary.) This two-part division leads to great confusion because the situation can
hardly be understood in terms any simpler than a four-factor mélange (Western, Asiatic,
northern steppe grasslands, and Semitic). Culturally the optimistic and balanced empiricism of
the West and the resigned Heraclitean flux of Asia have been separated by the rationalistic,
dualistic, and often extremist, outlooks of the Indo-Europeans and the Semites. The former of
these buffers left its imprint most strongly on Iran (Zoroaster and Mani) and on Greece
(Plato), carried on through Byzantium and Russia. It is a fundamental fact in any history of
the contacts of Asia and the West that many of these contacts were filtered through the two
buffers of the Indo-European and the Semite cultural heritages.
Even on the simple level of contact between two geographic areas, Parkinson's attempt to
show the interaction of Europe and Asia is almost a total failure. This results from his
neglect of the most obvious interchanges and of the whole of the early (and most significant)
period and from his failure to establish a chronological outline based on the factors which
impelled such interchanges. These factors have rested on the interaction of climate changes and
technology, with the former dominating the situation in the more remote past (by influencing
the ability of the grasslands of Central Asia and Arabia to support herds of grazing animals
and the human populations which used these herds as food) and the latter dominating the
situation in recent centuries, with a lengthy period (500 B.C.-1700) of transition in between.
Lacking any conception of this interplay of forces, Parkinson has no real conception of why the
interactions occurred and falls back on quite unconvincing explanations based on personal
reactions and personal revenge. The Persian invasion of Greece in 490 B.C. is explained as a
reaction to the Greek capture of Troy in 1184 B.C.! (galley 2 and 8)
Even in Parkinson's day under the great Queen Victoria every school boy knew Ex Oriente Lux
. Europe's peoples and languages came from the east as did the very basic attributes of
European life: its food (wheat, beef, lamb, swine, fowls), its textiles (wool, linen, cotton,
silk), its systems of measures (12 eggs in a dozen, 12 inches in a foot, 12 hours in the day
and in the night, 60 minutes in the hour), its basic technology (writing, the wheel, paper,
printing type, gun powder, the plow, the number system), and those three major targets of
Parkinson's antipathy, governmental bureaucracy, taxation, and state regulation of economic
life. Even today, a London economic consultant wears trousers and a jacket slashed in the rear
so that the sides will hang straight as he sits on his horse, attire derived from a Turkic
cultural predecessor in the central Asian grasslands of two millennia ago.
This volume contains scores, possibly hundreds of gross factual errors. If these were based
only on the ignorance and prejudices of 1880, we might pass over them in silence, but when they
join the current campaign to corrupt our youth with the myths of John Birch they should be
pointed out. Parkinson tells us (galley 67) that the decline of Asia after A.D. 1000 was
fundamentally due to biological decadence but the "immediate cause was of course, excessive
taxation." We are solemnly informed (galley 102) that Marxism, like Marx himself, is "a
religion derived ultimately from Judaism." Or again (galley 76), of British "administrative
talent...the best always went overseas, leaving only the dregs in Whitehall." As long ago as
the time of Alexander the Great, Greek ascendency in Asia meant that "democracy had to go"
(galley 21). And of course, the fall of Rome in the West was due to "overtaxation" (galley
47).
These numerous outbursts of personal prejudice are buried in great masses of simple factual
errors. Parkinson's knowledge of geography, despite his personal travels, is woefully
deficient. Roman military control of the Balkans in the 3rd century, he says (galley 47)
required "the reconquest of Dacia and Mesopotamia", a statement which is not only nonsense, but
implies that Rome had previously held Mesopotamia. Or again (galley 51), he tells us that the
Arabs, about 800, controlled the whole trade route between Canton and Cordova -- "from end to
end."
Among numerous factual errors are statements: 1. that the Hittites taught Babylon to train
horses (gal. 1; it was the Mittani); 2. that the people east of the Halys River in Asia Minor
were "of Semitic character" (gal. s; they were largely Hurrian); 3. that the Hittites first
coined money (gal. 6; it was the Lydians almost 800 years later); that all "Phoenician"
literature was lost in the destruction of Carthage by Rome (gal. 13); 5. that no Greek would
discard his possessions to become a beggar (gal. 17; there was a whole school of Greeks, the
Cynics); 6. that the militarization of Spartan life was not based on "necessity" but on
"self-respect" (gal. 17; it was based on the need to keep down ten times as numerous Helots);
7. that "the Greeks ceased to be discoverers when they became teachers" under Alexander (gal.
22; this ignores the amazing achievements of Hellenistic science, such as Hipparchus or
Archimedes); 8. that the middle classes were "a Greek invention" (gal. 26; the Phoenicians were
more middle class than the Greeks and much earlier); 9. that Rome obtained its original culture
from the Greeks (gal. 30; it was from the Etruscans); 10. that the Greeks had a belief in
Progress (gal. 39; on the contrary, the Greeks believed in retrogression from a remote "Golden
Age"); 11. that the "pastoral type of economy" was earlier than the rise of agriculture (gal.
1; it was several thousand years later); 12. that Indo-European invaders about 1600 made
Babylon "the center of the Hittite Empire" (gal. 2; Babylon was never a Hittite city); 13. that
Alexander's Empire brought four "of the five known civilizations...in a single monarchy" (gal.
27; it did not include either India or China); 14. that Roman ships reached India (gal. 37);
15. that the Russian choice of Byzantine Christianity [presumably over the Latin type] brought
Russia "into the western rather than the Eastern Camp" (gal. 48); 16. that "Gothic architecture
is plainly Islamic" (gal. 58); 17. that the United States "began to look on the Chinese and the
Japanese as possible customers and converts" because of the completion of the trans-continental
railway in 1869 (gal. 73; American merchant ships were trading extensively with both peoples
before the Civil War); and 18. that "discoveries in navigation did not precede but followed the
great voyages of discovery" (gal. 81; in fact, the compass, rudder, sails, hull construction,
and methods of determining latitude were all in use before the great navigations.)
Fortunately Parkinson does not launch this myriad of errors on the reader without fair
warning, for in the Preface we may read, "Given a more suitable diet, as recommended by the
food reformers (plain food, uncooked, and Spartan) I might perhaps have had the energy to
ransack libraries....Instead I have relied upon the results of desultory reading...." Surely an
honest statement, but without scholarship, the volume certainly needs more jokes!
Cyril Northcote Parkinson, writer, historian and economist, born 30 July 1909, Raffles Professor of History University of Malaya
1950-58, books include Edward Pellew, Viscount Exmouth 1934, The Rise of the Port of Liverpool 1952, Parkinson's Law: the pursuit
of progress 1958, British Intervention in Malaya 1867-1877 1960, Mrs Parkinson's Law 1968, The Law of Delay 1971, Industrial Disruption
1973, Britannia Rules 1977, Jeeves: a gentleman's personal gentleman 1979, The Guernseyman 1982, The Fur-Lined Mousetrap 1984, married
1943 Ethelwyn Graves (one son, one daughter; marriage dissolved), 1952 Elizabeth Ann Fry (died 1983; one daughter), 1985 Ingrid Waters,
died Canterbury 9 March 1993.
ASK ANYONE if they have heard of 'Parkinson's Law' and they will probably answer, 'Yes, but I can't call it to mind.' Tell them
that 'Work expands to fill the time available for its completion' and they will laugh and say with feeling that they most certainly
have heard of the law, and understand its effects completely. C. Northcote Parkinson coined the phrase which is now known and quoted
by frustrated business people (indeed, anyone trying to find 'spare' time) all over the world.
'Granted that work (and especially paper-work),' he wrote, 'is . . . elastic in its demands on time, it is manifest that there
need be little or no relationship between the work to be done and the size of the staff to which it may be assigned. A lack of real
activity does not, of necessity, result in leisure. A lack of occupation is not necessarily revealed by a manifest idleness. The
thing to be done swells in importance and complexity in a direct ratio with the time to be spent.'
Parkinson first presented his formula in a humorous and paradoxical article for the Economist in 1958. This and a further series
of essays were published by John Murray as Parkinson's Law in the same year with illustrations by Osbert Lancaster (it remains in
print as a Penguin Business 'Management Classic'). He based his law, aimed largely but not only at the workings of bureaucracy, on
experience gained in the Second World War with an Officer Cadet Training Unit in the RAF, and as a War Office staff officer.
General recognition of his law, he wrote, 'is shown in the proverbial phrase 'It is the busiest man who has time to spare.' Thus
an elderly lady of leisure can spend the entire day in writing and dispatching a postcard to her niece at Bognor Regis. An hour will
be spent in finding the postcard, another in hunting for spectacles, half an hour in a search for the address, an hour and a quarter
in composition, and 20 minutes in deciding whether or not to take an umbrella when going to the pillar box in the next street. The
total effort that would occupy a busy man for three minutes all told may in this fashion leave another person prostrate after a day
of doubt, anxiety, and toil.'
Most of Cyril Northcote Parkinson's large output as a writer disguises this wonderful sense of humour. As an authority on maritime
history, in particular the Napoleonic era, he has a wealth of informative books to his name, including Trade in the Eastern Seas
(1937), The Trade Winds (1948), The Rise of the Port of Liverpool (1952), War in the Eastern Seas (1954), as well as an imaginary
biography, The Life and Times of Horatio Hornblower (1970). As with the Hornblower biography, he used his historical knowledge to
write the 'Delancey' saga, naval historical novels about a young midshipman in the Napoleonic wars, and his rise through the ranks
eventually to become Admiral of the Fleet.
An unassuming man, Parkinson lived the latter part of his life modestly, if elegantly, in a Canterbury close, continuing to write
on the subjects he loved most. His middle years, however, after the phenomenal success of Parkinson's Law, were taken up with lecturing
and after-dinner speaking. He found it hugely amusing that he should be so appreciated in this way, and yet his easy manner and witty
turn of phrase invited the attention of the most reluctant listener.
His early life was 'rather dull', he thought: educated at St Peter's School, York, he went on to study History at Cambridge. He
left to become a historian, and took a further degree in London. After returning to Cambridge to do research, he could see only a
dull future. 'There seemed to be nothing ahead but a series of professorships', he said. 'So I began to write books on naval history
instead.' His first teaching post - arranged around his writing - was at Blundell's School, Tiverton. He wrote a book about it, attracted
particularly by - as he explained - 'the school's most distinguished pupil, Guy Fawkes'. He later lectured in naval history at the
Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, a post he held at the outbreak of the Second World War, and assisted in the formation of the National
Maritime Museum.
His service career had begun in the Territorial Army, which he loved passionately, but it seemed to disappoint him that he never
took part in active service. With a twinkle in his eye, he recounted that although he would have been a willing to play his part,
he seemed to complete the war 'without killing or even seriously annoying any Germans'. He went on to say that the most dangerous
episode of his war years was getting married. Then, to add 'insult to injury', his regiment disbanded at the time. 'I think they
had a sort of grudge against me.'
He restored and lived for many years at Elham Manor, in Kent, while continuing to write books and lecture on naval and maritime
history.
In 1950 he experienced a complete change when he accepted a chair as Raffles Professor of History at the University of Malaya,
a post he held for eight years. The end of his time in Malaya came soon after the publication of the book which was to transform
his life. With obvious delight he reported what Enoch Powell said of him: 'He's like a man who found an oil-well in his back garden.'
The first publisher to which the book was offered returned it promptly. The second, Parkinson said, 'threw it in the wastepaper basket,
but later retrieved it and thought again'.
After the success of Parkinson's Law, he entered the world of after-dinner lecturing and continued to be amazed that so many people
wanted to hear him speak; he was often asked to give hour- long lectures to audiences of up to 8,000. After Leaving Malaya he held
visiting professorships at Harvard University, in 1958, and the universities of Illinois and California in 1959-60. Thereafter he
gave up his 'proper job' as an academic to devote his time to writing through the winter and lecturing across the United States in
the summer.
It was with relief that he eventually gave up the lecturing circuit to live quietly with his third wife, in Canterbury, having
moved there in 1989. Here he relaxed in peace in the shadow of the cathedral, and worked on his final project, his autobiography,
A Law Unto Myself.
'The inexorable working of Parkinson's law ensures that appointments have constantly to be made and the question is always how
to choose the right candidate . . . Past methods fall into two main categories, the British and the Chinese . . . The British method
(old pattern) depended upon an interview in which the candidate had to establish his identity. He would be confronted by elderly
gentlemen seated round a mahogany table who would presently ask him his name. Let us suppose that the candidate replied, 'John Seymour'.
One of the gentlemen would then say, 'Any relation to the Duke of Somerset?' To this the candidate would say, quite possibly, 'No,
sir.' Then another gentleman would say, 'Perhaps you are related, in that case, to the Bshop of Warminster?' If he said 'No, sir'
again, a third would ask in despair, 'To whom then are you related?' ' Illustration by Osbert Lancaster for Parkinson's Law
Although he is certainly a giant, Knuth will never be able to complete this monograph - the
technology developed too quickly. Three volumes came out in 1963-1968 and then there was a lull.
January 10, he will be 81. At this age it is difficult to work in the field of mathematics and
system programming. So we will probably never see the complete fourth volume.
This inability to
finish the work he devoted a large part of hi life is definitely a tragedy. The key problem here is
that now it is simply impossible to cover the whole area of system programming and
related algorithms for one person. But the first three volumes played tremendous positive role
for sure.
Also he was distracted for several years to create TeX. He needed to create a non-profit and
complete this work by attracting the best minds from the outside. But he is by nature a loner,
as many great scientists are, and prefer to work this way.
His other mistake is due to the fact that MIX - his emulator was too far from the IBM S/360, which became the standard de-facto
in mid-60th. He then realized that this was a blunder and replaced MIX with more modem emulator MIXX, but it was
"too little, too late" and it took time and effort. So the first three volumes and fragments of the fourth is all
that we have now and probably forever.
Not all volumes fared equally well with time. The third volume suffered most IMHO and as of 2019 is partially obsolete. Also it was
written by him in some haste and some parts of it are are far from clearly written ( it was based on earlier
lectures of Floyd, so it was oriented of single CPU computers only. Now when multiprocessor
machines, huge amount of RAM and SSD hard drives are the norm, the situation is very different from late 60th. It requires different sorting
algorithms (the importance of mergesort increased, importance of quicksort decreased). He also got too carried away with sorting random numbers and establishing upper bound and
average
run time. The real data is almost never random and typically contain sorted fragments. For example, he overestimated the
importance of quicksort and thus pushed the discipline in the wrong direction.
Notable quotes:
"... These days, it is 'coding', which is more like 'code-spraying'. Throw code at a problem until it kind of works, then fix the bugs in the post-release, or the next update. ..."
"... AI is a joke. None of the current 'AI' actually is. It is just another new buzz-word to throw around to people that do not understand it at all. ..."
"... One good teacher makes all the difference in life. More than one is a rare blessing. ..."
With more than one million copies in print, "The Art of Computer Programming " is the Bible
of its field. "Like an actual bible, it is long and comprehensive; no other book is as
comprehensive," said Peter Norvig, a director of research at Google. After 652 pages, volume
one closes with a blurb on the back cover from Bill Gates: "You should definitely send me a
résumé if you can read the whole thing."
The volume opens with an excerpt from " McCall's Cookbook ":
Here is your book, the one your thousands of letters have asked us to publish. It has
taken us years to do, checking and rechecking countless recipes to bring you only the best,
only the interesting, only the perfect.
Inside are algorithms, the recipes that feed the digital age -- although, as Dr. Knuth likes
to point out, algorithms can also be found on Babylonian tablets from 3,800 years ago. He is an
esteemed algorithmist; his name is attached to some of the field's most important specimens,
such as the Knuth-Morris-Pratt string-searching algorithm. Devised in 1970, it finds all
occurrences of a given word or pattern of letters in a text -- for instance, when you hit
Command+F to search for a keyword in a document.
... ... ...
During summer vacations, Dr. Knuth made more money than professors earned in a year by
writing compilers. A compiler is like a translator, converting a high-level programming
language (resembling algebra) to a lower-level one (sometimes arcane binary) and, ideally,
improving it in the process. In computer science, "optimization" is truly an art, and this is
articulated in another Knuthian proverb: "Premature optimization is the root of all evil."
Eventually Dr. Knuth became a compiler himself, inadvertently founding a new field that he
came to call the "analysis of algorithms." A publisher hired him to write a book about
compilers, but it evolved into a book collecting everything he knew about how to write for
computers -- a book about algorithms.
... ... ...
When Dr. Knuth started out, he intended to write a single work. Soon after, computer science
underwent its Big Bang, so he reimagined and recast the project in seven volumes. Now he metes
out sub-volumes, called fascicles. The next installation, "Volume 4, Fascicle 5," covering,
among other things, "backtracking" and "dancing links," was meant to be published in time for
Christmas. It is delayed until next April because he keeps finding more and more irresistible
problems that he wants to present.
In order to optimize his chances of getting to the end, Dr. Knuth has long guarded his time.
He retired at 55, restricted his public engagements and quit email (officially, at least).
Andrei Broder recalled that time management was his professor's defining characteristic even in
the early 1980s.
Dr. Knuth typically held student appointments on Friday mornings, until he started spending
his nights in the lab of John McCarthy, a founder of artificial intelligence, to get access to
the computers when they were free. Horrified by what his beloved book looked like on the page
with the advent of digital publishing, Dr. Knuth had gone on a mission to create the TeX
computer typesetting system, which remains the gold standard for all forms of scientific
communication and publication. Some consider it Dr. Knuth's greatest contribution to the world,
and the greatest contribution to typography since Gutenberg.
This decade-long detour took place back in the age when computers were shared among users
and ran faster at night while most humans slept. So Dr. Knuth switched day into night, shifted
his schedule by 12 hours and mapped his student appointments to Fridays from 8 p.m. to
midnight. Dr. Broder recalled, "When I told my girlfriend that we can't do anything Friday
night because Friday night at 10 I have to meet with my adviser, she thought, 'This is
something that is so stupid it must be true.'"
... ... ...
Lucky, then, Dr. Knuth keeps at it. He figures it will take another 25 years to finish "The
Art of Computer Programming," although that time frame has been a constant since about 1980.
Might the algorithm-writing algorithms get their own chapter, or maybe a page in the epilogue?
"Definitely not," said Dr. Knuth.
"I am worried that algorithms are getting too prominent in the world," he added. "It started
out that computer scientists were worried nobody was listening to us. Now I'm worried that too
many people are listening."
Thanks Siobhan for your vivid portrait of my friend and mentor. When I came to Stanford as
an undergrad in 1973 I asked who in the math dept was interested in puzzles. They pointed me
to the computer science dept, where I met Knuth and we hit it off immediately. Not only a
great thinker and writer, but as you so well described, always present and warm in person. He
was also one of the best teachers I've ever had -- clear, funny, and interested in every
student (his elegant policy was each student can only speak twice in class during a period,
to give everyone a chance to participate, and he made a point of remembering everyone's
names). Some thoughts from Knuth I carry with me: finding the right name for a project is
half the work (not literally true, but he labored hard on finding the right names for TeX,
Metafont, etc.), always do your best work, half of why the field of computer science exists
is because it is a way for mathematically minded people who like to build things can meet
each other, and the observation that when the computer science dept began at Stanford one of
the standard interview questions was "what instrument do you play" -- there was a deep
connection between music and computer science, and indeed the dept had multiple string
quartets. But in recent decades that has changed entirely. If you do a book on Knuth (he
deserves it), please be in touch.
I remember when programming was art. I remember when programming was programming. These
days, it is 'coding', which is more like 'code-spraying'. Throw code at a problem until it
kind of works, then fix the bugs in the post-release, or the next update.
AI is a joke. None
of the current 'AI' actually is. It is just another new buzz-word to throw around to people
that do not understand it at all. We should be in a golden age of computing. Instead, we are
cutting all corners to get something out as fast as possible. The technology exists to do far
more. It is the human element that fails us.
My particular field of interest has always been compiler writing and have been long
awaiting Knuth's volume on that subject. I would just like to point out that among Kunth's
many accomplishments is the invention of LR parsers, which are widely used for writing
programming language compilers.
Yes, \TeX, and its derivative, \LaTeX{} contributed greatly to being able to create
elegant documents. It is also available for the web in the form MathJax, and it's about time
the New York Times supported MathJax. Many times I want one of my New York Times comments to
include math, but there's no way to do so! It comes up equivalent to:
$e^{i\pi}+1$.
I read it at the time, because what I really wanted to read was volume 7, Compilers. As I
understood it at the time, Professor Knuth wrote it in order to make enough money to build an
organ. That apparantly happened by 3:Knuth, Searching and Sorting. The most impressive part
is the mathemathics in Semi-numerical (2:Knuth). A lot of those problems are research
projects over the literature of the last 400 years of mathematics.
I own the three volume "Art of Computer Programming", the hardbound boxed set. Luxurious.
I don't look at it very often thanks to time constraints, given my workload. But your article
motivated me to at least pick it up and carry it from my reserve library to a spot closer to
my main desk so I can at least grab Volume 1 and try to read some of it when the mood
strikes. I had forgotten just how heavy it is, intellectual content aside. It must weigh more
than 25 pounds.
I too used my copies of The Art of Computer Programming to guide me in several projects in
my career, across a variety of topic areas. Now that I'm living in Silicon Valley, I enjoy
seeing Knuth at events at the Computer History Museum (where he was a 1998 Fellow Award
winner), and at Stanford. Another facet of his teaching is the annual Christmas Lecture, in
which he presents something of recent (or not-so-recent) interest. The 2018 lecture is
available online - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cR9zDlvP88
One of the most special treats for first year Ph.D. students in the Stanford University
Computer Science Department was to take the Computer Problem-Solving class with Don Knuth. It
was small and intimate, and we sat around a table for our meetings. Knuth started the
semester by giving us an extremely challenging, previously unsolved problem. We then formed
teams of 2 or 3. Each week, each team would report progress (or lack thereof), and Knuth, in
the most supportive way, would assess our problem-solving approach and make suggestions for
how to improve it. To have a master thinker giving one feedback on how to think better was a
rare and extraordinary experience, from which I am still benefiting! Knuth ended the semester
(after we had all solved the problem) by having us over to his house for food, drink, and
tales from his life. . . And for those like me with a musical interest, he let us play the
magnificent pipe organ that was at the center of his music room. Thank you Professor Knuth,
for giving me one of the most profound educational experiences I've ever had, with such
encouragement and humor!
I learned about Dr. Knuth as a graduate student in the early 70s from one of my professors
and made the financial sacrifice (graduate student assistantships were not lucrative) to buy
the first and then the second volume of the Art of Computer Programming. Later, at Bell Labs,
when I was a bit richer, I bought the third volume. I have those books still and have used
them for reference for years. Thank you Dr, Knuth. Art, indeed!
@Trerra In the good old days, before Computer Science, anyone could take the Programming
Aptitude Test. Pass it and companies would train you. Although there were many mathematicians
and scientists, some of the best programmers turned out to be music majors. English, Social
Sciences, and History majors were represented as well as scientists and mathematicians. It
was a wonderful atmosphere to work in . When I started to look for a job as a programmer, I
took Prudential Life Insurance's version of the Aptitude Test. After the test, the
interviewer was all bent out of shape because my verbal score was higher than my math score;
I was a physics major. Luckily they didn't hire me and I got a job with IBM.
In summary, "May the force be with you" means: Did you read Donald Knuth's "The Art of
Computer Programming"? Excellent, we loved this article. We will share it with many young
developers we know.
Dr. Knuth is a great Computer Scientist. Around 25 years ago, I met Dr. Knuth in a small
gathering a day before he was awarded a honorary Doctorate in a university. This is my
approximate recollection of a conversation. I said-- " Dr. Knuth, you have dedicated your
book to a computer (one with which he had spent a lot of time, perhaps a predecessor to
PDP-11). Isn't it unusual?". He said-- "Well, I love my wife as much as anyone." He then
turned to his wife and said --"Don't you think so?". It would be nice if scientists with the
gift of such great minds tried to address some problems of ordinary people, e.g. a model of
economy where everyone can get a job and health insurance, say, like Dr. Paul Krugman.
I was in a training program for women in computer systems at CUNY graduate center, and
they used his obtuse book. It was one of the reasons I dropped out. He used a fantasy
language to describe his algorithms in his book that one could not test on computers. I
already had work experience as a programmer with algorithms and I know how valuable real
languages are. I might as well have read Animal Farm. It might have been different if he was
the instructor.
Don Knuth's work has been a curious thread weaving in and out of my life. I was first
introduced to Knuth and his The Art of Computer Programming back in 1973, when I was tasked
with understanding a section of the then-only-two-volume Book well enough to give a lecture
explaining it to my college algorithms class. But when I first met him in 1981 at Stanford,
he was all-in on thinking about typography and this new-fangled system of his called TeX.
Skip a quarter century. One day in 2009, I foolishly decided kind of on a whim to rewrite TeX
from scratch (in my copious spare time), as a simple C library, so that its typesetting
algorithms could be put to use in other software such as electronic eBook's with high-quality
math typesetting and interactive pictures. I asked Knuth for advice. He warned me, prepare
yourself, it's going to consume five years of your life. I didn't believe him, so I set off
and tried anyway. As usual, he was right.
I have signed copied of "Fundamental Algorithms" in my library, which I treasure. Knuth
was a fine teacher, and is truly a brilliant and inspiring individual. He taught during the
same period as Vint Cerf, another wonderful teacher with a great sense of humor who is truly
a "father of the internet". One good teacher makes all the difference in life. More than
one is a rare blessing.
I am a biologist, specifically a geneticist. I became interested in LaTeX typesetting
early in my career and have been either called pompous or vilified by people at all levels
for wanting to use. One of my PhD advisors famously told me to forget LaTeX because it was a
thing of the past. I have now forgotten him completely. I still use LaTeX almost every day in
my work even though I don't generally typeset with equations or algorithms. My students
always get trained in using proper typesetting. Unfortunately, the publishing industry has
all but largely given up on TeX. Very few journals in my field accept TeX manuscripts, and
most of them convert to word before feeding text to their publishing software. Whatever
people might argue against TeX, the beauty and elegance of a property typeset document is
unparalleled. Long live LaTeX
A few years ago Severo Ornstein (who, incidentally, did the hardware design for the first
router, in 1969), and his wife Laura, hosted a concert in their home in the hills above Palo
Alto. During a break a friend and I were chatting when a man came over and *asked* if he
could chat with us (a high honor, indeed). His name was Don. After a few minutes I grew
suspicious and asked "What's your last name?" Friendly, modest, brilliant; a nice addition to
our little chat.
When I was a physics undergraduate (at Trinity in Hartford), I was hired to re-write
professor's papers into TeX. Seeing the beauty of TeX, I wrote a program that re-wrote my lab
reports (including graphs!) into TeX. My lab instructors were amazed! How did I do it? I
never told them. But I just recognized that Knuth was a genius and rode his coat-tails, as I
have continued to do for the last 30 years!
A famous quote from Knuth: "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it
correct, not tried it." Anyone who has ever programmed a computer will feel the truth of this
in their bones.
"... I see this in young people all around, 25-35 year old's saddled with $50-100k in debt defining every action and option they have (or don't!). Not everyone gets themselves into this bind, people make poor decisions, but our higher educational institutions readily promote without ample warning and education and the result is what's rumored to be a $1 Trillion student loan debt bubble. This isn't sustainable ..."
"... Educational institutions should not be seen as a profit making enterprise, education should be attainable to all without the fear of untenable costs. ..."
A very scholarly and educational read, well researched and documented. It is very in-depth,
perhaps not for the light hearted but I learned quite a bit about education philosophies
world-wide, their origins, how that effects current thoughts and practices, etc. And how the
United States higher educational institutions have gotten to where they are today, money
printing machines with unsustainable growth and costs being pushed onto those just seeking to
potentially better themselves.
I see this in young people all around, 25-35 year old's
saddled with $50-100k in debt defining every action and option they have (or don't!). Not
everyone gets themselves into this bind, people make poor decisions, but our higher
educational institutions readily promote without ample warning and education and the result
is what's rumored to be a $1 Trillion student loan debt bubble. This isn't sustainable
My years in oversea schools took place long ago, I can't testify nor draw direction
comparisons to the situation we face today. But I can say, that with three young kids
approaching college age we remain highly concerned to terrified what the costs and our kids
futures.
Educational institutions should not be seen as a profit making enterprise, education
should be attainable to all without the fear of untenable costs.
"... Neoliberalism's presence in higher education is making matters worse for students and the student debt crisis, not better. ..."
"... Cannan and Shumar (2008) focus their attention on resisting, transforming, and dismantling the neoliberal paradigm in higher education. They ask how can market-based reform serve as the solution to the problem neoliberal practices and policies have engineered? ..."
"... What got us to where we are (escalating tuition costs, declining state monies, and increasing neoliberal influence in higher education) cannot get us out of the SI.4 trillion problem. And yet this metaphor may, in fact, be more apropos than most of us on the right, left, or center are as yet seeing because we mistakenly assume the market we have is the only or best one possible. ..."
"... We only have to realize that the emperor has no clothes and reveal this reality. ..."
"... Indeed, the approach our money-dependent and money-driven legislators and policymakers have employed has been neoliberal in form and function, and it will continue to be so unless we help them to see the light or get out of the way. This book focuses on the $1.4+ trillion student debt crisis in the United States. It doesn't share hard and fast solutions per se. ..."
"... In 2011-2012, 50% of bachelor's degree recipients from for-profit institutions borrowed more than $40,000 and about 28% of associate degree recipients from for-profit institutions borrowed more than $30,000 (College Board, 2015a). ..."
Despite tthe fact that necoliberalism brings poor economic growth, inadequate availability
of jobs and career opportunities, and the concentration of economic and social rewards in the
hands of a privileged upper class resistance to it, espcially at universities, remain weak to
non-existant.
The first sign of high levels of dissatisfaction with neoliberalism was the election of
Trump (who, of course, betrayed all his elections promises, much like Obma before him). As a
result, the legitimation of neoliberalism based on references to the efficient
and effective functioning of the market (ideological legitimation) is
exhausted while wealth redistribution practices (material legitimation) are
not practiced and, in fact, considered unacceptable.
Despite these problems, resistance to neoliberalism remains weak.
Strategics and actions of opposition have been shifted from the sphere of
labor to that of the market creating a situation in which the idea of the
superiority and desirability of the market is shared by dominant and
oppositional groups alike. Even emancipatory movements such as women,
race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation have espoused individualistic,
competition-centered, and meritocratic views typical of ncolibcral dis-
courses. Moreover, corporate forces have colonized spaces and discourses
that have traditionally been employed by oppositional groups and move-
ments. However, as systemic instability' continues and capital accumulation
needs to be achieved, change is necessary. Given the weakness of opposi-
tion, this change is led by corporate forces that will continue to further
their interests but will also attempt to mitigate socio-economic contra-
dictions. The unavailability of ideological mechanisms to legitimize
ncolibcral arrangements will motivate dominant social actors to make
marginal concessions (material legitimation) to subordinate groups. These
changes, however, will not alter the corporate co-optation and distortion of
discourses that historically defined left-leaning opposition. As contradic-
tions continue, however, their unsustainability will represent a real, albeit
difficult, possibility for anti-neoliberal aggregation and substantive change.
Connolly (2016) reported that a poll shows that some graduated student loan borrowers
would willingly go to extremes to pay off outstanding student debt. Those extremes include
experiencing physical pain and suffering and even a reduced lifespan. For instance, 35% of
those polled would take one year off life expectancy and 6.5% would willingly cut off their
pinky finger if it meant ridding themselves of the student loan debt they currently held.
Neoliberalism's presence in higher education is making matters worse for students and
the student debt crisis, not better. In their book Structure and Agency in the
Neoliberal University, Cannan and Shumar (2008) focus their attention on resisting,
transforming, and dismantling the neoliberal paradigm in higher education. They ask how can
market-based reform serve as the solution to the problem neoliberal practices and policies
have engineered?
It is like an individual who loses his keys at night and who decides to look only beneath
the street light. This may be convenient because there is light, but it might not be where
the keys are located. This metaphorical example could relate to the student debt crisis.
What got us to where we are (escalating tuition costs, declining state monies, and
increasing neoliberal influence in higher education) cannot get us out of the SI.4 trillion
problem. And yet this metaphor may, in fact, be more apropos than most of us on the right,
left, or center are as yet seeing because we mistakenly assume the market we have is the only
or best one possible.
As Lucille (this volume) strives to expose, the systemic cause of our problem is "hidden
in plain sight," right there in the street light for all who look carefully enough to see.
We only have to realize that the emperor has no clothes and reveal this reality. If
and when a critical mass of us do, systemic change in our monetary exchange relations can
and, we hope, will become our funnel toward a sustainable and socially, economically, and
ecologically just future where public education and democracy can finally become realities
rather than merely ideals.
Indeed, the approach our money-dependent and money-driven legislators and policymakers
have employed has been neoliberal in form and function, and it will continue to be so unless
we help them to see the light or get out of the way. This book focuses on the $1.4+ trillion
student debt crisis in the United States. It doesn't share hard and fast solutions per
se. Rather, it addresses real questions (and their real consequences). Are collegians
overestimating the economic value of going to college?
What are we, they, and our so-called elected leaders failing or refusing to sec and why?
This critically minded, soul-searching volume shares territory with, yet pushes beyond, that
of Akers and Chingos (2016), Baum (2016), Goldrick-Rab (2016), Graebcr (2011), and Johannscn
(2016) in ways that we trust those critically minded authors -- and others concerned with our
mess of debts, public and private, and unfulfilled human potential -- will find enlightening
and even ground-breaking.
... ... ...
In the meantime, college costs have significantly increased over the past fifty years. The
average cost of tuition and fees (excluding room and board) for public four-year institutions
for a full year has increased from 52,387 (in 2015 dollars) for the 1975-1976 academic year,
to 59,410 for 2015-2016. The tuition for public two-year colleges averaged $1,079 in
1975-1976 (in 2015 dollars) and increased to $3,435 for 2015-2016. At private non-profit
four-year institutions, the average 1975-1976 cost of tuition and fees (excluding room and
board) was $10,088 (in 2015 dollars), which increased to $32,405 for 2015-2016 (College
Board, 2015b).
The purchasing power of Pell Grants has decreased. In fact, the maximum Pell Grants
coverage of public four-year tuition and fees decreased from 83% in 1995-1996 to 61% in
2015-2016. The maximum Pell Grants coverage of private non-profit four-year tuition and fees
decreased from 19% in 1995-1996 to 18% in 2015-2016 (College Board, 2015a).
... ... ....
... In 2013-2014, 61% of bachelor's degree recipients from public and private non-profit
four-year institutions graduated with an average debt of $16,300 per graduate. In
2011-2012, 50% of bachelor's degree recipients from for-profit institutions borrowed more
than $40,000 and about 28% of associate degree recipients from for-profit institutions
borrowed more than $30,000 (College Board, 2015a).
Rising student debt has become a key issue of higher education finance among many
policymakers and researchers. Recently, the government has implemented a series of measures
to address student debt. In 2005, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act
(2005) was passed, which barred the discharge of all student loans through bankruptcy for
most borrowers (Collinge, 2009). This was the final nail in the bankruptcy coffin, which had
begun in 1976 with a five-year ban on student loan debt (SLD) bankruptcy and was extended to
seven years in 1990. Then in 1998, it became a permanent ban for all who could not clear a
relatively high bar of undue hardship (Best 6c Best, 2014).
By 2006, Sallie Mae had become the nation's largest private student loan lender, reporting
loan holdings of $123 billion. Its fee income collected from defaulted loans grew from $280
million in 2000 to $920 million in 2005 (Collinge, 2009). In 2007, in response to growing
student default rates, the College Cost Reduction Act was passed to provide loan forgiveness
for student loan borrowers who work full-time in a public service job. The Federal Direct
Loan will be forgiven after 120 payments were made. This Act also provided other benefits for
students to pay for their postsecondary education, such as lowering interest rates of GSL,
increasing the maximum amount of Pell Grant (though, as noted above, not sufficiently to meet
rising tuition rates), as well as reducing guarantor collection fees (Collinge, 2009).
In 2008, the Higher Education Opportunity Act (2008) was passed to increase transparency
and accountability. This Act required institutions that are participating in federal
financial aid programs to post a college price calculator on their websites in order to
provide better college cost information for students and families (U.S. Department of
Education |U.S. DoE|, 2015a). Due to the recession of 2008, the American Opportunity Tax
Credit of 2009 (AOTC) was passed to expand the Hope Tax Credit program, in which the amount
of tax credit increased to 100% for the first $2,000 of qualified educational expenses and
was reduced to 25% of the second $2,000 in college expenses. The total credit cap increased
from $1,500 to $2,500 per student. As a result, the federal spending on education tax
benefits had a large increase since then (Crandall-Hollick, 2014), benefits that, again, are
reaped only by those who file income taxes.
Creation of docility is what neoliberal education is about. Too specialized slots, as if people can't learn something new. Look
at requirements for the jobs at monster or elsewhere: they are so specific that only people with previous exactly same job expertise
can apply. Especially oputragious are requernets posted by requetng firm. There is something really Orvallian in them. That puts people
into medieval "slots" from which it is difficult to escape.
I saw recently the following requirements for a sysadmin job: "Working knowledge of: Perl, JavaScript, PowerShell, BASH Script,
XML, NodeJS, Python, Git, Cloud Technologies: ( AWS, Azure, GCP), Microsoft Active Directory, LDAP, SQL Server, Structured Query
Language (SQL), HTML, Windows OS, RedHat(Linux), SaltStack, Some experience in Application Quality Testing."
When I see such job posting i think that this is just a covert for H1B hire: there is no such person on the planet
who has "working knowledge" of all those (mostly pretty complex) technologies. It is clearly designed to block potential
candidates from applying.
Neoliberalism looks like a cancer for the society... Unable to provide meaningful employment for people. Or at least look surprisingly close to one. Malignant growth.
Add one -- a BIG ONE–to your list: The utter destruction of the K-12 classroom learning environment: students spend the vast
majority of their time trying to surreptitiously–or blatantly–use their cellphones in class; and if not actually using them, they
are preoccupied with the thought of using them. It has been going on for almost a decade now, and we will start to see the results
in that we will have a population where nobody can do anything that requires focus; it will be as if the entire upcoming population
of college students has ADHD.
Well Lee, you have a clue; but fail the really big picture regarding the abject failure of western education (which is a misnomer).
John Taylor Gatto's book, The Underground History of American Education, lays out the sad fact of "western education"; which has
nothing to do with education; but rather, an indoctrination for inclusion in society as a passive participant.
Docility is paramount in members of U.S. society so as to maintain the status quo; working according to plan, near as I can tell
File system Administration (VERTIAS File system/ VERITAS Cluster FS/ext3/ext4)
Troubleshooting the OS performance related issues
Providing the production support, maintenance, administration & Implementation
Upgrading the System/HBA ´s firmware
Nice To Have
Oracle Virtualization Manager (LDOM)/L2 Linux Administration Skills
Administration of Solaris Zones/Containers
EMC power path software Administration
Administering the VERITAS Cluster
AIX Server Administration
Knowledge / work experience in IBM PowerHA / HMC / LPAR and VIOs
Mandatory Functional Skills
IT-IS Linux Administrator with Puppet Skillset
Veritas Volume Manager, Veritas Cluster
Solaris Administration (L2/L3), Solaris Zones/Containers
AIX Administration with PowerHA knowledge
Total Experience Required
5 to 7 Plus years of experience in Linux Administration with indepth knowledge in Puppet
Unix Midrange Engineer at ACE Insured, Whitehouse Station, NJPosition Summary: rd level support of Chubb's UNIX,
storage, and backup and recovery systems.
As long as RICO statute is not applied to big banks that current situation will continue.
And under neoliberalism it will be never be applied. Universities will continue helping big banks to recruit
new talent. Like in poor neibophood gang leaders recruit street fighter.
Notable quotes:
"... The students not only continue to flock to the amorality skills courses, but also put themselves into mega-debt by student loans to turn themselves not just imaginatively and ethically over to the corporate idolatries, but also to do another double whammy on themselves. ..."
People don't "meekly allow these crimes," Neo. Americans hugely endorse them.
The students not only continue to flock to the amorality skills courses, but also put
themselves into mega-debt by student loans to turn themselves not just imaginatively and
ethically over to the corporate idolatries, but also to do another double whammy on
themselves. They accept the servitude of massive student loan debt, and ensure by
prolonged interest payments on that debt to keep bloating all the most cynically immoral of
high finance.
And then all the other departments of corporate academe have seen how smoothly work the
most rank of corporate habits to ensure most mediocrity for most rank careerisms -- and all
have only increased departmentalism protocols over recent years. Tenure now means nothing
more than max award for most-narrowed specialist minds and for all most-max conformists in
all those niched fields.
Nuthin' "meek" about all this, Neo. The corporate disease, the cubicle culture, the
deference to plutocracy, the reduced literacy, the tracking to numbers -- all has been only
steroided since Citizens United quite flagrantly legally underlined what most genteel in corporate ed have been doing for
years.
willymack > kyushuphil • 6 years ago
Well said, and sadly, TRUE.
zonmoy > kyushuphil • 6 years ago
and how have students been pushed into those programs and the problems pushed on them by the corporate crooks that own
everything including our government.
Sexual harassment in academic contexts
Sexual harassment of women in academic settings is regrettably common and pervasive, and its
consequences are grave. At the same time, it is a remarkably difficult problem to solve. The
"me-too" movement has shed welcome light on specific individual offenders and has generated
more awareness of some aspects of the problem of sexual harassment and misconduct. But we have
not yet come to a public awareness of the changes needed to create a genuinely inclusive and
non-harassing environment for women across the spectrum of mistreatment that has been
documented. The most common institutional response following an incident is to create a program
of training and reporting, with a public commitment to investigating complaints and enforcing
university or institutional policies rigorously and transparently. These efforts are often well
intentioned, but by themselves they are insufficient. They do not address the underlying
institutional and cultural features that make sexual harassment so prevalent.
The problem of sexual harassment in institutional contexts is a difficult one because it
derives from multiple features of the organization. The ambient culture of the organization is
often an important facilitator of harassing behavior -- often enough a patriarchal culture that
is deferential to the status of higher-powered individuals at the expense of lower-powered
targets. There is the fact that executive leadership in many institutions continues to be
predominantly male, who bring with them a set of gendered assumptions that they often fail to
recognize. The hierarchical nature of the power relations of an academic institution is
conducive to mistreatment of many kinds, including sexual harassment. Bosses to administrative
assistants, research directors to post-docs, thesis advisors to PhD candidates -- these unequal
relations of power create a conducive environment for sexual harassment in many varieties. In
each case the superior actor has enormous power and influence over the career prospects and
work lives of the women over whom they exercise power. And then there are the habits of
behavior that individuals bring to the workplace and the learning environment -- sometimes
habits of masculine entitlement, sometimes disdainful attitudes towards female scholars or
scientists, sometimes an underlying willingness to bully others that finds expression in an
academic environment. (A recent issue of the Journal of Social Issues ( link ) devotes
substantial research to the topic of toxic leadership in the tech sector and the "masculinity
contest culture" that this group of researchers finds to be a root cause of the toxicity this
sector displays for women professionals. Research by Jennifer Berdahl, Peter Glick, Natalya
Alonso, and more than a dozen other scholars provides in-depth analysis of this common feature
of work environments.)
The scope and urgency of the problem of sexual harassment in academic contexts is documented
in excellent and expert detail in a recent study report by the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine (
link ). This report deserves prominent discussion at every university.
The study documents the frequency of sexual harassment in academic and scientific research
contexts, and the data are sobering. Here are the results of two indicative studies at Penn
State University System and the University of Texas System:
The Penn State survey indicates that 43.4% of undergraduates, 58.9% of graduate students,
and 72.8% of medical students have experienced gender harassment, while 5.1% of undergraduates,
6.0% of graduate students, and 5.7% of medical students report having experienced unwanted
sexual attention and sexual coercion. These are staggering results, both in terms of the
absolute number of students who were affected and the negative effects that these experiences
had on their ability to fulfill their educational potential. The University of Texas study
shows a similar pattern, but also permits us to see meaningful differences across fields of
study. Engineering and medicine provide significantly more harmful environments for female
students than non-STEM and science disciplines. The authors make a particularly worrisome
observation about medicine in this context:
The interviews conducted by RTI International revealed that unique settings such as medical
residencies were described as breeding grounds for abusive behavior by superiors. Respondents
expressed that this was largely because at this stage of the medical career, expectation of
this behavior was widely accepted. The expectations of abusive, grueling conditions in
training settings caused several respondents to view sexual harassment as a part of the
continuum of what they were expected to endure. (63-64)
The report also does an excellent job of defining the scope of sexual harassment.
Media discussion of sexual harassment and misconduct focuses primarily on egregious acts of
sexual coercion. However, the authors of the NAS study note that experts currently encompass
sexual coercion, unwanted sexual attention, and gender harassment under this category of
harmful interpersonal behavior. The largest sub-category is gender harassment:
"a broad range of verbal and nonverbal behaviors not aimed at sexual cooperation but that
convey insulting, hostile, and degrading attitudes about" members of one gender ( Fitzgerald,
Gelfand, and Drasgow 1995 , 430). (25)
The "iceberg" diagram (p. 32) captures the range of behaviors encompassed by the
concept of sexual harassment. (See Leskinen, Cortina, and Kabat 2011 for
extensive discussion of the varieties of sexual harassment and the harms associated with gender
harassment.)
The report emphasizes organizational features as a root cause of a harassment-friendly
environment.
By far, the greatest predictors of the occurrence of sexual harassment are organizational.
Individual-level factors (e.g., sexist attitudes, beliefs that rationalize or justify
harassment, etc.) that might make someone decide to harass a work colleague, student, or peer
are surely important. However, a person that has proclivities for sexual harassment will have
those behaviors greatly inhibited when exposed to role models who behave in a professional
way as compared with role models who behave in a harassing way, or when in an environment
that does not support harassing behaviors and/or has strong consequences for these behaviors.
Thus, this section considers some of the organizational and environmental variables that
increase the risk of sexual harassment perpetration. (46)
Some of the organizational factors that they refer to include the extreme gender
imbalance that exists in many professional work environments, the perceived absence of
organizational sanctions for harassing behavior, work environments where sexist views and
sexually harassing behavior are modeled, and power differentials (47-49). The authors make the
point that gender harassment is chiefly aimed at indicating disrespect towards the target
rather than sexual exploitation. This has an important implication for institutional change. An
institution that creates a strong core set of values emphasizing civility and respect is less
conducive to gender harassment. They summarize this analysis in the statement of findings as
well:
Organizational climate is, by far, the greatest predictor of the occurrence of sexual
harassment, and ameliorating it can prevent people from sexually harassing others. A
person more likely to engage in harassing behaviors is significantly less likely to do so in
an environment that does not support harassing behaviors and/or has strong, clear,
transparent consequences for these behaviors. (50)
So what can a university or research institution do to reduce and eliminate the
likelihood of sexual harassment for women within the institution? Several remedies seem fairly
obvious, though difficult.
Establish a pervasive expectation of civility and respect in the workplace and the
learning environment
Diffuse the concentrations of power that give potential harassers the opportunity to
harass women within their domains
Ensure that the institution honors its values by refusing the "star culture" common in
universities that makes high-prestige university members untouchable
Be vigilant and transparent about the processes of investigation and adjudication through
which complaints are considered
Create effective processes that ensure that complainants do not suffer retaliation
Consider candidates' receptivity to the values of a respectful, civil, and non-harassing
environment during the hiring and appointment process (including research directors,
department and program chairs, and other positions of authority)
Address the gender imbalance that may exist in leadership circles
As the authors put the point in the final chapter of the report:
Preventing and effectively addressing sexual harassment of women in colleges and
universities is a significant challenge, but we are optimistic that academic institutions can
meet that challenge--if they demonstrate the will to do so. This is because the research
shows what will work to prevent sexual harassment and why it will work. A systemwide change
to the culture and climate in our nation's colleges and universities can stop the pattern of
harassing behavior from impacting the next generation of women entering science, engineering,
and medicine. (169)
"... They are from the social sciences like Political Science or International Relations which are empty of real content. ..."
"... They throw in sometimes some "game theory" to give that an aura of "science", but most of it is BS. ..."
"... Tucker Carlson is the only media individual left that is brave enough to state the truth. So by implication the United States has zero democracy when it comes to our foreign policy. ..."
Being on the affected side as a historian please let me add, that the students' majority studies microhistory, family, company,
or even family members' personal events that is, which adds very little to our understanding of the world. It is overly and openly
supported currently in most universities for a number of reasons.
This is why obviously ideologically biased works about major correspondences such as Piketty's or Niall Ferguson's, not to
mention that young Israeli guy (Yair??) has so much effect. Because basically they are the only ones, or at least the ones with
the chance to publish, who take the great effort of choosing the harder way and making the necessary research. There are too few
willing to take the harder path.
Scientification, or should I say natural scientification of social sciences also does not help, because it promotes the 'publish
or perish' principle. But social sciences aren't like natural sciences, where X hours in a laboratory or experimenting yields
surely X or X/2 publications.
And on the top of that Marxist thinkers and intelligentsia, cast away from all meaningful positions to universities in the
50's and 60's fearing a communist influence have completely overtaken the higher education in the Western Hemisphere. In the Eastern
European countries they managed to keep their positions.
To sum it up while most of your criticism is valid, international relations e.g. has its merit, but are taught mostly by neoliberals
and Marxists, with the known results.
They are from the social sciences like Political Science or International Relations which are empty of real content.
Fully concur. They throw in sometimes some "game theory" to give that an aura of "science", but most of it is BS.
If, just
in case, I am misconstrued as fighting humanities field--I am not fighting it. Literature, language, history are essential for
a truly cultured human. When I speak about "humanities" I personally mean namely Political "Science".
Sir, I stand corrected on the humanities into govt assertion. I do tend to get humanities and social sciences jumbled in my numbers/cost/benefit
based thinking. I am open to people telling me how to do tasks that they have more experience performing and that I might need
to know about. And I have curiosities about people's experiences and perspectives on how the world of men works, but I'm not so
concerned about the world of men that I lose my integrity or soul or generally get sucked into their reality over my own. Of course
that's just me. Someone like Trump seeks approval and high rank amongst men. So, yes, I guess he is susceptible; though I still
think somewhat less than others. This is evident in how he refuses to follow the conventions and expectations of what a president
should look and act like. He is a defiant sort. I like that about him. Of course needing to be defiant is still a need and therefore
a chink in his armor.
I agree with you and I believe their influence has deepen over the two years. The only pro neocon policy he ran on was regime
change in Iran. Terrible idea no doubt. The vote was either potential regime change in Iran or a dangerous escalation with Russia
in Syria. I voted for more time. He seemed to have some sense on Syria and Russia at the time. Of course Clinton was promising
Apocalypse Now. You've stated the Neocon's have insinuated themselves into both parties. R2P and such. They basically control
the foreign policy of both parties due to control by donors, organizational control of DNC, RNC, the moronic narrative, think
tanks, media, probably security services, etc.
Tucker Carlson is the only media individual left that is brave enough to state
the truth. So by implication the United States has zero democracy when it comes to our foreign policy. As far as I can tell the
United States policy toward Russia continues toward escalation. Two current examples being the absurd Mueller "investigation"
into collusion and the Ukraine provocation in the Sea of Azov. Are we heading into the last war?
Engineer here, "worked" on myself and not even by very skilled people. Manipulative people are hard to counteract, if you're not
manipulative yourself the thought process is not intuitive. If you spend most of your life solving problems, you think its everyone's
goal. As I've gotten older I've only solidified my impression that as far as working and living outside of school, the best "education"
to have would be history. Preferably far enough back or away to limit any cultural biases. I'm not sure that college classes would
fill the gap though.
I'll pitch in with a suggestion for those who are for whatever reason not fond of reading: An old history education series called
The Western Tradition. Eugene Weber. A shrewd old guy who was interested in motivations which drove our history and culture. Will
get your kids solid A's in history if nothing else, if you can get them hooked on it. Insightful narrative as opposed to dry facts
helps retention. There are much worse starting points.
Moreover, the most of books which I believe constitute a canon of sorts are mentioned and points made in them brought to bear.
Leviathan, The Prince, Erasmus, how they affected general thought, which makes the viewer want to read them.
Re-reading TE Lawrence at the moment. What to watch a "pro" work? Scary good, he was.
To this day, my favorite college course was "The Century of Darwin" taught by Dr. Brown in the history department of RPI in 1973.
Dr. Brown was a bespectacled, white haired little man who looked like everyone's idea of a history professor. The course examined
the history of scientific discovery, evolving and competing religious and scientific ideas leading up to the general acceptance
of Darwin's works. It was a history of everything course, an intellectually exhilarating experience. I still have the textbooks.
I heartedly recommend those books.
"Darwin's Century" by Loren Eiseley came out in 1958 and was reprinted in 2009 with a new forward
by Stephan Bertman. "The Death of Adam" by John Green first came out in 1960 and was reprinted in 1981. "Genesis and Geology"
by Charles C. Gillespie came out in 1951. My paperback edition was published in 1973 and cost $2.45 new.
Colonel - Boswell's life of Johnson. A giant of a man seen through the eyes of a clever and observant pygmy. And they both know
it.
That makes it an odd book, that interplay between the two. It's also the ultimate in tourism. One is dumped in the middle of
eighteenth century London and very soon it becomes a second home.
For a long time that's all I got out of the book. Johnson himself emerges only slowly. A true intellectual giant with a flawless
acuity of perception, an elephantine memory, and the gift of turning out the perfect exposition, whether a long argument or one
of his famous pithy comments, is the starting point only.
As a person he can easily be read as a slovenly bully, at one time even as an unapologetic hired gun turning out the propaganda
of the day. He was subject to long fits of depression alternating with periods of great industry. As he got older the industry
fell away and he spent much of his time in the coffee house. It was there, often, that Boswell gathered up the materials - a fragment
here, a disquisition there - that allow us to see through to Johnson's outlook.
It was an outlook, or one could call it a philosophy of life, that could not be more needed at this time of frantic and one
sided ideological war.
It was no tidily worked-up outlook. Intensely patriotic yet ever conscious of the failings of his country. Honorable yet accepting
that he lived at a time of great corruption. Loyal yet always yearning after an older dispensation. Robust common sense but fully
recognizing the Transcendent. Narrowly prejudiced yet open to other cultures, recognizing their equal validity and worth while
remaining rooted in his own.
It's an outlook that today would be despised by many because, as far as I can tell, he had no ideology, no millenarian solution
into which all problems can be jammed. Merely a broad and humane normality and a recognition that, ultimately, each pilgrim must
find his own way.
Studying history is very important for your formation as a personality...
Notable quotes:
"... He evidently learned about balance sheets at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania and wishes to apply the principle of the bottom line to everything. I will guess that he resisted taking elective courses in the Humanities as much as he could believing them to be useless. That is unfortunate since such courses tend to provide context for present day decisions. ..."
"... I have known several very rich businessmen of similar type who sent their children to business school with exactly that instruction with regard to literature, history, philosophy, etc. From an espionage case officer's perspective he is an easy mark. If you are regular contact with him all that is needed to recruit him is to convince him that you believe in the "genius" manifested in his mighty ego and swaggering bluster and then slowly feed him what you want him to "know." ..."
"... The number of folks who will pay the price for this are legion in comparison. His accomplices and "advisers" as you intone, will be deemed worthy of a Nuremburg of sorts when viewed in posterity. "Character must under grid talent or talent will cave in." His gut stove pipes him as a leader. I love and respect my dog. He follows his gut, because that is his end-state. It's honest. I will mourn the passing of one and and already rue the day the other was born. ..."
"... He survived as a New York City Boss. He has the same problem as Ronald Reagan. He believes the con. In reality, since the restoration of classical economics, sovereign states are secondary to corporate plutocrats. Yes, he is saluted. He has his finger on the red button. But, he is told what they want them to hear. There are no realists within a 1000 yards of him. The one sure thing is there will be a future disaster be it climate change, economic collapse or a world war. He is not prepared for it. ..."
"... There are other forces that are effective in addition to plutocrats and they are mostly bad. ..."
"... Falling under the sway of those who know the price of everything, but the value of nothing is an unenviable estate. The concentrated wisdom discoverable through a clear-eyed study of the humanities can serve as a corrective, and if one is lucky, as a prophylaxis against thinking of this type. ..."
"... A lot of people come out of humanities programs and into govt with all kinds of dopey notions; like R2P, globalism, open borders, etc. ..."
"... He is in thrall to the Israelis, their allies, the neocons, political donors and the popular media. An easy mark for skilled operators. ..."
"... Engineer here, "worked" on myself and not even by very skilled people. Manipulative people are hard to counteract, if you're not manipulative yourself the thought process is not intuitive. If you spend most of your life solving problems, you think its everyone's goal. As I've gotten older I've only solidified my impression that as far as working and living outside of school, the best "education" to have would be history. Preferably far enough back or away to limit any cultural biases. I'm not sure that college classes would fill the gap though. ..."
"... Read widely. start with something encyclopedic like Will and Ariel Durant's "The Story of Civilization." ..."
"... How about William H. McNeill's Rise of the West. ..."
"... Unlike your brother a good recruiting case officer would never ignore you except maybe at the beginning as a tease. That also works with women that you want personally. ..."
Yes. Trump says that is how he "rolls." The indicators that this is true are everywhere. He does not believe what the "swampies"
tell him. He listens to the State Department, the CIA, DoD, etc. and then acts on ill informed instinct and information provided
by; lobbies, political donors, foreign embassies, and his personal impressions of people who have every reason to want to deceive
him. As I wrote earlier he sees the world through an entrepreneurial hustler's lens.
He crudely assigns absolute dollar values to
policy outcomes and actions which rarely have little to do with the actual world even if they might have related opposed to the arena
of contract negotiations.
He evidently learned about balance sheets at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania
and wishes to apply the principle of the bottom line to everything. I will guess that he resisted taking elective courses in the
Humanities as much as he could believing them to be useless. That is unfortunate since such courses tend to provide context for present
day decisions.
I have known several very rich businessmen of similar type who sent their children to business school with exactly
that instruction with regard to literature, history, philosophy, etc. From an espionage case officer's perspective he is an easy
mark. If you are regular contact with him all that is needed to recruit him is to convince him that you believe in the "genius" manifested
in his mighty ego and swaggering bluster and then slowly feed him what you want him to "know."
That does not mean that he has been
recruited by someone or something but the vulnerability is evident. IMO the mistake he has made in surrounding himself with neocons
and other special pleaders, people like Pompeo and Bolton is evidence that he is very controllable by the clever and subtle. pl
I have an aged wire haired Jack Russel Terrier. He is well past his time. He is almost blind, and is surely deaf. In his earlier
days he was a force of nature. He still is now, but only in the context of food. He is still obsessed with it at every turn. Food
is now his reality and he will not be sidetracked or otherwise distracted by any other stimuli beyond relieving himself when and
where he sees fit. He lives by his gut feeling and damn everything else. There is no reason, no other calculus for him. Trump's
trusting his "gut" is just about as simplistic and equally myopic. My dog is not a tragedy, he shoulders no burden for others
and when he gets to the point of soiling himself or is in pain, he will be held in my arms and wept over for the gift he has been
when the needle pierces his hide. Trump, well, he is a tragedy. He does shoulder a responsibility to millions and millions and
for those to follow after he is long dead and gone. His willful ignorance in the face of reason and science reminds me of the
lieutenant colonel of 2/7 Cav. you spoke of at LZ Buttons.
The number of folks who will pay the price for this are legion in comparison.
His accomplices and "advisers" as you intone, will be deemed worthy of a Nuremburg of sorts when viewed in posterity. "Character
must under grid talent or talent will cave in." His gut stove pipes him as a leader. I love and respect my dog. He follows his
gut, because that is his end-state. It's honest. I will mourn the passing of one and and already rue the day the other was born.
Just after I looked at this post I went to Twitter and this came up. I don't know how long it's been since Jeremy Young was in
grad school but a 35% decline drop in History dissertations is shocking even if it's over a span of 3-4 decades.
View
Hide
Yes. It's either STEM or Social Sciences these days and that is almost as bad as Journalism or Communications Arts. Most media
people are Journalism dummies.
He survived as a New York City Boss. He has the same problem as Ronald Reagan. He believes the con. In reality, since the restoration
of classical economics, sovereign states are secondary to corporate plutocrats. Yes, he is saluted. He has his finger on the red
button. But, he is told what they want them to hear. There are no realists within a 1000 yards of him. The one sure thing is there
will be a future disaster be it climate change, economic collapse or a world war. He is not prepared for it.
Falling under the sway of those who know the price of everything, but the value of nothing is an unenviable estate. The concentrated
wisdom discoverable through a clear-eyed study of the humanities can serve as a corrective, and if one is lucky, as a prophylaxis
against thinking of this type.
I am commending study of the humanities as historically understood, not the "humanities" of
contemporary academia, which is little better than atheistic materialism of the Marxist variety, out of which any place for the
genuinely spiritual has been systematically extirpated in favor of the imposition of some sort of sentimentalism as an ersatz
substitute.
My response to flattery, even if subtle, is, "Yeah? Gee thanks. Now please just tell me what you're really after". I'd think any
experienced man should have arrived at the same reaction at least by the time he's 35. Ditto trusting anyone in an atmosphere
where power and money are there for the taking by the ambitious and clever. As for a balance sheet approach, IMO, there is a real
need for that kind of thinking in govt. Perhaps a happy mix of it + a humanities based perspective.
A lot of people come out of
humanities programs and into govt with all kinds of dopey notions; like R2P, globalism, open borders, etc.
That is what the smart guys all say before really skilled people work on them. Eventually they ask you to tell them what is real.
The Humanities thing stung? I remember the engineer students mocking me at VMI over this.
They are from the social sciences like Political Science or International Relations which are empty of real content.
Fully concur. They throw in sometimes some "game theory" to give that an aura of "science", but most of it is BS. If, just
in case, I am misconstrued as fighting humanities field--I am not fighting it. Literature, language, history are essential for
a truly cultured human. When I speak about "humanities" I personally mean namely Political "Science".
As I wrote earlier the Issue in those Courses is they are actually pure and concentrated Fields...... Political Science, International
Relations are ambigious enough that a candidate can appeal to many Sectors and it is accepted, expected they will be competent....
Whether that be Governance/Diplomacy, Business, Travel etc...
Thus if you have no Idea what you want - those Fields are good to study, learning relatively little.....
If you know what you want - you have a Path.... You can study more concentrated Fields, but you damn well have to hope there
is a Job at the end of the Rainbow (Known at least a couple People who studied only to be told almost immediately - you will not
find Jobs domestically)
Sir, I stand corrected on the humanities into govt assertion. I do tend to get humanities and social sciences jumbled in my numbers/cost/benefit
based thinking. I am open to people telling me how to do tasks that they have more experience performing and that I might need
to know about. And I have curiosities about people's experiences and perspectives on how the world of men works, but I'm not so
concerned about the world of men that I lose my integrity or soul or generally get sucked into their reality over my own. Of course
that's just me. Someone like Trump seeks approval and high rank amongst men. So, yes, I guess he is susceptible; though I still
think somewhat less than others. This is evident in how he refuses to follow the conventions and expectations of what a president
should look and act like. He is a defiant sort. I like that about him. Of course needing to be defiant is still a need and therefore
a chink in his armor.
Engineer here, "worked" on myself and not even by very skilled people. Manipulative people are hard to counteract, if you're
not manipulative yourself the thought process is not intuitive. If you spend most of your life solving problems, you think its
everyone's goal. As I've gotten older I've only solidified my impression that as far as working and living outside of school,
the best "education" to have would be history. Preferably far enough back or away to limit any cultural biases. I'm not sure that
college classes would fill the gap though.
Any advice to help the "marks" out there?
I started developing my BS filter when I recognized that when my older brother was being nice, he wanted something. His normal
approach was to ignore me.
Unlike your brother a good recruiting case officer would never ignore you except maybe at the beginning as a tease. That also
works with women that you want personally.
"... Student loans. Now there's a naked fleecing scam by the moneychangers. High interest, zero risk, no forgiveness. A great racket if you can get it, like Medical Insurance, profiteering guaranteed by Obamacare. ..."
Wonder the same about bankruptcy. IIRC, think the moneychangers' bankruptcy "reform" under
the Bush II regime turned it into a virtual debtors' prison, excluding several kinds of debt
from discharge, including student loans.
Student loans. Now there's a naked fleecing scam by the moneychangers. High interest,
zero risk, no forgiveness. A great racket if you can get it, like Medical Insurance,
profiteering guaranteed by Obamacare.
Hudson perceives things that should be but aren't obvious -- about money, power, and
freedom. The love of money may be the root of all evil, but it's ultimately a weapon wielded
in an insatiable lust for power, absolute, utterly corrupt power, the ownership and
enslavement of others. Inequality is not a flaw of rigged-market cannibalism; it's a feature,
a feature those at the top of the food chain have no intention of "fixing". The US empire,
imo, is the nadir of this evil, a kleptocracy dependent on perpetual mass-murder. The paradox
is, they may be more enslaved to their narcotic than anyone.
"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose." Janis Joplin
"Emmanuel Goldstein is a fictional character in George Orwell's dystopian novel
Nineteen Eighty-Four. He is the principal enemy of the state according to the Party of the
totalitarian Oceania. He is depicted as the head of a mysterious (and possibly fictitious)
dissident organization called "The Brotherhood" and as having written the book The Theory and
Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism. He is only seen and heard on telescreen, and he may be a
fabrication of the Ministry of Truth, the State's propaganda department." (from
Wikipedia)
Yet Orwell wrote the following words in The Road to Wigan Pier :
"there is the horrible -- the really disquieting -- prevalence of cranks wherever
Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words
'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker,
nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist, and feminist in
England."
And:
"The ordinary man may not flinch from a dictatorship of the proletariat, if you offer it
tactfully; offer him a dictatorship of the prigs, and he gets ready to fight."
In the first of these excerpts, we see a perfect delineation of today's "Cultural
Marxism," and in the second, a perfect explanation of the support for Donald Trump. The
"deplorables" are those who resent and fight the dictatorship of the prigs. I'm somewhat
surprised that no one has written a history of the rise and advance of political correctness
in American public life and entitled it "The Dictatorship of the Prigs." I hope someone
does.
Brave New World has had a funny way of growing more interesting with age. Lenina
Crowne, the vacuous Future Woman, has leaped out of the pages of Huxley's novel and into our
real lives. Just give Lenina some tattoos and piercings, dye her hair an unnatural color and
put a smart phone on her fashionable Malthusian belt, and she would fit right into our world.
I think the author a little unfair to Huxley when he criticises him for no sense of social
"Class". The issue here is that class, in BNW, has been hard wired into each grouping (ie
deltas etc). Genetic engineering has predetermined all class AND individual desires &
interests. The sophistications of language, mind control etc in Orwell are thus unnecessary
& superseded.
The distinction between the inner party, outer party and proles does seem to be absolutely
crucial to Orwell (at least in 1984) and is often neglected by people debating Orwell vs
Huxley. Still, I tend to agree with those dissidents who have observed that there really is
no inner party. It is outer party buffoons all the way up.
George Orwell also beat his coolies "in moments of rage" as he put it in his autobiography.
He had first-hand experience as a repressive British colonial police officer in Burma,
1922-1927. He knew the autocratic mindset well, because he had lived it.
" Trump is the only non-establishment candidate to get elected President since Andrew Jackson
and therefore almost the exact opposite of the idea of top-down tyranny"
That was good for a laugh. What's the difference between governed from the top by liberal
slime career opportunist and governed from the top by the moron womanizer opportunist
comparable to the governor played by Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles? The difference is top
down slime versus top down idiocy.
There is a misapprehension at the core of this article; Huxley wrote from a liberal
'anything goes' perspective of morality, comparable to today's 'it's all about me' MTV
generation. A deeper understanding of Huxley's profound distaste and preoccupation with this
is afforded in his novel 'Point, Counter Point.' Orwell, on the other hand, aptly projects a
future social conservatism that is better compared to the extremes of a cloistered and
tightly policed ultra religious right.
It's not a matter of who was more 'right.' They are describing separate trajectories of
human social phenomena we see playing out today. The two were peering down different avenues
into the future.
But, despite this, this debate exists not only on the Dissident Right but further
afield. Believe it or not, even Left-wingers and Liberals debate this question, as if they
too are under the heel of the oppressor's jackboot.
Some left-wingers are. Think of poor Julian Assange!
'All of a sudden, as many commentators have pointed out, there were almost daily
echoes of Orwell in the news The most obvious connection to Orwell was the new
president's repeated insistence that even his most pointless and transparent lies were in
fact true, and then his adviser Kellyanne Conway's explanation that these statements were
not really falsehoods but, rather, "alternative facts."'
The counter to this is that Trump is the only non-establishment candidate to get elected
President since Andrew Jackson and therefore almost the exact opposite of the idea of
top-down tyranny.
Exactly. In 1984, 'Big Brother' actually controlled the media; Trump clearly doesn't, so
he is not Big Brother. He is Emmanuel Goldstein: a leader of the resistance but alas,
probably not real.
Oh dear no, big mistake -- it's Two Minutes Hate, not three as stated here. Orwell is
superior by far, since he was serious and more humane in his understanding of the effects of
totalitarianism on human psychology. But as a Morrissey song puts it, "I know you love one
person, so why can't you love two?"
@George F.
Held Goldstein isn't Orwell's hero. There is nothing in the book to show that Goldstein
even exists. All he could be is a propaganda construct (as I believe ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al
Baghdadi is in real life). And Goldstein's Jewishness, apart from his name, is non-existent.
When I read 1984 for the first time (in 1986, as it happens), I didn't realise that he was
even meant to be a Jew.
Lots of Jews are against the racist apartheid colonial settler zionazi pseudostate in
Occupied Palestine and its financial backers in New York, but we wouldn't want to disturb you
with facts, would we now.
Orwell, who finished his 1984 shortly after the liquidation of Palestine in 1947,
[1st printing was 1950], never saw the Elephant (Zionist Elephant). No one is perfect.
Orwell, who during WW II, was an employee for Churchill's Government, and labored in
Churchill's Propaganda Department (different official title), loyally reflected (most of)
that propaganda.
Few visionaries in 1947, understood or opposed the imperialist Oligarchs (financial
banking power), who supported the establishment of a so-called Jewish Nation – in
someone else's Nation. (The Balfour Declaration was issued during WW I and the liquidation of
one of the Peoples of the Middle East was in the planning stages). The Palestinians became
the – final victims of World War II.
The Palestinian General Strike (for independence) of 1936 , followed by an
insurrection was brutally suppressed by King George (the British Empire Oligarchs – who
had long (at least since 1815), become the Minions of the Zionist Bankers.
After WW II, Orwell, chose to ignore the crimes against the Palestinians, and possibly, to
get his books published/circulated. Who controls Hollywood-and the Mainstream Media?
For this anarchist, Orwell remains a visionary, a courageous soldier who served in
army of the POUM (Partido Obrero Unida Marxista -Trotskyist), and was wounded while defending
the same Spanish Republic as Durruti's Anarchists. Orwell's wife served as a Nurse in
Spain.
Recommend Orwell's fine book, His HISTORY, " Homage to Catalonia ."
Orwell had courage.
We American Citizen Patriots must display the same courage – as we Restore Our
Republic.
@Justsaying
" In fact, control by proxy seems to have generated a two-tiered control phenomenon where the
leaders are the puppets of puppeteers of a Zionist entity. "
Indeed my idea: Morgenthau Wilson, Baruch FDR, Bilderberg conferences, Soros Brussels,
Merkel, with whom exactly I do know, but it does not matter, Macron Rothschild, Tony Blair
Murdoch.
The catholic countries resist: Poland, Hungary, etc., maybe S Germany and Austria in this
respect also can be seen as catholic.
Trump, put your money where your mouth is, Soros, the Koch brothers, they did, but money
seeems to have failed in the last USA elections.
Must have been a shock, Solsjenytsyn writes that each jewish community in tsarist Russia
always had money for bribes.
@Durruti
Palestine and the Balfour declaration was a bit more complicated, the British saw an
opportunity to keep France, that had Syria and Lebanon, away from Egypt.
Mandate of course was just a fig leaf for colonialism.
@Ronald Thomas
West " What's the difference between governed from the top "
Possibly what is the theory of prof Laslo Maracs, UVA univrsity Amsterdam, that eight years
Obama have driven China and Russia so together that Khazakstan now is the economic centre of
the world, and that the present USA president understand this.
Khazakstan has the land port for trains to and from St Petersburg Peking.
Four days travel.
Do not hope this railway will have the same effect as the Berlin Bagdad: WWI.
@Fiendly
Neighbourhood Terrorist This isn't a top-ten contest. The reality we find ourselves in
seems to consist largely of billion-shades-of-grey continuums, not black-and-white absolutes.
Full-frontal assault (Orwell's state brutality) generally stimulates defensive action.
Tangential, obtuse assault (Huxley's anaesthetising hedonia) doesn't alert the defensive
posture, the immune response. Tipping points, inflection points, exist, but stealthy wolves
in sheeps' clothing, are more effective. The Venus fly trap, the carrion flower, convince
prey to approach trustingly. Brave New World's disguised depredation – the
nanny/welfare state, etc. – paves the way for Orwell's naked totalitarianism. It's the
friendly inmate offering the scared, lonely new prisoner a Snicker's bar and a smoke.
Why limit Orwell to "1984"? His "Animal Farm" is a great work, too. Although much shorter, it
captured the essence of all totalitarian societies even better. "All animals are equal, but
some animals are more equal than others" expresses the "democratic" rule of the 1% better
than anything.
Sail-Dog's favorite movie, Idiocracy is pretty good prescient too; especially the part about
president Camacho, who, by the way, and rather incredibly, most of you voted for two years
ago.
@Fiendly
Neighbourhood Terrorist Consider these excerpts:
1.All the rest had by that time been exposed as traitors and counter-revolutionaries.
Goldstein had fled and was hiding no one knew where, and of the others, a few had simply
disappeared, while the majority had been executed after spectacular public trials at which
they made confession of their crimes. Among the last survivors were three men named Jones,
Aaronson, and Rutherford. It must have been in 1965 that these three had been arrested.
2. 'It is called wine,' said O'Brien with a faint smile. 'You will have read about it in
books, no doubt. Not much of it gets to the Outer Party, I am afraid.' His face grew solemn
again, and he raised his glass: 'I think it is fitting that we should begin by drinking a
health. To our Leader: To Emmanuel Goldstein.'
Winston took up his glass with a certain eagerness. Wine was a thing he had read and dreamed
about. . . . The truth was that after years of gin-drinking he could barely taste it. He set
down the empty glass.
'Then there is such a person as Goldstein?' he said.
'Yes, there is such a person, and he is alive. Where, I do not know.'
'And the conspiracy -- the organization? Is it real? It is not simply an invention of the
Thought Police?'
'No, it is real. The Brotherhood, we call it. You will never learn much more about the
Brotherhood than that it exists and that you belong to it. I will come back to that
presently.'
Whether Goldstein exists is an issue raised in the novel itself, but that he (obviously
Jewish like another member of the Brotherhood, Aaronson) is presented sympathetically as a
libertarian enemy of the oppressive government is certain. Orwell's novel presents Jews
sympathetically as liberators of themselves and others.
And that presentation is historically false: Jews throughout history are the oppressors, not
the oppressed.
It is interesting to note that today's voice activated computer interfaces (Alexa, etc.) are
equivalent to Orwell's "telescreens" that monitor all activity within a household. Add to
that, the present push to implement "chipping"–the implantation of microchips into
humans, ostensibly for "convenience" and identification that cannot be lost–the "mark
of the beast" in biblical parlance.
The sad part is that much of the population is openly embracing these technologies instead of
being wary (and aware) that these are monitoring technologies which will lead to no good.
@Che Guava
The woman truck driver was the protagonist's love object and inspired what little plot
exists. He was supposed to save her, or so he thought. Everything else was window-dressing
(albeit quite imaginative), possibly the product of his growing insanity
"One of the frequent comparisons that comes up in the Dissident Right is who was more
correct or prescient, Orwell or Huxley".
This is the first lie by this author trying to co-opt both these writers for his agenda.
Orwell was an anti-imperialist and thats evident if you read 'Down and out in Paris or
London' or the 'Road to Wigan Pier'.
Burgess' politics and views can readily be known by reading 'Clockwork Orange' or 'The brave
New World'.
The world today is topsy turvy and what was the left then is now the right but both were anti
fascists.
If the comment posted is wrong , it's because the first paragraph was blatantly misleading
and stopped me from going any further.
One thing that most people in America leave out of consideration is the reality and power of
secret societies. Recently Freemasonry celebrated its 300th anniversary with a big bash in
England. In Europe, the Catholics are aware of its power and effectiveness. Democracy is a
total illusion anyway; oligarchs always rule.
Another good one was Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. It also has Alexa-type screens that allow the
viewer to participate, feel like a "star" and acquire instant fame. Firemen start fires
instead of putting them out. Books (good books anyway) cause people to discover and share
another more meaningful world. Ergo, old books must be rooted out and destroyed. The war on
whiteness and patriarchy in today's parlance.
Nineteen Eighty-Four should be required reading in high schools. One of the most
creative and prophetic novels of all time. EN LEAVES, etc. But because of its socio-political
themes, BNW became part of high school canon. In contrast, 1984 maybe Orwell's greatest work.
It's like Anthony Burgess often said A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is the least of his works, but it's
his most famous novel because it was made into a classic movie and dealt with relevant social
themes of crime and psychology.
Still, even though 1984 has stuff about control of the populace through drugs and
pornography, the vision of BNW is closer to our world in this sense. We live in a world of
plenty than scarcity. So, whereas vice is allowed by the state in 1984 as an outlet for a
bored and tired public, vice is at the center of life in BNW. The world of 1984 allows some
kind of vice but is nevertheless essentially a puritanical, spartan, and moralistic state.
Also, vice, even if legal and state-sanctioned, is to be enjoyed behind closed doors. In
contrast, the world of BNW has vice of sex and drugs all over the place. Indeed, it is so
pervasive that it's not even regarded as vice but the New Virtue. And in this, our world is
like BNW. Gambling was once a vice but now a virtue. We are told it is fun, it offers
reparations to Indians, and creates jobs. And Las Vegas is like Disneyland for the entire
family. Disney Corp has turned into a Brothel, but it's still promoted as Family
Entertainment. Trashy celebs who indulge in hedonism and market excessive behavior are held
up as role models. Whether it's Hillary with Miley Cyrus or Trump with Kanye, it seems Vice
is the new Virtue. (I finally heard a Kanye album on youtube, and it began with a song along
the lines of 'suck my dic*'.)
Orwell was insightful about the power of language, but he thought that the totalitarian
state would simplify language to create conformity of mind. Such as 'doubleplusgood'. It
would be increasingly anti-intellectual and anti-poetic. But the PC manipulation of language
works the other way. It keeps on creating fancy, pseudo-intellectual, or faux-sophisticated
terms for what is total rot. So many people are fooled because they go to college and are fed
fancy jargon as substitute for thought.
Btw, as the 84 in 1984 was the reverse of 48, the year in which the book was written, many
literary critics have said the book was not about the future but the present, esp. Stalinist
Russia(though some elements were taken from Nazi Germany and even UK). As such, it was a
testament and a warning than a prophecy. Besides, Orwell had pretty much laid out the logic
of totalitarianism in ANIMAL FARM. Perhaps, the most distressing thing about 1984 is that the
hero embodies the very logic that led to the Repressive System in the first place. When asked
if he would commit any act of terror and violence to destroy the System, Winston Smith
answers yes. It's an indication that the System was long ago created by people just like him,
idealists who felt they were so right that they could do ANYTHING to create a just order. But
the result was totalitarianism.
One area where the current order is like 1984. The hysterical screaming mobs and their
endless minutes of hate. It's like Rule by PMS.
@AnneOne thing that most people in America leave out of consideration is the reality and power
of secret societies.
One reason why BNW and 1984 fail as future-visions is they assume that the West will
remain white. Both are about white tyranny, white systems, white everything. So, the tyranny
is ideological, systemic, philosophical, and etc. It's about the rulers and the ruled. It's
about systems and its minions. Same with A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. As ugly as its future vision is,
at least UK is still white in the novel and movie. But look at London today. It's turning
Third World. And white droogs and gangs are getting their ass whupped by black thugs.
Something happened in the West after WWII. Jews gained supreme power and eventually aided
homos to be their main allies. And Negroes gained supreme status as idols of song, sports,
and sex. This has complicated matters. The group-personalities of Jews and whites are
different. Jews are more aware and anxious; whites are more earnest and trusting. There is a
huge difference between Chinese elites manipulating Chinese masses AND Jewish elites
manipulating non-Jewish masses. Chinese elites think in terms of power. Jewish elites think
in terms of power over the Other. There is bound to be far less trust in the latter case,
therefore more need to twist logic in so many ways.
As for Negroes, their attitudes are very different from that of whites. In some ways, blacks
are the single most destructive force against order and civilization. Look at Detroit and
Baltimore. Haiti and Africa. And yet, the rulers of the Current Order elevate blackness as
the holiest icon of spiritual magic and coolest idol of mass thrills. This lead to the
madonna-ization of white women. Whore-ship as worship. It leads to cucky-wuckeriness among
white men. But if whites submit to blackness, their civilization will fall.
But because Jewish power needs to suppress white pride and power with 'white guilt'(over what
was done to Negro slaves) and white thrill(for blacks in sports, song, and dance), it
promotes blackness. So, on the one hand, Jewish Power is invested in maintaining the Order in
which they have so much. But in order for Jews to remain on top, whites must be instilled
with guilt and robbed of pride. And blackness is the most potent weapon in this. But in
promoting blackness, the West will be junglized. The future of France looks dire with all
those blacks coming to kick white male butt and hump white women. And when it all falls
apart, Jews will lose out too, at least in Europe. US might be spared from total black
destruction with brown-ization. Browns may not have stellar talent but they not crazy like
the Negroes.
1984 and BNW are about people lording over others. There isn't much in the way of minority
power. But today's world is about Minority Rule, especially that of Jews and Homos. And it's
about minorities of blacks in the West taking the mantle of Manhood and Pride from white guys
who are cucky-wucked.
Now, the thing about BNW is that its vision has been fulfilled yet. While one can argue
that Stalinism pretty much achieved the full extent of Orwellianism, humanity has yet to see
the rise of clones and bio-engineering. So, to fully appreciate Huxley, it might take a 100
to 200 yrs. Maybe women will stop giving birth. Maybe the idea of 'mother' will seem funny.
Maybe future beings will be cloned. And maybe different castes will be produced to do
different jobs. That way, there will be happiness. Today, people are still born naturally,
and each person wants to be 'equal'. But what if certain people are bio-engineered to be
submissive and happy to do menial work?
Also, mass cloning may be the only way a nation like Japan can sustain itself as they are
not breeding anymore.
The world today is topsy turvy and what was the left then is now the right but both were
anti fascists.
Orwell doesn't seem anything at all like the anti-fascists we see today I'd say my
politics hover around where Orwell's were but I get called a Nazi not infrequently.
Truly "war is (now) peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength."
Most forget that the three great rats (snitches) of the 20th century were Eric Blair aka
Orwell (his famous list of Stalinist media simps), Ron Reagan (Commie Hollywoodites) , and
Tim Leary (Weathmen who broke him out of jail). Blair never imagined 99% of the population
would willingly invite a telescreen into their homes, and even pay a monthly fee to be dumbed
down and manipulated. He visualized the screen correctly to be just an advanced means of
propaganda and enslavement. Maybe it is time for an updated version of 1984. Call it 2024.
Big Jew (giant orange bloated comb over head on screen) could replace Big Brother, and say
Spencer UnzSailer could replace the mythical Goldstein. Dershowitz could replace O'Brien and
torment the hapless Winston Anglin and his tatted blowup doll, Julia.
Lesson: It is a Jewish question which we need not bother ourselves about, one way or the
other. Therefore, no rules for or against BDS, no influence from AIPAC, no aid to Israel or
Palestine, etc. etc. In other words, let's learn from our Jewish friends for once, and play a
game of "let's you and him fight."
@Tyrion 2Orwell doesn't seem anything at all like the anti-fascists we see today I'd say my
politics hover around where Orwell's were but I get called a Nazi not infrequently.
Oddly enough, what we have in the West is actually repression by
sacro-ethno-corporatism.
Jews are disproportionately immensely powerful. So, there is an ethnic angle to the
current power.
But if Jews were merely rich and powerful, they could be critiqued and challenged like Wasps
still are. But they are untouchable because of the sacro-element. As the Children of Shoah,
opposition to Jewish Power is 'antisemitic' or 'nazi'.
Also, Globo-Shlomo-Homo Power owes to capitalism, not socialism or communism. Now,
corporate tyranny can't be as total as statist tyranny. Even with all the deplatforming and
etc, the current power can't do to dissidents what Stalin, Mao, and Hitler did. Still,
considering that a handful corporations dominate so much and that so many Americans are
either apathetic or rabid-with-PC, the current tyranny is formidable. After all, one doesn't
need to control EVERYTHING to keep the power. One only needs control of elite institutions,
flow of information, main narratives & icons/idols, and majority support(as US has a
winner-takes-all political system). As all such are concentrated in few institutions and
industries, the elites own pretty much everything.
With their power of media and academia, Jews have persuaded enough whites that it's virtuous
to be anti-white. And with mass-immigration-invasion, the combined votes of white cucks and
non-white hordes tip the majority toward the Globo-Shlomo-Homo Party. Unless there is total
collapse, this system can go on for a long long time.
Also, corporate power pretty much determines state power since most politicians are whores
of donors. And most people who serve in the Deep State were raised from cradle to idolize
certain figures and symbols as sacrosanct. As toadies and servants of the Power, they've
absorbed these lessons uncritically, and they are afraid to raise their kids with truly
critical mindset because asking Big Questions will derail their chance of entering the
corridors of privilege. Those in the Deep State bureaucracies are not necessarily corrupt.
They may be hardworking and committed to their service to the state, but they are essentially
flunkies since they never questioned the central shibboleths that govern today's PC. I don't
think people like James Comey are corrupt in the conventional sense. They probably sincerely
believe they are committed to the proper functioning of the state. But lacking in imagination
and audacity to question beyond the Dominant Narrative and Dogma, they can only be lackeys no
matter how smart or credentialed they are.
US and Israel are both essentially fascist states, but the differences is Israel is an
organic-fascist state whereas the US is an gangster-fascist state. If not for Israel's
Occupation of West Bank and bad behavior to its neighbors, its form of fascist-democratic
nationalism would be sound. It is a majority Jewish nation where the Jewish elites have an
organic bond with the majority of the people. Also, Jews have a ancestral and spiritual bond
with the territory, the Holy Land. Also, there is a balance of capitalism and socialism, and
the main theme is the preservation and defense of the homeland for Jews. So,
identity/inheritance is served by ideology, not the other way around. As such, Israel is a
pretty good model for other nations(though it could treat Palestinians somewhat better; but
then, Arabs IN Israel have it pretty good.) Israel need not be a gangster-fascist state
because there is natural, historical, and cultural bond between the rulers and the ruled.
But in the US, there is no such bond between the Jewish elites and the masses of goyim.
That being the case, it is most unnatural for the US to be Jewish-dominated. It's one thing
for Jews to be successful and disproportionately represented in US institutions and
industries due to higher IQ and achievement. But the idea of the Jewish elites serving as the
Dominant Ruling Elites in a nation where they are only 2% is ridiculous. It's like Turkey has
successful minority communities of Greeks, Armenians, and some Jews, but clearly the Turks
are in control. But in the US, Jews have the top power, and furthermore, Jews want to keep
the power and make all Americans suck up to Jewish power. But this can only work via
gangster-fascism since there is no organic bond between Jews and non-Jews. If Jewish elites
in Israel think and act in terms of "What can we do to empower all of us Jews as one united
people?", Jewish elites in the think in terms of "What can we do to bribe, browbeat,
threaten, silence, blacklist, and/or brainwash the goy masses to make them do our bidding?"
One if borne of love and trust, the other of contempt and fear.
Whatever problems exist in Israel, I'm guessing there is genuine love between Jewish elites
and Jewish masses. But there is a lot of hatred, fear, and anxiety among Jewish elites when
it comes to the goyim. The result is outrageous policy like hoodwinking white Christian
soldiers to smash 'terrorist muzzie' nations and then bringing over Muslims and embracing
them as 'refugees' against 'white supremacist bigots'.
Another problem with globo-shlomo-homo(and-afro) world order is that it's leading to
Mono-everything. It's leading to mono-financial rule by Wall Street. As Wall Street is so
dominant, it is effectively taking over all financial markets. And as the US military is so
dominant, the world is ending up with Mono-Militarism. The US continues to encircle China,
Russia, and Iran. And it's leading to Mono-Manhood. Prior to mass-migration-invasion, Europe
was all white. So, even though white men tend to lose to blacks in world competition, every
white nation had its white local-national hero. Its manhood was defined and represented by
its own men. The world had poly-manhood, or plurality of manhood. Even if white men lost to
blacks in world competition, they were the dominant men in their own nations. But with
Negroes entering every white nation, the result is Mono-Manhood(that of the Negro) in every
white nation. This is now spreading to Japan as well, as Japanese women now travel around the
world to fill up their wombs with black babies. And of there is Mono-Media. The world
communicates through English, but most English media are dominated by Jews. European nations
may censor American Media, but it's never the mainstream media. It's always alternative
media, and these censorship is done at the pressure of globalist Jewish groups. Jewish
globalists pressure Europe to allow ONLY mainstream US media while banning much of
alternative media that dares speak truth to power about Jewish power and race-ism(aka race
realism).
Why does the one have to be 'superior' to the other as they both make a lot of sense?
Why not a combination of both?
How about a society that controls people with a velvet glove by allowing for and promoting
every Brave New Worldish (often fatuous) personal pleasure while simultaneously, should a
person get out of line from the state's dictates, maintaining in the background the iron fist
of a full blown Orwellian police state?
The present society, though not there yet, is not that far away from that now.
Regarding 1984 I've always thought the Michael Radford film version starring
Richard Burton, John Hurt, and the luscious Suzanna Hamilton, filmed in an around London from
April – June, 1984, the exact time and setting of Orwell's novel, to have been
outstanding.
9/23/1975 Tom Charles Huston Church Committee Testimony
Tom Charles Huston testified before the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental
Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, commonly known as the Church Committee,
on the 43-page plan he presented to the President Nixon and others on ways to collect
information about anti-war and "radical" groups, including burglary, electronic surveillance,
and opening of mail.
In my estimation, That Hideous Strength, the final novel of the science fiction trilogy of C.
S. Lewis, is the best and most prescient dystopian novel written – largely because it
is so much more than just a dystopian novel. It combines great characters, imaginative
fantasy from modern to medieval, and is a truly creepy horror story as well – with a
hilarious happy ending which illustrates God's very own sense of humor.
"... Huxley's main insight, namely that control can be maintained more effectively through "entertainment, distraction, and superficial pleasure rather than through overt modes of policing and strict control over food supplies" is not actually absent in 1984 . ..."
"... In fact, exactly these kind of methods are used to control the Proles, on whom pornography is pushed and prostitution allowed. In fact porn is such an important means of social control that the IngSoc authorities even have a pornography section called "PornSec," which mass produces porn for the Proles. ..."
"... One of the LOL moments in Michael Radford's film version is when Mr. Charrington, the agent of the thought police who poses as a kindly pawnbroker to rent a room to Winston and Julia for their sexual trysts, informs them on their arrest that their surveillance film will be 'repurposed' as porn. ..."
"... But while 1984 includes almost everything that Brave New World contains in terms of controlling people through sex, drugs, and distractions, it also includes much, much more, especially regarding how censorship and language are used to control people and how tyranny is internalised. The chapter from which the above quote comes, shows how Winston, a formerly autonomous agent, has come to accept the power of the system so much that he no longer needs policing. ..."
"... But most brilliant of all is Orwell's prescient description of how language is changed through banning certain words and the expression of certain ideas or observations deemed "thought crime," to say nothing of the constant rewriting of history. The activities of Big Tech and their deplatforming of all who use words, phrases, and ideas not in the latest edition of their "Newspeak" dictionary, have radically changed the way that people communicate and what they talk about in a comparatively short period of time. ..."
"... Orwell's insights into how language can be manipulated into a tool of control shows his much deeper understanding of human psychology than that evident in Huxley's novel. The same can be said about Orwell's treatment of emotions, which is another aspect of his novel that rings particularly true today. ..."
"... Colin Liddell is one of the founders of the Alt-Right, which he now disavows, and currently blogs at Affirmative Right . He recently published a book "Interviews and Obituaries," available on Amazon . ..."
One of the frequent comparisons that comes up in the Dissident Right is who was more correct
or prescient, Orwell or Huxley.
In fact, as the only truly oppressed intellectual group, the Dissident Right are the only
ones in a position to offer a valid opinion on this, as no other group of intellectuals suffers
deplatforming, doxxing, and dismissal from jobs as much as we do. In the present day, it is
only the Dissident Right that exists in the 'tyrannical space' explored in those two dystopian
classics.
But, despite this, this debate exists not only on the Dissident Right but further afield.
Believe it or not, even Left-wingers and Liberals debate this question, as if they too are
under the heel of the oppressor's jackboot. In fact, they feel so oppressed that some of them
are even driven to discuss it in the pages of the New York Times at the despotically
high rate of pay which that no doubt involves.
In both the Left and the Dissident Right, the consensus is that Huxley is far superior to
Orwell, although, according to the New York Times article just alluded to, Orwell has
caught up a lot since the election of Donald Trump. Have a look at this laughable, "I'm
literally shaking"
prose from New York Times writer Charles McGrath :
And yet [Huxley's] novel much more accurately evokes the country we live in now,
especially in its depiction of a culture preoccupied with sex and mindless pop entertainment,
than does Orwell's more ominous book, which seems to be imagining someplace like North Korea.
Or it did until Donald Trump was inaugurated.
All of a sudden, as many commentators have pointed out, there were almost daily echoes of
Orwell in the news The most obvious connection to Orwell was the new president's repeated
insistence that even his most pointless and transparent lies were in fact true, and then his
adviser Kellyanne Conway's explanation that these statements were not really falsehoods but,
rather, "alternative facts." As any reader of "1984" knows, this is exactly Big Brother's
standard of truth: The facts are whatever the leader says they are.
those endless wars in "1984," during which the enemy keeps changing -- now Eurasia, now
Eastasia -- no longer seem as far-fetched as they once did, and neither do the book's
organized hate rallies, in which the citizenry works itself into a frenzy against nameless
foreigners.
The counter to this is that Trump is the only non-establishment candidate to get elected
President since Andrew Jackson and therefore almost the exact opposite of the idea of top-down
tyranny.
But to return to the notion that Huxley is superior to Orwell, both on the Left and the
Dissident Right, this is based on a common view that Huxley presents a much more subtle,
nuanced, and sophisticated view of soft tyranny more in keeping with the appearance of our own
age. Here's McGrath summarizing this viewpoint, which could just as easily have come out of the
mouth of an Alt-Righter, Alt-Liter, or Affirmative Righter:
Orwell didn't really have much feel for the future, which to his mind was just another
version of the present. His imagined London is merely a drabber, more joyless version of the
city, still recovering from the Blitz, where he was living in the mid-1940s, just before
beginning the novel. The main technological advancement there is the two-way telescreen,
essentially an electronic peephole.
Huxley, on the other hand, writing almost two decades earlier than Orwell (his former Eton
pupil, as it happened), foresaw a world that included space travel; private helicopters;
genetically engineered test tube babies; enhanced birth control; an immensely popular drug
that appears to combine the best features of Valium and Ecstasy; hormone-laced chewing gum
that seems to work the way Viagra does; a full sensory entertainment system that outdoes
IMAX; and maybe even breast implants. (The book is a little unclear on this point, but in
"Brave New World" the highest compliment you can pay a woman is to call her "pneumatic.")
Huxley was not entirely serious about this. He began "Brave New World" as a parody of H.G.
Wells, whose writing he detested, and it remained a book that means to be as playful as it is
prophetic. And yet his novel much more accurately evokes the country we live in now,
especially in its depiction of a culture preoccupied with sex and mindless pop entertainment,
than does Orwell's more ominous book, which seems to be imagining someplace like North
Korea.
It is easy to see why some might see Huxley as more relevant to the reality around us than
Orwell, because basically "Big Brother," in the guise of the Soviet Union, lost the Cold War,
or so it seems.
But while initially convincing, the case for Huxley's superiority can be dismantled.
Most importantly, Huxley's main insight, namely that control can be maintained more
effectively through "entertainment, distraction, and superficial pleasure rather than through
overt modes of policing and strict control over food supplies" is not actually absent in
1984 .
In fact, exactly these kind of methods are used to control the Proles, on whom pornography
is pushed and prostitution allowed. In fact porn is such an important means of social control
that the IngSoc authorities even have a pornography section called "PornSec," which mass
produces porn for the Proles.
One of the LOL moments in Michael Radford's film version is when
Mr. Charrington, the agent of the thought police who poses as a kindly pawnbroker to rent a
room to Winston and Julia for their sexual trysts, informs them on their arrest that their
surveillance film will be 'repurposed' as porn.
In fact, Orwell's view of sex as a means of control is much more dialectical and
sophisticated than Huxley's, as the latter was, as mentioned above, essentially writing a
parody of the naive "free love" notions of H.G.Wells.
While sex is used as a means to weaken the Proles, 'anti-Sex' is used to strengthen the
hive-mind of Party members. Indeed, we see today how the most hysterical elements of the Left
-- and to a certain degree the Dissident Right -- are the most undersexed.
Also addictive substances are not absent from Orwell's dystopian vision. While Brave New
World only has soma, 1984 has Victory Gin, Victory Wine, Victory Beer, Victory
Coffee, and Victory Tobacco -- all highly addictive substances that affect people's moods and
reconcile them to unpleasant realities. Winston himself is something of a cigarette junkie and
gin fiend, as we see in this quote from the final chapter:
The Chestnut Tree was almost empty. A ray of sunlight slanting through a window fell on
dusty table-tops. It was the lonely hour of fifteen. A tinny music trickled from the
telescreens.
Winston sat in his usual corner, gazing into an empty glass. Now and again he glanced up
at a vast face which eyed him from the opposite wall. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the
caption said. Unbidden, a waiter came and filled his glass up with Victory Gin, shaking into
it a few drops from another bottle with a quill through the cork. It was saccharine flavoured
with cloves, the speciality of the cafe
In these days he could never fix his mind on any one subject for more than a few moments
at a time. He picked up his glass and drained it at a gulp.
But while 1984 includes almost everything that Brave New World contains in
terms of controlling people through sex, drugs, and distractions, it also includes much, much
more, especially regarding how censorship and language are used to control people and how
tyranny is internalised. The chapter from which the above quote comes, shows how Winston, a
formerly autonomous agent, has come to accept the power of the system so much that he no longer
needs policing.
But most brilliant of all is Orwell's prescient description of how language is changed
through banning certain words and the expression of certain ideas or observations deemed
"thought crime," to say nothing of the constant rewriting of history. The activities of Big
Tech and their deplatforming of all who use words, phrases, and ideas not in the latest edition
of their "Newspeak" dictionary, have radically changed the way that people communicate and what
they talk about in a comparatively short period of time.
Orwell's insights into how language can be manipulated into a tool of control shows his much
deeper understanding of human psychology than that evident in Huxley's novel. The same can be
said about Orwell's treatment of emotions, which is another aspect of his novel that rings
particularly true today.
In 1984 hate figures, like Emmanuel Goldstein, and fake enemies, like Eastasia and
Eurasia, are used to unite, mobilise, and control certain groups. Orwell was well aware of the
group-psychological dynamics of the tribe projected to the largest scale of a totalitarian
empire. The concept of "three minutes hate" has so much resonance with our own age, where
triggered Twitter-borne hordes of SJWs and others slosh around the news cycle like emotional
zombies, railing against Trump or George Soros.
In Huxley's book, there are different classes but this is not a source of conflict. Indeed
they are so clearly defined -- in fact biologically so -- that there is no conflict between
them, as each class carries out its predetermined role like harmonious orbit of Aristotlean
spheres.
In short, Brave New World sees man as he likes to see himself -- a rational actor,
controlling his world and taking his pleasures. It is essentially the vision of a well-heeled
member of the British upper classes.
Orwell's book, by contrast, sees man as the tribal primitive, forced to live on a scale of
social organisation far beyond his natural capacity, and thereby distorted into a mad and cruel
creature. It is essentially the vision of a not-so-well-heeled member of the British middle
classes in daily contact with the working class. But is all the richer and more profound for
it.
Colin Liddell is one of the founders of the Alt-Right, which he now disavows, and
currently blogs at Affirmative
Right . He recently published a book "Interviews and Obituaries," available on Amazon
.
"... Orwell grew up in a time of increasing scale, Managerialism, and atomization. His thinking narrates the moral discourse shaped by that anti-social environment and its effects (mass wars) but dresses it up in an emancipatory narrative. One is immediately struck by his lack of foresight in predicting how power would operate as the 20th century wore on (Foucault and and Huxley are a lot closer the truth), and his inability to grapple with the essence of power and its moral and conceptual implications as a whole. ..."
"... Orwell proceeds to demand by implication we view the ancestral efforts which secured our position in the present day as illegitimate, since they conformed to emergent anthropological patterns of conflict and conquest instead of categorical laws plucked out of thin air by self-styled 'enlightened' big-brains during the 18th century. ..."
"... Had we actually lived by these 'standards', those of us left would be a marginalized set of tribes pushed to the far north of Europe, regularly getting shafted by whatever Magian civilization moved in. As a matter of fact, that's happening right now as these self-critical ideas have installed themselves within our cultural substrate. ..."
"... But if you have a decline and you have a desire to assert yourself to arrest the decline, and you have to apologize to yourself about even having the idea of assertion to arrest decline, you're not going to get anywhere, are you? ..."
Orwell's intellect is overrated, and his aphorisms have become thought-ending cliches. Look at the string of assumptions in quote
above. Do individuals really 'choose' to 'sink' their consciousness into a greater body? What makes far more sense is that at
the 'core' of I there is a 'we', which is conditioned by prior forms of particularity - religion, ethnicity, language, race, and
culture. This is the basis of a harmonious common good, and a meaningful lifeworld.
Orwell grew up in a time of increasing scale, Managerialism, and atomization. His thinking narrates the moral discourse
shaped by that anti-social environment and its effects (mass wars) but dresses it up in an emancipatory narrative. One is immediately
struck by his lack of foresight in predicting how power would operate as the 20th century wore on (Foucault and and Huxley are
a lot closer the truth), and his inability to grapple with the essence of power and its moral and conceptual implications as a
whole.
In reality, power is a moral imperative, and its acquisition and application the inaugural raison d'être of the state and the
concomitant society. Hence, the cogito subject at the heart of Orwell's evaluative presuppositions is itself a product of prior
systems of power, upstream from personal judgment and value sets.
Orwell proceeds to demand by implication we view the ancestral efforts which secured our position in the present day as
illegitimate, since they conformed to emergent anthropological patterns of conflict and conquest instead of categorical laws plucked
out of thin air by self-styled 'enlightened' big-brains during the 18th century.
Had we actually lived by these 'standards', those of us left would be a marginalized set of tribes pushed to the far north
of Europe, regularly getting shafted by whatever Magian civilization moved in. As a matter of fact, that's happening right now
as these self-critical ideas have installed themselves within our cultural substrate.
These pious set of mere assertions are deployed by the ruling globalist cabal to justify the replacement of Western founding
stocks. Yet they are so ingrained among our senior cohort, when their *own people actually under attack* seek to affirm themselves
without contradiction in *response*, they are viewed as the root menace. But if you have a decline and you have a desire to
assert yourself to arrest the decline, and you have to apologize to yourself about even having the idea of assertion to arrest
decline, you're not going to get anywhere, are you?
Those who feel uncomfortable about this should have worked harder to prevent the erosion of the historic American nation, and
if there is nothing they could have done against the DC Behemoth, abstain from opposing the instinctive response of the cultural
immune system.
I'm not American, but i'm 5th generation in an Anglo-setter nation. The implication here is that i'm an ungrateful you whipper-snapper
who just doesn't grasp the sacrifices and horrors of the 20th century. Exactly when does my generation get the moral cachet
entitling us to input directions into the civilizational compass? Arguments predicated on commitment to a cause haven no inherent
validity. I'm certainly not disparaging or denying here, but you're putting us in a position where our ambit of choice is circumscribed
by the ideology that justified post-War US hegemony (for which people from my community were still dying until very recently
in Afghanistan).
I have long thought that NATO should have been abolished after the fall of the USSR. Go your own way. I am not concerned with
you foreigners in Europe or anywhere else. I am concerned with the state of mind of my own people who should wise up and forget
about Europe except as a trading partner and a tourist destination.
Well, I would love to do that Col., but unfortunately Western civilization as a whole goes the way of Washington, New York,
Brussels, and maybe Paris and Moscow. What happens to weaker power centres without the strong ones? What has happened Tibet,
that's what.
Thinking in terms of elites tied to specific nations is no longer a good model to conceive of politics. Formal institutions
like NATO are an expression of that. We have to address transnational networks of soft power that bind together and enculturate
the ruling class. I have more in common with a Trump voter from flyover country and he with me than either of us with our respective
'national' elites.
An important distinction, thank you for forcing us to consider the difference.
The two are not always easy to distinguish and a 'My country right or wrong' mindset seems to be dangerously on the rise.
I was considering the use of the national flag on homes in the US and UK. It surprised me how common it seemed in the States
and assumed it was a show of Patriotic fervor when I see it in the UK it sends a shiver down my spine as (with the exception
of major international sporting events) I interpret it as extreme Nationalism often associated with racist or Neo-Nazi sympathies.
Conflation of the two seems much the same as that of Anti-Israeli, Anti-Zionist and Anti-Semitic again three very distinct
mindsets.
... Look, mostly this whole patriotism/nationalism word game is just sadly funny. You are a patriot if you think like me. You
are a nationalist if you don't. Patriotism is good, nationalism is bad. If I am a patriot, I am good, if you are a nationalist,
you must be bad.
I think that the wisdom of Humpty Dumpty when speaking to Alice fits here:
"When I use a word..it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is which is to be master -- that's all."
"... Every academic critique of neoliberalism is an unacknowledged memoir. We academics occupy a crucial node in the neoliberal system. Our institutions are foundational to neoliberalism's claim to be a meritocracy, insofar as we are tasked with discerning and certifying the merit that leads to the most powerful and desirable jobs. Yet at the same time, colleges and universities have suffered the fate of all public goods under the neoliberal order. We must therefore "do more with less," cutting costs while meeting ever-greater demands. The academic workforce faces increasing precarity and shrinking wages even as it is called on to teach and assess more students than ever before in human history -- and to demonstrate that we are doing so better than ever, via newly devised regimes of outcome-based assessment. In short, we academics live out the contradictions of neoliberalism every day. ..."
"... Whereas classical liberalism insisted that capitalism had to be allowed free rein within its sphere, under neoliberalism capitalism no longer has a set sphere. We are always "on the clock," always accruing (or squandering) various forms of financial and social capital. ..."
Every academic critique of neoliberalism is an unacknowledged memoir. We academics
occupy a crucial node in the neoliberal system. Our institutions are foundational to
neoliberalism's claim to be a meritocracy, insofar as we are tasked with discerning and
certifying the merit that leads to the most powerful and desirable jobs. Yet at the same time,
colleges and universities have suffered the fate of all public goods under the neoliberal
order. We must therefore "do more with less," cutting costs while meeting ever-greater demands.
The academic workforce faces increasing precarity and shrinking wages even as it is called on
to teach and assess more students than ever before in human history -- and to demonstrate that
we are doing so better than ever, via newly devised regimes of outcome-based assessment. In
short, we academics live out the contradictions of neoliberalism every day.
... ... ...
On a more personal level it reflects my upbringing in the suburbs of Flint, Michigan, a city
that has been utterly devastated by the transition to neoliberalism. As I lived through the
slow-motion disaster of the gradual withdrawal of the auto industry, I often heard Henry Ford s
dictum that a company could make more money if the workers were paid enough to be customers as
well, a principle that the major US automakers were inexplicably abandoning. Hence I find it
[Fordism -- NNB] to be an elegant way of capturing the postwar model's promise of creating
broadly shared prosperity by retooling capitalism to produce a consumer society characterized
by a growing middle class -- and of emphasizing the fact that that promise was ultimately
broken.
By the mid-1970s, the postwar Fordist order had begun to breakdown to varying degrees in the
major Western countries. While many powerful groups advocated a response to the crisis that
would strengthen the welfare state, the agenda that wound up carrying the day was
neoliberalism, which was most forcefully implemented in the United Kingdom by Margaret Thatcher
and in the United States by Ronald Reagan. And although this transformation was begun by the
conservative part)', in both countries the left-of-centcr or (in American usage) "liberal"party
wound up embracing neoliberal tenets under Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, ostensibly for the
purpose of directing them toward progressive ends.
With the context of current debates within the US Democratic Party, this means that Clinton
acolytes are correct to claim that "neoliberalism" just is liberalism but only to the extent
that, in the contemporary United States, the term liberalism is little more than a word for
whatever the policy agenda of the Democratic Party happens to be at any given time. Though
politicians of all stripes at times used libertarian rhetoric to sell their policies, the most
clear-eyed advocates of neoliberalism realized that there could be no simple question of a
"return" to the laissez-faire model.
Rather than simply getting the state "out of the way," they both deployed and transformed
state power, including the institutions of the welfare state, to reshape society in accordance
with market models. In some cases creating markets where none had previously existed, as in the
privatization of education and other public services. In others it took the form of a more
general spread of a competitive market ethos into ever more areas of life -- so that we are
encouraged to think of our reputation as a "brand," for instance, or our social contacts as
fodder for "networking." Whereas classical liberalism insisted that capitalism had to be
allowed free rein within its sphere, under neoliberalism capitalism no longer has a set sphere.
We are always "on the clock," always accruing (or squandering) various forms of financial and
social capital.
By both its supporters and detractors, neoliberalism is usually considered an economic
policy agenda. Neoliberalism's Demons argues that it is much more than that: a complete
worldview, neoliberalism presents the competitive marketplace as the model for true human
flourishing. And it has enjoyed great success: from the struggle for "global competitiveness"
on the world stage down to our individual practices of self-branding and social networking,
neoliberalism has transformed every aspect of our shared social life. The book explores the
sources of neoliberalism's remarkable success and the roots of its current decline.
Neoliberalism's appeal is its promise of freedom in the form of unfettered free choice. But
that freedom is a trap: we have just enough freedom to be accountable for our failings, but not
enough to create genuine change. If we choose rightly, we ratify our own exploitation. And if
we choose wrongly, we are consigned to the outer darkness -- and then demonized as the cause of
social ills. By tracing the political and theological roots of the neoliberal concept of
freedom, Adam Kotsko offers a fresh perspective, one that emphasizes the dynamics of race,
gender, and sexuality. More than that, he accounts for the rise of right-wing populism, arguing
that, far from breaking with the neoliberal model, it actually doubles down on neoliberalism's
most destructive features.
skeptic
This book tried to integrate the results of previous research of neoliberalism by such
scholars as David Harvey, Philip Mirowski, and Wendy Brown into a more coherent framework. He
has some brilliant insights about neoliberalism as secular religion scattered within the
book. For example "I have claimed that the political-theological root of neoliberalism is
freedom and have characterized its vision of freedom as hollow." His theological notion of
"neoliberalism demons" ( the dark forces unleashed by neoliberalism) also represents a very
valuable insight as neoliberalism explicitly violates Christian morality postulates ("greed
is good").
"Liberal democracy under neoliberalism represents a forced choice between two fundamentally
similar options, betraying its promise to provide a mechanism for rational and
self-reflective human agency. The market similarly mobilizes free choice only to subdue and
subvert it, "responsibilizing" every individual for the outcomes of the system while
radically foreclosing any form of collective responsibility for the shape of society. And
any attempt to exercise human judgment and free choice over social institutions and
outcomes is rejected as a step down the slippery' slope to totalitarianism. To choose in
any strong sense is always necessarily to choose wrongly, to fall into sin."
In the introduction, he correctly states that the academic workforce is now
deeply affected by neoliberalization.
Every academic critique of neoliberalism is an unacknowledged memoir. We academics occupy a
crucial node in the neoliberal system. Our institutions are foundational to neoliberalism's
claim to be a meritocracy, insofar as we are tasked with discerning and certifying the
merit that leads to the most powerful and desirable jobs. Yet at the same time, colleges
and universities have suffered the fate of all public goods under the neoliberal order. We
must, therefore "do more with less," cutting costs while meeting ever-greater demands. The
academic workforce faces increasing precarity and shrinking wages even as it is called on
to teach and assess more students than ever before in human history -- and to demonstrate
that we are doing so better than ever, via newly devised regimes of outcome-based
assessment. In short, we academics live out the contradictions of neoliberalism every day.
The author explains his use of the term "theology" instead of "ideology in such a way: "
theology' has always been about much more than God. Even the simplest theological systems
have a lot to say about the world we live in, how it came to be the way it is, and how it
should be. Those ideals are neither true nor false in an empirical sense, nor is it fair to
say that believers accept them blindly. "
He justifies the use of this term in the following way:
Here the term theology is likely to present the primary difficulty, as it seems to
presuppose some reference to God. Familiarity with political theology as it has
conventionally been practiced would reinforce that association. Schmitt's Political
Theology and Kantorowicz's The King's Two Bodies both focused on the parallels between God
and the earthly ruler,3 and much subsequent work in the field has concentrated on the
theological roots of political concepts of state sovereignty'. Hence the reader may justly
ask whether I am claiming that neoliberalism presupposes a concept of God.
The short answer is no. I am not arguing, for example, that neoliberalism "worships" the
invisible hand, the market, money, wealthy entrepreneurs, or any other supposed "false
idol," nor indeed that it is somehow secretly "religious" in the sense of being fanatical
and unreasoning. Such claims presuppose a strong distinction between the religious and the
secular, a distinction that proved foundational for the self-legitimation of the modern
secular order but that has now devolved into a stale cliché. As I will discuss in
the chapters that follow, one of the things that most appeals to me about political
theology as a discipline is the way that it rejects the religious/secular binary.
The author correctly point s out that "Neoliberalism likes to hide", Like Philip Mirowski
he views neoliberalism as a reaction on the USSR socialism which in my view integrates much
of Trotskyism. Replacing the slogan "Proletarians of all countries, unite!", with the slogan
"financial elites of all countries unite."
While most authors consider that neoliberalism became the dominant political force with
the election of Reagan, the author argues that it happened under Nixon: " Nixon's decision in
1971 to go off the gold standard, which broke with the Bretton Woods settlement that had
governed international finance throughout the postwar era and inadvertently cleared the space
for the fluctuating exchange rates that proved so central to the rise of contemporary finance
capitalism. "
He contrasts approaches of Harvey, Mirowski and Brown pointing out that real origin of
neoliberalism and Trotskyism style "thought collective" – intellectual vanguard that
drives everybody else, often using deception to final victory of neoliberalism.
It is this group that Mirowski highlights with his notion of the Neoliberal Thought
Collective. One could walk away from Harvey's account viewing the major figures of
neoliberalism as dispensable figureheads for impersonal political and economic forces. By
contrast, the most compact possible summary of Mirowski s book would be: "It's people!
Neoliberalism is made out of people!" In this reading, there was nothing inevitable about
neoliberalism's rise, which depended on the vision and organization of particular nameable
individuals.
Brown portrays neoliberalism as an attempt to extinguish the political -- here
represented by the liberal democratic tradition of popular sovereignty and self-rule -- and
consign humanity to a purely economic existence. In the end Brown calls us to take up a
strange kind of metapolitical struggle against the economic enemy, in defense of politics
as such. Meanwhile, Jodi Dean, who agrees that neoliberalism has a depoliticizing tendency,
argues that this depoliticization actually depends on the notion of democracy and that
appeals to democracy against neoliberalism arc therefore doomed in advance.9
He also points out neoliberalism tendency to create markets using the power of the
state:
"Obamacare effectively created a market in individual health insurance plans, an area where
the market was previously so dysfunctional as to be essentially nonexistent. The example of
Obamacare also highlights the peculiar nature of neoliberal freedom. One of its most
controversial provisions was a mandate that all Americans must have health insurance
coverage. From a purely libertarian perspective, this is an impermissible infringement on
economic freedom -- surely if i am free to make my own economic decisions, I am also free
to choose not to purchase health insurance. Yet the mandate fits perfectly with the overall
ethos of neoliberalism.
Overall, then, in neoliberalism an account of human nature where economic competition is
the highest value leads to a political theory where the prime duty of the state is to
enable, and indeed mandate, such competition, and the result is a world wherein
individuals, firms, and states are all continually constrained to express themselves via
economic competition. This means that neoliberalism tends to create a world in which
neoliberalism is "true." A more coherent and self-reinforcing political theology can
scarcely be imagined -- but that, I will argue, is precisely what any attempt to create an
alternative to neoliberalism must do.
He points out on weaknesses of Marxist analysts and by Harvey's own "recognition
of the fact that classes have been profoundly changed during the process of
neo-liberalization" -- meaning that the beneficiaries cannot have planned the neoliberal push
in any straightforward way. More than that, an economic-reductionist account ignores the
decisive role of the state in the development of the neoliberal order: "To believe that
'financial markets' one fine day eluded the grasp of politics is nothing but a fairy tale. It
was states, and global economic organizations, in close collusion with private actors, that
fashioned rules conducive to the expansion of market finance."'' In other words,
neoliberalism is an example where, contrary to Marxism, political forces directly transform
economic structures.
He also points out that Polanyi views on the subject supports this thesis:
Polanyi famously characterized the interplay between market forces and society as a "double
movement": when market relations threaten to undermine the basic foundations of social
reproduction, society (most often represented by state institutions) intervenes to prevent
or at least delay the trend set in motion by the market. Compared with Aristotle's
distribution of categories between the political and economic realms, Polanyi's account is
itself a "great transformation" on the conceptual level. Where Aristotle distinguished
state and household and placed both legitimate economic management and unrestrained
accumulation in the latter, Polanyi's "society" combines the household and the state,
leaving only out-of-control acquisition in the purely economic realm. And in this schema,
the society represents the spontaneous and natural, while the economic force of the market
is what is constructed and deliberate.
The legacy of Polanyi should already be familiar to us in the many analyses of
neoliberalism that see the state, nationalism, and other similar forces as extrinsic
"leftovers" that precede or exceed neoliberal logic. Normally such interpretations first
point out the supposed irony or hypocrisy that neoliberalism comes to require these
exogenous elements for its functioning while claiming that those same "leftover"
institutions can be sites of resistance. Hence, for instance, one often hears that the left
needs to restore confidence in state power over against the market, that socialism can only
be viable if a given country isolates itself from the forces of the global market, or in
Wendy Brown's more abstract terms, that the left must reclaim the political to combat the
hegemony of the economic.
He makes an important point that "neoliberalism does not simply destroy some
preexisting entity known as "the family," but creates its own version of the family, one that
fits its political-economic agenda, just as Fordism created the white suburban nuclear family
that underwrote its political-economic goals."
Following Wendy Brown he views victimization of poor as an immanent feature of
neoliberalism:
"The psychic life of neoliberalism, as so memorably characterized by Mark Fisher in
Capitalist Realism, is shot through with anxiety and shame. We have to be in a constant
state of high alert, always "hustling" for opportunities and connections, always planning
for every contingency (including the inherently unpredictable vagaries of health and
longevity). This dynamic of "responsibilization," as Wendy Brown calls it, requires us to
fritter away our life with worry and paperwork and supplication, "pitching"ourselves over
and over again, building our "personal brand" -- all for ever-lowering wages or a
smattering of piece-work, which barely covers increasingly exorbitant rent, much less
student loan payments."
He also points out that under neoliberalism "Under normative neoliberalism "neoclassical
economics becomes a soft constitution for government or 'governance' in its devolved forms"
the point that Philip Mirowski completely misses.
While correctly pointing out that neoliberalism is in decline and its ideology collapsed
after 2008 (" Neoliberalism has lost its aura of inevitability"), it is unclear which forces
will dismantle neoliberalism. And when it will be sent to the dustbin of the history. The
chapter of the book devoted to "After Neoliberalism" theme is much weaker than the chapters
devoted to its analysis.
For example, the author thinks that Trump election signifies a new stage of neoliberalism
which he calls "punitive neoliberalism." I would call Trumpism instead "national
neoliberalism" with all associated historical allusions.
Elegance is one of those things that can be difficult to define. I know it when I see it,
but putting what I see into a terse definition is a challenge. Using the Linux diet
command, Wordnet provides one definition of elegance as, "a quality of neatness and ingenious
simplicity in the solution of a problem (especially in science or mathematics); 'the simplicity
and elegance of his invention.'"
In the context of this book, I think that elegance is a state of beauty and simplicity in
the design and working of both hardware and software. When a design is elegant,
software and hardware work better and are more efficient. The user is aided by simple,
efficient, and understandable tools.
Creating elegance in a technological environment is hard. It is also necessary. Elegant
solutions produce elegant results and are easy to maintain and fix. Elegance does not happen by
accident; you must work for it.
The quality of simplicity is a large part of technical elegance. So large, in fact that it
deserves a chapter of its own, Chapter 18, "Find the Simplicity," but we do not ignore it here.
This chapter discusses what it means for hardware and software to be elegant.
Yes, hardware can be elegant -- even beautiful, pleasing to the eye. Hardware that is well
designed is more reliable as well. Elegant hardware solutions improve reliability'.
I find it both fun and informative to learn about the history' of Unix and Linux. Earlier in
this book, I have referred to two books in particular that I have found helpful in my
understating of Linux and its philosophy'.
Linux and the Unix Philosophy 1 by' Mike Ganearz has been particularly'
interesting in terms of the philosophy'. The second book, The Art of Unix Programming - by'
Eric S. Raymond, provides fascinating insider historical perspective on Unix and Linux
programming and history'. This second book is also available in its entirety' at no charge on
the Internet. 3
I recommend reading both of these books if you have not already. They' provide a historical
and philosophical basis for much of what I have written in this book.
Context is important and this tenet, "Always use shell scripts," should be considered in the
context of our jobs as SysAdmins.
The SysAdmin's job differs significantly from those of developers and testers. In addition
to resolving both hardware and software problems, we manage the day-to-day operation of the
systems under our care. We monitor those systems for potential problems and make all possible
efforts to prevent those problems before they impact our users. We install updates and perform
full release level upgrades to the operating system. We resolve problems caused by our
users.
SysAdmins develop code to do all of those tilings and more; then we test that code; and then
we support that code in a production environment.
Many of us also manage and maintain the networks to which our systems are connected. In
other cases we tell the network guys where the problems are located and how to fix them because
we find and diagnose them first.
We SysAdmins have been devops far longer than that term has been around. In fact, the
SysAdmin job is more like dev-test-ops-net than just devops. Our knowledge and daily task lists
cover all of those areas of expertise.
In this context the requirements for creating shell scripts are complex, interrelated, and
many times contradictory'. Let's look at some of the typical factors SysAdmins must consider
when writing shell scripts.
"... In this book, I provide a somewhat cumbersome definition of neoliberalism and a pithier one, both of which inform the argument running throughout this book. The cumbersome one is as follows: 'the elevation of marked-based principles and techniques of evaluation to the level of state-endorsed norms'. ..."
In this book, I provide a somewhat cumbersome definition of neoliberalism and a pithier
one, both of which inform the argument running throughout this book. The cumbersome one is as
follows: 'the elevation of marked-based principles and techniques of evaluation to the level of
state-endorsed norms'.
What this intends to capture is that, while neoliberal states have extended and liberated
markets in certain areas (for instance, via privatisation and anti-union legislation), the
neoliberal era has been marked just as much by the reform of non-market institutions, so as to
render them market-like or business-like. Consider how competition is deliberately injected
into socialised healthcare systems or universities. Alternatively, how protection of the
environment is pursued by calculating a proxy price for natural public goods, in the
expectation that businesses will then value them appropriately (Fourcade, 2011). It is economic
calculation that spreads into all walks of life under neoliberalism, and not markets as such.
This in turn provides the pithier version: neoliberalism is 'the disenchantment of politics by
economics'.
The crisis of neoliberalism has reversed this ordering. 2008 was an implosion of technical
capabilities on the part of banks and financial regulators, which was largely unaccompanied by
any major political or civic eruption, at least until the consequences were felt in terms of
public sector cuts that accelerated after 2010, especially in Southern Europe. The economic
crisis was spookily isolated from any accompanying political crisis, at least in the beginning.
The eruptions of 2016 therefore represented the long-awaited politicization and publicisation
of a crisis that, until then, had been largely dealt with by the same cadre of experts whose
errors had caused it in the first place.
Faced with these largely unexpected events and the threat of more, politicians and media
pundits have declared that we now need to listen to those people 'left behind by
globalization'. Following the Brexit referendum, in her first speech as Prime Minister, Theresa
May made a vow to the less prosperous members of society, 'we will do everything we can to give
you more control over your lives. When we take the big calls, we'll think not of the powerful,
but you.' This awakening to the demands and voices of marginalized demographics may represent a
new recognition that economic policy cannot be wholly geared around the pursuit of 'national
competitiveness' in the 'global race', a pursuit that in practice meant seeking to prioritise
the interests of financial services and mobile capital. It signals mainstream political
acceptance that inequality cannot keep rising forever. But it is still rooted in a somewhat
economistic vision of politics, as if those people 'left behind by globalisation' simply want
more material wealth and opportunity', plus fewer immigrants competing for jobs. What this
doesn't do is engage with the distinctive political and cultural sociology of events such as
Brexit and Trump, which are fuelled by a spirit of rage, punishment and self-punishment, and
not simply by a desire to get a slightly larger slice of the pie.
This is where, 1 think, we need to pay close attention to a key dimension of neoliberalism,
which 1 focus on at length in this book, namely competition. One of my central arguments here
is that neoliberalism is not simply reducible to 'market fundamentalism', even if there are
areas (such as financial markets) where markets have manifestly attained greater reach and
power since the mid1970s. Instead, the neoliberal state takes the principle of competition and
the ethos of competitiveness (which historically have been found in and around markets), and
seeks to reorganise society around them. Quite how competition and competitiveness are defined
and politically instituted is a matter for historical and theoretical exploration, which is
partly what The Limits of Neoliberalism seeks to do. But at the bare minimum, organising social
relations in terms of 'competition' means that individuals, organisations, cities, regions and
nations are to be tested in terms of their capacity to out-do each other. Not only that, but
the tests must be considered fair in some way, if the resulting inequalities are to be
recognised as legitimate. When applied to individuals, this ideology is often known as
'meritocracy''.
The appeal of this as a political template for society is that, according to its advocates,
it involves the discovery of brilliant ideas, more efficient business models, naturally
talented individuals, new urban visions, successful national strategies, potent entrepreneurs
and so on. Even if this is correct (and the work of Thomas Piketty on how wealth begets wealth
is enough to cast considerable doubt on it) there is a major defect: it consigns the majority
of people, places, businesses and institutions to the status of'losers'. The normative and
existential conventions of a neoliberal society stipulate that success and prowess are things
that are earned through desire, effort and innate ability, so long as social and economic
institutions are designed in such a way as to facilitate this. But the corollary of this is
that failure and weakness are also earned: when individuals and communities fail to succeed,
this is a reflection of inadequate talent or energy on their part.
This has been critically
noted in how 'dependency' and 'welfare' have become matters of shame since the conservative
political ascendency of the 1980s. But this is just one example of how a culture of obligatory
competitiveness exerts a damaging moral psychology, not only in how people look down on others,
but in how they look down on themselves. A culture which valorises 'winning' and
'competitiveness' above all else provides few sources of security or comfort, even to those
doing reasonably well. Everyone could be doing better, and if they're not, they have themselves
to blame. The vision of society as a competitive game also suggests that anyone could very
quickly be doing worse.
Under these neoliberal conditions, remorse becomes directed inwards, producing the
depressive psychological effect (or what Freud termed 'melancholia') whereby people search
inside themselves for the source of their own unhappiness and imperfect lives (Davies, 2015).
Viewed from within the cultural logic of neoliberalism, uncompetitive regions, individuals or
communities are not just 'left behind by globalisation', but are discovered to be inferior in
comparison to their rivals, just like the contestants ejected from a talent show. Rising
household indebtedness compounds this process for those living in financial precarity, by
forcing individuals to pay for their own past errors, illness or sheer bad luck (Davies,
Montgomerie & Wallin, 2015).
In order to understand political upheavals such as Brexit, we need to perform some
sociological interpretation. We need to consider that our socio-economic pathologies do not
simply consist in the fact that opportunity and wealth are hoarded by certain industries (such
as finance) or locales (such as London) or individuals (such as the children of the wealthy),
although all of these things are true. We need also to reflect on the cultural and
psychological implications of how this hoarding has been represented and justified over the
past four decades, namely that it reflects something about the underlying moral worth of
different populations and individuals.
One psychological effect of this is authoritarian attitudes towards social deviance: Brexit
and Trump supporters both have an above-average tendency to support the death penalty, combined
with a belief that political authorities are too weak to enforce justice (Kaufman, 2016).
However, it is also clear that psychological and physical pain have become far more widespread
in neoliberal societies than has been noticed by most people. Statistical studies have shown
how societies such as Britain and the United States have become afflicted by often inexplicable
rising mortality rates amongst the white working class, connected partly to rising suicide
rates, alcohol and drug abuse (Dorling, 2016). The Washington Post identified close geographic
correlations between this trend and support for Donald Trump (Guo, 2016). In sum, a
moral-economic system aimed at identifying and empowering the most competitive people,
institutions and places has become targeted, rationally or otherwise, by the vast number of
people, institutions and places that have suffered not only the pain of defeat but the
punishment of defeat for far too long.
NEOLIBERALISM: DEAD OR ALIVE?
The question inevitably arises, is thus thing called 'neoliberalism' now over? And if not,
when might it be and how would we know? In the UK, the prospect of Brexit combined with the
political priority of reducing immigration means that the efficient movement of capital
(together with that of labour) is being consciously impeded in a way that would have been
unthinkable during the 1990s and early 2000s. 1'he re-emergence of national borders as
obstacles to the flow of goods, finance, services and above all people, represents at least an
interruption in the vision of globalisation that accompanied the heyday of neoliberal policy
making between 1989-2008. If events such as Brexit signal the first step towards greater
national mercantilism and protectionism, then we may be witnessing far more profound
transformations in our model of political economy, the consequences of which could become very
ugly.
Before we reach that point, it is already possible to identify a reorientation of national
economic policy making away from some core tenets of neoliberal doctrine. One of the main case
studies of this book is antitrust law and policy, which has been a preoccupation for neoliberal
intellectuals, reformers and lawyers ever since the 1930s. The rise of the Chicago School view
of competition (which effectively granted far greater legal rights to monopolists, while also
being tougher on cartels) in the American legal establishment from the 1970s onwards, later
repeated in the European Commission, meant that market commitments to neoliberal policy goals
is still less than likely. Free trade areas such as NAETA, policies designed to attract and
please mobile capital, the search for global hegemony surrounding international markets (as
opposed to naked, mercantilist self-interest) may then continue for a few more years. But the
collapse of legitimacy or popularity of these agendas will not be reversed.
Meanwhile, the inability of the Republican Party to defend these policies any longer signals
the ultimate divorce between the political and economic wings of neoliberalism: the
conservative coalition that came into being as Keynesianism declined post-1968, and which got
Ronald Reagan to power, no longer functions in its role of rationalising and de-politicising
economic policy making. If neoliberalism is the 'disenchantment of politics by economics', then
economics is no longer performing its role in rationalising public life. Politics is being
re-enchanted, by images of nationhood, of cultural tradition, of'friends' against enemies, ot
race ana religion, une ot me many political miscalculations mat lea to Brexit was to
under-estimate how many UK citizens would vote for the first time in their lives, enthralled by
the sudden sovereign power that they had been granted in the polling booth, which was entirely
unlike the ritual of representative democracy with a first-past-the-post voting system that
renders most votes irrelevant. The intoxication of popular power and of demagoguery is being
experienced in visceral ways for the first time since 1968, or possibly longer. Wendy Brown
argues that neoliberalism is a 'political rationality'' that was born in direct response to
Fascism during the 1930s and '40s (Brown, 2015). While it would be an exaggeration to say that
the end of neoliberalism represents the re-birth of Fascism, clearly there were a number of
existential dimensions of'the political' that the neoliberals were right to fear, and which we
should now fear once more.
While there is plenty of evidence to suggest that 2016 is a historic turning point indeed as
I've argued here, possibly the second 'book-mark' in the crisis of neoliberalism we need also
to recognise how the seeds of this recent political rupture were sown over time. Indeed, we can
learn a lot about policy paradigms from the way they' go into decline, for they always contain,
tolerate and even celebrate the very activities that later overwhelm or undermine them.
Clearly, the 2008 financial crisis was triggered by activities in the banking sector that were
not fundamentally different from those which had been viewed as laudable for the previous 20
years. Equally, as we witness the return of mercantilism, protectionism, nationalism and
charismatic populism, we need to remember the extent to which neoliberalism accommodated some
of this, up to a point.
The second major case study in this book, in addition to anti-trust policy, is of strategies
for 'national competitiveness'. The executive branch of government has traditionally been
viewed as a problem from the perspective of economic liberalism, seeing as powerful politicians
will instinctively seek to privilege their own territories vis-a-vis others. This is the threat
of mercantilism, which can spin into resolutely anti-liberal policies such as trade tariffs and
the subsidisation of indigenous industries and 'national champions'. These forms of
mercantilism may now be returning, however, the logic of neoliberalism was never quite as
antipathetic to them as orthodox market liberals might have been. Instead, I suggest in Chapter
4, rather than simply seek to thwart or transcend nationalist politics, neoliberalism seizes
and reimagines the nation as one competitive actor amongst many, in a global contest for
'competitiveness', as evaluated by business gurus such as Michael Porter and think tanks such
as the World Economic Eorum. To be sure, these gurus and think tanks have never been anything
but hostile to protectionism; but nevertheless, they have encouraged a form of mild nationalism
as the basis for strategic thinking in economic policy. As David Harvey has argued, 'the
neoliberal state needs nationalism of a certain sort to survive': it draws on aspects of
executive power and nationalist sentiment, in order to steer economic activity towards certain
types of competitive strategies, culture and behaviours and away from others (Harvey, 2005:
85).
There is therefore a deep-lying tension within the politics of neoliberalism between a
'liberal' logic, which seeks to transcend geography, culture and political difference, and a
more contingent, 'violent' logic that seeks to draw on the energies of nationhood and combat,
in the hope of diverting them towards competitive, entrepreneurial production. These two logics
are in conflict with each other, but the story I tell in this book is of how the latter
gradually won out over the long history of neoliberal thought and policy making. Where the
neoliberal intellectuals of the 1930s had a deep commitment to liberal ideals, which they
believed the market could protect, the rise of the post-war Chicago School of economics and the
co-option of neoliberal ideas by business lobbies and conservatives, meant that (what 1 term)
the 'liberal spirit' was gradually lost. There is thus a continuity at work here, in the way
that the crisis of neoliberalism has played out.
Written in 2012-13, the book suggests that neoliberalism has now entered a 'contingent'
state, in which various failures of economic rationality are dealt with through incorporating
an ever broader range of cultural and political resources. The rise of behavioural economics,
for example, represents an attempt to preserve a form of market rationality in the face of
crisis, by incorporating expertise provided by psychologists and neuroscientists. A form of
'neo-communitarianism' emerges, which takes seriously the role of relationships, environmental
conditioning and empathy in the construction of independent, responsible subjects. This remains
an economistic logic, inasmuch as it prepares people to live efficient, productive, competitive
lives. But by bringing culture, community and contingency within the bounds of neoliberal
rationality, one might see things like behavioural economics or 'social neuroscience' and so on
as early symptoms of a genuinely post-liberal politics. Once governments (and publics) no
longer view economics as the best test of optimal policies, then opportunities for post-liberal
experimentation expand rapidly, with unpredictable and potentially frightening consequences. It
was telling that, when the British Home Secretary, Amber Kudd, suggested in October 2016 that
companies be compelled to publicly list their foreign workers, she defended this policy as a
'nudge'.
The Limits of Neoliberalism is a piece of interpretive sociology. It starts from the
recognition that neoliberalism rests on claims to legitimacy, which it is possible to imagine
as valid, even for critics of this system. Inspired by Luc Boltanski, the book assumes that
political-economic systems typically need to offer certain limited forms of hope, excitement
and fairness in order to survive, and cannot operate via domination and exploitation alone. For
similar reasons, we might soon find that we miss some of the normative and political dimensions
of neoliberalism, for example the internationalism that the IiU was founded to promote and the
cosmopolitanism that competitive markets sometimes inculcate. There may be some elements of
neoliberalism that critics and activists need to grasp, refashion and defend, rather than to
simply denounce: this book's Afterword offers some ideas of what this might mean. But if the
book is to be read in a truly post-neoliberal world, 1 hope that in its Interpretive
aspirations, it helps to explain what was internally and normalively coherent about the
political economy known as 'neoliberalism', but also why the system really had no account of
its own preconditions or how to preserve them adequately. The attempt to reduce all of human
life to economic calculation runs up against limits. A political rationality that fails to
recognise politics as a distinctive sphere of human existence was always going to be
dumbfounded, once that sphere took on its own extra-economic life. As Bob Dylan sang to Mr
Jones, so one might now say to neoliberal intellectuals or technocrats: 'something is happening
here, but you don't know what it is'.
... ... ...
Most analyses of neoliberalism have focused on its commitment to 'free markets, deregulation
and trade. I shan't discuss the validity of these portrayals here, although some have
undoubtedly exaggerated the similarities between 'classical' nineteenth-century liberalism and
twentieth-century neoliberalism. The topic addressed here is a different one the character of
neoliberal authority, on what basis does the neoliberal state demand the right to be obeyed, if
not on substantive political grounds? To a large extent, it is on the basis of particular
economic claims and rationalities, constructed and propagated by economic experts. The state
does not necessarily (or at least, not always) cede power to markets, but comes to justify its
decisions, policies and rules in terms that are commensurable with the logic of markets.
Neoliberalism might therefore be defined as the elevation of market-based principles and
techniques of evaluation to the level of state-endorsed norms (Davies, 2013: 37). The authority
of the neoliberal state is heavily dependent on the authority of economics (and economists) to
dictate legitimate courses of action. Understanding that authority and its present crisis
requires us to look at economics, economic policy experts and advisors as critical components
of state institutions.
Since the banking crisis of 2007-09, public denunciations of 'inequality' have increased
markedly. These draw on a diverse range of moral, critical, theoretical, methodological and
empirical resources. Marxist analyses have highlighted growing inequalities as a symptom of
class conflict, which neoliberal policies have greatly exacerbated (Harvey, 2011; Therborn,
2012). Statistical analyses have highlighted correlations between different spheres of
inequality', demonstrating how economic inequality influences social and psychological
wellbeing (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009). Data showing extreme concentrations of wealth have
led political scientists to examine the US political system, as a tool through which inequality
is actively increased (Hacker & Pierson, 2010). Emergent social movements, such as Occupy,
draw a political dividing line between the '99%' and the '1%' who exploit them. Political
leaders and public intellectuals have adopted the language of'fairness' in their efforts to
justify and criticize the various policy interventions which influence the distribution of
economic goods (e.g. Hutton, 2010).
It is important to recognize that these critiques have two quite separate targets, although
the distinction is often blurred. Firstly, there is inequality that exists within reasonably
delineated and separate spheres of society. This means that there are multiple inequalities,
with multiple, potentially incommensurable measures. The inequality that occurs within the
market sphere is separate from the inequality that occurs within the cultural sphere, which is
separate from the inequality' that occurs within the political sphere, and so on. Each sphere
can either unwelcome politically, or impractical (Davies, 2013). Hayek's support for the
welfare state, Simons' commitment to the nationalization of key industries, the ordo-liberal
enthusiasm for the 'social market' demonstrate that the early neoliberals were offering a
justification for what Walzer terms 'monopoly' (separate inequalities in separate spheres) and
not 'dominance' (the power of one sphere over all others).
As the next chapter explores, it was Coasian economics (in tandem with the Chicago School)
that altered this profoundly. The objective perspective of the economist implicitly working for
a university or state regulator would provide the common standard against which activity could
be judged. Of course economics does not replace the price system, indeed economics is very
often entangled with the price system (Callon, 1998; Caliskan, 2010), but the a priori equality
of competitors becomes presumed, as a matter of economic methodology, which stipulates that all
agents are endowed with equal psychological capacities of calculation. It is because this
assumption is maintained when evaluating all institutions and actions that it massively
broadens the terrain of legitimate competition, and opens up vast, new possibilities for
legitimate inequality and legitimate restraint. Walzerian dominance is sanctioned, and not
simply monopoly. The Coasian vision of fair competition rests on an entirely unrealistic
premise, namely that individuals share a common capacity' to calculate and negotiate, rendering
intervention by public authorities typically unnecessary: the social reality of lawyers' fees
is alone enough to undermine this fantasy. Yet in one sense, this is a mode of economic
critique that is imbued with the 'liberal spirit' described earlier. It seeks to evaluate the
efficiency of activities, on the basis of the assumed equal rationality of all, and the
neutrality of the empirical observer.
Like Coase, Schumpeter facilitates a great expansion of the space and time in which the
competitive process takes place. Various 'social' and 'cultural' resources become drawn into
the domain of competition, with the goal being to define the rules that all others must play
by. Monopoly is undoubtedly the goal of competitiveness. But unlike Coase's economics,
Schumpeter's makes no methodological assumption regarding the common rationality' of all
actors. Instead, it makes a romantic assumption regarding the inventive power of some actors
(entrepreneurs), and the restrictive routines of most others. Any objective judgements
regarding valid or invalid actions will be rooted in static methodologies or rules.
Entrepreneurs have no rules, and respect no restraint. They seek no authority or validation for
what they do, but are driven by a pure desire to dominate. In this sense their own immanent
authority comes with a 'violent threat', which is endorsed by the neoliberal state as Chapter 4
discusses.
These theories of competition are not 'ideological' and nor are they secretive. They are not
ideological because they do not seek to disguise how reality is actually constituted or to
distract people from their objective conditions. They have contributed to the construction and
constitution of economic reality, inasmuch as they provide objective and acceptable reports on
what is going on, that succeed in coordinating various actors. Moreover, they are sometimes
performative, not least because of how they inform and format modes of policy, regulation and
governance. Inequality has not arisen by accident or due to the chaos of capitalism or
'globalization'. Theories and methodologies, which validate certain types of dominating and
monopolistic activity, have provided the conventions within which large numbers of academics,
business people and policy makers have operated. They make a shared world possible in the first
place. But nor are any of these theories secret either. They have been published in
peer-reviewed journals, spread via policy papers and universities. Without shared, public
rationalities and methodologies, neoliberalism would have remained a private conspiracy.
Inequality can be denounced by critics of neoliberalism, but it cannot be argued that in an era
that privileges not only market competition but competitiveness in general inequality is not
publicly acceptable.
These theories of competition are not 'ideological' and nor are they secretive. They are not
ideological because they do not seek to disguise how reality is actually constituted or to
distract people from their objective conditions. They have contributed to the construction and
constitution of economic reality, inasmuch as they provide objective and acceptable reports on
what is going on, that succeed in coordinating various actors. Moreover, they are sometimes
performative, not least because of how they inform and format modes of policy, regulation and
governance. Inequality has not arisen by accident or due to the chaos of capitalism or
'globalization'. Theories and methodologies, which validate certain types of dominating and
monopolistic activity, have provided the conventions within which large numbers of academics,
business people and policy makers have operated. They make a shared world possible in the first
place. But nor are any of these theories secret either. They have been published in
peer-reviewed journals, spread via policy papers and universities. Without shared, public
rationalities and methodologies, neoliberalism would have remained a private conspiracy.
Inequality can be denounced by critics of neoliberalism, but it cannot be argued that in an era
that privileges not only market competition but competitiveness in general inequality is not
publicly acceptable.
The contingent neoliberalism that we currently live with is in a literal sense unjustified.
It is propagated without the forms of justification (be they moral or empirical) that either
the early neoliberals or the technical practitioners of neoliberal policy had employed, in
order to produce a reality that 'holds together', as pragmatist sociologists like to say. The
economized social and political reality now only just about 'holds together', because it is
constantly propped up, bailed out, nudged, monitored, adjusted, data-mincd, and altered by
those responsible for rescuing it. It does not survive as a consensual reality: economic
judgements regarding 'what is going on' are no longer 'objective' or 'neutral', to the extent
that they once were. The justice of inequality can no longer be explained with reference to a
competition or to competitiveness, let alone to a market. Thus, power may be exercised along
the very same tramlines that it was during the golden neoliberal years of the 1990s and early
millennium, and the same experts, policies and agencies may continue to speak to the same
public audiences. But the sudden reappearance of those two unruly uneconomic actors, the
Hobbesian sovereign state and the psychological unconscious, suggests that that the project of
disenchanting politics by economics has reached its limit. And yet crisis and critique have
been strategically deferred or accommodated. What resources are there available for this to
change, and to what extent are these distinguishable from neoliberalism's own critical
capacities?
... ... ...
Neoliberalism, as this book has sought to demonstrate, is replete with its own internal
modes of criticism, judgement, measurement and evaluation, which enable actors to reach
agreements about what is going on. These are especially provided by certain traditions of
economics and business strategy, which privilege competitive processes, on the basis that those
processes are uniquely able to preserve an element of uncertainty in social and economic life.
The role of the expert be it in the state, the think tank or university within this programme
is to produce quantitative facts about the current state of competitive reality, such that
actors, firms or whole nations can be judged, compared and ranked. For Hayek and many of the
early neoliberals, markets would do this job instead of expert authorities, with prices the
only facts that were entirely necessary. But increasingly, under the influence of the later
Chicago School and business strategists, the 'winners' and the 'losers' were to be judged
through the evaluations of economics (and associated techniques and measures), rather than of
markets as such. Certain forms of authority are therefore necessary for this game' to be
playable. Economized law is used to test the validity of certain forms of competitive conduct;
audits derived from business strategy are used to test and enthuse the entrepreneurial energies
of rival communities. But the neoliberal programme initially operated such that these forms of
authority could be exercised in a primarily technical sense, without metaphysical appeals to
the common good, individual autonomy or the sovereignty of the state that employed them. As the
previous chapter argued, various crises (primarily, but not exclusively, the 2007-09 financial
crisis) have exposed neoliberalism's tacit dependence on both executive sovereignty and on
certain moral-psychological equipment on the part of individuals. A close reading of neoliberal
texts and policies would have exposed this anyway. In which case, the recent 'discovery' that
neoliberalism depends on and justifies power inequalities, and not markets as such, may be
superficial in nature. Witnessing the exceptional measures that states have taken to rescue the
status quo simply confirms the state-centric nature of neolibcralism, as an anti-political mode
of politics. As Zizek argued in relation to the Wikileaks' exposures of 2011, 'the real
disturbance was at the level of appearances: we can no longer pretend we don't know what
everyone knows we know' (Zizek, 2011b). Most dramatically, neoliberalism now appears naked and
shorn of any pretence to liberalism, that is, it no longer operates with manifest a priori
principles of equivalence, against which all contestants should be judged. Chapter 2 identified
the 'liberal spirit' of neoliberalism with a Rawlsian assumption that contestants are formally
equal before they enter the economic 'game'. Within the Kantian or 'deontological' tradition of
liberalism, this is the critical issue, and it played a part in internal debates within the
early neoliberal movement. For those such as the ordoliberals, who feared the rationalizing
potential of capitalist monopoly, the task was to build an economy around such an a priori
liberal logic. Ensuring some equality of access to the economic game', via the active
regulation of large firms and 'equality of opportunity' for individuals, is how neoliberalism's
liberalism has most commonly been presented politically. As Chapter 3 discussed, the American
tradition of neoliberalism as manifest in Chicago Law and Economics abandoned this sort of
normative liberalism, in favour of a Benthamite utilitarianism, in which efficiency claims
trumped formal arguments. The philosophical and normative elements of neoliberalism have, in
truth, been in decline since the 1950s.
The 'liberal spirit' of neoliberalism was kept faintly alive by the authority that was
bestowed upon methodologies, audits and measures of efficiency analysis. The liberal a priori
just about survived in the purported neutrality of economic method (of various forms), to judge
all contestants equally, even while the empirical results of these judgements have increasingly
benefited alreadydominant competitors. This notion relied on a fundamental epistemological
inconsistency of neoliberalism, between the Hayekian argument that there can be no stable or
objective scientific perspective on economic activity, and the more positivist argument that
economics offers a final and definitive judgement. American neoliberalism broadens the 'arena'
in which competition is understood to take place, beyond definable markets, and beyond the
sphere of the 'economy', enabling cultural, social and political resources to be legitimately
dragged into the economic 'game', and a clustering of various forms of advantage in the same
hands. Monopoly, in Walter's terms, becomes translated into dominance.
The loss of neoliberalisms pretence to liberalism transforms the type of authority that can
be claimed by and on behalf of power, be it business, financial or state power. It means the
abandonment of the globalizing, universalizing, transcendental branch of neoliberalism, in
which certain economic techniques and measures (including, but not only, prices) would provide
a common framework through which all human difference could be mediated and represented.
Instead, cultural and national difference potentially leading to conflict now animates
neoliberalism, but without a commonly recognized principle against which to convert this into
competitive inequality. What I have characterized as the 'violent threat' of neoliberalism has
come to the fore, whereby authority in economic decision making is increasingly predicated upon
the claim that 'we' must beat 'them'. This fracturing of universalism, in favour of political
and cultural particularism, may be a symptom of how capitalist crises often play out (Gamble,
2009). One reason why neoliberalism has survived as well as it has since 2007 is that it has
always managed to operate within two rhetorical registers simultaneously, satisfying both the
demand for liberal universalism and that for political particularism, so when the former falls
apart, a neoliberal discourse of competitive nationalism and the authority of executive
decision is already present and available.
One lesson to be taken from neoliberalism, for political movements which seek to challenge
it, is that both individual agency and collective institutions need to be criticized and
invented simultaneously. Political reform does not have to build on any 'natural' account of
human beings, but can also invent new visions of individual agency. The design and
transformation of institutions, such as markets, regulators and firms, do not need to take
place separately from this project, but in tandem and in dialogue with it. A productive focus
of critical economic enquiry would be those institutions which neolibcral thought has tended to
be entirely silent on. These are the institutions and mechanisms of capitalism which coerce and
coordinate individuals, thereby removing choices from economic situations. The era of applied
neoliberal policy making has recently started to appear as one of rampant 'financialisation'
(Krippner, 2012). So it is therefore peculiar how little attention is paid within neoliberal
discourse to institutions of credit and equity, other than that they should be priced and
distributed via markets. Likewise, the rising power of corporations has been sanctioned by
theories that actually say very little about firms, management, work or organization, but focus
all their attention on the incentives and choices confronting a few 'agents' and 'leaders' at
the very top. Despite having permeated our cultural lives with visions of competition, and also
permeated political institutions with certain economic rationalities, the dominant discourse of
neoliberalism actually contains very little which represents the day-to-day lives and
experiences of those who live with it. This represents a major empirical and analytical
shortcoming of the economic theories that are at work in governing us, and ultimately a serious
vulnerability.
A further lesson to be taken from neoliberalism, for the purposes of a critique of
neoliberalism, is that restrictive economic practices need to be strategically and inventively
targeted and replaced. In the 1930s and 1940s, 'restrictive economic practices' would have
implied planning, labour organization and socialism. Today our economic freedoms are restricted
in very different ways, which strike at the individual in an intimate way, rather than at
individuals collectively. In the twenty-first century, the experience of being an employee or a
consumer or a debtor is often one of being ensnared, not one of exercising any choice or
strategy. Amidst all of the uncertainty of dynamic capitalism, this sense of being trapped into
certain relations seems eminently certain. Releasing individuals from these constraints is a
constructive project, as much as a critical one: this is what the example of the early
neoliberals demonstrates.
Lawyers willing to rewrite the rules of exchange, employment and finance (as, for instance
the ordo-liberals redrafted the rules of the market) could be one of the great forces for
social progress, if they were ever to mobilize in a concerted w'ay. A form of collective
entrepreneurship, which like individual entrepreneurs saw' economic nonnativity as fluid and
changeable, could produce new forms of political economy, with alternative valuation
systems.
The reorganization of state, society, institutions and individuals in terms of competitive
dynamics and rules, succeeded to the extent that it did because it offered both a vision of the
collective and a vision of individual agency simultaneously. It can appear impermeable to
critique or political transformation, if only challenged on one of these terms. For instance,
if a different vision of collective organization is proposed, the neoliberal rejoinder is that
this must involve abandoning individual 'choice' or freedom. Or if a different vision of the
individual is proposed, the neoliberal rejoinder is that this is unrealistic given the
competitive global context. Dispensing with competition, as the template for all politics and
political metaphysics, is therefore only possible if theory proceeds anew, with a
political-economic idea of individual agency and collective organization, at the same time.
What this might allow is a different basis from which to speak of human beings as paradoxically
the same yet different. The problem of politics is that individuals are both private, isolated
actors, with tastes and choices, and part of a collectivity, with rules and authorities. An
alternative answer to this riddle needs to be identified, other than simply more competition
and more competitiveness, in which isolated actors take no responsibility for the collective,
and the collective is immune to the protestations of those isolated actors.
Publisher: Harvard University Press (March 16, 2018)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 9780674979529
Chosen by Pankaj Mishra as one of the Best Books of the Summer
Neoliberals hate the state. Or do they? In the first intellectual history of neoliberal
globalism, Quinn Slobodian follows a group of thinkers from the ashes of the Habsburg Empire to
the creation of the World Trade Organization to show that neoliberalism emerged less to shrink
government and abolish regulations than to redeploy them at a global level.
Slobodian begins in Austria in the 1920s. Empires were dissolving and nationalism,
socialism, and democratic self-determination threatened the stability of the global capitalist
system. In response, Austrian intellectuals called for a new way of organizing the world. But
they and their successors in academia and government, from such famous economists as Friedrich
Hayek and Ludwig von Mises to influential but lesser-known figures such as Wilhelm Röpke
and Michael Heilperin, did not propose a regime of laissez-faire. Rather they used states and
global institutions―the League of Nations, the European Court of Justice, the World Trade
Organization, and international investment law―to insulate the markets against sovereign
states, political change, and turbulent democratic demands for greater equality and social
justice.
Far from discarding the regulatory state, neoliberals wanted to harness it to their grand
project of protecting capitalism on a global scale. It was a project, Slobodian shows, that
changed the world, but that was also undermined time and again by the inequality, relentless
change, and social injustice that accompanied it.
This is a rather
interesting look at the political and economic ideas of a circle of important economists,
including Hayek and von Mises, over the course of the last century. He shows rather
convincingly that conventional narratives concerning their idea are wrong. That they didn't
believe in a weak state, didn't believe in the laissez-faire capitalism or believe in the power
of the market. That they saw mass democracy as a threat to vested economic interests.
The core beliefs of these people was in a world where money, labor and products could flow
across borders without any limit. Their vision was to remove these subjects (tariffs,
immigration and controls on the movement of money) from the control of the democracy-based
nation-state and instead vesting them in international organizations. International
organizations which were by their nature undemocratic and beyond the influence of democracy.
That rather than rejecting government power, what they rejected was national government power.
They wanted weak national governments but at the same time strong undemocratic international
organizations which would gain the powers taken from the state.
The other thing that characterized many of these people was a rather general rejection of
economics. While some of them are (at least in theory) economists, they rejected the basic
ideas of economic analysis and economic policy. The economy, to them, was a mystical thing
beyond any human understanding or ability to influence in a positive way. Their only real
belief was in "bigness". The larger the market for labor and goods, the more economically
prosperous everyone would become. A unregulated "global" market with specialization across
borders and free migration of labor being the ultimate system.
The author shows how, over a period extending from the 1920s to the 1990s, these ideas
evolved from marginal academic ideas to being dominant ideas internationally. Ideas that are
reflected today in the structure of the European Union, the WTO (World Trade Organization) and
the policies of most national governments. These ideas, which the author calls "neoliberalism",
have today become almost assumptions beyond challenge. And even more strangely, the dominating
ideas of the political left in most of the west.
The author makes the point, though in a weak way, that the "fathers" of neoliberalism saw
themselves as "restoring" a lost golden age. That golden age being (roughly) the age of the
original industrial revolution (the second half of the 1800s). And to the extent that they have
been successful they have done that. But at the same time, they have brought back all the
political and economic questions of that era as well.
In reading it, I started to wonder about the differences between modern neoliberalism and
the liberal political movement during the industrial revolution. I really began to wonder about
the actual motives of "reform" liberals in that era. Were they genuinely interested in reforms
during that era or were all the reforms just cynical politics designed to enhance business
power at the expense of other vested interests. Was, in particular, the liberal interest in
political reform and franchise expansion a genuine move toward political democracy or simply a
temporary ploy to increase their political power. If one assumes that the true principles of
classic liberalism were always free trade, free migration of labor and removing the power to
governments to impact business, perhaps its collapse around the time of the first world war is
easier to understand.
He also makes a good point about the EEC and the organizations that came before the EU.
Those organizations were as much about protecting trade between Europe and former European
colonial possessions as they were anything to do with trade within Europe.
To me at least, the analysis of the author was rather original. In particular, he did an
excellent job of showing how the ideas of Hayek and von Mises have been distorted and
misunderstood in the mainstream. He was able to show what their ideas were and how they relate
to contemporary problems of government and democracy.
But there are some strong negatives in the book. The author offers up a complete virtue
signaling chapter to prove how the neoliberals are racists. He brings up things, like the John
Birch Society, that have nothing to do with the book. He unleashes a whole lot of venom
directed at American conservatives and republicans mostly set against a 1960s backdrop. He does
all this in a bad purpose: to claim that the Kennedy Administration was somehow a continuation
of the new deal rather than a step toward neoliberalism. His blindness and modern political
partisanship extended backward into history does substantial damage to his argument in the
book. He also spends an inordinate amount of time on the political issues of South Africa which
also adds nothing to the argument of the book. His whole chapter on racism is an elaborate
strawman all held together by Ropke. He also spends a large amount of time grinding some sort
of Ax with regard to the National Review and William F. Buckley.
He keeps resorting to the simple formula of finding something racist said or written by
Ropke....and then inferring that anyone who quoted or had anything to do with Ropke shared his
ideas and was also a racist. The whole point of the exercise seems to be to avoid any analysis
of how the democratic party (and the political left) drifted over the decades from the politics
of the New Deal to neoliberal Clintonism.
Then after that, he diverts further off the path by spending many pages on the greatness of
the "global south", the G77 and the New International Economic Order (NIEO) promoted by the UN
in the 1970s. And whatever many faults of neoliberalism, Quinn Slobodian ends up standing for a
worse set of ideas: International Price controls, economic "reparations", nationalization,
international trade subsidies and a five-year plan for the world (socialist style economic
planning at a global level). In attaching himself to these particular ideas, he kills his own
book. The premise of the book and his argument was very strong at first. But by around p. 220,
its become a throwback political tract in favor of the garbage economic and political ideas of
the so-called third world circa 1974 complete with 70's style extensive quotations from
"Senegalese jurists"
Once the political agenda comes out, he just can't help himself. He opens the conclusion to
the book taking another cheap shot for no clear reason at William F. Buckley. He spends alot of
time on the Seattle anti-WTO protests from the 1990s. But he has NOTHING to say about BIll
Clinton or Tony Blair or EU expansion or Obama or even the 2008 economic crisis for that
matter. Inexplicably for a book written in 2018, the content of the book seems to end in the
year 2000.
I'm giving it three stars for the first 150 pages which was decent work. The second half
rates zero stars.
Though it could have been far better if he had written his history of
neoliberalism in the context of the counter-narrative of Keynesian economics and its decline.
It would have been better yet if the author had the courage to talk about the transformation of
the parties of the left and their complicity in the rise of neoliberalism. The author also
tends to waste lots of pages repeating himself or worse telling you what he is going to say
next. One would have expected a better standard of editing by the Harvard Press.
This book is most interesting probably for people who can definitely do well without it – seasoned sysadmins and
educators.
Please ignore the word "philosophy" in the title. Most sysadmins do not want to deal with "philosophy";-). And this book
does not rise to the level of philosophy in any case. It is just collection of valuable (and not so valuable) tips from the
author career as a sysadmin of a small lab, thinly dispersed in 500 pages. Each chapter can serve as a fuel for your own
thoughts. The author instincts on sysadmin related issues are mostly right: he is suspicious about systemd and another
perversion in modern Linuxes, he argues for simplicity in software, and he warns us about PHBs problem in IT departments. In
some cases, I disagreed with the author, or view his treatment of the topic as somewhat superficial, but still, his points
created the kind of "virtual discussion" that has a value of its own. And maybe it is the set of topics that the author
discusses is the main value of the book.
I would classify this book as "tips" book when the author shares his approach to this or that problem (sometimes IMHO
wrong, but still interesting ;-), distinct from the more numerous and often boring, but much better-selling class of "how
to" books. The latter explains in gory details how to deal with a particular complex Unix/Linux subsystem, or a particular
role (for example system administrator of Linux servers). But in many cases, the right solution is to avoid those subsystems
or software packages like the plague and use something simpler. Recently, avoiding Linux flavors with systemd also can
qualify as a solution ;-)
This book is different. It is mostly about how to approach some typical system tasks, which arise on the level of a small
lab (that the lab is small is clear from the coverage of backups). The author advances an important idea of experimentation
as a way of solving the problem and optimizing your existing setup and work habits. As well a very overview of good practices
of using some essential sysadmin tools such as screen and sudo. In the last chapter, the author even briefly mentions (just
mentions) a very important social problem -- the problem micromanagers. The latter is real cancer in Unix departments of
large corporations (and not only in Unix departments)
All chapters contain "webliography" at the end adding to the value of the book. While Kindle version of the book is
badly formatted (and I subtracted one star for that), the references in Kindle version are clickable, and I would recommend
reading some them along with reading the book, including the author articles at opensource.com For example, among others,
the author references a rare and underappreciated, but a very important book "Putt's Law and the Successful Technocrat: How
to Win in the Information Age by Archibald Putt (2006-04-28)". From which famous Putt's Law "Technology is dominated by two
types of people, those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand," and Putt's
Corollary: "Every technical hierarchy, in time, develop a competence inversion" were originated. This reference alone is
probably worth half-price of the book for sysadmins, who never heard about Putt's Law.
Seasoned sysadmins can probably just skim Part I-III (IMHO those chapters are somewhat simplistic. ) For example, you can
skip Introduction to author's Linux philosophy, his views on contribution to open source, and similar chapters that contain
trivial information ). I would start reading the book from Part IV (Becoming Zen ), which consist of almost a dozen
interesting topics. Each of them is covered very briefly (which is a drawback). But they can serve as starters for your own
thought process and own research. The selection of topics is very good and IMHO constitutes the main value of the book.
For example, the author raises a very important issue in his chapter 20: Document Everything, but unfortunately, this
chapter is too brief, and he does not address the most important thing: sysadmin should work on some way to organize your
personal knowledge. For example as a private website. Maintenances of such a private knowledgebase is a crucial instrument of
any Linux sysadmin worth his/her salary and part of daily tasks worth probably 10% of sysadmin time. The quote "Those who
cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" has a very menacing meaning in sysadmin world.
Linux (as of monstrous RHEL 7 with systemd, network manager and other perversions, which raised the complexity of the OS
at least twice) became a way to complex for a human brain. It is impossible to remember all the important details and lessons
learned from Internet browsing, your SNAFU and important tickets. Unless converted into documentation, most of such valuable
knowledge disappears say in six months or so. And the idea of using corporate helpdesk as a knowledge database is in most
cases a joke.
The negative part of the book is that the author spreads himself too thin and try to cover too much ground. That means
that treatment of most topics became superficial. Also provided examples of shell scripts is more of a classic shell style,
not Bash 4.x type of code. That helps portability (if you need it) but does not allow to understand new features of bash
4.x. Bash is available now on most Unixes, such as Solaris and HP-UX and that solves portability issues in a different, and
more productive, way. Portability was killed by systemd anyway unless you want to write wrappers for systemctl related
functions ;-)
For an example of author writing, please search for his recent (Oct 30, 2018) article "Working with data streams on the
Linux command line" That might give you a better idea of what to expect.
In my view, the book contains enough wisdom to pay $32 for it (Kindle edition price), especially if you can do it at
company expense. The books is also valuable for educators. Again, the most interesting part is part IV:
This book is most interesting probably for people who can definitely do well without it
– seasoned sysadmins and educators.
Please ignore the word "philosophy" in the title. Most sysadmins do not want to deal with
"philosophy";-). And this book does not rise to the level of philosophy in any case. It is just
collection of valuable (and not so valuable) tips from the author career as a sysadmin of a
small lab, thinly dispersed in 500 pages. Each chapter can serve as a fuel for your own
thoughts. In many cases, I disagreed with the author, but still, his points created the kind of
"virtual discussion" that has a value of its own.
I would classify this book as "tips" book when the author shares his approach to this or
that problem (often IMHO wrong, but still interesting;-), distinct from the more numerous and
often boring, but much better-selling class of "how to" books. The latter explains in gory
details how to deal with a particular Unix/Linux subsystem or a particular role (for example
system administrator of Linux servers). But in many cases, the right solution is to avoid those
subsystems or software packages like plague, and use something simpler ;-)
This book is different. It is mostly about tips on how to approach this or that typical
system task, which arises of the level of a small research lab (that is clear from his coverage
of backups). As well a very brief overview of good practices of using some tools. In the last
chapter, the author even briefly mentions (just mentions) a very important social problem --
the problem micromanagers. The latter is real cancer in Unix departments of large corporations
(and not only in Unix departments ;-)
All chapters contain "webliography" at the end adding to the value of the book. While Kindle
version of the book is formatted (and I subtracted one start for that), they are clickable.
The books provide authors views (not always right, but still interesting) on why this or
that particular feature should be used and how it can be combined with other. Seasoned
sysadmins can probably skip Part I-III (IMHO those chapters are simplistic ( for example you
can skip Introduction to the Linux philosophy, contribution to open source, and similar weak
chapters ) and start with Part IV ( Becoming Zen ) , which consist of almost a dozen
interesting topics. They are covered very briefly, just to serve as a starter for your own
thought process. But the selection of topics is very good.
He raises a very important issue in his chapter 20: Document Everything, but unfortunately,
this chapter is too brief and does not address the way to organize your personal
"knowledgebase" which now should be a crucial instrument of any Linux sysadmin worth his/her
salary. Linux (as of monstrous RHEL 7 with systemd and other perversions, which raised the
complexity of the OS at least twice) became a way to complex for your brain to remember all the
important details and lessons learned from Internet browsing, your SNAFU and important
tickets.
The negative part of the book is that the author spreads himself too thin and try to cover
too much ground. That means that treatment of some topics became superficial. Also provided
examples of shell scripts is more of a classic shell style, not Bash 4.x type of code. That
helps portability (if you need it) but does not allow to understand new features of bash 4.x.
Bash is available now on most Unixes, such as Solaris and HP-UX and that solves portability
issues in a different, and more productive, way. Portability was killed by systemd anyway
unless you want to write wrappers for systemctl related functions ;-)
For an example of author writing, please search for his recent (Oct 30, 2018) article
"Working with data streams on the Linux command line" That might give you a better idea of what
to expect.
In my view, the book contains enough wisdom to pay $32 for it (Kindle edition price).
Especially for educators.
Social pressure to conform is natural in any organization. And universities are not exception. Various people positioned
differently on confiormism-independent_thinking spectrum, so we should not generalize that social pressure makes any
students a conformist, who is afraid to voice his/her opinion. Some small percentage of student can withstand significant social
pressure. But the fact that around 50% can't withstand significant social pressure sounds right.
As more and more college professors express their social and
political views in classrooms, students across the country are feeling increasingly afraid to
disagree according to a survey of 800 full-time undergraduate college students, reported by the
Wall Street Journal ' s James Freeman.
When students were asked if they've had "any professors or course instructors that have
used class time to express their own social or political beliefs that are completely
unrelated to the subject of the course," 52% of respondents said that this occurs "often,"
while 47% responded, "not often."
A majority -- 53% -- also reported that they often "felt intimidated" in sharing their
ideas, opinions or beliefs in class because they were different from those of the professors.
-
WSJ
What's more, 54% of students say they are intimidated expressing themselves when their views
conflict with those of their classmates.
The survey, conducted by McLaughlin & Associates on behalf of Yale's William F. Buckley,
Jr. Program (which counts Freeman among its directors), was undertaken between October 8th and
18th, and included students at both public and private four-year universities across the
country.
This is a problem, suggests Freeman - as unbiased teachers who formerly filled universities
have been replaced by activists who "unfortunately appear to be just as political and
overbearing as one would expect," and that " perhaps the actual parents who write checks can
someday find some way to encourage more responsible behavior. "
As for the students, there's at least a mixed message in the latest survey results. On the
downside, the fact that so many students are afraid of disagreeing with their peers does not
suggest a healthy intellectual atmosphere even outside the classroom. There's more
disappointing news in the answers to other survey questions. For example, 59% of respondents
agreed with this statement:
My college or university should forbid people from speaking on campus who have a history of
engaging in hate speech.
This column does not favor hatred, nor the subjective definition of "hate speech" by college
administrators seeking to regulate it. In perhaps the most disturbing finding in the poll
results, 33% of U.S. college students participating in the survey agreed with this
statement:
If someone is using hate speech or making racially charged comments, physical violence can be
justified to prevent this person from espousing their hateful views.
An optimist desperately searching for a silver lining would perhaps note that 60% of
respondents did not agree that physical violence is justified to silence people speaking what
someone has defined as "hate speech" or "racially charged" comments. But the fact that a third
of college students at least theoretically endorse violence as a response to offensive speech
underlines the threat to free expression on American campuses.
Perhaps more encouraging are the responses to this question:
Generally speaking, do you think the First Amendment, which deals with freedom of speech, is
an outdated amendment that can no longer be applied in today's society and should be changed
or an important amendment that still needs to be followed and respected in today's society?
A full 79% of respondents opted for respecting the First Amendment, while 17% backed a
rewrite.
On a more specific question, free speech isn't winning by the same landslide. When asked if
they would favor or oppose their schools having speech codes to regulate speech for students
and faculty, 54% of U.S. college kids opposed such codes while 38% were in favor.
The free exchange of ideas is in danger on American campuses. And given the unprofessional
behavior of American faculty suggested by this survey, education reformers should perhaps focus
on encouraging free-speech advocates within the student body while adopting a campus slogan
from an earlier era: Don't trust anyone over 30.
this tyranny applies not only to politics and weirdo social world view, it runs thru
everything. Group think is powerful and those not following get excluded, defunded of
resources and ridicule and other punishment.
The education-industrial complex is a massive spending and debt-fed bubble, that has
created a massive political organizing force and teflon monoculture. They are parasites
feeding off government and the debt of students
It's always been like this, at school as a 5 year old ....my little kid was sent to the
headmaster for objecting to making a key ring thing in craft as not one kid had a key. He
spoke a well reasoned argument and of course is at the Supreme Court now. But gained no
respect or nurturing from that school. I also copped it, made career decision to be a
scientist because of the stupidity of an english teacher not knowing same issues prevailed
there. Was thrown out of english honours course so did the exam on my own knowledge and got
first class honours in the state.
At University we all know you feed back what they want if you want to pass. Some want
intelligence and best true understanding others want their crippled stuff. This also applies
if you are a science, physiology researcher. Cutting edge work if not mainstream does not get
published, you have to be part of a recognised institution to be published so no independent
researcher,
There are set ideas and marketing there of eg antioxidants fallacies, need for estrogen,
and until recently How stupid was Lamarck because he espoused the passing down of response to
environment to subsequent generations...Darwin thought this too but idea was suppressed. Then
epigenetics got the new hot thing for grants. Fck them all.
My child and I discussed a version with the principal when he was doing the
bacceaulureate, as from 5 onwards teachers rejected correct answers and wanted their answers.
The excellent advice was to view it all like a driving exam, learn the road rules and give
them back.
students always know the tyranny of the teacher and evaluator. At 6 my kid was sat with
the slow learners and forced to give 30answers a day ' correct' . Ie lies and untruths.
Infinity as answer to how many corners has a cylinder was not only mad bad but
ridiculed.
It's impossible to actually debate someone who has NO FACTS on either side of the
argument....
it winds up like this....
"not even WRONG"
The phrase " not even wrong " describes an argument or explanation that purports to be
scientific but is based on invalid reasoning or speculative premises that can neither be
proven correct nor falsified .
Hence, it refers to statements that cannot be discussed in a rigorous, scientific sense . [1] For a
meaningful discussion on whether a certain statement is true or false, the statement must
satisfy the criterion called "falsifiability" -- the inherent possibility for the statement
to be tested and found false. In this sense, the phrase "not even wrong" is synonymous to
"nonfalsifiable". [1]
The phrase is generally attributed to theoretical physicistWolfgang Pauli , who was
known for his colorful objections to incorrect or careless thinking. [2][3]Rudolf Peierls documents an
instance in which "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected
was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not
even wrong' ." [4] This is also
often quoted as "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong", or in Pauli's native
German , " Das
ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!". Peierls remarks that quite a few
apocryphal stories of this
kind have been circulated and mentions that he listed only the ones personally vouched for by
him. He also quotes another example when Pauli replied to Lev Landau , "What you said was so confused
that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not. " [4]
Chemical engineering, engineering structural (optional), basic electrical engineering and
C++ programing and he can make any machine to automatically preform any chemical process out
of his garage. You could probably watch a butt ton of YouTube and a library card and also
learn those skills.
The homogenized culture of colleges today is very similar to what I imagine it was like in
the 1950's, but with a different set of "values" obviously. The 1950's led to the 1960's, and
a complete rejection by many young people of establishment mono-culture. Maybe the young
people eventually will figure out that what they see as SJW counter-culture is actually new
establishment culture, and they will rebel against it in a few years. Probably not,
though.
When I was in the army and got sentence to 2 years less a day in Military prison in
Edmonton, I paid $1.70 a day, which the military were so kind to ring up a tab for me, when I
got released from prison they handed me my bill and made me work it off before I got my
dishonorable discharge
"... While I am generally not in favor of bankruptcy discrimination, the ineligibility of bankrupt colleges for taxpayer funding is eminently sensible ..."
The Bezzle: "For-profit college chain files (for receivership)" [
Credit Slips ].
"While I am generally not in favor of bankruptcy discrimination, the ineligibility of
bankrupt colleges for taxpayer funding is eminently sensible.
Given the weakness of
institutional gatekeeping and the political challenges to shutting down predatory schools, and
the for-profit college business model in which taxpayer grants and loans are used to prepay
tuitions for students who are frequently misled about career chances, we don't need bankruptcy
to give these failing schools a new lease on life." • Ouch.
Which is why popular anger and resentment must constantly be directed outward, at an external
enemy. Wake up, Americans – Russia and China are robbing you of your American Dream!!
It's their fault, not that of your own elites and/or the political system that assures their
place!!
In at least one area, though, Unz is full of it.
This perhaps explains why so many sons and daughters of top Chinese leaders attend
college in the West: enrolling them at a third-rate Chinese university would be a tremendous
humiliation, while our own corrupt admissions practices get them an easy spot at Harvard or
Stanford, sitting side by side with the children of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and George W.
Bush.
It is not as easy as he makes out, as a timely lawsuit suggests – Asian-Americans
often have to tiptoe through an admissions minefield whose process is exquisitely designed to
discover their ethnic background, so that Asian admissions can be limited. According to this
reference, basing its conclusions on an internal study conducted by Harvard itself, if that
institution looked only at academic standards when filling its admissions, Asians and
Asian-Americans would make up 43% of its student body. Instead, it's maybe half that.
It is uniquely-American irony that the driving force behind the initiative is Ed Blum,
about as far from a populist as you could get, who is pushing the lawsuit as a means of
wrecking any correction of the system; it's designed to lose.
I must have missed that bit, but if so, how does he reconcile that with children of the
Chinese leadership just coasting into the Ivy League as if the admissions process were a
slide?
In Australia here anyway, some universities have very large international student intakes to
the extent that in some institutions, overseas students (mostly from China and India)
constitute as much as or more than 40% of the entire student population. http://www.universityrankings.com.au/international-student-numbers.html
A major part of the reason must be that as government funding to universities here
continues to decrease, universities are forced to make up the shortfall by relying on full
fee-paying students and international students and their families can be exploited in this
way by being forced to pay upfront for their education.
No doubt, being private educational institutions, Ivy League universities view the
children of Chinese political elites as similar gold mines and the admission standards
required of such potential students are likely to be very different from what is applied to
students coming out of American high schools.
Dear Patient Observer: I try to give credit where credit is due; so any sociological theory
that is factual and based on mathematics deserves to be aired in public.
My beef with Unz is their overall fascist slant. Some of the articles are so viciously
anti-Jewish, that one is simply forced to ask: "What is your end game? A second Holocaust?"
(which the more Nazi of the commenters are forced into Zugzwang, because they deny the first
one even happened, and yet call for a second one )
Having said that, I call upon people to perform a simple thought experiment: Imagine it were
actually proved scientifically factual (beyond a statistical doubt) that certain ethnic
groups were intellectual "smarter" in the arena of, say, college success. (For example, Jews
or "Asians".) Then what should be the policy ensuing? Should governments institute quotas to
make sure the "dumber" ethnos get their share of the college degrees? Or just let nature take
its course?
I reckon the answer would depend on the government in question, and the whole damn history.
When the Soviet Union decided (in the late 70's and 1980's) to limit Jews to certain quotas
in university admissions, they were raked over the coals by Westies. And yet when Westie
institutions attempt to set ethnic quotas, then it might be reasonable.
Where do I stand on this issue? I honestly don't know but I admit that I don't have the
answers
I told this story before but will do so again as it has relevancy. My 2nd term calculus
graduate assistance was a young woman; perhaps 18 years old. Her name was Stern or Sternberg.
She was socially awkward, clearly uncomfortable in the classroom and not good at teaching
A few years later, I read a story in a regional newspaper about her. The headline was
something like "Is this Perfection?". Anyway, the story indicated that she graduated from the
University at the age of 16. She was the product of an experiment by her parents. From
conception onward, she was exposed to every sort of stimulation to build her intellectual
development – classical music played while in the womb, every sort of pre-school
educational stimulation and constant urging to excel in academics.
My take is most "ethnic" intellectual achievement is the product of sociological factors.
Overbearing Jewish moms or Asian tiger moms are likely a major factor in such academic
achievements. In my value system, that behavior is destructive to the kids psychological
well-being. Not worth it in the long run I believe.
Asians I personally know tell me that Asian kids are not genetically smarter than anyone
else. Their parents value education, and make them work harder than most western kids do. Got
spare time? Study. Already mastered the subject? Take up another. When you're good at all of
them, then you can take a break.
A friend of mine who was a junior officer in the Navy is Chinese. She consented to be
interviewed by a Chinese magazine, because of her position as a military officer, but it was
clear to her that her interviewers were a little disappointed that she was not fluent in
Mandarin. When they proceeded with the interview in English, they wanted to know, "Why you no
doctor? Why you no Rawyer?"
But isn't the selection of African or Asian students who may study in Europe or the USA based
more on class? Surely, if you are a Chinese or African – black, brown,
sky-blue-with-pink-polka-dots or whatever, you must be bourgeois if you have been allowed to
study at Yale or Oxford etc.
In the UK, the working class is becoming increasingly uneducated, and class is not
ethnicity.
"... Our US students have been taught since at least grade 6, but mostly since school began, that there are only certain acceptable ideas, and genuflecting to those ideas is what makes you the Top Student, the Front Row kid, the one who checks all the boxes to get into Brown or Oberlin or Yale. ..."
"... My brother is a biology professor at an elite liberal arts college in the Midwest. He uses no pronouns with his students, as the demands escalate and change daily. A whole cluster of young female students in the physics department have suddenly declared themselves trans. ..."
"... He says that it is impossible -- absolutely impossible -- to question what is happening in society concerning the abandonment of human biological facts or to have a rational debate about any of this on campus, either among the faculty or with the students. ..."
"... This is 100% correct and also the result of our K-12 education system doing what it was designed to do: engineer certain social outcomes. ..."
"... I grew in a period of suffocating conformity, the dregs of the Cold War hysteria that communists are hiding under your bed and in your anxiety closet to burst out and turn your local church into a museum pretending that a Russian invented the telephone. ..."
"... Somehow, quite a few of us found the means to stand up, to challenge, to question, to dismiss, to lampoon, and most of all, to turn back mindless adjectives accusing us of Thining The Wrong Way. I doubt that any generation coming up now is so mindlessly conformist as the writer insinuates. ..."
"... I also find it ironic that a piece called "Creating A-Plus Conformists" is published by the author of "The Benedict Option". I can't think of a greater force for creating conformity than religious orthodoxy. ..."
"... I have no idea who Alice is. But as a college professor, I find this to be (and this is being charitable) exaggerated nonsense. Has Alice actually ever stood in front of and talked to class of college freshman? ..."
Reader Alice comments on the hyperpoliticization of college students:
Understand: they *arrive at universities thinking this way*.
Our US students have been taught since at least grade 6, but mostly since school began,
that there are only certain acceptable ideas, and genuflecting to those ideas is what makes
you the Top Student, the Front Row kid, the one who checks all the boxes to get into Brown or
Oberlin or Yale.
The "best and brightest" accepted to these schools are kids who, consciously or
unconsciously, have learned to excel in places by accepting as true the acceptable ideas and
never bringing up the unacceptable. Some thoughts are just too dangerous to have.
Trajectories that are good for one's future to the Ivies don't allow you to engage these
unacceptable ideas. So in school and in other places where one deals with adults, these front
row kids learn to believe, or at least be comfortable with parroting, these acceptable ideas.
Just as there's a correct answer to a calculus question, there's a correct answer to
questions such as why one country is more successful than another, why there are measurable
differences in incarceration rates by race (even as there's also a contradictory answer to
the question of what is a race), what a nation owes non-citizens vs. citizens, how much
training can alter [ ], are sex differences on average innate, are there two sexes, etc.
Meanwhile, if you hear something unacceptable, you've also been equipped with the trump
card to demolish the argument: arguer is racist, sexist, bigot. So the Overton window is big
for trans rights and little for the role of, say, duty to ones' elders, big for
microaggression but little for the personality differences of men and women.
Whether they believe it or not at the beginning is irrelevant. They make the appropriate
verbal gestures, they get a reward. After 6-12 years of doing so, they're not capable of
engaging in debate or rhetoric, argument from evidence, even following a line of reasoning or
recognizing a fallacy. They've never done it, and anyone who tried was actively shut down
either calls of "my truth".
On the past, ignorance and obnoxious self regard were demolished by profs rather quickly.
What's changed is college profs no longer push back on this crap. They no longer demand
argument, reason, and counter argument. They simply are stunned that they share no overlap of
consciousness with the students they bequeathed to themselves. They are afraid of them and
afraid to stand up to the students or spineless weasel administrators.
I live on the east coast and can only tell you what we see. The public schools teach gender
identity ideology, starting in elementary. I didn't even know what that is until our autistic
daughter suddenly decided that she's "really a guy", along with a cluster of her school
friends, when she was 16. They are 19 now, and two of her friends have had irreversible
surgery which has made them sterile.
My brother is a biology professor at an elite liberal arts college in the Midwest. He uses
no pronouns with his students, as the demands escalate and change daily. A whole cluster of
young female students in the physics department have suddenly declared themselves trans. The
mantra of "supporting women in physics!" swiftly changed to "supporting transgender people in
physics!"
He says that it is impossible -- absolutely impossible -- to question what is
happening in society concerning the abandonment of human biological facts or to have a
rational debate about any of this on campus, either among the faculty or with the
students.
The unthinkable has happened. An ideology which would have been laughed at as ridiculous
on college campuses in the 1980s is now driving social, legal, and medical practice
throughout our entire country. If you haven't been affected by this yet, then you will be.
Soon.
This is 100% correct and also the result of our K-12 education system doing what it was
designed to do: engineer certain social outcomes.
Conservative calls to "de-fund college" over this are misplaced.
Also, the reason that college professors don't stand up to this is because they know that
the administration won't have their back if a student accuses them of being
racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic. And the administrator won't have their back due to the
desire to avoid bad press and students protesting on campus. Give the (vocal) students what
they want so everyone stays happy.
I could not disagree with this more strongly. This is the false argument of broad
generalization. The vast majority of schools are not en masses teaching radical SJW thought
control. They are doing their best to teach AT ALL given the federal over reach into state
public education and the excessive focus on testing and scores and the impact that has on
funding.
And certainly anecdote does not equal accumulative data but our personal experience of
high school
For our children is that there is zero indoctrination of SJW values coming from the teachers
of the institution. Certainly the peer group has SJW people and activities but I'm here to
declare that not one teacher or one principal in my district has for e fed my children any
SJW dogma. In fact I can list multiple examples of Tim's when I've wondered how teachers got
away with things like singing Christian or Jewish music at a choir concert or teaching the
Our Father prayer in German or studying the great schism and having my kids present the
Orthodox side of the story in World History.
Who knows. Maybe I live in an anomaly. But I wonder if the hyping of crazy SJW stories of
abuse in schools has created an image in people's minds that ALL schools are crazy SJW
hotbeds.
It's just not true. Public education IS in crisis due to ridiculous over testing and
funding that is abysmal. And the majority of people who work in public ed are really just
hanging on by their fingernails trying to do their best and make rent!!!
Sure there's a crazy teacher, waka-doodle principal or spineless superintendent that makes
the news. And certainly the NEA is an bastion of left leaning ideas, but to make this huge
sweep that the kids arriving at University were indoctrinated by their 1st grade teacher and
on up through their childhood is just absolutely not true.
A hundred years or so ago, I was in high school debate. One of the good things about that is
we had to learn how to argue either for or against the same thing with equal conviction.
Because we were young and inexperienced, i.e. stupid, most of us were pretty liberal, but the
idea that there was only one way to think about a problem was completely foreign.
Well, the writer of that comment paints a picture. But that assumes facts not in evidence. I
don't have a statistical overview of all the high schools in the country, but I know enough
about enough students at enough of them to question whether the above description is The
Truth About The Meaning Of Life And Everything.
I grew in a period of suffocating conformity, the dregs of the Cold War hysteria that
communists are hiding under your bed and in your anxiety closet to burst out and turn your
local church into a museum pretending that a Russian invented the telephone.
Somehow, quite a few of us found the means to stand up, to challenge, to question, to
dismiss, to lampoon, and most of all, to turn back mindless adjectives accusing us of Thining
The Wrong Way. I doubt that any generation coming up now is so mindlessly conformist as the
writer insinuates.
There are two answers to being reflexively called "racist, sexist, bigot."
1) So what?
2) Prove it.
I prefer the second option, but there are other adjectival nouns I would respond to with
the first.
This situation will not last. The Social Justice canon is too clearly false and modern people
are too rebellious to shoulder it for long. One of the characteristics of liquid modernity is
that the pendulum swings more freely than it ever has before. It will be interesting to see,
when the Social Justice narrative finally collapses, how much of our foundational mythology
goes along with it.
As far as I can tell, our modern dysfunction is a very consistent and rational result of
one simple foundational lie: "All men are created equal." The intent of this lie may have
been noble but it is self-evidently false. And the Social Justice narrative rests very
comfortably upon it. I can't see how it survives the collapse of Social Justice no matter how
badly we desire to maintain it.
P.S. I understand the reflexive anger and distrust that most readers will feel upon
reading this post. This is certainly a painful idea to grapple with. It is embedded deeply
into our many intersecting identities. But what would you say to someone claiming that all
pots are created equal? Would you posit that anyone denying this claim is a wok supremacist?
No. If two things are not interchangeable, then they are not equal. But this does not mean
that one is ultimately superior to the other. Human equality is a comfortable illusion. But
we can find better reasons to treat one another with the proper respect and kindness. And in
the process we might build a more perfect civilization.
The natural follow up for those in power to saying "Some men are more equal than others"
is to say "therefore the better men are the ones in power."
No. Being born poor makes it much, much harder to succeed. Having connections puts
incompetents and immoral people in power. We need to understand that the rich and powerful
*are* usually born with silver spoons in their mouths. Injustice is real. Face it.
College students today are the first generation in US history to have grown up with openly
gay friends and neighbors. They know, from lived experience, that there is nothing wrong with
gay people. They know it in their bones.
So, yah, they think differently than we do on sexual issues, and they tune us out when we say
things they know to be false.
"Kids, I don't know what's wrong with the kids these days".
So a reader send this in without citing any Support for her conclusions and you tack on a
headline about conformism and print it.
One could easily write a companion piece about homeschooled kids going off to some
evangelical college where they set aside all reason and accept creationism and the Bible as
the sole arbiter of truth. But those kids aren't going to get into "Brown or Oberlin or
Yale".
That's where Alice tips her hand. This has nothing to do with the brainwashing or
indoctrination of our youth, but that the Brown, Oberlin and Yale graduates are going to end
up running this country, while Alice doesn't get, and isn't in anyway entitled too, tell them
what to think.
Our US students have been taught since at least grade 6, but mostly since school began,
that there are only certain acceptable ideas, and genuflecting to those ideas is what makes
you the Top Student, the Front Row kid, the one who checks all the boxes to get into Brown or
Oberlin or Yale.
There has never been a time in history that this hasn't been true.
Rod, the comment is okay, but seems to lack an actual article written around it. Looks quite
incomplete both from a literary perspective and from the perspective of the idea.
This may sound mawkish, and it's based on just a few years teaching undergrads when I was in
grad school, but I think there are a lot of college students who want to be able to say or
write something more than the party line, but often they don't know how and have managed to
go through high school without having read anything. My students, of both sexes and all
races, included a good number of kids who, once I made it clear enough that I didn't want to
hear any canned "diversity is excellence" crap or whatever, seemed pretty happy that they
could try writing about something else for a change.
There are always the sycophantic
apple-polishers whose whole shtick is regurgitating the conventional wisdom at every
opportunity, but people hate that kind of person (see Hillary Clinton).
You could spend some time reading your kids' AP World History and AP US History textbooks
to discover the "analytical" grid that everything is rammed through. Good for you/your kids if your local teachers don't teach it in that manner, but trust me, the AP test
questions are geared toward certain ideological answers.
Also, when Alice mentioned "My truth" I wondered if she has also had a kid in an elite
college prep school. If so, it sure sounds like she and I have come to the same conclusions
from experience.
Working in IT I get to talk to a lot of young people coming out of college with a variety of
degrees. Most have no idea what Alice is talking about. Perhaps if you go for something like
a sociology or general liberal arts degree at the most liberal schools in the nation this is
true but real students are worried about their fields of study (business, software, UX
design, etc.) and the courses that might teach these types of things are fluff electives they
skate through and ignore as much as possible.
I also find it ironic that a piece called "Creating A-Plus Conformists" is published by
the author of "The Benedict Option". I can't think of a greater force for creating conformity
than religious orthodoxy.
This post is one big exercise in confirmation bias. There are no facts, just assertions
stated firmly enough to convince the already-convinced. I expect better from The American
Conservative.
The fact that it's supposedly an example of other peoples' conformity is just the
ironic icing on the non-self-aware cake.
"But what would you say to someone claiming that all pots are created equal?"
That pots are objects with objective value and none inherent, while people are subjects who
invest value in objects and possessed of inherent worth that is not objectively comparable,
so we shorthand render it "equality". You know, the reason conservatives are supposed to hate
'borshun.
Actual studies shows actually, what happens in college is professors move left-wing students
slightly to the right and right-wing students slightly to the left.
Hi Rod, sorry about the typos in the original! Thanks for the raising the comment. I hope
it's fruitful.
To some folks saying 'this is an overgeneralization', my comments were in the post re:
what's happening at the elite institutions, and so were directed to the set of kids on k-12
that intend to get to such institutions. Those elite univs are more likely to select students
with this SJW profile on the first place, yes. But again, the kids intending to go to such
places know this is the profile.
To those questioning whether every k-12 school is like this, I ask you to look at the
required courses in teaching colleges and master's programs that credential teachers. It's
SJWism everywhere all the time, in every single discipline. Math class is about racial
equity. Reading class is about gender equity. There's no other lens through which teachers
are taught, so this is the lens through which they teach. Read the journals in teaching and
see the articles.
To those questioning whether every college is like this, I suggest you look more closely
at your community college's bookstore.
I'm in a southern state that voted for Trump. The big city cc offers this required English
class,
ENG-111: Writing and Inquiry
'This course is designed to develop the ability to produce clear writing in a variety of
genres and formats using a recursive process. Emphasis includes inquiry, analysis, effective
use of rhetorical strategies, thesis development, audience awareness, and revision. Upon
completion, students should be able to produce unified, coherent, well-developed essays using
standard written English. This course will also introduce students to the skills needed to
produce a college-level research essay.'
Seems a reasonable course, right? Freshman English.
The Reader for the course in 2017:
Sex Ed
Family Values
Oh, Come On, Men Aren't Finished
Wonder Woman by Gloria Steinem
Sex, Lies and Conversation: why Is It So Hard to Talk to Each Other?
Again, you can claim I'm cherry picking, but you will find this in every city in every
state.
Or just listen to vacuous comments of middle school admins. Look at when districts give
days off to kids to bus them to anti Trump rallies, and ask yourself if such a place is real
pushing a socratic discussion about these points of view.
If you listen closely, you will understand this is everywhere.
Andrew in MD: "If two things are not interchangeable, then they are not equal." Is interchangeability the sole criteron of equality? Could a person argue that since all people are sinners/fallen, they are, therefore, equal?
Or are some more sinning or fallen?
The Buddha demonstrated that all people are empty of self – why cannot that suffice
for the establishment of equality?
Andrew in MD: some great American (John Randolph?) once said "I do not believe that all men
are equal, for the simple reason that it isn't true". So, nothing anger-producing in your
post. If giving up this noble lie is what is needed to consign SJWism to the ideological
trash bin along with other totalitarian ideologies like Maoism, then out it goes.
When I was, in my late college years through my first ten or so years in The Real World, I
was a doctrinaire conservative Republican, although not a member of any church or religion.
In a way, this did me some good, because I was attending some elite, some not-so-elite,
and all very leftish educational institutions. Often my grades suffered, but I had to learn
to marshal facts and formulate arguments that people did not want to hear. Often this was
pretty easy, because the people I was arguing with had never really thought about what they
believed or why, much less the unspoken assumptions underlying those beliefs, and they had
never heard them challenged.
Usually the response was sputtering outrage, but that's a poor substitute for logical
argument, especially when I am almost autistic in how little I care what other people think
of me. In fact, if you react by being even calmer and more logical, the other person will
dissolve into a spitting mad Donald Duck meltdown.
If I had simply gone with the flow, all that was necessary was to recite the correct
dogmas and platitudes with adequate conviction and I would have been greeted with
hosannas.
They say that a person becomes more conservative as they get older, but the opposite
happened to me. I suppose because I enjoy challenging my own beliefs, finding facts that
don't fit my own theories and then trying to make sense of them.
I learned that theory didn't always apply in real world conditions and pat answers don't
always translate into solutions. (Apply "markets in all the things" to healthcare, for
instance.)
They also say that a person becomes more conservative as they become more successful, but
that wasn't the case for me either. I suppose to a certain extent, I am successful because I
was lucky.
Honestly, what Shelley wrote sounds more accurate than what Alice did, although I think there
is at least a grain of truth in Alice's post, too. And the poster at another one of Rod's
pieces who put more of the blame on the Internet than on schools and teachers at any level
made sense, too.
As much as I find the content on AmCon to be generally thought provoking, the complaint
expressed by "Alice" is a recurring sentiment that I think "conservatives" use to cover up
shoddy arguments
"I have all these really great ideas and deep insights about race and gender, but every
time I try to express them, I get called a bigot, and I'm totally not a bigot, but those
dastardly liberals won't even let me make my argument because they are always shouting me
down and calling me a bigot, so me and the vast majority of ordinary folks who also agree
with me are effectively silenced a shrill few elites, which is totally unfair! Anyone else
feel this way? Sad!"
Point #1
Something doesn't jive about the general premise. Summarizing Alice's post as "All the kids
today are totally brainwashed by SJWs, and everyone mindlessly goes along with whatever the
PC police say". On a related note, last week's major news item was essentially "ordinary
Americans were recently polled and 92% of them don't support political correctness and they
are totally sick of identity politics and fed up with SJWs -- #WalkAway #RedWave #MAGA"
Am I missing something? Because those don't seem to make sense to be occurring in the same
place at the same time. "The kids are totally brainwashed by identity politics and are just a
bunch of useful idiots for the Left", BUT "they also see right through it, see that it's a
sham, and they thoroughly reject it". Also, "The ordinary folks are cowering in fear, there's
nothing they can do about it, the situation is beyond hopeless because the SJWs have
effectively silenced all dissent", BUT "there's a revolution about to burst forth because so
many ordinary people are mad as hell and not going to take it any more and in November they
are going to vote hardcore against all this identity stuff and kick these knuckleheads out of
power."
Doesn't make sense. It's one or the other, not both.
Point #2
I don't instinctively believe that all Republicans and Conservatives are bigots. I'm a
Conservative. I don't think I'm a bigot. But I do get a little skeptical of a particular
handful of my fellow conservatives who always seem to be running around complaining
"everyone's always calling me a bigot, everyone's always calling me a bigot, I'm totally not
a bigot, but everyone's always calling me a bigot when I express my ideas".
Well, okay, what exactly are these wonderful, totally not bigoted ideas that you have?
Would you like to share them with us?
For example, Alice (or anyone else), please illuminate us with the answer to one of the
questions that you raised in your post, one of those off-limits questions where people are
always unfairly saying that your answer is racist: why there are measurable differences in incarceration rates by race?
Help me to understand, in your own, totally not-bigoted words, what is the answer that we
all need the hear, the answer that the SJWs won't let us hear? I promise, promise, promise
that I will not call you a racist. This is a safe space for you.
I have no idea who Alice is. But as a college professor, I find this to be (and this is being
charitable) exaggerated nonsense. Has Alice actually ever stood in front of and talked to
class of college freshman?
The upside is that all the good little Maoists will starve, come some real crises in our
society. Good for them that they can make up micro aggressions out of nothing, not so good
for them that they won't be able to feed their soy faces when things begin to break down in
this nation.
I figured we'd already gone around the useless bend with these people years ago when I was
trapped someplace and MTV was playing. Some yoyo on the TV was talking about a show he was
producing and soooooo scared that it wasn't going to go right and freaking out and all this,
basically over nothing. I then noticed more and more of this type of behavior once I started
looking for it. Lots of younger and younger people living in fear of absolutely nothing just
fear for its own sake.
Learned fear and helplessness, nothing less or more. You have an increasingly large number
of kids who are raised up as sheltered as possible and who have no real will or ability to
take care of themselves. Couple that with the ideological vampires that roam higher education
these days and you wind up with people who don't really care about whatever cause they're
promoting, or what they're protesting, but it becomes all abut trying to drive out any
dissenting sound from a basis of fear.
The soy boys are wretched creatures at best, and the harpies who lead them about by the
nose are just as pitiful. Kinda dangerous, but only to a point, because all of them value
their own skin more than real confrontation or principles (this is kinda true of the
alt-right, too, which is why the media always suffers meltdowns at violence that wouldn't
even merit a mention in Freikorps-riddled Germany, where the Browns and Reds duke it out
regularly and Hitler brandished a pistol, not a Twitter hissy fit).
There's really no upside, just the irritation of living with these people on a daily basis
and trying to tune out their BS. Maybe the social credit system will get rolling here and
some point, which will be a clue to move to the sticks and learn how to raise organic produce
and enjoy the simpler things. Lord knows, none of them are going to want to risk getting mud
on their hipster work boots by being in the real country.
I'm sure Reader Alice is identifying a real phenomenon, but it's funny to see a traditional
Christian publishing it. Are we saying the other side is a haven of consistently
rational debate ?
I teach high school kids for a living. My school is in a high income area and nearly 100% of
the kids are college bound, many of them to very selective universities. My experience is
that our stronger students take challenging and reasonably balanced courses – they do
not arrive to college as leftist zombies. Our weaker students sometimes find a home with the
leftists and realize that they can be praised by adults and sometimes even given high grades
in politicized but low level classes. These are the ones I worry about. I have a good view of
the next generation, and from where I sit the most capable 17 year olds are for more
influenced by Lin Manuel Miranda than by Ta Nehisi Coates – and I find that fairly
encouraging.
I taught high school English in the California Bay Area and even there, I encountered only a
couple teachers who could be said to have any kind of liberal agenda and to have included it
in the classroom. My 3 kids have gone to California public schools (2 of them are currently
in high school), in the Bay Area and the Sacramento regions, and we haven't experienced any
of what the writer of this post describes. It's been my experience that kids get their
political leanings these days mostly from their peers, their media heroes and social media.
Now, college is another matter entirely, but I don't need to tell anyone here that.
I remember well the time I made the perfectly wise and rational statement in history class
that "might makes right," which of course it does. My poor teacher, at his usual loss for
words in dealing with my divine wisdom sputtered some foolishness to the effect that, "Hitler
had might. Was he right?'
To which I responded, as the Young Voice of God, "Hitler lost."
The look on the poor man's face was worth the price of admission for he had chosen exactly
the wrong example to use. He slumped back, defeated, for he had proven me right.
Fear not. The young will grow up and, as their compatriots in Christian schools will,
learn to see past the platitudes, knowing that the very idea of justice is a vile thing,
incompatible with their personal freedom, and they will end up despising it from their very
bones.
Jonathan Haidt has pointed out a key reason why we get such mixed messages about what is
really happening.
Millennials get blamed for a lot of this, but most of this stuff is actually the arrival
of the first of the immediate post-millennial generation at college, just within the last
couple of years.
He points out that this is the first generation to have gone through formative late
childhood/early adolescent years experiencing the destructive impact social media throughout
their development. (Previous generations encountered it after they were just that bit older
and more emotionally stable.)
I can look back at my kids, who were born smack-dab in the middle of the millennial
generation, and their high school experience wasn't remotely like anything described above.
Granted, they grew up in Old West country, but it was at a very large high school–and
as this blog repeatedly points out, nowhere is sheltered from the modern diseases. Their
teachers were certainly overwhelmingly liberal, as is true pretty much everywhere these days,
no matter how red the state.
If Haidt is right, the experience my millennial kids had (and the experiences that many
readers of this blog will be appealing to) is *completely* irrelevant. There is something
brand-new just arrived on the scene, and only in the last 2-3 years.
We can argue about whether teachers caused it, culture caused it, social media caused it,
parents caused it The question is what we are going to do about it.
I find this really, really hard to believe. Also, I think I can state (with some degree of
confidence) that Alice does, in fact, believe that there is only one answer to her questions
about incarceration, national success, etc.
The "best and brightest" come in a few different flavors. A lot of them are the kids who
do everything absolutely right, don't seem to rock any particular boats, and are often pretty
conservative in various ways, including politically.
Others are those fueled by a desire for justice and reforms, because they've been on the
receiving end of injustice, or they've witnessed it and felt sympathy/empathy. These are the
ones who often clash with administrators and/or the more entitled demographics among their
peers. They're the ones standing by their controversial school newspaper articles, the ones
organizing the gay-straight (etc.) alliances in the face of often serious threat, and so on.
This isn't happening because they've been indoctrinated, though they may have been inspired
by that one English or History teacher.
As others have said Rod, you've stumbled across the NPC meme. No doubt someone will be along
to tell you about how you are dehumanizing people, because having an NPC avatar will get you
banned from twitter but calling white people dogs will get you on the editorial board of the
NYT.
For those unfamiliar with it, NPC means Non-Player-Character. It comes from video games,
although I've read that it appeared in DnD before that. In any case it is mostly relevant to
RPG games here. In an RPG game, the player will encounter many NPCs who have a few scripted
responses that they will repeat whenever the player talks to them. The meme is that SJWs do
not think for themselves, and simply respond to everything with a few scripted responses to
any political debate, usually some variation of an 'ist' or an 'ism' or white privilege or
lived experience. It has been an effective meme for mocking the left, which is why twitter
moved so quickly to shut it down.
So the Overton window is big for trans rights and little for the role of, say, duty to
ones' elders, big for microaggression but little for the personality differences of men and
women.
This is exactly right, and is actually the reason why the experience of becoming
"red-pilled" can be so exhilarating and freeing for many people. Suddenly there are huge
areas of discussion and debate that you can explore. It is especially potent because often
these areas were once filed under "common sense" or "fairness". Examples include the
differences between men and women which are evident to most toddlers, or the intrinsic
unfairness of judging people guilty for crimes that were committed hundreds of years before
they were born.
The euphoria of this rediscovered freedom can lead people to over-correct, and go very far
into conspiracy theories in search of more "truths" which have been considered off-limits.
I've seen this in an acquaintance who went far down the rabbit-hole of holocaust denial
theories and neo-nazism. I think it became a rush for him to go where others fear to tread,
and I think it is somehow connected to the red-pill experience.
[NFR: I found the graphic when I typed "conformity" into Shutterstock's search engine.
-- RD]
Shelley, I don't mean this as an insult, but you are 100% completely out of touch on this
issue. My sense is that you don't want to know the truth. This is evidenced by statements
like this:
"For our children is that there is zero indoctrination of SJW values coming from the
teachers of the institution. Certainly the peer group has SJW people and activities but I'm
here to declare that not one teacher or one principal in my district has for e fed my
children any SJW dogma."
First of all, this is anecdotal. Secondly, I can ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE you that your
absolutist statement is wrong. Your assertion that you know every single thing that
teachers/administrators have "fed" to your children shows how unserious you are about soberly
assessing/investigating the situation. You are operating on selective evidence and faith.
We are living in a time where our schools, the mainstream media, the entertainment
industry, high ed, and The Democratic party are united in a vitriolic, hysterical insistence
that citizens of all ages support The Narrative, OR ELSE.
I think your mindset is shared by many who simply can't accept the fact that what should
be the fringe rantings of the occasional "waka-doodle" has become the norm in the leftist
controlled institutions I listed above. I hope you all wake up, and see the extremist agenda
and actual violence that the left is supporting. If you don't, we will descend into actual
civil war. That probably sounds crazy to you, too. I wish you were right.
"This situation will not last. The Social Justice canon is too clearly false and modern
people are too rebellious to shoulder it for long."
Agree ..I would call it the social justice Koran though ..but unlike the Islamic Koran
(Qu'ran) it keeps changing all the time.
One day you're an "ally" the next day you find yourself a "nazi"
Seriously ..just go around campus today saying lines from Obama speeches back in 2008 ."I
believe marriage is between a man and a woman" and "immigration must be controlled and the
violence on the southern border must be stopped"
Thats now "hate speech"
At least the wahhabis tend to stick to one set of rules.
As someone who has spent most of my life in education and higher education, it is not my
experience that there is some sort of universal SJW indoctrination. In reality what basically
happens is this:
Certain professions at the commanding heights of the culture (journalism,
entertainment, academia etc ) are inherently cosmopolitan and tend to disproportionately
appeal to liberals/leftists.
Therefore, most college profs, students, and academic types end up being Nice Moderate
Liberals. Most are not dogmatic or hateful, and are willing to entertain rational
argumentation (to a point). Many–especially the students–are apolitical.
However, centrist liberal hegemony is largely defenseless against radical SJWs,
especially if they are ethnic minorities/women making accusations of racism/sexism, and the
Nice Moderate Liberals get bullied (sometimes quite literally) into going along with the SJW
agenda.
So, for instance, during the big SJW freakouts in places like Yale and Evergreen State,
the SJWs were not protesting and shutting down conservatives (too few of them to really
matter). They were protesting/assaulting/shutting down moderate liberals.
I was and still am a teacher (worked in public schools). Some teachers are liberal, some are
conservative. Personal politics does not come into the classroom unless a teacher brings it
in. However, standardized testing, funding, and infrastructure spending are all political
realities that affect teachers.
The idea that there are teachers indoctrinating your children is a conservative boogeyman.
There are a few bad teachers, but they are usually apathetic, not passionate. There are also
a few doctors who have sexually abused their clients, but that doesn't demonize the whole
health profession.
If parents are so concerned about transmitting values, they are free to homeschool, but it
would involve living on one income and re-prioritizing their finances. Many people are not
really that concerned about it, but it's easy to decry the fictional bad teachers they
imagine are stalking the schools. If public schools did not exist, all of these parents would
be forced to educate their own children, and they would realize a small sampling of what
teachers contend with on a daily basis.
Please stop painting a false picture of the profession. Public education is a genuine good
of democracy. If it disappears completely, people will one day realize what they have
lost.
I would like to echo reader G's sentiment – paraphrasing G, you've stated your
arguments in a detached way, without giving any samples of your own thinking. It's as if you
seek some implied consensus on conclusions you are, for some reason, unwilling to share. Your
arguments seem to be:
(a) Grade and high school age students are being indoctrinated into "certain acceptable
ideas", which they carry to the university;
(b) Universities confirm and deepen this indoctrination: "Some thoughts are just too
dangerous to have";
(c) Science and engineering fields lead to objectively correct, singular solutions to
given questions. The humanities try to mimic them, by insisting that there are singular
solutions to more complex questions as well;
(d) Here you do give us a few hints of these complex questions: some countries are more
successful than others, incarceration rates vary by race, what is the correct treatment of
non-citizens, the number of sexes, and possibly, a question on IQ;
If I've misunderstood any of your arguments, please correct me. I would also like to echo
G's invitation for you to provide a sample of your own thinking on any of these questions.
Should you respond, I too promise not to engage in polemics. To encourage you, Alice, for
what it's worth, these are my early thoughts on why "one country is more successful than
another":
At an individual's level, the basic idea of "success" is biological survival and
procreation. At the level of a country (and by that, I mean a nation which embodies a certain
culture), it is cultural survival, and handing down of its culture to succeeding generations
for preservation and improvement. Thus, at this basic level, the most successful countries
are those that faced adversity, even dissolution as states (some for several generations),
and still managed to preserve, improve, and pass on their culture till more favorable times.
This is one proof, perhaps the strongest, of cultural resilience;
Other measures of "success" are more ephemeral. All countries, if they survive long
enough, experience cycles of economic and military ups and downs, cultural rots and
regenerations, and demographic changes, to list a few examples. Thus, history decrees that in
these matters, no country can expect to be "number one" in perpetuity. In my mind, such
passing things are not good indicators of "success". For countries, success depends on those
cultural factors that are transmittable and willingly accepted (even embraced and cherished)
by succeeding generations. It also depends of each generation to have the wherewithal to
continuously adapt and improve them. The next question would be, what are these factors?
Has anyone considered that these kids (who are certainly no where close to a majority) might
be picking up these values at home? Leftwing people also have kids.
from where I sit the most capable 17 year olds are far more influenced by Lin Manuel
Miranda than by Ta Nehisi Coates – and I find that fairly encouraging.
Publicly standing up against the Bush administration was not the sort of thing that was an
unthinking default at the time. I don't think it was the way to get into the best
universities. I don't think it was a path prescribed by teachers and the corporate media
(though lots of conservatives claimed otherwise).
It represented a struggle for social justice, and an unpopular one at that.
"... The federal student loan system creates perverse incentives that enable bad actors to prey on students. Without adequate protections for students, these predatory corporations will continue to base their business models on the availability of these loans, with little commitment to providing quality education. ..."
"... These Obama-era protections and remedies were being blocked by Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss rejected a request by for-profit college representatives to halt the regulations. Even with the win, the answer from the Department of Education is arrogant in response. Student loan servicers do not hesitate a moment to penalize a borrower with penalties and fees if the are late. ..."
"... DeVos and conservatives have said the Obama-era policies are unfair to colleges and too costly for taxpayers. She has proposed creating a stricter standard for fraud claims and eliminating the ban on mandatory arbitration agreements ..."
A
Federal Court cleared the way for students who have been defrauded by for-profit
institutions (I hesitate to call them schools).
"This court ruling is a major victory for thousands of students across the country who
were defrauded by predatory for-profit colleges taking advantage of our broken student loan
system. We commend Attorney General Maura Healey for her leadership fighting for students who
were left with thousands of dollars in debt after their for-profit colleges collapsed.
The federal student loan system creates perverse incentives that enable bad actors to
prey on students. Without adequate protections for students, these predatory corporations
will continue to base their business models on the availability of these loans, with little
commitment to providing quality education. "
These Obama-era protections and remedies were being blocked by Secretary of Education Betsy
DeVos. U.S. District Judge Randolph
Moss rejected a request by for-profit college representatives to halt the regulations. Even
with the win, the answer from the Department of Education is arrogant in response. Student loan
servicers do not hesitate a moment to penalize a borrower with penalties and fees if the are
late.
"DeVos and conservatives have said the Obama-era policies are unfair to colleges and too
costly for taxpayers. She has proposed creating a stricter standard for fraud claims and
eliminating the ban on mandatory arbitration agreements.
But DeVos' push to finalize those revised regulations has hit an unexpected snag that will
delay having a replacement policy on the books by another year. The Education Department said
it won't meet a key Nov. 1 regulatory deadline, meaning that the replacement regulations
aren't likely to take effect until July 2020 at the earliest."
Hopefully the State Attorneys and others can convince the Judge to hold Betsy DeVos in
contempt for not activating the court's requirements in a reasonable amount of time less than 2
years.
likbez , October 19, 2018 1:15 pm
Under neoliberalism any such victory is temporary and will be eventually rolled
back
Adding to what you just said, let me just put this out there as a teacher, and not trying
to wag a Big White Triumphal Exceptionalist Stick, our US kids are dumb as rocks too, but
this is based on actual experience, and documented records:
My East Asian students showed up to class with no textbooks. They can't afford them in
their eyes. $75USD is 1,000,000 rupiahs! When I sighed and said, 'OK, I'll add one more prep
to my 16-hour day, and print copies in the teacher's lounge for $25 apiece, if anyone wants
one, see me after class.'
An East Asian kid came up to me with a $20, and I'm like, what? He says, and I quote,
"Does this mean I'll get an A?"
I always try to learn the local lingo, and be non-judgmental, but I am a teacher and grading
is part of the job and you have to hold the line. So I said, 'No!' He got rather upset,
thinking I was raising my asking price! $20 always worked for him to get an A before,
back in East Asia.
So now I'm getting perturbed. These kids all had 4.0 GPAs when they got into our school,
here they were barely passing in my class. Is it ESL language? Is it my presentation? So I
got hold of an East Asian teacher and got the East Asian grading rubric: >70% is an A,
>80% is an A+! That's nuts! In the USA, 70% is just barely passing, and you need 95% for
an A+! So there was zero parity between rubrics. They're passing them through as 4.0's for
bribes and H-2B student visa fees!
So I mention this to my Dean, he smiles, and says, 'You're job is just to make sure they
all pass." H-2Bs is a big, big money maker for US colleges. I had to give them the final exam
three times, dumbing it down each time. The last time, we read the exam questions and the
answers out loud together, then I gave them the test. Two of them STILL did not pass, and I
got called in and got my ass chewed!
That's why you see so many smiling East Asian students everywhere. Half of the classes, at
least, are East Asian. So when an East Asian 'college' (sic) graduate claiming an A+ East
Asian GPA, their East Asian colleges even docent the after-graduation testing for graduate
school! They don't have independent SAT or GRE exam boards, their colleges do the
grading!
But let's drill down one more layer. I got to meet the now-a-Green Card mother of one of
my students, and we had a little Asian food buffet and then she's asking me how her kid is
doing, and you know, what do you say? Then she tells me, they paid $20,000USD to get the
visas! Their whole family back in East Asia is in hock to the human-trafficker mafiyas, and
that's why the "A+" schtick and why the 'just make sure they pass' pipeline, is to get them
over here so they can do IT coding or pluck chickens or drive for Uber or whatever ,
to keep their family in East Asia from being bludgeoned.
So let's build a $TRILLION wall, for East Asians to fly over by the jumbo-jet load, 10
plane flights every day, and we'll call it MAGA! and WINNING! and 'lowest unemployment on
record' ... because all the new jobs are going to East Asians.
E pluribus now get back to work. Oh, and remember to vote! Really get high-fever pitched!
DRINK THE RED AND BLUE KOOLAID!
This is a better primary book for self-study then Michael Jang and Alessandro Orsaria
This book is a better primary book for self-study then Michael Jang and Alessandro
Orsaria's book. The material is more logically organized and explained and is easier to
follow. The author provides a few valuable tips, which I did not find in any other book.
RHEL 7 looks like a different flavor of Linux, not a continuation of RHEL 6 in many
respects, and first of all due to addition of systemd and replacement of many previously used
daemons (NTP daemon, firewall daemon, etc) as well as inclusion into the exam new topics such
as built-in virtualization capabilities.
That means that the amount of material in RHEL 7 exam is much larger than in RHEL 6 exam
and different topics are stressed (systemd, virtual machines, more complex networking staff
including setting up kickstart, etc.). Michael Jang book is an adaptation of RHEL 6 book.
This book is written for RHEL 7 from the ground up, and this is an important advantage.
As for which book to use, either-or is a naïve approach. You need to use both,
especially, if the exam is paid from your own pocket, as a failure will cost you $400. Just
don't take the failure too seriously -- the table is stacked against self-study folk like you
-- and the second time you will do much better.
I just recommend you to use this one as the primary book. You should use Jang book too, as
some information in it is missing in this book but, for example, I like better how such an
important topic as how to recover root password is explained in this book.
I like his recommendation to use CentOS instead od RHEL for the preparation for the exam.
This is a reasonable approach although there are some low-cost RHEL subscriptions as well.
Using a plain vanilla RHEL without subscription makes the installation of software difficult
as you do not have access to repositories. This is an important plus of this book.
I also noticed the attention to details that can be acquired only by actually working of
RHEL for years, not just writing books -- for example the author mentions -A and -B options
in grep, while Jang does not. Unfortunately, the differences between grep and egrep and when
you need to use egrep (or grep -E) are not explained well in both books.
There are some reviews which concentrate on typos (yes, for example, the option -E typeset
as -e in some examples) but this is a pretty naïve criteria to judge the book on such a
complex topic. Of course, there will be multiple typos, but fixing them is a part of training
and they do not diminish the value of the book, as those readers who can't fix are not ready
to take the exam anyway. And if the person who supposedly passed RHEL 6 exam complains about
such trivial staff, there is something fishy if his/her approach to the topic.
Generally breaking the configuration and then fixing it should be an important part of
training and this book at least gives some hints of how to deal with booting problems (which
are multiplied in RHEL 7 due to systemd craziness)
More important is an implicit level of the author who writes the book. A4nd my impression
is that the level of Sander van Vugt is higher.
Red Hat exam stresses many Red Hat specific topics and as such taking it plunges you into
priorities of Red Hat that were unknown to you. You can expect that some of those
priorities/topics are peripheral to that you are doing at your job, and you will be taken by
surprise the first time you take the exam, even if you deligently stidied the book and did
all exercises. In this sense, it is better to pay for exam twice then to attend more
expensive "Fast track" course, if you are paying money from your own pocket.
There are a lot of posts on the Internet about how easy is to pass this exam -- I do not
trust them. While all materials are entry level and the resulting qualification is also entry
level the mere amount of material is overwhelming and presents substantial difficulties even
for people who administer RHEL and/or CentOS/Oracle Linux/Academic linux for many years.
Pervasive racketeering rules because we allow it to, especially in education and medicine. Both are self-destructing under the
weight of their own money-grubbing schemes.
Notable quotes:
"... Because of the loans' disgracefully high interest rates, my family and I have paid more or less the equivalent of my debt itself in the years since I graduated, making monthly payments in good faith -- even in times of unemployment and extreme duress -- to lenders like Citigroup, a bank that was among the largest recipients of federal bailout money in 2008 and that eventually sold off my debt to other lenders. This ruinous struggle has been essentially meaningless: I now owe more than what I started out owing, not unlike my parents with their mortgage . ..."
"... By Daniela Senderowicz. Originally published in Yes! Magazine ..."
"... Activists are building meaningful connections among borrowers to counter the taboo of admitting they can't pay their bills. ..."
"... Gamblers and reality TV stars can claim bankruptcy protections when in financial trouble, but 44 million student loan borrowers can't. Unemployed, underpaid, destitute, sick, or struggling borrowers simply aren't able to start anew. ..."
"... With a default rate approaching 40 percent , one would expect armies of distressed borrowers marching in the streets demanding relief from a system that has singled out their financial anguish. Distressed student debtors, however, seem to be terror-struck about coming forward to a society that, they say, ostracizes them for their inability to keep up with their finances. ..."
"... When we spoke to several student borrowers, almost none were willing to share their names. "I can't tell anyone how much I'm struggling," says a 39-year-old Oregon physician who went into student loan default after his wife's illness drained their finances. He is terrified of losing his patients and reputation if he speaks out about his financial problems. ..."
"... Debtors are isolated, anxious, and in the worst cases have taken their own lives . Simone confirms that she has "worked with debtors who were suicidal or had psychological breakdowns requiring psychiatric hospitalization." ..."
"... "Alienation impacts mental health issues," says New York mental health counselor Harriet Fraad. "As long as they blame themselves within the system, they're lost." ..."
"... A recent manifesto by activist and recent graduate Eli Campbell calls for radical unity among borrowers. "Young people live in constant fear that they'll never be able to pay off their debt. We're not buying houses or able to afford the hallmarks of the American dream," he explains. ..."
"... Do a little research on car selling and you will see the pressures on the dealer sales force to suck the vast majority of buyers into long term debt. Car loans are now five or six years, routinely. ..."
Yves
here. This article describes how the stigma of struggling to pay student debt is a burden in
and of itself. I wish this article had explained how little it take to trigger an escalation
into default interest rates and how punitive they are. The piece also stresses the value of
activism as a form of psychological relief, by connecting stressed student debt borrowers with
people similarly afflicted.
But the bigger issue is the way indebtedness is demonized in a society that makes it pretty
much impossible to avoid borrowing. One reader recounted how many (as in how few) weeks of
after tax wages it took to buy a car in the 1960s versus now. Dealers don't want to talk to
buyers who want to pay in full at the time of purchase. And if you don't have installment
credit or a mortgage, the consumer credit agencies ding you!
It goes without saying that the sense of shame is harder to endure due to how shallow most
people's social networks are, which is another product of neoliberalism.
In keeping, the New York Times today ran an op-ed by one of its editors on how student
debtors are also victims of the crisis, reprinted from a longer piece in The Baffler (hat tip Dan
K).
Key sections :
Because of the loans' disgracefully high interest rates, my family and I have paid
more or less the equivalent of my debt itself in the years since I graduated, making monthly
payments in good faith -- even in times of unemployment and extreme duress -- to lenders like
Citigroup, a bank that was among the largest recipients of federal bailout money in 2008 and
that eventually sold off my debt to other lenders. This ruinous struggle has been essentially
meaningless: I now owe more than what I started out owing, not unlike my parents with their
mortgage .
Many people have and will continue to condemn me personally for my tremendous but
unexceptional student debt, and the ways in which it has made the recession's effects linger
for my family. I've spent quite a lot of time in the past decade accepting this blame. The
recession may have compounded my family's economic insecurity, but I also made the conscious
decision to take out loans for a college I couldn't afford in order to become a journalist, a
profession with minimal financial returns. The amount of debt I owe in student loans -- about
$100,000 -- is more than I make in a given year. I am ashamed and embarrassed by this, but as
I grow older, I think it is time that those profiting from this country's broken economic
system share some of my guilt
[At my commencement in 2009] Mrs. Clinton then echoed a fantasy of boundless opportunity
that had helped guide the country into economic collapse, deceiving many of the parents in
attendance, including my own, into borrowing toward a future that they couldn't work hard
enough to afford. "There is no problem we face here in America or around the world that will
not yield to human effort," she said. "Our challenges are ones that summon the best of us,
and we will make the world better tomorrow than it is today." At the time, I wondered if this
was accurate. I now know how wrong she was.
By Daniela Senderowicz. Originally published in
Yes! Magazine
Activists are building meaningful connections among borrowers to counter the taboo of
admitting they can't pay their bills.
Gamblers and reality TV stars can claim bankruptcy protections when in financial
trouble, but 44 million student loan borrowers can't. Unemployed, underpaid, destitute, sick,
or struggling borrowers simply aren't able to start anew.
With a default rate approaching
40 percent , one would expect armies of distressed borrowers marching in the streets
demanding relief from a system that has singled out their financial anguish. Distressed student
debtors, however, seem to be terror-struck about coming forward to a society that, they say,
ostracizes them for their inability to keep up with their finances.
When we spoke to several student borrowers, almost none were willing to share their
names. "I can't tell anyone how much I'm struggling," says a 39-year-old Oregon physician who
went into student loan default after his wife's illness drained their finances. He is terrified
of losing his patients and reputation if he speaks out about his financial problems.
"If I shared this with anyone they will look down upon me as some kind of fool," explains a
North Carolina psychologist who is now beyond retirement age. He explains that his student debt
balance soared after losing a well-paying position during the financial crisis, and that he is
struggling to pay it back.
Financial shame alienates struggling borrowers. Debtors blame themselves and self-loathe
when they can't make their payments, explains Colette Simone, a Michigan psychologist. "There
is so much fear of sharing the reality of their financial situation and the devastation it is
causing in every facet of their lives," she says. "The consequences of coming forward can
result in social pushback and possible job -- related complications, which only deepen their
suffering."
Debtors are isolated, anxious, and in the worst cases have taken
their own lives . Simone confirms that she has "worked with debtors who were suicidal or
had psychological breakdowns requiring psychiatric hospitalization."
With an average debt of just over $37,000 per borrower for the
class of 2016 , and given that incomes have been flat since the 1970s , it's not
surprising that borrowers are struggling to pay. Student loans have a squeaky-clean reputation,
and society tends to view them as a noble symbol of the taxpayers' generosity to the working
poor. Fear of facing society's ostracism for failure to pay them back has left borrowers
alienated and trapped in a lending system that is engulfing them in debt bondage.
"Alienation impacts mental health issues," says New York mental health counselor Harriet
Fraad. "As long as they blame themselves within the system, they're lost."
Student debtors can counter despair by fighting back through activism and political
engagement, she says. "Connection is the antidote to alienation, and engaging in activism,
along with therapy, is a way to recovery."
Despite the fear of coming forward, some activists are building a social movement in which
meaningful connections among borrowers can counter the taboo of openly admitting financial
ruin.
Student Loan Justice, a national grassroots lobby group, is attempting to build this
movement by pushing for robust legislation to return
bankruptcy protections to borrowers. The group has active chapters in almost every state, with
members directly lobbying their local representatives to sign on as co-sponsors to HR 2366.
Activists are building a supportive community for struggling borrowers through political
agitation, local engagement, storytelling, and by spreading a courageous message of hope that
may embolden traumatized borrowers to come forward and unite.
Julie Margetaa Morgan
, a fellow at The Roosevelt Institute, recently noted that student debt servicers like Navient
have a powerful influence on lawmakers. "Student loan borrowers may not have millions to spend
on lobbying, but they have something equally, if not more, powerful: millions of voices," she
says.
A recent manifesto by activist
and recent graduate Eli Campbell calls for radical unity among borrowers. "Young people live in
constant fear that they'll never be able to pay off their debt. We're not buying houses or able
to afford the hallmarks of the American dream," he explains.
In his call for a unified national boycott of student loan payments, inevitably leading to a
mass default on this debt, Campbell hopes to expose this crisis and instigate radical change.
In a recent interview he
explained that the conditions for borrowers are so bad already that debtors may not join the
boycott willingly. Instead, participation may simply happen by default given the lack of proper
work opportunities that lead to borrowers' inability to pay.
While a large-scale default may not happen through willful and supportive collective action,
ending the secrecy of the crisis through massive national attention may destigmatize the shame
of financial defeat and finally bring debtors out of the isolation that causes them so much
despair.
Activists are calling for a significant conversation about the commodification of educating
our youth, shifting our focus toward investing into the promise of the young and able, rather
than the guarantee of their perpetual debt bondage. In calling for collective action they
soothe the hurt of so many alienated debtors, breaking the taboos that allow them to say, "Me,
too" and admit openly that in this financial climate we all need each other to move
forward.
How much are the interest rates on student loans there in the USA? Here in India its 11.5%
if you want to finance studies abroad. 8.5 for some select institutions.
I wonder if the media's obsession with "millenials" isn't primarily a way to try to divide
people with shared interests, above all around the topics of student debt and the job market
and to make the problems seem like they have shallower roots than they really do. The
individuals mentioned here are older than that 24-37 age cohort, one of them much older.
Dealers don't want to talk to buyers who want to pay in full at the time of
purchase.
Yes Yes. Car manufacturers are actually finance houses selling products manufactured by
subcontractors – such is the state of American industry – but their dream is to
move to a SaaS model where ownership, of anything, becomes a relic of the past (except for
the overlords and oligarchs).
This could not be possible without government corruption and revolving-door regulation.
Maybe these PAYG vehicles will contain built-in body scanners too; for our own security, of
course.
In his call for a unified national boycott of student loan payments, inevitably leading
to a mass default on this debt, Campbell hopes to expose this crisis and instigate radical
change.
Default, or radical change, would bring the economy to it's knees. But when there is
another economic downturn, this is going to happen anyway. Terrible situation; negative real
interest rates destroying the pensions of the elderly, student loan servitude destroying the
youth and the middle class being squeezed to oblivion. What can be done to fix it, I ask?
Yet they are doing God's work, are they? Well, this is not a God I choose to worship.
Well good for you. How many cars, of what age, have you bought, for your anecdote to rate
as anything vaguely resembling the wide reality, and how does your personal financial
situation let you just write checks for $30 or $70,000?
Do a little research on car selling and you will see the pressures on the dealer sales
force to suck the vast majority of buyers into long term debt. Car loans are now five or six
years, routinely.
And one wonders what the investment is in trying to impeach the points of this report, wth
such an unlikely and atypical claim.
Maybe a little traction, then, for the notion, and increasingly the inescapable reality, of
#juststoppaying on those "remember Joe Biden" virtually non-dischargeable, often fraudulently
induced, "student loan" debt shackles?
"Teaching to the test" is a perversion of education. Excessive quantification is bad. Both are primary features of neoliberal
education.
Notable quotes:
"... If we care about the prospects of democratic education, we must take neoliberalism's success seriously, for it is a philosophical framework in which freedom and democratic education are mutually exclusive. ..."
"... We must intentionally challenge the neoliberal notion of the value freedom and the usefulness of its associated philosophical assumptions. ..."
Goodlad, et al. (2002) rightly point out that a culture can either resist or support change.
Schein's (2010) model of culture indicates observable behaviors of a culture can be explained
by exposing underlying shared values and basic assumptions that give meaning to the
performance. Yet culture is many-faceted and complex. So Schein advised a clinical approach to
cultural analysis that calls for identifying a problem in order to focus the analysis on
relevant values and assumptions. This project starts with two assumptions:
The erosion of democratic education is a visible overt behavior of the current U.S.
macro-culture, and
This is a problem.
I intend to use this problem of the erosion of democratic education as a basis for a
cultural analysis. My essential question is: What are the deeper, collective, competing value
commitments and shared basic assumptions that hinder efforts for democratic education? The
purpose of this paper is to start a conversation about particular cultural limitations and
barriers we are working with as we move toward recapturing the civic mission of education.
... ... ...
Neoliberalism's success in infiltrating the national discourse shuts out alternative
discourses and appears to render them irrelevant in everyday American culture (R. Quantz,
personal communication, Summer 2006). If we care about the prospects of democratic education,
we must take neoliberalism's success seriously, for it is a philosophical framework in which
freedom and democratic education are mutually exclusive. Dewey (1993), in all his wisdom,
warned:
And let those who are struggling to replace the present economic system by a cooperative one
also remember that in struggling for a new system of social restraints and controls they are
also struggling for a more equal and equitable balance of powers that will enhance and
multiply the effective liberties of the mass of individuals. Let them not be jockeyed into
the position of supporting social control at the expense of liberty [emphasis added]. (p.
160)
Yet, that is exactly the situation in which we find ourselves today. Democratic education is
viewed as a social control policy, as an infringement on the supremacy of the [neoliberal] freedom. We
witness a lack of democratic citizenship, moral, and character education in our schools. We see
a lack of redistributing resources for equality of educational opportunity. We observe a lack
of talk about education's civic mission, roles, and goals. Democratic education is viewed as
tangential, secondary, and mutually exclusive from the prioritized value of "liberty." How can
we foster alternative notions of freedom, such as Lincoln's republican sense of liberty as
collectively inquiring and deciding how we rule ourselves?
We must intentionally challenge the
neoliberal notion of the value freedom and the usefulness of its associated philosophical
assumptions.
"... It's a bit of chicken-and-egg problem, though. Russia, throughout 20th century, had problem with developing small, effective hardware, so their programmers learned how to code to take maximum advantage of what they had, with their technological deficiency in one field giving rise to superiority in another. ..."
"... Russian tech ppl should always be viewed with certain amount of awe and respect...although they are hardly good on everything. ..."
"... Soviet university training in "cybernetics" as it was called in the late 1980s involved two years of programming on blackboards before the students even touched an actual computer. ..."
"... I recall flowcharting entirely on paper before committing a program to punched cards. ..."
Much has been made, including in this post, of the excellent organization of Russian
forces and Russian military technology.
I have been re-investigating an open-source relational database system known as PosgreSQL
(variously), and I remember finding perhaps a decade ago a very useful whole text search
feature of this system which I vaguely remember was written by a Russian and, for that
reason, mildly distrusted by me.
Come to find out that the principle developers and maintainers of PostgreSQL are Russian.
OMG. Double OMG, because the reason I chose it in the first place is that it is the best
non-proprietary RDBS out there and today is supported on Google Cloud, AWS, etc.
The US has met an equal or conceivably a superior, case closed. Trump's thoroughly odd
behavior with Putin is just one but a very obvious one example of this.
Of course, Trump's
nationalistic blather is creating a "base" of people who believe in the godliness of the US.
They are in for a very serious disappointment.
After the iron curtain fell, there was a big demand for Russian-trained programmers
because they could program in a very efficient and "light" manner that didn't demand too much
of the hardware, if I remember correctly.
It's a bit of chicken-and-egg problem, though.
Russia, throughout 20th century, had problem with developing small, effective hardware, so
their programmers learned how to code to take maximum advantage of what they had, with their
technological deficiency in one field giving rise to superiority in another.
Russia has plenty of very skilled, very well-trained folks and their science and math
education is, in a way, more fundamentally and soundly grounded on the foundational stuff
than US (based on my personal interactions anyways).
Russian tech ppl should always be viewed
with certain amount of awe and respect...although they are hardly good on everything.
Well said. Soviet university training in "cybernetics" as it was called in the late 1980s
involved two years of programming on blackboards before the students even touched an actual
computer.
It gave the students an understanding of how computers works down to the bit
flipping level. Imagine trying to fuzz code in your head.
I recall flowcharting entirely on paper before committing a program to punched cards. I
used to do hex and octal math in my head as part of debugging core dumps. Ah, the glory days.
Honeywell once made a military computer that was 10 bit. That stumped me for a while, as
everything was 8 or 16 bit back then.
That used to be fairly common in the civilian sector (in US) too: computing time was
expensive, so you had to make sure that the stuff worked flawlessly before it was committed.
No opportunity to seeing things go wrong and do things over like much of how things happen
nowadays. Russians, with their hardware limitations/shortages, I imagine must have been much
more thorough than US programmers were back in the old days, and you could only get there by
being very thoroughly grounded n the basics.
"... Interesting article on and comments by Thomas Frank, touching on the cognitive elite as a unified class and war on the middle class (my words not his) ..."
"... "Today we live in a world of predatory bankers, predatory educators, even predatory health care providers, all of them out for themselves . Liberalism itself has changed to accommodate its new constituents' technocratic views. Today, liberalism is the philosophy not of the sons of toil but of the 'knowledge economy' and, specifically, of the knowledge economy's winners: the Silicon Valley chieftains, the big university systems, and the Wall Street titans who gave so much to Barack Obama's 2008 campaign . They are a 'learning class' that truly gets the power of education......." ..."
".....the ongoing dissolving and crumblingand sinking -- all his metaphors -- of our
society. And with such metaphors Frank describes the "one essential story" he is telling in
Rendezvous with Oblivion: "This is what a society looks like when the glue that holds it
together starts to dissolve. This is the way ordinary citizens react when they learn that the
structure beneath them is crumbling. And this is the thrill that pulses through the veins of
the well-to-do when they discover that there is no longer any limit on their power to
accumulate" "
And this
"Today we live in a world of predatory bankers, predatory educators, even predatory
health care providers, all of them out for themselves . Liberalism itself has changed to
accommodate its new constituents' technocratic views. Today, liberalism is the philosophy not
of the sons of toil but of the 'knowledge economy' and, specifically, of the knowledge
economy's winners: the Silicon Valley chieftains, the big university systems, and the Wall
Street titans who gave so much to Barack Obama's 2008 campaign . They are a 'learning class'
that truly gets the power of education......."
recently ruled
that under some circumstances employers can link their 401(k) matching contributions to the amount of an employee's student loan
repayments -- making it easier for recent graduates to take advantage of this employer benefit. But that's one spot of good news
in a sea of bad, according to one anonymous Slashdot reader: Two new articles
criticize America's
student loan policies (under both the Obama and Trump administrations). CNBC cites reports that within six years,
more than 15% of student borrowers had officially defaulted , while 10% more had stopped making payments and another 4.8% were
at least 90 days late. And for-profit colleges fared even worse, where nearly 25% of graduates defaulted, and a total of 44% faced
"some form of loan distress."
These trends were masked by Department of Education reports which stopped tracking repayment rates after just three years (reporting
defaults rates of just 10%), according to Ben Miller, senior director for post-secondary education at the left-leaning Center for
American Progress. "Official statistics present a relatively rosy picture of student debt. But looking at outcomes over more time
and in greater detail shows that hundreds of thousands more borrowers from each cohort face troubles repaying."
If we take consulting, services, and support off the table as an option for high-growth
revenue generation (the only thing VCs care about), we are left with open core [with some
subset of features behind a paywall] , software as a service, or some blurring of the
two... Everyone wants infrastructure software to be free and continuously developed by highly
skilled professional developers (who in turn expect to make substantial salaries), but no one
wants to pay for it. The economics of
this situation are unsustainable and broken ...
[W]e now come to what I have recently called "loose" open core and SaaS. In the future, I
believe the most successful OSS projects will be primarily monetized via this method. What is
it? The idea behind "loose" open core and SaaS is that a popular OSS project can be developed
as a completely community driven project (this avoids the conflicts of interest inherent in
"pure" open core), while value added proprietary services and software can be sold in an
ecosystem that forms around the OSS...
Unfortunately, there is an inflection point at which in some sense an OSS project becomes
too popular for its own good, and outgrows its ability to generate enough revenue via either
"pure" open core or services and support... [B]uilding a vibrant community and then enabling an
ecosystem of "loose" open core and SaaS businesses on top appears to me to be the only viable
path forward for modern VC-backed OSS startups.
Klein also suggests OSS foundations start providing fellowships to key maintainers, who
currently "operate under an almost feudal system of patronage, hopping from company to company,
trying to earn a living, keep the community vibrant, and all the while stay impartial..."
"[A]s an industry, we are going to have to come to terms with the economic reality: nothing
is free, including OSS. If we want vibrant OSS projects maintained by engineers that are well
compensated and not conflicted, we are going to have to decide that this is something worth
paying for. In my opinion, fellowships provided by OSS foundations and funded by companies
generating revenue off of the OSS is a great way to start down this path."
Jesus would not stay very long on Twitter. People would take his tweets all too literally and
he would get tired of having to explain for the umpteenth time that he didn't believe that a
camel really could walk through the eye of a needle.
This fall, more than 20 million college students will begin a new academic year. To help
cover rising tuition rates that continue to
outpace inflation , they'll rely on one or more of the federal government's six
low-interest loan programs, adding to the $1.5 trillion of student debt already owed in the
United States. Despite nine repayment plans, eight forgiveness programs, and almost three dozen
deferment options offered by the government, most won't be debt-free until they're in their
40s.
Zone 23 was one of the best novels I've ever read. I'm a big reader, and Zone 23 stands out
as one of the better fiction books in my lifetime. It is sort of a cross between 1984,
Fahrenheit 451, and Brave New World, but with better, much funnier, dialogue. It also
introduces the corporate-state-hybrid as a menacing enemy.
The Ministries of Love , Peace , Plenty , and Truth are
ministries in George Orwell 's futuristic
dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four , set in
Oceania . [1]
Despite the name, no actual "ministers" are mentioned in the book, and all public attention is
focused on the idealized figurehead Big Brother .
The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the
Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These
contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy: they are
deliberate exercises in doublethink .
The Ministry of Love ( Newspeak : Miniluv ) serves as Oceania's
interior ministry
. It enforces loyalty to Big Brother through
fear, buttressed through a massive apparatus of security and repression, as well as systematic
brainwashing . The
Ministry of Love building has no windows and is surrounded by barbed wire entanglements, steel
doors, hidden machine-gun nests , and guards armed with
"jointed truncheons ". Referred to as "the
place where there is no darkness", its interior lights are never turned off. It is arguably the
most powerful ministry, controlling the will of the population. The Thought Police are a part of Miniluv.
The Ministry of Love, like the other ministries, is misnamed, since it is largely
responsible for the practice and infliction of misery, fear, suffering and torture . In a sense, however, the name is
apt, since its ultimate purpose is to instill love of Big Brother -- the only form of
love permitted in Oceania -- in the minds of thoughtcriminals as part of the process of
reverting them to orthodox thought. This is typical of the language of Newspeak , in which words and names frequently
contain both an idea and its opposite; the orthodox party member is nonetheless able to resolve
these contradictions through the disciplined use of doublethink .
Room 101 , introduced in the climax of the novel, is the basement torture chamber in the Ministry of
Love, in which the Party attempts to subject a prisoner to his or her own worst nightmare , fear or phobia , with the object of breaking
down their resistance.
You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already.
Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world.
Such is the purported omniscience of the state in the society of Nineteen
Eighty-Four that even a citizen's nightmares are known to the Party. The nightmare, and
therefore the threatened punishment, of the protagonist Winston Smith is to be attacked by rats . This is manifested in Room 101 by
confronting Smith with a wire cage that contains two large rats. The front of the cage is
shaped so that it can fit over a person's face. A trap-door is then opened, allowing the rats
to devour the victim's face. This cage is fitted over Smith's face, but he saves himself by
begging the authorities to let his lover, Julia , suffer this torture instead of him.
The threatened torture, and what Winston does to escape it, breaks his last promise to himself
and to Julia: never to betray her. The book suggests that Julia is likewise subjected to her
own worst fear (although it is not revealed what that fear is), and when she and Winston later
meet in a park, he notices a scar on her forehead. The intent of threatening Winston with the
rats was to force him into betraying the only person he loved and therefore to break his
spirit.
Orwell named Room 101 after a conference room at Broadcasting House where he used to sit
through tedious meetings. [2]
When the original room 101 at the BBC was due to be demolished, a plaster cast of it was made
by artist Rachel
Whiteread and displayed in the cast courts of the
Victoria and
Albert Museum from November 2003 until June 2004. [3][4]
The Ministry of Peace ( Newspeak : Minipax ) serves as the war
ministry of Oceania's government, and is in charge of the armed forces , mostly the navy and army . The Ministry of Peace may be the most vital
organ of Oceania, seeing as the nation is supposedly at an ongoing genocidal war with either
Eurasia or Eastasia and requires the right amount of force not to win the war, but keep it in a
state of equilibrium.
As explained in Emmanuel Goldstein 's book,
The Theory
and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism , the Ministry of Peace revolves around the
principle of perpetual
war . Perpetual war uses up all surplus resources, keeping most citizens in lives of
constant hardship – and thus preventing them from learning enough to comprehend the true
nature of their society. Perpetual warfare also "helps preserve the special mental atmosphere
that a hierarchical society needs." Since that means the balance of the country rests in the
war, the Ministry of Peace is in charge of fighting the war (mostly centered around Africa and
India), but making sure to never tip the scales, in case the war should become one-sided.
Oceanic telescreens
usually broadcast news reports about how Oceania is continually winning every battle it fights,
though these reports have little to no credibility.
As with all the other Nineteen Eighty-Four ministries, the Ministry of Peace is named
the exact opposite of what it does, since the Ministry of Peace is in charge of maintaining a
state of war. The meaning of peace has been equated with the meaning of war in
the slogan of the party, "War is Peace". Like the names of other ministries, it also has a
literal application. Perpetual war is what keeps the "peace" (the status quo) in Oceania and
the balance of power in the world.
The Ministry of Plenty ( Newspeak : Miniplenty ) is in control of
Oceania's planned
economy . It oversees rationing of food , supplies , and goods . As told in Goldstein's book, the
economy of Oceania is very important, and it's necessary to have the public continually create
useless and synthetic supplies or weapons for use in the war, while they have no access to the
means of
production . This is the central theme of Oceania's idea that a poor, ignorant populace is
easier to rule over than a wealthy, well-informed one. Telescreens often make reports on how Big Brother has been able
to increase economic production, even when production has actually gone down (see §
Ministry of Truth ).
The Ministry hands out statistics which are "nonsense". When Winston is adjusting some
Ministry of Plenty's figures, he explains this:
But actually, he thought as he readjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not
even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of
the material that you were dealing with had no connection with anything in the real world,
not even the kind of connection that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as
much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version. A great deal of time
you were expected to make them up out of your head.
Like the other ministries, the Ministry of Plenty seems to be entirely misnamed, since it
is, in fact, responsible for maintaining a state of perpetual poverty , scarcity and financial shortages.
However, the name is also apt, because, along with the Ministry of Truth, the Ministry of
Plenty's other purpose is to convince the populace that they are living in a state of perpetual
prosperity. Orwell made a similar reference to the Ministry of Plenty in his allegorical work
Animal Farm
when, in the midst of a blight upon the farm, Napoleon the pig orders the silo to
be filled with sand, then to place a thin sprinkling of grain on top, which fools human
visitors into being dazzled about Napoleon's boasting of the farm's superior economy.
A department of the Ministry of Plenty is charged with organizing state lotteries . These are very popular among the
proles, who buy tickets and hope to win the big prizes – a completely vain hope as the
big prizes are in fact not awarded at all, the Ministry of Truth participating in the scam and
publishing every week the names of non-existent big winners.
The Ministry of Truth ( Newspeak : Minitrue ) is the ministry of propaganda
. As with the other ministries in the novel, the name Ministry of Truth is a misnomer
because in reality it serves the opposite: it is responsible for any necessary falsification of
historical events.
As well as administering truth, the ministry spreads a new language amongst the populace
called Newspeak , in
which, for example, "truth" is understood to mean statements like 2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants. In keeping
with the concept of doublethink, the ministry is thus aptly named in that it
creates/manufactures "truth" in the Newspeak sense of the word. The book describes the
doctoring of historical records to show a government-approved version of
events.
Winston Smith ,
the main character of Nineteen Eighty-Four , works at
the Ministry of Truth. [5] It
is an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete rising 300 metres (980 ft) into
the air, containing over 3000 rooms above ground. On the outside wall are the three slogans of
the Party: "WAR IS PEACE," "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY," "IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH." There is also a large
part underground, probably containing huge incinerators where documents are destroyed after
they are put down memory
holes . For his description, Orwell was inspired by the Senate House at the University of London .
[6]
The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and
educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine
for propaganda effect.
For example, if Big
Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of
Truth correct the record to make it accurate. This is the "how" of the Ministry of Truth's
existence. Within the novel, Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence, the
"why", is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change
its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during
war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction),
for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and
strong.
Minitrue plays a role as the news media by changing history, and changing the words in
articles about events current and past, so that Big Brother and his government are always seen
in a good light and can never do any wrong. The content is more propaganda than actual
news.
The novel's popularity has resulted in the term "Room 101" being used to represent a place
where unpleasant things are done.
According to Anna
Funder 's book Stasiland , Erich Mielke , the last Minister of State
Security ( Stasi ) of
East Germany , had
the floors of the Stasi headquarters renumbered so that his second floor office would be
number 101. [7]
In the BBC comedy television series Room 101 , the concept is
radically changed from that of Orwell, and celebrities are invited to discuss their pet hates
and persuade the host to consign them to oblivion, as metaphorically represented by the idea
of Room 101. [ citation needed
]
In the 2005
series of Big
Brother (UK) , a housemate was required to enter a Room 101 to complete tedious and
unpleasant tasks, including sorting different colours of maggots . [ citation needed
]
In The
Ricky Gervais Show , Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant play a game called "Room
102", based on the concept of "Room 101", in which Karl Pilkington has to decide what things
he dislikes enough to put in Room 102. This would result, according to their game, in these
things being erased from existence. [ citation needed ]
The name "Ministry of Peace", and shorthand "Minipax", appear in the US science fiction TV
series Babylon 5 .
The Ministry of Peace first appears in the episode " In the Shadow of Z'ha'dum ". It
is a sinister organisation, created to instill loyalty to the government of Earth and root out
dissent; one of its senior staff is a "Mr Welles". In its role it more closely resembles the
novel's §
Ministry of Love (which is responsible for the Thought Police and the interrogation of
dissidents) than it does the Ministry of Peace depicted in Nineteen Eighty-Four . [
citation
needed ]
In the 2011 Doctor
Who episode " The God Complex ", The Doctor and his companions find
themselves in a hotel full of their own personal Room 101s, each with their greatest fear in
it. [8]
Jump up
^ Stansky, Peter (1994). London's Burning . Stanford: Stanford
University Press. pp. 85–86. ISBN0-8047-2340-0
.
Tames, Richard (2006). London . Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. p.
126. ISBN0-19-530953-7
.
Humphreys, Rob (2003). The Rough Guide to London . Rough Guides Limited. p. 146.
ISBN1-84353-093-7
. "Orwell Today,
Ministry of Truth" . Retrieved 2008-08-27 .
"... "The USHA was empowered to advance loans amounting to 90% of project costs, at low-interest and on 60-year terms. By the end of 1940, over 500 USHA projects were in progress or had been completed, with loan contracts of $691 million. The goal was to make the program self-sustainable through the collection of rents: one-half of rent from the tenants themselves, one-third paid by contributions from the Federal government; and one-sixth paid by annual contributions made by the localities themselves." ..."
The first thing that popped into my head for whatever reason was a little bit in Roald
Dahl's Dickensian little childhood autobiography, Boy .
"At Prep School in those days, a parcel of tuck was sent once a week by anxious mothers
to their ravenous little sons, and an average tuck-box would probably contain, at almost
any time, half a home-made currant cake, a packet of squashed-fly biscuits, a couple of
oranges, an apple, a banana, a pot of strawberry jam or Marmite, a bar of chocolate, a bag
of Liquorice Allsorts, and a tin of Bassett's lemonade powder. An English school in those
days was purely a money-making business owned and operated by the Headmaster. It suited
him, therefore, to give the boys as little food as possible himself and to encourage the
parents in various cunning ways to feed their offspring by parcel post from home.
'By all means, my dear Mrs Dahl, do send your boy some little treats now and
again,' he would say. 'Perhaps a few oranges and apples once a week' – fruit was very
expensive – 'and a nice currant cake, a large currant cake perhaps because
small boys have large appetites, do they not, ha-ha-ha Yes, yes, as often as you
like. More than once a week if you wish Of course he'll be getting plenty
of good food here, the best there is, but it never tastes quite the same as home
cooking, does it? I'm sure you wouldn't want him to be the only one who doesn't get a
lovely parcel from home every week."
It won't fix homelessness. 1 in 5 Los Angeles community college students is homeless and 1
in 10 Cal State students are homeless.
The thing is though not necessarily free community college is cheap anyway about $200 a
class, and Cal State about 7k a year. One might be able to afford housing if they didn't have
this expense? ONLY if they could pay for housing with student loans. In other words Houston
we might have much bigger problems.
Here's my question: When?
When will the overworked, distracted, and misinformed denizens of this great nation declare
they have had enough?
That the richest society on Earth adds to the coffers of its billionaires, let's its
corporations run offshore and tax-free, supplies unlimited munificence on its military death
machine while its students starve, its populace moves further and further to financial
precarity, its water and highway systems grind to a halt, its health care system generates
infant mortality worse than Bulgaria.
What exactly is the tipping point?
Say hello to my little friend, "United States Housing Authority" ??? ;-)
All I'm saying is that we have the power to fix everything , and we can look back
to many things that were part of FDR's New Deal as guide posts to bigger and better solutions
that are desperately needed today.
"The USHA was empowered to advance loans amounting to 90% of project costs, at
low-interest and on 60-year terms. By the end of 1940, over 500 USHA projects were in
progress or had been completed, with loan contracts of $691 million. The goal was to make the
program self-sustainable through the collection of rents: one-half of rent from the tenants
themselves, one-third paid by contributions from the Federal government; and one-sixth paid
by annual contributions made by the localities themselves."
This where I believe Basic Income in tandem with a JG could provide a symbiotic
relationship. You can give students a BI to (help) cover expenses beyond free tuition so they
(and/or their families) could get affordable housing or subsidized university housing.
I'd call this person* a "raging regressive leftist" instead of a centrist: the latter
tends to do excessive navel-gazing while the former blames those racist white people for
anything and everything.
Then again, I was born in Europe, live in Europe, engage in live "politicking" in Europe, so
my experiences with American politics come mostly from the internet.
On topic: getting your first degree in my country is mostly free in state-funded colleges
and universities. Mostly, because 1: the applicant needs to meet a minimum point** threshold,
2: the applicant needs to meet the institutions's own threshold*** for that given department,
3: the applicant needs to rank high enough compared to the rest, because admissions are
limited by nature, 4: the applicant needs to maintain a high enough GPA to stay in a state
funded slot for their given department, and lastly, 5: there are some departments that
receive no funding at all, and choosing one of those means paying by default.
During my university years, I've never met anyone who had to starve, not even the poorest
students. There were, and are, several different scholarship programs aside from the usual
"get a real high GPA and you'll receive a free price if you're lucky" ones. Students can
usually get a student job in our larger cities, and depending on the department, there are
some other ways to earn some money: engineering and IT students often get picked by larger
firms in their sophomore or senior year, and even if they don't, there's always someone in
need of some help with those killer assignments.
The problem here is housing. Dorm spaces are limited, and renting a room is relatively
expensive costing somewhere around $500 USD per month in a country with a $22000 USD yearly
median income (estimate by OECD). Getting a degree was widely regarded as a means of upward
mobility by my father's generation, but the years after the destruction of the Iron Curtain
proved them wrong. And of course, they knew nothing about the Free Western States.
*While I see a woman, these are the people who'd bite my face off for misgendering them.
No such thing in continental Europe, for now.
**There's a minimum threshold of 260 points. Base points are calculated from high school
grades, third and fourth year, and the high school diploma's grades. Bonus points are awarded
for state accredited language certificates, high placements on certain students'
competitions, and other degrees.
***Institutions apply their own thresholds based on the quantity and quality of their
applicants.
When I was a graduate student at UCLA the food on campus was pretty cheap and the salads
were sold by the size of the bowl, not by weight. We all became expert at piling those bowls
high.
When I taught at CU Boulder, the food on campus was expensive and the salads were weighed.
A healthy salad could easily cost you eleven bucks, so I stopped eating campus food and took
sandwiches to work instead.
The increase in food prices seems to have parallelled the increase in fees over those
forty years.
However, I would make another observation: many young people, in my experience, when they
are stressed or working hard, tend to forget to eat – irrespective of how well-off they
are. And many of the students I taught had been addicted at high school to "attention
deficit" drugs like Ritalin and Adderol, which, being forms of speed, are
appetite-suppressants.
Two of my daughters graduated from a university in a university town in Nova Scotia in the
late1990s. That university set up its own food bank many years ago, to supplement the food
banks set up by two churches and the town and county. Housing was still available (small
town, student, faculty and school money spent locally), from shared apartments to rooming
houses. In any sizable city in Canada or the US, those options for students may not now be
available at all, because of greedy landlords, gentrification, and Air B'nb.
On the other hand, during the 1930s, my father-in-law was living in Vancouver, a teenager.
He frequently told us stories of the many poor students who lived on or just off the beaches
in the western part of the city, in shanties of driftwood and scraps while attending
university. Try that now, in any city.
So, you see, today's undergraduates are in many ways even worse off than "great
depression" students. Their possible makeshift accommodations have been legislated away.
Robbing the future of our nation to pay the fatcats. What a wonderful way to run a
country! If We the People- loosely defined as the other 90%- don't step up and take our
country back, we won't have one to speak of in another decade.
"... There is a vast literature analyzing the political prophecy of George Orwell 's Nineteen Eighty-Four . Big Brother, double-speak, telescreens, crimestop, etc. – all applied to our current political situation. The language has become part of our popular lexicon, and as such, has become clichéd through overuse. Blithe, habitual use of language robs it of its power to crack open the safe that hides the realities of life. ..."
"... There is no doubt that Orwell wrote a brilliant political warning about the methods of totalitarian control. But hidden at the heart of the book is another lesson lost on most readers and commentators. Rats, torture, and Newspeak resonate with people fixated on political repression, which is a major concern, of course. But so too is privacy and sexual passion in a country of group-think and group-do, where "Big Brother" poisons you in the crib and the entertainment culture then takes over to desexualize intimacy by selling it as another public commodity. ..."
"... The United States is a pornographic society. By pornographic I do not just mean the omnipresent selling of exploitative sex through all media to titillate a voyeuristic public living in the unreality of screen "life" and screen sex through television, movies, and online obsessions. I mean a commodified consciousness, where everyone and everything is part of a prostitution ring in the deepest sense of pornography's meaning – for sale, bought. ..."
"... As this happens, words and language become corrupted by the same forces that Orwell called Big Brother, whose job is total propaganda and social control. Just as physical reality now mimics screen reality and thus becomes chimerical, language, through which human beings uncover and articulate the truth of being, becomes more and more abstract. People don't die; they "pass on" or "pass away." Dying, like real sex, is too physical. Wars of aggression don't exist; they are "overseas contingency operations." Killing people with drones isn't killing; it's "neutralizing them." There are a "ton" of examples, but I am sure "you guys" don't need me to list any more. ..."
"... This destruction of language has been going on for a long time, but it's worth noting that from Hemingway's WW I through Orwell's WW II up until today's endless U.S. wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Libya, etc., there has been the parallel development of screen and media culture, beginning with silent movies through television and onto the total electronic media environment we now inhabit – the surround sound and image bubble of literal abstractions that inhabit us, mentally and physically. In such a society, to feel what you really feel and not what, in Hemingway's words, "you were supposed to feel, and had been taught to feel" has become extremely difficult. ..."
"... But understanding the history of public relations, advertising, propaganda, the CIA, the national security apparatus, technology, etc., makes it clear that such hope is baseless. For the propaganda in this country has penetrated far deeper than anyone can imagine, and it has primarily done this through advanced technology and the religion of technique – machines as pure abstractions – that has poisoned not just our minds, but the deepest wellsprings of the body's truths and the erotic imagination that links us in love to all life on earth. ..."
"... Orwell makes it very clear that language is the key to mind control, as he delineates how Newspeak works. I think he is right. And mind control also means the control of our bodies, Eros, our sex, our physical connections to all living beings and nature. Today the U.S. is reaching the point where "Oldspeak" – Standard English – has been replaced by Newspeak, and just "fragments of the literature of the past" survive here and there. ..."
"Christianity gave Eros poison to drink; he did not die of it, certainly, but
degenerated to Vice." – Frederick Nietzsche , Beyond Good and Evil
"Ours is essentially a tragic age, so we refuse to take it tragically. The cataclysm has
happened, we are among the ruins, we start to build up new little habitats, to have new little
hopes. It is rather hard work: there is now no smooth road into the future: but we go round, or
scramble over the obstacles. We've got to live, no matter how many skies have fallen." –
D. H. Lawrence , Lady Chatterley's Lover
"The so-called consumer society and the politics of corporate capitalism have created a
second nature of man which ties him libidinally and aggressively to the commodity form. The
need for possessing, consuming, handling and constantly renewing gadgets, devices, instruments,
engines, offered to and imposed upon the people, for using these wares even at the danger of
one's own destruction, has become a 'biological' need." – Herbert Marcuse , One
Dimensional Man
There is a vast literature analyzing the political prophecy of George Orwell 's Nineteen
Eighty-Four . Big Brother, double-speak, telescreens, crimestop, etc. – all applied
to our current political situation. The language has become part of our popular lexicon, and as
such, has become clichéd through overuse. Blithe, habitual use of language robs it of
its power to crack open the safe that hides the realities of life.
There is no doubt that Orwell wrote a brilliant political warning about the methods of
totalitarian control. But hidden at the heart of the book is another lesson lost on most
readers and commentators. Rats, torture, and Newspeak resonate with people fixated on political
repression, which is a major concern, of course. But so too is privacy and sexual passion in a
country of group-think and group-do, where "Big Brother" poisons you in the crib and the
entertainment culture then takes over to desexualize intimacy by selling it as another public
commodity.
The United States is a pornographic society. By pornographic I do not just mean the
omnipresent selling of exploitative sex through all media to titillate a voyeuristic public
living in the unreality of screen "life" and screen sex through television, movies, and online
obsessions. I mean a commodified consciousness, where everyone and everything is part of a
prostitution ring in the deepest sense of pornography's meaning – for sale, bought.
And
consumed by getting, spending, and selling. Flicked into the net of Big Brother, whose job is
make sure everything fundamentally human and physical is debased and mediated, people become
consumers of the unreal and direct experience is discouraged. The natural world becomes an
object to be conquered and used. Animals are produced in chemical factories to be slaughtered
by the billions only to appear bloodless under plastic wrap in supermarket coolers. The human
body disappears into hypnotic spectral images. One's sex becomes one's gender as the words are
transmogrified and as one looks in the mirror of the looking-glass self and wonders how to
identify the one looking back.
Streaming life from Netflix or Facebook becomes life the movie.
The brilliant perverseness of the mediated reality of a screen society – what Guy Debord
calls The Society of the
Spectacle – is that as it distances people from fundamental reality, it promotes that
reality through its screen fantasies. "Get away from it all and restore yourself at our spa in
the rugged mountains where you can hike in pristine woods after yoga and a breakfast of locally
sourced eggs and artisanally crafted bread." Such garbage would be funny if it weren't so
effective. Debord writes,
The spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by
images .Where the real world changes into simple images, the simple images become real beings
and effective motivations of hypnotic behavior.
Thus sex with robots and marrying yourself are not aberrations but logical extensions of a
society where solipsism meets machine in the America dream.
As this happens, words and language become corrupted by the same forces that Orwell called
Big Brother, whose job is total propaganda and social control. Just as physical reality now
mimics screen reality and thus becomes chimerical, language, through which human beings uncover
and articulate the truth of being, becomes more and more abstract. People don't die; they "pass
on" or "pass away." Dying, like real sex, is too physical. Wars of aggression don't exist; they
are "overseas contingency operations." Killing people with drones isn't killing; it's
"neutralizing them." There are a "ton" of examples, but I am sure "you guys" don't need me to
list any more.
Orwell called Big Brother's language Newspeak, and Hemingway preceded him when he so
famously wrote in disgust In a Farewell to Arms ,
"I was always embarrassed by the words sacred, glorious, and sacrifice, and the expression
in vain. Abstract words such as glory, honor, courage, or hallow were obscene "
This destruction of language has been going on for a long time, but it's worth noting that
from Hemingway's WW I through Orwell's WW II up until today's endless U.S. wars against
Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Libya, etc., there has been the parallel development of screen
and media culture, beginning with silent movies through television and onto the total
electronic media environment we now inhabit – the surround sound and image bubble of
literal abstractions that inhabit us, mentally and physically. In such a society, to feel what
you really feel and not what, in Hemingway's words, "you were supposed to feel, and had been
taught to feel" has become extremely difficult.
... ... ...
But as we learn in 1984 and should learn in the U.S.A. today , "seemed" is the
key word. Their triumph was temporary. For sexual passion reveals truths that need to be
confirmed in the mind. In itself, sexual liberation can be easily manipulated, as it has been
so effectively in the United States. "Repressive de-sublimation" Herbert Marcuse called it
fifty years ago. You allow people to act out their sexual fantasies in commodified ways that
can be controlled by the rulers, all the while ruling their minds and potential political
rebelliousness. Sex becomes part of the service economy where people service each other while
serving their masters. Use pseudo-sex to sell them a way of life that traps them in an
increasingly totalitarian social order that only seems free. This has been accomplished
primarily through screen culture and the concomitant confusion of sexual identity. Perhaps you
have noticed that over the past twenty-five years of growing social and political confusion, we
have witnessed an exponential growth in "the electronic life," the use of psychotropic drugs,
and sexual disorientation. This is no accident. Wars have become as constant as Eros –
the god of love, life, joy, and motion – has been divorced from sex as a stimulus and
response release of tension in a "stressed" society. Rollo May, the great American
psychologist, grasped this:
Indeed, we have set sex over against eros, used sex precisely to avoid the
anxiety-creating involvements of eros We are in flight from eros and use sex as the vehicle for
the flight Eros [which includes, but is not limited to, passionate sex] is the center of
vitality of a culture – its heart and soul. And when release of tension takes the place
of creative eros, the downfall of the civilization is assured.
Because Julia and Winston cannot permanently escape Oceania, but can only tryst, they
succumb to Big Brother's mind control and betray each other. Their sexual affair can't save
them. It is a moment of beauty and freedom in an impossible situation. Of course the
hermetically sealed world of 1984 is not the United States. Orwell created a society in
which escape was impossible. It is, after all, an admonitory novel – not the real world.
Things are more subtle here; we still have some wiggle room – some – although the
underlying truth is the same: the U.S. oligarchy, like "The Party," "seeks power entirely for
its own sake" and "are not interested in the good of others," all rhetoric to the contrary. Our
problem is that too many believe the rhetoric, and those who say they don't really do at the
deepest level. Fly the flag and play the national anthem and their hearts are aflutter with
hope. Recycle old bromides about the next election when your political enemies will be swept
out of office and excitement builds as though you had met the love of your life and all was
well with the world.
But understanding the history of public relations, advertising, propaganda, the CIA, the
national security apparatus, technology, etc., makes it clear that such hope is baseless. For
the propaganda in this country has penetrated far deeper than anyone can imagine, and it has
primarily done this through advanced technology and the religion of technique – machines
as pure abstractions – that has poisoned not just our minds, but the deepest wellsprings
of the body's truths and the erotic imagination that links us in love to all life on earth.
In "Defence of Poetry," Percy Bysshe Shelley writes:
The great secret of morals is love; or a going out of our nature, and an identification of
ourselves with the beautiful which exists in thought, action, or person, not our own. A man,
to be greatly good, must imagine intensely and comprehensively; he must put himself in the
place of another and of many others; the pains and pleasure of his species must become his
own. The great instrument of moral good is the imagination.
We are now faced with the question: Can we escape the forces of propaganda and mind control
that run so very deep into American life? If so, how? Let's imagine a way out.
Orwell makes it very clear that language is the key to mind control, as he delineates how
Newspeak works. I think he is right. And mind control also means the control of our bodies,
Eros, our sex, our physical connections to all living beings and nature. Today the U.S. is
reaching the point where "Oldspeak" – Standard English – has been replaced by
Newspeak, and just "fragments of the literature of the past" survive here and there.
This is
true for the schooled and unschooled. In fact, those more trapped by the instrumental logic,
disembodied data, and word games of the power elite are those who have gone through the most
schooling, the indoctrination offered by the so-called "elite" universities. I suspect that
more working-class and poor people still retain some sense of the old language and the
fundamental meaning of words, since it is with their sweat and blood that they "earn their
living." Many of the highly schooled are children of the power elite or those groomed to serve
them, who are invited to join in living the life of power and privilege if they swallow their
consciences and deaden their imaginations to the suffering their "life-styles" and ideological
choices inflict on the rest of the world. In this world of TheNew York Times ,
Harvard, The New Yorker , Martha's Vineyard, TheWashington Post , Wall
St., Goldman Sachs, the boardrooms of the ruling corporations, all the corporate media, etc.,
language has become debased beyond recognition. Here, as Orwell said of Newspeak, "a heretical
thought should be literally unthinkable, at least as far as thought is dependent on words. Its
vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every
meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express." The intelligently orthodox, he
adds, must master the art of "doublethink" wherein they hold two contradictory ideas in their
minds simultaneously, while accepting both of them. This is the key trick of logic and language
that allows the power elites and their lackeys in the U.S. today to master the art of
self-deception and feel good about themselves as they plunder the world. In this "Party" world,
the demonization, degradation, and killing of others is an abstraction; their lives are
spectral. Orwell describes doublethink this way:
To tell deliberate lives while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has
become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion
for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while
to take account of the reality one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in
using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink . For by using
the word one admits one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one
erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the
truth.
... ... ...
*
Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely; he is a frequent contributor
to Global Research. He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website
is http://edwardcurtin.com/ .
The Opportunity Dodge, The American Prospect: We think of America
as the land of opportunity, but the United States actually has low rates of upward mobility relative to other advanced nations...
Creating more opportunity is therefore a worthy goal. However, when the goal of more opportunity is offered instead of addressing
income inequality, it's a dodge and an empty promise-because opportunity does not thrive amid great inequalities. ...
The opportunity dodgers .... ignore that income inequality and intergenerational mobility are closely linked..., one
of the most robust and long-standing social science research findings is that ... the circumstances in which children grow up
... greatly shapes educational advancement. So, promoting education solutions to mobility without addressing income inequality
is ultimately playing pretend. We can't substantially change opportunity without changing the actual lived circumstances of
disadvantaged and working-class youth. ...
Acknowledging that income inequality and poverty greatly affect schooling success means we need to improve the circumstances
of poor children's lives by providing stable, adequate housing and healthy, safe environments. Decent income for their parents
is essential. ...
Last, it is important to recognize that some people are always going to end up on the bottom and middle rungs since ... somebody
has to be below average. Economic policy must also be concerned that low- and moderate-income families have decent incomes,
health care, and retirement. The opportunity dodgers are really saying they do not care how low- and middle-income families
actually live.
djb
this is especially true when you see what a farce it is that ivy leagues and other top rated colleges are always trying to
find "worthy" poor kids to come to their school
and how little that actually happens
the little that it does is good
but it is mostly not really happening
because to get the qualifications you really need to go to a rich school with all sorts of supports and training on standardized
tests etc
DrDick
Indeed equal opportunity cannot exist in the presence of high inequality. It is a lie designed to divert the blame from the
rapacious rich to the supposed (and largely nonexistent) faults of the poor.
"... Perhaps, Lin, by voluntarily entering an establishment in order to alter one's consciousness- whether in Vietnam or America- you are signaling your surrender and defeat in the war on the "true nature of reality." ..."
I would agree that the America of the neighborhood tavern is dying but would not characterize
our political leadership as a 'rootless, criminal cabal. Criminal they maybe but they are
rooted in the Ivy League, principally Yale and Harvard, and the ideology to gain admission to
those schools. I would say skills to gain entrance but, today, it is more a matter of
ideology. Stray too far from the Clinton/Bush crony capitalist model or Obama's identity
politics and your application goes into the garbage can and with it your chance of joining
our governing elite.
Indeed. I would say this from a slightly different angle: forget about the details of
politics: constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy, a republic, democratic socialism,
even marxism, checks and balances, an independent judiciary, an independent central bank, a
written constitution all of these can be made to work, more or less, if the elites care about
the nation as whole. And none of these will matter if the elites no longer care, if they
value their own short-term profit over the long-term stability and strength of their nation.
Back under FDR etc., the elites of this nation were worried about communists, and
anarchists, and then Nazis. That made them care about this nation, they feared that if the
nation went down they would go down as well. So they cared about the working class. I am old
enough to remember when we used to celebrate that we had the highest wages in the world
– that was considered a magnificent joint accomplishment and proof of the greatness of
this nation. Now high American wages are routinely derided as evil, as proof that Americans
are selfish and lazy and they need to be replaced by all those wonderful third-world refugees
who have no alternative but to work for sub-poverty wages
I think the core of this rot is that the elites are no longer afraid. They no longer have
reason to care. They live in gated estates, they fly from private airports (even first class
in a public airport is not good enough/removed enough from the masses for them!), and if
things fall apart they will just sail away in their yachts, tut-tutting about how Americans
no longer deserve their presence
Perhaps, Lin, by voluntarily entering an establishment in order to alter one's
consciousness- whether in Vietnam or America- you are signaling your surrender and defeat in
the war on the "true nature of reality."
The alcohol delusion amplifies greed hatred bondage.
And is anathema to wholesome higher insights.
Whether alcohol or heroin these self- ingrained defilements are an obstruction to the
complete repose to the human spirit.
Exactly. America's leaders behave criminally because they're not scared of the population.
So there's nothing to constrain our leaders from behaving like grifters and conmen.
At some point, however, this will come to an end. Our massively skyrocketing national debt
is totally unpayable, so investors will eventually stop buying our bonds. When that happens,
our national economy and standard of living will collapse dramatically.
It's at that point when our leaders are either put in jail or flee the country.
So is capital, when the dollar will have only limited reserve currency status to the rest
of the world, the American locals will be proportionately ruled by Russian oligarchs and
Chinese priviledge.
American locals are just bulk humanity to these supranationals, they are defined by global
consumerism of the same crap the elites despise. They sweat corn syrup and palm oil and seem
to look "Pinker Steve" happy when digitally masturbating and being chemically subdued,
encased in concrete scenarios.
Now after consumerism, since it is offset by limited resources of our planet, it will be
real misery, as in plowing concrete. That must be mostly indifferent to our supranationals.
Bulk humanity is basically obsolete, and extra-ordinary lucky. If it were for the
supranational nuclei to have a long term policy, we the deplorables would be wiped away, say
three quarters of us.
They are though eagerly observing, if we not, as always, will do it ourselves to us. The
problem would die on itself. The ethnic White middle class down to the street is pointing the
way.
"... At this point, I'm wondering whether life was easier in the old days, when you could buy a spot in the elite university of your choice with cold cash. Then I remind myself that Grandfather lasted only one year at Yale. In those days, the Ivies kicked you out if you weren't ready for action. Today, you have to self-combust in a newsworthy way before they show you the door. ..."
"... Excellent Sheep ..."
"... The Price of Admission ..."
"... In the United States, the premium that college graduates earn over their non-college-educated peers in young adulthood exceeds 70 percent. ..."
"... All of this comes before considering the all-consuming difference between "good" schools and the rest. Ten years after starting college, according to data from the Department of Education, the top decile of earners from all schools had a median salary of $68,000 . But the top decile from the 10 highest-earning colleges raked in $220,000 -- make that $250,000 for No. 1, Harvard -- and the top decile at the next 30 colleges took home $157,000. (Not surprisingly, the top 10 had an average acceptance rate of 9 percent, and the next 30 were at 19 percent.) ..."
"... But the fact is that degree holders earn so much more than the rest not primarily because they are better at their job, but because they mostly take different categories of jobs. Well over half of Ivy League graduates, for instance, typically go straight into one of four career tracks that are generally reserved for the well educated: finance, management consulting, medicine, or law. To keep it simple, let's just say that there are two types of occupations in the world: those whose members have collective influence in setting their own pay, and those whose members must face the music on their own. It's better to be a member of the first group. Not surprisingly, that is where you will find the college crowd. ..."
"... The candy-hurling godfather of today's meritocratic class, of course, is the financial-services industry. Americans now turn over $1 of every $12 in GDP to the financial sector; in the 1950s, the bankers were content to keep only $1 out of $40. ..."
"... It isn't a coincidence that the education premium surged during the same years that membership in trade unions collapsed. In 1954, 28 percent of all workers were members of trade unions, but by 2017 that figure was down to 11 percent. ..."
"... Education -- the thing itself , not the degree -- is always good. A genuine education opens minds and makes good citizens. It ought to be pursued for the sake of society . In our unbalanced system, however, education has been reduced to a private good, justifiable only by the increments in graduates' paychecks. Instead of uniting and enriching us, it divides and impoverishes. ..."
"... If the system can be gamed, well then, our ability to game the system has become the new test of merit. ..."
My 16-year-old daughter is sitting on a couch, talking with a stranger about her dreams for
the future. We're here, ominously enough, because, she says, "all my friends are doing it." For
a moment, I wonder whether we have unintentionally signed up for some kind of therapy. The
professional woman in the smart-casual suit throws me a pointed glance and says, "It's normal
to be anxious at a time like this." She really does see herself as a therapist of sorts. But
she does not yet seem to know that the source of my anxiety is the idea of shelling out for a
$12,000 "base package" of college-counseling services whose chief purpose is apparently to
reduce my anxiety. Determined to get something out of this trial counseling session, I push for
recommendations on summer activities. We leave with a tip on a 10-day "cultural tour" of France
for high schoolers. In the college-application business, that's what's known as an "enrichment
experience." When we get home, I look it up. The price of enrichment: $11,000 for the 10
days.
That's when I hear the legend of the SAT whisperer. If you happen to ride through the
yellow-brown valleys of the California coast, past the designer homes that sprout wherever tech
unicorns sprinkle their golden stock offerings, you might come across him. His high-school
classmates still remember him, almost four decades later, as one of the child wonders of the
age. Back then, he and his equally precocious siblings showed off their preternatural verbal
and musical talents on a local television program. Now his clients fly him around the state for
test-prep sessions with their 16-year-olds. You can hire him for $750, plus transportation, per
two-hour weekend session. (There is a weekday discount.) Some of his clients book him every
week for a year.
Affirmative-action programs are to some degree an extension of the system
of wealth preservation. They indulge rich people in the belief that their college is open to
all.
At this point, I'm wondering whether life was easier in the old days, when you could buy
a spot in the elite university of your choice with cold cash. Then I remind myself that
Grandfather lasted only one year at Yale. In those days, the Ivies kicked you out if you
weren't ready for action. Today, you have to self-combust in a newsworthy way before they show
you the door.
Inevitably, I begin rehearsing the speech for my daughter. It's perfectly possible to lead a
meaningful life without passing through a name-brand college, I'm going to say. We love you for
who you are. We're not like those tacky strivers who want a back-windshield sticker to testify
to our superior parenting skills. And why would you want to be an investment banker or a
corporate lawyer anyway? But I refrain from giving the speech, knowing full well that it will
light up her parental-bullshit detector like a pair of khakis on fire.
The skin colors of the nation's elite student bodies are more varied now, as are their
genders, but their financial bones have calcified over the past 30 years. In 1985, 54 percent
of students at the 250 most selective colleges came from families in the bottom three quartiles
of the income distribution. A similar review of the class of 2010 put that figure at just 33
percent. According to a 2017 study, 38 elite colleges -- among them five of the Ivies --
had more students from the top 1 percent than from the bottom 60 percent . In his 2014
book, Excellent Sheep , William Deresiewicz, a former English professor at Yale,
summed up the situation nicely: "Our new multiracial, gender-neutral meritocracy has figured
out a way to make itself hereditary."
The wealthy can also draw on a variety of affirmative-action programs designed just for
them. As Daniel Golden points out in The Price of Admission , legacy-admissions
policies reward those applicants with the foresight to choose parents who attended the
university in question. Athletic recruiting, on balance and contrary to the popular wisdom,
also favors the wealthy, whose children pursue lacrosse, squash, fencing, and the other
cost-intensive sports at which private schools and elite public schools excel. And, at least
among members of the 0.1 percent, the old-school method of simply handing over some of Daddy's
cash has been making a comeback. (
Witness Jared Kushner, Harvard graduate .)
The mother lode of all affirmative-action programs for the wealthy, of course, remains the
private school. Only 2.2 percent of the nation's students graduate from nonsectarian private
high schools, and yet these graduates account for 26 percent of students at Harvard and 28
percent of students at Princeton. The other affirmative-action programs, the kind aimed
at diversifying the look of the student body, are no doubt well intended. But they are to some
degree merely an extension of this system of wealth preservation. Their function, at least in
part, is to indulge rich people in the belief that their college is open to all on the basis of
merit.
The plummeting admission rates of the very top schools nonetheless leave many of the
children of the 9.9 percent facing long odds. But not to worry, junior 9.9 percenters! We've
created a new range of elite colleges just for you. Thanks to ambitious university
administrators and the ever-expanding rankings machine at U.S. News & World Report ,
50 colleges are now as selective as Princeton was in 1980, when I applied. The colleges seem to
think that piling up rejections makes them special. In fact, it just means that they have
collectively opted to deploy their massive, tax-subsidized endowments to replicate privilege
rather than fulfill their duty to produce an educated public.
The only thing going up as fast as the rejection rates at selective colleges is the
astounding price of tuition. Measured relative to the national median salary, tuition and fees
at top colleges more than tripled from 1963 to 2013. Throw in the counselors, the whisperers,
the violin lessons, the private schools, and the cost of arranging for Junior to save a village
in Micronesia, and it adds up. To be fair, financial aid closes the gap for many families and
keeps the average cost of college from growing as fast as the sticker price. But that still
leaves a question: Why are the wealthy so keen to buy their way in?
The short answer, of course, is that it's worth it.
In the United States, the premium that college graduates earn over their
non-college-educated peers in young adulthood exceeds 70 percent. The return on education is 50
percent higher than what it was in 1950, and is significantly higher than the rate in every
other developed country. In Norway and Denmark, the college premium is less than 20 percent; in
Japan, it is less than 30 percent; in France and Germany, it's about 40 percent.
All of this comes before considering the all-consuming difference between "good" schools and
the rest. Ten years after starting college, according to data from the Department of Education,
the top decile of earners from all schools had a median salary of $68,000 . But the top decile from
the 10 highest-earning colleges raked in $220,000 -- make that $250,000 for No. 1, Harvard --
and the top decile at the next 30 colleges took home $157,000. (Not surprisingly, the top 10
had an average acceptance rate of 9 percent, and the next 30 were at 19 percent.)
It is entirely possible to get a good education at the many schools that don't count as
"good" in our brand-obsessed system. But the "bad" ones really are bad for you. For those who
made the mistake of being born to the wrong parents, our society offers a kind of virtual
education system. It has places that look like colleges -- but aren't really. It has debt --
and that, unfortunately, is real. The people who enter into this class hologram do not collect
a college premium; they wind up in something more like indentured servitude.
So what is the real source of this premium for a "good education" that we all seem to
crave?
One of the stories we tell ourselves is that the premium is the reward for the knowledge and
skills the education provides us. Another, usually unfurled after a round of drinks, is that
the premium is a reward for the superior cranial endowments we possessed before setting foot on
campus. We are, as some sociologists have delicately put it, a "cognitive elite."
Behind both of these stories lies one of the founding myths of our meritocracy. One way or
the other, we tell ourselves, the rising education premium is a direct function of the rising
value of meritorious people in a modern economy. That is, not only do the meritorious get
ahead, but the rewards we receive are in direct proportion to our merit.
But the fact is that degree holders earn so much more than the rest not primarily because
they are better at their job, but because they mostly take different categories of jobs. Well
over half of Ivy League graduates, for instance, typically go straight into one of four career
tracks that are generally reserved for the well educated: finance, management consulting,
medicine, or law. To keep it simple, let's just say that there are two types of occupations in
the world: those whose members have collective influence in setting their own pay, and those
whose members must face the music on their own. It's better to be a member of the first group.
Not surprisingly, that is where you will find the college crowd.
why do America's doctors make twice as much as those of other wealthy countries? Given that
the United States has placed dead last five times running in the Commonwealth Fund's ranking of
health-care systems in high-income countries, it's hard to argue that they are twice as gifted
at saving lives. Dean Baker, a senior economist with the Center for Economic and Policy
Research, has
a more plausible suggestion : "When economists like me look at medicine in America --
whether we lean left or right politically -- we see something that looks an awful lot like a
cartel." Through their influence on the number of slots at medical schools, the availability of
residencies, the licensing of foreign-trained doctors, and the role of nurse practitioners,
physicians' organizations can effectively limit the competition their own members face -- and
that is exactly what they do.
Lawyers (or at least a certain elite subset of them) have apparently learned to play the
same game. Even after the collapse of the so-called law-school bubble, America's lawyers are
No. 1 in international salary rankings and earn more than twice as much, on average, as their
wig-toting British colleagues. The University of Chicago law professor Todd Henderson, writing
for Forbes in 2016,
offered a blunt assessment : "The American Bar Association operates a state-approved
cartel."
Similar occupational licensing schemes provide shelter for the meritorious in a variety of
other sectors. The policy researchers Brink Lindsey and Steven Teles detail the mechanisms in
The Captured
Economy . Dentists' offices, for example, have a glass ceiling that limits what dental
hygienists can do without supervision, keeping their bosses in the 9.9 percent. Copyright and
patent laws prop up profits and salaries in the education-heavy pharmaceutical, software, and
entertainment sectors. These arrangements are trifles, however, compared with what's on offer
in tech and finance, two of the most powerful sectors of the economy.
By now we're thankfully done with the tech-sector fairy tales in which whip-smart cowboys
innovate the heck out of a stodgy status quo. The reality is that five monster companies -- you
know the names -- are worth about $3.5 trillion combined, and represent more than 40 percent of
the market capital on the nasdaq stock exchange. Much of the rest of the technology sector
consists of virtual entities waiting patiently to feed themselves to these beasts.
Let's face it: This is Monopoly money with a smiley emoji. Our society figured out some time
ago how to deal with companies that attempt to corner the market on viscous substances like
oil. We don't yet know what to do with the monopolies that arise out of networks and scale
effects in the information marketplace. Until we do, the excess profits will stick to those who
manage to get closest to the information honeypot. You can be sure that these people will have
a great deal of merit.
The candy-hurling godfather of today's meritocratic class, of course, is the
financial-services industry. Americans now turn over $1 of every $12 in GDP to the financial
sector; in the 1950s, the bankers were content to keep only $1 out of $40. The game is more
sophisticated than a two-fisted money grab, but its essence was made obvious during the 2008
financial crisis. The public underwrites the risks; the financial gurus take a seat at the
casino; and it's heads they win, tails we lose. The financial system we now have is not a
product of nature. It has been engineered, over decades, by powerful bankers, for their own
benefit and for that of their posterity.
Who is not in on the game? Auto workers, for example. Caregivers. Retail workers. Furniture
makers. Food workers. The wages of American manufacturing and service workers consistently
hover in the middle of international rankings. The exceptionalism of American compensation
rates comes to an end in the kinds of work that do not require a college degree.
You see, when educated people with excellent credentials band together to advance their
collective interest, it's all part of serving the public good by ensuring a high quality of
service, establishing fair working conditions, and giving merit its due. That's why we do it
through "associations," and with the assistance of fellow professionals wearing white shoes.
When working-class people do it -- through unions -- it's a violation of the sacred principles
of the free market. It's thuggish and anti-modern. Imagine if workers hired consultants and
"compensation committees," consisting of their peers at other companies, to recommend how much
they should be paid. The result would be -- well, we know what it would be, because that's what
CEOs do.
It isn't a coincidence that the education premium surged during the same years that
membership in trade unions collapsed. In 1954, 28 percent of all workers were members of trade
unions, but by 2017 that figure was down to 11 percent.
Education -- the thing itself , not the degree -- is always good. A genuine education opens
minds and makes good citizens. It ought to be pursued for the sake of society . In our
unbalanced system, however, education has been reduced to a private good, justifiable only by
the increments in graduates' paychecks. Instead of uniting and enriching us, it divides and
impoverishes. Which is really just a way of saying that our worthy ideals of educational
opportunity are ultimately no match for the tidal force of the Gatsby Curve. The metric that
has tracked the rising college premium with the greatest precision is -- that's right --
intergenerational earnings elasticity, or IGE. Across countries, the same correlation obtains:
the higher the college premium, the lower the social mobility.
As I'm angling all the angles for my daughter's college applications -- the counselor is
out, and the SAT whisperer was never going to happen -- I realize why this delusion of merit is
so hard to shake. If I -- I mean, she -- can pull this off, well, there's the proof that we
deserve it! If the system can be gamed, well then, our ability to game the system has become the new test of merit.
So go ahead and replace the SATs with shuffleboard on the high seas, or whatever you want.
Who can doubt that we'd master that game, too? How quickly would we convince ourselves of our
absolute entitlement to the riches that flow directly and tangibly from our shuffling talent?
How soon before we perfected the art of raising shuffleboard wizards? Would any of us notice or
care which way the ship was heading?
Let's suppose that some of us do look up. We see the iceberg. Will that induce us to
diminish our exertions in supreme child-rearing? The grim truth is that, as long as good
parenting and good citizenship are in conflict, we're just going to pack a few more violins for
the trip.
The economist John Maynard Keynes said "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do
you do, sir?" But many students continue to be deceived by their professors who, even
after the great financial crisis, refuse to change their mind and continue to actively peddle
theories that are plain wrong. So on the show we ask if the academics are failing us, how do we
begin to reverse such a heavily entrenched education system? Host Ross Ashcroft is joined by
Professor Steve Keen and the author and economist Steven Payson.
"... Live Work Work Work Die: A Journey into the Savage Heart of Silicon Valley ..."
"... Older generations called this kind of fraud "fake it 'til you make it." ..."
"... Nowadays I work 9:30-4:30 for a very good, consistent paycheck and let some other "smart person" put in 75 hours a week dealing with hiring ..."
"... It's not a "kids these days" sort of issue, it's *always* been the case that shameless, baseless self-promotion wins out over sincere skill without the self-promotion, because the people who control the money generally understand boasting more than they understand the technology. ..."
"... In the bad old days we had a hell of a lot of ridiculous restriction We must somehow made our programs to run successfully inside a RAM that was 48KB in size (yes, 48KB, not 48MB or 48GB), on a CPU with a clock speed of 1.023 MHz ..."
"... So what are the uses for that? I am curious what things people have put these to use for. ..."
"... Also, Oracle, SAP, IBM... I would never buy from them, nor use their products. I have used plenty of IBM products and they suck big time. They make software development 100 times harder than it could be. ..."
"... I have a theory that 10% of people are good at what they do. It doesn't really matter what they do, they will still be good at it, because of their nature. These are the people who invent new things, who fix things that others didn't even see as broken and who automate routine tasks or simply question and erase tasks that are not necessary. ..."
"... 10% are just causing damage. I'm not talking about terrorists and criminals. ..."
"... Programming is statistically a dead-end job. Why should anyone hone a dead-end skill that you won't be able to use for long? For whatever reason, the industry doesn't want old programmers. ..."
The author shares what he realized at a job recruitment fair seeking Java Legends, Python Badasses, Hadoop Heroes, "and other
gratingly childish classifications describing various programming specialities.
" I wasn't the only one bluffing my way through the tech scene. Everyone was doing it, even the much-sought-after engineering
talent.
I
was struck by how many developers were, like myself, not really programmers , but rather this, that and the other. A great
number of tech ninjas were not exactly black belts when it came to the actual onerous work of computer programming. So many of
the complex, discrete tasks involved in the creation of a website or an app had been automated that it was no longer necessary
to possess knowledge of software mechanics. The coder's work was rarely a craft. The apps ran on an assembly line, built with
"open-source", off-the-shelf components. The most important computer commands for the ninja to master were copy and paste...
[M]any programmers who had "made it" in Silicon Valley were scrambling to promote themselves from coder to "founder". There
wasn't necessarily more money to be had running a startup, and the increase in status was marginal unless one's startup attracted
major investment and the right kind of press coverage. It's because the programmers knew that their own ladder to prosperity was
on fire and disintegrating fast. They knew that well-paid programming jobs would also soon turn to smoke and ash, as the proliferation
of learn-to-code courses around the world lowered the market value of their skills, and as advances in artificial intelligence
allowed for computers to take over more of the mundane work of producing software. The programmers also knew that the fastest
way to win that promotion to founder was to find some new domain that hadn't yet been automated. Every tech industry campaign
designed to spur investment in the Next Big Thing -- at that time, it was the "sharing economy" -- concealed a larger programme
for the transformation of society, always in a direction that favoured the investor and executive classes.
"I wasn't just changing careers and jumping on the 'learn to code' bandwagon," he writes at one point. "I was being steadily
indoctrinated in a specious ideology."
> The people can do both are smart enough to build their own company and compete with you.
Been there, done that. Learned a few lessons. Nowadays I work 9:30-4:30 for a very good, consistent paycheck and let some other
"smart person" put in 75 hours a week dealing with hiring, managing people, corporate strategy, staying up on the competition,
figuring out tax changes each year and getting taxes filed six times each year, the various state and local requirements, legal
changes, contract hassles, etc, while hoping the company makes money this month so they can take a paycheck and lay their rent.
I learned that I'm good at creating software systems and I enjoy it. I don't enjoy all-nighters, partners being dickheads trying
to pull out of a contract, or any of a thousand other things related to running a start-up business. I really enjoy a consistent,
six-figure compensation package too.
I pay monthly gross receipts tax (12), quarterly withholdings (4) and a corporate (1) and individual (1) returns. The gross
receipts can vary based on the state, so I can see how six times a year would be the minimum.
Nowadays I work 9:30-4:30 for a very good, consistent paycheck and let some other "smart person" put in 75 hours a week
dealing with hiring
There's nothing wrong with not wnting to run your own business, it's not for most people, and even if it was, the numbers don't
add up. But putting the scare qoutes in like that makes it sound like you have huge chip on your shoulder. Those things re just
as essential to the business as your work and without them you wouldn't have the steady 9:30-4:30 with good paycheck.
Of course they are important. I wouldn't have done those things if they weren't important!
I frequently have friends say things like "I love baking. I can't get enough of baking. I'm going to open a bakery.". I ask
them "do you love dealing with taxes, every month? Do you love contract law? Employment law? Marketing? Accounting?" If you LOVE
baking, the smart thing to do is to spend your time baking. Running a start-up business, you're not going to do much baking.
I can tell you a few things that have worked for me. I'll go in chronological order rather than priority order.
Make friends in the industry you want to be in. Referrals are a major way people get jobs.
Look at the job listings for jobs you'd like to have and see which skills a lot of companies want, but you're missing. For
me that's Java. A lot companies list Java skills and I'm not particularly good with Java. Then consider learning the skills you
lack, the ones a lot of job postings are looking for.
You don't understand the point of an ORM do you? I'd suggest reading why they exist
They exist because programmers value code design more than data design. ORMs are the poster-child for square-peg-round-hole
solutions, which is why all ORMs choose one of three different ways of squashing hierarchical data into a relational form, all
of which are crappy.
If the devs of the system (the ones choosing to use an ORM) had any competence at all they'd design their database first because
in any application that uses a database the database is the most important bit, not the OO-ness or Functional-ness of the design.
Over the last few decades I've seen programs in a system come and go; a component here gets rewritten, a component there gets
rewritten, but you know what? They all have to work with the same damn data.
You can more easily switch out your code for new code with new design in a new language, than you can switch change the database
structure. So explain to me why it is that you think the database should be mangled to fit your OO code rather than mangling your
OO code to fit the database?
Stick to the one thing for 10-15years. Often all this new shit doesn't do jack different to the old shit, its not faster, its
not better. Every dick wants to be famous so make another damn library/tool with his own fancy name and feature, instead
of enhancing an existing product.
Or kids who can't hack the main stuff, suddenly discover the cool new, and then they can pretend they're "learning" it, and
when the going gets tough (as it always does) they can declare the tech to be pants and move to another.
hence we had so many people on the bandwagon for functional programming, then dumped it for ruby on rails, then dumped that
for Node.js, not sure what they're on at currently, probably back to asp.net.
How much code do you have to reuse before you're not really programming anymore? When I started in this business, it was reasonably
possible that you could end up on a project that didn't particularly have much (or any) of an operating system. They taught you
assembly language and the process by which the system boots up, but I think if I were to ask most of the programmers where I work,
they wouldn't be able to explain how all that works...
It really feels like if you know what you're doing it should be possible to build a team of actually good programmers and
put everyone else out of business by actually meeting your deliverables, but no one has yet. I wonder why that is.
You mean Amazon, Google, Facebook and the like? People may not always like what they do, but they manage to get things done
and make plenty of money in the process. The problem for a lot of other businesses is not having a way to identify and promote
actually good programmers. In your example, you could've spent 10 minutes fixing their query and saved them days of headache,
but how much recognition will you actually get? Where is your motivation to help them?
It's not a "kids these days" sort of issue, it's *always* been the case that shameless, baseless self-promotion wins out
over sincere skill without the self-promotion, because the people who control the money generally understand boasting more than
they understand the technology. Yes it can happen that baseless boasts can be called out over time by a large enough mass
of feedback from competent peers, but it takes a *lot* to overcome the tendency for them to have faith in the boasts.
And all these modern coders forget old lessons, and make shit stuff, just look at instagram windows app, what a load of garbage
shit, that us old fuckers could code in 2-3 weeks.
Instagram - your app sucks, cookie cutter coders suck, no refinement, coolness. Just cheap ass shit, with limited usefulness.
Just like most of commercial software that's new - quick shit.
Oh and its obvious if your an Indian faking it, you haven't worked in 100 companies at the age of 29.
Here's another problem, if faced with a skilled team that says "this will take 6 months to do right" and a more naive team
that says "oh, we can slap that together in a month", management goes with the latter. Then the security compromises occur, then
the application fails due to pulling in an unvetted dependency update live into production. When the project grows to handling
thousands instead of dozens of users and it starts mysteriously folding over and the dev team is at a loss, well the choice has
be
These restrictions is a large part of what makes Arduino programming "fun". If you don't plan out your memory usage, you're
gonna run out of it. I cringe when I see 8MB web pages of bloated "throw in everything including the kitchen sink and the neighbor's
car". Unfortunately, the careful and cautious way is a dying in favor of the throw 3rd party code at it until it does something.
Of course, I don't have time to review it but I'm sure everybody else has peer reviewed it for flaws and exploits line by line.
Unfortunately, the careful and cautious way is a dying in favor of the throw 3rd party code at it until it does something.
Of course. What is the business case for making it efficient? Those massive frameworks are cached by the browser and run on
the client's system, so cost you nothing and save you time to market. Efficient costs money with no real benefit to the business.
If we want to fix this, we need to make bloat have an associated cost somehow.
My company is dealing with the result of this mentality right now. We released the web app to the customer without performance
testing and doing several majorly inefficient things to meet deadlines. Once real load was put on the application by users with
non-ideal hardware and browsers, the app was infuriatingly slow. Suddenly our standard sub-40 hour workweek became a 50+ hour
workweek for months while we fixed all the inefficient code and design issues.
So, while you're right that getting to market and opt
In the bad old days we had a hell of a lot of ridiculous restriction We must somehow made our programs to run successfully
inside a RAM that was 48KB in size (yes, 48KB, not 48MB or 48GB), on a CPU with a clock speed of 1.023 MHz
We still have them. In fact some of the systems I've programmed have been more resource limited than the gloriously spacious
32KiB memory of the BBC model B. Take the PIC12F or 10F series. A glorious 64 bytes of RAM, max clock speed of 16MHz, but not
unusual to run it 32kHz.
So what are the uses for that? I am curious what things people have put these to use for.
It's hard to determine because people don't advertise use of them at all. However, I know that my electric toothbrush uses
an Epson 4 bit MCU of some description. It's got a status LED, basic NiMH batteryb charger and a PWM controller for an H Bridge.
Braun sell a *lot* of electric toothbrushes. Any gadget that's smarter than a simple switch will probably have some sort of basic
MCU in it. Alarm system components, sensor
b) No computer ever ran at 1.023 MHz. It was either a nice multiple of 1Mhz or maybe a multiple of 3.579545Mhz (ie. using the
TV output circuit's color clock crystal to drive the CPU).
Well, it could be used to drive the TV output circuit, OR, it was used because it's a stupidly cheap high speed crystal. You
have to remember except for a few frequencies, most crystals would have to be specially cut for the desired frequency. This occurs
even today, where most oscillators are either 32.768kHz (real time clock
Yeah, nice talk. You could have stopped after the first sentence. The other AC is referring to the
Commodore C64 [wikipedia.org]. The frequency has nothing
to do with crystal availability but with the simple fact that everything in the C64 is synced to the TV. One clock cycle equals
8 pixels. The graphics chip and the CPU take turns accessing the RAM. The different frequencies dictated by the TV standards are
the reason why the CPU in the NTSC version of the C64 runs at 1.023MHz and the PAL version at 0.985MHz.
Commodore 64 for the win. I worked for a company that made detection devices for the railroad, things like monitoring axle
temperatures, reading the rail car ID tags. The original devices were made using Commodore 64 boards using software written by
an employee at the one rail road company working with them.
The company then hired some electrical engineers to design custom boards using the 68000 chips and I was hired as the only
programmer. Had to rewrite all of the code which was fine...
Many of these languages have an interactive interpreter. I know for a fact that Python does.
So, since job-fairs are an all day thing, and setup is already a thing for them -- set up a booth with like 4 computers at
it, and an admin station. The 4 terminals have an interactive session with the interpreter of choice. Every 20min or so, have
a challenge for "Solve this problem" (needs to be easy and already solved in general. Programmers hate being pimped without pay.
They don't mind tests of skill, but hate being pimped. Something like "sort this array, while picking out all the prime numbers"
or something.) and see who steps up. The ones that step up have confidence they can solve the problem, and you can quickly see
who can do the work and who can't.
The ones that solve it, and solve it to your satisfaction, you offer a nice gig to.
Then you get someone good at sorting arrays while picking out prime numbers, but potentially not much else.
The point of the test is not to identify the perfect candidate, but to filter out the clearly incompetent. If you can't sort
an array and write a function to identify a prime number, I certainly would not hire you. Passing the test doesn't get you a job,
but it may get you an interview ... where there will be other tests.
(I am not even a professional programmer, but I can totally perform such a trivially easy task. The example tests basic understanding
of loop construction, function construction, variable use, efficient sorting, and error correction-- especially with mixed type
arrays. All of these are things any programmer SHOULD now how to do, without being overly complicated, or clearly a disguised
occupational problem trying to get a free solution. Like I said, programmers hate being pimped, and will be turned off
Again, the quality applicant and the code monkey both have something the fakers do not-- Actual comprehension of what a program
is, and how to create one.
As Bill points out, this is not the final exam. This is the "Oh, I see you do actually know how to program-- show me more"
portion of the process. This is the part that HR drones are not capable of performing, due to Dunning-Krueger. Those that are
actually, REALLY competent will do more than just satisfy the requirements of the challenge, they will provide actually working
solutions to the challenge that properly validate their input, and return proper error states if the input is invalid, etc-- You
can learn a LOT about a potential hire by observing their work. *THAT* is what this is really about. The triviality of the problem
is a necessity, because you ***DON'T*** try to get free solutions out of people.
I realize that may be difficult for you to comprehend, but you *DON'T* do that. The job fair is to let people know that you
have a position available, and try to curry interest in people to apply. A successful pre-screening is confidence building, and
helps the potential hire to feel that your company is actually interested in actually hiring somebody, and not just fucking off
in the booth, to cover for "failing to find somebody" and then "Getting yet another H1B". It gives them a chance to show you what
they can do. That is what it is for, and what it does. It also excludes the fakers that this article is about-- The ones that
can talk a good talk, but could not program a simple boolean check condition if their life depended on it.
If it were not for the time constraints of a job fair (usually only 2 days, and in that time you need to try and pre-screen
as many as possible), I would suggest a tiered challenge, with progressively harder challenges, where you hand out resumes to
the ones that make it to the top 3 brackets, but that is not the way the world works.
This in my opinion is really a waste of time. Challenges like this have to be so simple they can be done walking up to a
booth are not likely to filter the "all talks" any better than a few interview questions could (imperson so the candidate can't
just google it).
Tougher more involved stuff isn't good either it gives a huge advantage to the full time job hunter, the guy or gal that
already has a 9-5 and a family that wants to seem them has not got time for games. We have been struggling with hiring where
I work ( I do a lot of the interviews ) and these are the conclusions we have reached
You would be surprised at the number of people with impeccable-looking resumes failing at something as simple as the
FizzBuzz test [codinghorror.com]
The only thing fuzzbuzz tests is "have you done fizzbuzz before"? It's a short question filled with every petty trick the author
could think ti throw in there. If you haven't seen the tricks they trip you up for no reason related to your actual coding skills.
Once you have seen them they're trivial and again unrelated to real work. Fizzbuzz is best passed by someone aiming to game the
interview system. It passes people gaming it and trips up people who spent their time doing on the job real work.
A good programmer first and foremost has a clean mind. Experience suggests puzzle geeks, who excel at contrived tests, are
usually sloppy thinkers.
No. Good programmers can trivially knock out any of these so-called lame monkey tests. It's lame code monkeys who can't do
it. And I've seen their work. Many night shifts and weekends I've burned trying to fix their shit because they couldn't actually
do any of the things behind what you call "lame monkey tests", like:
pulling expensive invariant calculations out of loops using for loops to scan a fucking table to pull rows or calculate an
aggregate when they could let the database do what it does best with a simple SQL statement systems crashing under actual load
because their shitty code was never stress tested ( but it worked on my dev box! .) again with databases, having to
redo their schemas because they were fattened up so much with columns like VALUE1, VALUE2, ... VALUE20 (normalize you assholes!) chatting remote APIs - because these code monkeys cannot think about the need
for bulk operations in increasingly distributed systems. storing dates in unsortable strings because the idiots do not know
most modern programming languages have a date data type.
Oh and the most important, off-by-one looping errors. I see this all the time, the type of thing a good programmer can spot
on quickly because he or she can do the so-called "lame monkey tests" that involve arrays and sorting.
I've seen the type: "I don't need to do this shit because I have business knowledge and I code for business and IT not google",
and then they go and code and fuck it up... and then the rest of us have to go clean up their shit at 1AM or on weekends.
If you work as an hourly paid contractor cleaning that crap, it can be quite lucrative. But sooner or later it truly sucks
the energy out of your soul.
So yeah, we need more lame monkey tests ... to filter the lame code monkeys.
Someone could Google the problem with the phone then step up and solve the challenge.
If given a spec, someone can consistently cobble together working code by Googling, then I would love to hire them. That is
the most productive way to get things done.
There is nothing wrong with using external references. When I am coding, I have three windows open: an editor, a testing window,
and a browser with a Stackoverflow tab open.
Yeah, when we do tech interviews, we ask questions that we are certain they won't be able to answer, but want to see how they
would think about the problem and what questions they ask to get more data and that they don't just fold up and say "well that's
not the sort of problem I'd be thinking of" The examples aren't made up or anything, they are generally selection of real problems
that were incredibly difficult that our company had faced before, that one may not think at first glance such a position would
than spending weeks interviewing "good" candidates for an opening, selecting a couple and hiring them as contractors, then
finding out they are less than unqualified to do the job they were hired for.
I've seen it a few times, Java "experts", Microsoft "experts" with years of experience on their resumes, but completely useless
in coding, deployment or anything other than buying stuff from the break room vending machines.
That being said, I've also seen projects costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, with y
I agree with this. I consider myself to be a good programmer and I would never go into contractor game. I also wonder, how
does it take you weeks to interview someone and you still can't figure out if the person can't code? I could probably see that
in 15 minutes in a pair coding session.
Also, Oracle, SAP, IBM... I would never buy from them, nor use their products. I have used plenty of IBM products and they
suck big time. They make software development 100 times harder than it could be. Their technical supp
That being said, I've also seen projects costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, with years of delays from companies like
Oracle, Sun, SAP, and many other "vendors"
Software development is a hard thing to do well, despite the general thinking of technology becoming cheaper over time, and
like health care the quality of the goods and services received can sometimes be difficult to ascertain. However, people who don't
respect developers and the problems we solve are very often the same ones who continually frustrate themselves by trying to cheap
out, hiring outsourced contractors, and then tearing their hair out when sub par results are delivered, if anything is even del
As part of your interview process, don't you have candidates code a solution to a problem on a whiteboard? I've interviewed
lots of "good" candidates (on paper) too, but they crashed and burned when challenged with a coding exercise. As a result, we
didn't make them job offers.
I'm not a great coder but good enough to get done what clients want done. If I'm not sure or don't think I can do it, I tell
them. I think they appreciate the honesty. I don't work in a tech-hub, startups or anything like that so I'm not under the same
expectations and pressures that others may be.
OK, so yes, I know plenty of programmers who do fake it. But stitching together components isn't "fake" programming.
Back in the day, we had to write our own code to loop through an XML file, looking for nuggets. Now, we just use an XML serializer.
Back then, we had to write our own routines to send TCP/IP messages back and forth. Now we just use a library.
I love it! I hated having to make my own bricks before I could build a house. Now, I can get down to the business of writing
the functionality I want, ins
But, I suspect you could write the component if you had to. That makes you a very different user of that component than someone
who just knows it as a magic black box.
Because of this, you understand the component better and have real knowledge of its strengths and limitations. People blindly
using components with only a cursory idea of their internal operation often cause major performance problems. They rarely recognize
when it is time to write their own to overcome a limitation (or even that it is possibl
You're right on all counts. A person who knows how the innards work, is better than someone who doesn't, all else being equal.
Still, today's world is so specialized that no one can possibly learn it all. I've never built a processor, as you have, but I
still have been able to build a DNA matching algorithm for a major DNA lab.
I would argue that anyone who can skillfully use off-the-shelf components can also learn how to build components, if they are
required to.
1, 'Back in the Day' there was no XML, XMl was not very long ago.
2, its a parser, a serialiser is pretty much the opposite (unless this weeks fashion has redefined that.. anything is possible).
3, 'Back then' we didnt have TCP stacks...
But, actually I agree with you. I can only assume the author thinks there are lots of fake plumbers because they dont cast
their own toilet bowels from raw clay, and use pre-build fittings and pipes! That car mechanics start from raw steel scrap and
a file.. And that you need
Yes, I agree with you on the "middle ground." My reaction was to the author's point that "not knowing how to build the components"
was the same as being a "fake programmer."
If I'm a plumber, and I don't know anything about the engineering behind the construction of PVC pipe, I can still be a good
plumber. If I'm an electrician, and I don't understand the role of a blast furnace in the making of the metal components, I can
still be a good electrician.
The analogy fits. If I'm a programmer, and I don't know how to make an LZW compression library, I can still be a good programmer.
It's a matter of layers. These days, we specialize. You've got your low-level programmers that make the components, the high level
programmers that put together the components, the graphics guys who do HTML/CSS, and the SQL programmers that just know about
databases. Every person has their specialty. It's no longer necessary to be a low-level programmer, or jack-of-all-trades, to
be "good."
If I don't know the layout of the IP header, I can still write quality networking software, and if I know XSLT, I can still
do cool stuff with XML, even if I don't know how to write a good parser.
LOL yeah I know it's all JSON now. I've been around long enough to see these fads come and go. Frankly, I don't see a whole
lot of advantage of JSON over XML. It's not even that much more compact, about 10% or so. But the point is that the author laments
the "bad old days" when you had to create all your own building blocks, and you didn't have a team of specialists. I for one don't
want to go back to those days!
The main advantage is that JSON is that it is consistent. XML has attributes, embedded optional stuff within tags. That was
derived from the original SGML ancestor where is was thought to be a convenience for the human authors who were supposed to be
making the mark-up manually. Programmatically it is a PITA.
I got shit for decrying XML back when it was the trendy thing. I've had people apologise to me months later because they've
realized I was right, even though at the time they did their best to fuck over my career because XML was the new big thing and
I wasn't fully on board.
XML has its strengths and its place, but fuck me it taught me how little some people really fucking understand shit.
And a rather small part at that, albeit a very visible and vocal one full of the proverbial prima donas. However, much of the
rest of the tech business, or at least the people working in it, are not like that. It's small groups of developers working in
other industries that would not typically be considered technology. There are software developers working for insurance companies,
banks, hedge funds, oil and gas exploration or extraction firms, national defense and many hundreds and thousands of other small
They knew that well-paid programming jobs would also soon turn to smoke and ash, as the proliferation of learn-to-code courses
around the world lowered the market value of their skills, and as advances in artificial intelligence allowed for computers
to take over more of the mundane work of producing software.
Kind of hard to take this article serious after saying gibberish like this. I would say most good programmers know that neither
learn-to-code courses nor AI are going to make a dent in their income any time soon.
There is a huge shortage of decent programmers. I have personally witnessed more than one phone "interview" that went like
"have you done this? what about this? do you know what this is? um, can you start Monday?" (120K-ish salary range)
Partly because there are way more people who got their stupid ideas funded than good coders willing to stain their resume with
that. partly because if you are funded, and cannot do all the required coding solo, here's your conundrum:
top level hackers can afford to be really picky, so on one hand it's hard to get them interested, and if you could get
that, they often want some ownership of the project. the plus side is that they are happy to work for lots of equity if they
have faith in the idea, but that can be a huge "if".
"good but not exceptional" senior engineers aren't usually going to be super happy, as they often have spouses and children
and mortgages, so they'd favor job security over exciting ideas and startup lottery.
that leaves you with fresh-out-of-college folks, which are really really a mixed bunch. some are actually already senior
level of understanding without the experience, some are absolutely useless, with varying degrees in between, and there's no
easy way to tell which is which early.
so the not-so-scrupulous folks realized what's going on, and launched multiple coding boot camps programmes, to essentially
trick both the students into believing they can become a coder in a month or two, and also the prospective employers that said
students are useful. so far it's been working, to a degree, in part because in such companies coding skill evaluation process
is broken. but one can only hide their lack of value add for so long, even if they do manage to bluff their way into a job.
All one had to do was look at the lousy state of software and web sites today to see this is true. It's quite obvious little
to no thought is given on how to make something work such that one doesn't have to jump through hoops.
I have many times said the most perfect word processing program ever developed was WordPefect 5.1 for DOS. Ones productivity
was astonishing. It just worked.
Now we have the bloated behemoth Word which does its utmost to get in the way of you doing your work. The only way to get it
to function is to turn large portions of its "features" off, and even then it still insists on doing something other than what
you told it to do.
Then we have the abomination of Windows 10, which is nothing but Clippy on 10X steroids. It is patently obvious the people
who program this steaming pile have never heard of simplicity. Who in their right mind would think having to "search" for something
is more efficient than going directly to it? I would ask the question if these people wander around stores "searching" for what
they're looking for, but then I realize that's how their entire life is run. They search for everything online rather than going
directly to the source. It's no wonder they complain about not having time to things. They're always searching.
Web sites are another area where these people have no clue what they're doing. Anything that might be useful is hidden behind
dropdown menus, flyouts, popup bubbles and intriately designed mazes of clicks needed to get to where you want to go. When someone
clicks on a line of products, they shouldn't be harassed about what part of the product line they want to look at. Give them the
information and let the user go where they want.
This rant could go on, but this article explains clearly why we have regressed when it comes to software and web design. Instead
of making things simple and easy to use, using the one or two brain cells they have, programmers and web designers let the software
do what it wants without considering, should it be done like this?
The tech industry has a ton of churn -- there's some technological advancement, but there's an awful lot of new products turned
out simply to keep customers buying new licenses and paying for upgrades.
This relentless and mostly phony newness means a lot of people have little experience with current products. People fake because
they have no choice. The good ones understand the general technologies and problems they're meant to solve and can generally get
up to speed quickly, while the bad ones are good at faking it but don't really know what they're doing. Telling the difference
from the outside is impossible.
Sales people make it worse, promoting people as "experts" in specific products or implementations because the people have experience
with a related product and "they're all the same". This burns out the people with good adaption skills.
From the summary, it sounds like a lot of programmers and software engineers are trying to develop the next big thing so that
they can literally beg for money from the elite class and one day, hopefully, become a member of the aforementioned. It's sad
how the middle class has been utterly decimated in the United States that some of us are willing to beg for scraps from the wealthy.
I used to work in IT but I've aged out and am now back in school to learn automotive technology so that I can do something other
than being a security guard. Currently, the only work I have been able to find has been in the unglamorous security field.
I am learning some really good new skills in the automotive program that I am in but I hate this one class called "Professionalism
in the Shop." I can summarize the entire class in one succinct phrase, "Learn how to appeal to, and communicate with, Mr. Doctor,
Mr. Lawyer, or Mr. Wealthy-man." Basically, the class says that we are supposed to kiss their ass so they keep coming back to
the Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Volvo, or Cadillac dealership. It feels a lot like begging for money on behalf of my employer (of which
very little of it I will see) and nothing like professionalism. Professionalism is doing the job right the first time, not jerking
the customer off. Professionalism is not begging for a 5 star review for a few measly extra bucks but doing absolute top quality
work. I guess the upshot is that this class will be the easiest 4.0 that I've ever seen.
There is something fundamentally wrong when the wealthy elite have basically demanded that we beg them for every little scrap.
I can understand the importance of polite and professional interaction but this prevalent expectation that we bend over backwards
for them crosses a line with me. I still suck it up because I have to but it chafes my ass to basically validate the wealthy man.
In 70's I worked with two people who had a natural talent for computer science algorithms .vs. coding syntax. In the 90's while at COLUMBIA I worked with only a couple of true computer scientists out of 30 students.
I've met 1 genius who programmed, spoke 13 languages, ex-CIA, wrote SWIFT and spoke fluent assembly complete with animated characters.
According to the Bluff Book, everyone else without natural talent fakes it. In the undiluted definition of computer science,
genetics roulette and intellectual d
Ah yes, the good old 80:20 rule, except it's recursive for programmers.
80% are shit, so you fire them. Soon you realize that 80% of the remaining 20% are also shit, so you fire them too. Eventually
you realize that 80% of the 4% remaining after sacking the 80% of the 20% are also shit, so you fire them!
...
The cycle repeats until there's just one programmer left: the person telling the joke.
---
tl;dr: All programmers suck. Just ask them to review their own code from more than 3 years ago: they'll tell you that
Who gives a fuck about lines? If someone gave me JavaScript, and someone gave me minified JavaScript, which one would I
want to maintain?
I donâ(TM)t care about your line savings, less isnâ(TM)t always better.
Because the world of programming is not centered about JavasScript and reduction of lines is not the same as minification.
If the first thing that came to your mind was about minified JavaScript when you saw this conversation, you are certainly not
the type of programmer I would want to inherit code from.
See, there's a lot of shit out there that is overtly redundant and unnecessarily complex. This is specially true when copy-n-paste
code monkeys are left to their own devices for whom code formatting seems
I have a theory that 10% of people are good at what they do. It doesn't really matter what they do, they will still be
good at it, because of their nature. These are the people who invent new things, who fix things that others didn't even see as
broken and who automate routine tasks or simply question and erase tasks that are not necessary. If you have a software team
that contain 5 of these, you can easily beat a team of 100 average people, not only in cost but also in schedule, quality and
features. In theory they are worth 20 times more than average employees, but in practise they are usually paid the same amount
of money with few exceptions.
80% of people are the average. They can follow instructions and they can get the work done, but they don't see that something
is broken and needs fixing if it works the way it has always worked. While it might seem so, these people are not worthless. There
are a lot of tasks that these people are happily doing which the 10% don't want to do. E.g. simple maintenance work, implementing
simple features, automating test cases etc. But if you let the top 10% lead the project, you most likely won't be needed that
much of these people. Most work done by these people is caused by themselves, by writing bad software due to lack of good leader.
10% are just causing damage. I'm not talking about terrorists and criminals. I have seen software developers who have tried
(their best?), but still end up causing just damage to the code that someone else needs to fix, costing much more than their own
wasted time. You really must use code reviews if you don't know your team members, to find these people early.
I have a lot of weaknesses. My people skills suck, I'm scrawny, I'm arrogant. I'm also generally known as a really good programmer
and people ask me how/why I'm so much better at my job than everyone else in the room. (There are a lot of things I'm not good
at, but I'm good at my job, so say everyone I've worked with.)
I think one major difference is that I'm always studying, intentionally working to improve, every day. I've been doing that
for twenty years.
I've worked with people who have "20 years of experience"; they've done the same job, in the same way, for 20 years. Their
first month on the job they read the first half of "Databases for Dummies" and that's what they've been doing for 20 years. They
never read the second half, and use Oracle database 18.0 exactly the same way they used Oracle Database 2.0 - and it was wrong
20 years ago too. So it's not just experience, it's 20 years of learning, getting better, every day. That's 7,305 days of improvement.
I have a lot of weaknesses. My people skills suck, I'm scrawny, I'm arrogant. I'm also generally known as a really good
programmer and people ask me how/why I'm so much better at my job than everyone else in the room. (There are a lot of things
I'm not good at, but I'm good at my job, so say everyone I've worked with.)
I think one major difference is that I'm always studying, intentionally working to improve, every day. I've been doing that
for twenty years.
I've worked with people who have "20 years of experience"; they've done the same job, in the same way, for 20 years. Their
first month on the job they read the first half of "Databases for Dummies" and that's what they've been doing for 20 years.
They never read the second half, and use Oracle database 18.0 exactly the same way they used Oracle Database 2.0 - and it was
wrong 20 years ago too. So it's not just experience, it's 20 years of learning, getting better, every day. That's 7,305 days
of improvement.
If you take this attitude towards other people, people will not ask your for help. At the same time, you'll be also be not
able to ask for their help.
You're not interviewing your peers. They are already in your team. You should be working together.
I've seen superstar programmers suck the life out of project by over-complicating things and not working together with others.
10% are just causing damage. I'm not talking about terrorists and criminals.
Terrorists and criminals have nothing on those guys. I know guy who is one of those. Worse, he's both motivated and enthusiastic.
He also likes to offer help and advice to other people who don't know the systems well.
"I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics
are combined. Some are clever and diligent -- their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy -- they make
up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest
leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must
beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent -- he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only
mischief."
It's called the Pareto Distribution [wikipedia.org].
The number of competent people (people doing most of the work) in any given organization goes like the square root of the number
of employees.
Matches my observations. 10-15% are smart, can think independently, can verify claims by others and can identify and use rules
in whatever they do. They are not fooled by things "everybody knows" and see standard-approaches as first approximations that,
of course, need to be verified to work. They do not trust anything blindly, but can identify whether something actually work well
and build up a toolbox of such things.
The problem is that in coding, you do not have a "(mass) production step", and that is the
In basic concept I agree with your theory, it fits my own anecdotal experience well, but I find that your numbers are off.
The top bracket is actually closer to 20%. The reason it seems so low is that a large portion of the highly competent people are
running one programmer shows, so they have no co-workers to appreciate their knowledge and skill. The places they work do a very
good job of keeping them well paid and happy (assuming they don't own the company outright), so they rarely if ever switch jobs.
at least 70, probably 80, maybe even 90 percent of professional programmers should just fuck off and do something else as they
are useless at programming.
Programming is statistically a dead-end job. Why should anyone hone a dead-end skill that you won't be able to use for
long? For whatever reason, the industry doesn't want old programmers.
Otherwise, I'd suggest longer training and education before they enter the industry. But that just narrows an already narrow
window of use.
Well, it does rather depend on which industry you work in - i've managed to find interesting programming jobs for 25 years,
and there's no end in sight for interesting projects and new avenues to explore. However, this isn't for everyone, and if you
have good personal skills then moving from programming into some technical management role is a very worthwhile route, and I know
plenty of people who have found very interesting work in that direction.
I think that is a misinterpretation of the facts. Old(er) coders that are incompetent are just much more obvious and usually
are also limited to technologies that have gotten old as well. Hence the 90% old coders that can actually not hack it and never
really could get sacked at some time and cannot find a new job with their limited and outdated skills. The 10% that are good at
it do not need to worry though. Who worries there is their employers when these people approach retirement age.
My experience as an IT Security Consultant (I also do some coding, but only at full rates) confirms that. Most are basically
helpless and many have negative productivity, because people with a clue need to clean up after them. "Learn to code"? We have
far too many coders already.
You can't bluff you way through writing software, but many, many people have bluffed their way into a job and then tried to
learn it from the people who are already there. In a marginally functional organization those incompetents are let go pretty quickly,
but sometimes they stick around for months or years.
Apparently the author of this book is one of those, probably hired and fired several times before deciding to go back to his
liberal arts roots and write a book.
I think you can and this is by far not the first piece describing that. Here is a classic:
https://blog.codinghorror.com/... [codinghorror.com]
Yet these people somehow manage to actually have "experience" because they worked in a role they are completely unqualified to
fill.
Fiddling with JavaScript libraries to get a fancy dancy interface that makes PHB's happy is a sought-after skill, for good
or bad. Now that we rely more on half-ass libraries, much of "programming" is fiddling with dark-grey boxes until they work
good enough.
This drives me crazy, but I'm consoled somewhat by the fact that it will all be thrown out in five years anyway.
"... First, we need to accept that there is no such thing as "value-free" analysis of the economy. As I've explained, neoclassical economics pretends to be ethically neutral while smuggling in an individualistic, anti-social ethos " – Howard Reed ..."
"... Fundamentally, economics is a religion, with priests, high priests, creed, dogma, punishment for heretics, and all the other trappings of a religion. But the pay is good, so Clive's rule for middle class jobs applies. ..."
Economics conducted
a curriculum review of 174 modules at 7 Russell Group universities -- rightly or wrongly
considered the 'top' universities in the UK -- and we found that the uncritical acceptance of
one type of economics begins with education. Under 10% of modules even mentioned anything other
than mainstream or 'neoclassical' economics; in econometrics, over 90% of modules devoted more
than two-thirds of their lectures to linear regression. Only 24% of exam questions required
critical or independent thinking (i.e. were open-ended); this dropped to 8% if you only counted
the compulsory macro and micro modules that form the core of economics education.
We have
previously called this 'indoctrination', and while this may seem dramatic the dictionary
definition of indoctrination is to "teach a person or set of people to accept a set of beliefs
uncritically", which we think adequately characterises the results of the review, as well as
our own experience and many widely used economics textbooks. Given this education, it is no
wonder that economists remain wedded to the fundamental precepts of choice models and linear
regression no matter where they turn their attention. By putting the method first, the implicit
assumption becomes that answering a question using this framework is prima facie
interesting, and critical evaluation of these tools against others is made unthinkable.
For nearly thirty years after the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) became received gospel
in the mid-1960s, the claim that stock prices exhibited momentum (which shouldn't be true in
a perfectly efficient market) was roundly mocked by mainstream economists.
Then in 1993, Jegadeesh and Titman published a paper titled "Returns to Buying Winners and
Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency" in the Journal of Finance .
Its evidence for a momentum effect was impossible to refute.
So economists bolted en masse to the opposite side of the boat. Today there are
thousands of papers on momentum, often presenting some fairly trivial arithmetic that
home-based amateurs have long used. But it's formulated into equations with Greek letters,
and a [totally boring] statistical panel appears in the Appendix to prove some statistical
significance.
A few professors actually exploited their discoveries to get rich. Cliff Asness, a U of
Chicago PhD (but a practitioner, not a professor) offers some light-hearted commentary on his
mentor Eugene Fama:
Of course the book The Fama Portfolio also contains contributions by other
authors (or how the heck did I get in there?) that reflect, directly or indirectly, on
Gene's work.
Being able to read Gene's originals and some of the major papers by others that explore
his work in one volume is both a treat and incredibly useful (these contributors, unlike
John Liew and myself, are themselves serious academic luminaries!).
OK, enough shilling. If you love finance and don't immediately pine for this book, I
can't help you any further☺
Where the police were call off their pursuit, when within a finger nail of – helping
– their subject. Because the economic perimeters their models produced, with the help of
computational machines, gave a ridged defined view of the operation. Seems the subject was
operating outside the econometric perimeters due to mental illness – was a patient whom
escaped at the time.
Alas we never get to see what he saw when he popped out on the surface, save a blinding
orb.
In retrospect did they do the underground thingy to better control, could nature itself be a
threat to the model, hence the need to control every aspect of environment for behavioral
reasons.
Anywho I'll just leave this on my way to work:
"If we accept that we need fundamental reform, what should the new economics --
"de-conomics" as I'm calling it -- look like?
First, we need to accept that there is no such thing as "value-free" analysis of the
economy. As I've explained, neoclassical economics pretends to be ethically neutral while
smuggling in an individualistic, anti-social ethos " – Howard Reed
Linear regression is economists' preferred empirical technique
That's really a powerful tool in a world which is chaotic.
The trouble with embracing chaos and catastrophe theory is the "chaos" part of predicting
the future. But economists, being human and liking their paychecks, are not interested in any
predictions which do not cater, or pander, to the needs of their bosses or paymasters.
Why, that might suggest the boss is wrong! Such heresy leads to a quick execution!
Fundamentally, economics is a religion, with priests, high priests, creed, dogma,
punishment for heretics, and all the other trappings of a religion. But the pay is good, so
Clive's rule for middle class jobs applies.
Disclaimer: My view of Religion is similar: Why?
1. You'll get your reward in the afterlife, after you are dead!
2. We know this is true, because we've never had a complaint.
Linear regression certainly is a powerful tool for examining linear distributions, but it
essential to first confirm that the distribution is linear, and to remember that on occasion,
samples drawn from random (unrelated) distributions can show a spurious correlation.
but it essential to first confirm that the distribution is linear
Very true, but how is this proven? In nature and economics are there any linear
distributions? If so over what range?
I notice a preponderance of using straight lines instead of growth curves. I also notice
chaos, or noise, in behaviors, coupled with a complete non-understanding of entropy.
In nature linear behavior is unlikely. If it were linear we'd see straight branches on
trees, rainfall evenly distributed and the wind would always blow at constant speed, with
predictable eddies.
I suppose a rock dropped would exhibit linear behaviors until it hits the ground, and at
that point in time the "dropping rock" system become decidedly chaotic, from stuck in the mud,
to bouncing in a random direction, to bursting into pieces, pieces who's destiny is completely
uncertain.
― Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder
I've debated many economists who claim to specialize in risk and probability: when one
takes them slightly outside their narrow focus, but within the discipline of probability,
they fall apart, with the disconsolate face of a gym rat in front of a gangster hit man."
Nassim, I think covers all this better than anyone else. Would love to hear of
similarly comprehensive works.
Stumbling and Mumbling has a good riff on this topic:
". Economics, for me, is not about armchair theorizing. It should begin with the facts, and
especially the big ones. The facts are that share buy-backs do usually matter, so thought
experiments that say otherwise are wrong from the off. Similarly, the fact that wage
inflation has been low for years (pdf) is much more significant than any theorizing about
Phillips curves."
The comments are good as well:
"That's a category error: you don't define "Economics", tenure committees define it, and they
award tenure to people who have a long record of publishing "internally consistent"
("armchair theorizing") papers."
"I found myself sitting next to a very likable young middle-aged academic tenured at an elite
British university, whom henceforth I will refer to as Doctor X and whose field is closely
associated with this blog. Every year I publish papers in the top journals and they're pure
shit." Doctor X, who by now had had a glass or two, felt bad about this, not least because
"students these days are so idealistic and eager to learn; they're really wonderful."
Furthermore Doctor X could and would like "to write serious papers but what would be the
point?" "
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2018/04/facts-vs-hand-waving-in-economics.html#comments
Yeah. I'm inclined to think the author needs to curb his enthusiasms and take up dejected
drinking.
The nub of his presentation was a model in which consumers, due to cognitive
limitations, were unable to fully examine every single product they purchased. The result
was that regulations guaranteeing a certain standard of safety, quality and the like could
improve competition by giving people more time to shop around instead of having to devote
so much time to investigate specific products. Thus, regulation would improve markets and
competition
This is Nobel-level work? It amounts to finding a way to pitch a product to
anti-regulation dogmatists. I'm sure that you could find similar arguments being made during
the Progressive era regulatory push. Only they would have been framed more as "people will
have more time to shop around if they're not killed by previous ingestion of the
product."
What I mean by 'mathemagics' is the misuse of mathematics –even simple
mathematics -- to create the illusion that 'utility' or 'indifference curves' actually
pertain to real concepts. In reality, they 'mathematize' gobbledygook passed off as coherent
concepts. There is nothing so conceptually barren as 'utility' or 'indifference curve'
analytics. The notion that one can derive any coherent 'demand' analysis for any one consumer
that is individual human being (or life form of any kind) for any product, or that one can
aggregate these up is mathematical junk.
The Classical Economists used the broader political economy rather than today's narrow
economics.
The Washington Consensus dreamed of a world run by the laws of economics.
The laws of economics worked in China's favour and the Western economies got hollowed
out.
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
Maximising profit required minimising wages.
The minimum wage is set when disposable income equals zero.
The minimum wage = taxes + the cost of living
China had it made and the West had tilted the playing field against itself.
The US eventually woke up the geopolitical consequences of a world governed by the laws of
economics that had worked in China's favour.
Trump has just made things worse with his tax cuts.
Theory:
If we reduce taxes on the wealthy they will create more jobs and wages.
Reality:
If we reduce taxes on the wealthy they will create more jobs and wages in Asia where they can
make more profit. They can then ship the stuff back here increasing Western trade
deficits.
"... Bin Salman's affair with academia isn't a fluke – it's a result of the neoliberal logic by which universities increasingly operate. As the journalist David Dickson noted in 1984, American universities and corporations have "teamed up to challenge the democratic control of knowledge" by delegating control over academic research to "the marketplace". ..."
Bin Salman's affair with academia isn't a fluke – it's a result of the neoliberal logic by which universities increasingly operate.
As the journalist David Dickson noted in 1984, American universities and corporations have "teamed up to challenge the democratic
control of knowledge" by delegating control over academic research to "the marketplace".
This market rationality extends even to the way research is evaluated – which the Saudi government has been gaming. To give one
example, it paid highly cited mathematicians at universities around the world to list
King Abdulaziz University as an affiliation,
thereby making it the seventh "best" mathematics department worldwide in the
2014 US
News and World Report university rankings .
Here, the Saudi government is only playing by the rules of a game designed by western elites. This is the same logic that has
been used to allow corporations, nonprofits and the military to steadily buy out chunks of academia to the point where it makes little
sense to presume clear boundaries exist between these entities. As a result, numerous partnerships entangle MIT researchers with
Bin Salman. On his Boston tour, he also visited IBM's Cambridge research facility, which recently partnered with MIT to form an artificial
intelligence research laboratory in exchange for a $240m commitment to the university.
Boston Dynamics , an MIT partner that builds robots for the US military, also offered a demonstration. Such alliances ought to
cast doubt on MIT's promise to understand the "societal and ethical" implications of AI and build socially beneficial technologies.
The terms of all of these partnerships are essentially opaque, while the secrecy that surrounds them denies the community the
chance to deliberate and take action. The growth of unaccountable university partnerships, like other crises facing educational institutions,
stems from the absence of democratic engagement. When universities decide to sell themselves to the highest bidder, they become deaf
to the interests of their students and the wider societies in which they operate. Subservience to war criminals and corporate overlords
tends to follow.
"... In over half of states, the share was higher. In Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware and Pennsylvania, over 70 percent of higher education funding came from tuition dollars last year. ..."
State colleges and universities are relying more on tuition dollars to fund their operations even as state funding rises
and colleges come under pressure to keep tuition low.
Last fiscal year, for the first time, tuition revenue outpaced government appropriations for higher
education in the majority of states, according to the annual higher education finance report from the State
Higher Education Executive Officers Association. The association represents chief executives of statewide
governing, policy and coordinating boards of postsecondary education.
Tuition dollars are becoming a more important revenue source as more students head to college, tuition
prices rise, and state lawmakers struggle to return higher education funding to the per-student levels seen
before the Great Recession.
The report looked at net tuition revenue, which it defined as tuition and fees minus medical student
tuition, state and institutional financial aid and other waivers and discounts. It found that tuition dollars
paid by families -- a figure that includes federal grants and loans -- made up 46 percent of funding for U.S.
public colleges and universities in fiscal 2017, almost double tuition's share of higher education funding in
1990.
In over half of states, the share was higher. In Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware and Pennsylvania, over
70 percent of higher education funding came from tuition dollars last year.
Nationwide, net tuition revenue peaked as a funding source for public higher education in 2013, after the
collapsing economy sent a wave of students back to school at the same time as state lawmakers were cutting
funding for colleges. Since then, enrollments have fallen and state investments in higher education and
financial aid have increased.
res ipsa loquitur although as one wag said, this news tidbit does seem to disprove the claim that young people aren't
risk takers. But it may establish that they are innumerate or more specifically, bad at statistics.
One of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's
recommendations about investing boils down to "Be paranoid" and "Don't be greedy" and leveraged cryptocurrency speculation is the
opposite of that.
This sort of thing does not help the image of student borrowers, although it does strengthen the case for regulating cryptocurrencies
far more strictly. Given the decline in the status of cab drivers, who historically have been indicators of market peaks (when cab
drivers talk about their stocks, it's usually sign of a bubble), this finding may also be a proof of Peak Cryptocurrency.
According to a study by The Student Loan Report, over one-fifth of current university students with student loan debt indicated
that they used their student loan money to invest in digital currency such as bitcoin.
The student loan news and information website found that 21.2% of the 1,000 students they surveyed indicated that they used
their borrowed cash to gamble on the highly volatile digital currency market. While school administrators may look down upon the
practice of using borrowed funds for non-school expenses, Student Loan Report indicates that there are currently no rules against
it. College students are able to use loans for "living expenses," a flexible category that covers a wide range of potential necessities.
Given that 70% of retail investors in futures lose money, there's not a strong reason for thinking that latecomers to the cryptocurrency
party would be stellar traders. I wonder how many students who lose so much money on bad cryptocurrency wagers that it undermines
their ability to finish their course of study (presumably they really did need at least some of that "living expense" money for bona
fide living expenses) will be willing to 'fess up to that fact.
I guess that means that almost 4/5ths of students did NOT use "loan" proceeds (which are part of the whole Casino enterprise,
after all) to gamble invest "expose themselves to market risk" by moving those bits representing "money" into
the block chain spurt
And I also guess that means that the Puritans among us, and the mopes who want to make sure everyone else gets as screwed by
"the system" as they have been by so diligently paying off those student loans/debt millstones, will now have a new line of argument
about why the Banksters and the scum among the legislators and "loan servicers" and kickback-collecting higher-education administrators
should be fully armed to go after mope students and graduates-without-portfolios-but-with-lots-of-"credentials" and their parents
and other "guarantors" to extract that last full measure of blood from the turnipheads who signed on the dotted line without much
of a clue that the "contract" was drafted by some Shylock named "Mephistopheles "
Say it loud, say it clear -- "#juststoppaying. No other way to end the game, is there? And yes, there will be blood, economically
speaking, in the Street
But think how it helped stimulate the economy. Except that unlike other Fed Gov spending, the Fed Gov wants this money back.
D'oh! And as we know, it's very difficult to discharge student loans through bankruptcy (which at least gives the economy more
slack for other debt to be paid off).
So ultimately it doesn't stimulate the economy. It just feeds various maws: the education industry and its bubble, the corporations
and their inflated requirements for hiring for jobs. Edit: And the cryptocurrency bubble who knew? While subtracting from other
maws: housing starts, family starts, etc.
I doubt you could find 20% of college students who even know where to buy crypto. Maybe, maybe you could find
20% who are more aware than "heard about it on the news".
It was Open Access week last week, but I was too busy trying to meet the deadline today for submitting my book manuscript to
Open Book Publishers . That sounds like a good excuse if one cares
about open access, right? I slept too little for too many days, so don't expect any creative thoughts or subtle analyses from me
tonight. But here's two interesting things I discovered while having a look on the web figuring out whether anything interesting
happend during Open Access week.
First, Cambridge University digitalised the PhD dissertation
of Stephen Hawking and put it online. Apparently the website crashed when that got announced. Any Cambridge University alumni
who want to make their PhD dissertation Open Access
are invited doing so (no more need to go to the reading room and sign a fat notebook that one has accessed a particular PhD dissertation,
as I once did. Although, I should confess, it felt like an adventure. But it's highly inefficient obviously).
Second, for some weeks now, Open Book Publishers has been offering the PDFs of all of their books open access, to celebrate the
100th book they published (their regular regime is to have the books as html open access and selling the PDFs for a few pounds, or
else the author can pay a fee for making the PDF open access).
Importantly, this may only last for another a day or two (I am drawing from my memory when I saw a tweet on that about two months
ago), so while it lasts it may be worth checking out their collection of books in the humanities and the social sciences, such as
Naom Chomsky's Delhi Lectures , Ruth Finnegan's book
on Oral literature in Africa or
textbooks on maths for university .
All for nothing. Because, as their slogan goes, knowledge is for sharing .
Worth mentioning in this context: the CORE project released the final version of their impressive economics textbook "The Economy",
freely (as in CC by-nc-dd licensed) available at http://www.core-econ.org/the-economy/
I think that having open access publishers is great, and I would love to have books published this way. Here's the concern: I
suspect that my University's promotions committee, etc, will view this kind of publication as "inferior" to one with some snazzy
University Press.
I was wondering whether anyone has any advice about how to handle the fact that there are perverse incentives to publish your
work in a format which will cost someone £70, rather than for free?
I don't see a way of changing the situation Steve mentions except by having well established scholars who don't need to worry
about those kinds of thing take the lead. Eg, Ingrid. and David Velleman (who has two books with Open Book, which I greedily downloaded).
And Sam Bowles! -- thanks for the tip ccc, I knew about this from Bowles and had seen parts of it, but not the whole thing which
looks great!
Steve, I fully understand the worry – and even for me (tenured full professor) there is a "status cost" to be paid by not publishing
with an established University Press. But it's a vicious circle that has to be broken – and I agree with Harry, that those of
us who can "afford" to publish Open Access, should do so, in order to try to contribute to the status of the Open Access Press.
I should say that in terms of refereeing – I've published two co-edited books, one with OUP, one with CUP – and the refereeing
process at Open Books was the same, if not better. And a very important advantage of publishing with a publisher such as Open
Books is the much shorter time between delivering the final manuscript and publication – if you do all your work properly, it's
a matter of weeks or a few months, not, as with the established University Presses, (almost) a year (I've always wondered what
the hell happens in that year, especially if they turn back the proofs which are full with typo's!)
I've been thinking someone should write a paper with the title: "If you have tenure, why don't you publish Open Access?"
@3,4: Possibly the switch to open access needs to be done at an institutional level, rather than by individuals.
e.g. A declaration by government evaluations such as the REF that publications won't be counted unless they are open access,
followed by a declaration by your department that publications from now onwards won't be counted for promotions unless they are
open access, might create the right incentives.
[There are potential issues regarding fairness towards academics who are moving between universities . how do you fairly compare
job candidates when one is from a university that demanded open access publication, and another is from a university that didn't?]
Not to make too much of the obvious, given that I'm writing a blog comment, but blogs offer some great opportunities here.
CT readers got to see nearly all of Zombie Economics before the book appeared, and if I ever finish Economics in
Two Lessons it will be long after much of it was posted here.
"... By David Masciotra, the author of Mellencamp: American Troubadour (University Press of Kentucky). He has also written for Salon, the Atlantic and the Los Angeles Review of Books. For more information visit www.davidmasciotra.com. Originally published at Alternet ..."
"... Robert Reich, in his book Supercapitalism, explains that in the past 30 years the two industries with the most excessive increases in prices are health care and higher education. ..."
"... Using student loan loot and tax subsidies backed by its $3.5 billion endowment, New York University has created a new administrative class of aristocratic compensation. The school not only continues to hire more administrators – many of whom the professors indict as having no visible value in improving the education for students bankrupting themselves to register for classes – but shamelessly increases the salaries of the academic administrative class. The top 21 administrators earn a combined total of $23,590,794 per year. The NYU portfolio includes many multi-million-dollar mansions and luxury condos, where deans and vice presidents live rent-free. ..."
"... As the managerial class grows, in size and salary, so does the full time faculty registry shrink. Use of part time instructors has soared to stratospheric heights at NYU. Adjunct instructors, despite having a minimum of a master's degree and often having a Ph.D., receive only miserly pay-per-course compensation for their work, and do not receive benefits. Many part-time college instructors must transform their lives into daily marathons, running from one school to the next, barely able to breathe between commutes and courses. Adjunct pay varies from school to school, but the average rate is $2,900 per course. ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... to the people making decisions ..."
"... it's the executives and management generally. Just like Wall Street, many of these top administrators have perfected the art of failing upwards. ..."
"... What is the benefit? What are the risks? ..."
"... Sophomore Noell Conley lives there, too. She shows off the hotel-like room she shares with a roommate . ..."
"... "As you walk in, to the right you see our granite countertops with two sinks, one for each of the residents," she says. A partial wall separates the beds. Rather than trek down the hall to shower, they share a bathroom with the room next door. "That's really nice compared to community bathrooms that I lived in last year," Conley says. To be fair, granite countertops last longer. Tempur-Pedic is a local company - and gave a big discount. The amenities include classrooms and study space that are part of the dorm. Many of the residents are in the university's Honors program. But do student really need Apple TV in the lounges, or a smartphone app that lets them check their laundry status from afar? "Demand has been very high," says the university's Penny Cox, who is overseeing the construction of several new residence halls on campus. Before Central Hall's debut in August, the average dorm was almost half a century old, she says. That made it harder to recruit. " If you visit places like Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama," Cox says, "and you compare what we had with what they have available to offer, we were very far behind." Today colleges are competing for a more discerning consumer. Students grew up with fewer siblings, in larger homes, Cox says. They expect more privacy than previous generations - and more comforts. "These days we seem to be bringing kids up to expect a lot of material plenty," says Jean Twenge, a psychology professor at San Diego State University and author of the book "Generation Me." Those students could be in for some disappointment when they graduate , she says. "When some of these students have all these luxuries and then they get an entry-level job and they can't afford the enormous flat screen and the granite countertops," Twenge says, "then that's going to be a rude awakening." Some on campus also worry about the divide between students who can afford such luxuries and those who can't. The so-called premium dorms cost about $1,000 more per semester. Freshman Josh Johnson, who grew up in a low-income family and lives in one of the university's 1960s-era buildings, says the traditional dorm is good enough for him. ..."
"... "I wouldn't pay more just to live in a luxury dorm," he says. "It seems like I could just pay the flat rate and get the dorm I'm in. It's perfectly fine." In the near future students who want to live on campus won't have a choice. Eventually the university plans to upgrade all of its residence halls. ..."
"... Competition for students who have more sophisticated tastes than in past years is creating the perfect environment for schools to try to outdo each other with ever-more posh on-campus housing. Keeping up in the luxury dorm race is increasingly critical to a school's bottom line: A 2006 study published by the Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers found that "poorly maintained or inadequate residential facilities" was the number-one reason students rejected enrolling at institutions. PHOTO GALLERY: Click Here to See the 10 Schools with Luxury Dorms ..."
"... Private universities get most of the mentions on lists of schools with great dorms, as recent ratings by the Princeton Review, College Prowler, and Campus Splash make clear. But a few state schools that have invested in brand-new facilities are starting to show up on those reviews, too. ..."
"... While many schools offer first dibs on the nicest digs to upperclassmen on campus, as the war for student dollars ratchets up even first-year students at public colleges are living in style. Here are 10 on-campus dormitories at state schools that offer students resort-like amenities. ..."
"... Perhaps some students are afraid to protest for fear of being photographed or videographed and having their face and identity given to every prospective employer throughout America. Perhaps those students are afraid of being blackballed throughout the Great American Workplace if they are caught protesting anything on camera. ..."
"... Mao was perfectly content to promote technical education in the new China. What he deprecated (and fought to suppress) was the typical liberal arts notion of critical thinking. We're witnessing something comparable in the U.S. We're witnessing something comparable in the U.S. ..."
"... Many of the best students feel enormous pressure to succeed and have some inkling that their job prospects are growing narrower, but they almost universally accept this as the natural order of things. Their outlook: if there are 10 or 100 applicants for every available job, well, by golly, I just have to work that much harder and be the exceptional one who gets the job. ..."
"... I read things like this and think about Louis Althusser and his ideas about "Ideological State Apparatuses." While in liberal ideology the education is usually considered to be the space where opportunity to improve one's situation is founded, Althusser reached the complete opposite conclusion. For him, universities are the definitive bourgeois institution, the ideological state apparatus of the modern capitalist state par excellance . The real purpose of the university was not to level the playing field of opportunity but to preserve the advantages of the bourgeoisie and their children, allowing the class system to perpetuate/reproduce itself. ..."
"... My nephew asked me to help him with his college introductory courses in macroeconomics and accounting. I was disappointed to find out what was going on: no lectures by professors, no discussion sessions with teaching assistants; no team projects–just two automated correspondence courses, with automated computer graded problem sets objective tests – either multiple choice, fill in the blank with a number, or fill in the blank with a form answer. This from a public university that is charging tuition for attendance just as though it were really teaching something. All they're really certifying is that the student can perform exercises is correctly reporting what a couple of textbooks said about subjects of marginal relevance to his degree. My nephew understands exactly that this is going on, but still . ..."
"... The reason students accept this has to be the absolutely demobilized political culture of the United States combined with what college represents structurally to students from the middle classes: the only possibility – however remote – of achieving any kind of middle class income. ..."
"... Straight bullshit, but remember our school was just following the national (Neoliberal) model. ..."
Yves here. In May, we wrote up and embedded the report on how NYU exploits students and adjuncts in
"The Art of the Gouge": NYU as a Model for Predatory Higher Education. This article below uses that study as a point of departure
for for its discussion of how higher education has become extractive.
By David Masciotra, the author of Mellencamp: American Troubadour (University Press of Kentucky). He has also written
for Salon, the Atlantic and the Los Angeles Review of Books. For more information visit www.davidmasciotra.com. Originally published
at Alternet
Higher education wears the cloak of liberalism, but in policy and practice, it can be a corrupt and cutthroat system of power
and exploitation. It benefits immensely from right-wing McCarthy wannabes, who in an effort to restrict academic freedom and silence
political dissent, depict universities as left-wing indoctrination centers.
But the reality is that while college administrators might affix "down with the man" stickers on their office doors, many prop
up a system that is severely unfair to American students and professors, a shocking number of whom struggle to make ends meet. Even
the most elementary level of political science instructs that politics is about power. Power, in America, is about money: who has
it? Who does not have it? Who is accumulating it? Who is losing it? Where is it going?
Four hundred faculty members at New York University, one of the nation's most expensive schools, recently released a report on
how their own place of employment, legally a nonprofit institution, has become a predatory business, hardly any different in ethical
practice or economic procedure than a sleazy storefront payday loan operator. Its title succinctly summarizes the new intellectual
discipline deans and regents have learned to master: "The
Art of The Gouge."
The result of their investigation reads as if Charles Dickens and Franz Kafka collaborated on notes for a novel. Administrators
not only continue to raise tuition at staggering rates, but they burden their students with inexplicable fees, high cost burdens
and expensive requirements like mandatory study abroad programs. When students question the basis of their charges, much of them
hidden during the enrollment and registration phases, they find themselves lost in a tornadic swirl of forms, automated answering
services and other bureaucratic debris.
Often the additional fees add up to thousands of dollars, and that comes on top of the already hefty tuition, currently $46,000
per academic year, which is more than double its rate of 2001. Tuition at NYU is higher than most colleges, but a bachelor's degree,
nearly anywhere else, still comes with a punitive price tag. According to the College Board, the average cost of tuition and fees
for the 2014–2015 school year was $31,231 at private colleges, $9,139 for state residents at public colleges, and $22,958 for out-of-state
residents attending public universities.
Robert Reich, in his book Supercapitalism, explains that in the past 30 years the two industries with the most excessive increases
in prices are health care and higher education. Lack of affordable health care is a crime, Reich argues, but at least new medicines,
medical technologies, surgeries, surgery techs, and specialists can partially account for inflation. Higher education can claim no
costly infrastructural or operational developments to defend its sophisticated swindle of American families. It is a high-tech, multifaceted,
but old fashioned transfer of wealth from the poor, working- and middle-classes to the rich.
Using student loan loot and tax subsidies backed by its $3.5 billion endowment, New York University has created a new administrative
class of aristocratic compensation. The school not only continues to hire more administrators – many of whom the professors indict
as having no visible value in improving the education for students bankrupting themselves to register for classes – but shamelessly
increases the salaries of the academic administrative class. The top 21 administrators earn a combined total of $23,590,794 per year.
The NYU portfolio includes many multi-million-dollar mansions and luxury condos, where deans and vice presidents live rent-free.
Meanwhile, NYU has spent billions, over the past 20 years, on largely unnecessary real estate projects, buying property and renovating
buildings throughout New York. The professors' analysis, NYU's US News and World Report Ranking, and student reviews demonstrate
that few of these extravagant projects, aimed mostly at pleasing wealthy donors, attracting media attention, and giving administrators
opulent quarters, had any impact on overall educational quality.
As the managerial class grows, in size and salary, so does the full time faculty registry shrink. Use of part time instructors
has soared to stratospheric heights at NYU. Adjunct instructors, despite having a minimum of a master's degree and often having a
Ph.D., receive only miserly pay-per-course compensation for their work, and do not receive benefits. Many part-time college instructors
must transform their lives into daily marathons, running from one school to the next, barely able to breathe between commutes and
courses. Adjunct pay varies from school to school, but the average rate is $2,900 per course.
Many schools offer rates far below the average, most especially community colleges paying only $1,000 to $1,500. Even at the best
paying schools, adjuncts, as part time employees, are rarely eligible for health insurance and other benefits. Many universities
place strict limits on how many courses an instructor can teach. According to a recent study, 25 percent of adjuncts
receive government assistance.
The actual scandal of "The Art of the Gouge" is that even if NYU is a particularly egregious offender of basic decency and honesty,
most of the report's indictments could apply equally to nearly any American university. From 2003-2013, college tuition increased
by a crushing
80 percent. That far outpaces all other inflation. The closest competitor was the cost of medical care, which in the same time
period, increased by a rate of 49 percent. On average, tuition in America rises eight percent on an annual basis, placing it far
outside the moral universe. Most European universities
charge only marginal fees for attendance, and many of them are free. Senator Bernie Sanders recently introduced a bill proposing
all public universities offer free education. It received little political support, and almost no media coverage.
In order to obtain an education, students accept the paralytic weight of student debt, the only form of debt not dischargeable
in bankruptcy. Before a young person can even think about buying a car, house or starting a family, she leaves college with thousands
of dollars in debt: an average of $29,400 in 2012. As colleges continue to suck their students dry of every dime, the US government
profits at $41.3 billion per year by
collecting interest
on that debt. Congress recently cut funding for Pell Grants, yet increased the budget for hiring debt collectors to target delinquent
student borrowers.
The university, once an incubator of ideas and entrance into opportunity, has mutated into a tabletop model of America's economic
architecture, where the top one percent of income earners now owns 40 percent of the wealth.
"The One Percent at State U," an Institute for Policy Studies report, found that at the 25 public universities with the highest
paid presidents, student debt and adjunct faculty increased at dramatically higher rates than at the average state university. Marjorie
Wood, the study's co-author, explained told the New York Times that extravagant executive pay is the "tip of a very large
iceberg, with universities that have top-heavy executive spending also having more adjuncts, more tuition increases and more administrative
spending.
Unfortunately, students seem like passive participants in their own liquidation. An American student protest timeline for 2014-'15,
compiled by historian Angus Johnston, reveals that most demonstrations and rallies focused on police violence, and sexism. Those
issues should inspire vigilance and activism, but only 10 out of 160 protests targeted tuition hikes for attack, and only two of
those 10 events took place
outside the state
of California.
Class consciousness and solidarity actually exist in Chile, where in 2011 a student movement began to organize, making demands
for free college. More than mere theater, high school and college students, along with many of their parental allies, engaged the
political system and made specific demands for inexpensive education. The Chilean government announced that in March 2016, it will
eliminate all tuition from public universities. Chile's victory for participatory democracy, equality of opportunity and social justice
should instruct and inspire Americans. Triumph over extortion and embezzlement is possible.
This seems unlikely to happen in a culture, however, where even most poor Americans view themselves, in the words of John Steinbeck,
as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires." The political, educational and economic ruling class of America is comfortable selling
out its progeny. In the words of one student quoted in "The Art of the Gouge," "they see me as nothing more than $200,000."
At a basic level, I think the answer is yes, because on balance, college still provides a lot of privatized value to the individual.
Being an exploited student with the College Credential Seal of Approval remains relatively much better than being an exploited
non student lacking that all important seal. A college degree, for example, is practically a guarantee of avoiding the
more unseemly parts of the US "justice" system.
But I think this is changing. The pressure is building from the bottom as academia loses credibility as an institution capable
of, never mind interested in, serving the public good rather than simply being another profit center for connected workers. It's
actually a pretty exciting time. The kiddos are getting pretty fed up, and the authoritarians at the top of the hierarchy are
running out of money with which to buy off younger technocratic enablers and thought leaders and other Serious People.
P.S., the author in this post demonstrates the very answer to the question. He assumes as true, without any need for support,
that the very act of possessing a college degree makes one worthy of a better place in society. That mindset is why colleges can
prey upon students. They hold a monopoly on access to resources in American society. My bold:
Adjunct instructors, despite having a minimum of a master's degree and often having a Ph.D., receive only
miserly pay-per-course compensation for their work, and do not receive benefits.
What does having a masters degree or PhD have to do with the moral claim of all human beings to a life of dignity and purpose?
There are so many more job seekers per job opening now than, say, 20 or thirty years ago that a degree is used to sort out
applications. Now a job that formerly listed a high school degree as a requirement may now list a college degree as a requirement,
just to cut down on the number of applications.
So, no, a B.A. or B.S. doesn't confer moral worth, but it does open more job doors than a high school diploma, even if the
actual work only requires high school level math, reading, science or technology.
I agree a phd often makes someone no more useful in society. However the behaviour of the kids is rational *because* employers
demand a masters / phd.
Students are then caught in a trap. Employers demand the paper, often from an expensive institution. The credit is abundant
thanks to govt backed loans. They are caught in a situation where as a collective it makes no sense to join in, but as an individual
if they opt out they get hurt also.
Same deal for housing. It's a mad world my masters.
What can we do about this? The weak link in the chain seems to me to be employers. Why are they hurting themselves by selecting
people who want higher pay but may offer little to no extra value? I work as a programmer and I often think " if we could just
'see' the non-graduate diamonds in the rough".
If employers had perfect knowledge of prospective employees *and* if they saw that a degree would make no difference to their
performance universities would crumble overnight.
The state will never stop printing money via student loans. If we can fix recruitment then universities are dead.
Why are they hurting themselves by selecting people who want higher pay but may offer little to no extra value?
Yeah, I have thought a lot about that particular question of organizational behavior. It does make sense, conceptually, that
somebody would disrupt the system and take people based on ability rather than credentials. Yet we are moving in the opposite
direction, toward more rigidity in educational requirements for employment.
For my two cents, I think the bulk of the answer lies in how hiring specifically, and management philosophy more generally,
works in practice. The people who make decisions are themselves also subject to someone else's decisions. This is true all up
and down the hierarchical ladder, from board members and senior executives to the most junior managers and professionals.
It's true that someone without a degree may offer the same (or better) performance to the company. But they do not offer the
same performance to the people making decisions, because those individual people also depend upon their own college degrees
to sell their own labor services. To hire significant numbers of employees without degrees into important roles is to sabotage
their own personal value.
Very few people are willing to be that kind of martyr. And generally speaking, they tend to self-select away from occupations
where they can meaningfully influence decision-making processes in large organizations.
Absolutely, individual business owners can call BS on the whole scam. It is a way that individual people can take action against
systemic oppression. Hire workers based upon their fit for the job, not their educational credentials or criminal background or
skin color or sexual orientation or all of the other tests we have used. But that's not a systemic solution because the incentives
created by public policy are overwhelming at large organizations to restrict who is 'qualified' to fill the good jobs (and increasingly,
even the crappy jobs).
I am not so sure that this is so. So many jobs are now crapified. When I was made redundant in 2009, I could not find many
jobs that fit my level of experience (just experience! I have no college degree), so I applied for anything that fit my skill
set, pretty much regardless of level. I was called Overqualified. I have heard that in the past as well, but never more so during
that stretch of job hunting. Remember that's with no degree. Maybe younger people don't hear it as much. But I also think life
experience has something to do with it, you need to have something to compare it to. How many times did our parents tell us how
different things were when they were kids, how much easier? I didn't take that on board, did y'all?
For various reasons, people seeking work these days, especially younger job applicants, might not possess the habits of mind
and behavior that would make them good employees – i.e., punctuality, the willingness to come to work every day (even when something
more fun or interesting comes up, or when one has partied hard the night before), the ability to meet deadlines rather than make
excuses for not meeting them, the ability to write competently at a basic level, the ability to read instructions, diagrams, charts,
or any other sort of necessary background material, the ability to handle basic computation, the ability to FOLLOW instructions
rather than deciding that one will pick and choose which rules and instructions to follow and which to ignore, trainability, etc.
Even if a job applicant's degree is in a totally unrelated field, the fact that he or she has managed to complete an undergraduate
degree–or, if relevant, a master's or a doctorate – is often accepted by employers as a sign that the applicant has a sense of
personal responsibility, a certain amount of diligence and educability, and a certain level of basic competence in reading, writing,
and math.
By the same token, employers often assume that an applicant who didn't bother going to college or who couldn't complete a college
degree program is probably not someone to be counted on to be a responsible, trainable, competent employee.
Obviously those who don't go to college, or who go but drop out or flunk out, end up disadvantaged when competing for jobs,
which might not be fair at all in individual cases, especially now that college has been priced so far out of the range of so
many bright, diligent students from among the poor and and working classes, and now even those from the middle class.
Nevertheless, in general an individual's ability to complete a college degree is not an unreasonable stand-in as evidence of
that person's suitability for employment.
Students are first caught in a trap of "credentials inflation" needed to obtain jobs, then caught by inflation in education
costs, then stuck with undischargeable debt. And the more of them who get the credentials, the worse the credentials inflation–a
spiral.
It's all fuelled by loose credit. The only beneficiaries are a managerial elite who enjoy palatial facilities.
As for the employers, they're not so bad off. Wages are coming down for credentialled employees due to all the competition.
There is such a huge stock of degreed applicants that they can afford to ignore anyone who isn't. The credentials don't cost the
employer–they're not spending the money, nor are they lending the money.
Modern money makes it possible for the central authorities to keep this racket going all the way up to the point of general
systemic collapse. Why should they stop? Who's going to make them stop?
The only reason the universities can get away with it is easy money. When the time comes that students actually need to pay
tuition with real money, money they or their parents have actually saved, then college tuition rates will crash back down to earth.
Don't blame the universities. This is the natural and inevitable outcome of easy money.
Yes, college education in the US is a classic example of the effects of subsidies. Eliminate the subsidies and the whole education
bubble would rapidly implode.
I'm very curious if anyone will disagree with that assessment.
An obvious commonality across higher education, healthcare, housing, criminal justice, and national security is that we spend
huge quantities of public money yet hold the workers receiving that money to extremely low standards of accountability for what
they do with it.
Correct, it's not the universities, it's the culture that contains the universities, but the universities are training grounds
for the culture so it is the universities just not only the universities Been remembering the song from my college days "my futures
so bright i gotta wear shades". getting rich was the end in itself, and people who didn't make it didn't deserve anything but
a whole lot of student debt,creating perverse incentives. And now we all know what the A in type a stands for at least among those
who self identify as such, so yes it is the universities
I don't understand why the ability to accept guaranteed loan money doesn't come with an obligation by the school to cap tuition
at a certain percentage over maximum loan amount? Would that be so hard to institute?
Student loans are debt issuance. Western states are desperate to issue debt as it's fungible with money and marked down as
growth.
Borrow 120K over 3 years and it all gets paid into university coffers and reappears as "profit" now. Let some other president
deal with low disposable income due to loan repayments. It's in a different electoral cycle – perfect.
You can try to argue, but it will be hard to refute. If you give mortgages at teaser rates to anybody who can fog a mirror,
you get a housing bubble. If you give student loans to any student without regard to the prospects of that student paying back
the loan, you get a higher education bubble. Which will include private equity trying to catch as much of this money as they possibly
can by investing in for profit educational institutions just barely adequate to benefit from federal student loan funds.
A lot of background conditions help. It helps to pump a housing bubble if there's nothing else worth investing in (including
saving money at zero interest rates). It helps pump an education bubble if most of the jobs have been outsourced so people are
competing more and more for fewer and fewer.
I don't disagree with the statement that easy money has played the biggest role in jacking up tuition. I do strongly disagree
that we shouldn't "blame" the universities. The universities are exactly where we should place the blame. The universities have
become job training grounds, and yet continue to droll on and on about the importance of noble things like liberal education,
the pursuit of knowledge, the importance of ideas, etc. They cannot have it both ways. Years ago, when tuition rates started escalating
faster than inflation, the universities should have been the loudest critics – pointing out the cultural problems that would accompany
sending the next generation into the future deeply indebted – namely that all the noble ideas learned at the university would
get thrown out the window when financial reality forced recent graduates to chose between noble ideas and survival. If universities
truly believed that a liberal education was important; that the pursuit of knowledge benefitted humanity – they should have led
the charge to hold down tuition.
I took it to mean blame as in what allows the system to function. I heartily agree that highly paid workers at universities
bear blame for what they do (and don't do) at a granular level.
It's just that they couldn't do those things without the system handing them gobs of resources, from tax deductability of charitable
contributions to ignoring anti-competitive behavior in local real estate ownership to research grants and other direct funding
to student loans and other indirect funding.
Regarding blaming "highly paid workers at universities" – If a society creates incentives for dysfunctional behavior such a
society will have a lot of dysfunction. Eliminate the subsidies and see how quicly the educational bubble pops.
You are ignoring the way that the rich bid up the cost of everything. 2% of the population will pay whatever the top dozen
or so schools will charge so that little Billy or Sue can go to Harvard or Stanford. This leads to cost creep as the next tier
ratchet up their prices in lock step with those above them, etc. The same dynamic happens with housing, at least around wealthy
metropolitan areas.
A European perspective on this: yep, that's true on an international perspective. I belong to the ugly list of those readers
of this blog who do not fully share the liberal values of most of you hear. However, may I say that I can agree on a lot of stuff.
US education and health-care are outrageously costly. Every European citizen moving to the states has a question: will he or
she be sick whilst there. Every European parent with kids in higher education is aware that having their kids for one closing
year in the US is the more they can afford (except if are a banquier d'affaires ). Is the value of the US education good? No doubt!
Is is good value for money, of course not. Is the return on the money ok? It will prove disastrous, except if the USD crashed.
The main reason? Easy money. As for any kind of investment. Remember that this is indeed a investment plan
Check the level of revenues of "public sector" teaching staff on both sides of the ponds. The figure for US professionals in
these area are available on the Web. They are indeed much more costly than, say, North-of-Europe counterparts, "public sector"
professionals in those area. Is higher education in the Netherlands sub-par when compared to the US? Of course not.
Yep financing education via the Fed (directly or not) is not only insanely costly. Just insane. The only decent solution: set
up public institutions staffed with service-minded professionals that did not have to pay an insane sum to build up the curriculum
themselves.
Are "public services" less efficient than private ones here in those area, health-care and higher education. Yep, most certainly.
But, sure, having the fed indirectly finance the educational system just destroy any competitive savings made in building a competitive
market-orientated educational system and is one of the worst way to handle your educational system.
Yep, you can do a worst use of the money, subprime or China buildings But that's all about it.
US should forget about exceptionnalism and pay attention to what North of Europe is doing in this area. Mind you, I am Southerner
(of Europe). But of course I understand that trying to run these services on a federal basis is indeed "mission impossible".
Way to big! Hence the indirect Washington-decided Wall-Street-intermediated Fed-and-deficit-driven financing of higher education.
Mind you: we have more and more of this bankers meddling in education in Europe and I do not like what I see.
@washunate – 6/26/15, 11:03 am. I know I'm late to the party, but I disagree. It's not the workers, it's the executives
and management generally. Just like Wall Street, many of these top administrators have perfected the art of failing upwards.
IMNSHO everyone needs to stop blaming labor and/or the labor unions. It's not the front line workers, teachers, retail clerks,
adjunct instructors, all those people who do the actual work rather than managing other people. Those workers have no bargaining
power, and the unions have lost most of theirs, in part due to the horrible labor market, as well as other important reasons.
We have demonized virtually all of the government workers who actually do the work that enables us to even have a government
(all levels) and to provide the services we demand, such as public safety, education, and infrastructure. These people are our
neighbors, relatives and friends; we owe them better than this.
Unionized support staff at Canadian universities have had sub-inflation wage increases for nearly 20 years, while tuition has
been rising at triple the rate of inflation.
So obviously one can't blame the unions for rising education costs.
Omitted from this account: Federal funding for education has declined 55% since 1972. Part of the Powell memo's agenda.
It's understandable too; one can hardly blame legislators for punishing the educational establishment given the protests of
the '60s and early '70s After all, they were one reason Nixon and Reagan rose to power. How dare they propose real democracy!
Harumph!
To add to students' burden, there's the recent revision of bankruptcy law: student loans can no longer be retired by bankruptcy
(Thanks Hillary!) It'll be interesting to see whether Hillary's vote on that bankruptcy revision becomes a campaign issue.
I also wonder whether employers will start to look for people without degrees as an indication they were intelligent enough
to sidestep this extractive scam.
I'd be curious what you count as federal funding. Pell grants, for example, have expanded both in terms of the number of recipients
and the amount of spending over the past 3 – 4 decades.
More generally, federal support for higher ed comes in a variety of forms. The bankruptcy law you mention is itself a form
of federal funding. Tax exemption is another. Tax deductabiliity of contributions is another. So are research grants and exemptions
from anti-competitive laws and so forth. There are a range of individual tax credits and deductions. The federal government also
does not intervene in a lot of state supports, such as licensing practices in law and medicine that make higher ed gatekeepers
to various fiefdoms and allowing universities to take fees for administering (sponsoring) charter schools. The Federal Work-Study
program is probably one of the clearest specific examples of a program that offers both largely meaningless busy work and terrible
wages.
As far as large employers seeking intelligence, I'm not sure that's an issue in the US? Generally speaking, the point of putting
a college credential in a job requirement is precisely to find people participating in the 'scam'. If an employer is genuinely
looking for intelligence, they don't have minimum educational requirements.
Why would tuition rates come down when students need to pay with "real money, money they or their parents have actually saved.
. . " ? Didn't tuition at state universities begin climbing when state governments began boycotting state universities in terms
of embargoing former rates of taxpayer support to them? Leaving the state universities to try making up the difference by raising
tuition? If people want to limit or reduce the tuition charged to in-state students of state universities, people will have to
resume paying former rates of taxes and elect people to state government to re-target those taxes back to state universities the
way they used to do before the reductions in state support to state universities.
Protest against exploitation and risk being black-listed by exploitative employers -> Only employers left are the ones who
actually do want (not pretend to want) ethical people willing to stand up for what they believe in. Not many of those kind of
employers around . What is the benefit? What are the risks?
The author misrepresents the nature and demands of Chile's student movement.
Over the past few decades, university enrollment rates for Chileans expanded dramatically in part due to the creation of many
private universities. In Chile, public universities lead the pack in terms of academic reputation and entrance is determined via
competitive exams. As a result, students from poorer households who attended low-quality secondary schools generally need to look
at private universities to get a degree. And these are the students to which the newly created colleges catered to.
According to Chilean legislation, universities can only function as non-profit entities. However, many of these new institutions
were only nominally non-profit entities (for example, the owners of the university would also set up a real estate company that
would rent the facilities to the college at above market prices) and they were very much lacking in quality. After a series of
high-profile cases of universities that were open and shut within a few years leaving its students in limbo and debt, anger mounted
over for-profit education.
The widespread support of the student movement was due to generalized anger about and education system that is dearly lacking
in quality and to the violation of the spirit of the law regulating education. Once the student movement's demands became more
specific and morphed from opposing for profit institutions to demanding free tuition for everyone, the widespread support waned
quickly.
And while the government announced free tuition in public universities, there is a widespread consensus that this is a pretty
terrible idea as it is regressive and involves large fiscal costs. In particular because most of the students that attend public
universities come from relatively wealthy households that can afford tuition. The students that need the tuition assistance will
not benefit under the new rules.
I personally benefited from the fantastically generous financial aid systems that some private American universities have set
up which award grants and scholarships based on financial need only. And I believe that it is desirable for the State to guarantee
that any qualified student has access to college regardless of his or her wealth I think that by romanticizing the Chilean student
movement the author reveals himself to be either is dishonest or, at best, ignorant.
Students aren't protesting because they don't feel the consequences until they graduate.
One thing that struck me when I applied for a student loan a few years back to help me get through my last year of graduate
school – the living expense allocation was surprisingly high. Not "student sharing an apartment with five random dudes while eating
ramen and riding the bus", but more "living alone in a nice one-bedroom apartment while eating takeout and driving a car". Apocryphal
stories of students using their student loans to buy new cars or take extravagant vacations were not impossible to believe.
The living expense portion of student loans is often so generous that students can live relatively well while going to school,
which makes it that much easier for them to push to the backs of their minds the consequences that will come from so much debt
when they graduate. Consequently, it isn't the students who are complaining – it's the former students. But by the time
they are out of school and the university has their money in its pocket, it's too late for them to try and change the system.
Sophomore Noell Conley lives there, too. She shows off the hotel-like room she shares with a roommate.
"As you walk in, to the right you see our granite countertops with two sinks, one for each of the residents," she says.
A partial wall separates the beds. Rather than trek down the hall to shower, they share a bathroom with the room next door.
"That's really nice compared to community bathrooms that I lived in last year," Conley says.
To be fair, granite countertops last longer. Tempur-Pedic is a local company - and gave a big discount. The amenities include
classrooms and study space that are part of the dorm. Many of the residents are in the university's Honors program. But do student
really need Apple TV in the lounges, or a smartphone app that lets them check their laundry status from afar?
"Demand has been very high," says the university's Penny Cox, who is overseeing the construction of several new residence halls
on campus. Before Central Hall's debut in August, the average dorm was almost half a century old, she says. That made it harder
to recruit.
"If you visit places like Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama," Cox says, "and you compare what we had with what they have
available to offer, we were very far behind."
Today colleges are competing for a more discerning consumer. Students grew up with fewer siblings, in larger homes, Cox says.
They expect more privacy than previous generations - and more comforts.
"These days we seem to be bringing kids up to expect a lot of material plenty," says Jean Twenge, a psychology professor at
San Diego State University and author of the book "Generation Me."
Those students could be in for some disappointment when they graduate, she says.
"When some of these students have all these luxuries and then they get an entry-level job and they can't afford the enormous
flat screen and the granite countertops," Twenge says, "then that's going to be a rude awakening."
Some on campus also worry about the divide between students who can afford such luxuries and those who can't. The so-called
premium dorms cost about $1,000 more per semester. Freshman Josh Johnson, who grew up in a low-income family and lives
in one of the university's 1960s-era buildings, says the traditional dorm is good enough for him.
"I wouldn't pay more just to live in a luxury dorm," he says. "It seems like I could just pay the flat rate and
get the dorm I'm in. It's perfectly fine."
In the near future students who want to live on campus won't have a choice. Eventually the university plans to upgrade all of
its residence halls.
So I wonder who on average will fair better navigating the post-college lifestyle/job market reality check, Noell or Josh?
Personally, I would bet on the Joshes living in the 60's vintage enamel painted ciderblock dorm rooms.
Competition for students who have more sophisticated tastes than in past years is creating the perfect environment for
schools to try to outdo each other with ever-more posh on-campus housing. Keeping up in the luxury dorm race is increasingly critical
to a school's bottom line: A 2006 study published by the Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers found that
"poorly maintained or inadequate residential facilities" was the number-one reason students rejected enrolling at institutions.
PHOTO GALLERY: Click Here to See the 10 Schools with Luxury Dorms
Private universities get most of the mentions on lists of schools with great dorms, as recent ratings by the Princeton Review,
College Prowler, and Campus Splash make clear. But a few state schools that have invested in brand-new facilities are starting
to show up on those reviews, too.
While many schools offer first dibs on the nicest digs to upperclassmen on campus, as the war for student dollars ratchets
up even first-year students at public colleges are living in style. Here are 10 on-campus dormitories at state schools that offer
students resort-like amenities.
Bingo! They don't get really mad until they're in their early thirties and they are still stuck doing some menial job with
no vacation time, no health insurance and a monstrous mountain of debt. Up until that point they're still working hard waiting
for their ship to come in and blaming themselves for any lack of success like Steinbeck's 'embarrassed millionaires.' Then one
day maybe a decade after they graduate they realize they've been conned but they've got bills to pay and other problems to worry
about so they solider on. 18 year-olds are told by their high school guidance councilors, their parents and all of the adults
they trust that college while expensive is a good investment and the only way to succeed. Why should they argue? They don't know
any better yet.
Perhaps some students are afraid to protest for fear of being photographed or videographed and having their face and identity
given to every prospective employer throughout America. Perhaps those students are afraid of being blackballed throughout the
Great American Workplace if they are caught protesting anything on camera.
Today isn't like the sixties when you could drop out in the confidence that you could always drop back in again. Nowadays there
are ten limpets for every scar on the rock.
the average is such a worthless number. The Data we need, and which all these parasitic professional managerial types won't
provide –
x axis would be family income, by $5000 increments.
y axis would be the median debt level
we could get fancy, and also throw in how many kids are in school in each of those income increments.
BTW – this 55 yr. old troglodyte believes that 1 of the roles (note – I did NOT say "The Role") of education is preparing people
to useful to society. 300++ million Americans, 7 billion humans – we ALL need shelter, reliable and safe food, reliable and safe
water, sewage disposal, clothing, transportation, education, sick care, power, leisure, we should ALL have access to family wage
jobs and time for BBQs with our various communities several times a year. I know plenty of techno-dweebs here in Seattle who need
to learn some of the lessons of 1984, The Prince, and Shakespeare. I know plenty of fuzzies who could be a bit more useful with
some rudimentary skills in engineering, or accounting, or finance, or stats, or bio, or chem
I don't know what the current education system is providing, other than some accidental good things for society at large, and
mainly mechanisms for the para$ite cla$$e$ to stay parasites.
Mao was perfectly content to promote technical education in the new China. What he deprecated (and fought to suppress) was
the typical liberal arts notion of critical thinking. We're witnessing something comparable in the U.S.
This suppression in China led to an increase in Mao's authority (obviously), but kept him delusional. For example, because
China relied on Mao's agricultural advice, an estimated 70 million Chinese died during peacetime. But who else was to be relied
upon as an authority?
Back the the U.S.S.A. (the United StateS of America): One Australian says of the American system: "You Yanks don't consult
the wisdom of democracy; you enable mobs."
Mao was perfectly content to promote technical education in the new China. What he deprecated (and fought to suppress)
was the typical liberal arts notion of critical thinking. We're witnessing something comparable in the U.S. We're witnessing
something comparable in the U.S.
Mao liked chaos because he believed in continuous revolution. I would argue what we're experiencing is nothing comparable to
what China experienced. (I hope I've understood you correctly.)
I am pretty sure a tradition of protest to affect political change in the US is a rather rare bird. Most people "protest" by
changing their behavior. As an example, by questioning the value of the 46,000 local private college tuition as opposed the the
15k and 9k tiered state college options. My daughter is entering the freshman class next year, we opted for the cheaper state
option because, in the end, a private school degree adds nothing, unless it is to a high name recognition institution.
I think, like housing, a downstream consequence of "the gouge" is not to question - much less understand - class relations,
but to assess the value of the lifetyle choice once you are stuck with the price of paying for that lifestyle in the form of inflated
debt repayments. Eventually "the folk" figure it out and encourage cheaper alternatives toward the same goal.
There's probably little point in engaging in political protest. Most people maximise their chances of success by focusing on
variables over which they have some degree of control. The ability of most people to have much effect on the overall political-economic
system is slight and any returns from political activity are highly uncertain.
How does anyone even expect to maintain cheap available state options without political activity? By wishful thinking I suppose?
The value of a private school might be graduating sooner, state schools are pretty overcrowded, but that may not at all be
worth the debt (I doubt it almost ever is on a purely economic basis).
Maybe if we just elect the right people with cool posters and a hopey changey slogan, they'll take care of everything for us
and we won't have to be politically active.
Of course refusal to engage politically because the returns to oneself by doing so are small really IS the tragedy of the commons.
Thus one might say it's ethical to engage politically in order to avoid it. Some ethical action focuses on overcoming tragedy
of the commons dilemmas. Of course the U.S. system being what it is I have a hard time blaming anyone for giving up.
The middle class, working class and poor have no voice in politics or policy at all, and they don't know what's going on until
it's too late. They've been pushed by all their high school staff that college is the only acceptable option - and often it is.
What else are they going to do out of high school, work a 30 hour a week minimum wage retail job? The upper middle class and rich,
who entirely monopolize the media, don't have any reason to care about skyrocketing college tuition - their parents are paying
for it anyway. They'd rather write about the hip and trendy issues of the day, like trigger warnings.
Speaking as one of these college students, I think that a large part of the reason that the vast majority of students are just
accepting the tuition rates is because it has become the societal norm. Growing up I can remember people saying "You need to go
to college to find a good job." Because a higher education is seen as a necessity for most people, students think of tuition as
just another form of taxes, acceptable and inevitable, which we will expect to get a refund on later in life.
I teach at a "good" private university. Most of my students don't have a clue as to how they're being exploited. Many of
the best students feel enormous pressure to succeed and have some inkling that their job prospects are growing narrower, but they
almost universally accept this as the natural order of things. Their outlook: if there are 10 or 100 applicants for every available
job, well, by golly, I just have to work that much harder and be the exceptional one who gets the job.
Incoming freshmen were born in the late 90s - they've never known anything but widespread corruption, financial and corporate
oligarchy, i-Pads and the Long Recession.
But as other posters note, the moment of realization usually comes after four years of prolonged adolescence, luxury dorm living
and excessive debt accumulation.
Most Ph.D.'s don't either. I'd argue there have been times they have attempted to debate that exploitation is a good–for their
employer and himself/herself–with linguistic games. Mind numbing . To be fair, they have a job.
I have watched the tuition double–double!–at my alma mater in the last eleven years. During this period, administrators have
set a goal of increasing enrollment by a third, and from what I hear, they've done so. My question is always this: where is the
additional tuition money going? Because as I walk through the campus, I don't really see that many improvements–yes, a new building,
but that was supposedly paid for by donations and endowments. I don't see new offices for these high-priced admin people that
colleges are hiring, and in fact, what I do see is an increase in the number of part-time faculty and adjuncts. The tenured faculty
is not prospering from all this increased revenue, either.
I suspect the tuition is increasing so rapidly simply because the college can get away with it. And that means they are exploiting
the students.
While still a student, I once calculated that it cost me $27.00/hour to be in class. (15 weeks x 20 "contact hours" per week
=
300 hours/semester, $8000/semester divided by 300 hours = $27.00/hour). A crude calculation, certainly, but a starting point.
I did this because I had an instructor who was consistently late to class, and often cancelled class, so much that he wiped out
at least $300.00 worth of instruction. I had the gall to ask for a refund of that amount. I'm full of gall. Of course, I was laughed
at, not just by the administrators, but also by some students.
Just like medical care, education pricing is "soft," that is, the price is what you are willing to pay. Desirable students
get scholarships and stipends, which other students subsidize; similarly, some pre-ACA patients in hospitals were often treated
gratis.
Students AND hospital patients alike seem powerless to affect the contract with the provider. Reform will not likely be forthcoming,
as students, like patients, are "just passing through."
The tuition at most public universities has quadrupled or more over the last 15 to 20 years precisely BECAUSE state government
subsidies have been
slashed in the meantime. I was told around 2005 that quadrupled tuition at the University of Minnesota made up for about half
of the state money that the legislature had slashed from the university budget over the previous 15 years.
It is on top of that situation that university administrators are building themselves little aristocratic empires, very much
modeled on the kingdoms of corporate CEOs
where reducing expenses (cutting faculty) and services to customers (fewer classes, more adjuncts) is seen as the height of responsibility
and accountability, perhaps
even the definition of propriety.
Everyone should read the introductory chapter to David Graeber's " The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity and the Secret
Joys of Bureaucracy."
In Chapter One of this book entitled "The Iron law of Liberalism and the Era of Total Bureaucratization" Graeber notes that
the US has become the most rigidly credentialised society in the world where
" in field after field from nurses to art teachers, physical therapists, to foreign policy consultants, careers which used
to be considered an art (best learned through doing) now require formal professional training and a certificate of completion."
Graeber, in that same chapter, makes another extremely important point. when he notes that career advancement in may large
bureaucratic organizations demands a willingness to play along with the fiction that advancement is based on merit, even though
most everyone know that this isn't true.
The structure of modern power in the U.S., in both the merging public and private sectors, is built around the false ideology
of a giant credentialized meritorcracy rather than the reality of arbitrary extraction by predatory bureaucratic networks.
Anecdote: I was speaking to someone who recently started working at as a law school administrator at my alma mater. Enrollment
is actually down at law schools (I believe), because word has spread about the lame legal job market. So, the school administration
is watching its pennies, and the new administrator says the administrators aren't getting to go on so many of the all expense
paid conferences and junkets that they used to back in the heyday. As I hear this, I am thinking about how many of these awesome
conferences in San Diego, New Orleans and New York that I'm paying back. Whatever happened to the metaphorical phrase: "when a
pig becomes a hog, it goes to slaughter"?
Another anecdote: I see my undergrad alma mater has demolished the Cold War era dorms on one part of campus and replaced it
with tons of slick new student housing.
No doubt those Cold War era dorms had outlived their planned life. Time for replacement. Hell, they had probably become inhabitable
and unsafe.
Meanwhile, has your undergraduate school replaced any of its lecture courses with courses presented same model as on-line traffic
school? I have a pending comment below about how my nephew's public university "taught" him introductory courses in accounting
and macroeconomics that way. Please be assured that the content of those courses was on a par with best practices in the on-line
traffic school industry. It would be hilarious if it weren't so desperately sad.
I read things like this and think about Louis Althusser and his ideas about "Ideological State Apparatuses." While in liberal
ideology the education is usually considered to be the space where opportunity to improve one's situation is founded, Althusser
reached the complete opposite conclusion. For him, universities are the definitive bourgeois institution, the ideological state
apparatus of the modern capitalist state par excellance. The real purpose of the university was not to level the playing
field of opportunity but to preserve the advantages of the bourgeoisie and their children, allowing the class system to perpetuate/reproduce
itself.
It certainly would explain a lot. It would explain why trying to send everyone to college won't solve this, because not everyone
can have a bourgeois job. Some people actually have to do the work. The whole point of the university as an institution was to
act as a sorting/distribution hub for human beings, placing them at certain points within the division of labor. A college degree
used to mean more because getting it was like a golden ticket, guaranteeing someone who got it at least a petit-bourgeois lifestyle.
The thing is, there are only so many slots in corporate America for this kind of employment. That number is getting smaller too.
You could hand every man, woman, and child in America a BS and it wouldn't change this in the slightest.
What has happened instead, for college to preserve its role as the sorting mechanism/preservation of class advantage is what
I like to call degree inflation and/or an elite formed within degrees themselves. Now a BS or BA isn't enough, one needs an Master's
or PhD to really be distinguished. Now a degree from just any institution won't do, it has to be an Ivy or a Tier 1 school. Until
we learn to think realistically about what higher education is as an institution little or nothing will change.
Any credential is worthless if everybody has it. All information depends on contrast. It's impossible for everybody to "stand
out" from the masses. The more people have college degrees the less value a college degree has.
When I was half-grown, I heard it said that religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, in that no one believes in God
anymore, at least not enough for it to change actual behavior.
Instead, buying on credit is the opiate of the masses.
My nephew asked me to help him with his college introductory courses in macroeconomics and accounting. I was disappointed
to find out what was going on: no lectures by professors, no discussion sessions with teaching assistants; no team projects–just
two automated correspondence courses, with automated computer graded problem sets objective tests – either multiple choice, fill
in the blank with a number, or fill in the blank with a form answer. This from a public university that is charging tuition for
attendance just as though it were really teaching something. All they're really certifying is that the student can perform exercises
is correctly reporting what a couple of textbooks said about subjects of marginal relevance to his degree. My nephew understands
exactly that this is going on, but still .
This is how 21st century America treats its young people: it takes people who are poor, in the sense that they have no assets,
and makes them poorer, loading them up with student debt, which they incur in order to finance a falsely-so-called course of university
study that can't be a good deal, even for the best students among them.
I am not suggesting the correspondence courses have no worth at all. But they do not have the worth that is being charged for
them in this bait-and-switch exercise by Ed Business.
After further thought, I'd compare my nephew's two courses to on-line traffic school: Mechanized "learning" – forget it all
as soon as the test is over – Critical thinking not required. Except for the kind of "test preparation" critical thinking that
teaches one to spot and eliminate the obviously wrong choices in objective answers–that kind of thinking saves time and so is
very helpful.
Not only is he paying full tuition to receive this treatment, but his family and mine are paying taxes to support it, too.
Very useful preparation for later life, where we can all expect to attend traffic school a few times. But no preparation for
any activity of conceivable use or benefit to any other person.
I read recently that the business establishment viewed the most important contribution of colleges was that they warehoused
young people for four years to allow maturing.
Where are the young people in all this? Is anyone going to start organizing to change things? Any ideas? Any interest? Are
we going to have some frustrated, emotional person attempt to kill a university president once every ten years? Then education
can appeal for support from the government to beef up security. Meanwhile the same old practices will prevail and the rich get
richer and the rest of us get screwed.
The reason students accept this has to be the absolutely demobilized political culture of the United States combined with
what college represents structurally to students from the middle classes: the only possibility – however remote – of achieving
any kind of middle class income.
Really your choices in the United States are, in terms of jobs, to go into the military (and this is really for working class
kids, Southern families with a military history and college-educated officer-class material) or to go to college.
The rest, who have no interest in the military, attend college, much like those who wanted to achieve despite of their class
background went into the priesthood in the medieval period. There hasn't been a revolt due to the lack of any idea it could function
differently and that American families are still somehow willing to pay the exorbitant rates to give their children a piece of
paper that still enables them to claim middle class status though fewer and fewer find jobs. $100k in debt seems preferable to
no job prospects at all.
Colleges have become a way for the ruling class to launder money into supposed non-profits and use endowments to purchase stocks,
bonds, and real estate. College administrators and their lackeys (the extended school bureaucracy) are propping up another part
of the financial sector – just take a look at Harvard's $30+ billion endowment, or Yale's $17 billion – these are just the top
of a very large heap. They're all deep into the financial sector. Professors and students are simply there as an excuse for the
alumni money machine and real estate scams to keep running, but there's less and less of a reason for them to employ professors,
and I say this as a PhD with ten years of teaching experience who has seen the market dry up even more than it was when I entered
grad school in the early 2000s.
"Colleges have become a way for the ruling class to launder money into supposed non-profits and use endowments to purchase
stocks, bonds, and real estate. "
Unorthodoxmarxist, I thought I was the only person who was coming to that conclusion. I think there's data out there that could
support our thesis that college tuition inflation may be affecting real estate prices. After all, justification a college grad
gave to someone who was questioning the value of a college degree was that by obtaining a "a degree" and a professional job, an
adult could afford to buy a home in major metropolitan hubs. I'm not sure if he was that ignorant, (business majors, despite the
math requirement are highly ideological people. They're no where near as objective as they like to portray themselves as) or if
he hasn't been in contact with anyone with a degree trying to buy a home in a metropolitan area.
Anyways, if our thesis is true, then if home prices declined in 2009, then college tuition should have declined as well, but
it didn't at most trustworthy schools. Prospective students kept lining up to pay more for education that many insiders believe
is "getting worse" because of widespread propaganda and a lack of alternatives, especially for "middle class" women.
It's hard to say, but there ought to be a power keg of students here primed to blow. And Bernie Sanders' proposal for free
college could be the fuse.
But first he'd have the light the fuse, and maybe he can. He's getting huge audiences and a lot of interest these days. And
here's a timely issue. What would happen if Sanders toured colleges and called for an angry, mass and extended student strike
across the country to launch on a certain date this fall or next spring to protest these obscene tuitions and maybe call for something
else concrete, like a maximum ratio of administrators to faculty for colleges to receive accreditation?
It could ignite not only a long-overdue movement on campuses but also give a big boost to his campaign. He'd have millions
of motivated and even furious students on his side as well as a lot of motivated and furious parents of students (my wife and
I would be among them) - and these are just the types of people likely to get out and vote in the primaries and general election.
Sanders' consistent message about the middle class is a strong one. But here's a solid, specific but very wide-ranging issue
that could bring that message into very sharp relief and really get a broad class of politically engaged people fired up.
I'm not one of those who think Sanders can't win but applaud his candidacy because it will nudge Hillary Clinton. I don't give
a fig about Clinton. I think there's a real chance Sanders can win not just the nomination but also the presidency. This country
is primed for a sharp political turn. Sanders could well be the right man in the right place and time. And this glaring and ongoing
tuition ripoff that EVERYONE agrees on could be the single issue that puts him front-and-center rather than on the sidelines.
I finished graduate school about three years ago. During the pre-graduate terms that I paid out of pocket (2005-2009) I saw
a near 70 percent increase in tuition (look up KY college tuition 1987-2009 for proof).
Straight bullshit, but remember our school was just following the national (Neoliberal) model.
Though, realize that I was 19-23 years old. Very immature (still immature) and feeling forces beyond my control. I did not
protest out of a) fear [?] (I don't know, maybe, just threw that in there) b) the sheepskin be the path to salvation (include
social/cultural pressures from parent, etc.).
I was more affected by b). This is the incredible power of our current Capitalist culture. It trains us well. We are always
speaking its language, as if a Classic. Appraising its world through its values.
I wished to protest (i.e. Occupy, etc.) but to which master? All of its targets are post modern, all of it, to me, nonsense,
and, because of this undead (unable to be destroyed). This coming from a young man, as I said, still immature, though I fear this
misdirection, and alienation is affecting us all.
This is about neoliberalism, not about the structure of the university education and the amount of social courses required
to get an STEM degree. The article is a baloney in this sense. And because neoliberalism defy regulation Google and
Facebook were able to built " amazingly sophisticated, computer-driven engines for extracting users' personal information
and data trails, refining them for sale to advertisers in high-speed data-trading auctions that are entirely unregulated and
opaque to everyone except the companies themselves."
Notable quotes:
"... Put simply, what Google and Facebook have built is a pair of amazingly sophisticated, computer-driven engines for extracting users' personal information and data trails, refining them for sale to advertisers in high-speed data-trading auctions that are entirely unregulated and opaque to everyone except the companies themselves. ..."
"... Democracy in America ..."
"... All of which brings to mind CP Snow's famous Two Cultures lecture, delivered in Cambridge in 1959, in which he lamented the fact that the intellectual life of the whole of western society was scarred by the gap between the opposing cultures of science and engineering on the one hand, and the humanities on the other – with the latter holding the upper hand among contemporary ruling elites. Snow thought that this perverse dominance would deprive Britain of the intellectual capacity to thrive in the postwar world and he clearly longed to reverse it. ..."
"... Lack of education in the humanities is not the reason for misuse of the tech giant's products, as the author so emphatically states. It simply comes down to greed. That human drive to make more, more and more leads them to overlook things for the sake of making more. A class in political science or sociology is not going to change that. ..."
"... Zuckerberg and similar folks are guilty of the same thing that most people are - greed. Monetary greed is just one part. ..."
"... As for education, it's not easy to get an engineering or comp sci degree. But while you are getting hammered in classes that are far more complex than most other things taught on the campus, you do indeed have to take a variety of other non-technical electives outside of your technical major to complete the overall curriculum. ..."
"... This likely has been pointed out already, but the American University system requires all students to take a core of humanities classes regardless of major. SO they actually have been exposed to, most likely, a fair number of Western Civ, History, and Literature courses. Their deficiency I think lays more in the utopian roots of the internet and technology development of the 1990s. They have been strangely naive and ruthless at the same time, and its changing human interactions and society sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. ..."
"... Wow, if there ever was an example of why Trump won, the utter and complete self righteousness of the American liberal, this post is it. Congratulations. ..."
"... If you've every hung out in Silicon Valley with techies you'd know that mild sociopathy is indeed likely part of the problem. ..."
"... Capitalists will do what capitalists do. So ignoring social consequences in the pursuit of money is baked-in. Doesn't matter what your education is. In fact, class has more to do with their blindness than the lack of a liberal arts education. ..."
"... It ties in with what many of the fake-news-complainers are reluctant to discuss: there is an ocean of sociological/economic 'facts' that exist somewhere between 'easily-provable lie' and 'this may be a lie to the elite, but it is a true fact for the unwashed masses'. and in tandem with that: the uneasy questions about censorship that come with *any* attempt at regulating the press. ..."
"... This is too simple. The development of critical thought is the key thing and it isn't monopolized by any discipline. People without any qualifications and without much education can - and do - exercise critical ability. The problem is a cultural one. Consumerism and the pretend world in which people 'think' they can be what they want and live in make believe soaps is the problem. ..."
"... "If you have an issue with tech giants messing around with your personal data, don't give them your personal data." They'll take your personal data, regardless. Because they make money from selling it. ..."
One of the biggest puzzles about our current predicament with fake news and the weaponisation of social media is why the folks
who built this technology are so taken aback by what has happened. Exhibit A is the founder of Facebook,
Mark Zuckerberg
, whose political education
I recently chronicled . But he's not alone. In fact I'd say he is quite representative of many of the biggest movers and shakers
in the tech world. We have a burgeoning genre of "
OMG, what
have we done? " angst coming from former Facebook and Google employees who have begun to realize that the cool stuff they worked
on might have had, well, antisocial consequences.
Put simply, what Google and Facebook have built is a pair of amazingly sophisticated, computer-driven engines for extracting
users' personal information and data trails, refining them for sale to advertisers in high-speed data-trading auctions that are entirely
unregulated and opaque to everyone except the
companies themselves.
The purpose of this infrastructure was to enable companies to target people with carefully customised commercial messages and,
as far as we know, they are pretty good at that. (Though
some advertisers
are beginning to wonder if these systems are quite as good as Google and Facebook claim.) And in doing this, Zuckerberg, Google co-founders
Larry Page and Sergey Brin
and
co wrote themselves licenses to print money and build insanely profitable companies.
It never seems to have occurred to them that their engines could be used to deliver ideological and political messages
It never seems to have occurred to them that their advertising engines could also be used to deliver precisely targeted ideological
and political messages to voters. Hence the obvious question: how could such smart people be so stupid? The cynical answer is they
knew about the potential dark side all along and didn't care, because to acknowledge it might have undermined the aforementioned
licenses to print money. Which is another way of saying that most tech leaders are sociopaths. Personally I think that's unlikely,
although among their number are some very peculiar characters: one thinks, for example, of Paypal co-founder
Peter Thiel – Trump's favourite techie; and Travis Kalanick, the founder of Uber.
So what else could explain the astonishing naivety of the tech crowd? My hunch is it has something to do with their educational
backgrounds. Take the Google co-founders. Sergey Brin
studied mathematics and computer science. His partner, Larry Page, studied engineering and computer science. Zuckerberg dropped out
of Harvard, where he was studying psychology and computer science, but seems to have been more interested in the latter.
sWhy Facebook is in a hole over data mining | John Naughton
Now mathematics, engineering and computer science are wonderful disciplines – intellectually demanding and fulfilling. And they
are economically vital for any advanced society. But mastering them teaches students very little about society or history – or indeed
about human nature. As a consequence, the new masters of our universe are people who are essentially only half-educated. They have
had no exposure to the humanities or the social sciences, the academic disciplines that aim to provide some understanding of how
society works, of history and of the roles that beliefs, philosophies, laws, norms, religion and customs play in the evolution of
human culture.
We are now beginning to see the consequences of the dominance of this half-educated elite. As one perceptive observer
Bob O'Donnell puts it, "a liberal arts major familiar
with works like Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America , John Stuart Mill's
On Liberty , or even the work of ancient
Greek historians, might have been able to recognise much sooner the potential for the 'tyranny of the majority' or other disconcerting
sociological phenomena that are embedded into the very nature of today's social media platforms. While seemingly democratic at a
superficial level, a system in which the lack of structure means that all voices carry equal weight, and yet popularity, not experience
or intelligence, actually drives influence, is clearly in need of more refinement and thought than it was first given."
All of which brings to mind CP Snow's famous
Two Cultures lecture, delivered in Cambridge in 1959, in which he lamented the fact that the intellectual life of the whole of
western society was scarred by the gap between the opposing cultures of science and engineering on the one hand, and the humanities
on the other – with the latter holding the upper hand among contemporary ruling elites. Snow thought that this perverse dominance
would deprive Britain of the intellectual capacity to thrive in the postwar world and he clearly longed to reverse it.
Snow passed away in 1980, but one wonders what he would have made of the new masters of our universe. One hopes that he might
see it as a reminder of the old adage: be careful what you wish for – you might just get it.
Lack of education in the humanities is not the reason for misuse of the tech giant's products, as the author so emphatically
states. It simply comes down to greed. That human drive to make more, more and more leads them to overlook things for the sake
of making more. A class in political science or sociology is not going to change that.
Middle and high school in the US need to tackle more philosophy, history and other humanities instead of force feeding kids test
material for them to simply memorize. Then, lo and behold, by the time kids get into university, they may already have grasped
the basics of human analytical skills. Why wait till further education?
Wtf? All this hue and cry that Facebook has "ruined" democracy ... and I see you've actually bought into it. Holy cow, who knew
a few hundred thousand $$ gets Brexit and Trump done while $1 billion in actual adverts cannot elect Clinton?
Goodness, that's some powerful analytica, no? You guys should really hear yourselves ... you sound utterly deranged by this
Trump thing!
If we are all concerned, we can remedy 'the problem'. Chuck Cable, ( I did 7 years ago), get off facebook, twitter and the like.
We are all subject to the marketing, the allure of 'like' thinking, etc. Yet we need to 'grow up' mature, and be concerned about
this path. Our youth is our hope, but if they are indoctrinated and sucked into the social network mess, I do not see a future
or much hope. Yes, it is all about marketing, greed, and ego. Pretty difficult to overcome. Soul searching, integrity, and sincere
concern for democracy is crucial.
It never seems to have occurred to them that their advertising engines could also be used to deliver precisely targeted
ideological and political messages to voters. Hence the obvious question: how could such smart people be so stupid?
So stupid? Is the author claiming to have known this in advance of it happening?
A yes...science. "Once they go up, who cares where they come down, that's not my department, says Werner Von Braun" (Tom Leher)
Man kind has always been willing to subjugate it's essential humanity for the elusive goal of "progress". The computer age is
no different.
Well, actually , they did. Slaves were not allowed to vote in the UK either. And, one must remember, it was the UK that introduced
slavery to North America which was, after all, a British colony ruled by British courts and British jurisprudence at that juncture.
Anyone who finishes engineering cannot be classified as a dim bulb. It's only understood by those that go through it how difficult
it is in comparison to other things. The complexity is hard to explain to anyone outside of it. Most people fail out or quit,
literally, and those are the ones that at least gave it a try. I watched many such people go on to the business or other schools
and rush a frat and barely study and ace their courses. They said straight up that it wasn't even close.
Zuckerberg and similar folks are guilty of the same thing that most people are - greed. Monetary greed is just one part.
Additionally, there's a ton of ego there to want to do things others haven't done or can't do or aren't doing, but ego is not
exclusive to the tech industry. They were negligent in looking the other way while their products were exploited and they hid
under freedom of speech, providing a functionality that isn't necessarily tied with or promotes nefarious conduct so they aren't
responsible when it does. There's no shortage of this through years - radio, TV, nuclear power, guns, drug paraphernalia, chemicals,
photo copiers, MP3 players and file copying services like Napster, on and on. It's not just technical items.
It's all about making money. Twitter is sitting back absolutely loving every Trump tweet, while individually at least some
or many of the people there hate the actual tweets themselves or at least think the POTUS should be communicating in a better
manner and put this ad hoc approach aside. I don't know of too many that think he's doing good things for the country or world
or even his self image and reputation with it and should continue. But for Twitter it promotes their product and service and stock
and pay check and bonus and livelihood. So the greed wins out.
As for education, it's not easy to get an engineering or comp sci degree. But while you are getting hammered in classes
that are far more complex than most other things taught on the campus, you do indeed have to take a variety of other non-technical
electives outside of your technical major to complete the overall curriculum. But there's only so much you can do, only so
much time and interest. You can't necessarily expect each and everyone to be incredibly well rounded without at least sacrificing
their ability to focus and specialize in their strength and interest. Pretty much every doctor I've met is aloof to some degree.
Accountants have trouble thinking outside the strict confines of the accounting box. I know plenty of lawyers who aren't great
with technology or computers. And few people in those professions that are also incredibly versed in the things the author mentions.
Few have time to be once life and family kicks in.
This likely has been pointed out already, but the American University system requires all students to take a core of humanities
classes regardless of major. SO they actually have been exposed to, most likely, a fair number of Western Civ, History, and Literature
courses. Their deficiency I think lays more in the utopian roots of the internet and technology development of the 1990s. They
have been strangely naive and ruthless at the same time, and its changing human interactions and society sometimes for the better
and sometimes for the worse.
He said he was "half educated" not because he finished only half of his comp sci degree (or even psychology) but because he wasn't
educated in other subjects that may have given him insight into human behavior and sociology. There may be some truth to that
but it seems kind of a stretch since pretty much most people are as he describes; he just seems to be picking on Zuckerberg since
he developed something with such huge influence and is now on the hot seat for being at least naive if not deliberately looking
the other way while his platform was used in ways he probably didn't envision or want but made them a ton of money. Most people
aren't really that educated or versed in the things the author mentions, and that includes many people outside of the tech industry
who could never accomplish what Zuckerberg or others have accomplished.
A 4-year engineering degree already takes 5 years to complete (at least for a dim bulb like myself). We already have to take a
bunch of non-technical social science, history, and English "core" classes.
Way to miss the point. Zuckerberg is poorly educated in understanding human behavior. I could've told these tech yokels exactly
what was becoming of their practices.
It's no coincidence that the people I know who eschew things like Twitter and Facebook are the techy people who can remember
the internet in the good ol' days when the maxim was "don't tell anyone anything about anything".
God, I remember that feeling. Still on a modem and proudly watching people excitedly get into the Internet. And then I watched
on in utter horror as they give away their real names. I didn't understand why people didn't understand. You can discard a mask
- you can't discard your face!
And you fail to realize that your existence is not, never has and never will be an island that removes you from the rest of humanity.
It is irrelevant to the rest of us if you volunteer to be ignorant of the rest of us, and yet you think that only if everyone
else was like you the problem would be solved.
Sorry but, our existence is inherently governed by the fact that we are social animals and part of an Earth based biosphere
and politically that requires we show more than smug diffidence. I realise that religions have spent the last 2000 years or so
trying to separate us from each other and nature, by pretending we have individual souls far more important than our collective
being, but that's not an excuse either.
"While seemingly democratic at a superficial level, a system in which the lack of structure means that all voices carry
equal weight, and yet popularity, not experience or intelligence, actually drives influence, is clearly in need of more refinement
and thought than it was first given"
Erm. The inevitable effect of connection-seeking in a low friction environment is called The Singularity and people have
been warning about it for at least the last couple of decades now.
Congratulations. You've recognized the Problem. Now, if you really want to look smart, explain why nobody involved wants to
implement the Solution...
I have a feeling your poor friends get the Big picture while you dont. Trumps get elected while you are offline. Brexit happens
while you are offline cause Cambridge Analytica and Farage .. well they work hard at protecting certain interests. And so on..
is about information wars and power. And their consequences on democracy. And you might not be immediately affected If you are
white male and from an OK bakground. If you are privileged and well off maybe even your children will make it in the offline bubble.
But what about the rest?
The UK history on democracy isn't exactly a roll call of enlightened thinking either. The only gains were made by often violent
demonstrations by The Chartists and Suffragettes. But at least the UK never banned black people from voting.
You are not a nice person. Thinking that people you imagine aren't as intelligent or don't see the world the way you see it deserve
dieing from poverty or opioid overdoses is quite unpleasant.
Sure, pick on the engineers. They make more money than you do. But if your half-courage took a leap forward, you'd target the
quarter-educated people who are driving this because they control the spending. But then, they're also the people you're asking
for a job aren't they?
Wow, if there ever was an example of why Trump won, the utter and complete self righteousness of the American liberal, this
post is it. Congratulations.
You never had a "democracy" ... or if you had one, it was in the very dim past and limited to propertied men ... in recent
times, you've had a two-party oligarchy managed by military-tech corporations. Oh, those good old days of limited choice and Vietnam,
how can we ever go back to those, amirite?
Gosh, I guess they were not joking when they talked about the "global village" ... and anyone knows a village is full of gossip
and half-truths.
I feel like almost every other day i need to point out to my hyperventilating Russia-fearing friends that you all do realize
that all of this online-ness is voluntary, right? That a person can have a complete and real existence with no Facebook profile,
not Tweet, none of that? I'm one such person, and I work in tech.
Are media companies prevented by regulation from reporting "fake news". In any supermarket you'll spot newspapers with headlines
to the effect that "My Mother-in-Law is a Space Alien". Now, while I'd guess that is true some of the time, I have a hard time
believing that there are really that many space aliens around harassing their earthling inlaws. I'm not aware that that reporting
is regulated. Are you saying it is?
The vow claimed by Brin and other Google founders, "Do No Evil," should have been a warning. In a New Yorker piece on tech's influence
on the election last summer, a Facebook employee was quoted as saying, "We joke about who we should give the election to." It
has recently come out that as Apple, the most traitorous of all the giant tech corporations that are a product of the American
educational system (before it was strangled by Republicans like Trump and Betsy DeVos), traitorous because they pay no corporate
taxes in the U.S., had an opportunity to choose between making phones and PDAs addictive pleasure machines or responsible news
devices. They chose addictive pleasures, because it's obviously more profitable, like McDonald's supersizing its French fries
and sugary drinks.
They've created a generation of Americans who will swallow anything that's fed to them ("It must be true. I read it on the
Internet."). These are the people who love Trump, who don't understand or care about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights and
would probably vote against them in a referendum (which some Republicans have promoted as a new Constitutional Convention). Their
minds have become morbidly obese, filled with Angry Birds and empty Twitter posts that leave them unable to comprehend ideas that
take more than 140 characters to express.
Such people deserve their fate (poverty, death by opioids), but it's tragic and evil that they are wrecking the planet with
climate change denial (which, of course, justifies unregulated pollution), science denial (in which Evangelical Christians commit
the child abuse of denying evolution and trying to prohibit its teaching.Such Fake Christians also reject most of Jesus' liberal
teachings.)
Here in the SF Bay Area it's hard to avoid knowing some of these techies. They aren't all clueless about social interaction,
arrogant, selfish, and contemptuous of other people--only 90% of them. The remainder scratch their heads, smile, cash their paychecks
and stock options, and retire to multimillion dollar ranches to write cookbooks and make wine.
So now we have a population of tech geeks who don't know much but think they know everything, who spout "Do No Evil," while
doing the ultimate evil--making a world unsafe for democracy but a pleasure palace for the rich, using a technology that is a
uniquely American product of an educational system that was once a shining example and is now in shambles to destroy the dream
of democracy that America used to champion, but does no longer.
It makes the coming Chinese domination of the world seem like cosmic justice, doesn't it?
More degrees in the humanities is no antidote to or remedy for amoral/harmful tech and those who create and market it. Nor is
this a problem of white privilege and lack of inclusiveness -- minorities run after tech goodies with the same glee as everyone
else.
Schools and just about everyone are promoting STEM degrees as the way to a good job and prosperity, and I don't foresee
anybody creating jobs for philosophers to warn us against new tech developments.
This is one of those dangers that people don't foresee. They only see it when it's happened. Now it has; depending on how bad
the fallout, the pushback and regulation will follow. Not sure if it will be sufficient, though. Especially under an Administration
with little respect for facts or truth while it pursues the maximum dollar gain from the government before skedaddling.
If you've every hung out in Silicon Valley with techies you'd know that mild sociopathy is indeed likely part of the problem.
But the argument that it's because their education lacked learning about history or society is a bit silly when you consider
the bulk of the population has probably not studied such disciplines beyond high school and some of the greatest engineers who
invented or built some of the most important creations in history lacked a degree in the humanities.
What differentiates past engineering eras from present is political and societal will to ensure inventions are used for the
good of humanity. In short, a lack of regulation in the face of rampant neo-liberal capitalism that has enthralled the politicians
who should be looking out for the public, not themselves and their cronies.
Facebook et al should long ago have been classified as media companies and regulated as such. Start hitting Zuckerburg with
billions in fines and/or the threat of regulating him out of business and you'd very quickly see those much vaunted algorithms
and engineering prowess spring into action to tackle the fake news and propaganda epidemic.
Ahh, yeah Aruler...thanks for that....I think....!
If you read this article and his former article on the subject(a big if), then you would be able to enlighten us on exactly
what Laughton means by such comments as below. I actually completed my degree and so am 'fully educated but still struggle with
the logic:-
"the hero's education rendered him incapable of understanding the world into which he was born. For although he was supposed
to be majoring in psychology at Harvard, the young Zuckerberg mostly took computer science classes until he started Facebook
and dropped out
Your post referenced economics, not social issues.
It seems that once the State expands to the size it is now (~43% of GDP is directly spent by government) then virtually everything
becomes political: economics, politics, social.
(ps if i've got this horribly wrong and libertarianism as a word has just been coopted to mean 'minarchist' i apologise)
I suppose it depends on how you define "libertarian". I, and most of the theorists I read, see it as a quite broad label which
stretches from anarchism at one (extreme) end, to small-state minarchism at the other.
And yes, I am "right-wing" in terms of economics (though fascism, typically described as a "far-right" movement, is actually
quite far-left in terms of economics, which is why I try to avoid debating these matters in terms of left/right. But when people
self-describe that way, one doesn't have much choice).
So, yes, I prefer no (or minimal) State involvement in areas of the economy that it is possible to have private suppliers compete
against each other. So that includes healthcare (but not all healthcare; the time-critical nature of A&E services means
they are not amenable to real competition), education, and various other things most people are used to having provided by their
governments.
But the "natural monopolies" (things like roads/railways/pipelines/sewers) can't really be provided by competing suppliers,
so it's reasonable that they are owned (but not necessarily run) by the State. So taxes need to be raised to pay for those things.
Unlike most minarchists, though, I see outright, allodial land ownership as unjustifiable (it's a capital good that no one
created, and thus no-one can claim rightful ownership). So in that regard also I'm quite left-wing.
Capitalists will do what capitalists do. So ignoring social consequences in the pursuit of money is baked-in. Doesn't matter
what your education is. In fact, class has more to do with their blindness than the lack of a liberal arts education.
yeah, but if you read this article (big if) he's calling him 'half-educated' because he has a shoddy background in social systems
that has left him ignorant of a vast body of historical knowledge and political theory, not because he didn't finish his degree.
maybe you should try reading the article and/or writing comments relevant to it...
If it were the Iate 15th century there would be a similar article decrying the printing press and if the 19th, the postage stamp.
Newspapers have been targeting a partisan readership long before social media came along and all controlled & managed by humanities
graduates. Conrad Black & Boris Johnson hardly exemplars of a solid grounding in humanities leading to informed decision making
overcoming self interest.
this half-baked education has left him bewildered and rudderless
He is now claiming that Zuckerberg is 'half-educated'. Just because he did not complete his degree?! This surely does not make
him half-educated? Does that mean that those who do not have a degree are not educated? This smells a little of scholastic snobbery
from our former Cambridge University graduate and Vice President !
What's so appalling is that I don't even think they have the slightest inkling that what you've just posted is the absolute reality
of these types.
They are so convinced they're right, and that everything they think must prevail, that they simply ignore democracy and anything
else that shows that they're actually completely wrong.
You mean you're not economically right wing? Minimal taxes, less state intervention in the economy (including health), etc? Your
post referenced economics, not social issues. Socially we agree on a lot, probably nearly everything to be honest - I'm all for
legalising based on harm caused by drugs, less military, anti snooper's charter/surveillance, etc, but I like taxes and I like
the NHS, and that is where I think you're right wing and I am left! (ps if i've got this horribly wrong and libertarianism as
a word has just been coopted to mean 'minarchist' i apologise)
....Yes, to a certain extent that can happen via reading, but the biggest check on privilege and self-satisfaction is actually
engaging with actual other people who don't share that privilege. And that just isn't happening at Stanford and Harvard....
As someone who grew up both first-world-poor and a nerd i cannot expres in words how much i hate that 'the elite' keeps insisting
that *the truth* about life and love and everything can only be found in a mixture of greec classics and trips to india. You are
only 'enlightened' if you have the time and money to read those books and make those trips and most importantly: if you come home
from all that with the right opinions about detesting money, detesting xenophobia, etc.
they pat themselves on the back any time they listen to what they insist is 'an outsider' but is just someone of a different gender/color
parroting back their own believes.
It ties in with what many of the fake-news-complainers are reluctant to discuss: there is an ocean of sociological/economic
'facts' that exist somewhere between 'easily-provable lie' and 'this may be a lie to the elite, but it is a true fact for the
unwashed masses'. and in tandem with that: the uneasy questions about censorship that come with *any* attempt at regulating the
press.
This is too simple. The development of critical thought is the key thing and it isn't monopolized by any discipline. People
without any qualifications and without much education can - and do - exercise critical ability. The problem is a cultural one.
Consumerism and the pretend world in which people 'think' they can be what they want and live in make believe soaps is the problem.
"If you have an issue with tech giants messing around with your personal data, don't give them your personal data."
They'll take your personal data, regardless. Because they make money from selling it.
"A "liberal arts" education is now a selling point in some schools." Presumably schools from families so wealthy, the children
will never have to worry about competing with 6 billion other people for a job someday.
The author concerns are naive and misplaced (although he probably advocated the interests of the group to which he belongs).
MBA, Master of Business Administration gradates are indoctrinated neoliberals. This is about neoliberalism, not about the structure
of the university education and the amount of social coursers required to get an STEM degree.
Notable quotes:
"... First off, full disclosure: I'm in tech, so I'm an insider. I also absolutely agree that tech has a huge, huge problem with understanding the consequences of our actions. But it's a little bit naïve to act as though taking another year or two of humanities classes would magically prevent tech leaders from making antisocial products. ..."
"... Trump is the quintessential Exceptional American, weaponized. The Trump Organization constructed more than 180 skyscrapers and major properties worldwide within every cesspool of political, military, religious, organized crime, and civil corruption. Trump is the toughest SOB on the planet - and the most experienced. And he's ours. I stand with Trump. ..."
"... "It never seems to have occurred to them that their advertising engines could also be used to deliver precisely targeted ideological and political messages to voters." That was supposed to be reserved for exclusive use of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... The writer clearly does not know much about the US higher education system where engineers and scientists cannot get away without taking humanities courses, unlike the UK. ..."
Power and influence are not just a battle between STEM and Humanities, though. You've missed the MBA, Master of Business Admistration.
They are the ones who control everything now.
It may have been the case some decades ago, but now it is Managerialism, in the guise of a whole ideology that has sprung from
MBA's, that rules over both the STEM and Humanities workers.
From mid- and large- private companies, to the public sector, they all speak the same language and it is the language of the
MBA. Corporate visions of embracing customer focused cost control while empowering our core mission values.
Time for an article on Managerialism, as it is the air we breathe these days.
Your username rather contradicts the assertions you make about your political orientation..
Well let's have a look at some typical libertarian policies. Recreational drugs decriminalised. The dismantling of the surveillance
State. Stop covering for Israel's crimes in the UN. A much-reduced military that was for purely defensive purposes. How're they
"right-wing", exactly?
My recent example is saying "It's like Quixote tiltiing at windmills" only to find the others, 6 or 7 people all with Firsts in
STEM had no idea what I was on about. Also saying "It's far too Heath-Robinson" had the same effect.
It does dismay me how clever many of my colleagues are, but how painfully narrow their knowledge is. They study their subject
(and I suspect most of that is just for career development i.e. love of money rather than knowledge) but little else.
Our culture has a bad attitude to wisdom in general. Each generation is taught to disregard the old timers, what can they possibly
know about anything?
I guess it's all how the plutocracy like it. Their media can tell us that the Crusades were a defensive war and nobody knows
enough to disagree. They can continually role out nonsense about the "good guys and the evil guys" to explain world problems and
again, nobody knows anything other than that.
Democracy is a political philosophy. Socialism is an economic theory.
Socialism is not an "economic" theory. Socialism (and I use the term in its original, Marxist sense: State ownership & control
of the means of production, distribution, and exchange) has absolutely no economic theory behind it. Nowhere did Marx tell his
followers how to run their economies; after they'd won, the Bolsheviks and Maoists were on their own. No wonder millions starved.
It's impossible to make rational economic calculations in a socialist commonwealth because there is no price signal mechanism.
Hence communist countries' famous gluts and shortages.
At its height, despite the fact its economy was much simpler than any here in the West's, economists of the USSR were setting
the prices of more than 5 million items, and even they admitted it would have been impossible without knowing (and copying) the
prices that arose in our (relatively) free-market economies.
In fact, they joked that once "the revolution" was complete and communism had taken over the world, they'd be required to have
some small country remain free-market capitalist so they could have some clue about what prices should be.
And I have no idea of who concocted the "famous quote".
Lulz. You walked into that one: Alexis de Tocqueville
I can't up-vote this enough. MIT, for example, requires eight semesters of humanities for all undergraduates, regardless of major.
If you talk to the faculty in the humanities dept, they'll tell you how much they enjoy teaching there, because they get really
intelligent students who can think rigorously. (And also because they're almost all tenured professors -- not underpaid "adjuncts".)
Yes, there are a certain percentage of students who meet the stereotype of being socially awkward and not very interested in
thinking about things outside of their science and technology focus, but they're not the majority and are more than balanced by
the bulk of the student body who could hold their own in any liberal arts program in the world.
We live in a plutocracy and we get the tech that the plutocrats want us to have. Drives on diversity aren't working because
those non-white-upper-middle-class-males who get the roles, are those who behave exactly the same as the white-upper-middle-class
elite. So the changes are literally skin deep.
Sadly, most of the women I've encountered at the top of the corporate tree have either been there through nepotism (e.g. MD's
daughter or mistress) or been promoted way beyond their level of competence and have compensated for that with drink, drugs or
appalling bullying.
The educated, savvy women all seem to baled out long before they reach that level!
Harvard required class of 1964 freshmen to read the published version "The Two Cultures" the summer before they matriculated.
The general knowledge of college friends who were scientists and mathematicians (and went on to become university professors)
was at least equal to other friends specializing in social sciences and humanities, because suburban American high schools in
wealthy communities provide a good general education up to age 18, not 16 as in British public, comprehensive and grammar schools,
and because American university courses require a large fraction of a student's course work lie outside their department of specialization.
Snow wrote about the British system. He deplored the willful scientific ignorance of many members of the British Civil Service
of this acquaintance. His comments were not intended for or relevant to the American experience. A bright American student, as
these computer tech executives' work histories show they must have been, will have gained familiarity with both "cultures" by
the time they started their college courses. Their college experiences will have built upon this familiarity.
In my opinion It is inappropriate to blame the failure to regulate internet speech properly upon the education of American
tech leaders. Corbyn and whoever replaces Trump will remedy theunderlying issues because they know unregulated capitalism cannot
be trusted to act responsibly.
But often the customers don't know exactly what they want and constantly want to make changes.
True. "It's just what we asked for, but it's not what we want!", viz. Nimrod. And sometimes a supplier provides a system that
they say is perfect for the task required, yet once it's installed it clearly is nothing of the sort. The customer's ex-MD retires
to the sun, counting his backhander and giggling hysterically. I've encountered that more than once during my career, too.
So what about those teaching and learning 'digital humanities', is this subject then a contradiction in terms? Surly these divides
are redundant as subjects become multi disciplinary in our digital age, each will influence the other in new and interesting ways.
There is no uninventing available to us here only the effort in rebalancing in how we value what it is to be human.
First off, full disclosure: I'm in tech, so I'm an insider. I also absolutely agree that tech has a huge, huge problem
with understanding the consequences of our actions. But it's a little bit naïve to act as though taking another year or two of
humanities classes would magically prevent tech leaders from making antisocial products.
For one thing, more people in tech have humanities backgrounds than you might think (I do--I'm a software developer and educator
with a BA from Stanford and am finishing an MSEE, and I have a fair number of colleagues with similarly mixed educational backgrounds).
For another, Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook when he was was what, 20? It's foolish to act like you can turn a 20-year-old, *any*
20-year-old, into a wise and thoughtful human who can understand all the consequences of their actions by sticking them in a classroom
for another year or two. I certainly was a moron when I was 20. Shockingly, I was also a moron when I was 22. College kids just
still have a lot of growing up to do.
Don't get me wrong, I work a lot with high schoolers and university students, and I'm a very big proponent of education. But
the thing that makes the biggest difference in knocking adolescent heads is exposing kids to people that aren't like them. Yes,
to a certain extent that can happen via reading, but the biggest check on privilege and self-satisfaction is actually engaging
with actual other people who don't share that privilege. And that just isn't happening at Stanford and Harvard.
I'm white and the child of college-educated parents; at Stanford I still felt out of place, weird, and poor. I was surrounded
by people who went to skiing in Switzerland at Christmas and had boats; it wasn't a world I was familiar with or understood. That
effect is only magnified for kids of color or from more marginalized backgrounds, sprinkled lightly across classrooms that are
overwhelmingly white and privileged. The idea that a white, middle-class kid -- even a gay female kid like me -- would be right
near the bottom of the privilege scale I think tells you just about everything about that university culture that you need to
know.
What's happening in tech is part of the sickness of our entire social and economic system; it's a toxic mixture of privilege
perpetuating privilege, in terms of race and class and gender and money and access. Tech doesn't create antisocial products by
itself. Having a lot of rich white kids sitting around discussing Plato in a classroom might make them more well-rounded on paper,
but if you then still funnel them then into a money sea dominated by bro culture and VCs, with no necessity or encouragement to
engage with people who live outside that bubble, you're still going to get people who are shocked, shocked!! to learn that their
products have negative consequences for the lives of the people on the other side of the screen. Lots of *workers* in tech do
partially bridge that gap, in one way or another. But the people at the top, making the decisions, are selected overwhelmingly
by being white dudes who fit the "poorly socialized iconoclast" mold that VCs understand and then massively isolated by the enormous
*heaps of cash* that investors have thrown at them to make something the investors think will get them the best return on their
investment. *No part* of that is good for society writ large, beginning to end, in very large part because investors have no reason
to care what happens to anyone else.
Here's an example! At this stage, anyone in tech who doesn't think that they're working on making every worker in the world,
*including themselves*, obsolete, is deluding themselves. But most of us *do* know that and keep showing up for work, because
we don't know any other way of paying our bills. We know that social and political action is needed, a lot of us are agitating
for precisely that, but we can't do it on our own, and we have a pretty realistic idea about what kind of future lies for us and
our families if we just decide to walk away from the industry. I'm a little too old to really be a millennial, but this is the
rock and the hard place, for people even 3 years younger than I am, who graduated from college just in time for the crash: if
you're in tech, you're keeping your head above water, barely. If you're not, you're working constantly with no benefits or security,
just so you can live with your parents and form a punchline about avocados.
If you want to check tech, you need *political will.* You have to check the money, because it's never going to check itself.
And if you want to make Silicon Valley actually become capable of making the utopian tech it likes to believe it can produce,
it also wouldn't hurt to check the *overwhelming* bias in tech hiring and in elite education towards people who are white, privileged,
and just like everybody else who's already there.
I once met a man in a Texas prison who was incarcerated for programming a banks software to divert small fractions of (rounded
off) pennies to his personal account. Those added up fast enough to get noticed.
Trump is the quintessential Exceptional American, weaponized. The Trump Organization constructed more than 180 skyscrapers
and major properties worldwide within every cesspool of political, military, religious, organized crime, and civil corruption.
Trump is the toughest SOB on the planet - and the most experienced. And he's ours. I stand with Trump.
Democracy is a political philosophy. Socialism is an economic theory. The two are not mutually exclusive. And I have no idea of
who concocted the "famous quote".
When you refer to someone as "Machiavellian" does an engineer understand? In the US there used to be a required college course
entitled "The History of Western Civilization". It formed a common bond somewhat like serving in the military.
"a liberal arts major familiar with works like Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty,
or even the work of ancient Greek historians, might have been able to recognise much sooner the potential for the 'tyranny
of the majority' or other disconcerting sociological phenomena that are embedded into the very nature of today's social media
platforms..."
Such a person would most have likely held their nose and voted for Trump, knowing the appalling damage Hillary had done during
her tenure in the State department.
The usual Graun assumption that it's only ignorance or selfishness that makes people eschew Leftists and their policies.
Sorry. Progressives are actually more ignorant about politics, economics and history, in my experience. I'm not "right-wing"
myself but far more of my right-leaning friends are likely to know who de Tocqueville was and what he wrote than my Lefty friends.
And most of them will know this rather famous quote:
"Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each
man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality.
But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
The old "two cultures debate", which in my student days was conducted between FR Leavis and CP Snow, has not advanced very
far. There is certainly something in it, but I suspect that the intellectuals of the sixteenth century, most of whom could be
found in monasteries, complained that Gutenberg would never have pressed ahead so carelessly with printing using moveable type
if he had had a proper grounding in Rhetoric and in Theology, instead of blacksmithing and goldsmithing...
After all... we went from Gutenberg printing in Strasbourg in 1445 to Martin Luther printing his 95 Theses in 1522...
I think we are seeing a similar democratisation of information today.
We can no more put the genie back in the bottle than could Sir Thomas More. If Zuckerberg, Page and Brin had not invented their
money machines, someone else might have done so.
The only political leader who is actively trying to control the genie is Xi Jinping, and he may not be entirely successful
in keeping up the Great Firewall of China.
I think we have to ride the wave, and keep in mind that political power itself is a matter of technology, as I am sure Marshal
McLuhan would point out.
The Great Dictators of the last century were creatures of the radio and the cinema, which allowed them a one sided conversation
with every household and made them bestride the silver screen.
Television replaced radio and cinema and with its more domestic scale it cut the monsters down to size and promoted democracy.
The social media have galvanised authoritarianism at the moment, but the wheels will continue to turn..
New Model: People who disagree with me are stupid.
Oh, and a column in The Guardian defending Mill's On Liberty ? Priceless.
By the way, the entire premise of the column is flawed. Harvard, like all US colleges, has requirements that students take
classes outside their major, including humanities. My
tech prowess allowed
to me find that out. :)
Translation/TL;DR version:
> Trump won despite the amount of shameless fear-mongering and short-selling we in the MSM did for Hillary and Dems.
> Tech companies did not do their part in preventing Trump victory by actively censoring everyone WE disagree with.
> We need OUR (SJW/Humanities/Marxist/LiberalArts) people to MANAGE/WATCHOVER these tech guys.
> Guys like Zucker/Brin/Page are not essentially evil, they are just not educate ENOUGH in SJW/Marxist agenda.
> Guys like Thiel are pure evil.
> WE KNOW BEST, hence, we must be allowed to control and manipulate what people think and how they act.
So what else could explain the astonishing naivety of the tech crowd? My hunch is it has something to do with their educational
backgrounds. Take the Google co-founders. Sergey Brin studied mathematics and computer science. His partner, Larry Page, studied
engineering and computer science. Zuckerberg dropped out of Harvard, where he was studying psychology and computer science,
but seems to have been more interested in the latter.
Science should left in the hands of the political elite, who know what's best for the people.
People need not be good at math to know when a politician is lying. By the humanities, they know a politician is lying because
their lips are moving. lol
Said this before in a reply: Isn't there some responsibility on the part of the Humanities to give a more accurate portrayal of
history and society? For example, shouldn't we all be well aware that the success of these tech giants is built on state-funded
innovation? Shouldn't we all be less blind to how markets work? A stronger left might provide a clearer vision of how power works,
but we have been silencing that hard left for years.
Agree. But how about the fact that many educated people do not know that much of the technology and innovation behind this wealth
was state-funded and not "sexy" Isn't it the job of the liberal arts - history, sociology, government classes to address the role
of the state in innovation? We are blinded by a worshipful attitude toward the market. Without a strong left it seems we have
lost sight of reality. Isn't this partially the fault of Humanities departments?
Normally I don't single out greedy business leaders to take the blame for society's woes. It is the fault of our political leaders
for allowing them to damage society in their chase for the almighty dollar (or billions of them)...Libertarians, conservatives
and centrist Dems to be exact.
But in this case I think the criticism is spot on since these tech nerds keep on claiming their products will make the country
and world a better place. Time to kill the meme that capitalists and business people are bested suited morally to lead the world
in the 21st Century.
"It never seems to have occurred to them that their advertising engines could also be used to deliver precisely targeted
ideological and political messages to voters." That was supposed to be reserved for exclusive use of the Democratic Party.
One of the changes (still happening) in literature, psychology, sociology, and philosophy departments is a focus on privilege,
"the other", subjugation, the power of elites . . . So studying the humanities may involve a critique - at least a consciousness
- of one's privilege. Not familiar with Snow but there is plenty of lit crit and theory to dismantle or at least challenge the
canon.
I guess the problem being referred to in this article that there are negative implications for all of us because many people's
opinions are shaped by what they read on social media. What all of us read is biased in ways that it is difficult to trace the
source of that bias. In "the good old days" at least most people tended to know the biases of the newspapers and TV news that
you consumed, but now you can be biased by what your friends share with you on social media, or what google choses to show you
in search results but there is no way of knowing the source of those biases. The problem therefore goes far beyond the risks of
sharing personal data.
Yes, I agree and I wasn't disparaging the STEM subjects at all or equating them in some way with capitalist interests. Both can
have that criticism applied to them - for instance, historians can definitely twist facts and more or less propagandise events.
Both are necessary, but I was thinking that both need to have at least a grasp of the influence and range of the other and be
better educated to do that.
Ditto bankers, doctors, lawyers and journalists.... The world (and particularly the US) is full of specialists. The author's assertions
are naive and half-educated.
Nonsense! You were just filling your word count with provocative poo.
Every technology has a good side and a bad one - including and especially the medical arts. Consider the recent news regarding
successful head transplants and face transplants; where will that takes us when humanitarian uses fail to pay the bills???
One book does not make the man. The point is many private and public schools focus on STEM to the detriment of humanities. A "liberal
arts" education is now a selling point in some schools.
Totally understand your point. As a non-tech individual who has been hostile to this massive organization of information and its
consequent requirements to alter human thought and social patterns to use systems, it is certainly expected that designers would
demand compliance from all parties for their own purposes. Even in the SF Chronicle, i often read quips about programmers disguising
coding for their own private use. In SF some loose canon but brilliant guy was asked to redesign the city's computer systems.
He had total mental breakdown and was jailed for some sort of bizarre infraction that had something to do with unauthorized personal
use. I can't quite remember details. The Chron offered to the public that the City may never know what this guy designed into
the systems. Bottom line was the city employees were totally delighted about their new programs and the programmer wouldn't talk.
If i remember correctly he was this eccentric, well liked gay guy.
Horseshit! I read De Toqueville in high school. There are required humanities courses at good universities. And anyone can read
a book on one's own time.
I agree with your overall assessment of the tech owners. However, blaming their academic discipline is short sighted. I suggest
you get to know some math and computer science majors. Many are well versed in the humanities. Not everyone needs a degree in
liberal arts to understand the human race.
Perhaps you are referring to the culture of technology that bred a lack of insight into human behavior.
There are also people with degrees in the liberal arts who go into technological fields. I agree with your views on the naïveté
of the tech leaders, but blaming a college degree strikes me as looking for a parallel that doesn't exist.
The writer clearly does not know much about the US higher education system where engineers and scientists cannot get away
without taking humanities courses, unlike the UK.
I would say that a deep study of the humanities can impart the kind of pessimism about human nature that animated Madison, Jefferson
and the other Framers of the Constitution. Their pessimism, unlike the unrestrained optimism of their counterparts in France,
is what enabled this country to be one of the few to survive a revolution without descending into mass murder and tyranny. But
given their fundamental pessimism, the founders of this country would probably be surprised that the governmental structure they
designed had endured this long.
Many of today's 'tech-elite' are sons of rich, establishment types who only have one interest: making more money. By the time
reports leek this appear, they already have a private island and a few billion in the bank. If you have an issue with tech giants
messing around with your personal data, don't give them your personal data.
I would like to congratulate the vast majority of the people posting here on producing possibly the most thoughtful and considered
set of comments I have read on a Guardian Article.
I will give the Article credit for stimulating the debate but I do think the discussion BTL has been far more interesting than
the original.
Alison I agree, but because the number of arts and sciences students is declining, arts and sciences faculty try to isolate integrated
studies (often called general studies or, at my university, the core curriculum) from professional studies. They do this to try
to save their jobs so it's understandable. The end results are sporadic, half-hearted attempts at integration that don't exactly
foster aha moments. Rather they cultivate thinking such as we see in this article.
The original backers of the "wired" world (such as Stewart Brand and Kevin Kelly who founded Wired, but one could list dozens
of tech legends) were utopian thinkers who were very well versed in history and philosophy. Unfortunately but probably inevitably,
the whole thing was corrupted by corporations as it became part of mainstream consumer society.
Financial ignorance of students is a big problem. Big fiancne in the USA is predatory and hunts for weaklings and incompetent
to exploit them. In a very sophisticated ways. So a reasonable assumption would be that the US students is a prey hunted by
large financial predators including neoliberal universities themselves.
Notable quotes:
"... They are financially ignorant; mere babes, being unmercifully exploited by the sophisticated (emphasis on Sophist) financialization culture extant across the western world; especially the U.S.. ..."
I am late to write up a research paper that has not gotten the attention it warrants.
As most readers know, the 2005 bankruptcy law reform included provisions that made it
virtually impossible to discharge student debt in bankruptcy. Yet borrowers who miss payments
wind up paying penalty interest rates, with the result that they will carry their student debt
with them to the grave.
But why do student borrowers get such harsh treatment? The justification for the bankruptcy
law change was that student borrowers were prone to abusing the bankruptcy code even though
they had the ability to make good on their loans. I've never bought the "strategic default"
meme, which is almost entirely creditor urban legend to justify squeezing more blood from the
stone of broke borrowers. Bankruptcy is a painful process that leaves your credit record
damaged for years. And why should anyone think that student loans were more prone to abuse? If
someone declared a Chapter 7 bankruptcy pre-2005, the court would take all the assets it could
lay its hands on, allocate the proceeds among the various debts, and wipe out the rest. It's
not as if student loans were treated worse than any other non-collateralized loans.
Nevertheless, the argument was that student borrowers were defaulting opportunistically. If
true, that higher default level would lead lenders to charge higher interest rates to cover for
the cost of abusive defaults.
The prototypical strategic defaulter would be someone with few assets but high actual or
expected income.
In a new Philadelphia Fed working paper, Rajeev Darolia and Dubravka Ritter constructed a
database of private student loan (PSL) borrowers to see if their behavior changed as a result
of the bankruptcy law reforms. We've embedded their article at the end of the post. Their
conclusion:
Our findings contribute to this debate by providing evidence on bankruptcy filing and
default behavior using a unique sample of anonymized credit bureau records. Although the 2005
bankruptcy reform reduced rates of Chapter 7 bankruptcy overall, the provisions making PSL
debt nondischargeable do not appear to have reduced the bankruptcy filing or default behavior
of PSL borrowers relative to other types of student loan borrowers at meaningful levels.
Therefore, our analysis does not reveal debtor responses to the 2005 bankruptcy reform that
would indicate widespread opportunistic behavior by PSL borrowers before the policy change.
We interpret these findings as a lack of evidence that the moral hazard associated with PSL
dischargeability pre-BAPCPA appreciably affected the behavior of student loan borrowers.
So why are default levels now so high? Lenders relaxed their standards and handed out more
credit as a result of the 2005 bankruptcy reforms. And rising higher education costs means
students are borrowing more than ever.
Having been a debt slave; I can understand what the children (they are children, not
adults) are going through. They are financially ignorant; mere babes, being unmercifully exploited by the sophisticated
(emphasis on Sophist) financialization culture extant across the western world; especially
the U.S..
No loan should be allowed (for children) without a course in basic finance, debt, credit,
and income realities. Now retired, debt free, and solvent; I know of what I speak. Critical
thinking skills are at an all time low in the U.S.; a very serious societal problem; not soon
solved
What about the time-worn argument in favor of all the extra money you're going to make
because you went to (genuflects) college? A lot of people have gone deeply into debt because
they've heard this one. And it's a lie.
http://bitecharge.com/play/advgram#q26
Congratulations, you are a grammar master! You have a superb understanding of even the
trickiest grammar rules. Not only do you know the difference between affect and effect, but you
also never confuse your tenses. You must be an English scholar because only 4% of Americans can
get a perfect score on this test.
Affirmative action in education also applies to children of the elite. This is the way to
limit vertical mobility and entrench the existing elite structures making the elite status
inheritable, like under feudalism.
Notable quotes:
"... As the barriers between the overpopulated third world and the United States continue to be swept away, it may soon be the children of liberal upper-middle class white Americans who are clamoring for affirmative action – or at least, for less reliance on standardized test scores. ..."
"... That law should have had a sunset built into it, though. To keep it "forever" invites abuse that grows over time. ..."
"... As always, identifiers of the main murderous, narcissitic, psychopaths making this anti-merit based agenda happen is necessary. They've used the old divide and conquer strategy of group blame for millennia, "It's them whites, or it's them blacks, or Jews, or etc.etc etc. ..."
Whether this anger is somehow justified is, of course, a question of immense complexity but
let me offer three observations that explain its scope regardless of its justification. My
point is that affirmative action and other egalitarian social engineering nostrums
inescapably spreads antagonisms beyond those immediately affected by the policies. And
the anger will only grow as government keeps pushing the egalitarian fantasy.
First, violating the merit principle, whether in college admissions or hiring police
officers guarantees disgruntled white males far in excess of its true victims. Consider hiring
five firefighters strictly according to civil service exam scores. Let's assume that a hundred
men apply for the position and can be ranked by test scores. The top four are white and are
hired. Now, thanks to a Department of Justice consent decree, the fire department must hire at
least one African American from the list and if the highest ranking black scores at 20 in the
array he will be hired despite his middling score.
How many white males have actually lost their job to a black? The correct answer is exactly
one, the fifth ranking applicant. But how many whites will mistakenly believe that they
lost out to an affirmative action candidate? The answer is 14 since this is the number of
rejected white candidates between 6 and 19 and, to be honest, all can make a legitimate claim
of being passed over to satisfy the diversity bean counters. Further fueling this anger is that
each of those fourteen "unfairly" rejected applicants may complain to family and friends and
thus tales of the alleged injustice multiply though, in fact, only a single white applicant
lost out to a less qualified black.
Affirmative action is thus a white grievance multiplier if this information is public (as is
often the case in university admissions and in reverse discrimination litigation). No doubt,
every Spring when colleges and professional schools such as law and medicine mail out their
acceptance/rejection letters, millions of white males can honestly complain that they
would have been admitted to their first choice if they had only been black or Hispanic and
judged exclusively by test scores. Of course, if the university admitted all those whites who
exceeded the scores of the least qualified black, the university would have to dramatically
increase the freshman class, a policy that possibly tantamount to admitting nearly every white
applicant.
Second, the greater the pressure to increase "diversity" via adding additional
under-qualified blacks and Hispanics and not expanding enrollment, the greater the visible gap
between affirmative action admittees and all others. Again, everything is purely statistical.
For example, in the pre-affirmative action era only a few blacks attended college, nearly all
of whom got there on merit. Whites (and Asians) would likely view them as equals, no small
benefit in a society obsessed with expunging "racist stereotypes" regarding black intellectual
ability.
Now imagine that due to government pressure the number of blacks admitted substantially grew
and, unless overall enrollment correspondently expanded, fewer academically borderline whites
would be admitted so college life became an experience where smart whites encountered lots of
intellectually challenged blacks.
Ironically, as per claims that campus racial diversity provides wonderful learning
experiences, what might a white student with, say, a total SAT reading/math score of 1350 learn
from his black dorm mate who scored 1150? (This is the average
white/black SAT gap.) I'd guess that the white student would learn that it's good to be a
favored minority in terms of obtaining full-ride scholarships, internship programs, and job
offers from top firms. Try to imagine a better way of teaching about white privilege.
Third, as the political pressure for yet more diversity increases, coercion will
correspondingly become more draconian and thus more odious since it takes extra effort to force
employers or universities to dig deeper into a thinner and thinner talent pool. A parallel is a
parent faced with a child reluctant to eat vegetables. The pressure may begin softly --
enticing junior to eat a few French fries but it will grow stronger as Mom adds disliked
turnips, lima beans and cauliflower. At some point, promoting "good nutrition" may require
force feeding.
I have personally observed this escalating pressure to diversify college faculty, pressure
that even liberal faculty find objectionable. During the 1970s the emphasis was on relatively
painless voluntary measures: recruitment committees would append "applicants from previously
under-represented groups are encouraged to apply" on job postings, tweaking teaching
responsibilities to attract minority candidates, or Deans providing extra funds for the job
slot if a black or Hispanic could be hired. Gradually, however, as these benign tactics failed
to make the numbers, the apparatchiki tightened the screws -- Provosts would independently
scour the market for minority job candidates or appoint a non-departmental "political
commissar" to monitor faculty recruitment committee deliberations to insure that no promising
minority candidate was overlooked.
Hiring discussions were soon filled with euphemisms such as "targets" or "goals" since
quotas were illegal under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Increasingly, the
push for faculty diversity has come to resemble Chinese political indoctrination where even
the term "affirmative action" is verboten since it implies unequal ability. At the University
of California -- Riverside, for example, all candidates for faculty jobs (including the
sciences) must submit a statement describing how they've worked to promote diversity, equity
and inclusion in previous positions as graduate students or professors and how they planned to
continue to do so once on campus. And guess what? Those who give superior answers to these
questions surprisingly turn out to be from historically under-represented groups! Cynthia
Larive, Riverside's interim provost, said that avoiding numerical targets "gets people out of
thinking about a quota system. We want to hire outstanding faculty members who can help the
institution continue to be successful and, most importantly, who can mentor students."
Needless to say, the diversity apparatchiki assume that all liberal white faculty, even
those in the hard sciences, are debilitated by implicit bias so they have to be pushed to
overcome their doubts about possibly hiring a black physicist from a third-tier school. At
Boston College faculty receive special training through the Office of Institutional Diversity
to develop strategies to promote diversity and are thus instructed, for example, to avoid
"narrow professional networks" (i.e., contacting colleagues at other schools) in seeking out
top job candidates. After all, why assume that the next Richard Feynman will have been trained
at a MIT or Princeton?
What makes this coerced diversity so hard to swallow is that its purpose rests on a
plain-to-see but impossible to express fraud -- the alleged benefits of diversity. Indeed, the
elite's obsessive proclamations of this lie far more closely resemble propaganda than
celebrating a cliché-like truth. Simply put, if diversity is so wonderful, and in the
self-interest of universities and businesses, why must it be imposed forcefully? Surely if it
was as beneficial as advertised, there would be no need for disparate impact lawsuits, training
to overcome implicit bias and similar measures that resemble mothers punishing junior for not
eating his lima beans. Does government and the social justice camp followers really believe
that diversity is akin to chocolate or red wine whose consumption hardly needs coercion?
Now for what really fuels the anger over coerced diversity: it is one thing to demand
sacrifices
What makes this coerced diversity so hard to swallow is that its purpose rests on a
plain-to-see but impossible to express fraud -- the alleged benefits of diversity. Indeed,
the elite's obsessive proclamations of this lie far more closely resemble propaganda
than celebrating a cliché-like truth and it is hard to imagine a bigger lie than
"Diversity is Our Strength."
Why the use of the nebulous term "elites"? Why not call a spade a spade and admit that
"Diversity is Our Strength" is a tagline of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)?
Why not tell your readers that, after working away at it for 100 years, it was the
domestic wing of The Lobby that was responsible for getting the non-restrictionist
immigration act passed in 1965, which is the biggest reason the US has become such a
multicultural society?
This information would have been a useful backdrop to this article.
The real problem with AA isn't the occasional less competitive white applicant losing out to
an even lower scoring minority. It's the subjective aspects of AA that cause constant
inconvenience, conflict and even ridiculous manipulations to level the playing field. The
most recent and ridiculous example being the expansion of gender categories along with custom
pronouns.
"Racism" is he lynch-pin of this massive shake-down. Proposal: make an operational definition
of "racism" and punish anyone who misuses it. Suddenly, the accusations would stop.
When I became a New York City firefighter in 1962, the entrance exam was a multiple choice
test on civics and science. The physical exam was a rigorous challenge that most people would
have to train for months before, for instance, to get the top score, one had to lift ninety
pounds with one arm and seventy pounds with the other. Both tests were graded and the average
of the two determined your place on the list. Nowadays, because of a court order to
diversify, the written exam tests are largely questions supposedly probing the psychological
makeup of the applicant that one would have to be an idiot not to recognize the response
wanted. The physical has been largely degraded so that more women can pass it and it is not
graded, one simply has to do the minimum to pass. Recently, a black recruit failed
probationary school three times and was given a fourth chance. Make of it what you will.
You are making a huge mistake if you limit the effects of affirmative action to elite college
hiring and admissions. Affirmative action cuts through every level of society, and I argue
that it's far more of an issue at the lower and middle rungs of society, where most Americans
work and live. In many companies, this is the level where you will find their black
employees, supervisors, and managers. It's not exactly pleasant to be white in such a
situation, and your chances of working your way up from the bottom are slim, no matter how
competent or willing to work you are. You could also examine how whites are treated in
minority majority cities. Reverse discrimination is just the tip of the iceberg.
To gloss over the full scope and scale of affirmative action is to mock the situation of
many of the victims of affirmative action. If you really wish to be honest about "white
anger," you would look at the racial violence and rapes directed at whites, and ignored or
justified, by the elites and media, as well as the completely unwarranted, unwanted, and
undemocratic cultural and demographic changes forced upon the nation/whites over the last 50
years.
Good points, js. You put a good brake on some of the arguments made here, including my
own. Reality is that an unknown percentage of people who are hired by irregular means, such
as crony and patronage practices, including ethnic affinity and family relations, do okay,
grow into their jobs, and earn the reasonable respect of their peers, superiors, and
subordinates. Likewise, the determination of quality of applicant by ordinary standards of
merit and seniority can be a bear.
Indeed – but be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
India has a terrible educational system – about half the country is illiterate. But
the other half is still bigger than the entire United States, they are desperately poor, and
there are tens if not hundreds of millions of children who have been trained from birth only
to excel at standardized tests for just the slim change of escaping that overpopulated land.
And unlike the much more prosperous Chinese, they speak English and there is no language
barrier! All by themselves, Indian nationals could soon fill every academic position in the
United States with people who have perfect test scores.
As the barriers between the overpopulated third world and the United States continue to be
swept away, it may soon be the children of liberal upper-middle class white Americans who are
clamoring for affirmative action – or at least, for less reliance on standardized test
scores.
I was once one of those women who were hired into and trained for a job that had been
reserved for males. I was so proud, and so happy the system was changing. My male colleagues
were a mix -- some supported me, some less so. But I think all accepted that changes needed
to be made.
That law should have had a sunset built into it, though. To keep it "forever" invites
abuse that grows over time.
As always, identifiers of the main murderous, narcissitic, psychopaths making this anti-merit
based agenda happen is necessary. They've used the old divide and conquer strategy of group
blame for millennia, "It's them whites, or it's them blacks, or Jews, or etc.etc etc.
Cell
phone aps which identify these creeps with retinal scanning, pulse rate changes, facial and
body language indicators is an easy & cheap development given today's level of
technological advancement. Guess who will oppose its inevitable adoption the most?
Two others I can think of are the other firemen who must now suffer him, and the
community who feels less secure (I personally avoid black doctors, sorry).
Just so – reminds my of how my mom, presenting at emergency with a partially
paralyzed left arm and leg, was told "I don't think this is a stroke" by the African resident
– and left to wait it out until the CT confirmation the following day.
It would be instructive to see how some of the hardened advocates of affirmative action
would behave if given the black-or-white choice on a critical medical issue.
"... The other problem is systemic. This is the vicious, capitalist devaluation of academic labor. Anyone who holds some asinine fantasy about the "logic" of the market solving the adjunctification of the academy needs to shut up. ..."
"... Whether "meant" to be a career or not, adjuncting is a career for many--and our institutions have made it that way by refusing to hire enough full-time professors to cover the courses offered. Adjuncts are being exploited by institutions across the country. THAT is what we need to focus on, not individual career choices. ..."
"... I don't know if neoliberal professors are increasing in numbers or if they just have greater access to publish. I imagine it's the latter. The take on the situation from those off the tenure track is quite the opposite, obviously. This is what we need to reiterate: "Adjuncts are being exploited by institutions across the country. THAT is what we need to focus on" ..."
"... I'm a career advisor and every once and a while an adjunct faculty person will come visit career services for assistance. They are generally completely absent of career management skills. They tend to be people who were very good at college, so they went to grad school sort of assuming they'd be able to get a job that way. ..."
Angry About Adjuncting? The radical move might be to quit, writes Claire B. Potter.
150 Comments
Recently I stumbled across an article in
The New York Times about my favorite topic: online academic rage -- and whether it spikes
among those frustrated by the struggle to find a tenure-stream job. "Is there something about adjunct
faculty members that makes them prone to outrageous political outbursts?" Colby College sociologist
Neil Gross asked.
Citing recent examples in which the most vulnerable among us have been fired for an impolitic
tweet or Facebook post, Gross argues that full-time faculty members are not the "tenured radicals"
that American conservatives have feared since the 1990s. Instead, he proposes, the vast majority
of full-timers are "tamed" by the prospects, or long-term comforts, of tenure. Research accounts,
regular raises, the orderliness of being able to plan our lives and the satisfaction of promises
kept inevitably sutures most of us to civility in all its forms.
But what incentives do workers who are already vulnerable in so many ways have to be polite? Although
many people with humanities Ph.D.s do other jobs, this stubborn belief that they have trained for
one thing, and one thing only, keeps many adjuncts on the hamster wheel long past a time when frustration
and sorrow have turned to rage. Aside from the stress of trying to piece together a career one course
at a time, the adjunct army -- permanently contingent, underemployed, overworked and underpaid faculty
members -- has every reason to demand radical change.
But do these conditions produce a truly political radicalism, or are they simply radical
utterances that get contingent faculty into trouble and leave a system that relies on a reserve army
of labor unchanged? And since people with doctorates aren't tied to a particular factory or industry,
would the radical solution be to stop teaching as a per-course adjunct?
There are two types of problems here. One concerns the individual misfortunes that plague adjuncts.
Adjuncts' problems are lamentable, even if solvable, and it would be nice to see people in our
society have some compassion rather than excuse their own apathy with callous blaming of people
in unfortunate circumstances.
The other problem is systemic. This is the vicious, capitalist devaluation of academic labor.
Anyone who holds some asinine fantasy about the "logic" of the market solving the adjunctification
of the academy needs to shut up. You do terrible damage to our society. The simplest and most
obvious solution to a lack of PhDs to work as adjuncts is to hire MAs.
Universities are already
hiring undergrads to do some of the academic work. You are off your gourd if you think the people
who want to siphon profits to the top will not try to further degrade academic labor, or, haven't
you been paying attention to the hoopla around MOOCs? The only solution to the precariate is unionization
and a demand for all academic labor to provide middle-class standards of living.
That means that
the cowardly and lazy tenured faculty will finally have to do their jobs and guard the academy.
I agree with most of what you say, except that my experience says that administrations would
rather hire MAs than PhDs because PhDs demand the salaries that align with their higher education;
and, because PhDs are generally more experienced in academe, they are less agreeable than MAs
to accepting administrative initiatives that are tangential to faculty teaching and research.
"The simplest and most obvious solution to a lack of PhDs to work as adjuncts is to hire MAs."
This is already occurring, even outside of the humanities. I know some great instructors without
their doctorate, but hiring a large number of instructors without a terminal degree does seem
to go against the ideal that a professor teaches undergraduates, keeps up with the latest in his
or her field, and produces knowledge in that field.
While in a master's program at a large research institute, I was given my own classes, even
though I only had a bachelor's degree. I was happy to get the experience, but with my background,
I probably should not have been teaching those students
Actually, if you look at 50-60 year old faculty lists a fair number of faculty had masters.
Masters were originally meant to be a teaching qualification, PhDs were a research qualification.
The masters as a teaching qualification got squeezed out because of too many PhDs between 2 and
3 generations back.
Adjuncting is not now, and was never meant to be, a career. We can complain about working conditions,
lack of benefits/stability, and the stress of cobbling together enough courses to pay the rent
all we want (and we do) but the bottom line is this: If you haven't landed a FT teaching gig within
three years of earning your Ph.D., bail out and choose another career. The person who can't eat
after 20 years of adjunct work has no one to blame but themselves. Keep fighting, but take care
of yourself, too.
Whether "meant" to be a career or not, adjuncting is a career for many--and our institutions
have made it that way by refusing to hire enough full-time professors to cover the courses offered.
Adjuncts are being exploited by institutions across the country. THAT is what we need to focus
on, not individual career choices.
I agree. Blaming adjuncts for being adjuncts, wishing they would not have enrolled in PhD programs,
and encouraging them to take jobs in fields for which they did not study (alt-ac), is a very ugly
game.
This is compounded by the fact that people of color and women are far less likely to be on
the tenure line. None of this seems to bother the rising tide of neoliberal academics, who almost
without exception have never worked off the tenure track, and maintain pushing people toward careers
they do not want to do, are not educated to do, and could do with out a PhD, is a way to solve
the problem.
I don't know if neoliberal professors are increasing in numbers or if they just have greater
access to publish. I imagine it's the latter. The take on the situation from those off the tenure
track is quite the opposite, obviously. This is what we need to reiterate: "Adjuncts are being
exploited by institutions across the country. THAT is what we need to focus on"
There is no reason the job has to be set up the way it is. Most colleges & universities use
far more adjuncts than fluctuation in enrollment and funding would account for.
The "too many Ph.D's" argument falls apart when you think about how easy it is to get an adjunct
job. Two of the four districts I've worked in didn't even do a formal interview. I just met with
the department chair to discuss when I was available. I work more than the equivalent of full
time at two different districts every semester, so theoretically, one full time job could exist
for me.
My wife is a K-12 public school teacher, and her first year teaching, she made as much as I
did after ten years as an adjunct with a master's (except she didn't have to work summers and
did get health insurance for our whole family).
We could probably fix it in a cost neutral way if administrative positions and salaries weren't
growing faster than the number of full time teaching positions.
As an academic you should know that the way things are wasn't handed down by god, and isn't
an immutable law of nature. Someone made it this way and it can be unmade too.
Frankly, I feel sorry for you as I do for the administrators and full time faculty who look
down on their adjunct colleagues. You have been a subject in a real life Milgram or Stanford Prison
experiment and took the bait
Fair warning, what I'm about to say is completely anecdotal. I'm a career advisor and every
once and a while an adjunct faculty person will come visit career services for assistance. They
are generally completely absent of career management skills. They tend to be people who were very
good at college, so they went to grad school sort of assuming they'd be able to get a job that
way.
They continued to do no meaningful career planning while in grad school, and after completing
were able to use their familiarity with college systems to piece together some adjunct work. When
asked simple questions such as "what types of careers outside of academia have you explored?"
they are unable to answer.
They lack the ability to identify and describe their transferable skills, have only shallow
understanding of what career paths are available, and struggle to engage in even simple job search
tasks. These are extremely intelligent people with a huge gap in their career competencies.
I think a major reason we don't see more adjuncts quit and move to other industries or even
other roles on campus is because they simply do not know how.
On the flip side of this though is the fact that those with a lot of applied (in terms of non
academic aspects) work in their field often do not fair as well in FT searches. Those from working
class backgrounds or who worked throughout grad school are often seen as less desirable in searches
even though they are the ones who are most likely to know how to advise students on realistic
career paths. I finished my PhD with 10 years of industry experience in the non profit, consulting,
and governmental sectors but even at undergraduate serving institutions this often had less cache
then the handful of publications I had produced.
Yeah it's a catch 22 for grad students. If they take the time to get industry experience, that
will help them volumes in alt ac careers, but ding them in academic ones.
All that your comment shows is that adjuncts are easy targets, even for career advisors. The
fact that you recognize your comment as anecdotal does not exempt you from giving information
about how many cases your negative generalizations were made from, at what type of higher education
institution you encountered them, and so on. I have not noted any defects of the type you claim
in career skills, and I have known scores of adjuncts, but I would be far more cautious than you
are about generalizing either way. I would go so far as to say that the ones I have known compare
favorably to law students and the many job applicants I worked with as a job-placement specialist
at an employment agency in Manhattan some years ago. I worked as an adjunct myself for some time,
and found few jobs that so hone one's survival skills, in the employment market and elsewhere.
"... Spy Schools: How the CIA, FBI and Foreign Intelligence Secretly Exploit America's Universities ..."
"... The Boston Globe ..."
"... Inside Higher Ed ..."
"... The Wall Street Journal ..."
"... The Price of Admission ..."
"... Inside Higher Ed ..."
"... Inside Higher Ed ..."
"... look back to Stalin, Hitler, Franco, Mao, Mussolini et.al with THIER use of domestic agencies to impose lock-step thinking and to ferret out free-thinkers. ..."
"... It is amazing how many biochemists and microbiologists from the People's Republic of China would e-mail me asking if I had a position in my "lab," touting their bench skills, every time I published a paper on the federal bioterrorism program, medical civic action programs, etc. ..."
"... When I started teaching 48 years ago, the president of my college was James Dovonan, Bill Donovan's (founder of the OSS) brother, portrayed by Tom Hanks in the movie, "Bridge of Spies." ..."
"... Beyond NIH funded grant-based research, Homeland Security, Energy, Defense, and the Intelligence Community agencies have long histories of relationships with American academia. This could be funded research, collaborative research, shared personnel relationships, or all other manner of cooperation. Sometimes it's fairly well known and sometimes it's kept quiet, and sometimes it's even classified. But it is much more extensive and expansive than what Golden describes, and much less "cozy" or suspicious. ..."
"... For years I have said that it is foolish to look to universities for moral guidance, and this story is one more instance. In this case, the moral ground is swampy at best, and the universities do not appear to have spent a lot of time worrying about possible problems as long as the situation works to their advantage financially. ..."
"... Does Golden discuss at all the way in which the CIA and other intelligence services funnel money into academic research without the source of the funding ever being revealed? This was common practice in the 1960s and 1970s, and colleges like MIT were among those involved in this chicanery. ..."
"... Where has IHE been for the past several decades? Read Rosenfeld's book, Subversives..... about the FBI's illegal acts at Berkeley. Or read this, a summary of his book: https://alumni.berkeley.edu... Or read George R. Stewart, The Year of the Oath. ..."
Book documents how foreign and domestic intelligence agencies use
-- and perhaps exploit -- higher education and academe for spy operations.
Foreign and domestic intelligence services spar and spy on one another all across the world.
But it would be naïve to think it's not happening in the lab or classroom as well.
In his new book, Spy Schools: How the CIA, FBI and Foreign Intelligence Secretly Exploit
America's Universities ( Henry Holt and Company ),
investigative journalist Daniel Golden explores the fraught -- and sometimes exploitative --
relationship between higher education and intelligence services, both foreign and domestic.
Chapters explore various case studies of the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of
Investigation using the open and collaborative nature of higher education to their advantage,
as well as foreign governments infiltrating the U.S. via education.
"It's pretty widespread, and I'd say it's most prevalent at research universities," Golden,
an editor at ProPublica and an alumnus of The Boston Globe 's "Spotlight" team, told
Inside Higher Ed . "The foreign intelligence services have the interest and the
opportunity to learn cutting-edge, Pentagon-funded or government-funded research."
Golden, who has also covered higher education for The Wall Street Journal ,
previously wrote about
the intersection of wealth and admissions in his 2006 book The Price of Admission
.
Each of the case studies in Spy Schools , which goes on sale Oct. 10, is critical.
One could read the chapters on the Chinese government's interest in U.S. research universities
as hawkish, but then turn to the next chapter on Harvard's relationship with the CIA and read
it as critical of the American intelligence establishment as well.
"People of one political persuasion might focus on [the chapters regarding] foreign
espionage; people of another political persuasion might focus on domestic espionage," Golden
said. "I try to follow where the facts lead."
Perhaps the most prestigious institution Golden examines is Harvard University, probing its
cozy relationship with the CIA. (While Harvard has recently come under scrutiny for its
relationship with the agency after it withdrew an invitation for Chelsea Manning to be a
visiting fellow -- after the agency objected to her appointment -- this book was written before
the Manning incident, which occurred in September.) The university, which has had varying
degrees of closeness and coldness with the CIA over the years, currently allows the agency to
send officers to the midcareer program at the Kennedy School of Government while continuing to
act undercover, with the school's knowledge. When the officers apply -- often with fudged
credentials that are part of their CIA cover -- the university doesn't know they're CIA agents,
but once they're in, Golden writes, Harvard allows them to tell the university that they're
undercover. Their fellow students, however -- often high-profile or soon-to-be-high-profile
actors in the world of international diplomacy -- are kept in the dark.
"Kenneth Moskow is one of a long line of CIA officers who have enrolled undercover at the
Kennedy School, generally with Harvard's knowledge and approval, gaining access to
up-and-comers worldwide," Golden writes. "For four decades the CIA and Harvard have concealed
this practice, which raises larger questions about academic boundaries, the integrity of class
discussions and student interactions, and whether an American university has a responsibility
to accommodate U.S. intelligence."
But the CIA isn't the only intelligence group operating at Harvard. Golden notes Russian
spies have enrolled at the Kennedy School, although without Harvard's knowledge or
cooperation.
When contacted by Inside Higher Ed , Harvard officials didn't deny Golden's
telling, but defended the university's practices while emphasizing the agreement between the
university and the CIA -- which Golden also writes about -- on not using Harvard to conduct CIA
fieldwork.
"Harvard Kennedy School does not knowingly provide false information or 'cover' for any
member of our community from an intelligence agency, nor do we allow members of our community
to carry out intelligence operations at Harvard Kennedy School," Eric Rosenbach, co-director of
the Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, said in a
statement.
While Golden said the CIA's involvement on campus raises existential questions about the
purpose and integrity of higher education, Harvard maintained that the Kennedy School was
living up to its mission.
"Our community consists of people from different spheres of public service. We are proud to
train people from the U.S. government and the intelligence community, as well as peace
activists and those who favor more open government," Rosenbach said in his statement. "We train
students from a wide range of foreign countries and foreign governments, including -- among
others -- Israel, U.K., Russia and China. That is consistent with our mission and we are proud
to have that reach."
On the other hand, other countries are interested in exploiting U.S. higher education.
Golden documents the case of Ruopeng Liu, a graduate student at Duke University who siphoned
off U.S.-government-funded research to Chinese researchers. Liu eventually returned to China
and has used some of the research for his Chinese-government-funded start-up ventures.
Golden is comprehensive, interviewing Duke researchers who worked with Liu, as well as
dispatching a freelance journalist in China to interview Liu (he denied wrongdoing, saying his
actions were taken as part of higher education's collaborative norms regarding research
projects). Despite questions that arose while Liu was a student, he received his doctorate in
2009 without any formal questions or pushback from the university. A week before Liu defended
his dissertation, Golden notes that Duke officials voted to move forward in negotiations with
the Chinese government regarding opening a Duke campus in China -- raising questions about
whether Duke was cautious about punishing a Chinese student lest there were negative business
implications for Duke. (
The building of the campus proved to be a controversial move in its own right. )
The Duke professor Liu worked under told Golden it would be hard to prove Liu acted with
intentional malice rather than out of genuine cultural and translational obstacles, or ethical
slips made by a novice researcher. Duke officials told Inside Higher Ed that there
weren't any connections between Liu and the vote.
"The awarding of Ruopeng Liu's degree had absolutely no connection to the deliberations over
the proposal for Duke to participate in the founding of a new university in Kunshan, China," a
spokesman said in an email.
These are just two chapters of Golden's book, which also goes on to document the foreign
exchange relationship between Marietta College, in Ohio, and the controversial
Chinese-intelligence-aligned University of International Relations. Agreements between Marietta
and UIR, which is widely regarded a recruiting ground for Chinese intelligence services,
include exchanging professors and sending Chinese students to Marietta. Conversely, Golden
writes, as American professors teach UIR students who could end up spying on the U.S., American
students at Marietta are advised against studying abroad at UIR if they have an interest in
working for the government -- studying at UIR carries a risk for students hoping to get certain
security clearances. Another highlight is the chapter documenting the CIA's efforts to stage
phony international academic conferences, put on to lure Iranian nuclear scientists as
attendees and get them out of their country -- and in a position to defect to the U.S.
According to Golden's sources, the operations, combined with other efforts, have been
successful enough "to hinder Iran's nuclear weapons program."
But Golden's book doesn't just shed light on previously untold stories. It also highlights
the existential questions facing higher education, not only when dealing with infiltration from
foreign governments, but also those brought on by cozy relationships between the U.S.
intelligence and academe.
"One issue is American national security," Golden said. "Universities do a lot of research
that's important to our government and our military, and they don't take very strong
precautions against it being stolen," he said. "So the domestic espionage side -- I'm kind of a
traditionalist and I believe in the ideal of universities as places where the brightest minds
of all countries come together to learn, teach each other, study and do research. Espionage
from both sides taints that that's kind of disturbing."
After diving deep into the complex web that ties higher education and espionage together,
however, Golden remains optimistic about the future.
"It wouldn't be that hard to tighten up the intellectual property rules and have written
collaboration agreements and have more courses about intellectual safeguards," he said. "In the
1970s, Harvard adopted guidelines against U.S. intelligence trying to recruit foreign students
in an undercover way they didn't become standard practice [across academe, but], I still think
those guidelines are pertinent and colleges would do well to take a second look at them."
"In the idealistic dreamer mode, it would be wonderful if the U.N. or some other
organization would take a look at this issue, and say, 'Can we declare universities off-limits
to espionage?'"
Equating the presence and activities of US intelligence on campuses with that of foreign
intelligence is pretty obtuse moral relativism. US academia and US intelligence alike benefit
from cooperation, and the American people are the winners overall. By the way, is it really
necessary to twice describe this relationship as "cozy"? What does that mean, other to
suggest there's something illicit about it?
It'd be nice if American intelligence was paying a bit more attention to
what goes on in academic research--as far as I can tell, the country
keeps making policies that don't seem particularly well-informed by the
research in relevant areas. Can we get them to infiltrate more labs of
scientists working on climate change or something?
Maybe stick around, engage in some
participant observation and figure that research out? It's not clear they
have any acquaintance with the literature on the causes of war. Really,
pick a place to start, and pay attention.
If you cannot see how a gov't intelligence agency, prohibited from working in the USA by
statute and who is eye-deep in AMERICAN education is wrong, then I am worried. Read history.
Look back to the 1970's to start and to the 1950's with FBI and the military agents in
classrooms; then read about HUAC.
Now, look back to Stalin, Hitler, Franco, Mao, Mussolini
et.al
with THIER use of domestic agencies to impose lock-step thinking and to ferret out
free-thinkers.
Actually, I read quite a bit of history. I also know that US intelligence agencies are not
"prohibited from working in the USA." If they have relationships in academia that remind you
of Stalin, Hitler, etc., how have US agencies "imposed lock-step thinking and ferreted out
free-thinkers?" Hasn't seemed to work, has it? Your concern is overwrought.
"Cozy" might refer to the mutual gains afforded by allowing the federal government to
break many rules (and laws) while conducting their "intelligence operations" in academe. I do
not know if I felt Homeland Security should have had permission to bring to this country,
under false premises supported by ICE and accrediting agencies, thousands of foreign
nationals and employed them at companies like Facebook, Apple, Morgan Stanley and the U.S.
Army. While Homeland Security collected 16K tuition from each of them (and the companies that
hired these F-1s didn't have to pay FICA) all our nation got was arrests of 20 mid level visa
brokers.
Personally, I think cozy was quite complimentary as I would have chosen other words. Just
imagine if there are additional "undercover students" with false credentials in numbers
significant enough to throw off data or stopping universities and colleges from enforcing
rules and regulations. If you set up and accredit a "fake university" and keep the proceeds,
it strikes me as illicit.
And behaving as if the "the presence and activities of US intelligence on campuses" is
something to accept without question is also "obtuse moral relativism". We are talking about
an arrangement wherein a / the most prestigious institutions of higher learning has an
established relationship with the CIA along with some accepted protocol to ongoing
participation.
Whether it is right, wrong, or in between is another matter but please don't
pretend that it's just business as usual and not worthy of deeper investigation.
It is amazing how many biochemists and microbiologists from the People's Republic of China
would e-mail me asking if I had a position in my "lab," touting their bench skills, every
time I published a paper on the federal bioterrorism program, medical civic action programs,
etc.
Never mind that I primarily do health policy and economics work, and have not been near
a lab bench since I returned to school for my doctorate.....anything with a defense or
security application drew a flurry of interest in getting involved.
As a result, I tended to
be very discerning in who I took on as an advisee, if only to protect my security
clearance.
PAr for the course for both UG and grad students from China who have not paid a head
hunter. ANY school or program offering money to international students was flooded by such
inquiries. Get over yourself.
When I started teaching 48 years ago, the president of my college was James Dovonan, Bill
Donovan's (founder of the OSS) brother, portrayed by Tom Hanks in the movie, "Bridge of
Spies."
We had a program in "Tropical Architecture" which enrolled students form "third world"
countries. Rumor was -- --
When I got my Ph.D. from Harvard in 1968, the Shah of Iran got an honorary doctorate at
the same commencement. The next year, by pure coincidence!, he endowed three chairs of Near
Eastern Studies at H.U.
So glad to see they're on campus. Many young people now occupy the CIA; the old "cowboys"
of the Cold War past are gone. U may find this interesting>>
http://osintdaily.blogspot....
Hundreds of government civil servants attend courses at the Kennedy School every year.
That a few of them come from the CIA should be no surprise. It and all the other intelligence
agencies are nothing more than departments within the federal government, just like Veterans
Affairs, Health and Human Services, the FDA, Energy, and so on. Nothing sneaky or suspicious
about any of it. Why anyone with cover credentials would tell the Kennedy School admin that
is beyond me. When I was in cover status, I was in cover status everywhere; to not be was to
blow your cover, period, and was extremely dangerous.
Beyond NIH funded grant-based research, Homeland Security, Energy, Defense, and the
Intelligence Community agencies have long histories of relationships with American academia.
This could be funded research, collaborative research, shared personnel relationships, or all
other manner of cooperation. Sometimes it's fairly well known and sometimes it's kept quiet,
and sometimes it's even classified. But it is much more extensive and expansive than what
Golden describes, and much less "cozy" or suspicious.
For years I have said that it is foolish to look to universities for moral guidance, and
this story is one more instance. In this case, the moral ground is swampy at best, and the
universities do not appear to have spent a lot of time worrying about possible problems as
long as the situation works to their advantage financially.
The key, here, is financially. The bean counters and those whose research is funded don't
look hard at the source of the funding. Just so it keeps coming.
Does Golden discuss at all the way in which the CIA and other intelligence services funnel
money into academic research without the source of the funding ever being revealed? This was
common practice in the 1960s and 1970s, and colleges like MIT were among those involved in
this chicanery.
Remember also how intelligence agency money was behind the journal Encounter?
Lots of propaganda got distributed under the guise of objective social science research.
Where has IHE been for the past several decades? Read Rosenfeld's book, Subversives.....
about the FBI's illegal acts at Berkeley. Or read this, a summary of his book:
https://alumni.berkeley.edu... Or read George R. Stewart, The Year of the Oath.
In the
research for my biography of Stewart I found significant information about CIA presence on
the UC Berkeley campus, in the mid-twentieth century, which reached in to the highest levels
of the administration and led to a network of "professors" recruited by that unAmerican spy
agency.
The oaths, the current gender wars and the conviction by accusation of harassment are
all later attempts to politicize education and turn fiat lux into fiat nox. IHE should be
writing more about that and about the current conviction by sexual accusation, and the effect
of such on free thought and free inquiry.
"... The elite schools, and I have taught as a visiting professor at a few of them, such as Princeton and Columbia, replicate the structure and goals of corporations. If you want to even get through a doctoral committee, much less a tenure committee, you must play it really, really safe. You must not challenge the corporate-friendly stance that permeates the institution and is imposed through corporate donations and the dictates of wealthy alumni. Half of the members of most of these trustee boards should be in prison! ..."
"... Speculation in the 17th century in Britain was a crime. Speculators were hanged. And today they run the economy and the country. They have used the capturing of wealth to destroy the intellectual, cultural and artistic life in the country and snuff out our democracy. There is a word for these people: traitors. ..."
...The elite schools,
and I have taught as a visiting professor at a few of them, such as Princeton and Columbia, replicate
the structure and goals of corporations. If you want to even get through a doctoral committee, much
less a tenure committee, you must play it really, really safe. You must not challenge the corporate-friendly
stance that permeates the institution and is imposed through corporate donations and the dictates
of wealthy alumni. Half of the members of most of these trustee boards should be in prison!
Speculation in the 17th century in Britain was a crime. Speculators were hanged. And today they
run the economy and the country. They have used the capturing of wealth to destroy the intellectual,
cultural and artistic life in the country and snuff out our democracy. There is a word for these
people: traitors.
Chris Hedges published this book eight years ago and the things he predicted have sadly been
realized
Notable quotes:
"... his screed is a liberating tonic against the crazy-making double-speak and the lies Americans are sold by our country's elite in order to distract us from the true threat and nature of the Corporate State, from the cult of celebrity, to how our nation's Universities have been hijacked to serve the interests, not of the public, but of our corporate overlords. It explains the self-same conditions in all aspects of our society and culture that we now must face, the ever-shrinking flame of enlightenment being exchanged for the illusory shadows on a cave wall. ..."
"... He fearlessly and incisively calls us out on the obvious farce our democracy has become, how we got here, and highlights the rapidly closing window in which we have to do something to correct it. It is a revelation, and yet he merely states the obvious. The empire has no clothes. ..."
"... One of the most powerful aspects of this book was in regard to how our Universities are run these days. I may be in the minority, but I experienced a life-changing disillusionment when I gained entrance to a prestigious "elite" University. Instead of drawing the best and the brightest, or being a place where scholarship was valued, where students were taught critical thinking skills, the University I attended was nothing more than an expensive diploma mill for the children of the wealthy. In the eyes of the University, students were not minds to be empowered and developed, but walking dollar signs. ..."
"... Instead of critical thinking, students were taught to OBEY, not to question authority, and then handed a piece of paper admitting them to the ruling class that is destroying America without a moral compass. Selfishness, deceit, disregard for the common good, and a win-at-all-costs attitude were rewarded. Empathy, curiosity, dissent, and an honest, intellectually rigorous evaluation of ourselves and our world were punished. Obviously I am not the only one to whom this was cause to fear for the future of our country. ..."
Hedges cogently and systematically dismantles the most pernicious cultural delusions of
our era and lays bare the pitiful truths that they attempt to mask. This book is a
deprogramming manual that trims away the folly and noise from our troubled society so that
the reader can focus on the most pressing matters of our time.
Despite the dark reality Hedges excavates, his screed is a liberating tonic against
the crazy-making double-speak and the lies Americans are sold by our country's elite in order
to distract us from the true threat and nature of the Corporate State, from the cult of
celebrity, to how our nation's Universities have been hijacked to serve the interests, not of
the public, but of our corporate overlords. It explains the self-same conditions in all
aspects of our society and culture that we now must face, the ever-shrinking flame of
enlightenment being exchanged for the illusory shadows on a cave wall.
As a twenty-something caught in the death-throes of American Empire and culture, I have
struggled to anticipate where our country and our world are heading, why, and what sort of
life I can expect to build for myself. Hedges presents the reader with the depressing, yet
undeniable truth of the forces that have coalesced to shape the world in which we now find
ourselves. The light he casts is searing and relentless. He fearlessly and incisively
calls us out on the obvious farce our democracy has become, how we got here, and highlights
the rapidly closing window in which we have to do something to correct it. It is a
revelation, and yet he merely states the obvious. The empire has no clothes.
One of the most powerful aspects of this book was in regard to how our Universities
are run these days. I may be in the minority, but I experienced a life-changing
disillusionment when I gained entrance to a prestigious "elite" University. Instead of
drawing the best and the brightest, or being a place where scholarship was valued, where
students were taught critical thinking skills, the University I attended was nothing more
than an expensive diploma mill for the children of the wealthy. In the eyes of the
University, students were not minds to be empowered and developed, but walking dollar
signs.
Instead of critical thinking, students were taught to OBEY, not to question authority,
and then handed a piece of paper admitting them to the ruling class that is destroying
America without a moral compass. Selfishness, deceit, disregard for the common good, and a
win-at-all-costs attitude were rewarded. Empathy, curiosity, dissent, and an honest,
intellectually rigorous evaluation of ourselves and our world were punished. Obviously I am
not the only one to whom this was cause to fear for the future of our country.
Five stars is not enough. Ever since I began reading Empire of Illusion, I have insisted
friends and family pick up a copy, too. Everyone in America should read this incredibly
important book.
"... That's Silicon Valley's dirty secret. Most tech workers in Palo Alto make about as much as the high school teachers who teach their kids. And these are the top coders in the country! ..."
"... I don't see why more Americans would want to be coders. These companies want to drive down wages for workers here and then also ship jobs offshore... ..."
"... Silicon Valley companies have placed lowering wages and flooding the labor market with cheaper labor near the top of their goals and as a business model. ..."
"... There are quite a few highly qualified American software engineers who lose their jobs to foreign engineers who will work for much lower salaries and benefits. This is a major ingredient of the libertarian virus that has engulfed and contaminating the Valley, going hand to hand with assembling products in China by slave labor ..."
"... If you want a high tech executive to suffer a stroke, mention the words "labor unions". ..."
"... India isn't being hired for the quality, they're being hired for cheap labor. ..."
"... Enough people have had their hands burnt by now with shit companies like TCS (Tata) that they are starting to look closer to home again... ..."
"... Globalisation is the reason, and trying to force wages up in one country simply moves the jobs elsewhere. The only way I can think of to limit this happening is to keep the company and coders working at the cutting edge of technology. ..."
"... I'd be much more impressed if I saw that the hordes of young male engineers here in SF expressing a semblance of basic common sense, basic self awareness and basic life skills. I'd say 91.3% are oblivious, idiotic children. ..."
"... Not maybe. Too late. American corporations objective is to low ball wages here in US. In India they spoon feed these pupils with affordable cutting edge IT training for next to nothing ruppees. These pupils then exaggerate their CVs and ship them out en mass to the western world to dominate the IT industry. I've seen it with my own eyes in action. Those in charge will anything/everything to maintain their grip on power. No brag. Just fact. ..."
That's Silicon Valley's dirty secret. Most tech workers in Palo Alto make about as much as
the high school teachers who teach their kids. And these are the top coders in the country!
Automated coding just pushes the level of coding further up the development food chain, rather
than gets rid of it. It is the wrong approach for current tech. AI that is smart enough to model
new problems and create their own descriptive and runnable language - hopefully after my lifetime
but coming sometime.
What coding does not teach is how to improve our non-code infrastructure and how to keep it running
(that's the stuff which actually moves things). Code can optimize stuff, but it needs actual actuators
to affect reality.
Sometimes these actuators are actual people walking on top of a roof while fixing it.
Silicon Valley companies have placed lowering wages and flooding the labor market with cheaper
labor near the top of their goals and as a business model.
There are quite a few highly qualified American software engineers who lose their jobs
to foreign engineers who will work for much lower salaries and benefits. This is a major ingredient
of the libertarian virus that has engulfed and contaminating the Valley, going hand to hand with
assembling products in China by slave labor .
If you want a high tech executive to suffer a stroke, mention the words "labor unions".
Nope. Married to a highly-technical skillset, you can still make big bucks. I say this as someone
involved in this kind of thing academically and our Masters grads have to beat the banks and fintech
companies away with dog shits on sticks. You're right that you can teach anyone to potter around
and throw up a webpage but at the prohibitively difficult maths-y end of the scale, someone suitably
qualified will never want for a job.
In a similar vein, if you accept the argument that it does drive down wages, wouldn't the culprit
actually be the multitudes of online and offline courses and tutorials available to an existing
workforce?
Funny you should pick medicine, law, engineering... 3 fields that are *not* taught in high school.
The writer is simply adding "coding" to your list. So it seems you agree with his "garbage" argument
after all.
Key word is "good". Teaching everyone is just going to increase the pool of programmers code I
need to fix. India isn't being hired for the quality, they're being hired for cheap labor.
As for women sure I wouldn't mind more women around but why does no one say their needs to be
more equality in garbage collection or plumbing? (And yes plumbers are a high paid professional).
In the end I don't care what the person is, I just want to hire and work with the best and
not someone I have to correct their work because they were hired by quota. If women only graduate
at 15% why should IT contain more than that? And let's be a bit honest with the facts, of those
15% how many spend their high school years staying up all night hacking? Very few. Now the few
that did are some of the better developers I work with but that pool isn't going to increase by
forcing every child to program... just like sports aren't better by making everyone take gym class.
I ran a development team for 10 years and I never had any trouble hiring programmers - we just
had to pay them enough. Every job would have at least 10 good applicants.
Two years ago I decided to scale back a bit and go into programming (I can code real-time low
latency financial apps in 4 languages) and I had four interviews in six months with stupidly low
salaries. I'm lucky in that I can bounce between tech and the business side so I got a decent
job out of tech.
My entirely anecdotal conclusion is that there is no shortage of good programmers just a shortage
of companies willing to pay them.
I've worn many hats so far, I started out as a started out as a sysadmin, then I moved on to web
development, then back end and now I'm doing test automation because I am on almost the same money
for half the effort.
But the concepts won't. Good programming requires the ability to break down a task, organise
the steps in performing it, identify parts of the process that are common or repetitive so they
can be bundled together, handed-off or delegated, etc.
These concepts can be applied to any programming language, and indeed to many non-software
activities.
Well to his point sort of... either everything will go php or all those entry level php developers
will be on the street. A good Java or C developer is hard to come by. And to the others, being
a being a developer, especially a good one, is nothing like reading and writing. The industry
is already saturated with poor coders just doing it for a paycheck.
Pretty much the entire history of the software industry since FORAST was developed for the
ORDVAC has been about desperately trying to make software development in some way possible without
driving everyone bonkers.
The gulf between FORAST and today's IDE-written, type-inferring high level languages, compilers,
abstracted run-time environments, hypervisors, multi-computer architectures and general tech-world
flavour-of-2017-ness is truly immense[1].
And yet software is still fucking hard to write. There's no sign it's getting easier despite
all that work.
Automated coding was promised as the solution in the 1980s as well. In fact, somewhere in my
archives, I've got paper journals which include adverts for automated systems that would programmers
completely redundant by writing all your database code for you. These days, we'd think of those
tools as automated ORM generators and they don't fix the problem; they just make a new one --
ORM impedance mismatch -- which needs more engineering on top to fix...
The tools don't change the need for the humans, they just change what's possible for the humans
to do.
[1] FORAST executed in about 20,000 bytes of memory without even an OS. The compile artifacts
for the map-reduce system I built today are an astonishing hundred million bytes... and don't
include the necessary mapreduce environment, management interface, node operating system and distributed
filesystem...
"There are already top quality coders in China and India"
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *rolls on the floor laughting* Yes........ 1%... and 99% of incredibly
bad, incompetent, untalented one that produce cost 50% of a good developer but produce only 5%
in comparison. And I'm talking with a LOT of practical experience through more than a dozen corporations
all over the world which have been outsourcing to India... all have been disasters for the companies
(but good for the execs who pocketed big bonuses and left the company before the disaster blows
up in their face)
Tech executives have pursued [the goal of suppressing workers' compensation] in a variety
of ways. One is collusion – companies conspiring to prevent their employees from earning more
by switching jobs. The prevalence of this practice in Silicon Valley triggered a justice department
antitrust complaint in 2010, along with a class action suit that culminated in a $415m settlement.
Folks interested in the story of the Techtopus (less drily presented than in the links in this
article) should check out Mark Ames' reporting, esp
this overview article and
this focus on the egregious Steve Jobs (whose canonization by the US corporate-funded media
is just one more impeachment of their moral bankruptcy).
Another, more sophisticated method is importing large numbers of skilled guest workers from
other countries through the H1-B visa program. These workers earn less than their American
counterparts, and possess little bargaining power because they must remain employed to keep
their status.
I have watched as schools run by trade unions have done the opposite for the 5 decades. By limiting
the number of graduates, they were able to help maintain living wages and benefits. This has been
stopped in my area due to the pressure of owners run "trade associations".
During that same time period I have witnessed trade associations controlled by company owners,
while publicising their support of the average employee, invest enormous amounts of membership
fees in creating alliances with public institutions. Their goal has been that of flooding the
labor market and thus keeping wages low. A double hit for the average worker because membership
fees were paid by employees as well as those in control.
Coding jobs are just as susceptible to being moved to lower cost areas of the world as hardware
jobs already have. It's already happening. There are already top quality coders in China and India.
There is a much larger pool to chose from and they are just as good as their western counterparts
and work harder for much less money.
Globalisation is the reason, and trying to force wages up in one country simply moves the
jobs elsewhere. The only way I can think of to limit this happening is to keep the company and
coders working at the cutting edge of technology.
I'd be much more impressed if I saw that the hordes of young male engineers here in SF
expressing a semblance of basic common sense, basic self awareness and basic life skills. I'd
say 91.3% are oblivious, idiotic children.
They would definitely not survive the zombie apocalypse.
P.S. not every kid wants or needs to have their soul sucked out of them sitting in front of
a screen full of code for some idiotic service that some other douchbro thinks is the next iteration
of sliced bread.
The demonization of Silicon Valley is clearly the next place to put all blame. Look what
"they" did to us: computers, smart phones, HD television, world-wide internet, on and on. Get
a rope!
I moved there in 1978 and watched the orchards and trailer parks on North 1st St. of San
Jose transform into a concrete jungle. There used to be quite a bit of semiconductor
equipment and device manufacturing in SV during the 80s and 90s. Now quite a few buildings
have the same name : AVAILABLE. Most equipment and device manufacturing has moved to
Asia.
Programming started with binary, then machine code (hexadecimal or octal) and moved to
assembler as a compiled and linked structure. More compiled languages like FORTRAN, BASIC,
PL-1, COBOL, PASCAL, C (and all its "+'s") followed making programming easier for the less
talented. Now the script based languages (HTML, JAVA, etc.) are even higher level and
accessible to nearly all. Programming has become a commodity and will be priced like milk,
wheat, corn, non-unionized workers and the like. The ship has sailed on this activity as a
career.
Hi: As I have said many times before, there is no shortage of people who fully understand the
problem and can see all the connections.
However, they all fall on their faces when it comes to the solution.
To cut to the chase, Concentrated Wealth needs to go, permanently.
Of course the challenge is how to best accomplish this.....
Damn engineers and their black and white world view, if they weren't so inept they would've
unionized instead of being trampled again and again in the name of capitalism.
Not maybe. Too late. American corporations objective is to low ball wages here in US. In
India they spoon feed these pupils with affordable cutting edge IT training for next to
nothing ruppees. These pupils then exaggerate their CVs and ship them out en mass to the
western world to dominate the IT industry. I've seen it with my own eyes in action. Those in
charge will anything/everything to maintain their grip on power. No brag. Just fact.
Wrong again, that approach has been tried since the 80s and will keep failing only because
software development is still more akin to a technical craft than an engineering discipline.
The number of elements required to assemble a working non trivial system is way beyond
scriptable.
> That's some crystal ball you have there. English teachers will need to know how to
code? Same with plumbers? Same with janitors, CEOs, and anyone working in the service
industry?
You don't believe there will be robots to do plumbing and cleaning? The cleaner's job will
be to program robots to do what they need.
CEOs? Absolutely.
English teachers? Both of my kids have school laptops and everything is being done on the
computers. The teachers use software and create websites and what not. Yes, even English
teachers.
Not knowing / understanding how to code will be the same as not knowing how to use Word/
Excel. I am assuming there are people who don't, but I don't know any above the age of 6.
We've had 'automated coding scripts' for years for small tasks. However, anyone who says
they're going to obviate programmers, analysts and designers doesn't understand the software
development process.
Even if expert systems (an 80's concept, BTW) could code, we'd still have a huge need for
managers. The hard part of software isn't even the coding. It's determining the requirements
and working with clients. It will require general intelligence to do 90% of what we do right
now. The 10% we could automate right now, mostly gets in the way. I agree it will change, but
it's going to take another 20-30 years to really happen.
wrong, software companies are already developing automated coding scripts. You'll get a bunch
of door to door knives salespeople once the dust settles that's what you'll get.
Thw user "imipak" views are pretty common misconceptions. They are all wrong.
Notable quotes:
"... I was about to take offence on behalf of programmers, but then I realized that would be snobbish and insulting to carpenters too. Many people can code, but only a few can code well, and fewer still become the masters of the profession. Many people can learn carpentry, but few become joiners, and fewer still become cabinetmakers. ..."
"... Many people can write, but few become journalists, and fewer still become real authors. ..."
Coding has little or nothing to do with Silicon Valley. They may or may not have ulterior
motives, but ultimately they are nothing in the scheme of things.
I disagree with teaching coding as a discrete subject. I think it should be combined with
home economics and woodworking because 90% of these subjects consist of transferable skills
that exist in all of them. Only a tiny residual is actually topic-specific.
In the case of coding, the residual consists of drawing skills and typing skills.
Programming language skills? Irrelevant. You should choose the tools to fit the problem.
Neither of these needs a computer. You should only ever approach the computer at the very
end, after you've designed and written the program.
Is cooking so very different? Do you decide on the ingredients before or after you start?
Do you go shopping half-way through cooking an omelette?
With woodwork, do you measure first or cut first? Do you have a plan or do you randomly
assemble bits until it does something useful?
Real coding, taught correctly, is barely taught at all. You teach the transferable skills.
ONCE. You then apply those skills in each area in which they apply.
What other transferable skills apply? Top-down design, bottom-up implementation. The
correct methodology in all forms of engineering. Proper testing strategies, also common
across all forms of engineering. However, since these tests are against logic, they're a test
of reasoning. A good thing to have in the sciences and philosophy.
Technical writing is the art of explaining things to idiots. Whether you're designing a
board game, explaining what you like about a house, writing a travelogue or just seeing if
your wild ideas hold water, you need to be able to put those ideas down on paper in a way
that exposes all the inconsistencies and errors. It doesn't take much to clean it up to be
readable by humans. But once it is cleaned up, it'll remain free of errors.
So I would teach a foundation course that teaches top-down reasoning, bottom-up design,
flowcharts, critical path analysis and symbolic logic. Probably aimed at age 7. But I'd not
do so wholly in the abstract. I'd have it thoroughly mixed in with one field, probably
cooking as most kids do that and it lacks stigma at that age.
I'd then build courses on various crafts and engineering subjects on top of that, building
further hierarchies where possible. Eliminate duplication and severely reduce the fictions we
call disciplines.
I used to employ 200 computer scientists in my business and now teach children so I'm
apparently as guilty as hell. To be compared with a carpenter is, however, a true compliment, if you mean those that
create elegant, aesthetically-pleasing, functional, adaptable and long-lasting bespoke
furniture, because our crafts of problem-solving using limited resources in confined
environments to create working, life-improving artifacts both exemplify great human ingenuity
in action. Capitalism or no.
"But coding is not magic. It is a technical skill, akin to carpentry."
But some people do it much better than others. Just like journalism. This article is
complete nonsense, as I discuss in another comment. The author might want to consider a
career in carpentry.
"But coding is not magic. It is a technical skill, akin to carpentry."
I was about to take offence on behalf of programmers, but then I realized that would be
snobbish and insulting to carpenters too. Many people can code, but only a few can code well,
and fewer still become the masters of the profession. Many people can learn carpentry, but
few become joiners, and fewer still become cabinetmakers.
Many people can write, but few become journalists, and fewer still become real authors.
IT is probably one of the most "neoliberalized" industry (even in comparison with
finance). So atomization of labor and "plantation economy" is a norm in IT. It occurs on
rather high level of wages, but with influx of foreign programmers and IT specialists (in the past)
and mass outsourcing (now) this is changing. Completion for good job positions is fierce. Dog eats
dog competition, the dream of neoliberals. Entry level jobs are already paying $15 an hour, if not
less.
Programming is a relatively rare talent, much like ability to play violin. Even amateur level is
challenging. On high level (developing large complex programs in a team and still preserving your individuality
and productivity ) it is extremely rare. Most of "commercial" programmers are able to produce only a
mediocre code (which might be adequate). Only a few programmers can excel if complex software projects.
Sometimes even performing solo. There is also a pathological breed of "programmer junkie"
( graphomania happens in programming
too ) who are able sometimes to destroy something large projects singlehandedly. That often happens
with open source projects after the main developer lost interest and abandoned the project.
It's good to allow children the chance to try their hand at coding when they otherwise may not had
that opportunity, But in no way that means that all of them can became professional programmers. No
way. Again the top level of programmers required position of a unique talent, much like top musical
performer talent.
Also to get a decent entry position you iether need to be extremely talented or graduate from Ivy
League university. When applicants are abundant, resume from less prestigious universities are not even
considered. this is just easier for HR to filter applications this way.
Also under neoliberalism cheap labor via H1B visas flood the market and depresses wages. Many Silicon
companies were so to say "Russian speaking in late 90th after the collapse of the USSR. Not offshoring
is the dominant way to offload the development to cheaper labor.
Notable quotes:
"... As software mediates more of our lives, and the power of Silicon Valley grows, it's tempting to imagine that demand for developers is soaring. The media contributes to this impression by spotlighting the genuinely inspiring stories of those who have ascended the class ladder through code. You may have heard of Bit Source, a company in eastern Kentucky that retrains coalminers as coders. They've been featured by Wired , Forbes , FastCompany , The Guardian , NPR and NBC News , among others. ..."
"... A former coalminer who becomes a successful developer deserves our respect and admiration. But the data suggests that relatively few will be able to follow their example. Our educational system has long been producing more programmers than the labor market can absorb. ..."
"... More tellingly, wage levels in the tech industry have remained flat since the late 1990s. Adjusting for inflation, the average programmer earns about as much today as in 1998. If demand were soaring, you'd expect wages to rise sharply in response. Instead, salaries have stagnated. ..."
"... Tech executives have pursued this goal in a variety of ways. One is collusion – companies conspiring to prevent their employees from earning more by switching jobs. The prevalence of this practice in Silicon Valley triggered a justice department antitrust complaint in 2010, along with a class action suit that culminated in a $415m settlement . Another, more sophisticated method is importing large numbers of skilled guest workers from other countries through the H1-B visa program. These workers earn less than their American counterparts, and possess little bargaining power because they must remain employed to keep their status. ..."
"... Guest workers and wage-fixing are useful tools for restraining labor costs. But nothing would make programming cheaper than making millions more programmers. ..."
"... Silicon Valley has been unusually successful in persuading our political class and much of the general public that its interests coincide with the interests of humanity as a whole. But tech is an industry like any other. It prioritizes its bottom line, and invests heavily in making public policy serve it. The five largest tech firms now spend twice as much as Wall Street on lobbying Washington – nearly $50m in 2016. The biggest spender, Google, also goes to considerable lengths to cultivate policy wonks favorable to its interests – and to discipline the ones who aren't. ..."
"... Silicon Valley is not a uniquely benevolent force, nor a uniquely malevolent one. Rather, it's something more ordinary: a collection of capitalist firms committed to the pursuit of profit. And as every capitalist knows, markets are figments of politics. They are not naturally occurring phenomena, but elaborately crafted contraptions, sustained and structured by the state – which is why shaping public policy is so important. If tech works tirelessly to tilt markets in its favor, it's hardly alone. What distinguishes it is the amount of money it has at its disposal to do so. ..."
"... The problem isn't training. The problem is there aren't enough good jobs to be trained for ..."
"... Everyone should have the opportunity to learn how to code. Coding can be a rewarding, even pleasurable, experience, and it's useful for performing all sorts of tasks. More broadly, an understanding of how code works is critical for basic digital literacy – something that is swiftly becoming a requirement for informed citizenship in an increasingly technologized world. ..."
"... But coding is not magic. It is a technical skill, akin to carpentry. Learning to build software does not make you any more immune to the forces of American capitalism than learning to build a house. Whether a coder or a carpenter, capital will do what it can to lower your wages, and enlist public institutions towards that end. ..."
"... Exposing large portions of the school population to coding is not going to magically turn them into coders. It may increase their basic understanding but that is a long way from being a software engineer. ..."
"... All schools teach drama and most kids don't end up becoming actors. You need to give all kids access to coding in order for some can go on to make a career out of it. ..."
"... it's ridiculous because even out of a pool of computer science B.Sc. or M.Sc. grads - companies are only interested in the top 10%. Even the most mundane company with crappy IT jobs swears that they only hire "the best and the brightest." ..."
"... It's basically a con-job by the big Silicon Valley companies offshoring as many US jobs as they can, or "inshoring" via exploitation of the H1B visa ..."
"... Masters is the new Bachelors. ..."
"... I taught CS. Out of around 100 graduates I'd say maybe 5 were reasonable software engineers. The rest would be fine in tech support or other associated trades, but not writing software. Its not just a set of trainable skills, its a set of attitudes and ways of perceiving and understanding that just aren't that common. ..."
"... Yup, rings true. I've been in hi tech for over 40 years and seen the changes. I was in Silicon Valley for 10 years on a startup. India is taking over, my current US company now has a majority Indian executive and is moving work to India. US politicians push coding to drive down wages to Indian levels. ..."
This month, millions of children returned to school. This year, an unprecedented number of them
will learn to code.
Computer science courses for children have proliferated rapidly in the past few years. A 2016
Gallup
report found that 40% of American schools now offer coding classes – up from only 25% a few years
ago. New York, with the largest public school system in the country, has
pledged to offer computer science to all 1.1 million students by 2025. Los Angeles, with the
second largest,
plans to do the same by 2020. And Chicago, the fourth largest, has gone further,
promising to make computer science a high school graduation requirement by 2018.
The rationale for this rapid curricular renovation is economic. Teaching kids how to code will
help them land good jobs, the argument goes. In an era of flat and falling incomes, programming provides
a new path to the middle class – a skill so widely demanded that anyone who acquires it can command
a livable, even lucrative, wage.
This narrative pervades policymaking at every level, from school boards to the government. Yet
it rests on a fundamentally flawed premise. Contrary to public perception, the economy doesn't actually
need that many more programmers. As a result, teaching millions of kids to code won't make them all
middle-class. Rather, it will proletarianize the profession by flooding the market and forcing wages
down – and that's precisely the point.
At its root, the campaign for code education isn't about giving the next generation a shot at
earning the salary of a Facebook engineer. It's about ensuring those salaries no longer exist, by
creating a source of cheap labor for the tech industry.
As software mediates more of our lives, and the power of Silicon Valley grows, it's tempting to
imagine that demand for developers is soaring. The media contributes to this impression by spotlighting
the genuinely inspiring stories of those who have ascended the class ladder through code. You may
have heard of Bit Source, a company in eastern Kentucky that retrains coalminers as coders. They've
been featured by
Wired
,
Forbes ,
FastCompany ,
The Guardian ,
NPR and
NBC
News , among others.
A former coalminer who becomes a successful developer deserves our respect and admiration. But
the data suggests that relatively few will be able to follow their example. Our educational system
has long been producing more programmers than the labor market can absorb. A
study by the Economic Policy Institute found that the supply of American college graduates with
computer science degrees is 50% greater than the number hired into the tech industry each year. For
all the talk of a tech worker shortage, many qualified graduates simply can't find jobs.
More tellingly, wage levels in the tech industry have remained flat since the late 1990s. Adjusting
for inflation, the average programmer earns about as much today as in 1998. If demand were soaring,
you'd expect wages to rise sharply in response. Instead, salaries have stagnated.
Still, those salaries are stagnating at a fairly high level. The Department of Labor estimates
that the median annual wage for computer and information technology occupations is $82,860 – more
than twice the national average. And from the perspective of the people who own the tech industry,
this presents a problem. High wages threaten profits. To maximize profitability, one must always
be finding ways to pay workers less.
Tech executives have pursued this goal in a variety of ways. One is collusion – companies conspiring
to prevent their employees from earning more by switching jobs. The prevalence of this practice in
Silicon Valley triggered a justice department
antitrust complaint in 2010, along with a class action suit that culminated in a $415m
settlement . Another, more sophisticated method is importing
large numbers of skilled guest workers from other countries through the H1-B visa program. These
workers earn less than their
American counterparts, and possess little bargaining power because they must remain employed to keep
their status.
Guest workers and wage-fixing are useful tools for restraining labor costs. But nothing would
make programming cheaper than making millions more programmers. And where better to develop
this workforce than America's schools? It's no coincidence, then, that the campaign for code education
is being orchestrated by the tech industry itself. Its primary instrument is Code.org, a nonprofit
funded by Facebook, Microsoft, Google and
others . In 2016, the organization spent
nearly $20m on training teachers, developing curricula, and lobbying policymakers.
Silicon Valley has been unusually successful in persuading our political class and much of the
general public that its interests coincide with the interests of humanity as a whole. But tech is
an industry like any other. It prioritizes its bottom line, and invests heavily in making public
policy serve it. The five largest tech firms now
spend twice as much as Wall Street on lobbying Washington – nearly $50m in 2016. The biggest
spender, Google, also goes to considerable lengths to
cultivate policy wonks favorable to its interests – and to
discipline the ones who aren't.
Silicon Valley
is not a uniquely benevolent force, nor a uniquely malevolent one. Rather, it's something more ordinary:
a collection of capitalist firms committed to the pursuit of profit. And as every capitalist knows,
markets are figments of politics. They are not naturally occurring phenomena, but elaborately crafted
contraptions, sustained and structured by the state – which is why shaping public policy is so important.
If tech works tirelessly to tilt markets in its favor, it's hardly alone. What distinguishes it is
the amount of money it has at its disposal to do so.
Money isn't Silicon Valley's only advantage in its
crusade to remake American education, however. It also enjoys a favorable ideological climate.
Its basic message – that schools alone can fix big social problems – is one that politicians of both
parties have been repeating for years. The far-fetched premise of neoliberal school reform is that
education can mend our disintegrating social fabric. That if we teach students the right skills,
we can solve poverty, inequality and stagnation. The school becomes an engine of economic transformation,
catapulting young people from challenging circumstances into dignified, comfortable lives.
This argument is immensely pleasing to the technocratic mind. It suggests that our core economic
malfunction is technical – a simple asymmetry. You have workers on one side and good jobs
on the other, and all it takes is training to match them up. Indeed, every president since Bill Clinton
has talked about training American workers to fill the "skills gap". But gradually, one mainstream
economist after another has come to realize what most workers have known for years: the gap doesn't
exist. Even Larry Summers has
concluded it's a myth.
The problem isn't training. The problem is there aren't enough good jobs to be trained for
. The solution is to make bad jobs better, by raising the minimum wage and making it easier for workers
to form a union, and to create more good jobs by investing for growth. This involves forcing business
to put money into things that actually grow the productive economy rather than
shoveling profits out to shareholders. It also means increasing public investment, so that people
can make a decent living doing socially necessary work like decarbonizing our energy system and restoring
our decaying infrastructure.
Everyone should have the opportunity to learn how to code. Coding can be a rewarding, even pleasurable,
experience, and it's useful for performing all sorts of tasks. More broadly, an understanding of
how code works is critical for basic digital literacy – something that is swiftly becoming a requirement
for informed citizenship in an increasingly technologized world.
But coding is not magic. It is a technical skill, akin to carpentry. Learning to build software
does not make you any more immune to the forces of American capitalism than learning to build a house.
Whether a coder or a carpenter, capital will do what it can to lower your wages, and enlist public
institutions towards that end.
Silicon Valley has been extraordinarily adept at converting previously uncommodified portions
of our common life into sources of profit. Our schools may prove an easy conquest by comparison.
"Everyone should have the opportunity to learn how to code. " OK, and that's what's being done.
And that's what the article is bemoaning. What would be better: teach them how to change tires
or groom pets? Or pick fruit? Amazingly condescending article.
However, training lots of people to be coders won't automatically result in lots of people
who can actually write good code. Nor will it give managers/recruiters the necessary skills
to recognize which programmers are any good.
A valid rebuttal but could I offer another observation? Exposing large portions of the school
population to coding is not going to magically turn them into coders. It may increase their basic
understanding but that is a long way from being a software engineer.
Just as children join art, drama or biology classes so they do not automatically become artists,
actors or doctors. I would agree entirely that just being able to code is not going to guarantee
the sort of income that might be aspired to. As with all things, it takes commitment, perseverance
and dogged determination. I suppose ultimately it becomes the Gattaca argument.
Fair enough, but, his central argument, that an overabundance of coders will drive wages in that
sector down, is generally true, so in the future if you want your kids to go into a profession
that will earn them 80k+ then being a "coder" is not the route to take. When coding is - like
reading, writing, and arithmetic - just a basic skill, there's no guarantee having it will automatically
translate into getting a "good" job.
This article lumps everyone in computing into the 'coder' bin, without actually defining what
'coding' is. Yes there is a glut of people who can knock together a bit of HTML and
JavaScript, but that is not really programming as such.
There are huge shortages of skilled
developers however; people who can apply computer science and engineering in terms of
analysis and design of software. These are the real skills for which relatively few people
have a true aptitude.
The lack of really good skills is starting to show in some terrible
software implementation decisions, such as Slack for example; written as a web app running in
Electron (so that JavaScript code monkeys could knock it out quickly), but resulting in awful
performance. We will see more of this in the coming years...
My brother is a programmer, and in his experience these coding exams don't test anything but
whether or not you took (and remember) a very narrow range of problems introduce in the first
years of a computer science degree. The entire hiring process seems premised on a range of
ill-founded ideas about what skills are necessary for the job and how to assess them in
people. They haven't yet grasped that those kinds of exams mostly test test-taking ability,
rather than intelligence, creativity, diligence, communication ability, or anything else that
a job requires beside coughing up the right answer in a stressful, timed environment without
outside resources.
I'm an embedded software/firmware engineer. Every similar engineer I've ever met has had the same
background - starting in electronics and drifting into embedded software writing in C and assembler.
It's virtually impossible to do such software without an understanding of electronics. When it
goes wrong you may need to get the test equipment out to scope the hardware to see if it's a hardware
or software problem. Coming from a pure computing background just isn't going to get you a job
in this type of work.
All schools teach drama and most kids don't end up becoming actors. You need to give all kids
access to coding in order for some can go on to make a career out of it.
Coding salaries will inevitably fall over time, but such skills give workers the option, once
they discover that their income is no longer sustainable in the UK, of moving somewhere more affordable
and working remotely.
Completely agree. Coding is a necessary life skill for 21st century but there are levels to every
skill. From basic needs for an office job to advanced and specialised.
Lots of people can code but very few of us ever get to the point of creating something new that
has a loyal and enthusiastic user-base. Everyone should be able to code because it is or will
be the basis of being able to create almost anything in the future. If you want to make a game
in Unity, knowing how to code is really useful. If you want to work with large data-sets, you
can't rely on Excel and so you need to be able to code (in R?). The use of code is becoming so
pervasive that it is going to be like reading and writing.
All the science and engineering graduates I know can code but none of them have ever sold a
stand-alone software. The argument made above is like saying that teaching everyone to write will
drive down the wages of writers. Writing is useful for anyone and everyone but only a tiny fraction
of people who can write, actually write novels or even newspaper columns.
Immigrants have always a big advantage over locals, for any company, including tech companies:
the government makes sure that they will stay in their place and never complain about low salaries
or bad working conditions because, you know what? If the company sacks you, an immigrant may be
forced to leave the country where they live because their visa expires, which is never going to
happen with a local. Companies always have more leverage over immigrants. Given a choice between
more and less exploitable workers, companies will choose the most exploitable ones.
Which is something that Marx figured more than a century ago, and why he insisted that socialism
had to be international, which led to the founding of the First International Socialist. If worker's
fights didn't go across country boundaries, companies would just play people from one country
against the other. Unfortunately, at some point in time socialists forgot this very important
fact.
SO what's wrong with having lots of people able to code? The only argument you seem to have is
that it'll lower wages. So do you think that we should stop teaching writing skills so that journalists
can be paid more? And no one os going to "force" kids into high-level abstract coding practices
in kindergarten, fgs. But there is ample empirical proof that young children can learn basic principles.
In fact the younger that children are exposed to anything, the better they can enhance their skills
adn knowlege of it later in life, and computing concepts are no different.
You're completely missing the point. Kids are forced into the programming field (even STEM as
a more general term), before they evolve their abstract reasoning. For that matter, you're not
producing highly skilled people, but functional imbeciles and a decent labor that will eventually
lower the wages.
Conspiracy theory? So Google, FB and others paying hundreds of millions of dollars for forming
a cartel to lower the wages is not true? It sounds me that you're sounding more like a 1969 denier
that Guardian is. Tech companies are not financing those incentives because they have a good soul.
Their primary drive has always been money, otherwise they wouldn't sell your personal data to
earn money.
But hey, you can always sleep peacefully when your kid becomes a coder. When he is 50, everyone
will want to have a Cobol, Ada programmer with 25 years of experience when you can get 16 year
old kid from a high school for 1/10 of a price. Go back to sleep...
it's ridiculous because even out of a pool of computer science B.Sc. or M.Sc. grads - companies
are only interested in the top 10%. Even the most mundane company with crappy IT jobs swears that
they only hire "the best and the brightest."
It's basically a con-job by the big Silicon Valley companies offshoring as many US jobs as
they can, or "inshoring" via exploitation of the H1B visa - so they can say "see, we don't
have 'qualified' people in the US - maybe when these kids learn to program in a generation." As
if American students haven't been coding for decades -- and saw their salaries plummet as the
H1B visa and Indian offshore firms exploded......
Dude, stow the attitude. I've tested code from various entities, and seen every kind of crap peddled
as gold.
But I've also seen a little 5-foot giggly lady with two kids, grumble a bit and save a $100,000
product by rewriting another coder's man-month of work in a few days, without any flaws or cracks.
Almost nobody will ever know she did that. She's so far beyond my level it hurts.
And yes, the author knows nothing. He's genuinely crying wolf while knee-deep in amused wolves.
The last time I was in San Jose, years ago , the room was already full of people with Indian
surnames. If the problem was REALLY serious, a programmer from POLAND was called in.
If you think fighting for a violinist spot is hard, try fighting for it with every spare violinist
in the world . I am training my Indian replacement to do my job right now
. At least the public can appreciate a good violin. Can you appreciate
Duff's device ?
So by all means, don't teach local kids how to think in a straight line, just in case they
make a dent in the price of wages IN INDIA.... *sheesh*
That's the best possible summarisation of this extremely dumb article. Bravo.
For those who don't know how to think of coding, like the article author, here's a few analogies
:
A computer is a box that replays frozen thoughts, quickly. That is all.
Coding is just the art of explaining. Anyone who can explain something patiently and clearly,
can code. Anyone who can't, can't.
Making hardware is very much like growing produce while blind. Making software is very much
like cooking that produce while blind.
Imagine looking after a room full of young eager obedient children who only do exactly, *exactly*,
what you told them to do, but move around at the speed of light. Imagine having to try to keep
them from smashing into each other or decapitating themselves on the corners of tables, tripping
over toys and crashing into walls, etc, while you get them all to play games together.
The difference between a good coder and a bad coder is almost life and death. Imagine a broth
prepared with ingredients from a dozen co-ordinating geniuses and one idiot, that you'll mass
produce. The soup is always far worse for the idiot's additions. The more cooks you involve, the
more chance your mass produced broth will taste bad.
People who hire coders, typically can't tell a good coder from a bad coder.
No you do it in your own time. If you're not prepared to put in long days IT is not for you in
any case. It was ever thus, but more so now due to offshoring - rather than the rather obscure
forces you seem to believe are important.
Sorry, offworldguy, but you're losing this one really badly. I'm a professional software engineer
in my 60's and I know lots of non-professionals in my age range who write little programs,
scripts and apps for fun. I know this because they often contact me for help or advice.
So you've now been told by several people in this thread that ordinary people do code for fun
or recreation. The fact that you don't know any probably says more about your network of friends
and acquaintances than about the general population.
This is one of the daftest articles I've come across in a long while.
If it's possible that so many kids can be taught to code well enough so that wages come down,
then that proves that the only reason we've been paying so much for development costs is the scarcity
of people able to do it, not that it's intrinsically so hard that only a select few could anyway.
In which case, there is no ethical argument for keeping the pools of skilled workers to some select
group. Anyone able to do it should have an equal opportunity to do it.
What is the argument for not teaching coding (other than to artificially keep wages high)? Why
not stop teaching the three R's, in order to boost white-collar wages in general?
Computing is an ever-increasingly intrinsic part of life, and people need to understand it at
all levels. It is not just unfair, but tantamount to neglect, to fail to teach children all the
skills they may require to cope as adults.
Having said that, I suspect that in another generation or two a good many lower-level coding jobs
will be redundant anyway, with such code being automatically generated, and "coders" at this level
will be little more than technicians setting various parameters. Even so, understanding the basics
behind computing is a part of understanding the world they live in, and every child needs that.
Suggesting that teaching coding is some kind of conspiracy to force wages down is well, it makes
the moon-landing conspiracy looks sensible by comparison.
I think it is important to demystify advanced technology, I think that has importance in its own
right.Plus, schools should expose kids to things which may spark their interest. Not everyone
who does a science project goes on years later to get a PhD, but you'd think that it makes it
more likely. Same as giving a kid some music lessons. There is a big difference between serious
coding and the basic steps needed to automate a customer service team or a marketing program,
but the people who have some mastery over automation will have an advantage in many jobs. Advanced
machines are clearly going to be a huge part of our future. What should we do about it, if not
teach kids how to understand these tools?
This is like arguing that teaching kids to write is nothing more than a plot to flood the market
for journalists. Teaching first aid and CPR does not make everyone a doctor.
Coding is an essential skill for many jobs already: 50 years ago, who would have thought you needed
coders to make movies? Being a software engineer, a serious coder, is hard. IN fact, it takes
more than technical coding to be a software engineer: you can learn to code in a week. Software
Engineering is a four year degree, and even then you've just started a career. But depriving kids
of some basic insights may mean they won't have the basic skills needed in the future, even for
controlling their car and house. By all means, send you kids to a school that doesn't teach coding.
I won't.
Did you learn SNOBOL, or is Snowball a language I'm not familiar with? (Entirely possible, as
an American I never would have known Extended Mercury Autocode existed we're it not for a random
book acquisition at my home town library when I was a kid.)
The tide that is transforming technology jobs from "white collar professional" into "blue collar
industrial" is part of a larger global economic cycle.
Successful "growth" assets inevitably transmogrify into "value" and "income" assets as they
progress through the economic cycle. The nature of their work transforms also. No longer focused
on innovation; on disrupting old markets or forging new ones; their fundamental nature changes
as they mature into optimising, cost reducing, process oriented and most importantly of all --
dividend paying -- organisations.
First, the market invests. And then, .... it squeezes.
Immature companies must invest in their team; must inspire them to be innovative so that they
can take the creative risks required to create new things. This translates into high skills, high
wages and "white collar" social status.
Mature, optimising companies on the other hand must necessarily avoid risks and seek variance-minimising
predictability. They seek to control their human resources; to eliminate creativity; to to make
the work procedural, impersonal and soulless. This translates into low skills, low wages and "blue
collar" social status.
This is a fundamental part of the economic cycle; but it has been playing out on the global
stage which has had the effect of hiding some of its' effects.
Over the past decades, technology knowledge and skills have flooded away from "high cost" countries
and towards "best cost" countries at a historically significant rate. Possibly at the maximum
rate that global infrastructure and regional skills pools can support. Much of this necessarily
inhumane and brutal cost cutting and deskilling has therefore been hidden by the tide of outsourcing
and offshoring. It is hard to see the nature of the jobs change when the jobs themselves are changing
hands at the same time.
The ever tighter ratchet of dehumanising industrialisation; productivity and efficiency continues
apace, however, and as our global system matures and evens out, we see the seeds of what we have
sown sail home from over the sea.
Technology jobs in developed nations have been skewed towards "growth" activities since for
the past several decades most "value" and "income" activities have been carried out in developing
nations. Now, we may be seeing the early preparations for the diffusion of that skewed, uneven
and unsustainable imbalance.
The good news is that "Growth" activities are not going to disappear from the world. They just
may not be so geographically concentrated as they are today. Also, there is a significant and
attention-worthy argument that the re-balancing of skills will result in a more flexible and performant
global economy as organisations will better be able to shift a wider variety of work around the
world to regions where local conditions (regulation, subsidy, union activity etc...) are supportive.
For the individuals concerned it isn't going to be pretty. And of course it is just another
example of the race to the bottom that pits states and public sector purse-holders against one
another to win the grace and favour of globally mobile employers.
As a power play move it has a sort of inhumanly psychotic inevitability to it which is quite
awesome to observe.
I also find it ironic that the only way to tame the leviathan that is the global free-market
industrial system might actually be effective global governance and international cooperation
within a rules-based system.
Both "globalist" but not even slightly both the same thing.
not just coders, it put even IT Ops guys into this bin. Basically good old - so you are working
with computers sentence I used to hear a lot 10-15 years ago.
You can teach everyone how to code but it doesn't necessarily mean everyone will be able to work
as one. We all learn math but that doesn't mean we're all mathematicians. We all know how to write
but we're not all professional writers.
I have a graduate degree in CS and been to a coding bootcamp. Not everyone's brain is wired
to become a successful coder. There is a particular way how coders think. Quality of a product
will stand out based on these differences.
Very hyperbolic is to assume that the profit in those companies is done by decreasing wages. In
my company the profit is driven by ability to deliver products to the market. And that is limited
by number of top people (not just any coder) you can have.
You realise that the arts are massively oversupplied and that most artists earn very little, if
anything? Which is sort of like the situation the author is warning about. But hey, he knows nothing.
Congratulations, though, on writing one of the most pretentious posts I've ever read on CIF.
So you know kids, college age people and software developers who enjoy doing it in their leisure
time? Do you know any middle aged mothers, fathers, grandparents who enjoy it and are not
software developers?
Sorry, I don't see coding as a leisure pursuit that is going to take off
beyond a very narrow demographic and if it becomes apparent (as I believe it will) that there
is not going to be a huge increase in coding job opportunities then it will likely wither in schools
too, perhaps replaced by music lessons.
No, because software developer probably fail more often than they succeed. Building anything worthwhile
is an iterative process. And it's not just the compiler but the other devs, oyur designer, your
PM, all looking at your work.
It's not shallow or lazy. I also work at a tech company and it's pretty common to do that across
job fields. Even in HR marketing jobs, we hire students who can't point to an internship or other
kind of experience in college, not simply grades.
A lot of people do find it fun. I know many kids - high school and young college age - who code
in the leisure time because they find it pleasurable to make small apps and video games. I myself
enjoy it too. Your argument is like saying since you don't like to read books in your leisure
time, nobody else must.
The point is your analogy isn't a good one - people who learn to code can not only enjoy it
in their spare time just like music, but they can also use it to accomplish all kinds of basic
things. I have a friend who's a software developer who has used code to program his Roomba to
vacuum in a specific pattern and to play Candy Land with his daughter when they lost the spinner.
Creativity could be added to your list. Anyone can push a button but only a few can invent a new
one.
One company in the US (after it was taken over by a new owner) decided it was more profitable
to import button pushers from off-shore, they lost 7 million customers (gamers) and had to employ
more of the original American developers to maintain their high standard and profits.
So similar to 500k a year people going to university ( UK) now when it used to be 60k people a
year( 1980). There was never enough graduate jobs in 1980 so can't see where the sudden increase
in need for graduates has come from.
They aren't really crucial pieces of technology except for their popularity
It's early in the day for me, but this is the most ridiculous thing I've read so far, and I
suspect it will be high up on the list by the end of the day.
There's no technology that is "crucial" unless it's involved in food, shelter or warmth. The
rest has its "crucialness" decided by how widespread its use is, and in the case of those 3 languages,
the answer is "very".
You (or I) might not like that very much, but that's how it is.
My benchmark would be if the average new graduate in the discipline earns more or less than one
of the "professions", Law, medicine, Economics etc. The short answer is that they don't. Indeed,
in my experience of professions, many good senior SW developers, say in finance, are paid markedly
less than the marketing manager, CTO etc. who are often non-technical.
My benchmark is not "has a car, house etc." but what does 10, 15 20 years of experience in
the area generate as a relative income to another profession, like being a GP or a corporate solicitor
or a civil servant (which is usually the benchmark academics use for pay scaling). It is not to
denigrate, just to say that markets don't always clear to a point where the most skilled are the
highest paid.
I was also suggesting that even if you are not intending to work in the SW area, being able
to translate your imagination into a program that reflects your ideas is a nice life skill.
Your assumption has no basis in reality. In my experience, as soon as Clinton ramped up H1Bs,
my employer would invite 6 same college/degree/curriculum in for interviews, 5 citizen,
1 foreign student and default offer to foreign student without asking interviewers a single question
about the interview. Eventually, the skipped the farce of interviewing citizens all together.
That was in 1997, and it's only gotten worse. Wall St's been pretty blunt lately. Openly admits
replacing US workers for import labor, as it's the "easiest" way to "grow" the economy, even though
they know they are ousting citizens from their jobs to do so.
"People who get Masters and PhD's in computer science" Feed western universities money, for degree
programs that would otherwise not exist, due to lack of market demand. "someone has a Bachelor's
in CS" As citizens, having the same college/same curriculum/same grades, as foreign grad. But
as citizens, they have job market mobility, and therefore are shunned. "you can make something
real and significant on your own" If someone else is paying your rent, food and student loans
while you do so.
While true, it's not the coders' fault. The managers and execs above them have intentionally created
an environment where these things are secondary. What's primary is getting the stupid piece of
garbage out the door for Q profit outlook. Ship it amd patch it.
Do most people find it fun? I can code. I don't find it 'fun'. Thirty years ago as a young graduate
I might have found it slightly fun but the 'fun' wears off pretty quick.
In my estimation PHP is an utter abomination. Python is just a little better but still very bad.
Ruby is a little better but still not at all good.
Languages like PHP, Python and JS are popular for banging out prototypes and disposable junk,
but you greatly overestimate their importance. They aren't really crucial pieces of technology
except for their popularity and while they won't disappear they won't age well at all. Basically
they are big long-lived fads. Java is now over 20 years old and while Java 8 is not crucial, the
JVM itself actually is crucial. It might last another 20 years or more. Look for more projects
like Ceylon, Scala and Kotlin. We haven't found the next step forward yet, but it's getting more
interesting, especially around type systems.
A strong developer will be able to code well in a half dozen languages and have fairly decent
knowledge of a dozen others. For me it's been many years of: Z80, x86, C, C++, Java. Also know
some Perl, LISP, ANTLR, Scala, JS, SQL, Pascal, others...
This makes people like me with 35 years of experience shipping products on deadlines up and down
every stack (from device drivers and operating systems to programming languages, platforms and
frameworks to web, distributed computing, clusters, big data and ML) so much more valuable. Been
there, done that.
It's just not true. In SV there's this giant vacuum created by Apple, Google, FB, etc. Other good
companies struggle to fill positions. I know from being on the hiring side at times.
Plenty of people? I don't know of a single person outside of my work which is teaming with programmers.
Not a single friend, not my neighbours, not my wife or her extended family, not my parents. Plenty
of people might do it but most people don't.
Agreed: by gifted I did not meant innate. It's more of a mix of having the interest, the persistence,
the time, the opportunity and actually enjoying that kind of challenge.
While some of those
things are to a large extent innate personality traits, others are not and you don't need max
of all of them, you just need enough to drive you to explore that domain.
That said, somebody that goes into coding purelly for the money and does it for the money alone
is extremely unlikelly to become an exceptional coder.
I'm as senior as they get and have interviewed quite a lot of programmers for several positions,
including for Technical Lead (in fact, to replace me) and so far my experience leads me to believe
that people who don't have a knack for coding are much less likely to expose themselves to many
different languages and techniques, and also are less experimentalist, thus being far less likely
to have those moments of transcending merely being aware of the visible and obvious to discover
the concerns and concepts behind what one does. Without those moments that open the door to the
next Universe of concerns and implications, one cannot do state transitions such as Coder to Technical
Designer or Technical Designer to Technical Architect.
Sure, you can get the title and do the things from the books, but you will not get WHY are
those things supposed to work (and when they will not work) and thus cannot adjust to new conditions
effectively and will be like a sailor that can't sail away from sight of the coast since he can't
navigate.
All this gets reflected in many things that enhance productivity, from the early ability to
quickly piece together solutions for a new problem out of past solutions for different problems
to, later, conceiving software architecture designs fittted to the typical usage pattern in the
industry for which the software is going to be made.
From the way our IT department is going, needing millions of coders is not the future. It'll be
a minority of developers at the top, and an army of low wage monkeys at the bottom who can troubleshoot
from a script - until AI comes along that can code faster and more accurately.
Interesting piece that's fundamentally flawed. I'm a software engineer myself. There is a reason
a University education of a minimum of three years is the base line for a junior developer or
'coder'.
Software engineering isn't just writing code. I would say 80% of my time is spent designing
and structuring software before I even touch the code.
Explaining software engineering as a discipline at a high level to people who don't understand
it is simple.
Most of us who learn to drive learn a few basics about the mechanics of a car. We know that
brake pads need to be replaced, we know that fuel is pumped into an engine when we press the gas
pedal. Most of us know how to change a bulb if it blows.
The vast majority of us wouldn't be able to replace a head gasket or clutch though. Just knowing
the basics isn't enough to make you a mechanic.
Studying in school isn't enough to produce software engineers. Software engineering isn't just
writing code, it's cross discipline. We also need to understand the science behind the computer,
we need too understand logic, data structures, timings, how to manage memory, security, how databases
work etc.
A few years of learning at school isn't nearly enough, a degree isn't enough on its own due
to the dynamic and ever evolving nature of software engineering. Schools teach technology that
is out of date and typically don't explain the science very well.
This is why most companies don't want new developers, they want people with experience and
multiple skills.
Programming is becoming cool and people think that because of that it's easy to become a skilled
developer. It isn't. It takes time and effort and most kids give up.
French was on the national curriculum when I was at school. Most people including me can't
hold a conversation in French though.
Ultimately there is a SKILL shortage. And that's because skill takes a long time, successes
and failures to acquire. Most people just give up.
This article is akin to saying 'schools are teaching basic health to reduce the wages of Doctors'.
It didn't happen.
There is a difference. When you teach people music you teach a skill that can be used for a lifetimes
enjoyment. One might sit at a piano in later years and play. One is hardly likely to 'do a bit
of coding' in ones leisure time.
The other thing is how good are people going to get at coding and how long will they retain
the skill if not used? I tend to think maths is similar to coding and most adults have pretty
terrible maths skills not venturing far beyond arithmetic. Not many remember how to solve a quadratic
equation or even how to rearrange some algebra.
One more thing is we know that if we teach people music they will find a use for it, if only
in their leisure time. We don't know that coding will be in any way useful because we don't know
if there will be coding jobs in the future. AI might take over coding but we know that AI won't
take over playing piano for pleasure.
If we want to teach logical thinking then I think maths has always done this and we should
make sure people are better at maths.
Am I missing something here? Being able to code is a skill that is a useful addition to the skill
armoury of a youngster entering the work place. Much like reading, writing, maths... Not only
is it directly applicable and pervasive in our modern world, it is built upon logic.
The important point is that American schools are not ONLY teaching youngsters to code, and
producing one dimensional robots... instead coding makes up one part of their overall skill set.
Those who wish to develop their coding skills further certainly can choose to do so. Those who
specialise elsewhere are more than likely to have found the skills they learnt whilst coding useful
anyway.
I struggle to see how there is a hidden capitalist agenda here. I would argue learning the
basics of coding is simply becoming seen as an integral part of the school curriculum.
The word "coding" is shorthand for "computer programming" or "software development" and it masks
the depth and range of skills that might be required, depending on the application.
This subtlety is lost, I think, on politicians and perhaps the general public. Asserting that
teaching lots of people to code is a sneaky way to commodotise an industry might have some truth
to it, but remember that commodotisation (or "sharing and re-use" as developers might call it)
is nothing new. The creation of freely available and re-usable software components and APIs has
driven innovation, and has put much power in the hands of developers who would not otherwise have
the skill or time to tackle such projects.
There's nothing to fear from teaching more people to "code", just as there's nothing to fear
from teaching more people to "play music". These skills simply represent points on a continuum.
There's room for everyone, from the kid on a kazoo all the way to Coltrane at the Village Vanguard.
I taught CS. Out of around 100 graduates I'd say maybe 5 were reasonable software engineers.
The rest would be fine in tech support or other associated trades, but not writing software. Its
not just a set of trainable skills, its a set of attitudes and ways of perceiving and understanding
that just aren't that common.
I can't understand the rush to teach coding in schools. First of all I don't think we are going
to be a country of millions of coders and secondly if most people have the skills then coding
is hardly going to be a well paid job. Thirdly you can learn coding from scratch after school
like people of my generation did. You could argue that it is part of a well rounded education
but then it is as important for your career as learning Shakespeare, knowing what an oxbow lake
is or being able to do calculus: most jobs just won't need you to know.
While you roll on the floor laughing, these countries will slowly but surely get their act together.
That is how they work. There are top quality coders over there and they will soon promoted into
a position to organise the others.
You are probably too young to remember when people laughed at electronic products when they
were made in Japan then Taiwan. History will repeat it's self.
Yes it's ironic and no different here in the UK. Traditionally Labour was the party focused on
dividing the economic pie more fairly, Tories on growing it for the benefit of all. It's now completely
upside down with Tories paying lip service to the idea of pay rises but in reality supporting
this deflationary race to the bottom, hammering down salaries and so shrinking discretionary spending
power which forces price reductions to match and so more pressure on employers to cut costs ...
ad infinitum.
Labour now favour policies which would cause an expansion across the entire economy through pay
rises and dramatically increased investment with perhaps more tolerance of inflation to achieve
it.
Not surprising if they're working for a company that is cold-calling people - which should be
banned in my opinion. Call centres providing customer support are probably less abuse-heavy since
the customer is trying to get something done.
I taught myself to code in 1974. Fortran, COBOL were first. Over the years as a aerospace engineer
I coded in numerous languages ranging from PLM, Snowball, Basic, and more assembly languages than
I can recall, not to mention deep down in machine code on more architectures than most know even
existed. Bottom line is that coding is easy. It doesn't take a genius to code, just another way
of thinking. Consider all the bugs in the software available now. These "coders", not sufficiently
trained need adult supervision by engineers who know what they are doing for computer systems
that are important such as the electrical grid, nuclear weapons, and safety critical systems.
If you want to program toy apps then code away, if you want to do something important learn engineering
AND coding.
Laughable. It takes only an above-average IQ to code. Today's coders are akin to the auto mechanics
of the 1950s where practically every high school had auto shop instruction . . . nothing but a
source of cheap labor for doing routine implementations of software systems using powerful code
libraries built by REAL software engineers.
I disagree. Technology firms are just like other firms. Why then the collusion not to pay more
to workers coming from other companies? To believe that they are anything else is naive. The author
is correct. We need policies that actually grow the economy and not leaders who cave to what the
CEOs want like Bill Clinton did. He brought NAFTA at the behest of CEOs and all it ended up doing
was ripping apart the rust belt and ushering in Trump.
So the media always needs some bad guys to write about, and this month they seem to have it in
for the tech industry. The article is BS. I interview a lot of people to join a large tech company,
and I can guarantee you that we aren't trying to find cheaper labor, we're looking for the best
talent.
I know that lots of different jobs have been outsourced to low cost areas, but these days the
top companies are instead looking for the top talent globally.
I see this article as a hit piece against Silicon Valley, and it doesn't fly in the face of
the evidence.
This has got to be the most cynical and idiotic social interest piece I have ever read in the
Guardian. Once upon a time it was very helpful to learn carpentry and machining, but now, even
if you are learning those, you will get a big and indispensable headstart if you have some logic
and programming skills. The fact is, almost no matter what you do, you can apply logic and programming
skills to give you an edge. Even journalists.
Yup, rings true. I've been in hi tech for over 40 years and seen the changes. I was in Silicon
Valley for 10 years on a startup. India is taking over, my current US company now has a majority
Indian executive and is moving work to India. US politicians push coding to drive down wages to
Indian levels.
On the bright side I am old enough and established enough to quit tomorrow,
its someone else's problem, but I still despise those who have sold us out, like the Clintons,
the Bushes, the Googoids, the Zuckerboids.
Sure markets existed before governments, but capitalism didn't, can't in fact. It needs the organs
of state, the banking system, an education system, and an infrastructure.
Then teach them other things but not coding! Here in Australia every child of school age has to
learn coding. Now tell me that everyone of them will need it? Look beyond computers as coding
will soon be automated just like every other job.
If you have never coded then you will not appreciate how labour intensive it is. Coders effectively
use line editors to type in, line by line, the instructions. And syntax is critical; add a comma
when you meant a semicolon and the code doesn't work properly. Yeah, we use frameworks and libraries
of already written subroutines, but, in the end, it is all about manually typing in the code.
Which is an expensive way of doing things (hence the attractions of 'off-shoring' the coding
task to low cost economies in Asia).
And this is why teaching kids to code is a waste of time.
Already, AI based systems are addressing the task of interpreting high level design models
and simply generating the required application.
One of the first uses templates and a smart chatbot to enable non-tech business people to build
their websites. By describe in non-coding terms what they want, the chatbot is able to assemble
the necessary components and make the requisite template amendments to build a working website.
Much cheaper than hiring expensive coders to type it all in manually.
It's early days yet, but coding may well be one of the big losers to AI automation along with
all those back office clerical jobs.
Teaching kids how to think about design rather than how to code would be much more valuable.
Thick-skinned? Just because you might get a few error messages from the compiler? Call centre
workers have to put up with people telling them to fuck off eight hours a day.
Spot on. Society will never need more than 1% of its people to code. We will need far more garbage
men. There are only so many (relatively) good jobs to go around and its about competing to get
them.
I'm a professor (not of computer science) and yet, I try to give my students a basic understanding
of algorithms and logic, to spark an interest and encourage them towards programming. I have no
skin in the game, except that I've seen unemployment first-hand, and want them to avoid it. The
best chance most of them have is to learn to code.
Educating youth does not drive wages down. It drives our economy up. China, India, and other
countries are training youth in programming skills. Educating our youth means that they will
be able to compete globally.
This is the standard GOP stand that we don't need to educate our youth, but instead fantasize
about high-paying manufacturing jobs miraculously coming back.
Many jobs, including new manufacturing jobs have an element of coding because they are
automated. Other industries require coding skills to maintain web sites and keep computer
systems running. Learning coding skills opens these doors.
Coding teaches logic, an essential thought process. Learning to code, like learning anything,
increases the brains ability to adapt to new environments which is essential to our survival
as a species.
We must invest in educating our youth.
"Contrary to public perception, the economy doesn't actually need that many more
programmers." This really looks like a straw man introducing a red herring. A skill can be
extremely valuable for those who do not pursue it as a full time profession.
The economy doesn't actually need that many more typists, pianists, mathematicians,
athletes, dietitians. So, clearly, teaching typing, the piano, mathematics, physical
education, and nutrition is a nefarious plot to drive down salaries in those professions.
None of those skills could possibly enrich the lives or enhance the productivity of builders,
lawyers, public officials, teachers, parents, or store managers.
A study by the Economic Policy Institute found that the supply of American college
graduates with computer science degrees is 50% greater than the number hired into the tech
industry each year.
You're assuming that all those people are qualified to work in software because they have
a piece of paper that says so, but that's not a valid assumption. The quality of computer
science degree courses is generally poor, and most people aren't willing or able to teach
themselves. Universities are motivated to award degrees anyway because if they only awarded
degrees to students who are actually qualified then that would reflect very poorly on their
quality of teaching.
A skills shortage doesn't mean that everyone who claims to have a skill gets hired and
there are still some jobs left over that aren't being done. It means that employers are
forced to hire people who are incompetent in order to fill all their positions. Many people
who get jobs in programming can't really do it and do nothing but create work for everyone
else. That's why most of the software you use every day doesn't work properly. That's why
competent programmers' salaries are still high in spite of the apparently large number of
"qualified" people who aren't employed as programmers.
"... You can learn to code, but that doesn't mean you'll be good at it. There will be a few who excel but most will not. This isn't a reflection on them but rather the reality of the situation. In any given area some will do poorly, more will do fairly, and a few will excel. The same applies in any field. ..."
"... Oh no, there's loads of people who say they're coders, who have on their CV that they're coders, that have been paid to be coders. Loads of them. Amazingly, about 9 out of 10 of them, experienced coders all, spent ages doing it, not a problem to do it, definitely a coder, not a problem being "hands on"... can't actually write working code when we actually ask them to. ..."
"... I feel for your brother, and I've experienced the exact same BS "test" that you're describing. However, when I said "rudimentary coding exam", I wasn't talking about classic fiz-buz questions, Fibonacci problems, whiteboard tests, or anything of the sort. We simply ask people to write a small amount of code that will solve a simple real world problem. Something that they would be asked to do if they got hired. We let them take a long time to do it. We let them use Google to look things up if they need. You would be shocked how many "qualified applicants" can't do it. ..."
"... "...coding is not magic. It is a technical skill, akin to carpentry. " I think that is a severe underestimation of the level of expertise required to conceptualise and deliver robust and maintainable code. The complexity of integrating software is more equivalent to constructing an entire building with components of different materials. If you think teaching coding is enough to enable software design and delivery then good luck. ..."
"... Being able to write code and being able to program are two very different skills. In language terms its the difference between being able to read and write (say) English and being able to write literature; obviously you need a grasp of the language to write literature but just knowing the language is not the same as being able to assemble and marshal thought into a coherent pattern prior to setting it down. ..."
"... What a dumpster argument. I am not a programmer or even close, but a basic understanding of coding has been important to my professional life. Coding isn't just about writing software. Understanding how algorithms work, even simple ones, is a general skill on par with algebra. ..."
"... Never mind that a good education is clearly one of the most important things you can do for a person to improve their quality of life wherever they live in the world. It's "neoliberal," so we better hate it. ..."
"... A lot of resumes come across my desk that look qualified on paper, but that's not the same thing as being able to do the job. Secondarily, while I agree that one day our field might be replaced by automation, there's a level of creativity involved with good software engineering that makes your carpenter comparison a bit flawed. ..."
Agreed, to many people 'coding' consists of copying other people's JavaScript snippets from
StackOverflow... I tire of the many frauds in the business...
You can learn to code, but that doesn't mean you'll be good at it. There will be a few who
excel but most will not. This isn't a reflection on them but rather the reality of the
situation. In any given area some will do poorly, more will do fairly, and a few will excel.
The same applies in any field.
Oh, rubbish. I'm in the process of retiring from my job as an Android software designer so
I'm tasked with hiring a replacement for my organisation. It pays extremely well, the work is
interesting, and the company is successful and serves an important worldwide industry.
Still, finding highly-qualified people is hard and they get snatched up in mid-interview
because the demand is high. Not only that but at these pay scales, we can pretty much expect
the Guardian will do yet another article about the unconscionable gap between what rich,
privileged techies like software engineers make and everyone else.
Really, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If tech workers are well-paid we're
castigated for gentrifying neighbourhoods and living large, and yet anything that threatens
to lower what we're paid produces conspiracy-theory articles like this one.
I learned to cook in school. Was there a shortage of cooks? No. Did I become a professional
cook? No. but I sure as hell would not have missed the skills I learned for the world, and I
use them every day.
Oh no, there's loads of people who say they're coders, who have on their CV that they're
coders, that have been paid to be coders. Loads of them.
Amazingly, about 9 out of 10 of them, experienced coders all, spent ages doing it, not a
problem to do it, definitely a coder, not a problem being "hands on"... can't actually
write working code when we actually ask them to.
I feel for your brother, and I've experienced the exact same BS "test" that you're
describing. However, when I said "rudimentary coding exam", I wasn't talking about classic
fiz-buz questions, Fibonacci problems, whiteboard tests, or anything of the sort. We simply
ask people to write a small amount of code that will solve a simple real world problem.
Something that they would be asked to do if they got hired. We let them take a long time to
do it. We let them use Google to look things up if they need. You would be shocked how many
"qualified applicants" can't do it.
The demonization of Silicon Valley is clearly the next place to put all blame. Look what
"they" did to us: computers, smart phones, HD television, world-wide internet, on and on. Get
a rope!
I moved there in 1978 and watched the orchards and trailer parks on North 1st St. of San
Jose transform into a concrete jungle. There used to be quite a bit of semiconductor
equipment and device manufacturing in SV during the 80s and 90s. Now quite a few buildings
have the same name : AVAILABLE. Most equipment and device manufacturing has moved to
Asia.
Programming started with binary, then machine code (hexadecimal or octal) and moved to
assembler as a compiled and linked structure. More compiled languages like FORTRAN, BASIC,
PL-1, COBOL, PASCAL, C (and all its "+'s") followed making programming easier for the less
talented.
Now the script based languages (HTML, JAVA, etc.) are even higher level and
accessible to nearly all. Programming has become a commodity and will be priced like milk,
wheat, corn, non-unionized workers and the like. The ship has sailed on this activity as a
career.
"intelligence, creativity, diligence, communication ability, or anything else that a job"
None of those are any use if, when asked to turn your intelligent, creative, diligent,
communicated idea into some software, you perform as well as most candidates do at simple
coding assessments... and write stuff that doesn't work.
At its root, the campaign for code education isn't about giving the next generation a
shot at earning the salary of a Facebook engineer. It's about ensuring those salaries no
longer exist, by creating a source of cheap labor for the tech industry.
Of course the writer does not offer the slightest shred of evidence to support the idea
that this is the actual goal of these programs. So it appears that the tinfoil-hat
conspiracy brigade on the Guardian is operating not only below the line, but above it,
too.
The fact is that few of these students will ever become software engineers (which,
incidentally, is my profession) but programming skills are essential in many professions for
writing little scripts to automate various tasks, or to just understand 21st century
technology.
Sadly this is another article by a partial journalist who knows nothing about the software
industry, but hopes to subvert what he had read somewhere to support a position he had
already assumed. As others had said, understanding coding had already become akin to being able to use a
pencil. It is a basic requirement of many higher level roles.
But knowing which end of a pencil to put on the paper (the equivalent of the level of
coding taught in schools) isn't the same as being an artist. Moreover anyone who knows the field recognises that top coders are gifted, they embody
genius. There are coding Caravaggio's out there, but few have the experience to know that. No
amount of teaching will produce high level coders from average humans, there is an intangible
something needed, as there is in music and art, to elevate the merely good to genius.
All to say, however many are taught the basics, it won't push down the value of the most
talented coders, and so won't reduce the costs of the technology industry in any meaningful
way as it is an industry, like art, that relies on the few not the many.
Not all of those children will want to become programmers but at least the barrier to
entry,
- for more to at least experience it - will be lower.
Teaching music to only the children whose parents can afford music tuition means than
society misses out on a greater potential for some incredible gifted musicians to shine
through.
Moreover, learning to code really means learning how to wrangle with the practical
application of abstract concepts, algorithms, numerical skills, logic, reasoning, etc. which
are all transferrable skills some of which are not in the scope of other classes, certainly
practically.
Like music, sport, literature etc. programming a computer, a website, a device, a smartphone
is an endeavour that can be truly rewarding as merely a pastime, and similarly is limited
only by ones imagination.
"...coding is not magic. It is a technical skill, akin to carpentry. " I think that is a
severe underestimation of the level of expertise required to conceptualise and deliver robust
and maintainable code. The complexity of integrating software is more equivalent to
constructing an entire building with components of different materials. If you think teaching
coding is enough to enable software design and delivery then good luck.
Yeah, but mania over coding skills inevitably pushes over skills out of the curriculum (or
deemphasizes it). Education is zero-sum in that there's only so much time and energy to
devote to it. Hence, you need more than vague appeals to "enhancement," especially given the
risks pointed out by the author.
"Talented coders will start new tech businesses and create more jobs."
That could be argued for any skill set, including those found in the humanities and social
sciences likely to pushed out by the mania over coding ability. Education is zero-sum: Time
spent on one subject is time that invariably can't be spent learning something else.
"If they can't literally fix everything let's just get rid of them, right?"
That's a strawman. His point is rooted in the recognition that we only have so much time,
energy, and money to invest in solutions. One's that feel good but may not do anything
distract us for the deeper structural issues in our economy. The probably with thinking
"education" will fix everything is that it leaves the status quo unquestioned.
Being able to write code and being able to program are two very different skills. In language
terms its the difference between being able to read and write (say) English and being able to
write literature; obviously you need a grasp of the language to write literature but just
knowing the language is not the same as being able to assemble and marshal thought into a
coherent pattern prior to setting it down.
To confuse things further there's various levels of skill that all look the same to the
untutored eye. Suppose you wished to bridge a waterway. If that waterway was a narrow ditch
then you could just throw a plank across. As the distance to be spanned got larger and larger
eventually you'd have to abandon intuition for engineering and experience. Exactly the same
issues happen with software but they're less tangible; anyone can build a small program but a
complex system requires a lot of other knowledge (in my field, that's engineering knowledge
-- coding is almost an afterthought).
Its a good idea to teach young people to code but I wouldn't raise their expectations of
huge salaries too much. For children educating them in wider, more general, fields and
abstract activities such as music will pay off huge dividends, far more than just teaching
them whatever the fashionable language du jour is. (...which should be Logo but its too
subtle and abstract, it doesn't look "real world" enough!).
I don't see this is an issue. Sure, there could be ulterior motives there, but anyone who
wants to still be employed in 20 years has to know how to code . It is not that everyone will
be a coder, but their jobs will either include part-time coding or will require understanding
of software and what it can and cannot do. AI is going to be everywhere.
What a dumpster argument. I am not a programmer or even close, but a basic understanding of
coding has been important to my professional life. Coding isn't just about writing software.
Understanding how algorithms work, even simple ones, is a general skill on par with algebra.
But is isn't just about coding for Tarnoff. He seems to hold education in contempt
generally. "The far-fetched premise of neoliberal school reform is that education can mend
our disintegrating social fabric." If they can't literally fix everything let's just get rid
of them, right?
Never mind that a good education is clearly one of the most important things
you can do for a person to improve their quality of life wherever they live in the world.
It's "neoliberal," so we better hate it.
I'm not going to argue that the goal of mass education isn't to drive down wages, but the
idea that the skills gap is a myth doesn't hold water in my experience. I'm a software
engineer and manager at a company that pays well over the national average, with great
benefits, and it is downright difficult to find a qualified applicant who can pass a
rudimentary coding exam.
A lot of resumes come across my desk that look qualified on paper,
but that's not the same thing as being able to do the job. Secondarily, while I agree that
one day our field might be replaced by automation, there's a level of creativity involved
with good software engineering that makes your carpenter comparison a bit flawed.
"... I do think it's peculiar that Silicon Valley requires so many H1B visas... 'we can't find the
talent here' is the main excuse ..."
"... This is interesting. Indeed, I do think there is excess supply of software programmers. ..."
"... Well, it is either that or the kids themselves who have to pay for it and they are even less
prepared to do so. Ideally, college education should be tax payer paid but this is not the case in the
US. And the employer ideally should pay for the job related training, but again, it is not the case
in the US. ..."
"... Plenty of people care about the arts but people can't survive on what the arts pay. That was
pretty much the case all through human history. ..."
"... I was laid off at your age in the depths of the recent recession and I got a job. ..."
"... The great thing about software , as opposed to many other jobs, is that it can be done at home
which you're laid off. Write mobile (IOS or Android) apps or work on open source projects and get stuff
up on github. I've been to many job interviews with my apps loaded on mobile devices so I could show
them what I've done. ..."
"... Schools really can't win. Don't teach coding, and you're raising a generation of button-pushers.
Teach it, and you're pandering to employers looking for cheap labour. Unions in London objected to children
being taught carpentry in the twenties and thirties, so it had to be renamed "manual instruction" to
get round it. Denying children useful skills is indefensible. ..."
I do think it's peculiar that Silicon Valley requires so many H1B visas... 'we can't find
the talent here' is the main excuse, though many 'older' (read: over 40) native-born tech
workers will tell your that's plenty of talent here already, but even with the immigration hassles,
H1B workers will be cheaper overall...
This is interesting. Indeed, I do think there is excess supply of software programmers.
There is only a modest number of decent jobs, say as an algorithms developer in finance,
general architecture of complex systems or to some extent in systems security. However, these
jobs are usually occupied and the incumbents are not likely to move on quickly. Road blocks are
also put up by creating sub networks of engineers who ensure that some knowledge is not ubiquitous.
Most very high paying jobs in the technology sector are in the same standard upper management
roles as in every other industry.
Still, the ability to write a computer program in an enabler, knowing how it works means you
have an ability to imagine something and make it real. To me it is a bit like language, some people
can use language to make more money than others, but it is still important to be able to have
a basic level of understanding.
And yet I know a lot of people that has happened to. Better to replace a $125K a year programmer
with one who will do the same, or even less, job for $50K.
This could backfire if the programmers don't find the work or pay to match their expectations...
Programmers, after all tend to make very good hackers if their minds are turned to it.
While I like your idea of what designing a computer program involves, in my nearly 40
years experience as a programmer I have rarely seen this done.
How else can you do it?
Java is popular because it's a very versatile language - On this list it's the most popular
general-purpose programming language. (Above it javascript is just a scripting language and HTML/CSS
aren't even programming languages)
https://fossbytes.com/most-used-popular-programming-languages/
... and below it you have to go down to C# at 20% to come to another general-purpose language,
and even that's a Microsoft house language.
Also the "correct" choice of programming languages is also based on how many people in the
shop know it so they maintain code that's written in it by someone else.
> job-specific training is completely different. What a joke to persuade public school districts
to pick up the tab on job training.
Well, it is either that or the kids themselves who have to pay for it and they are even
less prepared to do so. Ideally, college education should be tax payer paid but this is not the
case in the US. And the employer ideally should pay for the job related training, but again, it
is not the case in the US.
> The bigger problem is that nobody cares about the arts, and as expensive as education
is, nobody wants to carry around a debt on a skill that won't bring in the buck
Plenty of people care about the arts but people can't survive on what the arts pay. That
was pretty much the case all through human history.
Since newspaper are consolidating and cutting jobs gotta clamp down on colleges offering BA degrees,
particularly in English Literature and journalism.
This article focuses on the US schools, but I can imagine it's the same in the UK. I don't think
these courses are going to be about creating great programmers capable of new innovations as much
as having a work force that can be their own IT Help Desk.
They'll learn just enough in these classes to do that.
Then most companies will be hiring for other jobs, but want to make sure you have the IT skills
to serve as your own "help desk" (although they will get no salary for their IT work).
I find that quite remarkable - 40 years ago you must have been using assembler and with hardly
any memory to work with. If you blitzed through that without applying the thought processes described,
well...I'm surprised.
I was laid off at your age in the depths of the recent recession and I got a job. As
I said in another posting, it usually comes down to fresh skills and good personal references
who will vouch for your work-habits and how well you get on with other members of your team.
The great thing about software , as opposed to many other jobs, is that it can be done
at home which you're laid off. Write mobile (IOS or Android) apps or work on open source projects
and get stuff up on github. I've been to many job interviews with my apps loaded on mobile devices
so I could show them what I've done.
The situation has a direct comparison to today. It has nothing to do with land. There was a certain
amount of profit making work and not enough labour to satisfy demand. There is currently a certain
amount of profit making work and in many situations (especially unskilled low paid work) too much
labour.
So, is teaching people English or arithmetic all about reducing wages for the literate and numerate?
Or is this the most obtuse argument yet for avoiding what everyone in tech knows - even more
blatantly than in many other industries, wages are curtailed by offshoring; and in the US, by
having offshoring centres on US soil.
Well, speaking as someone who spends a lot of time trying to find really good programmers... frankly
there aren't that many about. We take most of ours from Eastern Europe and SE Asia, which is quite
expensive, given the relocation costs to the UK. But worth it.
So, yes, if more British kids learnt about coding, it might help a bit. But not much; the real
problem is that few kids want to study IT in the first place, and that the tuition standards in
most UK universities are quite low, even if they get there.
Robots, or AI, are already making us more productive. I can write programs today in an afternoon
that would have taken me a week a decade or two ago.
I can create a class and the IDE will take care of all the accessors, dependencies, enforce
our style-guide compliance, stub-in the documentation ,even most test cases, etc, and all I have
to write is very-specific stuff required by my application - the other 90% is generated for me.
Same with UI/UX - stubs in relevant event handlers, bindings, dependencies, etc.
Programmers are a zillion times more productive than in the past, yet the demand keeps growing
because so much more stuff in our lives has processors and code. Your car has dozens of processors
running lots of software; your TV, your home appliances, your watch, etc.
Schools really can't win. Don't teach coding, and you're raising a generation of button-pushers.
Teach it, and you're pandering to employers looking for cheap labour. Unions in London objected
to children being taught carpentry in the twenties and thirties, so it had to be renamed "manual
instruction" to get round it. Denying children useful skills is indefensible.
Getting children to learn how to write code, as part of core education, will be the first step
to the long overdue revolution. The rest of us will still have to stick to burning buildings down
and stringing up the aristocracy.
did you misread? it seemed like he was emphasizing that learning to code, like learning art (and
sports and languages), will help them develop skills that benefit them in whatever profession
they choose.
While I like your idea of what designing a computer program involves, in my nearly 40 years experience
as a programmer I have rarely seen this done. And, FWIW, IMHO choosing the tool (programming language)
might reasonably be expected to follow designing a solution, in practice this rarely happens.
No, these days it's Java all the way, from day one.
I'd advise parents that the classes they need to make sure their kids excel in are acting/drama.
There is no better way to getting that promotion or increasing your pay like being a skilled actor
in the job market. It's a fake it till you make it deal.
This really has to be one of the silliest articles I read here in a very long time.
People, let your children learn to code. Even more, educate yourselves and start to code just
for the fun of it - look at it like a game.
The more people know how to code the less likely they are to understand how stuff works. If you
were ever frustrated by how impossible it seems to shop on certain websites, learn to code and
you will be frustrated no more. You will understand the intent behind the process.
Even more, you will understand the inherent limitations and what is the meaning of safety. You
will be able to better protect yourself in a real time connected world.
Learning to code won't turn your kid into a programmer, just like ballet or piano classes won't
mean they'll ever choose art as their livelihood. So let the children learn to code and learn
along with them
Tipping power to employers in any profession by oversupply of labour is not a good thing. Bit
of a macabre example here but...After the Black Death in the middle ages there was a huge under
supply of labour. It produced a consistent rise in wages and conditions and economic development
for hundreds of years after this. Not suggesting a massive depopulation. But you can achieve the
same effects by altering the power balance. With decades of Neoliberalism, the employers side
of the power see-saw is sitting firmly in the mud and is producing very undesired results for
the vast majority of people.
I am 59, and it is not just the age aspect it is the money aspect. They know you have experience
and expectations, and yet they believe hiring someone half the age and half the price, times 2
will replace your knowledge. I have been contracting in IT for 30 years, and now it is obvious
it is over. Experience at some point no longer mitigates age. I think I am at that point now.
Dear, dear, I know, I know, young people today . . . just not as good as we were. Everything is
just going down the loo . . . Just have a nice cuppa camomile (or chamomile if you're a Yank)
and try to relax ... " hey you kids, get offa my lawn !"
There are good reasons to teach coding. Too many of today's computer users are amazingly unaware
of the technology that allows them to send and receive emails, use their smart phones, and use
websites. Few understand the basic issues involved in computer security, especially as it relates
to their personal privacy. Hopefully some introductory computer classes could begin to remedy
this, and the younger the students the better.
Security problems are not strictly a matter of coding.
Security issues persist in tech. Clearly that is not a function of the size of the workforce.
I propose that it is a function of poor management and design skills. These are not taught in
any programming class I ever took. I learned these on the job and in an MBA program, and because
I was determined.
Don't confuse basic workforce training with an effective application of tech to authentic needs.
How can the "disruption" so prized in today's Big Tech do anything but aggravate our social
problems? Tech's disruption begins with a blatant ignorance of and disregard for causes, and believes
to its bones that a high tech app will truly solve a problem it cannot even describe.
indeed that idea has been around as long as cobol and in practice has just made things worse,
the fact that many people outside of software engineering don;t seem to realise is that the coding
itself is a relatively small part of the job
so how many female and old software engineers are there who are unable to get a job, i'm one of
them at 55 finding it impossible to get a job and unlike many 'developers' i know what i'm doing
Training more people for an occupation will result in more people becoming qualified to perform
that occupation, irregardless of the fact that many will perform poorly at it. A CS degree is
no guarantee of competency, but it is one of the best indicators of general qualification we have
at the moment. If you can provide a better metric for analyzing the underlying qualifications
of the labor force, I'd love to hear it.
Regarding your anecdote, while interesting, it poor evidence when compared to the aggregate
statistical data analyzed in the EPI study.
Good grief. It's not job-specific training. You sound like someone who knows nothing about
computer programming.
Designing a computer program requires analysing the task; breaking it down into its components,
prioritising them and identifying interdependencies, and figuring out which parts of it can be
broken out and done separately. Expressing all this in some programming language like Java, C,
or C++ is quite secondary.
So once you learn to organise a task properly you can apply it to anything - remodeling a house,
planning a vacation, repairing a car, starting a business, or administering a (non-software) project
at work.
"... Thank you. The kids that spend high school researching independently and spend their nights hacking just for the love of it and getting a job without college are some of the most competent I've ever worked with. Passionless college grads that just want a paycheck are some of the worst. ..."
"... how about how new labor tried to sign away IT access in England to India in exchange for banking access there, how about the huge loopholes in bringing in cheap IT workers from elsewhere in the world, not conspiracies, but facts ..."
"... And I've never recommended hiring anyone right out of school who could not point me to a project they did on their own, i.e., not just grades and test scores. I'd like to see an IOS or Android app, or a open-source component, or utility or program of theirs on GitHub, or something like that. ..."
"... most of what software designers do is not coding. It requires domain knowledge and that's where the "smart" IDEs and AI coding wizards fall down. It will be a long time before we get where you describe. ..."
Instant feedback is one of the things I really like about programming, but it's also the
thing that some people can't handle. As I'm developing a program all day long the compiler is
telling me about build errors or warnings or when I go to execute it it crashes or produces
unexpected output, etc. Software engineers are bombarded all day with negative feedback and
little failures. You have to be thick-skinned for this work.
How is it shallow and lazy? I'm hiring for the real world so I want to see some real world
accomplishments. If the candidate is fresh out of university they can't point to work
projects in industry because they don't have any. But they CAN point to stuff they've done on
their own. That shows both motivation and the ability to finish something. Why do you object
to it?
Thank you. The kids that spend high school researching independently and spend their nights
hacking just for the love of it and getting a job without college are some of the most
competent I've ever worked with. Passionless college grads that just want a paycheck are some
of the worst.
There is a big difference between "coding" and programming. Coding for a smart phone app is a
matter of calling functions that are built into the device. For example, there are functions
for the GPS or for creating buttons or for simulating motion in a game. These are what we
used to call subroutines. The difference is that whereas we had to write our own subroutines,
now they are just preprogrammed functions. How those functions are written is of little or no
importance to today's coders.
Nor are they able to program on that level. Real programming
requires not only a knowledge of programming languages, but also a knowledge of the underlying
algorithms that make up actual programs. I suspect that "coding" classes operate on a quite
superficial level.
Its not about the amount of work or the amount of labor. Its about the comparative
availability of both and how that affects the balance of power, and that in turn affects the
overall quality of life for the 'majority' of people.
Most of this is not true. Peter Nelson gets it right by talking about breaking steps down and
thinking rationally. The reason you can't just teach the theory, however, is that humans
learn much better with feedback. Think about trying to learn how to build a fast car, but you
never get in and test its speed. That would be silly. Programming languages take the system
of logic that has been developed for centuries and gives instant feedback on the results.
It's a language of rationality.
This article is about the US. The tech industry in the EU is entirely different, and
basically moribund. Where is the EU's Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, Oracle, Intel,
Facebook, etc, etc? The opportunities for exciting interesting work, plus the time and
schedule pressures that force companies to overlook stuff like age because they need a
particular skill Right Now, don't exist in the EU. I've done very well as a software engineer
in my 60's in the US; I cannot imagine that would be the case in the EU.
sorry but that's just not true, i doubt you are really programming still, or quasi programmer
but really a manager who like to keep their hand in, you certainly aren't busy as you've been
posting all over this cif. also why would you try and hire someone with such disparate
skillsets, makes no sense at all
oh and you'd be correct that i do have workplace issues, ie i have a disability and i also
suffer from depression, but that shouldn't bar me from employment and again regarding my
skills going stale, that again contradicts your statement that it's about
planning/analysis/algorithms etc that you said above ( which to some extent i agree with
)
Not at all, it's really egalitarian. If I want to hire someone to paint my portrait, the best
way to know if they're any good is to see their previous work. If they've never painted a
portrait before then I may want to go with the girl who has
Right? It's ridiculous. "Hey, there's this industry you can train for that is super valuable
to society and pays really well!"
Then Ben Tarnoff, "Don't do it! If you do you'll drive down wages for everyone else in the
industry. Build your fire starting and rock breaking skills instead."
how about how new labor tried to sign away IT access in England to India in exchange for
banking access there, how about the huge loopholes in bringing in cheap IT workers from
elsewhere in the world, not conspiracies, but facts
I think the difference between gifted and not is motivation. But I agree it's not innate. The
kid who stayed up all night in high school hacking into the school server to fake his coding
class grade is probably more gifted than the one who spent 4 years in college getting a BS in
CS because someone told him he could get a job when he got out.
I've done some hiring in my life and I always ask them to tell me about stuff they did on
their own.
As several people have pointed out, writing a computer program requires analyzing and
breaking down a task into steps, identifying interdependencies, prioritizing the order,
figuring out what parts can be organized into separate tasks that be done separately, etc.
These are completely independent of the language - I've been programming for 40 years in
everything from FORTRAN to APL to C to C# to Java and it's all the same. Not only that but
they transcend programming - they apply to planning a vacation, remodeling a house, or fixing
a car.
Neither coding nor having a bachelor's degree in computer science makes you a suitable job
candidate. I've done a lot of recruiting and interviews in my life, and right now I'm trying
to hire someone. And I've never recommended hiring anyone right out of school who
could not point me to a project they did on their own, i.e., not just grades and test scores.
I'd like to see an IOS or Android app, or a open-source component, or utility or program of
theirs on GitHub, or something like that.
That's the thing that distinguishes software from many other fields - you can do something
real and significant on your own. If you haven't managed to do so in 4 years of college
you're not a good candidate.
Within the next year coding will be old news and you will simply be able to describe
things in ur native language in such a way that the machine will be able to execute any set
of instructions you give it.
In a sense that's already true, as i noted elsewhere. 90% of the code in my projects (Java
and C# in their respective IDEs) is machine generated. I do relatively little "coding". But
the flaw in your idea is this: most of what software designers do is not coding. It requires
domain knowledge and that's where the "smart" IDEs and AI coding wizards fall down. It will
be a long time before we get where you describe.
Completely agree. At the highest levels there is more work that goes into managing complexity and making
sure nothing is missed than in making the wheels turn and the beepers beep.
I've actually interviewed people for very senior technical positions in Investment Banks who
had all the fancy talk in the world and yet failed at some very basic "write me a piece of
code that does X" tests.
Next hurdle on is people who have learned how to deal with certain situations and yet
don't really understand how it works so are unable to figure it out if you change the problem
parameters.
That said, the average coder is only slightly beyond this point. The ones who can take in
account maintenability and flexibility for future enhancements when developing are already a
minority, and those who can understand the why of software development process steps, design
software system architectures or do a proper Technical Analysis are very rare.
Hubris.
It's easy to mistake efficiency born of experience as innate talent. The difference
between a 'gifted coder' and a 'non gifted junior coder' is much more likely to be 10 or 15
years sitting at a computer, less if there are good managers and mentors involved.
Politicians love the idea of teaching children to 'code', because it sounds so modern, and
nobody could possible object... could they? Unfortunately it simply shows up their utter
ignorance of technical matters because there isn't a language called 'coding'. Computer
programming languages have changed enormously over the years, and continue to evolve. If you
learn the wrong language you'll be about as welcome in the IT industry as a lamp-lighter or a
comptometer operator.
The pace of change in technology can render skills and qualifications obsolete in a matter
of a few years, and only the very best IT employers will bother to retrain their staff - it's
much cheaper to dump them. (Most IT posts are outsourced through agencies anyway - those that
haven't been off-shored. )
And this isn't even a good conspiracy theory; it's a bad one. He offers no evidence
that there's an actual plan or conspiracy to do this. I'm looking for an account of where the
advocates of coding education met to plot this in some castle in Europe or maybe a secret
document like "The Protocols of the Elders of Google", or some such.
Tool Users Vs Tool Makers.
The really good coders actually get why certain things work as they do and can adjust them
for different conditions. The mass produced coders are basically code copiers and code gluing
specialists.
People who get Masters and PhD's in computer science are not usually "coders" or software
engineers - they're usually involved in obscure, esoteric research for which there really is
very little demand. So it doesn't surprise me that they're unemployed. But if someone has a
Bachelor's in CS and they're unemployed I would have to wonder what they spent
their time at university doing.
The thing about software that distinguishes it from lots of other fields is that you can
make something real and significant on your own . I would expect any recent CS
major I hire to be able to show me an app or an open-source component or something similar
that they made themselves, and not just test scores and grades. If they could not then I
wouldn't even think about hiring them.
Fortunately for those of us who are actually good at coding, the difference in productivity
between a gifted coder and a non-gifted junior developer is something like 100-fold.
Knowing how to code and actually being efficient at creating software programs and systems
are about as far apart as knowing how to write and actually being able to write a bestselling
exciting Crime trilogy.
I do think there is excess supply of software programmers. There is only a modest number
of decent jobs, say as an algorithms developer in finance, general architecture of complex
systems or to some extent in systems security.
This article is about coding; most of those jobs require very little of that.
Most very high paying jobs in the technology sector are in the same standard upper
management roles as in every other industry.
How do you define "high paying". Everyone I know (and I know a lot because I've been a sw
engineer for 40 years) who is working fulltime as a software engineer is making a
high-middle-class salary, and can easily afford a home, travel on holiday, investments,
etc.
> Already there. I take it you skipped right past the employment prospects for US STEM
grads - 50% chance of finding STEM work.
That just means 50% of them are no good and need to develop their skills further or try
something else.
Not every with a STEM degree from some 3rd rate college is capable of doing complex IT or
STEM work.
So, is teaching people English or arithmetic all about reducing wages for the literate
and numerate?
Yes. Haven't you noticed how wage growth has flattened? That's because some do-gooders"
thought it would be a fine idea to educate the peasants. There was a time when only the
well-to do knew how to read and write, and that's why they well-to-do were well-to-do.
Education is evil. Stop educating people and then those of us who know how to read and write
can charge them for reading and writing letters and email. Better yet, we can have Chinese
and Indians do it for us and we just charge a transaction fee.
Massive amounts of public use cars, it doesn't mean millions need schooling in auto
mechanics. Same for software coding. We aren't even using those who have Bachelors, Masters
and PhDs in CS.
"..importing large numbers of skilled guest workers from other countries through the H1-B
visa program..."
"skilled" is good. H1B has long ( appx 17 years) been abused and turned into trafficking
scheme. One can buy H1B in India. Powerful ethnic networks wheeling & dealing in US &
EU selling IT jobs to essentially migrants.
The real IT wages haven't been stagnant but steadily falling from the 90s. It's easy to
see why. $82K/year IT wage was about average in the 90s. Comparing the prices of housing
(& pretty much everything else) between now gives you the idea.
> not every kid wants or needs to have their soul sucked out of them sitting in front of a
screen full of code for some idiotic service that some other douchbro thinks is the next
iteration of sliced bread
Taking a couple of years of programming are not enough to do this as a job, don't
worry.
But learning to code is like learning maths, - it helps to develop logical thinking, which
will benefit you in every area of your life.
"... A lot of basic entry level jobs require a good level of Excel skills. ..."
"... Programming is a cultural skill; master it, or even understand it on a simple level, and you understand how the 21st century works, on the machinery level. To bereave the children of this crucial insight is to close off a door to their future. ..."
"... What a dumpster argument. I am not a programmer or even close, but a basic understanding of coding has been important to my professional life. Coding isn't just about writing software. Understanding how algorithms work, even simple ones, is a general skill on par with algebra. ..."
"... Never mind that a good education is clearly one of the most important things you can do for a person to improve their quality of life wherever they live in the world. It's "neoliberal," so we better hate it. ..."
"... We've seen this kind of tactic for some time now. Silicon Valley is turning into a series of micromanaged sweatshops (that's what "agile" is truly all about) with little room for genuine creativity, or even understanding of what that actually means. I've seen how impossible it is to explain to upper level management how crappy cheap developers actually diminish productivity and value. All they see is that the requisition is filled for less money. ..."
"... Libertarianism posits that everyone should be free to sell their labour or negotiate their own arrangements without the state interfering. So if cheaper foreign labour really was undercutting American labout the Libertarians would be thrilled. ..."
"... Not producing enough to fill vacancies or not producing enough to keep wages at Google's preferred rate? Seeing as research shows there is no lack of qualified developers, the latter option seems more likely. ..."
"... We're already using Asia as a source of cheap labor for the tech industry. Why do we need to create cheap labor in the US? ..."
There are very few professional Scribes nowadays, a good level of reading & writing is
simplely a default even for the lowest paid jobs. A lot of basic entry level jobs require a
good level of Excel skills. Several years from now basic coding will be necessary to
manipulate basic tools for entry level jobs, especially as increasingly a lot of real code
will be generated by expert systems supervised by a tiny number of supervisors. Coding jobs
will go the same way that trucking jobs will go when driverless vehicles are perfected.
Offer the class but not mandatory. Just like I could never succeed playing football others
will not succeed at coding. The last thing the industry needs is more bad developers showing
up for a paycheck.
Programming is a cultural skill; master it, or even understand it on a simple level, and you
understand how the 21st century works, on the machinery level. To bereave the children of
this crucial insight is to close off a door to their future.
What's next, keep them off Math, because, you know . .
That's some crystal ball you have there. English teachers will need to know how to code? Same
with plumbers? Same with janitors, CEOs, and anyone working in the service industry?
The economy isn't a zero-sum game. Developing a more skilled workforce that can create more
value will lead to economic growth and improvement in the general standard of living.
Talented coders will start new tech businesses and create more jobs.
What a dumpster argument. I am not a programmer or even close, but a basic understanding of
coding has been important to my professional life. Coding isn't just about writing software.
Understanding how algorithms work, even simple ones, is a general skill on par with algebra.
But is isn't just about coding for Tarnoff. He seems to hold education in contempt
generally. "The far-fetched premise of neoliberal school reform is that education can mend
our disintegrating social fabric." If they can't literally fix everything let's just get rid
of them, right?
Never mind that a good education is clearly one of the most important things
you can do for a person to improve their quality of life wherever they live in the world.
It's "neoliberal," so we better hate it.
I agree with the basic point. We've seen this kind of tactic for some time now. Silicon
Valley is turning into a series of micromanaged sweatshops (that's what "agile" is truly all
about) with little room for genuine creativity, or even understanding of what that actually
means. I've seen how impossible it is to explain to upper level management how crappy cheap
developers actually diminish productivity and value. All they see is that the requisition is
filled for less money.
The bigger problem is that nobody cares about the arts, and as expensive as education is,
nobody wants to carry around a debt on a skill that won't bring in the bucks. And
smartphone-obsessed millennials have too short an attention span to fathom how empty their
lives are, devoid of the aesthetic depth as they are.
I can't draw a definite link, but I think algorithm fails, which are based on fanatical
reliance on programmed routines as the solution to everything, are rooted in the shortage of
education and cultivation in the arts.
Economics is a social science, and all this is merely a reflection of shared cultural
values. The problem is, people think it's math (it's not) and therefore set in stone.
Libertarianism posits that everyone should be free to sell their labour or negotiate their
own arrangements without the state interfering. So if cheaper foreign labour really was
undercutting American labout the Libertarians would be thrilled.
But it's not. I'm in my 60's and retiring but I've been a software engineer all my life.
I've worked for many different companies, and in different industries and I've never had any
trouble competing with cheap imported workers. The people I've seen fall behind were ones who
did not keep their skills fresh. When I was laid off in 2009 in my mid-50's I made sure my
mobile-app skills were bleeding edge (in those days ANYTHING having to do with mobile was
bleeding edge) and I used to go to job interviews with mobile devices to showcase what I
could do. That way they could see for themselves and not have to rely on just a CV.
They older guys who fell behind did so because their skills and toolsets had become
obsolete.
Now I'm trying to hire a replacement to write Android code for use in industrial
production and struggling to find someone with enough experience. So where is this oversupply
I keep hearing about?
Not producing enough to fill vacancies or not producing enough to keep wages at Google's
preferred rate? Seeing as research shows there is no lack of qualified developers, the latter
option seems more likely.
It's about ensuring those salaries no longer exist, by creating a source of cheap labor
for the tech industry.
We're already using Asia as a source of cheap labor for the tech industry. Why do we need
to create cheap labor in the US? That just seems inefficient.
There was never any need to give our jobs to foreigners. That is, if you are comparing the
production of domestic vs. foreign workers. The sole need was, and is, to increase profits.
Schools MAY be able to fix big social problems, but only if they teach a well-rounded
curriculum that includes classical history and the humanities. Job-specific training is
completely different. What a joke to persuade public school districts to pick up the tab on
job training. The existing social problems were not caused by a lack of programmers, and
cannot be solved by Big Tech.
I agree with the author that computer programming skills are not that limited in
availability. Big Tech solved the problem of the well-paid professional some years ago by
letting them go, these were mostly workers in their 50s, and replacing them with H1-B
visa-holders from India -- who work for a fraction of their experienced American
counterparts.
It is all about profits. Big Tech is no different than any other "industry."
Supply of apples does not affect the demand for oranges. Teaching coding in high school does
not necessarily alter the supply of software engineers. I studied Chinese History and geology
at University but my doing so has had no effect on the job prospects of people doing those
things for a living.
You would be surprised just how much a little coding knowledge has transformed my ability to
do my job (a job that is not directly related to IT at all).
Because teaching coding does not affect the supply of actual engineers. I've been a
professional software engineer for 40 years and coding is only a small fraction of what I do.
You and the linked article don't know what you're talking about. A CS degree does not equate
to a productive engineer.
A few years ago I was on the recruiting and interviewing committee to try to hire some
software engineers for a scientific instrument my company was making. The entire team had
about 60 people (hw, sw, mech engineers) but we needed 2 or 3 sw engineers with math and
signal-processing expertise. The project was held up for SIX months because we could
not find the people we needed. It would have taken a lot longer than that to train someone up
to our needs. Eventually we brought in some Chinese engineers which cost us MORE than what we
would have paid for an American engineer when you factor in the agency and visa
paperwork.
Modern software engineers are not just generic interchangable parts - 21st century
technology often requires specialised scientific, mathematical, production or business
domain-specific knowledge and those people are hard to find.
Visa jobs are part of trade agreements. To be very specific, US gov (and EU) trade Western
jobs for market access in the East. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/in-india-british-leader-theresa-may-preaches-free-trade-2016-11-07 There is no shortage. This is selling off the West's middle class. Take a look at remittances in wikipedia and you'll get a good idea just how much it costs the
US and EU economies, for sake of record profits to Western industry.
I see advantages in teaching kids to code, and for kids to make arduino and other CPU powered
things. I don't see a lot of interest in science and tech coming from kids in school. There
are too many distractions from social media and game platforms, and not much interest in
developing tools for future tech and science.
Although coding per se is a technical skill it isn't designing or integrating systems. It is
only a small, although essential, part of the whole software engineering process. Learning to
code just gets you up the first steps of a high ladder that you need to climb a fair way if
you intend to use your skills to earn a decent living.
Friend of mine in the SV tech industry reports that they are about 100,000 programmers
short in just the internet security field.
Y'all are trying to create a problem where there isn't one. Maybe we shouldn't teach them
how to read either. They might want to work somewhere besides the grill at McDonalds.
Within the next year coding will be old news and you will simply be able to describe things
in ur native language in such a way that the machine will be able to execute any set of
instructions you give it. Coding is going to change from its purely abstract form that is not
utilized at peak- but if you can describe what you envision in an effective concise manner u
could become a very good coder very quickly -- and competence will be determined entirely by
imagination and the barriers of entry will all but be extinct
Total... utter... no other way... huge... will only get worse... everyone... (not a very
nuanced commentary is it).
I'm glad pieces like this are mounting, it is relevant that we counter the mix of
messianism and opportunism of Silicon Valley propaganda with convincing arguments.
They aren't immigrants. They're visa indentured foreign workers. Why does that matter? It's
part of the cheap+indentured hiring criteria. If it were only cheap, they'd be lowballing
offers to citizen and US new grads.
Correct premises, - proletarianize programmers - many qualified graduates simply can't find jobs. Invalid conclusion: - The problem is there aren't enough good jobs to be trained for.
That conclusion only makes sense if you skip right past ... " importing large numbers of skilled guest workers from other countries through the
H1-B visa program. These workers earn less than their American counterparts, and
possess little bargaining power because they must remain employed to keep their status"
Hiring Americans doesn't "hurt" their record profits. It's incessant greed and collusion
with our corrupt congress.
This column was really annoying. I taught my students how to program when I was given a free
hand to create the computer studies curriculum for a new school I joined. (Not in the UK
thank Dog). 7th graders began with studying the history and uses of computers and
communications tech. My 8th grade learned about computer logic (AND, OR, NOT, etc) and moved
on with QuickBASIC in the second part of the year. My 9th graders learned about databases and
SQL and how to use HTML to make their own Web sites. Last year I received a phone call from
the father of one student thanking me for creating the course, his son had just received a
job offer and now works in San Francisco for Google. I am so glad I taught them "coding" (UGH) as the writer puts it, rather than arty-farty
subjects not worth a damn in the jobs market.
I live and work in Silicon Valley and you have no idea what you are talking about. There's no
shortage of coders at all. Terrific coders are let go because of their age and the
availability of much cheaper foreign coders(no, I am not opposed to immigration).
Looks like you pissed off a ton of people who can't write code and are none to happy with you
pointing out the reason they're slinging insurance for geico.
I think you're quite right that coding skills will eventually enter the mainstream and
slowly bring down the cost of hiring programmers.
The fact is that even if you don't get paid to be a programmer you can absolutely benefit
from having some coding skills.
There may however be some kind of major coding revolution with the advent of quantum
computing. The way code is written now could become obsolete.
A well-argued article that hits the nail on the head. Amongst any group of coders, very few
are truly productive, and they are self starters; training is really needed to do the admin.
There is not a huge skills shortage. That is why the author linked this EPI report analyzing
the data to prove exactly that. This may not be what people want to believe, but it is
certainly what the numbers indicate. There is no skills gap.
Yes. China and India are indeed training youth in coding skills. In order that they take jobs
in the USA and UK! It's been going on for 20 years and has resulted in many experienced IT
staff struggling to get work at all and, even if they can, to suffer stagnating wages.
Has anyones job is at risk from a 16 year old who can cobble together a couple of lines of
javascript since the dot com bubble?
Good luck trying to teach a big enough pool of US school kids regular expressions let
alone the kind of test driven continuous delivery that is the norm in the industry now.
> A lot of resumes come across my desk that look qualified on paper, but that's not the
same thing as being able to do the job
I have exactly the same experience. There is undeniable a skill gap.
It takes about a year for a skilled professional to adjust and learn enough to become
productive, it takes about 3-5 years for a college grad.
It is nothing new. But the issue is, as the college grad gets trained, another company
steal him/ her. And also keep in mind, all this time you are doing job and training the new
employee as time permits. Many companies in the US cut the non-profit department (such as IT)
to the bone, we cannot afford to lose a person and then train another replacement for 3-5
years.
The solution? Hire a skilled person. But that means nobody is training college grads and
in 10-20 years we are looking at the skill shortage to the point where the only option is
brining foreign labor.
American cut-throat companies that care only about the bottom line cannibalized
themselves.
Heh. You are not a coder, I take it. :) Going to be a few decades before even the
easiest coding jobs vanish.
Given how shit most coders of my acquaintance have been - especially in matters
of work ethic, logic, matching s/w to user requirements and willingness to test and correct
their gormless output - most future coding work will probably be in the area of disaster
recovery. Sorry, since the poor snowflakes can't face the sad facts, we have to call it
"business continuation" these days, don't we?
The demonization of Silicon Valley is clearly the next place to put all blame. Look what
"they" did to us: computers, smart phones, HD television, world-wide internet, on and on. Get
a rope!
I moved there in 1978 and watched the orchards and trailer parks on North 1st St. of San
Jose transform into a concrete jungle. There used to be quite a bit of semiconductor
equipment and device manufacturing in SV during the 80s and 90s. Now quite a few buildings
have the same name : AVAILABLE. Most equipment and device manufacturing has moved to
Asia.
Programming started with binary, then machine code (hexadecimal or octal) and moved to
assembler as a compiled and linked structure. More compiled languages like FORTRAN, BASIC,
PL-1, COBOL, PASCAL, C (and all its "+'s") followed making programming easier for the less
talented. Now the script based languages (HTML, JAVA, etc.) are even higher level and
accessible to nearly all. Programming has become a commodity and will be priced like milk,
wheat, corn, non-unionized workers and the like. The ship has sailed on this activity as a
career.
Her income from teaching comes to $40,000 a year. Thats significantly more than most
adjuncts: a 2014 survey
found that the median income for adjuncts is only $22,041 a year, whereas for full-time faculty
it is $47,500. We take a kind of vow of poverty
Recentreports have revealed the
extent of poverty among professors, but the issue is longstanding. Several years ago, it was
thrust into the headlines in dramatic fashion when Mary-Faith Cerasoli, an adjunct professor of
Romance languages in her 50s, revealed she was homeless and protested outside the New York
state education department.
We take a kind of vow of poverty to continue practicing our profession, Debra Leigh Scott,
who is working on a documentary about
adjuncts , said in an email. We do it because we are dedicated to scholarship, to learning,
to our students and to our disciplines.
ass="inline-quote inline-icon inline-tone-fill">
A quarter of part-time college academics are said to be enrolled in public assistance
programs
Adjuncting has grown as funding for public universities has fallen by more
than a quarter between 1990 and 2009. Private institutions also recognize the allure of
part-time professors: generally they are cheaper than full-time staff, dont receive benefits or
support for their personal research, and their hours can be carefully limited so they do not
teach enough to qualify for health insurance.
This is why adjuncts have been called
the fast-food workers of the academic world : among labor experts adjuncting is defined as
precarious employment, a growing category that includes temping and sharing-economy gigs such
as driving for Uber. An American Sociological Association taskforce focusing on precarious
academic jobs, meanwhile, has suggested that faculty
employment is no longer a stable middle-class career .
... ... ...
If she were to lose her home her only hope, she says, would be
government-subsidized housing.
Most of my colleagues are unjustifiably ashamed, she said. They take this personally, as if
theyve failed, and Im always telling them, you havent failed, the system has failed
you."
A precarious situation
Even more desperate are those adjuncts in substandard living spaces who cannot afford to fix
them. Mindy Percival, 61, a lecturer with a doctorate from Columbia, teaches history at a state
college in Florida and, in her words, lives in a shack which is in the woods in middle of
nowhere.
"... John Gatto has traced the roots of western education back to the Hindu schools in India; teaching docility and obedience. His book, The Underground History of American Education, is superb. ..."
Only two continents for this one; and yes, critical thinking either not taught or
discouraged.
I have found Usaian's particularly lacking in this skill; especially the last 50+ years.
John Gatto has traced the roots of western education back to the Hindu schools in India;
teaching docility and obedience. His book, The Underground History of American Education, is
superb.
Posted by: V. Arnold | Aug 5, 2017 4:28:14 AM |
53
"... Common core math is indeed an abomination. It nearly destroyed my son's interest in math. I'm teaching him old school math. Of course, I am also supplementing his history lessons with alternative analyses and with a more comprehensive range of topics. ..."
"... Another thing – most teachers of common core math at my son's public school do not understand it themselves. I noted errors in homework assignments which only compounded the confusion among the students. ..."
"... One more thing – they are expected to learn from online videos and sloppily prepared study sheets – not a real math book. The school system is trying to make education paperless. This, to me, stunts the critical skills of eye-hand coordination, the ability to express abstract concept visually (e.g. making good sketches of ideas), etc. For example, mechanical drafting skills with the associated ability to visualize have been replaced by learning how to manipulate software. ..."
"... Perhaps these are cost-cutting measures but the results is that the US public education system, from my experience, is in free fall. ..."
Common core math is indeed an abomination. It nearly destroyed my son's interest in math.
I'm teaching him old school math. Of course, I am also supplementing his history lessons with
alternative analyses and with a more comprehensive range of topics.
Another thing – most teachers of common core math at my son's public school do not understand
it themselves. I noted errors in homework assignments which only compounded the confusion among
the students.
One more thing – they are expected to learn from online videos and sloppily prepared study
sheets – not a real math book. The school system is trying to make education paperless. This,
to me, stunts the critical skills of eye-hand coordination, the ability to express abstract concept
visually (e.g. making good sketches of ideas), etc. For example, mechanical drafting skills with
the associated ability to visualize have been replaced by learning how to manipulate software.
Perhaps these are cost-cutting measures but the results is that the US public education
system, from my experience, is in free fall.
Here is a tin-foil hat theory based on the linked article. If Bill Gates is promoting a method
of education that stunts learning among the masses while sending his own kids to private school
that does not use the same method, could this be a way help to create a society of dysfunctional
masses ruled by a well-trained elites?
When it comes to Math, I think the traditional textbook approach is the best. For History and
the social sciences, though, I would recommend replacing big textbooks with individual monographs
and other study materials focusing on specialized themes.
Reason being: For Math, there is a standard (finite) set of facts and techniques that need
to be mastered at the school level; whereas there is no such thing as a "standard" or finite sets
of historical facts.
Somebody else suggested they are trying to prepare kids to become programmers of digital computers
(like Bill Gates started out). But that doesn't make any sense either, because digital computers
do not use this method to subtract. Instead, they use a method called "2's complement addition".
Computers do use binary arithmetic, but for a human to do so, it involves converting from base
10 to base 2 and then subtracting. In order to convert from base 10 to base 2, you have to follow
a step-by-step procedure which involves the remainder.
That is just bizarre. One commenter suggested the methods might be geared toward more complex
problems where numbers do not represent real things, but concepts; but I just can't see that,
either. But then, I've never been good at math and was always afraid of it. Whatever the case,
I would have dropped out of school in Grade Three if I'd had to learn this way. It makes math
problems ten times more complicated than they need to be, and every time you introduce another
step you introduce another possibility of making a mistake.
Very true ! I am pretty good in math but this is still too much artificially
introduced complexity for me too. Still it would be a perfect way to work with roman numbers.
And that's BTW why Arabic notation is so much superior.
There is an older abomination, known as outcomes based education, which was a scheme to destroy
the syllabus, while keeping teachers too busy with paperwork (recording "outcomes") to preserve
copies of the syllabus or properly teach.
It started in USA, was rejected there, got foisted on
South Africa and Australia, got rejected by 2008 in RSA, not sure when in Australia, then got
foisted on Canada, although opposition is building.
Seeing that high school teachers can see through
it and opposition precedes it, the OBE clowns changed tack!
Now Engineering colleges in North America
must follow this tomfoolery if they want to retain accreditation.
"... Common core math is indeed an abomination. It nearly destroyed my son's interest in math. I'm teaching him old school math. Of course, I am also supplementing his history lessons with alternative analyses and with a more comprehensive range of topics. ..."
"... Another thing – most teachers of common core math at my son's public school do not understand it themselves. I noted errors in homework assignments which only compounded the confusion among the students. ..."
"... One more thing – they are expected to learn from online videos and sloppily prepared study sheets – not a real math book. The school system is trying to make education paperless. This, to me, stunts the critical skills of eye-hand coordination, the ability to express abstract concept visually (e.g. making good sketches of ideas), etc. For example, mechanical drafting skills with the associated ability to visualize have been replaced by learning how to manipulate software. ..."
"... Perhaps these are cost-cutting measures but the results is that the US public education system, from my experience, is in free fall. ..."
Common core math is indeed an abomination. It nearly destroyed my son's interest in math. I'm
teaching him old school math. Of course, I am also supplementing his history lessons with
alternative analyses and with a more comprehensive range of topics.
Another thing – most teachers of common core math at my son's public school do not
understand it themselves. I noted errors in homework assignments which only compounded the
confusion among the students.
One more thing – they are expected to learn from online videos and sloppily prepared
study sheets – not a real math book. The school system is trying to make education
paperless. This, to me, stunts the critical skills of eye-hand coordination, the ability to
express abstract concept visually (e.g. making good sketches of ideas), etc. For example,
mechanical drafting skills with the associated ability to visualize have been replaced by
learning how to manipulate software.
Perhaps these are cost-cutting measures but the results is that the US public education
system, from my experience, is in free fall.
Here is a tin-foil hat theory based on the linked article. If Bill Gates is promoting a
method of education that stunts learning among the masses while sending his own kids to
private school that does not use the same method, could this be a way help to create a
society of dysfunctional masses ruled by a well-trained elites?
When it comes to Math, I think the traditional textbook approach is the best.
For History and the social sciences, though, I would recommend replacing big textbooks
with individual monographs and other study materials focusing on specialized themes.
Reason being: For Math, there is a standard (finite) set of facts and techniques that need
to be mastered at the school level; whereas there is no such thing as a "standard" or finite
sets of historical facts.
Somebody else suggested they are trying to prepare kids to become programmers of digital
computers (like Bill Gates started out).
But that doesn't make any sense either, because digital computers do not use this method to
subtract. Instead, they use a method called "2's complement addition".
Computers do use binary arithmetic, but for a human to do so, it involves converting from
base 10 to base 2 and then subtracting. In order to convert from base 10 to base 2, you have
to follow a step-by-step procedure which involves the remainder.
to the image given in the ZH article of the new subtraction method being taught:
You can see there is some similarity in the thought process, "carrying" the remainder
forward is the main lesson being taught.
marknesop
says:
July 16, 2017 at 9:55 am
That is just bizarre. One commenter suggested the methods might be geared
toward more complex problems where numbers do not represent real things,
but concepts; but I just can't see that, either. But then, I've never
been good at math and was always afraid of it. Whatever the case, I would
have dropped out of school in Grade Three if I'd had to learn this way.
It makes math problems ten times more complicated than they need to be,
and every time you introduce another step you introduce another
possibility of making a mistake.
Reply
likbez
says:
July 16, 2017 at 9:06 pm
Very true ! I am pretty good in math but this is still too much
artificially introduced complexity for me too. Still it would be a
perfect way to work with roman numbers. And that's BTW why Arabic
notation is so much superior.
Happily, an alternative exists to the billion dollar "don't blame kids" approach, one that has
historically proven itself and will cost far less than $16,000 per pupil to impart adequate academic
skills. It is simple: pressure laggards to shape up and punish those who disrupt the learning of
classmates. Just return to an earlier era when students themselves were held responsible for learning
their lessons.
Junk the Rousseauian fantasy that children naturally have a thirst for acquiring knowledge so
"educators" need only let nature take its course. Yes, Homo sapiens relish learning, but youngsters
are not innately disposed to sit quietly for long periods and dutifully suffer failure. Learning
may be natural; schooling is not. The corollary is that school for the cognitively weak will be the
most painful. Thus, for many African Americans cultivating self-esteem is anathema to academic
achievement.
Fortunately, the repertoire to impose this necessary discipline is well-known and requires only
modest skill to implement. High-priced rocket science it is not. This is almost forgotten educational
world of shame, stigma, humiliation, dunce caps, browbeating even corporal punishment where teachers
forcefully exert authority over the little savages who refuse to learn while impeding the progress
of others. Further require teachers to impose clear, grammatically correct English to those
with slurred speech and reflexively use profanity. If the teacher's efforts fail, the little miscreants
can immediately be sent out for discipline to be monitored by a wicked witch. Conceivably, some retired
discipline-skilled Nuns from Catholic schools or a retired Marine drill sergeant could offer three-day
workshops on how to manage the classroom
Students can practice sitting still and being quiet for longer and longer times, marching in step
when changing classes, mastering polite conversation when addressing authority figures ("Thank you
Mr. Smith" not 'hey teach'") memorizing famous orations, and build the habits of punctuality, restraint
and patience.
I run a large AP program in a what is euphemistically called a "priority" neighbourhood in
a major Canadian city. Although most of our students are East Asian and South Asian and come from
outside our catchment area, the majority of the local community is black.
After twenty years of our program offering completely subsidized AP exams, after-class tutorials,
and massive promotion efforts emphasizing the advantages of taking AP directed to our black students,
still less that 5% of the population of our AP classes consists of blacks.
And we have never had a black AP National Scholar. Not one. The local school board would LOVE
to see such an event, and I can't imagine it ever happening
Are you suggesting that our alien, Third-World, clan-based minority populations adopt the
values of discipline, accountability, punctuality, and rule-following typical of the majority's
beyond-kin, altruistic-based culture from northern Europe in the hope of achieving similar
social, academic, technical, and economic outcomes?
There's an extent to which this does work. Parochial schools with strict discipline
policies have always gotten more out of black students than public schools. African students,
who do not typically have a race card to play and are products of Euro-colonial school systems,
in my experience are nearly always better students than black Americans.
Imagine a Venn diagram, in which one circle represents cognitive ability (IQ) and the other
circle represents discipline and culture. The overlapping area represents "educational achievement."
The overall black cognitive ability circle, by itself, will always be smaller than a corresponding
white circle, but it is possible to gain more achievement with more structure and discipline.
There is a limit to how far you can go with this approach, but you can make some gains.
Of course, public schools and colleges practically kiss blacks on the ass for misbehavior rather
than discipline them. Blacks are fully aware that the black teachers and administrators are incompetent
frauds, that liberal whites are easily pushed around or manipulated, that they can always play
the "racism" card, and that Afrocentric curricula is pure bullshit and that it was the white man
who invented their iPhones, space flight, etc.
One aspect of the black personality is that blacks respond to, and generally respect, a show
a force. You see this in sports, for instance, in prison, and the military. Some of the most competent
and useful blacks you will encounter are in the military, where there is a set of expectations,
a white chain of command, and punishment for failure.
Blacks wouldn't necessarily become geniuses if you applied a military structure to education,
but you'd see some improvement.
Can every child receive a good education? With school choice and competition, yes. The problem?
Powerful teachers unions oppose school choice. Rebecca Friedrichs, a public school teacher who
took her case against the teachers union all the way to the Supreme Court, explains why school
choice is the right choice.
@Njguy73 There's no need to racially segregate schools. The solution has already been implemented.
It's called having a school district where the housing prices do the discrimination, so the schools
don't have to. An awfully expensive solution that consigns white working class children to the
tender mercies of the snarling black underclass.
The plight of black students in black schools became especially dire when the education establishment
and the media pulled a slight of hand and started labeling lazy ( a personal fault) students as
unmotivated (and therefore the fault of society not motivating them.)
What hasn't been pointed out is while public schools in poor areas have been failing for decades,
Catholic schools located in the same areas have continued to turn out hundred of thousands of
literate, well behaved black students.
The real tragedy is that these very productive ghetto Catholics schools have been closing at
an increasing rate despite their successes because of economic problems. Vouchers would help them
to stay open,
THE ACLU however, would make sure that they wouldn't get them.
I'm always impressed by the quality of my black African postgrad students, who mostly come
from lower middle/upper working class backgrounds in cities like Laos. They are clearly decently
educated, by methods the exact opposite of what is advocated in the USA – strict discipline, uniforms,
regulation, a decent amount of rote memorisation (but not the passivity of the Middle East/South
Asia).
US educationists could learn a lot from Nigeria, or even Jamaica, but are clearly far too arrogant
to do so.
Testing and teaching are incompatible to one another, less tests and more teaching.
Primary school is NOT the most important time, a few essential skills, a wide and rambling
exposure to general knowledge, and some actual fun will do.
Primary school should produce a student capable of writing coherent sentences, reading 80-120
words per minute (well written texts only with unusual words), general knowledge of science,
the general framework of modern world history, and enough maths to do simple algebra - anything
more is a bonus, but not essential to secondary school.
Secondary school is the secondary level of knowledge - it has nothing much in common with
Primary education.
Secondary school is about the development of concepts in different subjects - and the study
of literature (a self-contained concept), is foundational to all the other higher subjects.
Literature is about concepts, not morals, slogans, good behaviour or anything else. They
are complete, honest works supremely well written world view of the author. The quality of
literature is it most important feature - the best and only the best.
The conceptual integrity of literature, not a particular style of language is critical.
Literature should not be chosen because it is reverent, but because it is good and great. Confession
I hate reading Jane Austin, a girly book of all girly books, but when I finish her work I understand
the world were being good is not just a virtue, but an aspiration. For many reasons she was
one of the most read authors in the trenches of World War I.
The quality of text books (books of text not pictures) is ESSENTIAL there is no choice in
this, no leeway. They must be coherent, the work of the best minds in the subject, comprehensive,
and clearly written - only a true expert can make things simple without also making it stupid.
Text books of quality do not have to be up-to-date, but they have to be conceptually complete
and clear - a good textbook is not necessarily a recent one.
Textbooks are the last resort, which is the reason they have to be good - it is where the
student goes to understand what they do not understand - that is always hard and they need
a reliable source material - only the best textbooks will do.
Textbooks are not teaching material, they are reference material.
Standard tests are rubbish, written examinations twice a year are best - this is why text
books are important - hitting the books is not easy, I say it again, they therefore need to
be the very best - not the normal US textbook - which is CRAP.
The best mark of a substantial work should be the grade, not the average mark - students
who learn have to be brave and need to push things - a good student tries and fails long before
they try and succeed (the order is sometimes in the reverse).
A student's progress is marked by their best mark, their highest achievement that counts,
all the rest are run-offs. A student can be lazy, a student might rest on their laurels, that
does not matter, what they achieved, not how they went about it is what examination should
do.
It does not matter what a teacher is called by students, but that teacher actually knows
their area, is enthusiastic about their knowledge, is supported by the school, encouraged to
do more and occasionally make mistakes in trying.
Micro-management, in fact management in general, and good teaching are incompatible.
School discipline is simple and only breaks down because of mismanagement.
Heads and deputies are not there to attend meetings, they must be seen, patrol the halls,
greet the students and be known.
Teachers need only have a disruptive student leave the class room and stand in the hall.
The deputies need to take them to detention where they sit and do nothing until the next lesson.
Do not trap students behind files of bad behaviour. Boys especially do stupid things, often
and repeatedly, only the mean acts should be recorded in detail.
Stop trying to get kids to apologise, girls will do it, and the better boys won't.
Make sure the kids get food, and have fun exercise (competitive sport should be an elective).
Running education is not hard, the fundamentals have been known for hundreds of years. What
exists now has been made, it is a policy of de-education and it is working all too well.
If diversity represents sort of "reverse racial discrimination", academic achievements be damned?
Notable quotes:
"... is the notion of "diversity" that is being aimed at supposed to replicate among faculty the current demographic breakdown of our country as a whole? ..."
"... Conversely, if the goal of diversity is compensatory, i.e., seeks to make up for past social injustices and the demographic disequilibrium they have produced, then here too we must be explicit about the point of reference that is to guide our remedial efforts. ..."
"... is diversity pursued under that principle to amount to a retroactive balancing of sorts, an open-ended institutional "reparation" for past injustices and inequities? ..."
"... Leaving aside logistical difficulties, to which one may certainly be sympathetic, why exclude any number of other descriptors from our conception of diversity, such as social class, ethnic background, veteran status, political views, religious belief, childhood trauma, aesthetic preferences, dietary philosophy, dance and gardening skills, past struggles with mental disability, etc.? ..."
"... 'Diversity' was always at best a racket and at worst a knowing stage – a mere stage – in the war to replace Western Civilization. ..."
The recent controversy surrounding my colleague and friend, Paul Griffiths, Warren Professor of Catholic
Theology in the Duke Divinity School (DDS), has been widely covered. Countless op-ed pieces, fueled
by
Rod
Dreher's online publication of internal memos and public emails at The American Conservative
, as well as prominent editorials in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times
, have reached many readers.
... ... ...
Unfortunately, that dialogue remains more elusive than ever. Instead, for quite some time now, the
word "diversity" has served two distinct and equally problematic purposes: the magical and the litigious.
Some university administrators, particularly those less loyal to the job they have than to the one they
covet next, have embraced "diversity" as a professional talisman of sorts, a term that, if wielded frequently
and with conspicuous reverence, will magically unlock doors higher up on the professional ladder. Conversely,
to faculty members craving moral ascendancy over colleagues whose superior achievements they may regard
with a mix of dread, inadequacy and envy, there is no more powerful weapon than to charge the target
of their resentment with opposition to diversity, which in the present order of opportune allegations
ranks just below that of the child molester. To put it in Platonic terms, contemporary academia has
been mirroring our country's deteriorating civic discourse by supplanting knowledge with opinion, and
by weaponizing our opinions, rather than understanding them as something for which we bear great responsibility.
1) Is the notion of "diversity" to be understood as a mimetic or compensatory endeavor? That is,
is the notion of "diversity" that is being aimed at supposed to replicate among faculty the current
demographic breakdown of our country as a whole? Or is the objective to compensate for the extreme
dominance of a certain type of faculty-white, Caucasian, male, and (putatively) heterosexual-as it undeniably
prevailed well into the 1990s at many institutions of higher learning?
2) Supposing, then, that higher education understands itself to be committed to a mimetic conception
of diversity, then what is to serve as our point of reference? Is diversity, as currently affirmed by
institutions of higher education, to be modeled on the overall demographic breakdown of the population
in the United States-say, as captured by the most recent national census? Or is the university's conception
of diversity aimed at some other norm of proportionate representation of minorities, say, one prevalent
in academia as a whole or as endemic to specific disciplines?
3) Conversely, if the goal of diversity is compensatory, i.e., seeks to make up for past social
injustices and the demographic disequilibrium they have produced, then here too we must be explicit
about the point of reference that is to guide our remedial efforts. Is the objective to compensate
for a historical lack of diversity that for many decades prevailed inside the academy? And, if so,
is diversity pursued under that principle to amount to a retroactive balancing of sorts, an open-ended
institutional "reparation" for past injustices and inequities? Here it ought to be kept in mind
that, to cast the matter in sacramental terms, there can be no atonement without forgiveness. Hence,
if diversity is understood as compensation, then not only must past wrongs in this regard be clearly
identified, but any institutional acknowledgment of past injustice must also be met by, and conclude
with, an act of comprehensive forgiveness. Otherwise, institutions would remain forever caught up in
a downward spiral of moral recrimination and self-abasement, respectively.
4) Assuming that these questions can be openly deliberated and satisfactorily answered (which in
the present climate is to assume a great deal indeed), more intractable issues yet will arise. For regardless
of whether the modern research university opts for a mimetic or compensatory approach to diversity,
it is by definition an inherently selective, elite institution. Thus, one must wonder whether institutions
of higher education can balance their highly selective practices of faculty recruitment-practices directly
related to the goal of the university as such, viz., advancing knowledge-with a demographically representative
notion of "diversity" such as it exists outside of academia?
5) Finally, we should ask why currently prevailing assumptions and practices concerning "diversity"
are conceived in such peculiarly narrow, not to say non-diverse ways. We know that empirical demographic
studies, including the national census conducted by the U.S. government every decade or so, rely on
many categories and descriptors and, consequently, yield a far more inflected and robust conception
of our society's diverse composition. That being so, what justifies higher education's conception of
"faculty diversity" being mainly restricted to the categories of race and gender? Leaving aside
logistical difficulties, to which one may certainly be sympathetic, why exclude any number of other
descriptors from our conception of diversity, such as social class, ethnic background, veteran status,
political views, religious belief, childhood trauma, aesthetic preferences, dietary philosophy, dance
and gardening skills, past struggles with mental disability, etc.?
Notwithstanding my agreement with the author, this article is very poorly
written and filled with academic jargon, each sentence representing the very antithesis of Churchill's
observation that there is nothing more powerful in the English language than a simple, objective sentence.
"'Diversity' is turning into idolatrous worship of empty notions"
The above statement is false because the verb tense is wrong. This is not something new. 'Diversity'
was always at best a racket and at worst a knowing stage – a mere stage –
in the war to replace Western Civilization.
Professor Pfau: Did you stand up and defend the Duke lacrosse team and its head coach? Did you condemn
colleagues such as Leftist Houston Baker.
"... Tutition used to be free in the UK. Then they decided that those lazy students needed to have some skin in the game and suddenly tuition was 1000 pounds. Then a few years later it was 9000 pounds and all the college grads there now have US-level student debt. ..."
"... A big reason Corbyn's a commie is because he wants to abolish tuition to bring the UK back to its communist past of 1997 and give young people the same deal all the people in charge had. ..."
No actual figures, but presumably there was big yute
turnout in the UK Everyone will now claim that a non-commie
Labour leader like that nice Ed Miliband would OF COURSE have
done as well as Joseph Stalin Lenin Marx Corbyn, and in fact
BETTER, but that's bullshit.
That nice Ed Miliband couldn't
do in 2015, and I'm not sure who the "unnamed generic normal
Labour candidate" would otherwise be. Theresa May's
incompetent evil helped, but Corbyn staved off what was
supposed to have been a Labour extinction election and while
there will still likely be a Tory-led government, it will be
pretty fragile. A coalition with a bunch of bigoted religious
nutters from Northern Ireland who aren't on board with May's
Brexit plans.
Labour went after The Kids Today and got them
to the polls. Wasn't enough to win, but the polling outfit
predicting a likely hung parliament was considered to be
"insane" even just a few days ago.
Tutition used to be free in the UK. Then they decided that
those lazy students needed to have some skin in the game and
suddenly tuition was 1000 pounds. Then a few years later it
was 9000 pounds and all the college grads there now have
US-level student debt.
A big reason Corbyn's a commie is
because he wants to abolish tuition to bring the UK back to
its communist past of 1997 and give young people the same
deal all the people in charge had.
In 2015, Miliband said he'd cut them. To just SIX THOUSAND
POUNDS. Maybe if he'd gone all the way...
Middlebury College just completed its final round of
disciplinary hearings
for students involved in March's violent disruption of a lecture by Charles Murray, the
influential but controversial social scientist.
This toothless response reflects a deeper rot.
Middlebury, like many prestigious colleges, has steadily gravitated away from its core
educational mission and now serves primarily as a sort of finishing school for the
ruling class. Professors and administrators alike are simply expected to shower students
with affirmation-and then hand over a degree securing smooth entry into America's elite.
College has become four years of expensive fun. This is what parents and students now
demand.
This change-from institutions of learning to
institutions of affirming-threatens the nation's future as colleges foster a vicious
strain of anti-intellectualism.
At over $60,000 a year, Middlebury's tuition buys much
more than books, lodging, and classes. Students also get a
campus-wide square dance
,
dining halls that host culinary "
world
tours
," lavish fitness facilities, and
an annual winter carnival
complete with fireworks, a hot chocolate bar, and snow sculptures.
Rob Montz is a fellow at the Moving Picture Institute. Find his work at: RobMontz.com.
Check out his interview with TAC executive editor Pratik Chougule at Fearless Parent Radio:
http://fearlessparent.org/free-speech-controversy-us-elite-universities-episode-104/
"... Weinstein argues that the GUI agenda (inspired by Reaganomics) sought to prevent these salary increases. He contends that the legislation that enabled this oversupply was the Immigration Act of 1990 that expanded the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program and instituted employment-based immigration preferences. ..."
"... As I show in my book Sustainable Prosperity in the New Economy? , the beginning of the end of CWOC was the transformation of IBM, the world's leading computer company, from OEBM to NEBM from 1990 to 1994. In 1990, with 374,000 employees, IBM still bragged about its adherence to the CWOC norm (calling it "lifelong employment"), claiming that the company had not laid off anyone involuntarily since 1921. By 1994 IBM had 220,000 employees, and, with senior executives under CEO Louis Gerstner themselves getting fired for not laying off employees fast enough, CWOC was history. Over the course of the 1990s and into the 2000s, other major Old Economy companies followed IBM's example, throwing out of work older employees, many of them highly educated and with accumulated experience that had previously been highly valued by the companies. ..."
"... The salaries of S&E employees tended to increase with years of experience with the company, with a defined-benefit pension (based on years of service and highest salary levels) in retirement. These types of secure employment relations, and the high and rising pay levels associated with them, were the norm among established high-tech companies in the mid-1980s, but, as exemplified by IBM's transformation, started to become undone in the early 1990s, and were virtually extinct a decade later, as Old Economy companies either made the transition to the NEBM, or disappeared.8 The culprit in the weakening in the demand for, and earnings of, S&E PhDs from the early 1990s was the demise of CWOC-a phenomenon that Weinstein (and Teitelbaum) entirely ignore. ..."
"... As exemplified by IBM in the 1990s and beyond, a company's stock price could be raised by laying off expensive older workers and using the resultant "free" cash flow (as the purveyors of MSV called it) to do stock buybacks. 12 ..."
"... "But the company is "returning" capital to shareholders who never gave the company anything in the first place; the only time in its history that Apple has ever raised funds on the public stock market was $97 million in its 1980 IPO." ..."
"... During that period, the only job market for native PhD STEM students became the American Defense and Intelligence agencies, because they required security clearances and US Citizenship. I found myself driven in those directions too. ..."
"... Technology for the most part is just increasing complexity and increasing complexity has diminishing returns. With energy becoming less available, we probably need a lot less complexity. ..."
"... I wouldn't say that there is a lack of R&D - it just isn't done in-house any more. Gone are the Bell Labs and the Xerox PARCs; welcome to the brave new world of university partnerships and non-profit R&D shops (most famous: the Southwest Research Institute). ..."
"... Basically the rich are waging class war. That's the problem no matter how you slice and dice this one. This whole "New Economy" has been one big war on wages. I mean look at the collusion too between Google, Apple, and Intel to keep wages low. ..."
"... Basically it comes down to, the rich are really greedy. The issue right now for the rich is that they are desperate to keep the looting from happening, while people are increasingly aware that the system is against them. Bernie Sanders got a lot of support in the Valley and while it is a very Democratic leaning area, I cannot imagine that Trump's anti-H1B and L1B stance would have been opposed by the average employee. I think that the rich are not going to concede anything and that there needs to be some sort of solidarity union amongst all workers. ..."
"... Is there a single person here who has worked on Wall Street (writ large) who can convince us that his job or his company had an overall positive effect on the US and/or world economy over five years, ten years, or twenty-five years? ..."
"... Its not just PhDs. I know several Engineers who advise their children to do something else. It's just not worth the amount of effort that is required to be put into it and there is no future hope of a turn around. As bad as it is for graduates today, it's only going to get worse. ..."
"... They're catching up with us arts and humanities majors. Sad! ..."
"... I am a civil engineer and one of my daughters is studying to become a structural engineer. I would not have advised her to go into engineering because of the problem with the H-1B visas. ..."
"... But who am I to advise? Who can know the future? The world is just changing too fast now to really be able to advise our children on what careers to take. Besides, one of the advantages of studying engineering as you can work anywhere in the world. ..."
"... Post WWII labor overplayed its hand by the 1970's. Corporations and their decided they had had it. Corps and management proceeded to change the rules of the game on everything -- courts, trade, taxation and regulation. These countermeasures have had disastrous long term consequences. Corporations now run the country in a fascist manner. Government capture has created myriad problems beyond financialization, only one tool in the corporate quiver. Oligopolies across most to all industries comes to mind. Rail, air, health insurance, banking, defense, telecom, entertainment . ..."
"... Not sure about the labor part overplaying their hand. They just wanted an even wage and productivity rise. It is capital IMO that has overplayed its hand and the rise of neoliberal economics which has led to declines in public R&D spending. There isn't anything like the Space Race anymore. ..."
"... Frankly, labour underplayed its hand. At one point it had capital by the throat, and should have finished it off then. If peace is not an option, you should utterly and permanently destroy your enemy. ..."
"... Labor did NOT overplay its hand after WW2 - Taft-Hartley was a HUGE smack-down to labor after the privations of the Depression followed by the war effort. The decent wages during the post-war period were part of a concerted effort to convince workers that they didn't need unions and to be complacent. ..."
"... Labor leadership certainly became corrupt from all the money sloshing around without global competition due to war devastation of Europe and Japan, the Cold War, and the death throes of colonialism, but this was not due to "overplaying" their hand. ..."
"... Contrary to popular belief, in aggregate U.S. corporations fund the stock market, not vice versa. Note that almost all of the buybacks in the decade 1976-1985 occurred in 1984 and 1985 after in November 1982 the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission adopted Rule 10b-18 that gave license to massive buybacks, in essence legalizing systemic stock-price manipulation and the looting of the U.S. business corporation. ..."
"... Actually though, watching the train wreck that is the outlook for the youngest generation today, provides some grim amusement. For instance noting that the "bubble-driven" economy composed of companies desperate to prevent their stock becoming "badly diluted" by having fire sales on capitol and expertise that probably took their predecessors decades to build can really only have one outcome. Depression, misery, socialism. Maybe we skip the Mao route this time, maybe not. ..."
"... Gregory Peck: "The Robber Barons of old at least left something tangible in their wake - a coal mine, a railroad, banks. THIS MAN LEAVES NOTHING. HE CREATES NOTHING. HE BUILDS NOTHING. HE RUNS NOTHING. And in his wake lies nothing but a blizzard of paper to cover the pain. Oh, if he said, "I know how to run your business better than you," that would be something worth talking about. But he's not saying that. He's saying, "I'm going to kill you because at this particular moment in time, you're worth more dead than alive." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJRhrow3Jws ..."
"... IBM. Poster child of everything wrong at the executive-level and the shareholder-level. ..."
"... Yes, the IBM reference is interesting.The author gives an ordinal lead to IBM as a mover from the OEBM to NEBM. I ask myself if, from a mere one large corporation managing perspective, this was IBM's 11th hour response to the by then devastating rise of its competitors like Apple & Microsoft. ..."
"... Also the irony that it did not help IBM at least in the midterm. So, IBM was the prime mover to initiate some aspects of a model change -change which every major player adhered to- in response to a new technological disadvantage vs. competitors, and in turned did not seem to do much for IBM in the immediate years. Although, if I recall well, IBM was immersed in many political battles and internal problems, legal and otherwise. Nevertheless, I doubt there was a historic inevitability on IBM's ordinal force. Outstanding work by Lazonick ..."
"... "IBM is the poster child for shenanigans. Last month, IBM reported its 20th quarter in a row of declining year over year revenues .. a 13% drop in earnings, profit margins that declined in every business segment ( much worse than expected ), free cash flow that plummeted over 50% year over year and an earnings "beat" of 3 cents per share. How could this "beat" happen? .. a negative tax rate of -23% . This is why they pay the CEO Rometti the big bucks ( estimated at $50 to $65 million last year)." ..."
"... And this is one of the Bluest of the Blue Chip companies in the world. ..."
"... Amazon has lost money every fucking quarter for the last 20 fucking years, and that Bezos motherfucker is the king. ..."
"... In addition, the rise of 401(k) based investing, in which workers are tax-incentivized to buy in to the corporate stock scheming, but lack the normal shareholder voice in corporate governance, has taken the chains off the looters as well. ..."
"... The impact on the Grads was secondary a byproduct of a larger agenda which included the transfer offshore and consolidation of "IP" of the entire American, EU and Asian industrial economies along with the withdrawl of capital, while at the same time intentionally sabotaging future innovations with the handicap of diversity. Who got the loot and capital? Usual suspects. ..."
At the outset of his paper, Weinstein argues that:
Long term labor shortages do not happen naturally in market economies. That is not to say that
they don't exist. They are created when employers or government agencies tamper with the natural
functioning of the wage mechanism.
The contention, written from the perspective of the late 1990s, is that in the first half of the
1990s an oversupply ("a glut") of science and engineering (S&E) labor that depressed the wages of
PhD scientists and engineers was primarily the result of the promotion of a government-university-industry
(GUI) agenda, coordinated by the National Science Foundation under the leadership of Erich Bloch,
head of the NSF from 1984 to 1990. Beginning in 1985, the NSF predicted a shortfall of 675,000 S&E
personnel in the U.S. economy over the next two decades. According to a study by the NSF's Policy
Research and Analysis (PRA) division, quoted by Weinstein, salary data show that real PhD-level pay
began to rise after 1982, moving from $52,000 to $64,000 in 1987 (measured in 1984 dollars). One
set of salary projections show that real pay will reach $75,000 in 1996 and approach $100,000 shortly
beyond the year 2000.
Weinstein argues that the GUI agenda (inspired by Reaganomics) sought to prevent these salary
increases. He contends that the legislation that enabled this oversupply was the Immigration Act
of 1990 that expanded the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program and instituted employment-based immigration
preferences. Given that most of these foreigners came from lower-wage (Asian) nations, it is
assumed that they were attracted to work in the United States by what for them were high wages, whereas
Americans with S&E PhDs began to shun S&E careers as the salaries became less attractive.1
There is a lot missing from Weinstein's perspective, which is also the perspective of demographer
Michael Teitelbaum, who Weinstein cites extensively and who was at the Sloan Foundation from 1983
to 2013, rising to Vice-President in 2006. Weinstein and Teitelbaum view the salaries of scientists
and engineers as being determined by supply and demand on the labor market ("the natural wage rate"
and "the natural functioning of the labor market"). From this (neoclassical) perspective, they completely
ignore the "marketization" of employment relations for S&E workers that occurred in the U.S. business
sector from the mid-1980s as well as the concomitant "financialization" of the U.S. business corporation
that remains, in my view, the most damaging economic problem facing the United States. This transformation
of employment relations put out of work large numbers of PhD scientists and engineers who previously
had secure employment and who enjoyed high incomes and benefits as well as creative corporate careers.
The marketization of employment relations brought to an end of the norm of a career with one company
(CWOC)-an employment norm that was pervasive in U.S. business corporations from the 1950s to the
1980s, but that has since disappeared. 2 The "financialization" of the corporation, manifested by
massive distributions to shareholders in the forms of cash dividends and stock buybacks, undermined
the opportunities for business-sector S&E careers.
The major cause of marketization was the rise of the "New Economy business model" (NEBM) in which
high-tech startups, primarily in information-and-communication technology (ICT) and biotechnology,
lured S&E personnel away from established companies, which offered CWOC under the "Old Economy business
model" (OEBM). As startups with uncertain futures, the New Economy companies could not realistically
offer CWOC, but instead enticed S&E personnel away from CWOC at Old Economy companies by offering
these employees stock options on top of their salaries (which were typically lower than those at
the Old Economy companies). The stock options could become extremely valuable if and when the startup
did an initial public offering (IPO) or a merger-and-acquisition (M&A) deal with an established publicly-listed
company.
The rise in S&E PhD salaries from 1982 to 1987, identified in the NSF study that Weinstein quotes,
was the result of increased demand for S&E personnel by New Economy companies, with some of the increase
taking the form of stock-based pay, which in the Census data drawn from tax returns is lumped in
with salaries.3 Competing with companies for S&E personnel, the rise of the NEBM in turn put pressure
on salaries at Old Economy companies as they tried to use CWOC to attract and retain S&E labor in
the face of the stock-based alternative. By the last half of the 1980s, this New Economy competition
for talent was eroding the learning capabilities of the corporate research labs that, in many cases
from the early twentieth century, had been a characteristic feature of Old Economy companies in a
wide range of knowledge-intensive industries. 4
The CWOC norm under OEBM had provided employment security and rising wages from years-of-service
with the company and internal promotion of S&E personnel (significant proportions of whom in science-
based companies had PhDs). As I show in my book Sustainable Prosperity in the New Economy?
, the beginning of the end of CWOC was the transformation of IBM, the world's leading computer
company, from OEBM to NEBM from 1990 to 1994. In 1990, with 374,000 employees, IBM still bragged
about its adherence to the CWOC norm (calling it "lifelong employment"), claiming that the company
had not laid off anyone involuntarily since 1921. By 1994 IBM had 220,000 employees, and, with senior
executives under CEO Louis Gerstner themselves getting fired for not laying off employees fast enough,
CWOC was history. Over the course of the 1990s and into the 2000s, other major Old Economy companies
followed IBM's example, throwing out of work older employees, many of them highly educated and with
accumulated experience that had previously been highly valued by the companies.
Already in the early 1990s, the marketization of employment relations was responsible for a precipitous
decline of employment at the corporate research labs that had underpinned the twentieth-century growth
of Old Economy high-tech companies, of which IBM was an exemplar. In 1993, a conference held at Harvard
Business School decried the "end of an era" in industrial research, with papers from the conference
appearing in a volume Engines of Innovation , published in 1996.5 In the introductory chapter,
entitled "Technology's Vanishing Wellspring," conference organizers and volume editors Richard Rosenbloom
and William Spencer argued that industrial research (as distinct from product development) of the
type that had been carried out by corporate labs in the "golden era" of the post- World War II decades
"expands the base of knowledge on which existing industries depend and generates new knowledge that
leads to new technologies and the birth of new industries." In the more competitive environment of
the 1980s and 1990s, however, in the new industries of "biotechnology, exotic materials, and information
products (and services based on them)", Rosenbloom and Spencer observed that it was more difficult
for companies "to keep new technologies fully proprietary", and hence "research activities have been
downsized, redirected, and restructured in recent years within most of the firms that once were among
the largest sponsors of industrial research." 6
There is little doubt that S&E PhDs were major victims of this transformation. But the problem
that they, along with most other members of the U.S. labor force, have faced is not simply the marketization
of employment relations. For reasons that I have fully described in my publications cited above,
the transition from OEBM to NEBM was accompanied by the "financialization" of the U.S. business corporation
as, from the last half of the 1980s, U.S. boardrooms and business schools embraced the ideology that,
for the sake of superior economic performance, a business enterprise should be run to "maximize shareholder
value" (MSV). Instead of retaining employees and reinvesting in their productive capabilities, as
had been the case when CWOC had prevailed, MSV advocated and legitimized the downsizing of the company's
labor force and the distribution of corporate revenues to shareholders in the forms of both cash
dividends and stock repurchases. 7
With the demise of CWOC, older employees were the most vulnerable, not only because they tended
to have the highest salaries, but also because the shift from OEBM to NEBM was a shift from proprietary
technology systems, in which employees with long years of experience were highly valued, to open
technology systems that favored younger workers with the latest computer-related skills (often acquired
by working at other companies). Under CWOC, older employees were more expensive not because of a
"natural wage rate" that was the result of supply and demand on the S&E labor market, but because
of the internal job ladders that are integral to a "retain-and-reinvest" resource-allocation regime.
The salaries of S&E employees tended to increase with years of experience with the company, with
a defined-benefit pension (based on years of service and highest salary levels) in retirement. These
types of secure employment relations, and the high and rising pay levels associated with them, were
the norm among established high-tech companies in the mid-1980s, but, as exemplified by IBM's transformation,
started to become undone in the early 1990s, and were virtually extinct a decade later, as Old Economy
companies either made the transition to the NEBM, or disappeared.8 The culprit in the weakening in
the demand for, and earnings of, S&E PhDs from the early 1990s was the demise of CWOC-a phenomenon
that Weinstein (and Teitelbaum) entirely ignore.
With the rise of NEBM, companies wanted employees who were younger and cheaper , and that
was the major reason why at the end of the 1980s the ICT industry pushed for an expansion of H-1B
nonimmigrant visas and employment-based immigration visas. It is not at all clear that an influx
of PhDs from foreign countries via these programs was undermining the earnings of S&E PhDs in the
early 1990s. Most H-1B visa holders had Bachelor's degrees when they entered the United States. At
the same time, large numbers of non-immigrant visa holders entered the United States on student visas
to do Master's and PhD degrees, and then looked to employment on H-1B visas to enable them to stay
in the United States for extended periods (up to seven years).9 It was in response to the availability
of advanced- degree graduates of U.S. universities that in 2005 an additional 20,000 H-1B visas were
added to the normal cap of 65,000. Without the influx of foreign students into U.S. S&E Master's
and PhD programs, many of these programs would not have survived. Through this route, the H-1B visa
program has made more foreign-born PhDs available to corporations for employment in the United States.
But I posit that it has been the demise of OEBM and rise of the NEBM, not an increased supply of
foreign-born PhDs, that has placed downward pressure on the career earnings of the most highly educated
members of the U.S. labor force.
Besides giving employers access to an expanded supply of younger and cheaper high-tech labor in
the United States, the H-1B visa along with the L-1 visa for people who had previously worked for
the employer for at least one year outside the United States have another valuable attribute for
employers: the person on the visa is immobile on the labor market-he or she can't change jobs-whereas
under NEBM the most valued high-tech workers are those who are highly mobile. This mobility of labor
can boost the worker's pay package but is highly problematic for a company that needs these employees
to be engaged in the collective and cumulative learning processes that are the essence of generating
competitive products. Under OEBM, CWOC was the central employment institution for college-educated
workers precisely because of the need for collective and cumulative learning. But it was the rise
of NEBM, not the Immigration Act of 1990, that undermined CWOC. The growing dominance of NEBM with
its open systems architectures then led employers to make increased use of H-1 and L-1 visas in the
1980s, prompting them to get behind an expanded cap for H-1B visas in the Immigration Act of 1990.
10
Once OEBM was attacked by NEBM, with its offer of stock-based pay, these corporations became fertile
territory for the adoption of the ideology that a company should be run to "maximize shareholder
value" (MSV). This momentous transformation in U.S. corporate governance occurred from the late 1980s,
legitimizing the transition from a "retain-and-reinvest" to a "downsize-and-distribute" corporate-
governance regime. In the 1990s and beyond, this corporate-governance transformation laid waste to
CWOC across corporate America, knowledge-intensive companies included. 11 With corporate research
eroding as high-tech personnel responded to the lure of stock-based pay from NEBM companies- including
not only startups but also those such as Intel, Microsoft, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, and Cisco Systems
that during the 1990s grew to employ tens of thousands of people, most of them with stock- based
pay-senior executives at the Old Economy high-tech companies began to see their company's stock price
as not only key to the size of their own stock-based pay packages but also as an instrument to compete
for a broad-based of high-tech personnel. As exemplified by IBM in the 1990s and beyond, a company's
stock price could be raised by laying off expensive older workers and using the resultant "free"
cash flow (as the purveyors of MSV called it) to do stock buybacks. 12
As I have documented in detail, over the past three decades this legalized looting of the U.S.
business corporation has only gotten worse. As shown Table 1, driven by stock buybacks, net equity
issues by U.S. nonfinancial corporations were, in 2015 dollars, minus $4.5 trillion over the
decade 2006-2015. In 2016 net equity issues were minus $586 billion. Net equity issues are new stock
issues by companies (in this case nonfinancial corporations) minus stock retired from the market
as the result of stock repurchases and M&A deals. The massively negative numbers in recent decades
are the result of stock buybacks. I have calculated net equity issues as a percent of GDP by decade
to provide a measure of the value of buybacks done relative to the size of the U.S. economy. In both
absolute inflation-adjusted dollars and as a percent of GDP, buybacks have become a prime mode of
corporate resource allocation in the U.S. economy. Contrary to popular belief, in aggregate U.S.
corporations fund the stock market, not vice versa. Note that almost all of the buybacks in the decade
1976-1985 occurred in 1984 and 1985 after in November 1982 the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
adopted Rule 10b-18 that gave license to massive buybacks, in essence legalizing systemic stock-price
manipulation and the looting of the U.S. business corporation.
Table 1: Net equity issues of nonfinancial corporations in the United States, 1946-2015, by
decade, in 2015 dollars, and as a percent of GDP
Decade
Net Equity Issues,
2015$ billions
Net Equity Issues
as % of GDP
1946-1955
143.2
0.56
1956-1965
110.9
0.30
1966-1975
316.0
0.58
1976-1985
-290.9
-0.40
1986-1995
-1,002.5
-1.00
1996-2005
-1,524.4
-1.09
2006-2015
-4,466.6
-2.65
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Reserve Statistical Release
Z.1, "Financial Accounts of the United States: Flow of Funds, Balance Sheets, and Integrated Macroeconomic
Accounts," Table F-223: Corporate Equities, March 9, 2017, at
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
.
Over the years 2006-2015, the 459 companies in the S&P 500 Index in January 2016 that were publicly
listed over the ten-year period expended $3.9 trillion on stock buybacks, representing 53.6 percent
of net income, plus another 36.7 percent of net income on dividends. Much of the remaining 9.7 percent
of profits was held abroad, sheltered from U.S. taxes. Mean buybacks for these 459 companies ranged
from $291 million in 2009, when the stock markets had collapsed, to $1,205 million in 2007, when
the stock market peaked before the Great Financial Crisis. In 2015, with the stock market booming,
mean buybacks for these companies were $1,173 million. Meanwhile, dividends declined moderately in
2009, but over the period 2006-2015 they trended up in real terms.
Among the largest repurchasers are America's premier high-tech companies. Table 2 shows the top
25 repurchasers over the decade 2006-2015. Among the companies that one would expect to employ large
numbers of S&E PhDs are Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, IBM, Apple, Cisco Systems, Hewlett Packard, Pfizer,
Oracle, Intel, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips. We do not know the
historical numbers of S&E PhDs at these companies, but I hypothesize that numbers would be much higher
than they are if the companies were not financialized. Many of America's largest corporations
routinely distribute more than 100 percent of net income to shareholders, generating the extra
cash by reducing cash reserves, selling off assets, taking on debt, or laying off employees.13 As
I have shown, the only logical explanation for this buyback activity is that the stock-based pay
that represents the vast majority of the remuneration of senior corporate executives incentivizes
them to manipulate their companies' stock prices, leaving most Americans worse off. 14
Table 2: The 25 largest stock repurchasers among U.S.-based corporations, 2006-2015, showing
net income (NI) stock buybacks (BB), and cash dividends (DV)
Source: Calculated from data downloaded from Standard & Poor's Compustat database.
The Weinstein-Teitelbaum focus on a GUI design to expand the supply of S&E PhDs ignores the
transformations of corporate governance and employment relations that have decimated career employment
for this group of workers over the past three decades. At the same time, the channeling of trillions
of dollars of value created in U.S. nonfinancial corporations to the financial sector has opened
up jobs on Wall Street that can provide quick income bonanzas for highly-educated members of the
U.S. labor force, many of whom might have otherwise pursued S&E careers. Among the wealthiest
of these Wall Street players are corporate predators-euphemistically known as "hedge-fund activists"-who
have billions of dollars in assets under management with which they can attack companies to pump
up their stock prices through the implementation of "downsize-and-distribute" allocation regimes
and, even if it takes a few years, dump the stock for huge gains.15
In the case of Apple, we have shown how Carl Icahn used his wealth, visibility, hype, and influence
to take $2 billion in stock-market gains by buying $3.6 billion of Apple shares in the summer of
2013 and selling them in the winter of 2016, even though he contributed absolutely nothing of any
kind to Apple as a value-creating company.16 Apple CEO Tim Cook and his board (which includes former
U.S. Vice President Al Gore) helped Icahn turn his accumulated fortune into an even bigger one by
having Apple repurchase $45 billion in shares in 2014 and $36 billion in 2015-by far the two largest
one-year stock buybacks of any company in history. Imagine the corporate research capabilities in
which Apple could have invested, and the S&E PhDs the company could have employed, had it looked
for productive ways to use even a fraction of the almost unimaginable sums that it wasted on buybacks.17
From 2011 through the first quarter of 2017, Apple spent $144 billion on buybacks and $51 billion
on dividends under what it calls its "Capital Return" program. But the company is "returning" capital
to shareholders who never gave the company anything in the first place; the only time in its history
that Apple has ever raised funds on the public stock market was $97 million in its 1980 IPO. 18
A number of "hedge-fund activists"-Nelson Peltz of Trian, Daniel Loeb of Third Point, and William
Ackman of Pershing Square are among the most prominent-have been able to put up one or two billion
dollars to purchase small stakes in major high-tech companies, and, with the proxy votes of pension
funds, mutual funds and endowments, have been able put pressure on companies, often by placing their
representatives on the boards of directors, to implement "downsize-and-distribute" regimes for the
sake of "maximizing shareholder value."19 In the summer of 2013, Nelson Peltz's Trian Fund Management
bought DuPont stock worth $1.3 billion, representing 2.2% of shares outstanding. In May 2015 Peltz
lost a proxy fight to put four of his nominees on the DuPont board, but in October 2015 DuPont CEO
Ellen Kullman, who had opposed Peltz, resigned, and the new management began to implement Peltz's
plans to cut costs and hit financial targets, to be done in the context of a merger with Dow Chemical,
which had fallen into the hands of another corporate predator Daniel Loeb. Meanwhile, in October
2015, Peltz bought 0.8 percent of the shares of General Electric (GE), and began to pressure another
iconic high-tech company to cut costs and increase its stock price. GE was already a financialized
company that had done $52 billion in buybacks in the decade 2006-2015 (see Table 2)-a massive amount
of money for the purpose of manipulating its stock price. Undoubtedly responding to additional pressure
from Peltz, during 2016, GE, with profits of $8.0 billion, paid out $8.5 billion in dividends and
spent another $22.0 billion on buybacks. This financialization of U.S. high-tech corporations undermines,
among other things, the employment of S&E PhDs.
We need research on this subject to quantify its impacts. I submit, however, that such a research
agenda must focus on transformations of regimes of corporate governance and employment relations.
Relying on the neoclassical economist's notion of a "natural wage rate" determined by the interaction
of supply and demand, Weinstein, a mathematician, and Teitelbaum, a demographer, missed the transformations
in corporate governance and employment relations that marked the late 1980s and early 1990s-and beyond-and
as result, in my view, failed to understand the changing fortunes of S&E PhDs in the marketized,
globalized, and financialized New Economy. Given the dominance of what I have called "the myth of
the market economy"20 in the thought processes of economists, Weinstein and Teitelbaum were by no
means alone in erroneously focusing on supply and demand on the PhD labor market while failing to
recognize the centrality of corporate governance and employment relations in determining the earnings
and career prospects of S&E PhDs. It is time for new economic thinking on these critical questions.
Footnotes
1 The Weinstein paper appears to have been published prior to the adoption of the American
Competitiveness and Workforce
2 William Lazonick, Sustainable Prosperity in the New Economy? Business Organization and High-Tech
Employment in the United States, W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 2009; ; William
Lazonick, "The New Economy Business Model and the Crisis of US Capitalism," Capitalism and Society,
4, 2, 2009: article 4; William Lazonick, Philip Moss, Hal Salzman, and Öner Tulum, "Skill Development
and Sustainable Prosperity: Collective and Cumulative Careers versus Skill-Biased Technical Change,"
Institute for New Economic Thinking Working Group on the Political Economy of Distribution Working
Paper No. 7, December 2014, at
https://www.ineteconomics.org/ideas-papers/research-papers/skill-development-and-sustainable-prosperity-cumulative-and-collective-careers-versus-skill-biased-technical-change
; William Lazonick, "Labor in the Twenty- First Century: The Top 0.1% and the Disappearing
Middle Class," in Christian E. Weller, ed., Inequality, Uncertainty, and Opportunity: The Varied
and Growing Role of Finance in Labor Relations, Cornell University Press, 2015: 143-192.
3 Almost all gains from exercising employee stock options and the vesting of employee stock
awards are taxed at the ordinary income-tax rate, not at the capital-gains tax rate, with taxes
withheld by the employer at the time that options are exercised or awards vest. Hence these stock-based
gains are reported as part of "wages, tips, other compensation" on IRS Form 1040.
5 Rosenbloom and Spencer, Engines of Innovation . Richard Rosenbloom was David Sarnoff
Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, while William Spencer was CEO
of SEMATECH.
6 Ibid., pp. 2-3.
7 William Lazonick, "Profits Without Prosperity: Stock Buybacks Manipulate the Market and
Leave Most Americans Worse Off," Harvard Business Review , September 2014, 46-55; William
Lazonick, "Stock Buybacks: From Retain-and-Reinvest to Downsize-and-Distribute," Center for Effective
Public Management, Brookings Institution, April 2015 at
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2015/04/17-stock-buybacks-lazonick.
8 Lazonick, Sustainable Prosperity , ch. 3. For an important case study that includes
the fate of the once renowned Bell Labs, see William Lazonick and Edward March, "The Rise and
Demise of Lucent Technologies," Journal of Strategic Management Education , 7, 4, 2011.
9 Lazonick, Sustainable Prosperity , ch. 5.
10 Ibid., ch. 2. Note that the H-1 visa for workers in specialty occupations was renamed the
H-1B visa in 1990 after the H-1A visa was created specifically for nurses.
11 Lazonick, "Stock Buybacks"; Lazonick, "Labor in the Twenty-First Century."
12 Lazonick, "Profits Without Prosperity"; Lazonick, "Stock Buybacks."
13 Lazonick, "Labor in the Twenty-First Century": William Lazonick, "How Stock Buybacks Make
Americans Vulnerable to Globalization," Paper presented at the Workshop on Mega-Regionalism: New
Challenges for Trade and Innovation, East-West Center, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, January
20-21, 2016, at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2745387
14 Lazonick, "Profits Without Prosperity."
15 Rachel Butt, "Here are some of the 10 biggest activist money managers and some of their
most impressive bets," Business Insider , June 17, 2016, at
http://www.businessinsider.com/top-10-biggest-activist-investors-2016-6. Matt Hopkins, William
Lazonick, and Jang-Sup Shin are engaged in research on the methods and gains of these predatory
value extractors.
19 With Matt Hopkins and Jang-Sup Shin, I am involved in project on how the U. S. SEC has
accommodated and even encouraged the corporate value extractors who call themselves "shareholder
activists" or "hedge-fund activists."
20 William Lazonick, Business Organization and the Myth of the Market Economy , Cambridge
University Press, 1991
It was indeed a tough article to read to the end, but this nugget near the end was worth it:
"But the company is "returning" capital to shareholders who never gave the company anything
in the first place; the only time in its history that Apple has ever raised funds on the public
stock market was $97 million in its 1980 IPO."
As one who actually lived this process, I can tell you that the premise of this article must
be basically true.
Back in the early '90s I set out to fill in the gaps of my own computer science background
(I'm actually an astrophysicist). And my classes were filled entirely by people from Asia, except
for myself and one other Anglo. Job ads in the journals were already beginning to ask for PhD
level CompSci with emphasis on, e.g., voice recognition, for a pay rate of $26K (1992 !). That
was definitely appealing to the foreign students and unappealing to American STEM students.
During that period, the only job market for native PhD STEM students became the American
Defense and Intelligence agencies, because they required security clearances and US Citizenship.
I found myself driven in those directions too.
Now, after many years doing my own thing, I look around at the STEM marketplace and I am shocked
to find large numbers of compatriots being pressured into the GIG Economy, and pay rates are appalling
by former standards. There is a serious lack of expenditure on research and development today.
There is a serious lack of expenditure on research and development today.
From another perspective this is just over investment in education. Technology for the
most part is just increasing complexity and increasing complexity has diminishing returns. With
energy becoming less available, we probably need a lot less complexity.
"American Defense". hmmm, wonder if sending the jobs and know-how to China and India in the
belief both will always be the US's willing subcontractors is such a good idea (from a US national
defense point of view).
I wouldn't say that there is a lack of R&D - it just isn't done in-house any more.
Gone are the Bell Labs and the Xerox PARCs; welcome to the brave new world of university partnerships
and non-profit R&D shops (most famous: the Southwest Research Institute).
Basically the rich are waging class war. That's the problem no matter how you slice and
dice this one. This whole "New Economy" has been one big war on wages. I mean look at the collusion
too between Google, Apple, and Intel to keep wages low.
Considering how slap on the wrist this was, what incentive is there to not do it again? They
know they can get away with this. Not to mention, this H1B and L1B program has become a way to
keep wages low in the technology sector. In many sectors, there really isn't a "shortage" of Americans.
Oh and for all the talk of these companies being "innovative", if they are prioritizing money
on stock buybacks over R&D, that's not really innovative as much as it is trying to boost salaries
by capitalizing on the huge cash reserves they get for being the dominant companies in their sector.
Same could be said about Exxon. Not much being spent on R&D means that they are more about rent
seeking rather than innovation. Perhaps not yet as blatant as those patent trolls, which are little
more than shell companies that sue other companies over patents, but that is their ideal business
model.
I think that at the end of the day, even though many engineers in the tech companies are in
the top 10% in terms of income percentile, their interests are closer aligned with working class
people. The other issue is that I bet when many of these engineers turn into their 40s, they are
going to witness first hand the very real age discrimination that exists in the technology industry.
Basically it comes down to, the rich are really greedy. The issue right now for the rich
is that they are desperate to keep the looting from happening, while people are increasingly aware
that the system is against them. Bernie Sanders got a lot of support in the Valley and while it
is a very Democratic leaning area, I cannot imagine that Trump's anti-H1B and L1B stance would
have been opposed by the average employee. I think that the rich are not going to concede anything
and that there needs to be some sort of solidarity union amongst all workers.
Is there a single person here who has worked on Wall Street (writ large) who can convince
us that his job or his company had an overall positive effect on the US and/or world economy over
five years, ten years, or twenty-five years?
I'll go first: three investment banks under my belt and one was a giant financial and moral
sucking machine called Citi. The other two were wannabe's but certainly did not add value.
While "maximizing shareholder value" is the huge problem wrecking our economy, having watched
the genesis of New Economic Paradigm through the experiences my wife and most of my friends going
through the Silicon Valley start-up Tulip-mania from the mid-'80's through the first decade of
th e 2000's, the author is hitting important points while over-simplifying and missing other equally
important points, such as the role of the "Peace Dividend" in the collapse of aerospace and research
funding, and the role of the Reagan and Clinton "tax reforms" in driving stock-based compensation
systems.
Early on, the use of stock-based compensation drove down wage-based compensation and increased
the role of financial speculators. Today, the speculators get the stock, but wages remain suppressed
and only foreign workers will accept them. The author is correct: the causes are complicated,
but the result drove down wages and job security for STEM workers.
I got my Ph.D. in biology in 2000. It was absolutely the worst decision in my life. In fact,
it actually destroyed my life, reducing me to near homelessness and starvation because-GASP--regular
employers (like office jobs, retail etc.) will not hire Ph.D.s. There there is the lovely student
debt that has grown exponentially, as my wages could not make the smallest dent. Convicted felons
make more that I do. So to make a long story short, I started a small on-line business 9 years
ago and got the FFFFF OUT of the rotten POS United States and moved to Ecuador, one of the most
progressive countries in the world. I cannot believe how the US abuses its national treasures-is
is truly a POS and I do not miss it for one day. I hope the US crashes and rots in hell.
Its not just PhDs. I know several Engineers who advise their children to do something else.
It's just not worth the amount of effort that is required to be put into it and there is no future
hope of a turn around. As bad as it is for graduates today, it's only going to get worse.
I am a civil engineer and one of my daughters is studying to become a structural engineer.
I would not have advised her to go into engineering because of the problem with the H-1B visas.
But who am I to advise? Who can know the future? The world is just changing too fast now
to really be able to advise our children on what careers to take. Besides, one of the advantages
of studying engineering as you can work anywhere in the world.
I bought houses for each of my children and told them if they wanted to go to college they
could trade the house in for the education. I personally think they should have considered keeping
the house and working minimum wage jobs that they enjoy. But both of them are pursuing educations,
my son to be history teacher!
Post WWII labor overplayed its hand by the 1970's. Corporations and their decided they
had had it. Corps and management proceeded to change the rules of the game on everything -- courts,
trade, taxation and regulation. These countermeasures have had disastrous long term consequences.
Corporations now run the country in a fascist manner. Government capture has created myriad problems
beyond financialization, only one tool in the corporate quiver. Oligopolies across most to all
industries comes to mind. Rail, air, health insurance, banking, defense, telecom, entertainment
.
But this paper is also lamenting a lack of business capex, which is directly correlated to
public investment. When you decided to offshore manufacturing and fail to invest in infrastructure
you get a double whammy that hits business capex. Increasing regulation and taxation on small
and midsize companies has lead to consolidation. Approximately 5000 public companies have likely
been consolidated. Sarbanes-Oxley added millions to compliance costs making it highly uneconomical
to be a public company with less than $300 million in revenue. Dodd-Frank has created increases
in cost for financial firms that had nothing to do with the crisis. In fact, the big banks have
benefited enormously from implementation of this legislation.
Not sure about the labor part overplaying their hand. They just wanted an even wage and
productivity rise. It is capital IMO that has overplayed its hand and the rise of neoliberal economics
which has led to declines in public R&D spending. There isn't anything like the Space Race anymore.
Frankly, labour underplayed its hand. At one point it had capital by the throat, and should
have finished it off then. If peace is not an option, you should utterly and permanently destroy
your enemy.
Labor did NOT overplay its hand after WW2 - Taft-Hartley was a HUGE smack-down to labor
after the privations of the Depression followed by the war effort. The decent wages during the
post-war period were part of a concerted effort to convince workers that they didn't need unions
and to be complacent.
Labor leadership certainly became corrupt from all the money sloshing around without global
competition due to war devastation of Europe and Japan, the Cold War, and the death throes of
colonialism, but this was not due to "overplaying" their hand.
The trends described in the post predate by decades the communist tyranny [/s] imposed by those
bills.
The wholesale closing or offshoring of corporate research labs already started in the 1980s,
driven in part by corporate raiders like Milken, Pickens and Icahn.
IBM, GM, Kodak, Xerox, GE they all had labs that provided jobs to STEM graduates
and a stream of discoveries and inventions to generate more jobs.
Now these are largely gone or substantially off-shored.
What has happened to corporate R&D shouldn't be used as an excuse to make life easier
for the Wall Street culture largely responsible for it.
Yes, any burdens imposed by Sarbanes Oxley are the fault of numerous unethical business executives
over recent decades, and not the fault of people in government.
When I was a student in IT, the shining stars at the firmament of industrial computer science
and engineering R&D were Xerox PARC, DEC SRC, ATT Bell Labs and IBM Yorktown Heights.
Contrary to popular belief, in aggregate U.S. corporations fund the stock market, not
vice versa. Note that almost all of the buybacks in the decade 1976-1985 occurred in 1984 and
1985 after in November 1982 the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission adopted Rule 10b-18
that gave license to massive buybacks, in essence legalizing systemic stock-price manipulation
and the looting of the U.S. business corporation.
See Lazonick's footnoted paper for many loving particulars. Especially note the details of
how Rule 10b-18 offers no protection from abuse and (no news to NC readers) is a pillar of general
corporate asset-stripping .
Engineering long-term career arc has been an issue since at least my father's generation (those
born during WWI). Longer tenure (mid to late mid career) engineers were being eased out for young
grads. When I was in a ChemE program in the 70s, advice was to follow the engineering degree with
either law or a business degree because the odds of a long career doing engineering was not great.
No one advised going for a PhD in engineering.
When I asked him why he got the degree, which didn't seem necessary for someone who spent much
of his career in industrial R&D, he said, "I'm like Mallory climbing Mount Everest. I got that
degree because it is there."
So, there you have it. My old man getting that degree because he wanted to. And because my
mother was willing to support both of them while he worked on it.
"Many of America's largest corporations routinely distribute more than 100 percent of net income
to shareholders, generating the extra cash by reducing cash reserves, selling off assets, taking
on debt, or laying off employees the only logical explanation for this buyback activity is that
the stock-based pay that represents the vast majority of the remuneration of senior corporate
executives incentivizes them to manipulate their companies' stock prices "
This not only applies to the STEM sector, but nearly every large corp. in America. "Earnings
quality" (i.e stock price) takes precedence over everything else leading to the crapification
of products & services and devaluation of employees.
Thank gawd this type of thinking wasn't around when Jonas Salk was working on the polio vaccine.
" In November 1982 the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission adopted Rule 10b-18 that
gave license to massive buybacks, in essence legalizing systemic stock-price manipulation and
the looting of the U.S. business corporation. "
How can you have "looting" without lootees? The stockholders aren't complaining. If any party
is being disadvantaged by borrowing to fund stock buybacks, it's existing bondholders. As David
Swensen describes in an extended example in Pioneering Portfolio Management , managers
compensated by stock options tend to treat corporate debt holders quite shabbily by piling on
more debt, compromising the interest coverage ratio.
High tech companies use stock buybacks to offset their widespread granting of stock options
which - absent Rule 10b-18 - would badly dilute existing stock holders over time.
Trying to paint the well-disclosed practice of stock buybacks as "looting" is histrionic ax
grinding on Lazonick's part. Over-leveraged companies are going to regret it in the next recession.
But that's a lamentable social phenomenon in a bubble-driven economy. Those who disagree with
it are free to sell short over-leveraged stocks - perhaps a more meaningful way of expressing
dissent than scribbling academic screeds.
Well Jim, ponzi schemes work pretty well for those at the top. I suppose we shouldn't worry
about it until we start getting complaints..
Actually though, watching the train wreck that is the outlook for the youngest generation
today, provides some grim amusement. For instance noting that the "bubble-driven" economy composed
of companies desperate to prevent their stock becoming "badly diluted" by having fire sales on
capitol and expertise that probably took their predecessors decades to build can really only have
one outcome. Depression, misery, socialism. Maybe we skip the Mao route this time, maybe not.
Here's some related "histrionics" of your channeling D.D . an excerpt of a debate about "creative
destruction" (emphasis mine) from 1991(context), chronologically, roughly following the tandem
of Ronnie and Maggie.
Gregory Peck: "The Robber Barons of old at least left something tangible in their wake
- a coal mine, a railroad, banks. THIS MAN LEAVES NOTHING. HE CREATES NOTHING. HE BUILDS NOTHING.
HE RUNS NOTHING. And in his wake lies nothing but a blizzard of paper to cover the pain. Oh, if
he said, "I know how to run your business better than you," that would be something worth talking
about. But he's not saying that. He's saying, "I'm going to kill you because at this particular
moment in time, you're worth more dead than alive."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJRhrow3Jws
Danny Devito: "Let's have the intelligence, let's have the decency to sign the death certificate,
collect the insurance, and invest in something with a future "Ah, but we can't," goes the prayer.
"We can't because we have responsibility, a responsibility to our employees, to our community.
What will happen to them?" I got two words for that: WHO CARES? Care about them? Why? They didn't
care about you. They sucked you dry. You have no responsibility to them. For the last ten years
this company bled your money. Did this community ever say, "We know times are tough. We'll lower
taxes, reduce water and sewer." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62kxPyNZF3Q
Yes, the IBM reference is interesting.The author gives an ordinal lead to IBM as a mover
from the OEBM to NEBM. I ask myself if, from a mere one large corporation managing perspective,
this was IBM's 11th hour response to the by then devastating rise of its competitors like Apple
& Microsoft.
Also the irony that it did not help IBM at least in the midterm. So, IBM was the prime
mover to initiate some aspects of a model change -change which every major player adhered to-
in response to a new technological disadvantage vs. competitors, and in turned did not seem to
do much for IBM in the immediate years. Although, if I recall well, IBM was immersed in many political
battles and internal problems, legal and otherwise. Nevertheless, I doubt there was a historic
inevitability on IBM's ordinal force. Outstanding work by Lazonick
"IBM is the poster child for shenanigans. Last month, IBM reported its 20th quarter in
a row of declining year over year revenues .. a 13% drop in earnings, profit margins that declined
in every business segment ( much worse than expected ), free cash flow that plummeted over 50%
year over year and an earnings "beat" of 3 cents per share. How could this "beat" happen? .. a
negative tax rate of -23% . This is why they pay the CEO Rometti the big bucks ( estimated at
$50 to $65 million last year)."
And this is one of the Bluest of the Blue Chip companies in the world.
I read IBM spent a fortune at that time defending itself against monopolistic claims litigation.
This was happening while Microsoft and Apple were clearly consolidating their oligopolistic empires.
I read reports stating Oracle initial breakthroughs were taken from IBM's research work.
Not sure if anyone watches "Silicon Valley", but here is a quote that seems fitting:
Season 2 – Bad Money
Richard: Once we get a few customers and start a subscription-revenue model.
Russ: What? Revenue? No, no, no, no, no. No. If you show revenue, people will ask "How much?"
And it will never be enough, but if you have no revenue, you can say you're pre-revenue. You're
a potential pure play. It's not about how much you earn, it's about what you're worth. And
who's worth the most? Companies that lose money. Pinterest, Snap chat No revenue. Amazon
has lost money every fucking quarter for the last 20 fucking years, and that Bezos motherfucker
is the king.
Just wanted to point out that there is one more link in the chain to be followed: the financiers
would not have such an easy time playing Nero with our economy, if the banking sector were still
properly constrained by a gold standard (=limited supply of printed credit), the risk of bank
runs by outraged consumers, the Glass-Steagall separation of commercial from investment banking,
personal rather than corporate punishment for fraud and abuse, antitrust enforcement, etc.
In addition, the rise of 401(k) based investing, in which workers are tax-incentivized
to buy in to the corporate stock scheming, but lack the normal shareholder voice in corporate
governance, has taken the chains off the looters as well.
It's time to end the impunity. The government has been corrupted by the corporations, so only
a populist uprising will produce reform. The uprising will require sacrifices of time, income,
security. It will require boycotts of products that people like, but whose producers and vendors
are evil. The products will not disappear while demand persists – but the producers and vendors
must be brought to heel.
Consider the following inductees into the Corporate Hall of Shame:
Wells Fargo – customer abuse
United Airlines – customer abuse
UBER – employee abuse; legal system abuse
Mylan (Epi Pens) – Monopolistic price abuse
Hewlett Packard (spyware on laptops) – customer abuse
pick an industry, you'll find a Hall of Shame candidate. Hit them all in the wallet until they
reform.
The impact on the Grads was secondary a byproduct of a larger agenda which included the
transfer offshore and consolidation of "IP" of the entire American, EU and Asian industrial economies
along with the withdrawl of capital, while at the same time intentionally sabotaging future innovations
with the handicap of diversity. Who got the loot and capital? Usual suspects.
"DeVos's decision to reverse some of her work "with no coherent explanation or substitute" effectively
means that the Trump administration is placing the welfare of loan contractors above those of student
debtors"
'Trump's education secretary wants to limit costs at a time when more than 1 million Americans
are annually defaulting'
by Shahien Nasiripour...April 11, 2017...2:46 PM EDT
"Education Secretary Betsy DeVos on Tuesday rolled back an Obama administration attempt to reform
how student loan servicers collect debt.
Obama issued a pair (PDF) of memorandums (PDF) last year requiring that the government's Federal
Student Aid office, which services $1.1 trillion in government-owned student loans, do more to help
borrowers manage, or even discharge, their debt. But in a memorandum (PDF) to the department's student
aid office, DeVos formally withdrew the Obama memos.
The previous administration's approach, DeVos said, was inconsistent and full of shortcomings.
She didn't detail how the moves fell short, and her spokesmen, Jim Bradshaw and Matthew Frendewey,
didn't respond to requests for comment.
DeVos's move comes a week after one of the student loan industry's main lobbies asked for Congress's
help in delaying or substantially changing the Education Department's loan servicing plans. In a
pair of April 4 letters to leaders of the House and Senate appropriations committees, the National
Council of Higher Education Resources said there were too many unanswered questions, including whether
the Obama administration's approach would be unnecessarily expensive.
A recent epidemic of student loan defaults and what authorities describe as systematic mistreatment
of borrowers prompted the Obama administration, in its waning days, to force the FSA office to emphasize
how debtors are treated, rather than maximize the amount of cash they can stump up to meet their
obligations.
Obama's team also sought to reduce the possibility that new contracts would be given to companies
that mislead or otherwise harm debtors. The current round of contracts will terminate in 2019, and
among three finalists for a new contract is Navient Corp. In January, state attorneys general in
Illinois and Washington, along with the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, sued
Navient over allegations the company abused borrowers by taking shortcuts to boost its own bottom
line. Navient has denied the allegations.
The withdrawal of the Obama administration guidelines could make Navient a more likely contender
for that contract, government officials said. Navient shares moved higher after the government released
DeVos's decision around 11:30 a.m. New York time. Navient stock ended up almost 2 percent.
The Obama administration vision for how federal loans would be serviced almost certainly meant
the feds would have to increase how much they pay loan contractors to collect monthly payments from
borrowers and counsel them on repayment options. Already, the government annually spends around $800
million to collect on almost $1.1 trillion of debt. DeVos, however, made clear that her department
would focus on curbing costs.
"We must create a student loan servicing environment that provides the highest quality customer
service and increases accountability and transparency for all borrowers, while also limiting the
cost to taxpayers," DeVos said.
With her memo, DeVos has taken control of the complex and widely derided system in which the federal
government collects monthly payments from tens of millions of Americans with government-owned student
loans. The CFPB said in 2015 that the manner in which student loans are collected has been marred
by "widespread failures."
DeVos's move "will certainly increase the likelihood of default," said David Bergeron, a senior
fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank with close ties to Democrats.
Bergeron worked under Democratic and Republican administrations over more than 30 years at the Education
Department. He retired as the head of postsecondary education.
During Obama's eight years in office, some 8.7 million Americans defaulted on their student loans,
for a rate of one default roughly every 29 seconds.
Former Deputy Treasury Secretary Sarah Bloom Raskin worked on student loan policy during the latter
years of the Obama administration, in part over concern that borrowers' struggles were affecting
the management of U.S. debt. DeVos's decision to reverse some of her work "with no coherent explanation
or substitute" effectively means that the Trump administration is placing the welfare of loan contractors
above those of student debtors, she said.
In a statement Tuesday, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who is suing Navient, agreed:
"The Department of Education has decided it does not need to protect student loan borrowers." libezkova -> im1dc... ,
April 11, 2017 at 05:24 PM
"... As with any major reform movement, the corporate backlash was predictable. In Neo-classical Economics, Gaffney reveals that this backlash took two main forms. The first was the Red Scare (1919-1989), overseen by J Edgar Hoover as Assistant Attorney General and later as FBI director. ..."
"... The second was more insidious and involved the deliberate reframing of the classical economic theory developed by Adam Smith, Locke, Hume, and Ricardo as so-called neoclassical economics. ..."
Why do American children study Karl Marx, the villain we love to hate, in school? Yet Henry George,
whose views on land and tax reform gave rise to the Progressive and Populist movements of the
1900s, is totally absent from US history books.
During the 1890s George, author of the 1879 bestseller Progress and Poverty, was the third
most famous American, after Mark Twain and Thomas Edison. In 1896 he outpolled Teddy Roosevelt
and was nearly elected mayor of New York.
In Neo-classical Economics as a Stratagem Against Henry George (2007), University of California
economist Mason Gaffney argues that George and his Land Value Tax pose a far greater threat than
Marx to America's corporate elite.
America's enormous concentration of wealth has always depended on the inherent right of the
wealthy elite to seize and monopolize vast quantities of land and natural resources (oil, gas,
forests, water, minerals, etc) for personal profit.
Adopting an LVT, which is far easier than launching a violent revolution, would essentially
negate that right. What's more, every jurisdiction that has ever implemented an LVT finds it works
exactly the way George predicted it would. Productivity, prosperity, and social wellbeing flourish,
while inflation, wealth inequality, and boom and bust recessions and depressions virtually vanish.
When Progress and Poverty first came out in 1879, it started a worldwide reform movement that
in the US manifested in the fiercely anti-corporate Populist Movement in the 1880s and later the
Progressive Movement (1900-1920). Many important anti-corporate reforms came out of this period,
including the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890), a constitutional amendment allowing Americans to elect
the Senate by popular vote (prior to 1913 the Senate was appointed by state legislators), and
the country's first state-owned bank, The Bank of North Dakota (1919).
The Corporate Elite Strikes Back
As with any major reform movement, the corporate backlash was predictable. In Neo-classical
Economics, Gaffney reveals that this backlash took two main forms. The first was the Red Scare
(1919-1989), overseen by J Edgar Hoover as Assistant Attorney General and later as FBI director.
The second was more insidious and involved the deliberate reframing of the classical economic
theory developed by Adam Smith, Locke, Hume, and Ricardo as so-called neoclassical economics.
The latter totally negates Adam Smith's basic differentiation between "land", a limited, non-producible
resource. and "capital", a reproducible result of past human production. Smith, Locke, Hume, and
Ricardo all held that individuals have no right to seize and monopolize scarce natural resources,
such as land, minerals, water, and forests. They believed that because these resources are both
limited and essential for human survival, they should belong to the public.
Neoclassical economics, which first developed in the 1890s, was based on the premise that growth
and development can only occur if a handful of rent-seekers are allowed to monopolize scarce land
and natural resources for their personal profit. Henry George, who publicly debated the early
pioneers of neoclassical economics, claimed the science of economics was being deliberately distorted
to discredit him. Gaffney agrees. Because George's proposal to replace income and sales tax with
single land value taxed is based on logical concepts of land, capital, labor, and rent advanced
by Adam Smith, Locke, Hume, and Ricardo, they all had to be discredited.
Gaffney believes neoclassical economic theory undermines George's arguments for a single Land
Value Tax in two basic ways: 1) by claiming that land is no different from other capital (ironically
Marx made the identical argument) and 2) by portraying the science of economics as a series of
hard choices and sacrifices that low and middle income people must make. Some examples:
If we want efficiency, we must sacrifice equity.
To attract business, we must lower taxes and shut libraries and defund schools.
To prevent inflation, we must keep a large number of Americans unemployed.
To create jobs, we must destroy the environment and pollute the air, water, and food chain.
To raise productivity, we must fire people.
Gaffney's book traces the phenomenal public support Georgism enjoyed before the tenets of neoclassical
economics took hold in American universities. In addition to inspiring the Populist and Progressive
movements, an LVT to fund irrigation projects in California's Central Valley made California the
top producing farm state. In 1916 the first federal income tax law was introduced by Georgist
members of Congress (Henry George Jr and Warren Bailey) and included virtually no tax on wages.
In 1934 Georgist Upton Sinclair was almost elected governor of California.
Gaffney also identifies the robber barons whose fortunes financed the economics departments of
the major universities who went on to substitute neooclassical economics for classical economic
theory. At the top of this list were
Ezra Cornell (owner of both Western Union and Associated Press) – founder of Cornell University
John D Rockefeller – helped fund the University of Chicago and installed his cronies in its
economics department.
J. P Morgan – investment banker and early funder of Columbia University
B&O Railroad – John Hopkins University
Southern Pacific Railroad – Stanford University
The final section of Gaffney's book lays out the tragic economic, political, and social consequences
of allowing the Red Scare and neoclassical economics to stifle America's movement for a single
Land Value Tax:
Economic Consequences
The corporate elite has privatized, or is privatizing, most of the public domain (including
fisheries, the public airwaves, water, offshore oil and gas, and the right to clean air) without
compensation to the public.
The rate of saving and capital formation continues to fall rapidly. This is the main reason
there is no recovery.
Although profits soar, corporations have no incentive to invest in expansion and jobs. Instead
they invest their profits in real estate, derivatives, and commodities speculation.
American capital is decayed and obsolete. The US has lost much of its steel and auto industries.
Power plants and oil refineries are ancient and polluting. Most public capital (infrastructure)
is old and crumbling.
The number of American farms has fallen from 6 million in 1920 to 1 million in 2007.
The USA, once so self-sufficient, has grown dangerously dependent on importing raw materials
and foreign manufacturers.
The US financial system is a shambles, supported only by loading trillions of dollars of bad
debts onto the taxpayers.
Real wage rates have continued to fall since 1975,
Unemployment has risen to chronically high levels.
Inequality in wealth and income continues to increase rapidly.
Political Consequences
The corporate elite has nullified all the Progressive Era electoral reforms by pouring money
into politics and "deep lobbying," at all levels of government, including our institutions of
higher learning and our public schools.
The corporate elite continue to pour ever more of our tax money into prisons.
Social Consequences
Homelessness has risen to new heights, in spite of decades of subsidies to home-building and,
favorable tax treatment of owner-occupied homes
Hunger is rampant.
Street begging, once rare, is everywhere
Americans have experienced a sharp loss of community, honor, duty, loyalty and patriotism.
In the shadow world between crime and business there is now the vast, gray underground economy
that includes tax evasion, tax avoidance, and drug-dealing.
The US which once led the world in nearly every endeavor, has fallen far behind in infant survival,
in longevity, in literacy, in numeracy, in mental health.
American education no longer leads the world. Privatized education in the form of commercial
TV has largely superseded public education.
David Glasner discusses how essential Professor Thoma's blog
is to the Econosphere... Funny given that the web
address for Uneasy Money refuses appear in Typepad.
A Tale
of Three Posts
by David Glasner
March 30, 2017
Since I started blogging in July 2011, I have published
521 posts (not including this one). A number of my posts have
achieved a fair amount of popularity, as measured by the
number of views, which WordPress allows me to keep track of.
Many, though not all, of my most widely viewed posts were
mentioned by Paul Krugman in his blog. Whenever I noticed an
unusually large uptick in the number of viewers visiting the
blog, I usually found Krugman had linked to my post, causing
a surge of viewers to my blog.
The most visitors I ever had in one day was on August 7,
2012. It was the day after I wrote a post mocking an op-ed in
the Wall Street Journal by Arthur Laffer ("Arthur Laffer,
Anti-Enlightenment Economist") in which, based on some
questionable data, and embarrassingly bad logic, Laffer
maintained that countries that had adopted fiscal stimulus
after the 2008-09 downturn had weaker recoveries than
countries that had practiced fiscal austerity. This was not
the first or last time that Krugman linked to a post of mine,
but what made it special was that Krugman linked to it while
he on vacation, so that for three days, everyone who visited
Krugman's blog found his post linking to my post, so that on
August 7 alone, my post was viewed 7885 times, with 3004
viewing the post on August 8, 1591 on August 9, and 953 on
August 10. In the entire month of August, the Laffer post was
viewed 15,399 times. To this day, that post remains the most
viewed post that I have ever written, having been viewed a
total 17,604 times.
As you can see, the post has not maintained its popular
appeal, over 87 percent of all views having occurred within
three and a half weeks of its having been published. And
there's no reason why it should have retained its popularity.
It was a well-written post, properly taking a moderately
well-known right-wing economist to task for publishing a
silly piece of ideological drivel in a once-great newspaper,
but there was nothing especially profound or original about
it. It was just the sort of post that Krugman loves to link
to, and I was at the top of his blog for three days before he
published his next post.
...
But over the past six months, suddenly since October, a
third post ("Gold Standard or Gold Exchange Standard: What's
the Difference?"), originally published on July 1, 2015, has
been attracting a lot of traffic. When first published, it
was moderately successful, drawing 569 visits on July 2,
2015, which is still the most visits it has received on any
single day, mostly via links from Mark Toma's blog and Brad
DeLong's blog. The post was not terribly original, but I
think it did a nice job of describing that evolution of the
gold standard from an almost accidental and peculiarly
British, institution into a totem of late nineteenth-century
international monetary orthodoxy, whose principal features
remain till this day surprisingly obscure even to well
trained and sophisticated monetary economists and financial
experts.
...
The other amazing thing about the burst of traffic to this
post is that most of the visitors seem to be coming from
India. Over the past 30 days since February 28, this blog has
been viewed 17,165 times. The most-often viewed post in that
time period was my gold-exchange standard post, which was
viewed 7385 times, i.e., over 40% of all views were of that
one single post. In the past 30 days, my blog was viewed from
India 6446 times while my blog was viewed from the United
States only 4863 times. Over the entire history of this blog,
about 50% of views have been from within the US. So India is
clearly where it's at now.
...
PS I realized that, by identifying Paul Krugman's blog as
the blog from which many of my most popular posts have
received the largest number of viewers, I inadvertently
slighted Mark Thoma's indispensible blog (Economistsview.typepad.com),
which really is the heart and soul of the econ blogosphere. I
just checked, and I see that since my blog started in 2011,
over 79,000 viewers have visited my blog via Mark's blog
compared to 53,000 viewers who have visited via Krugman. And
I daresay that when Krugman has linked to one of my posts,
it's probably only after he followed Thoma's link to my blog,
so I'm doubly indebted to Mark.
At the end they have a good discussion about NGDP
targetting.
I really don't understand why progressive economists don't
get behind this more. The more mainstream economists seem
more interested in promoting the Democrats' policy agenda and
defending it from the left and from the right.
Economists could/can help social movements push policies
like a higher minimum wage, UBI, guaranteed jobs,
unionization/economic democracy and an NGDP target for the
Fed.
Seems like Progressive [center-left] economists are more
interested in defending the Federal Reserve except for DeLong
who criticizes it in an indirect, oblique manner. They're in
a defensive crouch all of the time.
"The comments should never be confused with the posts and
posted links"
That's wrong ! There is a strong
interdependency.
Professor Thoma has the unique ability to pick up
interesting links. I wonder where he finds time to read all
those articles, as probably to post a dosen of links, as he
often does, you need to read at least twice more articles.
Probably much more the twice.
I think that this quality attracts a lot of people.
And I noticed that on average, his "Links" posts attract
more comments that regular posts. Probably by the factor of
two on average. Most Links posts attract over 100 comments
with high number around 300.
It might also be that commenting on "Links", commenters
often post their own findings and quotes, which sometimes is
of high, or very high value and add to the value. Anne is one
such persons.
Another interesting feature of this blog is that the
"core" group of commenters is reasonably stable with many
commenting for five years or more. I belong to "episodical"
commenters, but I follow the blog for a long time and after a
couple of years I start recognizing probably 80% of names and
even now has some vague information about their personal
histories.
And some of the members of the core group systematically
produce a number of high quality comments almost each day.
That also attracts people.
Discussions, when two commenters have opposite views of
the subject to me is the most interesting part. Despite
occasional shouting matches.
So it is the quality of links and posts attracts quality
commenters, which in turn, further enhance the quality of the
blog.
Absolutely! I was originally attracted to this blog by the
quality of the comments even more than the quality of Prof.
Thoma's selections.
It's ironic that paine seems to be
arguing that comments are relatively unimportant. His posts
are always thought-provoking and foster good discussions, and
one of the reasons I became a regular reader.
Ivy League alumni like the illuminatis Clinton and Bushes are prepared and vetted
to run Goldman Sachs, the White House and the justice system etc. A merry go
'round, this for that but at the end rather than creating personal foundations
they should be creating foundations for their alma mater instead of their library
mausoleum. Clinton foundation raised over $1.2 billion to be run by daughter.
Sick.
Flawed, sensationalistic report, clickbait for jealous masses who can't make the
cut into the ivy league.
Most of the $ comes from research grants. Wouldn't you
expect the best schools in the country to get research grants? Look at all the
top state schools, they also attract loads of federal $.
As for endowment income being non-taxable for universities, that's a good thing
IMO. Would you rather have the endowment funds for all other nonprofits taxed too?
Think about hospitals and churches as examples.
The Ivy League universities are also prolific H-1B abusers, and they use
tax-free "scholarship" endowment fund earnings to advance their liberal
causes.
Time to tax them properly and stop the scam of 'scholarships' and
H-1B abuse.
The US has 1,000 Generals. Count 'em. We have 33 brigade combat teams, who
comprise in battalions, companies and platoons, roughly 1,000 combat platoons.
Do the math. We have so many excess Generals, each General could partner with
an LT leading a platoon into battle. That's FU. Let's cut that number back to
33, one per BCT, and find KP duty for the 967, until they find the
$6,000,000,000,000 of our last life savings that the Pentagon 'lost track of'
and is now forever MIA.
The US has 1,000 Admirals. Count 'em. We have 430
fighting ships, if you go all the way down to fuel barges, PT boats and LSTs.
Do the math. We have so many excess Admirals, each Admiral could partner with
an LT leading an LST onto the beach, and still have 570 Admirals to wade ashore
and declare the beachhead secured. That's FU. Let's cut that number back to 7,
one per fleet, and find KP duty for the 993, until they find the
$6,000,000,000,000 of our last life savings that the Pentagon 'lost track of'
and is now forever MIA.
Somebody knows where our savings went! There are over 1800 unnecessary
Admirals and Generals who could defend America and earn their $250,000 a year
salaries for life, by ferreting out the moles, rats, leeches and gribbles at
the Pentagon, clean house, right-size the armed forces, re-fund yhe VA, then
hang all the MIC lobbyists from the yardarms for treason.
It's worse. From having relatives inside the Pentagon budget process, I've
been made aware for decades that at least 1/3 of our military manpower
exists not because there is any rational need for those troops, OTHER than
having sufficient forces to justify retaining and promoting more
high-ranking (and highly-paid) Brass.
The hierarchical structure of the military assures that there are
relatively few pay billets at the top. This means that officers sitting on
promotion boards are constantly faced with the demand to "pass over" and
thus doom to early separation/retirement fellow officers who are perfectly
competent at their jobs, just not needed by the numbers.
In the immediate post WWII era, service leaders were nervous about
letting good talent go and get settled in civilian life, only to need them
for the Next Big One in a few years' time. Those few years have since
become six decades, and the system of holding onto popular people by
"creative" billeting has become institutionalized. The Armed Forces DON'T
need AT LEAST 1/3 of their personnel, especially in the higher ranks. But
the higher the rank, the more personal favors are owed to them, and the more
likely that a new job will be created requiring even more stars, in order to
assure that they stay employed at least until they can collect retirement.
The Pentagon is the world's one and and only truly functional socialist
system.
"... And that's the reason UK economics students revolted: "Few mainstream economists predicted the global financial crash of 2008 and academics have been accused of acting as cheerleaders for the often labyrinthine financial models behind the crisis. Now a growing band of university students are plotting a quiet revolution against orthodox free-market teaching, arguing that alternative ways of thinking have been pushed to the margins. ..."
"... why economists failed to warn about the global financial crisis and for having too heavy a focus on training students for City jobs. ..."
"... But the answer to their question is very simple. Neoliberals are in power and they dictate what is to be taught in Economics courses. They also promote and sustain "willing charlatans" like Mankiw, who poisons and indoctrinates students with neoclassical junk. ..."
So true; "SWL has never addressed what is happening in the real world."
And that's the reason UK economics students revolted: "Few mainstream economists predicted
the global financial crash of 2008 and academics have been accused of acting as cheerleaders for
the often labyrinthine financial models behind the crisis. Now a growing band of university students
are plotting a quiet revolution against orthodox free-market teaching, arguing that alternative
ways of thinking have been pushed to the margins.
Economics undergraduates at the University of Manchester have formed the Post-Crash Economics
Society, which they hope will be copied by universities across the country. The organisers criticise
university courses for doing little to explain why economists failed to warn about the global
financial crisis and for having too heavy a focus on training students for City jobs."
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/24/students-post-crash-economics
But the answer to their question is very simple. Neoliberals are in power and they dictate what is to be taught in Economics courses. They also promote and sustain "willing charlatans" like Mankiw, who poisons and indoctrinates
students with neoclassical junk.
"... $32K to hear Snooki speak at the Rutgers commencement? Are the administrators nuts? ..."
"... the Post and the legislator have certain attitudes, ideological biases if you will, towards public universities in general, and college students and the terms of their crushing college debt. ..."
"... And there was some thought that some elements in the legislature were perturbed that Rutgers did invite author Toni Morrison to speak at commencement, and did pay her $30,000 for it. And God knows what they payed Mr. Obama. ..."
"... Thank God they did not invite Hillary. ..."
"... For my son's Rutgers graduating class of 2014, the University had engaged Miss Condoleezza Rice, of Bush Administration State Department fame, to speak at that their commencement. For a $35,000 by the way. ..."
"... The professional class tends to defend the prerogatives of their own, sticking to their 'no consequences' principle for themselves and the acts of their peers, including the financiers. ..."
"... In the case of Secretary Rice, the students and faculty thought that it was hypocrisy to award an honorary law degree to someone who had consciously worked to circumvent the law, encouraged an aggressive war on contrived evidence, and helped permit the use of torture in violation of our nation's long standing principles. ..."
"... Rice signed off to give the CIA authority to conduct their torture tactics for gathering information from detainees as well. These are clearly human rights issues. By inviting her to speak and awarding her an honorary degree, we are encouraging and perpetuating a world that justifies torture and debases humanity ..."
"... I found it highly hypocritical of the Republican legislator and the arch-conservative Post to phrase their own stand against high commencement fees in such an incorrect manner, and dare I say false news . The Post and the politician knew better. They just did not give a damn in making their point. ..."
From Jeri-Lynn Scofield over at Naked Capitalism who picked up this piece in the NY post:
Snooki inspires legislation to limit state university speaker fees NY Post. Moi: Speaking
as a born and bred Jersey girl, I applaud the state legislature's action. Nice to see the state
of my birth lead the way in something other than corruption or toxic waste. And about time–
$32K to hear Snooki speak at the Rutgers commencement? Are the administrators nuts? And
the proposed $10k cap is too high. Why should any speaker receive more than expenses and a modest
honorarium, e.g., $1K– which incidentally, anyone with any class would immediately donate back
to the university.
I don't normally read the Post, except perhaps for financial pieces by John Crudele, so I was glad
to see this at a site where I do read on occasion.
This is no knock on Jeri-Lynn whose major point remains intact, that commencement fees may be
far too generous.
And as an old fogey, it seems to me to be a correct sentiment about paying far too much money
and attention to these reality tv stars, our current President notwithstanding.
Except that this even with Snooki never happened, at least not in the way that the NY Post and
the state legislator Republican Assemblyman John DiMaio portray.
And I suspect strongly that they carelessly framed the story the way in which they did, because
the Post and the legislator have certain attitudes, ideological biases if you will, towards public
universities in general, and college students and the terms of their crushing college debt.
Miss Nicole Snooki Polizzi, of Jersey Shore fame, never spoke at the Rutgers commencement,
or any commencement that I could find. And she was not paid any money by the University administration
for anything. Period.
She was paid $32,000 for two evening's 'performances' of a reality show nature for student audiences
by the student run entertainment committee, which is an autonomous organization controlled by students.
They book over 140 events per year. While the University does collect the money which in this case
amounted to roughly 90 cents per student from a pool of general fees at the very large New
Brunswick campus.
In other words, Snooki, who back in 2011 apparently had a following amongst the younger set, was
a hired entertainer engaged by the students themselves without active involvement of University officials.
And unless we wish to try and legislate the entertainment which college students may employ with
their own money, and not allow it to be an issue for student government, I don't think that the esteemed
GOP legislator's and the Post's points apply.
Rutgers University officials made no apologies today for Snooki's $32,000 appearance at a pair
of student-run events on the Piscataway campus. The "Jersey Shore" reality TV star was invited
and paid by students, who are allowed to select their own entertainment, a campus spokesman said.
"The students use funds designated for student programming. The university does not censor
the speakers students choose to invite to campus," said E.J. Miranda, a Rutgers spokesman.
I remembered this incident quite well, because my number one son was a student there at the time,
and I kidded him about it. He pretty much shrugged it off to the liberal arts and music school crowd
over the other side of the river, himself being ensconced at the Livingston and Bush campuses for
engineering, business and medical/pharmaceutical students.
And there was some thought that some elements in the legislature were perturbed that Rutgers
did invite author Toni Morrison to speak at commencement, and did pay her $30,000 for it. And God
knows what they payed Mr. Obama.
But it seemed snarky to attack that indirectly by throwing Snooki in, albeit falsely, thinking
it played better with those who think that all public projects are foolish wastes of money, and students
deserved all the bad fortune they may incur.
Thank God they did not invite Hillary. Those sort of stratospheric speaking fees are
the domain of private enterprise, like the boys on Wall Street, who exercise their private judgement
more precisely to get the most for their hard earned dollars. And as I recall they are also paid
by the for-profit private education institutions, which have been generous with fees and sinecures
for certain politicians, for example.
Let's face it. A certain amount of foolishness is a part and parcel of the coming of age rite
that is a college education, or the period between high school and family life, for most participants
Sowing a few wild oat when one is young is hardly an alien concept.
As I recall, I spent a huge sum on foolishness in my college career. I was a commuting student
who worked as an auto mechanic three or four days a week throughout. But I hate to see what my total
beer tab amounted to during that four year period.
I seem to recall consuming rather heroic volumes of beer at the school student 'mixers, and local
college beer dives, with quaint names like The Downunder, Agora, and Rathskeller while
in pursuit of good times and companionship of the female persuasion.
For my son's Rutgers graduating class of 2014, the University had engaged Miss Condoleezza
Rice, of Bush Administration State Department fame, to speak at that their commencement. For a $35,000
by the way.
But I was grateful to be spared sitting through that on a hot day because of widespread objections
to her honorarium from the University community, both faculty and students. And the faculty involvement
in this was notable. And it angered our NJ Republican politicians, very much.
It also
disappointed Barack Obama , by the way, who in his own subsequent commencement address to take
the students to task at a later commencement address but that is another story. The professional
class tends to defend the prerogatives of their own, sticking to their 'no consequences' principle
for themselves and the acts of their peers, including the financiers.
And granting our betters public venues where the common people are forced to listen, but not allowed
to answer back, is hardly an open sharing of ideas. I think the political parities had a close and
personal organizational experience that in the recent elections.
A one-way commencement address is one thing, a debate with various viewpoints is quite another.
And so the University community did what people in a weaker position always tend to do when confronted
with the unspeakable- they protested against it. And far too often, protests against what the public
views as outrages are crushed. That is what happened to Occupy Wall Street.
And now the out of power liberal establishment asks, why are so few protesting? Duh.
In the case of Secretary Rice, the students and faculty thought that it was hypocrisy to award
an honorary law degree to someone who had consciously worked to circumvent the law, encouraged an
aggressive war on contrived evidence, and helped permit the use of torture in violation of our nation's
long standing principles. Condoleezza
Rice Declines to Speak at Rutgers after Student Protests.
" Rice signed off to give the CIA authority to conduct their torture tactics for gathering
information from detainees as well. These are clearly human rights issues. By inviting her to
speak and awarding her an honorary degree, we are encouraging and perpetuating a world that justifies
torture and debases humanity ."
I found it highly hypocritical of the Republican legislator and the arch-conservative Post to
phrase their own stand against high commencement fees in such an incorrect manner, and dare I say
false news . The Post and the politician knew better. They just did not give a damn in making
their point.
And it also fits their own political bias against public works, like Universities, and any thought
of relief for students who are being crushed by debt at rates significantly higher than their parents
just provided to Wall Street to bail those contemptible jokers out.
Received a "new academic programs" missive from my alma mater in today's
mail, containing the following:
How to Make Innovation Happen in Your Organization
The Certified Professional Innovator (CPI) program is intended to develop
the competency of high potential leaders in the theory and practice of
innovation. It is rooted on the principle that innovation can only be
learned by doing and through many short bursts of experimentation.
The certification is comprised of a 12-week curriculum with specific
syllabus and assignments for each week, including videos, workbook
assignments, and reports. During the program, participants, functioning as a
cohort, communicate and collaborate with each other and faculty through a
series of webinars and discussions. The program culminates in project
pitches.
"It is rooted on [sic] the principle that innovation can only be learned by
doing and through many short bursts of experimentation" - OK, fine there, but
it is also rooted in the notion that such creativity can be taught in a formal
academic setting, here monetized and condensed into a 12-week program. As for
me, I'm gonna hold out for the following surely-in-development mini-courses:
o Certified Professional Serial Disruptor (CPD)
o Certified Professional Innovative Thought Leader (CPCTL)
o Certified Professional Smart Creative (CPSC)
I love the smell of money-greased credentialism in the morning.
"... His book Animal Farm was a satire on Stalin and Trotsky and 1984 * gave readers a glimpse into what would happen if the government controlled every detail of a person's life, down to their own private thoughts. (*online bio). The battles in Europe were life and death with the goal of survival. ..."
"... We are now programed (propagandized) from pre school to the home for the elderly. We are initially taught as children, continue through college, and are forever conditioned by media such as TV, Movies, Radio, Newspapers and Advertising our entire lives. The younger generations are not taught to think independently or critically but instead indoctrinated with pre packaged knowledge 'propaganda' while older generations assess outcomes from a different perspective. There is as a result, a clash within the society which we are experiencing today. ..."
"... 1984 was about controlling the news and airwaves. Farenheit 451 was about burning history. The two go hand in hand. ..."
"... The similarity of the major networks evening "news" programs has given rise to a report that, each day, a list of ten or twelve "acceptable" news stories is prepared by British Intelligence in London for the networks, teletyped to Washington, where the CIA routinely approves it, and then delivered to the networks. ..."
"... The "selectivity" of the broadcasters has never been in doubt. Edith Efron, in "The News Twisters," (Manor Books, N.Y., 1972) cites TV Guide's interview with David Brinkley, April 11, 1964, with Brinkley's declaration that "News is what I say it is. It's something worth knowing by my standards." This was merely vainglorious boasting on Brinkley's part, as he merely reads the news stories previously selected for him. ..."
"... "REMEMBER THE MAINE!" That false flag headline is over a century old. ..."
"... Next time you are in a Best Buy.. go up to the Geek Squad guy and say... "So how does it feel to work for the CIA " ..."
"... Fuck the Washington Post. As Katherine Austin Fitts has suggested, it is essentially the CIA's Facebook wall. The same could be said of the NYT as well. ..."
"... James Rosen from Fox, he was at a state dept briefing with that little weasel Kirby, and Kirby stated that the negotiations over the Iran "deal" were all overt and "above the table." He remembered, tho, a briefing years earlier from the witch Psaki, who stated that sometimes, in interests of expedience, aspects of the negotiations are not made public. ..."
"... Rosen goes back to state dept video archives, finds out that his whole exchange with Psaki has been erased. Weasel Kirby, when asked how this happened, who did it, who ordered it, blames it on a "technical glitch." ..."
Snowflakes should also learn the depressing fact that Orwell's 1984 was not a complete work
of fiction, but a successful blueprint for full statist control.
Orwell was dying of tuberculosis when he wrote "1984" and passed away after its publication
in 1949. Once you have their attention and they have read the book, it is time to show snowflakes
the MANY obvious parallels between Orwellian concepts and modern society.
NEWSPEAK AND THOUGHT CRIME
You can start with soft targets like Newspeak (today's examples include gems like cis-gender
labels and other politically correct BS).
Now move to the "thought police" and thought crime in general.
Explain how thought and speech crime keep the globalist model alive and ticking by discouraging
independent thought and discussion.
Explain how state-financed institutions seek to implant these concepts at an early age and
onwards into university education.
Provide real-life newspeak and double-think examples, such as "police-action" "regime-change",
"coalition of the willing" and "collateral damage". Show how these are really just PC euphemisms
for "wars of aggression" and "murder". If you have a picture of a droned wedding party handy,
now is the time to use it.
Also mention people who have been silenced, prosecuted or even killed for committing "hate
crimes" or other political blasphemies. Explain how this often occurs while they are standing
up for or using their constitutionally protected human rights.
Name some of these people: Randy and Vicki Weaver, David Koresh, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders,
Julian Assange, William Binney, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning
Show them how this trend is ongoing both in the USA and abroad, and is primarily being deployed
against populist politicians who promote more individual rights and reduced state control over
citizens. Ask them whether or not they can see a pattern developing here.
Above all, d on't waste time with cheap shots at identity politics and its absurd labelling.
This will just polarize the more brainwashed members of your audience. Stick to the nitty gritty
and irrefutable facts.
And be very careful here, because if they have insufficient vocabulary to understand or critique
what you are saying, you will lose them. Which was the whole point of Newspeak. Of course you
can use this failed learning opportunity to demonstrate just how successful the Newspeak program
has been.
TELESCREENS
Tell them about the real life "Telescreens" that can now listen to you, even when turned off.
Name one of their known manufacturers: Samsung and users: Central Intelligence Agency
Show them how these same telescreens are used to pump out constant lies from the MSM whenever
they are turned on. Name some of these organizations: CNN, BBC, MSNBC, FOX, etc.
MASS SURVEILLANCE and the "PANOPTICON"
Talk to them about the modern surveillance state and how it will always be abused by corporate
globalists and corrupt elites.
Describe how mass-surveillance service providers (MSSPs) and MSM stooges have become obscenely
rich and powerful as the real-life proles (who were 85% of the population in "1984") struggle
to put food on the table, pay their debts, find a decent job or buy a home. Tell them to find
out how much wealth is owned by 8 very wealthy people relative to the poorest half of the world,
and how this trend is accelerating. Name a few of them: Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Carlos Slim,
etc.
Show how the previously enacted, totalitarian US policies, programs and laws have been extensively
deployed, lobbied for, used and abused by the very Big-Brothers (Clinton and Obama) they so adored.
Even George W is swooning progressives again.
Name some of these policies, programs and laws: Patriot Act, SOPA, US Telecommunications Act,
FISA, Echelon, PRISM, and Umbrage
Explain why this whole surveillance system, its operators and proponents must be completely
dismantled and reined in or imprisoned, unless we wish all whistle blowers, dissidents and normal
citizens to end up like Winston Smith.
ETERNAL WAR AND THE BROTHERHOOD
Explain how eternal war keeps the proles from getting too restless and questioning their leaders.
How it leads to modern strategic idiocies like "Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahedeen are steadfast
allies against Russian totalitarianism, which is why the CIA needs to give them Stingers" (aka
Operation Cyclone). Or the illegal provision of arms and funds to countries with questionable
human rights records (KSA, Iran, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Israel.....)
Explain how this leads to, nay requires, state-propagated lies like WMD to justify illegal
military actions against sovereign nation states like Iraq, Libya and Syria.
Show how 9/11 was used to target a former-ally Osama and his Taliban brotherhood and prepare
the terrain for eternal war, even though the real criminals were actually in DC, Riyadh and other
world capitals. Explain how letting Osama escape from Tora Bora was all part of this intricate
plan for the PNAC, until he finally outlived his usefulness as a bogeyman. If they disagree, ask
for their counter-argument and proofs.
Explain how these same criminals then made a financial killing when our real life Oceania went
to war bigly with Eastasia. How this resulted in over a million civilian deaths (half of them
children), around 80,000 terrorists and perhaps 10,000 uniformed soldiers/contractors. Show them
videos where US officials justify this slaughter as "worth it", unimportant or irrelevant. Ask
what kind of individuals could even say these things or let them happen. If they can't answer,
name a few: Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
At this point, you may need to take a break as listeners will soon have trouble distinguishing
between real-life events and those in Orwell's book.
WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Next, explain how real, imagined or simulated terrorist outrages can be manipulated to influence
electorates. This is done by creating or allowing atrocities that frighten citizens into seeking
"safety". These citizens will then vote in corrupt, globalist leaders who promise to keep them
safe. These same leaders can then curtail freedoms in their previously democratic, freedom-loving
nation states. New terrorist threats can always be used to justify more restrictions on free movement
and state-mandated invasions of personal privacy.
If your snowflakes don't agree with this, name some leaders responsible for bad laws, policies
and the ensuing restrictions on civil liberties:
Tony Blair, George W Bush, Angela Merkel, Theresa May and Francois Hollande.
Name some events as well: Oklahoma City, 911, 7/7 Sandy Hook, 11-M
Also mention that the USA has not waged a single legal, constitutional, Congress-declared war
since 1945. But that the USA has been involved in hot or cold wars for all but 5 of the past 71
years.
HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
Tell them that Orwell's original book title was actually "1944" (already past), but that his
publisher vetoed this choice saying it could hurt sales.
Then explain how 1944-45 was actually the perfect crucible for the divisive, right-left political
paradigm we live in today and many of the concepts presciently described in Orwell's chilling
masterpiece.
EPILOGUE
Tell them everything, until their brains hurt, their eyes water and their ears bleed.
Eventually even the iciest snowflakes will get it.
Of course, some will cry, and some will have temper tantrums and meltdowns.
But a few might just wake up, start reading real books and get a proper education.
This is when the healing can begin.
Those thinking a career in gender-diversity-issue management is still the way forward may figure
it out later, God help them. Until then, we should just pity them.
Ira Levin's "This Perfect Day" (1970) is from the same dystopian mold. In the late Eighties,
my then teenage daughter kept reading it, till it literally fell apart.
How technology has "advanced"! People in this phantasy had to wear bracelets with which they
checked in and out of buildings and areas. Reality always seems to surpass the imaginative powers
of SF-writers.
Your government is not populated by reptilians from outer space. The politicians and the bankers,
lawyers are YOUR sons and daughters. You gave birth to them, you educated them, you taught them
their values.
YOU pull the trigger when the government says KILL! YOU vote Democrat or Republican EVERY TIME.
Yet you have the temerity to blame them when you don't get what you wanted.
Scum,
Hitler didn't kill anyone as fas as we know, in WWII. People [YOU] killed people. You blame
the Jews because the wars they incite you to fight result in blowback to you. Why do you blame
them because YOU jumped when they said JUMP! YOU are the ones flying the fighter jets and firing
the tank shells against foreign populations living 10,000 miles away from your land, and who have
not attacked you. NO ONE does anything unless they wanted to, in the first place. In any case,
YOU are responsible for YOUR actions. This we all know.
Even your own money the US dollar is illegal according to your own US Constitution (Article
1, Section 10) yet you commit mass murder and mass torture throughout the world in order to impose
it on everyone?
The liberals are promoting the book (Nineteen Eighty-Four). IMO, that's great! Orwell's book
is a classic and accurately describes features in our current society.
The downside is that the liberals won't understand it . They are promoting the idea that Trump
is a fascist. They don't see that they themselves are fascists (albeit a different brand of fascism).
Ironic that the book could help them see past the indoctrinated haze of their perspective, but
it won't. The future, from my perspective, is a boot stamping on a human face forever.
I read 1984 in 1960 as a freshman in HS. Spent the next 24 years waiting. I don't remember
details but I do remember it was upsetting at the time to picture my future as depicted by Orwell.
It might be more interesting to me now to go back to the publishing date and study the paradigm
that Orwell lived under to get a perspective of his mindset. He wasn't a US citizen. He was born
in India, moved to England with his mother, had little contact with his father, was sickly and
lonely as a child and suffered from tuberculosis as an adult, served in Burma for five years as
a policeman, fought Soviet backed Communsts in the Spanish Civil War, fought Facism, believed
in Democratic socialism or Classless socialism.
His book Animal Farm was a satire on Stalin and Trotsky and 1984 * gave readers a glimpse into
what would happen if the government controlled every detail of a person's life, down to their
own private thoughts. (*online bio). The battles in Europe were life and death with the goal of
survival.
The European cauldron produced or nurtured, IMO, the seeds of most social evils that exist
today. In Orwell's era society was changing and reacting to the Machine age which was followed
by the Atomic age, the Space age and to the current Information age. He died in 1950 but in his
environment, the Machine age is where he related. The forces (of evil) at work in his era still
exist today with the additions of the changes brought by the later ages. We don't contend with
the physical (at least not initially) conquerors such as the Genghis Khan, Mohamed, Alexander,
Roman conquest etc. of the past but the compulsion of others to control our lives still exists
just in different forms. We as a society react or comply and have the same forces to deal with
as did Orwell but also those that resulted in the later eras. 1984 was actually the preview of
the information age that Orwell didn't experience.
We are now programed (propagandized) from pre school to the home for the elderly. We are initially
taught as children, continue through college, and are forever conditioned by media such as TV,
Movies, Radio, Newspapers and Advertising our entire lives. The younger generations are not taught
to think independently or critically but instead indoctrinated with pre packaged knowledge 'propaganda'
while older generations assess outcomes from a different perspective. There is as a result, a
clash within the society which we are experiencing today.
Through the modern (at least recorded) ages the underlying force no matter what era humans
lived through was the conflict of...religion. In the name or names of God and whose god is the
true god and which god will rule. Even in the most 'godless' societies it is the underlying force.
There are many who do not believe in god or a god and by extension should or do not believe in
satin. Good vs Evil? It's always there, although we are encouraged not to mention it?
Can't say I need another go at 1984 from Costco but I do need another indoor/outdoor vacuum
and right now they have one with a manufacturers discount of $5. See you there!
1984 is really just a knock off of Evgeny Zemyatin's "We," which is frankly a better account
of dystopian authoritarianism from someone who wrote shortly after the Russian Revolution.
This is not true. Orwell's book touched on major points, such as the destruction of people's
ability to communicate real ideas by perversion and simplification of language, that are not discussed
elsewhere. It is a unique and disturbing view of totalitarian regimes.
The similarity of the major networks evening "news" programs has given rise to a report that,
each day, a list of ten or twelve "acceptable" news stories is prepared by British Intelligence
in London for the networks, teletyped to Washington, where the CIA routinely approves it, and
then delivered to the networks.
The "selectivity" of the broadcasters has never been in doubt. Edith Efron, in "The News Twisters,"
(Manor Books, N.Y., 1972) cites TV Guide's interview with David Brinkley, April 11, 1964, with
Brinkley's declaration that "News is what I say it is. It's something worth knowing by my standards."
This was merely vainglorious boasting on Brinkley's part, as he merely reads the news stories
previously selected for him.
Fuck the Washington Post. As Katherine Austin Fitts has suggested, it is essentially the CIA's
Facebook wall. The same could be said of the NYT as well.
Bezos has no problem selling "1984" on Amazon.
https://tinyurl.com/hdmhu75 He's collecting the sales price and sticking it in his pocket. He's not making a joke out of
it. Bezos is a lunatic. The Washington Post is full of shit. End of story.
James Rosen from Fox, he was at a state dept briefing with that little weasel Kirby, and Kirby
stated that the negotiations over the Iran "deal" were all overt and "above the table." He remembered,
tho, a briefing years earlier from the witch Psaki, who stated that sometimes, in interests of
expedience, aspects of the negotiations are not made public.
Rosen goes back to state dept video archives, finds out that his whole exchange with Psaki
has been erased. Weasel Kirby, when asked how this happened, who did it, who ordered it, blames
it on a "technical glitch."
It's a slippery fuckin slope. Only now the progressives are finding relevance in 1984?
"Next time you're at Costco, you can pick up a jumbo bag of Cheetos and a copy of '1984.' Doubleplus
good!"
That's how the Washington Post opened its quick little
entry on Wednesday. Continuing, Ron Charles, editor of Book World for the Post , wrote:
"The discount store is now stocking Orwell's classic novel along with its usual selection of current
bestsellers."
If the significance of the fact that a dystopian masterwork can now be purchased alongside a three-ton
bag of cheese puffs instantly strikes you, it should. Strangely, though, Charles and the Post don't
seem to see it.
In fact, it seemed to be a joke to them. The entry closed in the manner it opened. With humor:
"Appropriately, Costco is offering a reprint of the 2003 edition of '1984,' which has a forward
by Thomas Pynchon. That reclusive satirist must love the idea of hawking Orwell's dystopian novel
alongside towers of discounted toilet paper and radial tires. SHOPPING IS SAVING."
In the one and only instance Charles even approached something that could be considered commentary,
he linked the surge in the book's sales to "alternative" news items :
"Last month, amid talk of 'alternative facts' from the Trump administration, Signet Classics announced
that it had reprinted 500,000 copies, about twice the novel's total sales in 2016."
Note Charles was certain to use the word "alternative" when mentioning Trump. Why? Very clearly,
"fake news" is the man's go-to phrase when speaking of the media. So why go with "alternative" instead?
Hell, the Post
itself was the driving force behind the "fake news" frenzy in the first place.
I could go on about how this is the Washington Post , corporate media juggernaut, attempting,
rather pathetically, to poison the notion of "alternative" in the minds of its readers - or, I should
say, what's left of them - but that's not really what this is about.
What it's really about is journalism. The fact that "1984" is being sold at Costco, the fact that
demand for the classic tale has
skyrocketed , is significant. It's societal. And journalists are supposed to write about things
like that.
And what does the Post do? They make a joke of it.
This is an organization that, as recently as January, has been
busted publishing false news stories. You would think that with its credibility among a growing
division of society hanging on by a thread - at best - the Post would turn an event like this into
social commentary. This was an opportunity to speak about a changing world.
But instead, the Post went for laughs.
Let it sink in, friends. George Orwell's "1984," a dystopian tale about a society being crushed
under the boot of authoritarian regime, is, once again, flying off bookshelves. To the extent that
you can now get it at Costco. Let the significance of that truly dig in deep.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post is talking about Cheetos and toilet paper.
It is truly Orwellian that the sheep only take interest in Orwell when someone challenges Big
Brother. If I had a Facebook account, I'd post this article straight away.
It is truly Orwellian that the sheep only take interest in Orwell when someone challenges Big
Brother. If I had a Facebook account, I'd post this article straight away.
Well, after all the shit is going down, White House is definitely in distress. Trump gets a
taste of his own medicine as he's grabbed by the pussy from all intelligence agencies directions.
Read 'Little Heroes' by Norman Spinrad. It's like the dude had a trip to the future which is
our present, a completly broken society dominated by corporations exploiting the masses of hedonist
mindless snowflakes. In my humble oppinion perfect companion to Orwell's 84.
[...
In the future the class divide between capitalist and worker will have widened to become a
virtually unbridgeable chasm. In HG Wells' The Time Machine (1895) this division has become so
extreme that humanity had split into two species.
The way to keep the underclass under control is to feed them mass-produced pseudo-culture.
If - as in Orwell's 1984 (1949) - the technocratic ruling class can get some kind of computer
or machine to generate this product, so much the better.
In the future, 20th century entertainment forms like TV and movies will have been superseded
by more direct experiences that, ideally, feed directly into the brain or, at least - as with
the 'feelies' in Huxley's Brave New World (1932) - stimulate more senses than simply the visual
and auditory.
And now, here's a book that uses all these themes in one hit, and builds on these classic foundations
by adding rock & roll to the mix.
Set in the early years of the 21st century, it shows us an America decimated by devaluation,
where unemployment is commonplace and rock music is firmly in the grip of accountants and electro-nerds
producing synthesized superstars to keep the proles contented.
Once they notice you, Jason realized, they never completely close the file. You can never get
back your anonymity. It is vital not to be noticed in the first place. -- Philip K Dick
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control
the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."
P.K.D., How To Build A Universe That Doesn't Fall Apart Two Days Later
Philip was spot on decades before the advent of the CIA's infestation of cell phones and other
electronic devices.
"There will come a time when it isn't 'They're spying on me through my phone' anymore. Eventually,
it will be 'My phone is spying on me'." Philip K. Dick
"The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above
the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within
the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There
was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often,
or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was
even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in
your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live-did live, from habit that became instinct-in
the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement
scrutinized."
As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen.
There were hisses here and there among the audience. The little sandy-haired woman gave a squeak
of mingled fear and disgust. Goldstein was the renegade and backslider who once, long ago (how
long ago, nobody quite remembered), had been one of the leading figures of the Party, almost on
a level with Big Brother himself, and then had engaged in counter-revolutionary activities, had
been condemned to death, and had mysteriously escaped and disappeared.
That's actually a waste of time at this point. If anything read Anthony Suttons Wall Street
series for free on the internet, or stay here. You already know more than Orwell will teach you
at this point. Unless your a mouth breather or blind from herpes of the eyeball. Apparently that
is something contracted at birth.
All wars are bankers wars. You can sum 1984 up to that. Actually they didn't even cover that.
They just covered mechanisms. Actually they didn't even cover that, just symptoms.
You're fine. Their lists don't have enough enforcers to do jack shit. By the time the first
raid occurs, all hell would break loose and they'll all die.
The ones most relevant in my mind are the logistics and support as well as the "action" guys
(using that term very loosely).
The military, the CIA and a few other agencies have trained combat arms types that are effective.
The rest are at various stages of competency. In any event, they still don't have enough competent
troops by a long shot. The logistics tail is also very wide and vulnerable.
Longtooth :
March 16, 2017 at 08:08 PM
While I think primary education especially has suffered
tremendously in the US, education is a terribly necessary but
far from sufficient solution to the problems.
The far
greater problem, imo, is the distribution of incomes which
create the divergences in primary & secondary education..
which is a direct outgrowth of educational funding by school
districts, which is differentiated by the tax base, which of
course then determines the quality of the education. Add this
to poorer lower and lower middle class neighborhoods where
both parents work (mostly) in low wage and low benefits jobs
and the environment rubs off directly on the kids.
Why do we promote divergence in neighborhood wealth? This
is a direct result of and part of income inequality so it's
not just the 1% that are the problem.. they're just a popular
and clear-cut indicator of it. We create these ghetto-like
islands by a political and belief system that promotes
"individualism", that believes if you've got a good high
paying job that it's because you "earned it" yourself and
therefore "deserve it".
Education will not solve the upward mobility issue we now
have in spades and which spirals to less mobility by
feed-back loops.
That's the title of
my latest piece
in Inside Story. The crucial para
The term "credentialism" is used in many different ways, some of them
contradictory, but the implication is consistent: too many young people are
getting too much formal education, at too high a level. This implication was
spelt out recently by Dean Ashenden, who contends that "education has not
just grown to meet the expanding needs of the post-industrial economy, but
has exploded like an airbag." The claim that young people are getting too
much education, and the supporting critique of credentialism, is pernicious
and false.
The suffix "-ism" hits my hot button- unless it's optimism. It denotes the
ossification of of an idea that may once have been dynamic.
I tend to look at ideas through the prism (oops!) of life-cycles. There's a
time, perhaps, at the "mature" stage, where codification becomes the norm.
After that- particularly when organisations become corporatised in an attempt
to revitalise them (eg Trumpism)- codification becomes essential for the
masses, but discretionary for the bosses. Luckily, it tends to be
contemporaneous with the development of new systems, as you indicate, where the
activity hasn't matured sufficiently to be credential-ivied.
I'm trying to tackle this in a book on "Concepts in Innovation and Change"-
first 8 chapters for free download and feview at my website
http://www.thepicketline.net/innovation.
"The stress on formal credentialism – the specific requirement for an
educational qualification to be a member of a defined profession – is a
phenomenon whose time has passed."
I'm in the "yes, but" camp.
First, credentialism may be well-established in primary and secondary teaching,
but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem. There is a significant shortage of
secondary STEM teachers, and a fair surplus of 40-year old engineers and
military types, many of whom are skilled at dealing with the young. But they
lack formal ed training, which can be a significant barrier in many districts.
Second, much advanced education in universities does not go on in classrooms. I
got my Ph.D. in chemistry. The first year was classrooms and picking a research
advisor. The next 3-5 years were all in the lab: pure apprentice work. When we
got out, nobody was interested in our classroom grades.
Third, although I'd be the first to admit that general higher education skills
are very useful in the workplace, I'm very skeptical about any classroom
teaching of specific job-oriented skills. Apart from accounting, what skills
does an MBA acquire in a classroom? Every law firm thinks their rookie lawyers
are completely untrained, and the second and third years of law school are a
waste. (Indeed, Yale Law School turns this into a point of honor: barely trying
to teach law.) Medical training is two years of classroom and interminable time
in the hospital wards. Engineering may be the exception.
I agree very strongly with the second part on education not being a panacea for
inequality.
I don't think credentialism has to imply 'too many young people
are getting too much formal education, at too high a level'. I see it as
pathology of managerialism in hiring practices which sets irrational
requirements for candidates for jobs. It doesn't have to mean formal
credentials and is perhaps more typically years of experience in a specific
role. (To be a barman you two years experience of bartebding etc). Unpaid
internships and gap year/CV-boosting stuff maybe also qualify.
Imo credentialism is a real problem and it's also a problem that the
expansion of higher education (which I agree is a good thing) has gone hand in
hand with the tightening grip of a brutally instrumental view of the purposes
of education, as a process that socialises nascent wage-labourers for a life of
wage labour. So I don't think it's too jaded to see the vaunted expansion of
'educational opportunities' in the last couple of decades as little more than
an arms race for access to an ever-dwindling number of marginally privileged
positions within an increasingly exploitative system of production funded by a
burgeoning debt burden on workers.
It doesn't have to be this way! But I fear that equating credentials (i.e.
formal or informal qualifications explicitly demanded by employers for a
specific economic role) with education (study, reading, learning, the life of
the mind, ) may not be conducive to progress here.
If a lurker may comment: I hate to say this, but I completely disagree. I am a
person with quite a lot of education who none the less works in a low-level
accounting position, and I am completing an accounting certification.
Things I've observed:
1. Accounting for most lower level roles is best learned on the job. None of
the formal accounting that I've studied has very much to do with the actual
work I do. Most of what I do is highly specific to the place I work, and had to
be learned bit by bit on the job.
2. I started getting my accounting certificate because although I had
"apprenticed" with someone up the ladder and had learned enough to move on, I
was informed that without a certification I could never be hired, no matter
what experience I had.
3. My accounting certification program requires a long, long list of
"information science 101"-style classes which are the most godawful, banal,
fraudulent, pro-corporate things I've ever seen. "Read this short article about
self-driving cars"-level terrible. We often receive actively misleading
information. This is in a nationally known program which boasts of its
connections to fancy accounting firms.
4. I only got into my current job by a fluke – it's not classed as a regular
accounting gig, so they were willing to hire me based on .my experience of
accounting. Experience I'd acquired in my previous not-formally-accounting job
by volunteering to learn new stuff.
5. My employer has terrible trouble hiring skilled people, because they
require a great deal of certification for entry-level jobs and don't pay that
much. People with accounting certifications, for instance, nearly always start
out earning about $25,000 more than my employer pays entry level workers. But
instead of hiring people who are trainable and have relevant but unspecific
experience, my employer holds out for the credential. As a result, we have a
lot of churn.
6. On another note: I've spent much of my work life in pink collar jumped-up
file clerk occupations. On no occasion did I need college level training for
"database management", using MS Office, etc. That's not how working with
databases goes at the file clerk level. What happens is that you're hired and
then socialized into your employer's specific use of databases. (Also, the kind
of "database management" that you need to do as a file clerk is maybe
creating some kind of Filemaker or Access database – I was allowed to do this
rather than kicking it over to IT because I was an enterprising young person,
but this was not typical of file clerk jobs.)
Most pink collar work is deskilled. You work with databases, but in a very
restricted way that they try to make as idiot-proof as possible. You work with
MS Office, but doing mostly a short list of predetermined things – even if some
of them are obscure, the list itself is short.
I sometimes think that professional class people, because they lack
experience of the day to day of pink collar work and "business" education, are
a little bit vulnerable to talk of new technologies, etc.
I was brought up short by the discussion around "It Takes a B.A. to Find a Job
as a File Clerk".
"Someone seeking a job as a file clerk, for instance, would
be well advised to acquire a knowledge of computer programs such as Microsoft
Office, and an understanding of database management. This is likely to be done
more efficiently in a classroom setting than by osmosis in a busy office."
It is no doubt true that a recent university graduate is guaranteed to have
acquired "a knowledge of computer programs such as Microsoft Office" (not, in
general, of database management). Some of them – hopefully not many! – may even
have waited until university to acquire this knowledge, through some
regrettable failure of their high schools. But spending years at university,
and thousands of dollars in tuition fees, to learn this is massive overkill.
You could learn to use MS Office in a dedicated course in a week or two – or on
your own even faster, depending on your personality. The other 95% or so of the
time and money you've spent on your university training is going to be
irrelevant to your job as file clerk. Even if we grant that it's OK for the
employer to pass the financial burden of training entirely on to job-seekers –
which is kind of the crux of the problem here! – how is it reasonable for an
employer to discriminate against someone for taking the obvious shortcut and
learning all the skills that are going to be relevant to the job without
passing through university?
More broadly, there's no automatic contradiction between jobs now requiring
greater skill and employers demanding unnecessary or excessive qualifications.
Suppose a job that used to need high school levels of achievement now needs
extra skills equivalent to a year's worth of university-level study. There's no
such thing as a 1-year university degree (rightly), so the easiest solution for
employers is to demand a university degree for the post – 2 years of which
would be superfluous to their requirements. That requires would-be employees to
spend thousands of dollars extra of their own money.
When people complain about credentialism, the typical assumption is that many
jobs could be learned on the job, just as well or better as in a class. And
that's often true, even for many fairly difficult and prestigious jobs. But the
second, implicit, assumption is then that on the job training is free. So
people compare the high costs of formal education, and start complaining about
credentialism, or the high wages of teachers etc.
The point is of course that
good on the job training is expensive. It consumes a lot of time of senior
people, and organisations are hesitant to provide too much of it. Higher
education grows not because it is the best way to learn jobs, but because there
is not enough serious on the job training available.
Doctors are the prime example – they are in short demand and highly paid in
most countries, with very different medical systems. Even though many seemingly
qualified people want to be doctors. The bottleneck is never the classroom
education – it's the required apprenticeships and assistent-doctor positions.
People who complain about credentialism are really asking that more job
markets resemble that for doctors, even though they often use the doctors as
the prime example of credentialism gone wrong.
I am quite sure conservatives hate the idea of a more educated population,
since it is harder for them to sell their snake oil. On the other hand, there
really are a lot of jobs now that expect, if not actually require, applicants
to have some college, but where that is not actually needed for the job.
To me the core of what people are talking about with "credentialism" is the
vicious cycle of increased educational requirements for jobs and increasing
average levels of education. Having more educational credentials helps people
get jobs, so people get more credentials, so the level of credentials a given
job asks for rises. Assuming that productivity doesn't actually rise
proportionally with education (which I think is pretty inarguable) it just ends
up meaning an ever-increasing amount of time and resources goes to the
credential-seeking game without accomplishing much.
It seems to me that the usual complaint about credentialism is not that
education is a bad or superfluous thing, but that the credentials presently in
use don't have a lot to do with the work they are supposed to reflect, and are
mostly an artefact of the education industry and the class structure of the
surrounding society. One or more horror-lite anecdotes upon request.
The relative prestige associated with certain degrees from certain schools
implies they are a better indicator of capability, but grade inflation and
cheating scandals in the Ivy League suggest that rather than being held to a
higher standard, students there are often given more leeway to skate by. The
degree is treated with reverence, but in effect can often be little more than a
gold-embossed acceptance letter.
This is exacerbated by the idea (and often reality) that jobs demand
qualifications for applicants that they don't utilize. It doesn't matter if you
didn't learn the things your resume says you learned in college if your
employer doesn't actually need you to do the things they say they need you to
do once you're hired.
Compared to people accumulating mountains of student loan debt and struggling
to find decent jobs, this is a really petty complaint, but: credentialism also
makes higher education worse for students who are interested in more than
getting that degree to unlock the game progression to "a good job."
I
attended a SLAC around the turn of the millennium. I picked that school instead
of a cheaper state school because I bought into the "life of the mind" campus
tour messaging. My professors and fellow students would be personally engaged
with interesting questions across many disciplines! It was true of the
professors, actually. It was also true in smaller elective courses that nobody
attended simply to fill requirements. But in mandatory courses or
"easy-looking" electives there were a lot of seatwarmers who'd complain outside
of class that history or philosophy or whatever was never going to be useful
for a job, so we shouldn't have to take these boring useless courses. I
thought: yes, I too would be happier if you all weren't attending these classes
that just bore and annoy you.
It wasn't until graduate school that I felt like my fellow students were
there primarily due to a thirst for knowledge. It reminds me of the aphorism
that a master's degree is the new bachelor's degree.
Much has already been said, but I assume we're all comfortable with the idea
that spending time at an institution and leaving with a piece of paper is not
the same as education: it's increasingly just a measure of social control,
since you have to pay a fortune to get the piece of paper which probably
over-qualifies you for the job you get. I've heard, incidentally, that
recruiting consultancies (another parasitic life-form) now have software which
automatically scans job applications and rejects all those that don't have very
precise qualifications in the right boxes.
I can't help thinking of my father who had no qualifications of any kind (he
left school at 14 as was normal then) and whose first job after the War was as
a wages clerk in a factory. OK, there was no Microsoft Office then, but he was
expected to work out wages by hand in pounds, shillings and pence, with the aid
of a ready-reckoner. I wonder how many people could do the contemporary
equivalent, even with higher educational credentials. And credentials are
pointless anyway unless they actually reflect genuine abilities that your
education has given you.
Maybe the purpose of a ceredential is not that it's owner knows what is needed
for the job you are offering, but is evidence of a certain level of displine
and intellectual capability. So the odds of hiring someone for whom on-the-job
training doesn't stick, -or who lacks basin self-discipline are greatly reduced
by requiring the credential.
Specifically on databases: there's a number of subtleties on proper database
design [normal forms] that are pretty much impossible to learn on-the-job
because very few people without formal training knows about them.
One more example for the vicious cycle of educational requirements. The
organization my wife spent a fair bit of her career working for had a mixture
of graduates and non-graduates doing the same roles. The graduates were simply
younger – hired when HR mandated (because they could due to the rise in
university education) a degree. While the job was pretty skilled, she never
noticed any difference in ability.
Another example would be that of clerks,
where computerization has reduced the skill level required. File
keeping, tracking orders and book keeping without computers is bloody hard.
@Zamfir: Doctors are the prime example – they are in short demand and highly paid in
most countries, with very different medical systems. Even though many seemingly
qualified people want to be doctors. The bottleneck is never the classroom
education – it's the required apprenticeships and assistent-doctor positions.
Actually the bottleneck in the US and UK is that the doctors' guilds keep
training numbers down. Other countries (i.e. Germany) don't allow them to do
this, and have plenty of doctors as a result. And doctors pay in the US is
anomalous – it's nothing like that in the rest of the world
Third, although I'd be the first to admit that general higher education
skills are very useful in the workplace, I'm very skeptical about any classroom
teaching of specific job-oriented skills.
The Engineering profession will
not allow you to become a full engineer until you have completed a certain
number of years in the workplace.
Count me in with DrDick, Frowner, engels, and the others with their pushback.
In fact, I'll go one step further: I would say that this: "The term
"credentialism" is used in many different ways, some of them contradictory, but
the implication is consistent: too many young people are getting too much
formal education, at too high a level." is, if not a strawman, definitely
straw-adjacent.
Education is a good thing! People getting more education is a good thing.
The term in no way implies what John says it is implying, and I don't often
encounter the argument that we, as a populace, are over educated. This argument
is absurd on its face and easily knocked down. John does a great job of
knocking it down, which would be excellent work if it were, you know relevant.
What I encounter far more often with regards to the term "credentialism" is
basically thus: people have been sold the idea that educational credentials are
the ticket to a good life, a life of economic security where you can have a
good job and raise a family and not constantly worry about the wolf at the
door. However, while there is real absolute value in the education those
credential signal their possessors having, a lot of that value is also relative
and has to do with scarcity. The more people who possess those credentials, the
less they're worth in the job market, which is the reason you got them in the
first place.
And as a result of that you get employers establishing arbitrary and
ever-increasing credential requirements for jobs that absolutely don't require
those credentials, as a way of weeding out the riff-raff. Sure, that position
doesn't require a masters, but if you can advertise it with a masters
and still get forty well-qualified applicants, why wouldn't you do
that?
And this masks the underlying problem, which is that, basically, there
aren't enough good jobs to go around to everyone, and we've constructed a lot
of bullshit hurdles ("Education! Education is the silver bullet!") to avoid
having to deal with that. Education is great. I think post-secondary education
should be available publicly free of charge, like primary and secondary
education is. But even if the college graduation rate were 100% well, someone
has to flip our burgers and work our cash registers, and right now those jobs
aren't considered respectable and they're sure as hell not compensated
respectably.
I will say this: the argument that young people are getting too much
education does hold water if you add a "because" with a good reason after it.
What immediately springs to mind is Paul Campos' ongoing war against law
schools; he advises young people not to go to law school because they'll get
"too much education," but because they'll assume life-destroying mountains of
debt and that the return on that investment won't be worth it.
I sometimes think that professional class people, because they lack
experience of the day to day of pink collar work and "business" education, are
a little bit vulnerable to talk of new technologies, etc.
The example of
this that drives me crazy is computer programmers. The reality is that most
computer programming jobs are not difficult – many of them could be carried out
(and sometimes are) by a smart high schooler. Generally when graduates do these
jobs – they use nothing that they learnt at college to do them. They're carried
out by business, or English, or (sometimes) science/maths graduates.
Now there are definitely exceptions to this. There are computer programming
jobs that are very hard, and for which you do need a Computer Science, or Maths
degree, and a lot of technical skill. But these are the exception. The 'App
economy', and the corporate IT world, largely consist of mediocre programmers –
who are astonishingly ignorant of basic Computer Science concepts, but muddle
through creating mediocre software.
Just want to add that I very much endorse engels' comment above:
"I fear that
equating credentials (i.e. formal or informal qualifications explicitly
demanded by employers for a specific economic role) with education (study,
reading, learning, the life of the mind, ) may not be conducive to progress
here."
From the employer side, though, the choice is often between five candidates who
have the BA, and twenty who don't. Since it's more likely that the BA
candidates will be capable employees, it makes some sense to eliminate the less
credentialled immediately (because interviewing people isn't free any more than
on the job training is). I have been part of a hiring process where we got
hundreds of applications every time we advertised, and had to grind through
them looking for that one unicorn-like candidate who was worth hiring.
Immediately binning anyone who didn't follow the instructions or possess the
requisite qualifications was simply essential to save time. As it was we spent
probably $20,000 of staff time filtering ~600 applications down to 15
interviewees, then interviewing the 10 who turned up.
With the "modern careers" like programming, there's usually a huge gap between
people who have the credentials and those who don't. It's not so much in the
one job they have, it's their ability to keep working as a programmer through
their life. University demonstrates possession of the "how to learn" skill in a
way that learning on the job doesn't. There are more than a few non-graduate
programmers who are locked into that one job they got somehow, and they can't
leave. Or they can leave, but they'll be working as a greeter at a box store if
they do.
There is, though, a lot of cross-over with ageism in general and in
tech jobs particularly. It doesn't matter how skilled you are if the employer
is willing to hire a recent graduate for less than you can afford to accept.
I'm reminded of the many article on open plan offices – too many employers
accept lower productivity from cheap staff/overcrowded offices etc because it
never occurs to them that paying more might get a better result. Or they can't
get that thought through the internal bureaucrazy. Or worse, it doesn't survive
the next arbitrary "cut staffing costs by 23%" edict.
Related is the Paper Qualifications Syndrome, which was of such great concern
to some in the 1980s that the ILO spent money studying it. The PQS was the
trend by employers to favour recruits with formal qualifications over those
without, even when those without may have had relevant work experience.
One reason employers may favour graduates for low level office jobs is that
employers know that technology is no longer static. It is not merely that file
clerks need today to know how to run databases, but also that such employees
will need an entirely different set of technical office skills in 20 years
time. Graduates, having learnt how to learn, are generally better able to cope
in this environment than people whose formal education ended at 18.
There is a related phenomenon which the UK academic mathematics community has
noted. Increasingly, employers no longer need people with only a first degree
in mathematics, because much routine math work can be assigned to machines. But
some sectors, eg finance, national security, still need original math to be
done, which means they need recruits with PhDs in mathematics. The demand for
math PhDs used to be a small percentage of the demand for math graduates. If
teachers are excluded from the demand figures, this is likely to be reversed:
More PhDs are needed than plain graduates. This phenomenon has important
implications for education policy.
I'm all for more education, of all sorts. The problem we have now with some
types of education is that it's thin, delivered in the same way all the way
from maybe Grade 3 to post-secondary, and is starting to NOT signal anything to
potential employers. This is especially true for several post-secondary majors
like Communications, Marketing, Family Science, etc. And there are other majors
that graduate far more young people than the economy can absorb - Graphic Arts,
Education, Hospitality, etc. Yes, it signals that the student had enough
self-discipline (and money) to persist, but is this really enough?
Dismal Voucher Results Surprise Researchers as DeVos Era
Begins
By Kevin Carey
The confirmation of Betsy DeVos as secretary of education
was a signal moment for the school choice movement. For the
first time, the nation's highest education official is
someone fully committed to making school vouchers and other
market-oriented policies the centerpiece of education reform.
But even as school choice is poised to go national, a wave
of new research has emerged suggesting that private school
vouchers may harm students who receive them. The results are
startling - the worst in the history of the field,
researchers say.
While many policy ideas have murky origins, vouchers
emerged fully formed from a single, brilliant essay *
published in 1955 by Milton Friedman, the free-market
godfather later to be awarded a Nobel Prize in Economics.
Because "a stable and democratic society is impossible
without widespread acceptance of some common set of values
and without a minimum degree of literacy and knowledge on the
part of most citizens," Mr. Friedman wrote, the government
should pay for all children to go to school.
But, he argued, that doesn't mean the government should
run all the schools. Instead, it could give parents vouchers
to pay for "approved educational services" provided by
private schools, with the government's role limited to
"ensuring that the schools met certain minimum standards."
The voucher idea sat dormant for years before taking root
in a few places, most notably Milwaukee. Yet even as many of
Mr. Friedman's other ideas became Republican Party orthodoxy,
most national G.O.P. leaders committed themselves to a
different theory of educational improvement: standards,
testing and accountability. That movement reached an apex
when the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 brought a new focus
on tests and standards to nearly every public school
nationwide. The law left voucher supporters with crumbs: a
small demonstration project in Washington, D.C.
But broad political support for No Child Left Behind
proved short-lived. Teachers unions opposed the reforms from
the left, while libertarians and states-rights conservatives
denounced it from the right. When Republicans took control of
more governor's mansions and state legislatures in the 2000s,
they expanded vouchers to an unprecedented degree. Three of
the largest programs sprang up in Indiana, Louisiana and
Ohio, which collectively enroll more than a third of the
178,000 voucher students nationwide.
Most of the new programs heeded Mr. Friedman's original
call for the government to enforce "minimum standards" by
requiring private schools that accept vouchers to administer
standardized state tests. Researchers have used this data to
compare voucher students with similar children who took the
same tests in public school. Many of the results were
released over the last 18 months, while Donald J. Trump was
advocating school choice on the campaign trail.
The Role of Government in Education
By Milton Friedman
The general trend in our times toward increasing
intervention by the state in economic affairs has led to a
concentration of attention and dispute on the areas where new
intervention is proposed and to an acceptance of whatever
intervention has so far occurred as natural and unchangeable.
The current pause, perhaps reversal, in the trend toward
collectivism offers an opportunity to reexamine the existing
activities of government and to make a fresh assessment of
the activities that are and those that are not justified.
This paper attempts such a re-examination for education.
Education is today largely paid for and almost entirely
administered by governmental bodies or non-profit
institutions. This situation has developed gradually and is
now taken so much for granted that little explicit attention
is any longer directed to the reasons for the special
treatment of education even in countries that are
predominantly free enterprise in organization and philosophy.
The result has been an indiscriminate extension of
governmental responsibility.
The role assigned to government in any particular field
depends, of course, on the principles accepted for the
organization of society in general. In what follows, I shall
assume a society that takes freedom of the individual, or
more realistically the family, as its ultimate objective, and
seeks to further this objective by relying primarily on
voluntary exchange among individuals for the organization of
economic activity. In such a free private enterprise exchange
economy, government's primary role is to preserve the rules
of the game by enforcing contracts, preventing coercion, and
keeping markets free. Beyond this, there are only three major
grounds on which government intervention is to be justified.
One is "natural monopoly" or similar market imperfection
which makes effective competition (and therefore thoroughly
voluntary ex change) impossible. A second is the existence of
substantial "neighborhood effects," i.e., the action of one
individual imposes significant costs on other individuals for
which it is not feasible to make him compensate them or
yields significant gains to them for which it is not feasible
to make them compensate him-- circumstances that again make
voluntary exchange impossible. The third derives from an
ambiguity in the ultimate objective rather than from the
difficulty of achieving it by voluntary exchange, namely,
paternalistic concern for children and other irresponsible
individuals. The belief in freedom is for "responsible"
units, among whom we include neither children nor insane
people. In general, this problem is avoided by regarding the
family as the basic unit and therefore parents as responsible
for their children; in considerable measure, however, such a
procedure rests on expediency rather than principle. The
problem of drawing a reasonable line between action justified
on these paternalistic grounds and action that conflicts with
the freedom of responsible individuals is clearly one to
which no satisfactory answer can be given.
In applying these general principles to education, we
shall find it helpful to deal separately with (1) general
education for citizen ship, and (2) specialized vocational
education, although it may be difficult to draw a sharp line
between them in practice. The grounds for government
intervention are widely different in these two areas and
justify very different types of action....
away humility and restraint. It fosters a sense of
entitlement.
Chris G
said...
February
24, 2017 at 04:48 AM
On the Crooked Timber piece: Quiggin makes a very astute
observation about 'propertarians' and Divine Providence in
his concluding paragraphs. If one takes it as a matter of
faith (religious or secular) that human activity inherently
leads to good outcomes that'll be a huge influence on how you
engage with the world. It blows away humility and restraint.
It fosters a sense of entitlement.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to
Chris G
...
Yep. All roads lead to scapegoating. The anti-social
capabilities of base desires and greed are often paled in
comparison to those of detached indifference supported by
abstract high-mindedness. For example, both sides can blame
the robots for the loss of decent blue collar jobs.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Not sure that there are "both sides" any more in elite
circles. There are at least two types though. There is very
little presence among elites on the progressive side.
Reply
Friday, February 24, 2017 at 04:58 AM
Chris G
said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Hard to call this related but worth reading, Why Nothing
Works Anymore -
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/the-singularity-in-the-toilet-stall/517551/
Reply
Friday, February 24, 2017 at 05:11 AM
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to
Chris G
...
[THANKS! This was LOL funny:]
"...When spun on its ungeared
mechanism, an analogous, glorious measure of towel appears
directly and immediately, as if sent from heaven..."
[This was highly relevant to today's lead article "The
Jobs Americans Do:"]
..."Precarity" has become a popular way to refer to
economic and labor conditions that force people-and
particularly low-income service workers-into uncertainty.
Temporary labor and flexwork offer examples. That includes
hourly service work in which schedules are adjusted ad-hoc
and just-in-time, so that workers don't know when or how
often they might be working. For low-wage food service and
retail workers, for instance, that uncertainty makes
budgeting and time-management difficult. Arranging for
transit and childcare is difficult, and even more costly, for
people who don't know when-or if-they'll be working.
Such conditions are not new. As union-supported
blue-collar labor declined in the 20th century, the service
economy took over its mantle absent its benefits. But the
information economy further accelerated precarity. For one
part, it consolidated existing businesses and made efficiency
its primary concern. For another, economic downturns like the
2008 global recession facilitated austerity measures both
deliberate and accidental. Immaterial labor also
rose-everything from the unpaid, unseen work of women in and
out of the workplace, to creative work done on-spec or for
exposure, to the invisible work everyone does to construct
the data infrastructure that technology companies like Google
and Facebook sell to advertisers...
[This was very insightful into its own topic of the
separation of technology "from serving human users to pushing
them out of the way so that the technologized world can
service its own ends," but I would rather classify that as
serving owners of proprietary technology rights.]
...Facebook and Google, so the saying goes, make their users
into their products-the real customer is the advertiser or
data speculator preying on the information generated by the
companies' free services. But things are bound to get even
weirder than that. When automobiles drive themselves, for
example, their human passengers will not become masters of a
new form of urban freedom, but rather a fuel to drive the
expansion of connected cities, in order to spread further the
gospel of computerized automation. If artificial intelligence
ends up running the news, it will not do so in order to
improve citizen's access to information necessary to make
choices in a democracy, but to further cement the supremacy
of machine automation over human editorial in establishing
what is relevant...
[THANKS! It was an exceptionally good article in places
despite that it wandered a bit off into the ozone at times.]
It hits on one of the reasons
why I am less skeptical than Darryl that AI will succeed, an
soon, in all kinds of fields: it may remain stupid in some
ways, but we will adapt to it.
Consider phone answering services. Its simple speech
recognition, which was once at the forefront of artificial
intelligence, has made them ubiquityous. Yet Dante would need
a new circle for a person who said "I just heard you say
5...3...7...is this correct?"
Some of these adaptations subtract from our quality of
life, as the article nicely describes. Some add to it, e.g we
no longer spend time at the mall arranging when and where to
meet if we get separated. Some are interesting and hard to
evaluate, e.g. Chessplayers' relation to the game has changed
radically since computers became good at it.
And there is one I find insidious: the homogeneization of
human activity and even thought. The information we ALL get
on a subject will be what sorts to the top among google
answers; the rest might as well not exist, much like
newspaper articles buried in a back page.
On the political front, Winston will not be necessary,
nobody will click through to the old information, we will all
just know that we were always at war with Eurasia.
And on the economic front, the same homogeneization, with
giant multinationals and crossmarketing deals. You'll be in a
country with great food, like Turkey, get into your rented
Toyota, say "I want dinner", and end up at a Domino's because
they have a deal with Toyota.
The middle third of the twentieth century was hysterical
about the totalitarian state
And the erasure of micro scale cultural heritage
That seems laughable since at least 1965 as lots of old
long dormant memes
Revived in these frightfully "totalized " civil societies
The Motions of human Society reveal underlying dialectics
not mechanics
Reply
Friday, February 24, 2017 at 09:55 AM
Paine said in reply to Paine...
"1984 " is way past it's sell by date
Much like Leviathan and the declaration of independence
Reply
Friday, February 24, 2017 at 09:59 AM
cm said in reply to
Julio
...
There was probably more than one movie about this topic -
people not happy with their "peaceful" but bland, boring, and
intellectually stifling environment.
Huxley had deeply felt apprehensions about the future the developed world might make for
itself. From these, he made some warnings in his writings and talks. In a 1958 televised
interview conducted by journalist
Mike Wallace
,
Huxley outlined several major concerns: the difficulties and dangers of world overpopulation; the
tendency toward distinctly hierarchical social organisation; the crucial importance of evaluating
the use of technology in mass societies susceptible to wily persuasion; the tendency to promote
modern politicians to a naive public as well-marketed commodities.
[32]
Remember that one? It was about as weird as it gets. A meme generated out of the voluminous hacked
John Podesta emails that some conspiracy connoisseurs cooked up into a tale of satanic child abuse
revolving around a certain chi-chi Washington DC pizza joint. I never signed on with the story, but
it was an interesting indication of how far the boundaries of mass psychology could be pushed in
the mind wars of politics.
Sex, of course, is fraught. Sex and the feelings it conjures beat a
path straight to the limbic system where the most primitive thoughts become the father of the most
primitive deeds. In our American world, this realm of thought and deed has turned into a political
football with the Left and the Right scrimmaging ferociously for field position - while the real
political agenda of everything important other than sex lies outside the stadium.
The Comet Pizza story was understandably upsetting to Democrats who didn't like being painted
as child molesters. Unfortunately for them, it coincided with the bust of one Anthony Weiner - and
his infamous laptop - disgraced former "sexting" congressman, husband of Hillary's top aide and BFF,
Huma Abedin. The laptop allegedly contained a lot of child porn.
That garbage barge of sexual allegation and innuendo couldn't have helped the Hillary campaign,
along with all the Clinton Foundation stuff, in the march to electoral loserdom. I suspect the chthonic
darkness of it all generated the "Russia-did-it" hysteria that cluttered up the news-cloud during
the first month of Trumptopia. The collective superego of America is reeling with shame and rage.
On the Right side of the spectrum stood the curious figure of Milo Yiannopoulos, the self-styled
"Dangerous Faggot," who has made a sensational career lately as an ideological provocateur, especially
on the campus scene where he got so into the indignant faces of the Maoist snowflakes with his special
brand of boundary-pushing that they resorted to disrupting his events, dis-inviting him at the last
moment, or finally rioting, as in the case at UC Berkeley a few weeks ago.
Milo's battles on campus were particularly ripe because his opponents on the far Left were themselves
so adamant about their own brand of boundary-pushing along the frontier of the LGBTQ agenda. The
last couple of years, you would've thought that half the student population fell into one of those
"non-binary" sex categories, and it became the most urgent mission of the Left to secure bathroom
rights and enforce new personal pronouns of address for the sexually ambiguous.
But then Milo made a tactical error. Despite all the mutual boundary-pushing on each side, he
pushed a boundary too far and entered the final dark circle of taboo: child molesting. That was the
point were the closet Puritan hysterics went in for the kill. This is what he said on a Web
talk radio show:
What normally happens in schools, very often, is you have an older
woman with a younger boy, and the boy is the predator in that situation. The boy is like, let's
see if I can fuck the gym teacher, or let's see if I can fuck the hot math teacher, and he does.
The women fall in love with these nubile young boys, these athletic young boys in their prime.
We get hung up on the child abuse stuff to the point where we're heavily policing consenting adults,
grad students and their professors, this arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally
destroys the understanding many of us have about the complexities, subtleties, and complicated
nature of many relationships. In the homosexual world particularly, some of the relationships
between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming-of-age relationships in which these older
men help those young boys discover who they are, and give them security and provide them with
love . [Milo is shouted down by his podcast hosts]
So that was the final straw. Milo got bounced by his platform,
Breitbart News
, and went
through the now-routine, mandatory, abject ceremonial of the televised apology required by over-stepping
celebrities - though he claimed, with some justification I think, that his remarks were misconstrued.
Anyway, I'm sure he'll rebound on his own signature website platform and he'll be back in action
before long.
His remarks about the "coming-of-age" phase of life prompted me to wonder about the boundary-pushers
on the Left, on the college campuses in particular, who are encouraging young people to go through
drastic sex-change surgeries, at an age before the development of that portion of their frontal lobes
controlling judgment is complete. Who are these diversity deans and LGBTQ counselors who lead confused
adolescents to self-mutilation in search of some hypothesized "identity?" Whoever they are, this
dynamic seems pretty reckless and probably tragic to me. There ought to be reasonable doubt that
an irreversible "sexual reassignment" surgery may not lead to personal happiness some years down
the line - when, for instance, that person's frontal lobes have developed, and they begin to experience
profound and complicated emotions such as remorse.
Our sexual hysteria has many more curious angles to it. We live in a culture where pornography,
up to the last limits of freakishness and depravity, is available to young unformed personalities
at a click. We stopped protecting adolescents against this years ago, so why should we be surprised
when they venture into ever-darker frontiers of sexuality? It was the Left that sought to abolish
boundaries in sex and many other areas of American life. And yet they still affect to be shocked
by someone like Milo.
I maintain that there is a dynamic relationship between our inability to act on the truly pressing
issues of the day - energy, economy, and geo-politics - and our neurotic preoccupation with sexual
identity. The epic amount of collective psychic energy being diverted from what's important into
sexual fantasy, titillation, confusion, and litigation leaves us pathetically unprepared to face
the much more serious crisis of civilization gathering before us.
*
Postscript
: This item from
The Stanford
[University]
Daily
newspaper
puts a nice gloss on the stupefying idiocy in the campus sex-and-identity debate.
Single-occupancy Restrooms Convert to All-gender Facilities
: "Single-occupancy
restrooms on campus will soon all be converted to gender-neutral facilities due to new California
legislature and ongoing administrative efforts. The Diversity and Access Office (D&A Office) has
been spearheading the campaign to convert all single-occupancy restrooms ."
Here's what I don't get: if a single-occupancy restroom is going to be used by one person at a
time, what need is there to officially designate the sex of any person using it? And why are officials
at an elite university wasting their time on this?
routersurfer
February 24, 2017
at 9:44 am
#
I agree totally this perverted national pastime of pin the genitalia on the
mass of confused youth is a waste of time and energy. Anyone who reaches for
the scalpel and plastic surgery before 25 has not been served well by the so
called adults in their lives. Nature makes mistakes. Look at the Royals of Europe.
But wait until the body is formed before the Medical Industrial Complex steps
in. Now back to real problems. I heard on Bloomberg radio The Fed may offer
50 and 100 year T notes. Can someone explain how that fits into our system of
accounting scams??
If "Inadequate Skills" Is Preventing People from Being Hired in Manufacturing, It's Among the
CEOs
The Associated Press ran a story * that told readers:
"Factory jobs exist, CEOs tell Trump. Skills don't."
The piece presents complaints from a number of CEOs of manufacturing companies that they can't
find the workers with the necessary skills. The piece does note the argument that the way to get
more skilled workers is to offer higher pay, but then reports:
"some data supports the CEOs' concerns about the shortage of qualified applicants. Government
figures show there are 324,000 open factory jobs nationwide - triple the number in 2009, during the
depths of the recession."
The comparison to 2009 is not really indicative of anything, since this was a time when the economy
was facing the worst downturn since the Great Depression and companies were rapidly shedding workers.
A more serious comparison would be to 2007, before the recession. The job opening rate in manufacturing
for the last three months has averaged 2.5 percent, roughly the same as in the first six months of
2007, which was still a period in which the sector was losing jobs.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average hourly earnings of production and non-supervisory
workers in manufacturing has risen by 2.4 percent over the last year. This means that manufacturing
firms are not acting in a way consistent with employers having trouble finding workers. This suggests
that if there is a skills shortage it is among CEOs who don't understand that the price of an item
in short supply, in this case qualified manufacturing workers, is supposed to increase.
Young people who have watched
the stampede of manufacturing jobs out of the US may reasonably believe that they would be
unwise to commit to developing any scarce skills currently needed in domestic manufacturing.
Working in Illinois and Wisconsin, I know many skilled manufacturing technicians and engineers
whose situations went from comfort to poverty in the space of a few years. Why would a young
person today believe that manufacturing skills developed now will not be offshored the next
time political winds shift? One of the reasons Trump got elected was by promising to protect
the manufacturing jobs that are left, something that neither the Clintons, Bushes, nor Obama
were willing to attempt.
I believe Trump is wrong to try to wreck NAFTA, but PNTR for China has been a disaster for
the US working class. This was initiated by Clinton and neither Bush nor Obama did anything
to mitigate its effect on working people in the Midwest.
Even without that aspect, most
of the "skill" and experience has to be acquired on the job - into which they will not be hired.
What most business managers are looking for is trained up people for whose training and hands-on
skill somebody else has paid for. They don't want to be that "sucker" themselves.
I suspect it is not purely selfishness (though poaching has always existed), but this mindset
has evolved in the past decades where business could draw on a large overhang of sufficiently-skilled
labor at home and globally. It was possible to dial down training and still find enough qualified
workers. This is one of those things where the downward path is easier than upward. In parallel
corporate pensions and unions were eliminated or reduced, both things that promote worker retention;
and corporate/public rhetoric shifted to make it clear that you will only have your job as
long as you are useful to the company, and maintaining that is up to you. Well, that's a two-way
street.
One possible solution to the
training problem has been practiced in Germany - the government passes out training quotas
or subsidies to companies; it is basically "either you train them or you pay a no-training
'fee' and we train them for you". Most large companies have training programs, but they often
exceed their demand for new workers (or they can find qualified workers or temps elsewhere),
and not everybody will be hired after graduating. That part such programs cannot address.
One possible solution to the
training problem has been practiced in Germany - the government passes out training quotas
or subsidies to companies; it is basically "either you train them or you pay a no-training
'fee' and we train them for you"....
International science collaboration growing at astonishing rate: Cross-border studies more
than doubled in 15 years
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
BOSTON - Even those who follow science may be surprised by how quickly international collaboration
in scientific studies is growing, according to new research.
The number of multiple-author scientific papers with collaborators from more than one country
more than doubled from 1990 to 2015, from 10 to 25 percent, one study found. And 58 more countries
participated in international research in 2015 than did so in 1990.
"Those are astonishing numbers," said Caroline Wagner, associate professor in the John Glenn
College of Public Affairs at The Ohio State University, who helped conduct these studies.
"In the 20th century, we had national systems for conducting research. In this century, we
increasingly have a global system."
Wagner presented her research Feb. 17 in Boston at the annual meeting of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science.
Even though Wagner has studied international collaboration in science for years, the way it
has grown so quickly and widely has surprised even her.
One unexpected finding was that international collaboration has grown in all fields she has
studied. One would expect more cooperation in fields like physics, where expensive equipment (think
supercolliders) encourages support from many countries. But in mathematics?
"You would think that researchers in math wouldn't have a need to collaborate internationally
- but I found they do work together, and at an increasing rate," Wagner said.
"The methods of doing research don't determine patterns of collaboration. No matter how scientists
do their work, they are collaborating more across borders."
In a study published online last month in the journal Scientometrics, Wagner and two co-authors
(who are both from The Netherlands) examined the growth in international collaboration in six
fields: astrophysics, mathematical logic, polymer science, seismology, soil science and virology.
Their findings showed that all six specialties added between 18 and 60 new nations to the list
of collaborating partners between 1990 and 2013. In two of those fields, the number of participating
nations doubled or more.
The researchers expected astrophysics would grow the most in collaboration, given the need
to use expensive equipment. But it was soil science that grew the most, with a 550 percent increase
in the links between research groups in different countries in that time period.
"We certainly didn't expect to see soil science have the fastest growth," she said.
"But we saw strong increases in all areas. It appears that all the fields of science that we
studied are converging toward similar levels of international activity."
The study found that virology had the highest rate of collaboration, with the most countries
involved. "They aren't working together because they need to share expensive equipment. They're
collaborating because issues like HIV/AIDS, Ebola and Zika are all international problems and
they need to share information across borders to make progress."
Wagner has started a new line of research that attempts to determine how much nations benefit
from their scientific work with other countries. For this work, she is looking at all the scientific
articles that a nation's scientists published with international collaborators in 2013. She is
looking at each article's "impact factor" - a score that measures how much other scientists mentioned
that study in their own work.
"How much recognition a study gets from other scientists is a way to measure its importance,"
Wagner said.
She compared each nation's combined impact factor for its international collaborations to how
much money the same country spent on scientific research. This is a way to determine how much
benefit in terms of impact each nation gets for the money it spends.
The United States has the highest overall spending and shows proportional returns. However,
smaller, scientifically advanced nations are far outperforming the United States in the relationship
between spending and impact. Switzerland, the Netherlands and Finland outperform other countries
in high-quality science compared to their investment. China is significantly underperforming its
investment.
Wagner said this isn't the only way to measure how a country is benefiting from international
science collaboration. But it can be one way to determine how efficiently a country is using its
science dollars.
In any case, Wagner said her findings show that international science collaboration is becoming
the way research gets done in nearly all scientific fields.
"Science is a global enterprise now," Wagner said.
Certain center-left Hillary fanboys like yuan, EMichael etc will point out that exit polls
show how the poor voted for Hillary (as if that somehow proves that she's great for the poor.
PGL would always point to how the poor blacks of the south were voting for Hillary in the primary.)
Probably has something to do with the large populations of poor and working poor in metro areas.
And Republicans aren't great for the poor.
But exit polls said Hillary did much better with the educated. The more educated voted for
her, the less educated voted for Trump.
Also Hillary won the "high-output" counties, not the poor counties:
"Last week, as my colleague Sifan Liu and I were gnawing on some questions asked by Jim Tankersley
of The Washington Post, we happened upon a revealing aspect of the election outcome. While looking
at number of influences on the presidential vote outcome, we found that in a year of massive divides,
one particular economic split stands out.
Our observation: The less-than-500 counties that Hillary Clinton carried nationwide encompassed
a massive 64 percent of America's economic activity as measured by total output in 2015. By contrast,
the more-than-2,600 counties that Donald Trump won generated just 36 percent of the country's
output-just a little more than one-third of the nation's economic activity."
The high-output and educated will continue with globalization thanks in part to the Internet
and globalization while the religious and less-educated turn inwards and try to turn back the
clock.
We need fair trade and for globalization to mean shared prosperity and progress not corporate
rule for the one percent.
There needs to be an International of the Sanders supporters, and the supporters of Corbyn
and Benoit Hamon.
Those wallowing in the center-left need to decide whether they support barbarism or socialism.
Which is the lesser evil?
"... By Henry Heller, a professor of history at the University of Manitoba, Canada and the author of The Capitalist University. Cross posted from Alternet ..."
"... The following is an excerpt from the new book ..."
"... by Henry Heller (Pluto Press, December 2016): ..."
"... Inside Higher Education ..."
"... The University, State and Market: The Political Economy of Globalization in the Americas ..."
"... New Left Review ..."
"... The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature ..."
"... Letters from the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher ..."
"... Anti-Communism in Twentieth-Century America ..."
"... Marxism is still regarded with suspicion in the United States. ..."
"... As if on cue, sociology, psychology, literature, political science, and anthropology all took sides by explicitly rejecting Marxism and putting forward viewpoints opposed to it. History itself stressed American exceptionalism, justified U.S. expansionism, minimized class conflict, and warned against revolution. ..."
How Universities Are Increasingly Choosing Capitalism Over Education
Posted on
February 7, 2017
by
Yves Smith
Yves here. Some further observations. First, the author neglects to mention
the role of MBAs in the reorientation of higher education institutions. When
I went to school, the administrative layer of universities was lean and not
all that well paid. Those roles were typically inhabited by alumni who
enjoyed the prestige and being able to hang around the campus. But t
he
growth of MBAs
has meant they've all had to find jobs, and colonizing
not-for-profits like universities has helped keep them off the street.
Second, this post focuses on non-elite universities, but the same general
pattern is in play, although the specific outcomes are different.
Universities with large endowments are increasingly hedge funds with an
educational unit attached.
By Henry Heller, a professor of history at the University of
Manitoba, Canada and the author of The Capitalist University. Cross posted
from
Alternet
The fact that today there are over 4,000 colleges and universities in the
United States represents an unparalleled educational, scientific, and
cultural endowment. These institutions occupy a central place in American
economic and cultural life. Certification from one of them is critical to
the career hopes of most young people in the United States. The research
produced in these establishments is likewise crucial to the economic and
political future of the American state. Institutions of higher learning are
of course of varying quality, with only 600 offering master's degrees and
only 260 classified as research institutions. Of these only 87 account for
the majority of the 56,000 doctoral degrees granted annually. Moreover, the
number of really top-notch institutions based on the quality of their
faculty and the size of their endowments is no more than 20 or 30. But
still, the existence of thousands of universities and colleges offering
humanistic, scientific, and vocational education, to say nothing of
religious training, represents a considerable achievement. Moreover, the
breakthroughs in research that have taken place during the last two
generations in the humanities and social sciences, not to speak of the
natural sciences, have been spectacular.
But the future of these institutions is today imperiled. Except for a
relatively few well-endowed universities, most are in serious financial
difficulty. A notable reason for this has been the decline in public
financial support for higher education since the 1980s, a decline due to a
crisis in federal and state finances but also to the triumph of right-wing
politics based on continuing austerity toward public institutions. The
response of most colleges and universities has been to dramatically increase
tuition fees, forcing students to take on heavy debt and putting into
question access to higher education for young people from low- and
middle-income families. This situation casts a shadow on the implicit
post-war contract between families and the state which promised upward
mobility for their children based on higher education. This impasse is but
part of the general predicament of the majority of the American population,
which has seen its income fall and its employment opportunities shrink since
the Reagan era. These problems have intensified since the financial collapse
of 2008 and the onset of depression or the start of a generalized capitalist
crisis.
Mounting student debt and fading job prospects are reflected in
stagnating enrollments in higher education, intensifying the financial
difficulties of universities and indeed exacerbating the overall economic
malaise.[1] The growing cost of universities has led recently to the
emergence of Massive Online Open Courses whose upfront costs to students are
nil, which further puts into doubt the future of traditional colleges and
universities. These so-called MOOCs, delivered via the internet, hold out
the possibility, or embody the threat, of doing away with much of the
expensive labor and fixed capital costs embodied in existing university
campuses. Clearly the future of higher education hangs in the balance with
important implications for both American politics and economic life.
The deteriorating situation of the universities has its own internal
logic as well. In response to the decline in funding, but also to the
prevalence of neoliberal ideology, universities-or rather the presidents,
administrators, and boards of trustees who control them-are increasingly
moving away from their ostensible mission of serving the public good to that
of becoming as far as possible like private enterprises. In doing so, most
of the teachers in these universities are being reduced to the status of
wage labor, and indeed precarious wage labor. The wages of the non-tenured
faculty who now constitute the majority of teachers in higher education are
low, they have no job security and receive few benefits. Although salaried
and historically enjoying a certain autonomy, tenured faculty are losing the
vestiges of their independence as well. Similarly, the influence of students
in university affairs-a result of concessions made by administrators during
the upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s-has effectively been neutered. These
changes reflect a decisive shift of power toward university managers whose
numbers and remuneration have expanded prodigiously. The objective of these
bureaucrats is to transform universities as much as possible to approximate
private and profit-making corporations, regarded as models of efficient
organization based on the discipline of the market. Indeed, scores of
universities, Phoenix University for example, have been created explicitly
as for-profit businesses and currently enroll millions of students.
Modern universities have always had a close relationship with private
business, but whereas in the past faculty labor served capital by producing
educated managers, highly skilled workers, and new knowledge as a largely
free good, strenuous efforts are now underway to transform academic
employment into directly productive, i.e., profitable, labor. The knowledge
engendered by academic work is accordingly being privatized as a commodity
through patenting, licensing, and copyrighting to the immediate benefit of
universities and the private businesses to which universities are
increasingly linked. Meanwhile, through the imposition of administrative
standards laid down in accord with neoliberal principles, faculty are being
subjected to unprecedented scrutiny through continuous quantified evaluation
of teaching and research in which the ability to generate outside funding
has become the ultimate measure of scholarly worth. At the same time,
universities have become part of global ranking systems like the Shanghai
Index or the Times Higher Education World University Rankings in which their
standing in the hierarchy has become all important to their prestige and
funding.
Several intertwined questions emerge from this state of affairs. In the
first place, given the rising expense and debt that attendance at university
imposes and declining employment prospects especially for young people, will
there continue to be a mass market for higher education? Is the model of the
university or college traditionally centered on the humanities and the
sciences with a commitment to the pursuit of truth compatible with the
movement toward converting the universities into quasi- or fully private
business corporations? Finally, what are the implications of changes in the
neoliberal direction for the future production of objective knowledge, not
to speak of critical understanding?
Universities during the Cold War produced an impressive amount of new
positive knowledge, not only in the sciences, engineering, and agriculture
but also in the social sciences and humanities. In the case of the
humanities and social sciences such knowledge, however real, was largely
instrumental or tainted by ideological rationalizations. It was not
sufficiently critical in the sense of getting to the root of the matter,
especially on questions of social class or on the motives of American
foreign policy. Too much of it was used to control and manipulate ordinary
people within and without the United States in behalf of the American state
and the maintenance of the capitalist order. There were scholars who
continued to search for critical understanding even at the height of the
Cold War, but they largely labored in obscurity. This state of affairs was
disrupted in the 1960s with the sudden burgeoning of Marxist scholarship
made possible by the upsurge of campus radicalism attendant on the anti-war,
civil rights, and black liberation struggles. But the decline of radicalism
in the 1970s saw the onset of postmodernism, neoliberalism, and the cultural
turn. Postmodernism represented an unwarranted and untenable skepticism,
while neoliberal economics was a crude and overstated scientism. The
cultural turn deserves more respect, but whatever intellectual interest
there may be in it there is little doubt that the net effect of all three
was to delink the humanities and social sciences from the revolutionary
politics that marked the 1960s. The ongoing presence in many universities of
radicals who took refuge in academe under Nixon and Reagan ensured the
survival of Marxist ideas if only in an academic guise. Be that as it may,
the crisis in American society and the concomitant crisis of the
universities has become extremely grave over the last decade. It is a
central contention of this work that, as a result of the crisis,
universities will likely prove to be a key location for ideological and
class struggle, signaled already by the growing interest in unionization of
faculty both tenured and non-tenured, the revival of Marxist scholarship,
the Occupy Movement, the growing importance of the Boycott, Divestment, and
Sanctions movement, and heightening conflicts over academic freedom and the
corporatization of university governance.
The approach of this work is to examine the recent history of American
universities from the perspective of Marxism, a method which can be used to
study these institutions critically as part of the capitalist economic and
political system. Despite ongoing apologetics that view universities as
sites for the pursuit of disinterested truth, we contend that a critical
perspective involving an understanding of universities as institutions based
on the contradictions of class inequality, the ultimate unity of the
disciplines rooted in the master narrative of historical materialism, and a
consciousness of history makes more sense as a method of analysis. All the
more so, this mode of investigation is justified by the increasing and
explicit promotion of academic capitalism by university managers trying to
turn universities into for-profit corporations. In response to these
policies scholars have in fact begun to move toward the reintegration of
political economy with the study of higher education. This represents a turn
away from the previous dominance in this field of postmodernism and cultural
studies and, indeed, represents a break from the hegemonic outlook of
neoliberalism.[2] On the other hand, most of this new scholarship is
orientated toward studying the effects of neoliberalism on the contemporary
university, whereas the present work takes a longer view. Marxist political
economy demands a historical perspective in which the present condition of
universities emerged from the crystallization of certain previous trends. It
therefore looks at the evolution of the university from the beginning of the
twentieth century, sketching its evolution from a preserve of the
upper-middle class in which research played almost no role into a site of
mass education and burgeoning research, and, by the 1960s, a vital element
in the political economy of the United States.
In contrast to their original commitment to independence with respect to
the state up to World War II, most if by no means all universities and
colleges defined their post-war goals in terms of the pursuit of the public
good and were partially absorbed into the state apparatus by becoming
financially dependent on government. But from start to finish
twentieth-century higher education also had an intimate and ongoing
relationship with private business. In the neoliberal period universities
are taking this a step further, aspiring to turn themselves into quasi- or
actual business corporations. But this represents the conclusion of a
long-evolving process. The encroachment of private business into the
university is in fact but part of the penetration of the state by private
enterprise and the partial privatization of the state. On the surface this
invasion of the public sphere by the market may appear beneficial to private
business. We regard it, on the contrary, as a symptom of economic weakness
and a weakening of civil society.
The American system of higher education, with its prestigious private
institutions, great public universities, private colleges and junior
colleges, was a major achievement of a triumphant American republic. It
provided the U.S. state with the intellectual, scientific, and technical
means to strengthen significantly its post-1945 power. The current
neoliberal phase reflects an America struggling economically and politically
to adapt to the growing challenges to its global dominance and to the crisis
of capitalism itself. The shift of universities toward the private corporate
model is part of this struggle. Capitalism in its strongest periods not only
separated the state from the private sector, it kept the private sector at
arm's length from the state. The role of the state in ensuring a level
playing field and providing support for the market was clearly understood.
The current attempt by universities to mimic the private sector is a form of
economic and ideological desperation on the part of short-sighted and
opportunistic university administrators as well as politicians and
businessmen. In our view, this aping of the private sector is misguided,
full of contradictions, and ultimately vain if not disastrous. Indeed, it is
a symptom of crisis and decline.
The current overwhelming influence of private business on universities
grew out of pre-existing tendencies. There is already an existing corporate
nature of university governance both private and public, as well as an
influence of business on universities in the first part of the twentieth
century. In reaction there developed the concept of academic freedom as well
as the establishment of the system of tenure and the development of a rather
timid faculty trade unionism. This underscores the importance of private
foundations in controlling the development of the curriculum and research in
both the sciences and humanities. In their teaching, universities were
mainly purveyors of the dominant capitalist ideology. Humanities and social
science professors imparted mainly liberal ideology and taught laissez-faire
economics which justified the political and economic status quo. The
development of specialized departments reinforced the fragmentation of
knowledge and discouraged the emergence of a systemic overview and critique
of American culture and society. There were, as noted earlier, a few Marxist
scholars, some of considerable distinction, who became prominent
particularly in the wake of the Depression, the development of the influence
of the Communist Party, and the brief period of Soviet-American cooperation
during World War II. But the teaching of Marxism was frowned upon and
attacked even prior to the Cold War.
The post-1945 university was a creation of the Cold War. Its expansion,
which sprang directly out of war, was based on the idea of education as a
vehicle of social mobility, which was seen as an alternative to the equality
and democracy promoted by the populism of the New Deal. Its elitist and
technocratic style of governance was patterned after that of the large
private corporation and the American federal state during the 1950s. Its
enormously successful research programs were mainly underwritten by
appropriations from the military and the CIA. The CIA itself was largely
created by recruiting patriotic faculty from the universities. Much of the
research in the social sciences was directed at fighting Soviet and
revolutionary influence and advancing American imperialism abroad. Marxist
professors and teaching programs were purged from the campuses.
Dating from medieval times, the curriculum of the universities was based
on a common set of subjects including language, philosophy, and natural
science premised on the idea of a unitary truth. Although the subject matter
changed over the centuries higher education continued to impart the
hegemonic ideology of the times. Of course the notion of unitary truth was
fraying at the seams by the beginning of the twentieth century with the
development of departmental specialization and the increasingly contested
nature of truth, especially in the social sciences in the face of growing
class struggle in America. However, the notion of the idea of the unity of
knowledge as purveyed by the university was still ideologically important as
a rationale for the existence of universities. Moreover, as we shall
demonstrate, it was remarkable how similarly, despite differences in subject
matter and method, the main disciplines in the humanities and social
sciences responded to the challenge of Marxism during the Cold War. They all
developed paradigms which opposed or offered alternatives to Marxism while
rationalizing continued loyalty to liberalism and capitalism. As if on cue,
sociology, psychology, literature, political science, and anthropology all
took sides by explicitly rejecting Marxism and putting forward viewpoints
opposed to it. History itself stressed American exceptionalism, justified
U.S. expansionism, minimized class conflict, and warned against revolution.
Indeed, this work will focus on these disciplines because they defended the
capitalist status quo at a deeper cultural and intellectual level than the
ubiquitous mass media. As Louis Althusser pointed out, the teaching received
by students from professors at universities was the strategic focal point
for the ideological defense of the dominant class system. That was as true
of the United States as it was of France, where institutions of higher
learning trained those who would later train or manage labor. Criticizing
the recent history of these disciplines is thus an indispensable step to
developing an alternative knowledge and indeed culture that will help to
undermine liberal capitalist hegemony.[3]
The approach of this work is to critically analyze these core academic
subjects from a perspective informed by Pierre Bourdieu and Karl Marx.
Bourdieu points out that the deep involvement of the social sciences (and
the humanities) with powerful social interests makes it difficult to free
their study from ideological presuppositions and thereby achieve a truly
socially and psychologically reflexive understanding.[4] But such reflexive
knowledge was precisely what Marx had in mind more than a century earlier.
Leaving a Germany still under the thrall of feudalism and absolutism for
Paris in 1843, the young Marx wrote to his friend Arnold Ruge that
reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form but,
if constructing the future and settling everything for all times are not
our affair, it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at
present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists,
ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives
at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the
powers that be.[5]
His task as he saw it was to criticize the existing body of knowledge so
as to make it as reasonable as possible, i.e., to undermine its illusory and
ideological character and substitute knowledge which was both true and
helped advance communism. Such a project entailed deconstructing the
existing body of knowledge through rational criticism, exposing its
ideological foundations and advancing an alternative based on a sense of
contradiction, social totality, and a historical and materialist
understanding. It is our ambition in surveying and studying the humanities
and social sciences in the period after 1945 to pursue our investigation in
the same spirit. Indeed, it is our view that a self-reflexive approach to
contemporary knowledge, while woefully lacking, is an indispensable
complement to the development of a serious ideological critique of the
crisis-ridden capitalist society of today.
Marxism is still regarded with suspicion in the United States. As a
matter of fact, anti-Marxism in American universities was not merely a
defensive response to McCarthyism as some allege. Anti-communism was bred in
the bone of many Americans and was one of the strongest forces that affected
U.S. society in the twentieth century, including the faculty members of its
universities. An
idée fixe
rather than an articulated ideology, it
was compounded out of deeply embedded albeit parochial notions of
Americanism, American exceptionalism and anti-radicalism.[6] The latter was
rooted in the bitter resistance of the still large American middle or
capitalist class to the industrial unrest which marked the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries and which had a strong bed of support among
the immigrant working class. Nativism then was an important tool in the
hands of this class in fighting a militant if ethnically divided working
class. Moreover, the anti-intellectual prejudices of American society in
general and the provincialism of its universities were ideal terrain for
fending off subversive ideas from abroad like Marxism. Later, this
anti-communism and hostility to Marxism became the rationale for the
extension of American imperialism overseas particularly after 1945. The
social origins of the professoriate among the lower middle class,
furthermore, and its role as indentured if indirect servants of capital,
strengthened its position as inimical to Marxism. Just as careers could be
lost for favoring Marxism, smart and adroit academics could make careers by
advancing some new intellectual angle in the fight against Marxism. And this
was not merely a passing feature of the height of the Cold War: from the
1980s onward, postmodernism, identity politics, and the cultural turn were
invoked to disarm the revolutionary Marxist politics that had developed in
the 1960s. Whatever possible role identity politics and culture might have
in deepening an understanding of class their immediate effect was to
undermine a sense of class and strengthen a sense of liberal social
inclusiveness while stressing the cultural obstacles to the development of
revolutionary class consciousness.
This overall picture of conformity and repression was, however, offset by
the remarkable upsurge of student radicalism that marked the 1960s,
challenging the intellectual and social orthodoxies of the Cold War. In
reaction to racism and political and social repression at home and the
Vietnam War abroad, students rebelled against the oppressive character of
university governance and by extension the power structure of American
society. Overwhelmingly the ideology through which this revolt was refracted
was the foreign and until then largely un-American doctrine of Marxism.
Imported into the universities largely by students, Marxism then inspired a
new generation of radical and groundbreaking scholarship. Meanwhile it is
important to note that the student revolt itself was largely initiated by
the southern civil rights movement, an important bastion of which were the
historically black colleges of the South. It was from the struggle of
racially oppressed black students in the American South as well as the
growing understanding of the anti-colonial revolutionaries of Vietnam that
the protest movement in American colleges and universities was born. Equally
important was the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley. Indeed, it is the
contention of this work that the issues raised at Berkeley over democracy in
the universities and the free expression of ideas not only shaped the
student movement of that time but are still with us, and indeed are central
to the future of universities and intellectual life today.
At the heart of the Berkeley protest lay a rejection of the idea of a
university as a hierarchical corporation producing exchange values including
the production of trained workers and ideas convertible into commodities.
Instead the students asserted the vision of a democratic university which
produced knowledge as a use value serving the common good. It is our view
that this issue raised at Berkeley in the 1960s anticipated the class
conflict that is increasingly coming to the fore over so-called knowledge
capitalism. Both within the increasingly corporate neoliberal university and
in business at large, the role of knowledge and knowledge workers is
becoming a key point of class struggle. This is especially true on
university campuses where the proletarianization of both teaching and
research staff is in process and where the imposition of neoliberal work
rules is increasingly experienced as tyrannical. The skilled work of these
knowledge producers, the necessarily interconnected nature of their work,
and the fundamentally contradictory notion of trying to privatize and
commodify knowledge, have the potential to develop into a fundamental
challenge to capitalism.
Notes:
1. Paul Fain, "'Nearing the Bottom': Inside Higher Education,"
Inside
Higher Education
, May 15, 2014.
2. Raymond A. Morrow, "Critical Theory and Higher Education: Political
Economy and the Cul-de-Sac of the Postmodernist Turn," in
The
University, State and Market: The Political Economy of Globalization in the
Americas
, ed. Robert A. Rhoads and Carlos Alberto Torres, Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 2006, pp. xvii‒xxxiii.
3. Perry Anderson, "Components of the National Culture,"
New Left
Review
, No. 50, July‒August, 1968, pp. 3–4.
4. Pierre Bourdieu,
The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art
and Literature
, New York: Columbia University Press, 1993, pp. 86–7.
Capitalism requires that total strangers be on the hook for student
loans? And if this is Capitalism then why didn't this trend emerge 100+
years ago? Why now?
Because a) the market for a college degree is vastly bigger today than
it was 100+ years ago b) tuitions were affordable so there was no way for
high-interest lenders ("total strangers") to game the system as they do
today.
Plus I wonder if the legal system or tax code would have let them get
away with anything like what they get away with today.
I agree with everything dude says, but the way he says it is so deathly
dull and needlessly technical . . .
it's a shame that someone so openly critical of the university system and
culture nonetheless unquestioningly obeys the tradition of: "serious writing
has to turn off 99% of the people that might be otherwise interested in the
subject."
Yes, his writing caused this reader to do a MEDGO ("my eyes doth gloss
over")
It was technical in its assertions, but has few metrics to quantify
the trends such as inflation adjusted administrative cost or inflation
adjusted government college funding now vs then.
There is a mention that the USA government has touted the "upward
mobility" or excess value, AKA "consumer surplus", of a college degree to
students and their families for years.
The US government further encouraged the student loan industry with
guarantees and bankruptcy relief de-facto prohibited.
The current system may illustrate that colleges raised their prices to
capture more of this alleged consumer surplus, a surplus that may no
longer be there..
If one looks at the USA's current political/economic/infrastructure
condition, and asserts that the leaders and government officials of the
USA were trained, overwhelmingly, over the last 40 years, in the USA's
system of higher education, perhaps this is an indication USA higher
education has not served the general public well for a long time.
The author mentions this important point "These so-called MOOCs,
delivered via the internet, hold out the possibility, or embody the
threat, of doing away with much of the expensive labor and fixed capital
costs embodied in existing university campuses. Clearly the future of
higher education hangs in the balance with important implications for
both American politics and economic life."
Maybe the MOOCs are the low cost future as the 4 year degree loses
economic value and the USA moves to a life-long continuous education
model?
And that rate doesn't even mention what scores they achieved.
MOOCs are hopeless especially since college is now less about
getting an education and more about a statement about a young
person's lifestyle or identity.
Now sure about the `now' bit. I maybe a bit cynical but I've
always thought, even when I was at one, that
colleges/universities major function was as a middle-class
finishing school for those unable to afford the real deal in
Switzerland.
I do not agree and it is deathly dull and needlessly technical. In
fact it remains me off the marxistic education I enjoyed growing up in
East Germany.
Maybe it is time to rethink after school education. Physical Labor should
loose its stain of being for loosers and stupid people. A whole lot of
professions could be better taught through apprentiships and technical
college mix.( many younge people would maybe enjoy being able to start
qualified work after only 3 additional years of education).
And do we really need 12 years of standard school education? There are so
many kids that do not function well in school.
Universities should be for the really eager and talented who want to
spend a big part of
their youth learning.
I guess we need a lot of new ideas to get away from the old paradigma (
anti- marxist or marxist)
I don't know how you read other works from academics if you think that
this
was dull.
Do you or anyone thinking this was "dull" have any examples of
academic essays or books that contain useful knowledge but also consider
them "shiny?"
Personally, I thought this was a very good essay as it explains some
things I've been thinking about American higher education and quite a few
things about my personal university education at a tier-1 research
school.
Basically universities have become a cog in the machine of neoliberalism.
Rather than anything resembling an institution for the public good, it
has taken on the worst aspects of corporate America (and Canada). You can
see this in the way they push now for endowment money, the highly paid
senior management contrasted with poorly paid adjuncts, and how research is
controlled these days. Blue skies research is cut, while most research is
geared towards short-term corporate profit, from which they will no doubt
milk society with.
I tremble when I think about what all of this means:
1. Students won't be getting a good education when they are taught by
adjuncts being paid poverty wages.
2. Corporations will profit in the short run.
3. The wealthy and corporations due to endowment money have a huge sway.
4. Blue skies research will fall and over time, US leadership in hard
sciences.
5. The productivity of future workers will be suppressed and with it, their
earning potential.
6. Related to that, inequality will increase dramatically as universities
worsen the situation.
7. There will be many "left behind" students and graduates with high debt,
along with bleak job prospects.
8. State governments, starving for tax money will make further cuts,
worsening these trends.
9. Anything hostile to the corporate state (as the article notes) will be
suppressed.
10. With it, academic freedom and ultimately democracy will be much reduced.
What it means is decline in US technological power, productivity gains,
and with it, declining living standards.
All of these trends already are happening. They will worsen.
I'd agree that a more readable version of this should be made for the
general public.
But your description suggests an inevitable bleak dystopic future – a
self-fulfilling prophesy. The future is not written – we can help
determine its course. It starts with grass roots movement building in
your neighborhood and community. And I can't think of a more rewarding
task then creating a better future for our children.
But perhaps my farmer's work ethic, my inclination to side with the
underdog and stand up to the bully capitalists, are notions that most
Americans no longer possess. Perhaps Cornel West is correct when he
states: "The oppressive effect of the prevailing market moralities leads
to a form of sleepwalking from womb to tomb, with the majority of
citizens content to focus on private careers and be distracted with
stimulating amusements. They have given up any real hope of shaping the
collective destiny of the nation. Sour cynicism, political apathy, and
cultural escapism become the pervasive options."
However, it is my observation that Trump's election has woken this
sleepwalking giant, and that his bizarre behavior continues to energize
people to resist. So why not rebel and help bring down the neoliberal
fascists. Is there any cause more worthy? And for those who won't try
because they don't think they can win, consider the words of Chris
Hedges: "I do not fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists
because they are fascists."
I'm going to complain about your headline. A lot of stuff on this blog is
obviously relevant only to the USA, and when it's obvious it doesn't need to
be mentioned in the headline. But it's not at all obvious that this topic is
only about the USA (or North America, since the author is in Canada?), so
maybe you could edit the headline to reflect that it is in fact only about
the USA?
My observation of Australian universities is that they have similar
problems, although maybe to a lesser extent. But I doubt the same things
happen in all countries. I'd be interested to know more about mainland
European universities, and ex-Soviet-bloc universities, and Chinese
universities, and Third World universities.
As for "Universities with large endowments are increasingly hedge funds
with an educational unit attached", I think the rich universities in the UK
(i.e. the richer residential Oxbridge colleges, if you count them as
universities – Oxford and Cambridge Universities themselves are not
particularly rich – plus maybe Imperial College?) have very little invested
in hedge funds and a lot in property. Can anyone confirm or deny that?
In the past two decades, the UK's top universities, often called the
Russell Group after the Russell Hotel in Russell Square where they met to
form a sort of lobby group, have made money and started hiring rock star
academics. I don't know how much these academics teach, but they often
pontificate in the media.
Big business, oligarchs and former alumni (often oligarchs) donate
money, allowing them to build up their coffers. Imperial is developing an
area of west London.
Oxbridge colleges own a lot of property. Much of the land between
Cambridge and London is owned by Cambridge colleges. This goes back to
when they were religious institutions and despite Henry VIII's
dissolution of the monasteries.
London Business School has expanded from its Regent's Park base to
Marylebone as the number of students, especially from Asia, grow. I have
spoken to students from there and Oxford's Said Business School and know
people who have guest lectured there. They were not impressed. Plutonium
Kun has written about that below.
Oxford and Cambridge are British state universities as I understand
it. The Russell Group consists primarily of state institutions that
have assumed / been given / been restored to an elite role in the
British system of higher education, which is overwhelmingly public.
Oxford and Cambridge are at the peak of a relatively flat hierarchy of
elite public higher education. Higher ed's role in the constitution of
British elites is characterized by 3 features: association with an
institutional reputation and thereby access to a network, a financial
hurdle, and a meritocratic process of selection. Of these the
financial hurdle is the least problematic – tuition is still peanuts
compared to that at American elite institutions.
Things have gotten better – you no longer have to be a male member
of the church of England to get in – and the system is more democratic
than the French system of elite public higher ed, i.e. the ruling
elite in the UK can be penetrated by working people, e.g. Corbyn.
My son is half Japanese and half American and holds a passport with both
countries, he is still in elementary school, but my wife and I are
encouraging him to go to school in Japan or to Germany (ancestral home) and
seek his fortunes outside of the US as the crapification of the US roller
coasters out of control.
Japanese universities are still affordable compared to the US and it's
administrative layer, modestly paid, isn't run by MBAs, corporate hacks and
neoliberal apologists and others who would better serve the public by
decorating a lamp post somewhere with piano wire tightly wrapped around
their necks!
My niece attended Kyoto University, one of the best schools in Japan and
it cost her and her parents about 7500.00 a year. She commuted from Nara
City and Finished her degree in just under three years and had a job waiting
for her in the middle of her third year.
Now, I agree that Japanese universities have their fare share of problems
and insanity, but the thought of dealing with US universities nauseates my
wife and me.
The only school in the US that I would want my son to attend would be
Caltech, if he could ever successfully get accepted. They still do great
science there, much of it blue sky research. LIGO is still running!
https://eands.caltech.edu/random-walk-3/
An increasing number of British students are going to the Netherlands
and, to a lesser extent, Germany for courses taught in English and for
under EUR2000 per annum. Leiden and Maastricht are particularly favoured.
Apparently, some Spanish universities are cottoning on to that market.
Half a dozen years ago, a clown masquerading as a BBC breakfast news
reporter went to have a look and condescend. Her concluding remark was,
"The question is are continental universities as good as British ones."
The university system is not set up for education. it's a reward to
the conformists who studied 12 hours a day all through jr
high/highschool to pass the university entrance exams (which
notoriously don't test for any useful knowledge). The idea being that
if you waste your whole childhood studying for a phoney test, you
won't dare question the system once you're in the workforce, as it
would mean admitting your whole childhood was wasted!
Since college is viewed as a reward, rather than a challenge,
there's very little learning going on. it's about developing
relationships (and drinking problems) with future members of this
elite class.
So most Japanese corporations wind up having to teach the grads
everything on the job anyway.
A Japanese degree doesn't mean 'i know things' it means 'i have
already by age 20 sacrificed so much that i don't dare ever rock the
boat', which is exactly how the corporations and govt bureaucracies
want it.
You might say "oh but science! Japanese are good at that!"
But my wife, a nurse, says that it's considered rude to flunk an
incompetent student, providing she/he's respectful of the professor.
There are doctors who routinely botch surgeries, but firing them would
be rude. These doctors would have flunked out of regular (i.e.
non-Japanese) universities.
Having on more than one occasion suffered through management
restructuring organised by MBA's which did nothing other than reduce
productivity in favour of meaningless metrics and increase the power of
managers who had no idea how to actually do the job, I'm increasingly coming
to the conclusion that the MBA was a clever invention by an anarchist
determined to create a virus to undermine capitalism from within. At least,
thats the only possible theory that makes sense to me.
I agree . Putting it more bluntly the MBA is a clever con to get
would-be students to sign up in the belief it'll teach them something
that can't be taught – how to make money. I've said this on this blog
before – the ability to make money is a knack ; it doesn't matter what
the field is it's all akin to someone selling cheap goods on a market
stall .
Many UK universities are targeting foreign, especially Asian, students
for the purpose of profit, not education. Some universities refer to
students as clients.
Some provincial universities are opening campuses in London as foreign
students only want to study in London.
There are many Chinese would be students in London this week. Some
universities have open days at the moment. When the youngsters and their
parents are not attending such days, they go shopping at Bicester Village,
just north of Oxford. It's odd to see commuters arriving from
Buckinghamshire at Marylebone for work and Chinese and Arab tourists going
shopping in the opposite direction, and the reverse in the evening.
The targeting of rich Asian students, often not up to academic standard,
has led to a secondary school in mid-Buckinghamshire, where selective
education prevails at secondary / high school, to take Chinese students for
the summer term and house them with well to do (only) local parents. The
experiment went well for the "grammar" school, i.e. it made money. As for
the families who housed the kids, not so much. There were complaints that
the children could speak little or no English, which is not what they
expected, so the host families could barely interact with the visitors. The
school wants to repeat the programme and expand it to a full year. That is
the thin end of a wedge as the school will scale back the numbers of local
children admitted and probably expand the programme to the entire phase of
secondary / high school. It's like running a boarding school by stealth. The
school is now an "academy", so no longer under government control and
similar to charter schools, and can do what it wants.
Yves Smith,
I like your introduction to the article. "Universities with large endowments
are increasingly hedge funds with an educational unit attached" A recent and
very simple but eye opener interview on the subject-Richard
Wolff-http://www.rdwolff.com/rttv_boom_bust_for_profit_schools_are_making_money_but_failing_the_grade
As Henry Heller mentions Bourdieu, I can not find among his bibliography
much on the specific increasing dominance of the "free market" over learning
institutions. The Field of Cultural Production focuses mainly on the
opposition market/art,cultural field and the rules of art. Some of his other
works elaborate very well on the transformed reproduction of social agents
with different economic and cultural capital weights. His major works on
higher learning are The State Nobility and Academic Discourse, which are
about the homologies between the hierarchy of higher learning centers and
the market position occupiers which the latter produce. All of it within the
French context. The great late Bourdieu certainly denounced the increasing
free market ideology presence and dominance on "everything human"(i.e Free
Exchange, Against the Tyranny of the Market and elsewhere); yet not much in
that regard-to my knowledge-on the centers with the granted power to issue
higher learning degrees. I guess my point is that Heller's reference to
Bourdieu strikes me as a bit odd here.
Nevertheless, I like Heller's article. Just as incidental evidence: my
town's community college President is a CPA and MBA title holder, the
Economics 101 class taught does not deviate the slightest from economic
orthodoxy doctrine and I must add that, despite-or because of- a 75%
tutoring fee increase in the last eight years, the center has consistently
generated a surplus aided by the low wages from the vastly non-tenured
teachers.
The students from China, Singapore and the Middle East often live in the
upscale areas of London, often at home rather than rent. Parents are often
in tow. They also drive big and expensive cars.
It's amazing to see what is driven and by whom around University,
Imperial and King's colleges and the London School of Economics in central
London. This was remarked upon by US readers a couple of years ago. Parking
is not cheap, either.
A friend and former colleague was planning to rent at Canary Wharf where
he was a contractor. He put his name down and was getting ready to move in.
The landlord got in touch to say sorry, a family from Singapore was coming
and paying more. Apparently, Singaporeans reserve well in advance, even
before the students know their exam results.
A golf course was put up for sale near home. The local authority tipped
off some upscale estate agents / realtors from London. A Chinese buyer has
acquired the thirty odd acre property. Without planning (construction)
permission, the property is worth £1.5m. With planning permission, it's
worth £1m per acre. A gated community / rural retreat for the Chinese
student community is planned. Oxford, London, Shakespeare Country, Clooney
Country and Heathrow are an hour or less away.
My favorite line:
Marxism is still regarded with suspicion in the United States.
I love a good Marxist and I know that a totalizing perspective such as
Marxism requires a certain amount of generalization, but I found more to
criticize in this post than to recommend it. Apparently entire disciplines
have agency (
As if on cue, sociology, psychology, literature, political
science, and anthropology all took sides by explicitly rejecting Marxism and
putting forward viewpoints opposed to it. History itself stressed American
exceptionalism, justified U.S. expansionism, minimized class conflict, and
warned against revolution.
).
It is clearly true that the modern university is overly focused on
money-making – both the university enterprise itself and the selling of
higher ed to students – but, from my long experience with one big Tier One
and lesser knowledge of several others, it is wrong to say that the modern
university looks to operate as a business. Indeed, the top heaviness of
bureaucratic administration in the modern university is not very
business-like.
IMO what declining public funding has done is allow/force the modern
university to aim it's giant vacuum sucker in any and every direction. By
the way, if Wisconsin is any example, there are enough Chinese students
interested in American university degrees to keep it in business for quite a
long time.
But my biggest complaint is with the history. After first laying out an
ideal (but not very) historical vision of the utopian university, in
contrast with today's money grubber, he later admits that the mid-century
university was not all that open to leftism. Then the miracle of the 1960s,
which seems to spring from social protest alone. The real story of the 1960s
was the huge expansion of higher ed in the U.S., which led to considerable
faculty hiring, which allowed a lot of leftists to get hired in the 1960s
and early 1970s (often at second or third-tier schools) when they would not
have in the 1950s. This was always going to be a one-time event.
The author also seems to suggest that universities owe it to Marxists to
hire them if their analysis is good. This is a weird argument for a Marxist
to make, seemingly entirely oblivious to the overall political economy he
otherwise emphasizes. It ends up sounding more than a bit self-serving. I'm
not sure lecturing in History on the public dime is Marx's idea of praxis.
"... It is not just a matter of the author being able to afford Word and the equipment and other software to use it productively. E.g. how do you prepare your graphs and images? Also business partners accepting or returning the documents will have to buy into the "ecosystem". ..."
"... Academia is a highly collaborative venture, and one has to consider overall cost and productivity. ..."
"... Today there is PDF as a pretty established (readonly) document format, back in the day the standard in academia was Postscript. ..."
"... I used Word when writing my thesis in '94-95 - each chapter a separate doc, figures inserted by creating artwork separately and then using a high-end copy machine to integrate text and figures. It was an ugly process. ..."
The comparison comes 20 years late. In the 90's, MS Word was unsuitable for academic and scientific
writing, period. Even for short documents like a conference or term paper. It was geared entirely
to corporate users. In addition it was riddled with bugs and layout "quirks".
In reality, you also have to fiddle with Latex, and in the 90's embedding images was big PITA.
What I did not see in the comparison is price. I suppose one would need to compare legally-owned
copies of one product vs. the other.
It is not just a matter of the author being able to afford Word and the equipment and other
software to use it productively. E.g. how do you prepare your graphs and images? Also business
partners accepting or returning the documents will have to buy into the "ecosystem".
Academia is a highly collaborative venture, and one has to consider overall cost and productivity.
Today there is PDF as a pretty established (readonly) document format, back in the day
the standard in academia was Postscript.
>In the 90's, MS Word was unsuitable for academic and scientific writing, period... It is
not just a matter of the author being able to afford Word and the equipment and other software
to use it productively. E.g. how do you prepare your graphs and images?
I used Word when writing my thesis in '94-95 - each chapter a separate doc, figures inserted
by creating artwork separately and then using a high-end copy machine to integrate text and figures.
It was an ugly process.
> Also business partners accepting or returning the documents will have to buy into the
"ecosystem".
That's what led my employer to switch from WordPerfect to MS Word and from Lotus 1-2-3 to Excel
in the late '90s. Our customer, the US Govt, imposed a requirement that all reports and supplementary
material, e.g., presentations and spreadsheets, be submitted in MS Office formats.
> What I did not see in the comparison is price. I suppose one would need to compare
legally-owned copies of one product vs. the other.
Figure the business owns legal copies. Purchase price is one consideration, another is the
cost to maintain the software and keep staff trained in how to use it. The inertia - the tendency
to stick with what you've got - can be huge when taking the latter factors into account. In an
academic research group not only is there a mentality that you want to use the best available
tool for the job but there's constant turnover, which supports rapid adaptation and evolution.
Inertia is low. In contrast, turnover in (non-startup) business environments is comparatively
slow. Those businesses make cost-benefit assessments of adopting new software. The tendency is
to stick with what you've got until it's absolutely positively unsustainable to do so.
1. My experience with LaTeX vs Word is consistent with the study results - "We show that LaTeX
users were slower than Word users, wrote less text in the same amount of time, and produced more
typesetting, orthographical, grammatical, and formatting errors."
2. There's a guy in my group, the most talented applied mathematician I've ever known -incredibly
good at applying high level math to solve practical problems, who swears by LaTeX even though
we're standardized on Word at work. He's not any faster in preparing his docs than the rest of
us and they're not any better in terms of look and feel. He just prefers to use LaTeX. Getting
him to use Word has been like pulling teeth, i.e., entirely consistent with "On most measures,
expert LaTeX users performed even worse than novice Word users. LaTeX users, however, more often
report enjoying using their respective software." I will send him a link to the PLOS ONE article
first thing Monday morning;-)
"My experience with LaTeX vs. Word is consistent with the study results - "We show that
LaTeX users were slower than Word users, wrote less text in the same amount of time, and produced
more typesetting, orthographical, grammatical, and formatting errors."
You are wrong.
Such a statement signifies complete lack of understand of what the writing a book or dissertation
is about. And what problems the author faces and need to solve in the process (this is pretty
hard and time consuming job to write a sizable book - your book is a very harsh mistress ;-)
MS Word and TeX represent two different categories of writer's tool: the former is the tool
without direct access to raw representation of the document/book. The latter is a tool with full
access to such a representation. In this sense you can't and should not even compare them, unless
you want to looks like an incompetent.
Moreover on long documents (to say nothing about books) latest versions of MS Word all have
strange quirks. Sometime it change your formatting in a undesirable way. Microsoft software quality
really went downhill after, say, 2003.
Fixing those quirks including "spontaneous" changes in formatting can take a day or a week
of work even if you know MS Word perfectly well (which, unsurprisingly, very few people outside
programming community do), including the in-depth knowledge of styles and, especially, macro programming.
The latter is a must for writing any sizable book in MS Word. Or you need a good programmer to
help you.
Of course, if you expect that your book will be a bestseller you can hire a top level programmer
to adapt set of tools/macros for you, but that's a lot of money. You need approximately 3-5K lines
of macros to supplement MS Word for writing a sizable book (say, over 300 pages).
I do know a couple of authors who write their technical books using MS Word (Bruce Eckel the
author of "Thinking in Java" is one example). I view them as perverts, although being a programmer
is a distinct advantage in such a situation; you will need all your skills to make the job done
and you do not need to pay somebody else for such a help ;-).
Writing a large book is about managing revisions and a very precise formatting of chapters.
Which needs to be preserved (and verified with some automatic tools) over many iterations (which
can take several years) until the final draft of the book. Manipulating the set of styles you
use in the book is not easy in MS Word.
Here access to the raw representation of the text of the book is vital. If you need to check
your examples (like in case of writing programming books), access to raw text is a must (although
can be imitated in MS Word via macros). If you are writing geo science or any book with a lot
of mathematics – you better forget about MS Word.
The usual trick authors who write books in MS Word use -- storing each chapter as a separate
document -- makes it difficult to create cross references and such. Chapters became semi-isolated
and that negatively affects the quality of the book.
So for technical books and especially dissertations TeX has a huge (and I mean HUGE) edge over
MS Word. Only using HTML with styles (FrontPage 2003 or Microsoft expression Web) can compete
with TeX and only in case you do not use mathematical notation and equations extensively.
OK. word is faster. However there's nothing there about what the document looks like. Word
documents look like word documents, i.e. not very good. Perhaps that's a function of somebody
knowledgeable setting up templates. I find it really hard to believe that it's that much faster.
I find word completely bewildering.
People like latex it better because they can use their favorite text editor and get it done.
using word is completely and utterly annoying. That accounts for the enjoyment factor i think.
I respectfully disagree, but I see your point -- MS Word is much simpler to use for short papers,
especially in multi-author env. It requires less sophistication on users part.
Please understand that for LaTeX to work in multi-author environment you need Git or Subversion
(or similar version management system) to be installed and learned by all people in the group.
Even when just two people are involved (as often is the case with dissertations ) this is a must.
But from the point of view of achievable final quality of the product WordPerfect is better
as PGL pointed out.
Both are (unlike TeX) integrated WYSIWYG ("what you see is what you get") publishing environments
with a lot of sophisticated features (such as folding, macros, styles, creation of TOC, powerful
spellchecker, etc).
WordPerfect still is used by lawyers and some other professions who value precise layout:
== quote ==
Why do lawyers still love WordPerfect? One attorney answers with "Two words: Reveal Codes. At
one point about 10 years ago, I tried switching to Word. My secretary and I agreed we hated it
after only a few weeks."
== end of quote ==
I am surprised that so few people in the USA use Microsoft Expression Web (or FrontPage ) for
this purpose in corporate env.
I am also surprised how Microsoft being a huge company still managed to produce very complex,
professional tools like Ms Word and managed to push them to people who are definitely unable to
use even 10% of the features offered.
Few people understand that MS Word takes years of day-to-day usage (plus some programming abilities)
to learn on the expert level. In reality this is a complex publishing system.
I know some secretaries with almost 30 years day-to-day experience (starting PC DOS days with
MS Word 4, which was released in 1987) who still learn something new each month. Often because
they knew it a couple of years ago, but forgot :-).
BTW MS Word is one of the few applications for which viruses ("macro viruses") exist and were
a nasty problem in the corporate environment in 1996-2002.
Bill Gates took huge risk to bring "over-sophisticated" products like this to the market and
still managed to achieve a dominant position among regular users. In Bill Gates days Microsoft
was a "king of software complexity" in this product niche.
Kind of brings you back, doesn't it. I seem to recall a guy in the lab running LateX on a PDP
11/70 back in the early 80's - rather a boutique affectation even then.
libezkova -> Observer... , -1
TeX is a standard typesetting tool for the American Mathematical Society.
"... To insist that offshoring and illegal immigration were not partially responsible for the increase in US inequality is gross denial. As with the earlier moves to the southern states, the lives of the illegal immigrants and the workers in Mexico and Asia were improved, but US workers paid a dear price in wage loss. ..."
"... Another huge factor was the financialization that was occurring during this period (perhaps somewhat due the other changes and their effect on the nations politics). ..."
"... Most college grads are working jobs that do not require a degree. Indeed many jobs routinely filled by high school graduates when I was young now want a college degree. Melvin completely nails it. ..."
"... College degree now serves as a filter to cut off unnecessary applicants. That does not means that the college degree by itself is not worth it. There is a value in the college degree beyond job market prospects. In this sense huge inflation of the cost of higher education is a big injustice in itself. ..."
"... My last point would be that, with things like Dynasty trusts, it becomes much easier for the top .01% to maintain their place at the top of the income 'food chain', versus people born into families of more modest means. Those people in the .01% can send their children to the truly best schools in the country, whereas the rest of us go to whatever schools our parents can afford, or however much college debt we're willing to absorb. ..."
Why the surge in inequality?
Good question. When did this surge begin? What was going on that might have led to this surge?
Seems a lot of agreement on the 1970s as the beginning. What was going on in the 1970? Beginnings
of offshoring to Mexico and Asia (the movement of well paying 'rustbelt' union jobs to the cheap
labor southern states had begun earlier with questionable net in that southern labor gained and northern
lost), industrial automation began to take off (especially in auto manufacturing – car plants that
employed 5k in 1970 were producing more cars with 1.2k by the end of the 70s), but just as significant
– about this time, the US began to lose market share to European and Asian manufacturing.
The education thing is a canard. In the 1950s, Detroit employed millions of workers who had less
than a high school education; by the late 50s, they demanded a high school diploma; today, they can
demand an Associate degree. All apart of the selection process. Higher academic credentials help
the individual find a better paying job, but do not in fact create anymore jobs, let alone the well
paying assembly line jobs of before.
To insist that offshoring and illegal immigration were not partially responsible for the increase
in US inequality is gross denial. As with the earlier moves to the southern states, the lives of
the illegal immigrants and the workers in Mexico and Asia were improved, but US workers paid a dear
price in wage loss.
Another huge factor was the financialization that was occurring during this period (perhaps somewhat
due the other changes and their effect on the nations politics).
In toto, it was a convergence of: loss of market, automation, offshoring, illegal immigrant laborers,
this financialization that led to the surge in inequality.
The paper above references a book called "The Race between Education and Technology" that
provides a useful framing of the issue. Essentially:
"The book argues that technological change, education, and inequality have been involved
in a kind of race. During the first eight decades of the twentieth century, the increase of
educated workers was higher than the demand for them. This had the effect of boosting income
for most people and lowering inequality. However, the reverse has been true since about 1980.
This educational slowdown was accompanied by rising inequality. The authors discuss the complex
reasons for this, and what might be done to ameliorate it."
However, authors of the paper mentioned in the OP do dismiss education as a major cause
of inequality if we are looking at the 1% vs the 99% (rather than a more broad measure).
DrDick -> sanjait...
, -1
Most college grads are working
jobs that do not require a degree. Indeed many jobs routinely filled by high school graduates
when I was young now want a college degree. Melvin completely nails it.
"Most college grads are working jobs that do not require a
degree."
College degree now serves as a filter to cut off
unnecessary applicants.
That does not means that the college degree by itself is
not worth it. There is a value in the college degree beyond
job market prospects.
In this sense huge inflation of the cost of higher
education is a big injustice in itself.
I agree that I don't think there
was any one single thing which started driving inequality.
You pointed out 'Beginnings of
offshoring to Mexico and Asia (the movement of well paying 'rustbelt' union jobs to the cheap
labor southern states had begun earlier with questionable net in that southern labor gained
and northern lost)'. True, but implicitly those southern states were 'right to work' states
which is why the labor was cheaper.
Also, I believe in Thomas Pikkety's book 'Capital in the 21st Century' he pointed out that
the top .01% have so much wealth, they can't spend all the income they earn from dividends,
so that gets reinvested into more equities (stocks, bonds, et al) which then earn even more
dividends.
And when you point out automation, implicit in that is that the owners of the company (either
privately or stockholders) will increase their share of the 'pie', so to speak, which gets
split between the entrepreneurs and the workers, also increasing the inequality.
My last point would be that, with things like Dynasty trusts, it becomes much easier for
the top .01% to maintain their place at the top of the income 'food chain', versus people born
into families of more modest means. Those people in the .01% can send their children to the
truly best schools in the country, whereas the rest of us go to whatever schools our parents
can afford, or however much college debt we're willing to absorb.
"... Another quibble, the defining of inequality by the single metric of share of income of the 1% is a bit reductive, though only a bit. ..."
"... Sometimes I think that the success of neoliberalism would be impossible without computer revolution. ..."
"... Bargaining power was squashed by neoliberalism by design. So this is not a "natural" development, but an "evil plot" of financial oligarchy, so to speak. In this sense dissolution of the USSR was a huge hit for the US trade unions. ..."
"... Education is now used as the filter for many jobs. So people start to invest in it to get a pass, so to speak. With the neoliberal transformation of universities it now often takes pervert forms such as "diploma mills" or mass production of "Public relations" graduates. ..."
"... Neoliberal transformation of universities into profit centers also played the role in increasing the volume -- they need "customers" much like McDonalds and use misleading advertisements, no entrance exams, and other tricks to lure people in. ..."
If the world were sane, this is the kind of thinking that would be taking place about inequality.
Rather than jumping to simple conclusions based on heavy priors (which is where too much of the
"debate" starts and stops), one starts with a broad, open minded and contemplative review that
seeks to identify primary causal factors.
That said ... there is a lot that could be quibbled here.
One, it's not always the case that identifying primary causes leads one directly to solutions.
Sometimes the solution has little to do with the cause. If, for example, changing climate causes
an increase in forest fires, we should consider that as another factor in our evaluation of climate
economics, but in terms of strategies for addressing forest fires, we have to find proximate solutions.
Although in practice, certainly we will often have a better understanding of what solutions
might be possible and might be effective when we carefully analyze causes. The endeavor of identifying
causes is absolutely worthwhile for that reason.
Another quibble, the defining of inequality by the single metric of share of income of
the 1% is a bit reductive, though only a bit.
Last note ... I notice international trade is not mentioned here. That doesn't mean it isn't
a primary driver, although as I've said many times, I don't think it is a primary driver, and
it appears Kenworthy didn't think it even worth mentioning.
Although my biggest quibble is that I think Kenworthy missed the big cause entirely: the effect
technology has had in making workers fungible.
IT has made communications almost free and made micromanagement of business systems ubiquitous.
As a result, firms are no longer dependent on long-tenured workers, or even teams of workers in
a particular place. Anything and anyone can be replaced and outsourced (in the broadest sense
of the term, not just offshoring to foreign workers), and when costs are high companies do this
aggressively.
This change has immeasurably changed the nature of work and the relative bargaining powers
of individual workers and even teams of workers. That, I believe, is why education is rising,
and doing so in the countries that are most adept and aggressive about business process solutions
implementation across many sectors. If I'm right, we will see this trend accelerate very soon
in countries that are laggards in this domain, as they finally start operating as resource planned
enterprises.
Because this effect is not measured and difficult to measure ... I think it gets overlooked.
But if I were a researcher in this field, I'd be looking at ERP adoption trends vs within firm
inequality trends and looking for correlations. This would get confounded by firm size but I bet
there are ways to tease out the effect.
"the effect technology has had in making workers fungible."
Yes, this is a very good point. Especially computer revolution and related revolution in telecommunications.
Starting from "PC revolution" (August 12, 1981) the pace of technological innovation was really
breathtaking. Especially in hardware.
Regular smartphone now is more powerful then a mainframe computer of 1971 which would occupy
a large room with air conditioning (IBM 360/370 series). So say nothing about early 1960th ("Desk
Set" movie with Katharine Hepburn, which was probably the first about displacement of workers
by computers, was produced in 1957)
"This change has immeasurably changed the nature of work and the relative bargaining powers
of individual workers and even teams of workers. That, I believe, is why education is rising..."
The nature of work in "classic" human fields (agriculture, steel industry, electrical generation,
law, etc) was not changed dramatically but the "superstructure" above them did.
Sometimes I think that the success of neoliberalism would be impossible without computer
revolution.
Bargaining power was squashed by neoliberalism by design. So this is not a "natural" development,
but an "evil plot" of financial oligarchy, so to speak. In this sense dissolution of the USSR
was a huge hit for the US trade unions.
Education is now used as the filter for many jobs. So people start to invest in it to get
a pass, so to speak. With the neoliberal transformation of universities it now often takes pervert
forms such as "diploma mills" or mass production of "Public relations" graduates.
Neoliberal transformation of universities into profit centers also played the role in increasing
the volume -- they need "customers" much like McDonalds and use misleading advertisements, no
entrance exams, and other tricks to lure people in.
So university education now is a pretty perverted institution too.
"Other findings show that pen and paper have an edge over the keyboard.
Research by Princeton University and the University of California at Los
Angeles, published in 2014, showed that the pen is indeed mightier than the
keyboard. In three studies, researchers found that students who took notes
on laptops performed worse on conceptual questions than students who took
notes longhand. Those who took written notes had a better understanding of
the material and remembered more of it because they had to mentally process
information rather than type it verbatim" [BBC]. Wait. Computers make you
stupid?
Not surprising. The basic upshot is that computers encourage distraction and
even when that is controlled for they encourage people to type down what they
hear (i.e. transcribing) and not to encode, or distill it down to the important
concepts. This latter is important because it means you are listening at a
deeper level and thinking about what you are getting and are thus more likely
to recall and use the knowledge later.
As many of her critics have pointed out, DeVos is a case study in the nefarious ways that big money
shapes education policy in the United States. But she takes such criticism in stride. In 1997 she
wrote: "I have decided . . . to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence.
Now I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect some things in return."
In short, DeVos is arguably the nation's most powerful proponent of school privatization - and
now, even after
bumbling her way through her confirmation hearing, she's set to take the reins of the Department
of Education.
American public schools have some very serious problems. Spend time in the crumbling public schools
on the south side of Chicago and then venture over to the plush public schools in the leafy Chicago
suburbs, and you'll experience alternative universes. Schools all over the greater Chicagoland are
filled with committed and professional teachers, some quite excellent. But the students who attend
the city schools arrive at school with stark disadvantages, unlike their better-off suburban peers.
Discrepancies in school funding only exacerbate such class deficits.
Most of the problems with the public schools, in other words, are outgrowths of a deeply unequal
society. Yet the solution to this problem - the redistribution of wealth - is inimical to the interests
of billionaires like DeVos. The fact that she will soon be in charge of the nation's schools is a
sick joke. Make no mistake: DeVos is a serious threat to public education and should be treated accordingly.
Unfortunately, many Democrats have long supported the same so-called education reform measures
that DeVos backs. Often wrapping these measures in civil rights language, Democratic education reformers
have provided cover for some of the worst types of reforms, including promoting the spread of charter
schools - the preferred liberal mechanism for fulfilling the "choice" agenda. (Charter schools operate
with public money, but without much public oversight, and are therefore often vehicles for pet pedagogical
projects of billionaire educational philanthropists like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg.)
DeVos will not have to completely reverse the Department of Education's course in order to fulfill
her agenda. Obama's "Race to the Top" policy - the brainchild of former Secretary of Education Arne
Duncan, past CEO of Chicago Public Schools - allocates scarce federal resources to those states most
aggressively implementing education reform measures, particularly around charter schools.
Perhaps the most effective advocate of school choice is New Jersey senator Cory Booker, who many
Democrats are touting as the party's savior in the post-Obama era. Liberals swooned when Booker opposed
his Senate colleague Jeff Sessions, the right-wing racist Trump tapped to be the next attorney general.
But however laudable, Booker's actions didn't take much in the way of courage.
Booker's funders - hedge-fund managers and pharmaceutical barons - don't care about such theatrics.
They're more concerned that he
vote Big Pharma's way and keep up his role as a leading member of Democrats for Education Reform,
a pro-privatization group. They want to make sure he continues attacking teachers' unions, the
strongest bulwark against privatization.
Their aim is to undercut public schools and foster union-free charter schools, freeing the rich
from having to pay teachers as unionized public servants with pensions.
So in the fight against Trump and DeVos, we can't give Booker and his anti-union ilk a pass. As
enablers of DeVos's privatization agenda, they too must be delegitimized.
Public education depends on it. The beautiful school where I send my children depends on it.
"... three decades the national conversation about education has been held hostage by the anxiety-inducing metaphors that always accompany the neoliberal dismantling of public services. ..."
"... President Obama and his advisers have done little to resist this state of affairs, carrying out low-intensity warfare on teachers' unions and perpetuating harmful myths that the American school system is "life-saving" (because we live in a meritocracy), that it is "in crisis" (because test scores are falling behind globally), and that it can only be saved by the free-market fixes (competition, standards, accountability, and choice) originally advocated by conservative think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation and billionaire philanthropists. ..."
"... Of all the education initiatives with names that sound like spaceships (America 2000, Goals 2000) or battle cries (No Child Left Behind), Race to the Top, the Obama administration's signature contribution to the genre, may be the most successful assault yet in the sustained effort to destroy the democratic project of public schooling. ..."
In some languages, the words for "teach" and "learn" are the same, suggesting a view of
education as a cooperative activity, rather than as something that is done to students. Not
in English, and certainly not in the United States, where for three decades the national
conversation about education has been held hostage by the anxiety-inducing metaphors that
always accompany the neoliberal dismantling of public services.
President Obama and his
advisers
have done little to resist this state of affairs, carrying out low-intensity warfare
on teachers' unions
and perpetuating harmful myths that the American school system is
"life-saving" (because we live in a meritocracy), that it is "in crisis" (because test
scores are falling behind globally), and that it can only be saved by the free-market fixes
(competition, standards, accountability, and choice) originally advocated by conservative
think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation and billionaire philanthropists.
Of all the education initiatives with names that sound like spaceships (America 2000,
Goals 2000) or battle cries (No Child Left Behind), Race to the Top, the Obama
administration's signature contribution to the genre, may be the most successful assault
yet in the sustained effort to destroy the democratic project of public schooling. In 2009,
more than $4 billion of public funds were set aside for K-12 education as part of TARP,
representing a moment of enormous possibility for the president. The money could have been
used to equalize funding among schools (
which
is exceptionally inequitable in America
) or to incentivize states to make changes that
we
know
improve educational outcomes for poor children and children of color, like
reducing class sizes
and
promoting socioeconomic and racial integration
.
Instead, the Obama administration chose to use a series of competitive grants to push
the adoption of the Common Core standards, the linking of teacher evaluations to student
test scores, and the expansion of charter schools. These measures were deemed "innovative,"
even in the face of growing evidence that charter test scores are no better than those of
traditional public schools and that charters are
more
stratified by race, class,
special education status, and possibly language, than public schools.
Today, forty-two of fifty states are members of the Common Core Standards Initiative and
nearly
half
tie teacher evaluations to test scores, an enormous transformation in policy. Yet
test scores on the NAEP (known as "America's report card") have fallen for the first time,
and Race to the Top has
failed to deliver
even by its own paltry and unimaginative measures. Meanwhile, the
real crisis facing children
- a disgraceful level of poverty - has gone unnamed by
anyone but Bernie Sanders, let alone addressed.
It was nice that Obama called out the widening wealth gap during his farewell address,
but the ultimate legacy of his administration has been the deepening of that inequality
through the advancement of the agenda of the Broad, Walton Family, and Gates Foundations
over the demands of the American people for free, high-quality, and equitably funded
schools (a counsel for the education department even
once mistakenly referred
to the Obama administration as "the Gates administration").
Privatization efforts under Trump will be worse. Clearly, no one is going to give us
control of our schools. We're going to have to take it. In 2016, the Black Lives Matter
movement and the NAACP
called for a moratorium on charter schools
- it's a start.
"... students schooled in Home Econ would cast a jaundiced eye on financing a six-figure college expenditure with debt bearing exceedingly onerous terms. College debt is precisely the sort of scam that well-prepared young people learn to take a hard-nosed look at. ..."
Your practical insights used to be imparted to high school students in Home
Economics.
But Home Econ sounded too, errr, blue collar to the aspirational upper
middle class. As well,
students schooled in Home Econ would cast a
jaundiced eye on financing a six-figure college expenditure with debt bearing
exceedingly onerous terms. College debt is precisely the sort of scam that
well-prepared young people learn to take a hard-nosed look at.
So for the greater good of all, Home Econ had to be phased out, so that its
subversive truisms would not interfere with the vital missions of higher
education and consumer upselling.
May not be married but what % are living at home or with roommates? So
people are still cohabitating to reduce overhead.
I wouldn't pick up something by a dumpster, but I frequent thrift stores and
estate/yard sales. Once I'm done with my thrift store clothes, they get
recycled to other projects. Can even cut small strips to tie up peas and beans
in the garden.
I agree with the no debt. Don't do it or you're screwed. I have two kids .
we've been very clear, come to us before hand, we'll help if we can, otherwise
you go without and if you ever do debt, you're on your own.
Of course, we told both adults not to marry like us. They both did. One
ceremony at a park the other signed papers at our house but no
parties/weddings. We've made clear we can't afford kids. One has one kid, the
other is considering it.
Managing money, house repairs, land mgmt etc are all electives. Very few
take them.
Krzanich grew up in San Jose, California, just miles from Intel headquarters. He didn't go to an
Ivy League school: He got his bachelor's degree in Chemistry from San Jose State University. The
prestige of a college's brand on a résumé doesn't impress him.
"I've told my daughters this; my older daughter's about to go into college. It doesn't matter
what college you go to. The thing that was great about San Jose State was, I got connected with
some very good professors," he said.
He did research for their projects on the side. "When I went into interviews, I could talk about
real work that I'd done, not just textbook stuff," Krzanich added.
That informs how he deals with job candidates today. "I ask real simple questions that just tell
me, does this person know how to think?"
Krzanich had some more advice. "The other thing I tell my daughters is, I've had to terminate or
fire more people for being difficult to work with than being dumb."
... ... ...
Fortt Knox is a weekly podcast from CNBC anchor Jon Fortt. Previous broacasts of the
program
can be found
here
.
Rock
4 hours ago
On Small Business
21 percent of CEOs are psychopaths............one in five chief executives are
psychopaths. At least, that's what was found by a recent study of 261 senior
corporate professionals in the United States..........................
"Typically psychopaths create a lot of chaos and generally tend to play people off
against each other," Nathan Brooks, a forensic psychologist and the lead researcher
of the study said in this report from The Telegraph. "For psychopaths, it [corporate
success] is a game and they don't mind if they violate morals. It is about getting
where they want in the company and having dominance over others."
PU
4 hours ago
I have worked for him, his way or the highway...very difficult to work for.
Bill
4 hours ago
I worked with BK in the 90s and he was not the easiest guy to interact with, but creative
people usually aren't. He was a good engineer though.
Backlash
37 minutes ago
I had a very rewarding career at Intel and much my success I attribute to the
mentoring I received from Andy Grove. He was a visionary second to none and believed
that constructive confrontation cut through all the crap and expedited the
identification of problems and the rapid implementation of solutions.
He knew how
to get your attention, provided you the tools to get your job done and expected you
to deliver on your commitments. Bob Noyce and Gordon Moore had a softer approach but
they too could get your attention and make it very clear what you had to deliver.
These founders of one of America's most successful corporations personal and
professional legacies set a high standard for the coming generations.
Michael W
2 hours ago
Would have been interesting to know what the actual problem was and the solution. From the
term "Copy Exactly" it looks like he had issues with transferring the technology from one
place to another and allowed "improvements" on a working process.
Key
2 hours ago
Copy exactly is the death of Intel as we know it. It stifles innovation in manufacturing
processes to reduce cost an increase productivity. This is a typical over reaction from
disconnected management that has made Intel into a company that can only increase its
revenue by laying off workers.
While facts are correct the move was probably stupid. He could transfer to less expensive
collage or just finish community collage first. you can't replace collage experices. and
sutudents often matter more then professors. KSU has reasonable fees (less then $6K for 16
credits a semester) See Tuition and Fees
and
k-state.edu
He would be better off by returning, especially if the company he joins pay to tuition or at
least part of it.
Notable quotes:
"... "cost of inflation is relatively small compared to the cost of college over the last 30 or so years. I mean, it really is ridiculous how the cost of college has gone up." ..."
"... In 1980, the average cost of tuition, room and board, and fees for a four-year course was over $9,000. That cost now is more than $23,000 for state colleges. If you want to go private it's more than $30,000. ..."
"... In the post Willson also cited higher education debt as a reason to leave university and enter the work place. Students in the United States are estimated to be in around over $1.2 trillion of loan debt with 7 million borrowers in default. ..."
Billy Willson received a 4.0 grade point average, the equivalent to straight A's, for his
first semester at Kansas State University. He decided that it would also be his last.
In a strongly worded Facebook post, Willson uploaded a photograph of himself standing outside the
university's sign, holding his middle finger up to it. In the accompanying text he wrote:
"YOU ARE BEING SCAMMED. You may not see it today or tomorrow, but you will see it some
day,"
"You are being put thousands into debt to learn things you will never even use. Wasting 4
years of your life to be stuck at a paycheck that grows slower than the rate of inflation.
Paying $200 for a $6 textbook."
His post, which has been shared more than 10,000 times in little more than a fortnight and has
provoked a vigorous debate in the comments, appears to have struck a chord with other young
adults who are wondering if pursuing higher education is worth the time and money.
Willson, who was on an Architectural Engineering undergraduate course told BBC Trending that the
"cost of inflation is relatively small compared to the cost of college over the last 30 or so
years. I mean, it really is ridiculous how the cost of college has gone up."
He's backed up by data. According to the US Department of Education the average annual increase
in college tuition in the United States, between 1980-2014, grew by nearly 260% compared to the
nearly 120% increase in all consumer items.
In 1980, the average cost of tuition, room and board, and fees for a four-year course was
over $9,000. That cost now is more than $23,000 for state colleges. If you want to go private
it's more than $30,000.
... ... ...
In the post Willson also cited higher education debt as a reason to leave university and
enter the work place. Students in the United States are estimated to be in around over $1.2
trillion of loan debt with 7 million borrowers in default.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has unveiled a proposal to offer free tuition for lower-income New
Yorkers attending state-run colleges, an idea embraced by last year's Democratic presidential contenders.
The plan announced Tuesday – called the Excelsior Scholarship – would grant full-rides to students
from families earning less than $125,000 a year, as long as they attend one of the state's public
two- or four-year colleges.
The plan announced Tuesday – called the Excelsior Scholarship – would grant full-rides to students
from families earning less than $125,000 a year, as long as they attend one of the state's public
two- or four-year colleges.
Speaking at LaGuardia Community College in New York's Queens borough, the Democratic governor said
his proposal could allow students from some 940,000 families to attend college, which is key to scoring
about 70 percent of jobs in the state, Reuters quotes Cuomo as saying.
"College is a mandatory step if you really want to be a success," Cuomo told the crowd.
Joining the governor, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders cheered the proposal.
... ... ...
Cuomo's proposal, which would apply only to New York residents, iwould cost about $163 million
annually and be in place by 2019 – that's if it passes the state's legislature,
The New York Times reports.
"... Moreover, although the evidence is murky it seems that an increasing proportion of charters
are being run on a for-profit basis, even in cases where formal structure is non-profit. Given the failure
of the for-profit model in general, the prospects for the future are not good. ..."
"... On the other hand, an analysis based on prices falls down badly in the attempt to describe
education as a market transaction. All the terms of the Second Lesson are relevant here. Education is
characterized by market failure, by potentially inequitable initial allocations and, most importantly,
by the fact that the relationship between the education 'industry' and its 'consumers', that is between
educational institutions and teachers on the one hand and students on the other, cannot be reduced to
a market transaction. ..."
"... The result is that education does not rely on market competition to any significant extent
to sort good teachers and institutions from bad ones. Rather, education depends on a combination of
sustained institutional standards and individual professional ethics to maintain their performance.
..."
"... One subject which is not taught in school or Universities, is to control greed, which is the
biggest malaise in the world today, as it was thousands of years ago ..."
"... "an increasing proportion of charters are being run on a for-profit basis, even in cases where
formal structure is non-profit" ..."
"... You may want to make clear that this can be done by buying services from for-profit companies
owned by the management of the charter schools. ..."
"... "In a modern society, education is the most important single factor determining a person's
life chances." ..."
"... Is this perhaps overstated? I'd have thought that the most important factor is the socioeconomic
status of one's parents. ..."
"... Ask any affluent parent about the best school districts in their county, or the best schools
within their school districts, and you'll get confident and well informed answers. ..."
"... And of course these parents act on this knowledge by spending money by buying houses in neighborhoods
with good schools. Given local funding, in the US we get a nasty positive feedback loop that creates
huge inequalities at the expense of less affluent parents -- better schools mean higher real estate
prices which means higher assessed values which means more tax revenues for funding the better schools
which means they get even better. The less affluent are steadily priced out of this market, and their
choices dwindle -- they're stuck with crappy schools. ..."
Here's another excerpt from my book-in-progress, Economics in Two Lessons . As usual,
praise is welcome, useful criticism even more so. You can find a draft of the opening sections
here .
In the section over the fold, I'm looking at education.
In a modern society, education is the most important single factor determining a person's life
chances. The average who holds a professional or doctoral degree earns more than twice as much as
someone without a four-year college degree, and is virtually assured of being employed (at a time
of deep depression in 2011, only 2.5 per cent of higher-degree holders were unemployed). In economic
terms, the education sector is one of the largest in the economy.
However, this statistical analysis seriously underestimates the economic importance of sector,
because it ignores the First Lesson. The true cost of education comprises not just the salaries of
teachers and the cost of running schools and universities, but the opportunity cost of the time spent
in education by students.
The failure to take proper account of the First Lesson is a big problem in understanding the economics
of education. But the failure to understand the Second Lesson has been much more of a problem for
policy.
Simple-minded analyses based on a simplistic reading of the First Lesson have driven the irsteducation
debate in the US and other English-speaking countries for the last few decades. The dominant idea
is that education is a product like any other and that the best guarantee of good education is market
competition between providers. The villains in this story are public goods and, especially, teacher
unions.
To make education more like a private good, advocates of he First Lesson tried to change the conditions
of both supply and demand. On the demand side, the central proposal was that of education 'vouchers',
put forward most notably by Nobel Prizewinning economist at the University of Chicago, Milton Friedman.
The idea was that, rather than funding schools, government should provide funding directly parents
in the form of vouchers that could be used at whichever school the parents preferred, and topped
up, if necessary by additional fee payments.
As is typically the case, voucher advocates ignored the implications of their proposals for the
distribution of income. In large measure, vouchers represent a simply cash transfer, going predominantly
from the poor to the rich. The biggest beneficiaries would be those, mostly well-off, who were already
sending their children to private schools, for whom the voucher would be a simple cash transfer.
Those whose children remained at the same public school as before would gain nothing.
On the supply side, the central idea was the introduction of for-profit schools and colleges to
a sector traditionally dominated by public and non-profit educational institutions. For-profit educational
institutions had a spectacular rise and fall.
The most notable entrant in the US school sector was Edison Schools. Edison Schools was founded
in 1992 and was widely viewed as representing the future of school education. Its plans were drawn
up by a committee headed by John Chubb, the co-author of the most influential single critique of
public sector education in the United States (Chubb and Moe 1990). For-profit schools were also introduced
in Chile and Sweden.
At the university level, for-profit enterprises proliferated with the University of Phoenix was
the most notable example. For-profit trade and vocational schools also expanded in the US, and, even
more dramatically in Australia, where a poorly-designed subsidy scheme produced a spectacular expansion.
The story was much the same everywhere: an initial burst of enthusiasm and high profits, followed
by the exposure of poor practices and outcomes, and finally collapse, with governments being left
to pick up the pieces.
Edison Schools, launched on the stockmarket with a flourish in 1999, lost most of its value and
was subsequently taken private. At its peak, Edison ran hundreds of schools throughout the US. It
has now faded into obscurity under the name EdisonLearning.
Sweden introduced voucher-style reforms in 1992, and opened the market to for-profit schools.
Initially favorable assessments were replaced by disillusionment as the performance of the school
system as a whole deteriorated. Scores on the international PISA test plummeted
By 2015, the majority of the public favored banning for-profit schools. The Minister for Education
described the system as a 'political failure', Other critics described it in harsher terms.
Although a full analysis has not yet been undertaken, it seems likely that the for-profit schools
engaged in 'cream-skimming', admitting able and well-behaved students, while pushing more problematic
students back into the public system. The rules under which the reform was introduced included 'safeguards'
to prevent cream-skimming, but such safeguards have historical proved ineffectual in the face of
the profits to be made by evading them.
Similar processes took place in Chile, under the influence of the Chicago-trained reformers whose
policies were implemented by the Pinochet dictatorship. There were glowing initial reports, but the
eventual outcome was to amplify inequality without improving performance. Chile banned for-profit
education in 2015
The for-profit university sector followed a similar trajectory. The University of Phoenix epitomised
the process. Enrolments peaked at 600 000 in 2010, but had fallen to 142 000 by 2016 as the US government
cracked down on shady enrolment practices. Other for-profit universities closed altogether or converted
to non-profit status
Perhaps the most spectacular boom and bust took place in my native Australia. From tiny beginnings
around 2007, a scheme to provide loans-based funding for vocational training grew into a full-blown
educational and budgetary disaster. Even more than in the for-profit US university sector, the companies
involved found it profitable to exploit the weaknesses of the funding system, and the fact that students
could not judge the quality of education in advance, rather than to do the hard work of providing
improved education.
The results speak for themselves. By the time a conservative government radically restricted the
scheme in late 2016, the estimated losses to the budget ran into the billions of dollars, while thousands
of students were left with unrepayable debts and worthless qualifications. Meanwhile, the public
system of Technical and Further Education, which had worked well for decades had suffered grave and
possibly irreparable damage.
The failure of full-scale privatisation left the field open to the main remaining alternative
'charter' schools. The idea of charter schools was originally put forward by Albert Shanker, the
president of the American Federation of Teachers. His idea was to encourage schools where teachers
had more opportunities to try out innovative approaches, and where the student body would be more
diverse, both economically and racially.
In the hands of the education reform movement, however, charter schools took on a very different
tone and purpose, much closer to that of the for-profit model that failed with Edison. While some
independent charter schools have pursued innovation along the lines suggested by Shanker, others
are part of chains relying on services like management companies, including for-profits like EdisonLearning.
Charter schools have been, and remain, politically popular with Republicans and Democrats alike.
The only problem is that, according to the empirical evidence, they don't work. Charter schools
have not failed spectacularly, as for-profits have done, but they have not yielded any significant
return for the money and political effort that has been poured into their expansion.
Nationally, there is very little evidence that charter and traditional public schools differ meaningfully
in their average impact on students' standardized test performance.
Moreover, although the evidence is murky it seems that an increasing proportion of charters
are being run on a for-profit basis, even in cases where formal structure is non-profit. Given the
failure of the for-profit model in general, the prospects for the future are not good.
Why has market-oriented reform of education been such a failure? Every part of the Second Lesson
is relevant here. On the 'production' side, education is, in many respects similar to other industries.
Prices send signals about the cost of providing particular courses of study in particular ways, and
of the rewards of one kind of employment or another. Institutions and educators respond to those
signals. Students try to weigh the cost and the likely monetary benefits of continuing education,
or of seeking employment, along with less tangible costs and benefits, and decide accordingly.
On the other hand, an analysis based on prices falls down badly in the attempt to describe
education as a market transaction. All the terms of the Second Lesson are relevant here. Education
is characterized by market failure, by potentially inequitable initial allocations and, most importantly,
by the fact that the relationship between the education 'industry' and its 'consumers', that is between
educational institutions and teachers on the one hand and students on the other, cannot be reduced
to a market transaction.
The critical problem with this simple model is that students, by definition, cannot know in advance
what they are going to learn, or make an informed judgement about what they are learning. They have
to rely, to a substantial extent, on their teachers to select the right topics of study and to teach
them appropriately.
Moreover, any specific course of education is a once-only experience in most cases. Students may
judge, in retrospect, that particular teachers, courses or institutions were good or bad, but in
either case they are unlikely to return, so that there is no direct market return to high quality
performance.
The result is that education does not rely on market competition to any significant extent
to sort good teachers and institutions from bad ones. Rather, education depends on a combination
of sustained institutional standards and individual professional ethics to maintain their performance.
The implications for education policy are clear, at least at the school level. School education
should be publicly funded and provided either by public schools or by non-profits with a clear educational
mission, as opposed to corporate 'school management organisations'.
Post-school education raises more complex problems, regrettably beyond the scope of this book.
But the key element should be to make high quality post-school education available, and affordable,
for all young people.
With very little education, I,am hardly qualified to comment on this topic.
I do consider that
education should be available to all students irrespective of their parents wealth, by the government,
and if the higher educated earn more, then they should pay more taxes so that the government have
the funds to provide free education.
One subject which is not taught in school or Universities, is to control greed, which is
the biggest malaise in the world today, as it was thousands of years ago
You might also mention the big picture idea that there is a lengthy history of educational
policy entrepreneurs, whose ideas become fads and then fail. These are just the latest.
jdkbrown 12.29.16 at 3:38 pm
"In a modern society, education is the most important single factor determining a person's
life chances."
Is this perhaps overstated? I'd have thought that the most important factor is the socioeconomic
status of one's parents.
Olle J. 12.29.16 at 4:14 pm
As someone that reads the newspaper, the occasional report, and works with the "products" coming
out of Swedish secondary education (i.e. what used to be called students), it might be worth noting
that the introduction of vouchers and free choice are not the only thing that have been accused
of causing the declining school results (and increased inequality).
Other purposed causes include the decentralization of schools from the state to the local municipalities;
educational reforms that have introduced modern pedagogy ("flumpedagogik", hippie pedagogy, is
the derogatory term); teachers spending more and more time documenting things for different forms
of evaluations instead of teaching or preparing classes; as well as the declining status, class
room autonomy, and salaries of teachers (resulting in deskilling and that better students shuns
from becoming teachers). The jury is still out on what, or rather which combination, caused the
declining test results in Pisa (and Timms; although results both are up again this year).
Don't underestimate the political goal of the right to undermine teacher's unions and to turn
public goods into profit streams.
engels 12.29.16 at 6:53 pm
In a modern society, education is the most important single factor determining a person's
life chances.
Prince Charles seems to be doing a fair bit better than me and he's only got a couple of O-levels
(as well as being a certifiable fuckwit). I think Thomas Piketty had something to say about this
atrange and hitherto unnoticed phenomenon
Then you have cherry-picking of failures, but completely ignore private school successes, like
say, Korea.
The theoretical criticism is silly: "The critical problem with this simple model is that students,
by definition, cannot know in advance what they are going to learn, or make an informed judgement
about what they are learning."
This proves too much: it is something that would be true for for-profits as well as for non-profit
private systems. Yet in the USA, the private universities are consistently the top universities.
You don't have to know Quantum Physics before judging if a university has a good or bad physics
program.
The sentence is also a criticism of school choice in general, yet the middle classes in the
US have no problem in figuring out where to buy houses to get away from failing schools.
There is a valid point to be made, namely that the institutional design of private-public partnerships
needs to focus intensely on avoiding the gaming of the system. Bureaucrats with only vague interest
in designing a successful system often don't do that. But they only have to get it right once.
Running a public system well means getting things right year after year - at some point, they'll
fail, and if success is somewhat sticky, failure is even stickier.
But the author of the chapter has no interest in expanding on the valid point, preferring to
make overshooting and incorrect generalizations.
It might be worth re-visiting the three excruciatingly long threads (Harry) posted on charters/vouchers
a couple weeks ago.
In the home state of the nominee for Secretary of Education, 80% of charters are now for-profit.
I suspect the statistics for all states are available if one looks by state. There has been a
pretty full assessment of Detroit's charter school results to date, and they're not very encouraging
overall.
@MPAVictoria:
re: Duncan, I suspect this was JQ's note to himself to reference Arne Duncan, Obama's Education
Secretary and Former Chancellor of Chicago's Public School System. Duncan was/is a proponent of
charters – in this area, it's very much a case of "both sides do it."
One aspect of the interminable discussion on Harry's threads was the inability of commenters
to agree on "who's the client" for public schooling. Commenters were divided between "the students"
(the recipients) and "their parents" (i.e. the payers).
I never saw it that way. A public good has by definition one client: the public, the polity
itself. To my mind, it behooves the polity to (a) establish standards and (b) ensure these are
met to the greatest extent possible given limited resources.
For-profit charters and vouchers (used mostly for private religious schools) are not the ideal
vectors for serving the polity's education goals for its citizens.
The reasons are legion; again, Harry's three threads say a lot about them.
Sebastian H 12.29.16 at 7:44 pm
Its been a long time since I read the first few chapters, so I apologize if I'm missing the
thread about your point here (do you have an easy set of reference links so we can easily go back?).
Talking about education system in terms of market failures is going to strike as very tone
deaf for US audiences because the very tiny experiments with charters came about in *response*
to pervasive and long term failures of the already public education system. This has always been
my frustration with the discussion–that the anti-market people want to criticize market failures,
and the pro-market people want to criticize government failures, but they talk past each other.
No one really analyzes what makes for pervasive and long term government failure from the market
critique position, and no one really analyzes what makes for government success from the government
critique position. So outsiders to the academic world feel like no one is really analyzing it
from a point of view where we can get useful non-dogmatic information about when government failures
can be corrected with markets, and when market failures might need to be left alone anyway.
Anyway I might be asking that you write a book other than the one you're writing which isn't
really fair.
'have driven the irst education debate'
I see what you did there.
'for-profit enterprises proliferated with the University of Phoenix was the most
notable example'
I don't see what you did there. Either the ' with' should be a ';' or the 'was' should be an 'as'.
Jonathan McNamee 12.29.16 at 10:33 pm
You state:
As is typically the case, voucher advocates ignored the implications of their proposals for the
distribution of income. In large measure, vouchers represent a simply cash transfer, going predominantly
from the poor to the rich. The biggest beneficiaries would be those, mostly well-off, who were
already sending their children to private schools, for whom the voucher would be a simple cash
transfer. Those whose children remained at the same public school as before would gain nothing.
Do well off parents get vouchers to send their kids to private schools? I'm not aware that
they get vouchers in the US. Parents who send their children to private schools are subsiding
the public school because they pay property taxes. Indirectly they also help to provide vouchers.
A wrote an undergraduate thesis apply Chubb and Moe's theory to Sweden, and am now pursuing a
doctorate and study (among other things) how schools respond to competition.
I generally agree with your take, but I think your argument would be more interesting if you
gave a little more credence to the charter school movement. In cities, they are better, on average,
particularly for poor students and students of color, and even for ELL students (CREDO). More
importantly, it is interesting, and relevant to your argument, that (to my knowledge) all the
most successful charter management organizatinos are non-profit, and highly mission driven. It
is worth it to unpack why they succeed, while for-profit ventures literally founded by the folks
who developed the most persuasive theory of action for market principles (Chubb) fail.
A final point worth considering is the extent to which any of these organizaitons feel "competition".
Successful CMOs are buffered by large donations from venture philanthropists, and Bridge has received
large investments from folks like Mark Zuckerberg. This certainly adds dimensions to the story.
Collin Street 12.30.16 at 1:14 am
You might also mention the big picture idea that there is a lengthy history of educational
policy entrepreneurs, whose ideas become fads and then fail. These are just the latest.
But - again - there's nothing special about education here. All sectors of the economy
have these clouds of too-clever-by-half people, the vast majority of whom are deeply misguided.
In established private-sector industries and in bureaucracies alike the bad ideas get largely
excluded; it's when things are broken down - nationalisations the same as privatisations -
that the daft ideas can get in.
[which means: gradualism, I guess. And throwing the baby out with the bathwater is bad, but
so's leaving the baby in the bath until it dies of hypothermia because you're so paralysed by
the fear the baby will fall down the plughole.]
Looking forward to the book. I work in education, and have a couple thoughts
Unless you already address it elsewhere, you might want to spend at least a few paragraphs
on the metrics of determining school effectiveness/success, and the ways individuals and schools
have tried (in various cases, illegally and/or merely shadily/unethically) to figure out ways
to juke the stats.
To the best of my knowledge, the frequency and scale of these incidents has risen dramatically
as education "reform" became a movement in the 80s and 90s. In my experience, as education is
increasingly treated as simply another business, it is attracting more and more non-educators
whose experience is in "leadership" and "management" rather than education. Unsurprisingly, this
has led to more educators focusing more on their end-of-year metrics, rather than their students'
best interests, educational or otherwise.
I know there's already plenty out there about the ed "reform" movement in general, and your
focus is specific, but I think some reference to these issues might be warranted and might connect
to some of the other chapters. Frankly, a lot of people I talk to at both the school and district
level feel like many of these reforms are solutions in search of problems. Not that there aren't
problems – educational outcomes' strong correlation with parent income, for one – but that the
solutions on offer seem to be unable/unwilling to engage them.
I also remember seeing on a previous post a recommendation that you explore who, in the case
of schools, is even the "consumer," in the first place, and whether their judgment of school effectiveness
is the yardstick anyone should use when judging school quality. It's an interesting question,
and one not given enough space in the discussion, from what I've seen.
I'm really enjoying this series, and would like to chime in on this installment as I work in
higher ed. jdkbrown brings up something very important; college education is associated with better
life outcomes, sure, but being able to complete college depends on family resources (and book
smarts, which are
associated with
family resources .) This relationship is so predictable that UCLA's Higher Education Research
Institute has posted an
interactive graduation
rate calculator .
Also, the number of "good" jobs is not increasing. Expanding access to college hasn't expanded
career opportunities; in fact jobs from accounting to legal research to X-Ray reading are getting
automated or offshored to low-wage countries.
Far from being happy to take anyone with a college degree, employers have become far more
choosy , and less willing to invest in training. So the same few college people that used
to get the good jobs still get the good jobs, and the rest settle for jobs that
used to go to high school grads .
Expanding access to college without addressing poverty and job market realities is not
going to increase social mobility.
You are exaggerating about Prince Charles. He got two A-levels, a B in History and a C in French.
And is really doing better than you? I don't know how how your career has gone, but he is 68
years old and still an intern.
reason 12.30.16 at 10:40 am
One thing that is missing here is the clear case that the biggest problem with public education
in the US is local financing. Sebastian H. has a valid point here. I don't necessarily see the
issue of public versus private as the dominant factor here. Why is Finland so consistently successful
compared to almost everywhere else, at least in results for the typical student (and I'm not sure
that I know of league tables for elite student performance). And as I pointed out in your previous
thread, I think many of the main issues are orthogonal to this issue (issues that are regarded
as important in Germany for historical reasons like furthering democratic values and social inclusiveness
for instance).
re – Libertarianism and education – isn't the more fundamental point here that Libertarianism
doesn't really cope with the case of children very well in the first place.
Children just don't fit in the Libertarian world view, they have limited rights and limited
responsibilities and are viewed simply as consumption goods rather than actors in their own right.
engels 12.30.16 at 12:43 pm
Just 35 percent of the Forbes 400 last year were raised poor or middle class, compared to 95
percent of the broader public, as (reasonably) defined by UFE.
Twenty one percent
inherited enough money to join the 400 without lifting a finger , what UFE calls being "born
on home plate." Another 7 percent inherited at least $50 million or a "large and prosperous company,"
12 percent inherited at least a million bucks or a decent-sized business or startup capital from
a relative, and 22 percent were "born on first base," into an upper class family or got a modest
inheritance or startup capital
There's a lot here, John, but for the moment some comments about for-profit universities in the
US. First, I am not sure the numbers have declined in the way implied by your language - I'd need
to check, but last I read they were still thriving in terms of numbers and income. And I expect
them to expand with the new administration. Second, you might want to say something about their
graduation rates - they are spectacularly low. Basically, they gobble up huge amounts of public
resources without showing much at all return. Third, though, its worth remembering the the US
lacks any kind of systematic vocational/job training/retraining system. Someone wants to retrain
as a welder, they go to a community college or a for-profit university, usually taking a Pell
Grant with them (the majority of Pell Grant recipients are not the 18-22 year old students it
was designed for, but older workers seeking retraining). In fact it is really expensive to train
a welder, so the institution (whether public, or for-profit) creates all sorts of additional requirements
that are cheap to provide, but which cost the same for the student - and the student ends up taking
lots of classes he's not interested in and dealing with a labyrinth of requirements, with very
little counseling. There's a lot of bad behavior, from both for-profits and public institutions
in the space in which they are serving (which is not traditional, start-of-adulthood, 4-year degrees).
Worth reading Bowen and McPherson, Lesson Plan, which is a quick and informative read.
engels 12.30.16 at 2:59 pm
In a modern society, education is the most important single factor determining a person's
life chances.
You are exaggerating about Prince Charles. He got two A-levels, a B in History and a C in
French.
And is really doing better than you? I don't know how how your career has gone, but he is
68 years old and still an intern.
What say you then of the head of the firm?
harry b 12.30.16 at 11:04 pm
engels
@11 - depends where you are. IN the US a PhD earns you more (over the life course) than a Bachelor's,
but less than a Master's or a Professional degree. But that's presumably because people taking
Masters and Professional degreea do so for the purpose of getting a more lucrative job whereas
presumably people doing PhDs do so for other reasons (my students choosing between a PhD and a
Law degree know which is going to earn them more money).
@Engels For the moment, the statement you are concerned about is true for the majority of the
population – I don't think the average reader would take it as referring to Prince Charles or
Paris Hilton.
But, as Piketty suggests, and as I've pointed out before, it's ceasing to be true.
IN the US a PhD earns you more (over the life course) than a Bachelor's, but less than a
Master's or a Professional degree
Harry – is that limited to certain masters' degrees that are either purely professional (MBA,
MPA, some accounting degrees, some engineering degrees, etc.)? (Maybe also a JD, if that's how
you want to consider it.) I'd be very surprised if it applied to, say, someone with an MA in English
or History or Philosophy or many other fields (Or even to MFAs). (I'd even be surprised if a masters
in, say, social work or education, or educational psychology typically lead to earning more money
than a Ph.D., but I'm not sure. Even with an MPA, I'd be a bit surprised.) I'm not sure if it
makes that much difference to the over-all argument, but I suspect that the number of masters
degrees that typically lead to making more than a PhD is pretty limited.
"In a modern society, education is the most important single factor determining a person's
life chances."
This isn't true depending on what you mean about life chances. If you define that as happiness
and wellbeing, then family life and your mother's mental health when you are growing up, and your
own emotional wellbeing by age 16 are critical defining factors, more important than educational
qualifications.
I wrote on John Quiggin's blog recently I saw some interesting research on Facebook posted
by the World Economic Forum, about the factors that influence whether someone is happy and has
a high wellbeing score. Copying from that comment, this research says that inequality isn't the
most important thing and also that educational qualifications aren't the major factor in deciding
an adult's life satisfaction, but Emotional Health at age 16 is the major factor. Family income
contributes higher to someone's Qualifications (0.16) , but the major contributor to Emotional
Health is not family income (0.07), but their mother's mental health (0.19). The conclusions are
that family life and the quality of schools, and also physical and mental health, are more important
for someone's life satisfaction, than inequality is. Not that I am saying high levels of inequality
isn't a problem, but I think the research is interesting nonetheless.
Hawaii doesn't have local financing for schools. We have a statewide DOE. In possibly related
news, we have the highest rate of private school attendance in the nation.
Matt - I'm sure you're right - -the stat is for all people with Masters degrees (but not PhDs)
compared with all who have only Bachelors degrees and all who have PhDs.
Thing is the vast majority of people with Masters degrees do not hold them in traditional academic
disciplines. But, also, in many professions, just having a Masters raises your salary (in those
professions PhDs often do as well, but not by enough more to be worth the investment and risk
of non-completion). Also we're talking lifetime expected earnings here - someone with a PhD might
earn more in a year than someone with a Masters, but they have foregone several more years of
earnings.
The most important individual predictor of getting eaten by lions in first century Rome was being
a Christian. However, with hindsight I don't think improving everyone's access to Pagan worship
would have been the best way of helping those people
engels 12.31.16 at 4:12 pm
Another stat I saw recently which I can't now find is that the income boost from education
varies massively across capitalist countries. The 'return' on a college degree (e.g.) is much
higher in US iirc than it is anywhere else.
Anyway, I'd love to live in a world in which good public education and proper mental health
care were provided to all as a universal right, and not because they improve their chances of
not dying on the streets. That isn't an objection to the main (pro-public-ed) thrust of the post,
most of which I agreed with.
I think you need to work on the last part. If we look at education as an market transaction it's
the parents who are the customers, not the children. Parents make the decisions and pay the costs,
and it seems wrong to suppose they necessarily do this without access to information about the
quality or worth of the 'product' they are 'purchasing'.
Ask any affluent parent about the best school districts in their county, or the best schools
within their school districts, and you'll get confident and well informed answers.
And of course these parents act on this knowledge by spending money by buying houses in
neighborhoods with good schools. Given local funding, in the US we get a nasty positive feedback
loop that creates huge inequalities at the expense of less affluent parents -- better schools
mean higher real estate prices which means higher assessed values which means more tax revenues
for funding the better schools which means they get even better. The less affluent are steadily
priced out of this market, and their choices dwindle -- they're stuck with crappy schools.
In short, prime facie the market model actually works for primary and secondary education for
the reasonably wealthy. What makes it work, however, guarantees it won't work for the less wealthy.
It's easy to see the attraction of schemes promising 'school choice' to those who as things stand
don't have it.
Harry 12.31.16 at 5:12 pm
"Another stat I saw recently which I can't now find is that the income boost from education
varies massively across capitalist countries"
Yes: roughly speaking, the flatter the income distribution, the smaller the return on additional
years of education (in terms of income - not, though, access to positions, which still carry with
them all sorts of non-pecuniary benefits, including better health and longer life though, again,
in more egalitarian countries these benefits are less too, and because health and longevity are
better at the lower end).
"engels @11 - depends where you are. IN the US a PhD earns you more (over the life course)
than a Bachelor's, but less than a Master's or a Professional degree. But that's presumably because
people taking Masters and Professional degreea do so for the purpose of getting a more lucrative
job whereas presumably people doing PhDs do so for other reasons (my students choosing between
a PhD and a Law degree know which is going to earn them more money)."
At the risk of thread derailment, they likely don't, since they don't know the salaries, and
don't know the odds.
Thanks, Harry – I hadn't been considering the effect of extra years spent in school, but that's
surely relevant (and not just for more "professional" degrees, I assume. Someone who leaves a
history/philosophy/english PhD program w/ an MA after two years and then gets a job will probably
earn more than someone who spends 8+ years in the program and then several years w/ questionable
employment, maybe w/o a TT job on the other side, and no more, perhaps less, qualified than the
person w/ the MA.)
Ok - my students know which is more likely to earn them more money. And I am using 'my' more
restrictively than I should - I try to ensure that students with whom I discuss their futures
have at least the information I do about the prospects associated with the different trajectories.
And for most of them who are actually choosing between a disciplinary PhD and Law degree, I
am pretty sure the probabilities in terms of income favor the Law degree: why do you think
the contrary?
Kurt Schuler 12.31.16 at 11:37 pm If India is enough of an English-speaking country for you,
you may wish to consider the demand for private schooling there, even among the poor.
The number of students involved dwarfs Sweden or Chile or most anywhere else. A place to start
is James Tooley's book The Beautiful Tree.
Harry 01.01.17 at 6:08 pm For anyone interested, College Board produces a nice report on how
higher ed pays off in the US: last edition was 2013, and it here:
"... "Nearly half of young Americans start their working lives with student debt, and 43 million Americans carry student loans. A new study by the Global Financial Literacy Excellence Center (GFLEC) at the George Washington University School of Business found that many borrowers are struggling to make student loan payments and regret their borrowing. ..."
"... GFLEC's newly published policy brief reports that most borrowers did not fully understand what they were taking on when they obtained student loans. Additionally, 54 percent of student loan holders did not try to figure out what their monthly payments would be before taking out loans. And 53 percent said that if they could go back and redo the process of taking out loans, they would do things differently. " ..."
Released earlier this week from George Washington University School of Business: "Study Finds
1 in 3 Student Loan Holders With Payments Due Are Late With Payments and More Than Half Regret
Their Borrowing"
"Nearly half of young Americans start their working lives with student debt, and 43 million
Americans carry student loans. A new study by the Global Financial Literacy Excellence Center
(GFLEC) at the George Washington University School of Business found that many borrowers are struggling
to make student loan payments and regret their borrowing.
GFLEC's newly published policy brief reports that most borrowers did not fully understand what
they were taking on when they obtained student loans. Additionally, 54 percent of student loan
holders did not try to figure out what their monthly payments would be before taking out loans.
And 53 percent said that if they could go back and redo the process of taking out loans, they
would do things differently. "
Odd. I was looking at the comment by Bannon about Spanish young adult unemployment (a serious
problem, as he says) and thinking, well, at least we don't have anything like that here.
No, our young adults aren't unemployed, are they? They are simply working to hand over major
parts of their future to their debt bosses.
And it really is so much better that way. After all, if ours were unemployed, they might take
to the streets like the Spaniards are doing.
"... For over a decade now, Chicago has been the epicenter of the fashionable trend of "privatization"-the transfer of the ownership or operation of resources that belong to all of us, like schools, roads and government services, to companies that use them to turn a profit. Chicago's privatization mania began during Mayor Richard M. Daley's administration, which ran from 1989 to 2011. Under his successor, Rahm Emanuel, the trend has continued apace. For Rahm's investment banker buddies, the trend has been a boon. For citizens? Not so much. ..."
"... the English word "privatization" derives from a coinage, Reprivatisierung, formulated in the 1930s to describe the Third Reich's policy of winning businessmen's loyalty by handing over state property to them. ..."
"... As president, Bill Clinton greatly expanded a privatization program begun under the first President Bush's Department of Housing and Urban Development. "Hope VI" aimed to replace public-housing high-rises with mixed-income houses, duplexes and row houses built and managed by private firms. ..."
"... The fan was Barack Obama, then a young state senator. Four years later, he cosponsored a bipartisan bill to increase subsidies for private developers and financiers to build or revamp low-income housing. ..."
"... However, the rush to outsource responsibility for housing the poor became a textbook example of one peril of privatization: Companies frequently get paid whether they deliver the goods or not (one of the reasons investors like privatization deals). For example, in 2004, city inspectors found more than 1,800 code violations at Lawndale Restoration, the largest privately owned, publicly subsidized apartment project in Chicago. Guaranteed a steady revenue stream whether they did right by the tenants or not-from 1997 to 2003, the project generated $4.4 million in management fees and $14.6 million in salaries and wages-the developers were apparently satisfied to just let the place rot. ..."
PGL on Chicago's parking meters. Yes Democratic Mayor Daley made a bad deal. If Trump does invest in infrastructure is this the kind of thing he'll be doing, selling off public
assets and leasing them back again, aka privatization?
Seems like two different things. Here's an In These Time article from January 2015 by the smart Rick Perlstein.
Welcome to Rahm Emanuel's Chicago, the privatized metropolis of the future.
BY RICK PERLSTEIN
In June of 2013, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel made a new appointment to the city's seven-member
school board to replace billionaire heiress Penny Pritzker, who'd decamped to run President Barack
Obama's Department of Commerce. The appointee, Deborah H. Quazzo, is a founder of an investment firm
called GSV Advisors, a business whose goal-her cofounder has been paraphrased by Reuters as saying-is
to drum up venture capital for "an education revolution in which public schools outsource to private
vendors such critical tasks as teaching math, educating disabled students, even writing report cards."
GSV Advisors has a sister firm, GSV Capital, that holds ownership stakes in education technology
companies like "Knewton," which sells software that replaces the functions of flesh-and-blood teachers.
Since joining the school board, Quazzo has invested her own money in companies that sell curricular
materials to public schools in 11 states on a subscription basis.
In other words, a key decision-maker for Chicago's public schools makes money when school boards
decide to sell off the functions of public schools.
She's not alone. For over a decade now, Chicago has been the epicenter of the fashionable
trend of "privatization"-the transfer of the ownership or operation of resources that belong to all
of us, like schools, roads and government services, to companies that use them to turn a profit.
Chicago's privatization mania began during Mayor Richard M. Daley's administration, which ran from
1989 to 2011. Under his successor, Rahm Emanuel, the trend has continued apace. For Rahm's investment
banker buddies, the trend has been a boon. For citizens? Not so much.
They say that the first person in any political argument who stoops to invoking Nazi Germany automatically
loses. But you can look it up: According to a 2006 article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives,
the English word "privatization" derives from a coinage, Reprivatisierung, formulated in the
1930s to describe the Third Reich's policy of winning businessmen's loyalty by handing over state
property to them.
In the American context, the idea also began on the Right (to be fair, entirely independent of
the Nazis)-and promptly went nowhere for decades. In 1963, when Republican presidential candidate
Barry Goldwater mused "I think we ought to sell the TVA"-referring to the Tennessee Valley Authority,
the giant complex of New Deal dams that delivered electricity for the first time to vast swaths of
the rural Southeast-it helped seal his campaign's doom. Things only really took off after Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher's sale of U.K. state assets like British Petroleum and Rolls Royce in the 1980s
made the idea fashionable among elites-including a rightward tending Democratic Party.
As president, Bill Clinton greatly expanded a privatization program begun under the first
President Bush's Department of Housing and Urban Development. "Hope VI" aimed to replace public-housing
high-rises with mixed-income houses, duplexes and row houses built and managed by private firms.
Chicago led the way. In 1999, Mayor Richard M. Daley, a Democrat, announced his intention to tear
down the public-housing high-rises his father, Mayor Richard J. Daley, had built in the 1950s and
1960s. For this "Plan for Transformation," Chicago received the largest Hope VI grant of any city
in the nation. There was a ration of idealism and intellectual energy behind it: Blighted neighborhoods
would be renewed and their "culture of poverty" would be broken, all vouchsafed by the honorable
desire of public-spirited entrepreneurs to make a profit. That is the promise of privatization in
a nutshell: that the profit motive can serve not just those making the profits, but society as a
whole, by bypassing inefficient government bureaucracies that thrive whether they deliver services
effectively or not, and empower grubby, corrupt politicians and their pals to dip their hands in
the pie of guaranteed government money.
As one of the movement's fans explained in 1997, his experience with nascent attempts to pay private
real estate developers to replace public housing was an "example of smart policy."
"The developers were thinking in market terms and operating under the rules of the marketplace,"
he said. "But at the same time, we had government supporting and subsidizing those efforts."
The fan was Barack Obama, then a young state senator. Four years later, he cosponsored a bipartisan
bill to increase subsidies for private developers and financiers to build or revamp low-income housing.
However, the rush to outsource responsibility for housing the poor became a textbook example
of one peril of privatization: Companies frequently get paid whether they deliver the goods or not
(one of the reasons investors like privatization deals). For example, in 2004, city inspectors found
more than 1,800 code violations at Lawndale Restoration, the largest privately owned, publicly subsidized
apartment project in Chicago. Guaranteed a steady revenue stream whether they did right by the tenants
or not-from 1997 to 2003, the project generated $4.4 million in management fees and $14.6 million
in salaries and wages-the developers were apparently satisfied to just let the place rot.
Meanwhile, the $1.6 billion Plan for Transformation drags on, six years past deadline and still
2,500 units from completion, while thousands of families languish on the Chicago Housing Authority's
waitlist.
Be that as it may, the Chicago experience looks like a laboratory for a new White House
pilot initiative, the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD), which is set to turn over some
60,000 units to private management next year. Lack of success never seems to be an impediment where
privatization is concerned.
by Lambert Strether
Lambert here: Apparently, then, Neoliberal U plans to build "trust-based relations" and offer
"personalised attention" by gutting tenured faculty, shifting the teaching load to contingent faculty,
redistributing salaries to administrators, and socking money into fancy facilities. Let me know how
that works out.
By Philip Oreopoulos, Professor of Economics and Public Policy, University of Toronto, and
Uros Petronijevic, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, York University.
Originally published at VoxEU .
Questions over the value of a university education are underscored by negative student experiences.
Personalised coaching is a promising, but costly, tool to improve student experiences and performance.
This column presents the results from an experiment comparing coaching with lower cost 'nudge' interventions.
While coaching led to a significant increase in average course grades, online and text message interventions
had no effect. The benefits of coaching appear to derive from the trust-based nature of relationships
and personalised attention.
Policymakers and academics share growing concerns about stagnating college completion rates and
negative student experiences. Recent figures suggest that only 56% of students who pursue a bachelors'
degree complete it within six years (Symonds et al. 2011), and it is increasingly unclear whether
students who attain degrees acquire meaningful new skills along the way (Arum and Roska 2011). Students
enter college underprepared, with those who procrastinate, do not study enough, or have superficial
attitudes about success performing particularly poorly (Beattie et al 2016).
Personalised Coaching to Improve Outcomes
A promising tool for improving students' college outcomes and experiences is personalised coaching.
At both the high school and college levels, an emerging recent literature demonstrates the benefits
of helping students foster motivation, effort, good study habits, and time-management skills through
structured tutoring and coaching. Cook et al. (2014) find that cognitive behavioural therapy and
tutoring generate large improvements in maths scores and high school graduation rates for troubled
youth in Chicago, while Oreopoulos et al. (forthcoming) show that coaching, tutoring, and group activities
lead to large increases in high school graduation and college enrolment among youth in a Toronto
public housing project. At the college level, Scrivener and Weiss (2013) find that the Accelerated
Study in Associates Program – a bundle of coaching, tutoring, and student success workshops – in
CUNY community colleges nearly doubled graduation rates and Bettinger and Baker (2014) show that
telephone coaching by Inside Track professionals boosts two-year college retention by 15% across
several higher-education institutions.
While structured, one-on-one support can have large effects on student outcomes, it is often costly
to implement and difficult to scale up to the student population at large (Bloom 1984). Noting this
challenge, we set out to build on recent advances in social-psychology and behavioural economics,
investigating whether technology – specifically, online exercises, and text and email messaging –
can be used to generate comparable benefits to one-on-one coaching interventions but at lower costs
among first-year university students (Oreopoulos and Petronijevic 2016).
Several recent studies in social-psychology find that short, appropriately timed interventions
can have lasting effects on student outcomes (Yeager and Walton 2011, Cohen and Garcia 2014, Walton
2014). Relatively large improvements on academic performance have been documented from interventions
that help students define their long-run goals or purpose for learning (Morisano et al. 2010, Yeager
et al. 2014), teach the 'growth mindset' idea that intelligence is malleable (Yeager et al. 2016),
and help students keep negative events in perspective by self-affirming their values (Cohen and Sherman
2014). In contrast to these one-time interventions, other studies in education and behavioural economics
attempt to maintain constant, low-touch contact with students or their parents at a low cost by using
technology to provide consistent reminders aimed at improving outcomes. Providing text, email, and
phone call updates to parents about their students' progress in school has been shown to boost both
parental engagement and student performance (Kraft and Dougherty 2013, Bergman 2016, Kraft and Rogers
2014, Mayer et al. 2015), while direct text-message communication with college and university students
has been used in attempts to increase financial aid renewal (Castleman and Page 2014) and improve
academic outcomes (Castleman and Meyer 2016).
Can Lower-Cost Alternatives to One-On-One Coaching Be Effective?
We examine whether benefits comparable to those obtained from one-on-one coaching can be achieved
at lower cost by either of two specific interventions (Oreopoulos and Petronijevic 2016). We examine
a one-time online intervention designed to affirm students' goals and purpose for attending university,
and a full-year text and email messaging campaign that provides weekly reminders of academic advice
and motivation to students. We work with a sample of more than 4,000 undergraduate students who are
enrolled in introductory economics courses at a large representative college in Canada, randomly
assigning students to one of three treatment groups or a control group. The treatment groups consist
of:
A one-time, online exercise completed during the first two weeks of class in the autumn; The online
intervention plus text and email messaging throughout the full academic year; and The online intervention
plus one-on-one coaching in which students are assigned to upper-year undergraduate students who
act as coaches.
Students in the control group are given a personality test measuring the Big Five personality
traits.
Figure 1 summarises our main results on course grades. Overall, we find large positive effects
from the coaching programme, amounting to approximately a 4.92 percentage-point increase in average
course grades; we also find that coached students experience a 0.35 standard-deviation increase in
GPA. In contrast, we find no effects on academic outcomes from either the online exercise or the
text messaging campaign, even after investigating potentially heterogeneous treatment effects across
several student characteristics, including gender, age, incoming high school average, international-student
status, and whether students live on residence.
Figure 1 . Main effects of interventions
Our results suggest that the benefits of personal coaching are not easily replicated by low-cost
interventions using technology. Many successful coaching programmes involve regular student-coach
interaction facilitated either by mandatory meetings between coaches and students or proactive coaches
regularly initiating contact (Scrivener and Weiss 2013, Bettinger and Baker 2014, Cook et al. 2014,
Oreopoulos et al. forthcoming). Our coaches initiated contact and built trust with students over
time, in person and through text messaging. Through a series of gentle, open-ended questions, the
coaches could understand the problems students were facing and provide clear advice, ending most
conversations with students being able to take at least one specific action to help solve their current
problems.
Our text messaging campaign offered weekly academic advice, resource information, and motivation,
but did not initiate communication with individual students about specific issues (e.g. help with
writing or an upcoming mid-term). The text-messaging team often invited students to reply to messages
and share their concerns but was unable to do this with the same efficacy as a coach, nor were we
able to establish the same rapport with students. Our inability to reach out to all students and
softly guide the conversation likely prevented us from learning the important details of their specific
problems. Although we provided answers and advice to the questions we received, we did not have as
much information on the students' backgrounds as our coaches did, and thus could not tailor our responses
to each student's specific circumstances.
Our coaches were also able to build trust with students by fulfilling a support role. Figure 2
provides an example of how the coaching service was more effective than the text messaging campaign
in this respect. The text messages attempted to nudge students in the right direction, rather than
provide tailored support. The left panel of Figure 2 shows three consecutive text messages, in which
we provide a tip on stress management, an inspirational quote, and a time-management tip around the
exam period. As in this example, it was often the case that students would not respond to such messages.
In contrast, the student-coach interaction in the right panel shows our coaches offering more of
a supportive role rather than trying to simply nudge the student in a specific direction. The coach
starts by asking an open-ended question, to which the student responds, and the coach then guides
the conversation forward. In this example, the coach assures the student that they will be available
to help with a pending deadline and shows a genuine interest in the events in the student's life.
Figure 2 . Distinguishing the text-messaging campaign and the coaching programme
Coaches also kept records of their evolving conversations with students and could check in to
ask how previously discussed issues were being resolved. Although we kept a record of all text message
conversations, a lack of resources prevented us from conducting regular check-ups to see how previous
events had unfolded, which likely kept us from helping students effectively with their problem and
from establishing the trust required for students to share additional problems.
Concluding Remarks
In sum, the two key features that distinguish the coaching service from the texting campaign are
that coaches proactively initiated discussion with students about their problems and could establish
relationships based on trust in which students felt comfortable to openly discuss their issues. Future
work attempting to improve academic outcomes in higher education by using technology to maintain
constant contact with students may need to acknowledge that simply nudging students in the right
direction is not enough. A more personalised approach is likely required, in which coaches or mentors
initially guide students through a series of gentle conversations and subsequently show a proactive
interest in students' lives. These conversations need not necessarily occur during face-to-face meetings,
but the available evidence suggests that they should occur frequently and be initiated by the coaches.
While such an intervention is likely to be costlier than the text messaging campaign in our study,
it is also likely to be more effective but still less costly than the personalised coaching treatment.
"Personalised coaching is a promising, but costly, tool to improve student experiences …"
… that used to be called, in the long ago time before the App Store, office hours.
Back in the day when there were these non-administrative inefficiencies called tenure track faculty.
Surely Mechanical Turk can find a disruptive application in this space.
However also way back when few students bothered to go to faculty office hours. (early 1970s)
. In addition how many students go to the departmental seminars in their major field? Again undergraduate
attendance at them is low.
Or join clubs in their major field that invite faculty to come talk about their research (which
is easy to get a prof to do to talk about his research). (Today of course you could do seminars
and the like via podcasts etc).
However of course the mentoring also takes student time which may also be scarce.
"... He opened his remarks by bashing Donald Trump on student loan debt, but then surprisingly turned to bashing Hillary Clinton from her own stage. "Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't really care about this issue either," Vanfosson said. "The only thing she cares about is pleasing her donors, the billionaires who fund her campaign. The only people that really trust Hillary are Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup can trust Hillary, the military industrial complex can trust Hillary. Her good friend Henry Kissinger can trust Hillary." ..."
"... "She is so trapped in the world of the elite that she has completely lost grip on what it's like to be an average person," Vanfosson continued. "She doesn't care. Voting for another lesser of two evils, there's no point." ..."
Just a few days before the general election, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham
Clinton and her running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) still can't unite her party. Supporters of
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, her Democratic primary rival, are disrupting her campaign's
efforts to take on GOP nominee Donald J. Trump, and in Iowa on Saturday one prominent Sanders
backer was actually escorted out of a Clinton campaign event for urging those present not to vote
for Clinton-for which he was cheered by the crowd.
Kaleb Vanfosson, the president of Iowa State University's Students for Bernie chapter, bashed
Hillary Clinton and told rally-goers at her own campaign event not to vote for her. He was
cheered.
He opened his remarks by bashing Donald Trump on student loan debt, but then surprisingly
turned to bashing Hillary Clinton from her own stage. "Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't really care
about this issue either," Vanfosson said. "The only thing she cares about is pleasing her donors,
the billionaires who fund her campaign. The only people that really trust Hillary are Goldman
Sachs, CitiGroup can trust Hillary, the military industrial complex can trust Hillary. Her good
friend Henry Kissinger can trust Hillary."
The crowd at the Clinton-Kaine event erupted in applause.
"She is so trapped in the world of the elite that she has completely lost grip on what
it's like to be an average person," Vanfosson continued. "She doesn't care. Voting for another
lesser of two evils, there's no point."
At that point, a Clinton staffer rushed on stage and grabbed the young man by the arm to
escort him off the stage and out of the event.
"... Social mobility is the kind of equality professional and managerial elites support. ..."
"... High rates of social mobility are not inconsistent with systems of stratification that concentrate power and privilege in a ruling elite. Certainly the circulation of elites strengthens the idea of hierarchy furnishing it with fresh talent and legitimating their ascendancy as a function of merit rather than birth. ..."
"... Look at the root of the problem: capitalism is a profit seeking competition based social organization. This is not meant as a judgement, but it can be demonstrated that capitalism and any other form of social organization based on profit seeking, in principle, is unsustainable within a closed system, such as planet Earth, without periodic destruction of its material wealth and human population. ..."
Social mobility is the kind of equality professional and managerial elites support.
Our present society seems quite mobile and highly stratified.
Historically social mobility became an interpretation of opportunity only after more hopeful interpretations
of opportunity (yeoman idea– your own plot of land– rather than Horatio Alger) began to fade out of the
American experience (sometime after 1890 when social stratification could no longer be ignored).
High rates of social mobility are not inconsistent with systems of stratification that concentrate
power and privilege in a ruling elite. Certainly the circulation of elites strengthens the idea of hierarchy
furnishing it with fresh talent and legitimating their ascendancy as a function of merit rather than
birth.
Social policy that would support a wider distribution of land would give a significant support to
a parents' ability to bequeth property to their children–as seen, for example, in the Homstead Act.
Think tradition of Jefferson, Lincoln and Orestes Brownson.
I just listened to this podcast yesterday. It's Glenn Loury not William Darity,
Jr. unless they had practically the same life. But there are at least a dozen lines
that are verbatim from the podcast.
http://loveandradio.org/2016/10/the-enemy-within/
Look at the root of the problem: capitalism is a profit seeking competition
based social organization. This is not meant as a judgement, but it can be demonstrated
that capitalism and any other form of social organization based on profit seeking,
in principle, is unsustainable within a closed system, such as planet Earth, without
periodic destruction of its material wealth and human population. And this destruction
becomes increasingly severe and threatening to the existence of the entire system
as this social organization, such as capitalism, evolves.
As far as the fundamental premise 'that everyone can prosper in the individual race for wealth given
equal starting opportunities are provided' is not questioned all these studies calling for creation
of "truly equal opportunities" will only exacerbate the problem, which is being practically done (explicitly
or implicitly, knowingly or unknowingly) by many famous liberal economists, including Joseph Stiglitz,
Robert Reich, Bill Black, Michael Hudson, etc., who are trying to find the ways to fix and improve capitalism
without touching the fundamentals.
This is not to say that social economic reforms that practically improve the lives of millions poor
people are wrong or useless. Fighting cancer can be helpful, but only until and unless it kills the
host. So, all these studies, policies, proposals, etc. can be helpful and productive only if clear awareness
of the nature of the disease (capitalism) they are trying to treat exists.
For-profit colleges may be playing defense in the public perception, but they have not given up their
offensive game, if their recent contributions to Congress are any indication.
For-profit education colleges and trade groups donated more than $1.4 million to federal candidates,
parties and elected officials during the first eight months of 2016, according to the most recent
tally by the Center for Responsive Politics. Lobbyists for the sector spent an additional $2.6 million.
(Nonprofit colleges are not permitted to donate to candidates.)
The top recipients in Congress are, or were, running for election, and all but one of the incumbents
have a leadership position on or are members of one of the powerful committees that help determine
the flow of federal money to for-profit colleges. The top three recipients can count for-profit sector
groups among their top campaign contributors.
For-profit colleges and advocates gave $657,531 to 139 incumbents and candidates running for the
House of Representatives. Click
HERE for list
of House members and candidates (by amount of contribution). There were 54 Senators and candidates
for the Senate who received contributions, for a total of $378,758 between January and August of
this year. Click
HERE for list
of Senators and candidates (by amount of contribution.)
More than a third of the money donated to sitting Senators has gone to members of the Armed Services
committee and most of that went to its powerful chairman, John McCain (R-AZ). Last year the Pentagon
banned the biggest for-profit college, the University of Phoenix, from recruiting on military bases
and receiving federal tuition, citing deceptive practices. But McCain lobbied loud and hard and succeeded
in reversing the ban in January.
Republicans running for Congress scooped up 72 percent of contributions from the for-profit education
sector during the first eight months of this year. That's a change from 2010, when they only received
39 percent of contributions. The Presidential race this year, however, has favored the Democrat,
Hillary Clinton.
Some of the biggest donors so far this year are for-profit institutions that have drawn scrutiny
from federal agencies for high student debt levels and low graduation rates. Bridgepoint, at the
top of the list, is under investigation by the Justice Department; it also must pay millions of dollars
in fines to resolve the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's accusation that its private student
loan advertisements misled students. Corinthian Colleges filed for bankruptcy last year and this
year was forced to pay massive fines for defrauding students.
Meredith Kolodner
is a staff writer at The Hechinger Report. She previously covered schools for the
New York Daily News and was an editor at InsideSchools.org and for The Investigative Fund at the
Nation Institute. She's also covered housing, schools, and local government for the Press of Atlantic
City and The Chief-Leader newspaper and her work has appeared in the New York Times and the American
Prospect. Kolodner is a graduate of Brown University and Columbia University's Graduate School of
Journalism and an active New York City public school parent. She is grateful to her 11th grade English
teacher who persistently gave her Cs on essays until she finally stopped burying the lead.
"... In ['William Darity, Jr.'s] his view, the capacity of parents and grandparents to invest in their children is contingent on their wealth position" [ iNet ]. ..."
"... "What drives white-collar criminals? Often, these are successful people who possess great wealth, have impeccable education, and hold much influence within their respective industries, yet they risk it all by breaking the law" [ ProMarket ]. "Incentives specifically play a big role in fostering white-collar crime, according to Soltes, especially when financial managers are pressured to succeed and have to make rapid decisions one after the other, their potential victims far from view. 'I was doing exactly what I was incentivized to do. We wouldn't have gone through all this trouble if we just wanted to cheat,' says Enron CFO Andrew Fastow in the book.'" ..."
"In ['William Darity, Jr.'s] his view, the capacity of parents and grandparents to invest
in their children is contingent on their wealth position" [
iNet ].
"The real driver of inequality, then, is not an individual's level of education and productivity,
but the resources that parents and grandparents are able to transmit." Hence: "[S]tratification economics."
Might go down easier than "class warfare," I dunno.
"What drives white-collar criminals? Often, these are successful people who possess great
wealth, have impeccable education, and hold much influence within their respective industries, yet
they risk it all by breaking the law" [
ProMarket
]. "Incentives specifically play a big role in fostering white-collar crime, according to Soltes,
especially when financial managers are pressured to succeed and have to make rapid decisions one
after the other, their potential victims far from view. 'I was doing exactly what I was incentivized
to do. We wouldn't have gone through all this trouble if we just wanted to cheat,' says Enron CFO
Andrew Fastow in the book.'"
"Mike Konczal has an interesting piece on how the progressives are unlikely to win over Trump's
base of white, male, working class voters – even if they take their concerns to heart and propose
policies that will help them… Konczal might well be right, but I want to entertain the possibility
that he is wrong" [
Dani Rodrik ]. I will say that Konczal knows how to generate buzz. More:
"Konczal might well be right, but I want to entertain the possibility that he is wrong…. If
left-liberals take for granted that the white middle class is essentially racist, hate the federal
government, oppose progressive taxation, don't think big banks and dark money are a problem …
and so on, then indeed many of the remedies that progressives have to offer will fail to resonate
and there is little that can be done. But why should we assume that these are the givens of political
life?
A large literature in social psychology and political economy suggests that identities are
malleable as are voters' perceptions of how the world works and therefore which policies serve
their interests. A large part of the right's success derives from their having convinced lower
and middle class voters that the government is corrupt and inept. Can't progressives alter that
perception?
Note that Rodrik has exactly the same conflation of "progressive," "left," and "liberal" that
Konczal does. Je repete : Liberals (and conservatives) want to divide the working class, and
they use their distinctive flavors of identity politics to do so. The left wishes to unite them.
And both liberals and conservatives will deny that identity is malleable (Clinton's "irredeemables")
not only because to admit that would smash any number of rice bowls, but because it would smash their
social functions as factions. What should give the left hope in Rodrik's rejoinder - hope that Konczal
is, quite naturally, attempting to strangle in its cradle - is the notion that identity is malleable;
Occupy, with the 99% concept, proved that. Thomas Frank, with his 10%, takes the same approach. Of
course, 99 and 10 don't add to 100, so there's some analytical work to be done, but the way forward
beyond identity politics is clear.
on October 10, 2016 In August, I
blogged about
a New York Times story on a corruption investigation of City College President Lisa Coico.
On Friday, the Times
reported that Coico abruptly resigned. Today, the Times has a long
piece on the corruption and potential criminality that led to Coico's resignation (upon threat
of firing).
On the one hand, the piece paints a portrait of a college president so fantastically corrupt,
it's almost comical.
Ms. Coico, who had an annual salary of $400,000 at that point [2011], was using the college's
main fund-raising vehicle, the 21st Century Foundation, to pay tens of thousands of dollars for
housekeeping, furniture, seasonal fruits and organic maple-glazed nuts, among other items .By
August 2011, according to an email between two school officials, the college had begun to itemize
more than $155,000 of her spending in three categories - "college," "personal" and "iffy."
On the other hand, it's just one blood-boiling outrage after another, where the criminality flows,
like lava, from the mountain of largesse that Coico was legally allowed in the first place.
The Times also questioned whether Ms. Coico had repaid a $20,000 security deposit for
a rental home , or kept the money for herself .Ms. Coico had a housing allowance
of $5,000 per month when she was hired, which was increased to $7,500 per month in July
2010. We have adjuncts at CUNY who can't pay their rent. Mostly because the pay is so low, but
sometimes, as occurred at Brooklyn College last month, because CUNY can't be bothered to get its
act together so that people are paid on time. Yet a college president, who's already earning a
$400,000 salary (and remember that was in 2011; God knows what she was raking in upon her resignation)
plus a housing allowance of $7500, gets additional help to put down a $20,000 security deposit
on a rental home in Westchester?
On top of it all, the article makes plain that CUNY officials have been nervous about and watchful
of Coico's spending since her first year at the college:
Behind the scenes, there were also questions about her personal spending going back to the
middle of 2011, roughly a year after her appointment .Anxious about the amount she was spending,
especially given the fact that many of City College's students come from low-income families
and struggle to pay even its modest tuition, some began "questioning its appropriateness, since
the president had a substantial housing allowance meant for such things," said one longtime
official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid being entangled in the investigation.
She was later ordered by Frederick P. Schaffer, CUNY 's general counsel, to repay the college
$51,000, or roughly one-third of the expenses in question, because she had not received prior
approval for moving and other expenses. She fulfilled that obligation by January 2016.
Ms. Coico was also informed that any furniture bought with foundation funds - including
$50,000 worth for a rental home in Larchmont, N.Y. - belonged to City College. Moreover, she
was asked to return a $20,000 security deposit at the end of her lease in Larchmont.
Ms. Coico and her husband bought another home in Westchester County in April 2013, property
records show. When asked if she repaid the $20,000 deposit, the college declined to comment.
But this summer, The Times took a closer look at her expenses, and
reported that CUNY 's Research Foundation , which manages research funds for the entire
system, had ultimately covered Ms. Coico's personal expenses from her early years as president.
Using Research Foundation funds that way raised concerns because they could include money from
federal grants, which are typically earmarked for research-related expenses, such as staff
and equipment, and have strict guidelines about how they are used.
Two weeks after the Times report was published, a subpoena was issued by the office of
Robert L. Capers, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York.
The memo in question is just one paragraph long and is bureaucratic in nature.
Addressed to an employee at the provost's office named Luisa Hassan, and dated Sept. 15,
2011, it begins, "As we have discussed," and is attributed to Ron Woodford, a manager at the
college's 21st Century Foundation. It goes on to say that some of Ms. Coico's expenses "were
inadvertently paid" by that foundation, when they should have been paid by CUNY 's Research
Foundation. The memo then asks Ms. Hassan to process an invoice for $155,176 to "rectify the
funding source," for what it calls "start-up expenses associated with the appointment of the
new president."
Were the memo proved to be backdated or manufactured, the responsible parties could be open
to charges such as obstruction of justice, legal experts said.
The whole story, in my experience, is CUNY , all too CUNY . Not just the opéra bouffe of corruption
but also the creaking machinery of self-correction.
Here you have a garden-variety miscreant, thieving one piece of the pie after another from
an institution that has so little to begin with. Even the things Coico did that weren't criminal
should have been enough to get her fired. On ethical grounds alone.
But what did CUNY do? Lots of whispering emails, lots of back and forth between cowed and ineffective
administrators, culminating each time, it seems, with a polite-and sometimes unheeded-request
to Coico that she correct the problem. As if it were all a simple misunderstanding or oversight.
Indeed, in the one instance when CUNY seemed more determined to take action, an extensive internal
investigation of just one of Coico's questionable moves led to her being
exonerated by the institution. Whether she was in that instance correct in her actions, surely
her track record might have raised enough red flags to lead to a much wider investigation rather
than a declaration, with much fanfare, of her innocence.
Not once, it seems, until the very last minute-the Times reported on Friday that it
was a smoking-gun email from the newspaper that led to the abrupt resignation of Coico, leaving
City College with no replacement, save the acting provost, who was herself replacing someone else;
all suggesting that Coico's being pushed out was unplanned, unrehearsed, and unprepared for-did
CUNY execute a plan to get rid of Coico. From what I can tell (and in my experience, as I said,
this is how CUNY often operates), the institution allowed this higher-ed hoodlum to happily continue
in her position, secure in the knowledge that if she ever did anything too egregious or got caught,
that she'd get a mild entreaty to fix the error.
If there is one potential bit of good news in this story, it's this:
And over the weekend, speculation intensified among staff and faculty members as to whether
people close to the president would also be implicated, and whether the federal investigation
would spread to other parts of CUNY , the largest public urban university in the country.
One can only hope that that speculation turns out to be true.
Dr. Hilarius 10.10.16 at 9:05 pm
A good example of the failure of university president as CEO model of governance. Model comes
complete with ineffectual trustees and administrators.
Brett 10.10.16 at 9:34 pm
Aren't there people above her who are supposed to be watch-dogs on this as well? Did they just
not care that she was stealing from the college, because they'd rather not go through the hassle
of hiring another college president? Was it okay as long as she was compliant and enthusiastic
in making budget cuts?
Tabasco 10.10.16 at 10:54 pm
It seems to be a failure on so many levels: a hiring failure (CEOs who lie, cheat and steal almost
always did so in previous jobs); a failure of auditing and accountability systems; a failure of
governance; and most of all, a failure of culture. Unless these are fixed, it will happen again.
From the other coast:
Robert Huttenback.
Thirty years ago, this was, but having witnessed the whole mess from far too close up for
comfort, I suppose I'm not all that surprised at the detailed similarities with the Coico case
you're reporting on here. The Wikipedia entry gives only the gist, but the details in all their
sleaziness are still available elsewhere on the Web for anyone who has the stomach to wade through
them. To quote from our swine of the hour, If you're a star, they let you do it. The depressing
thing is that we don't seem to have any institutions left where this casual breach of trust isn't
routine.
kidneystones 10.11.16 at 3:39 am
"That's what is done by tin-pot dictators spanning the globe from North Korea to Zimbabwe."
Excellent post, Corey. Yes, I'm aware that the quote is from Beauchamp, but I think it fits
just as well, if not better here.
I'm an adjunct with bona fides and a publication history to receive research funding from universities,
just not quite often enough. I reference the tin-pot dictators for two reasons.
Tabasco and Brett get to the nub. Ms. Coico and her husband are earning far more than almost
all faculty and certainly far more than I. There's an enormous gulf separating Ms.Coico and the
adjuncts who can't actually rely on being paid their pennies on time. Suffice to say that Ms.
Coico is likely blissfully aware of that gulf and our problems, and much more painfully aware
on the enormous gulf separating her and her husband from the world-class grifters she aspires
to join, which I suggest is her principal preoccupation.
As the CEO, a large part of her job is groveling for cash before the truly rich. This has to
wear on her. And as we've learned, only partisan imbeciles believe that candidate X is the only
wealthy person paying well to ensure he/she pays the absolute minimum in taxes, and who (occasionally)
moves into the 'grey' areas of compliance. See senior civil servants at both the state and national
level.
There are, like it or not, two sets of rules in America, whether that makes America a tin-pot
dictatorship or no. If one happens to be poor and a minority one can expect to face the full brunt
of the law for even the smallest infraction. And that's if you're not beaten, or shot by 'accident'
along the way. If you're wealthy and white, you can do whatever you like until and after, in many
cases, you get caught.
The reason, I suggest, that those charged with supervising Ms. Coico did not act earlier is
that they did not wish to attract any unwanted legal scrutiny into their own practices, those
of their peers, and especially of the donor class who fork over part of the class.
It's their world, we just live in it.
kidneystones 10.11.16 at 3:42 am
Part of class? Yes, why not that too.
William Timberman puts his finger right into the wound.
Sebastian H 10.11.16 at 5:01 am
The whole thing is crazy, but I can't get past the $20,000 security deposit for a rental home.
What kind of a house is that?
Louis Proyect 10.11.16 at 11:19 am
Interesting that she was hired to boost the science department based on her own scientific background.
Remind you of another college president out in Illinois?
As a non-native speaker of English, I am wondering not for the first time about how the term corrupt
is used in the English world. Is it not correct that corruption means taking money (or some other
form of payment) in exchange for doing somebody an undeserved favour, e.g. a professor accepting
money to pass a student who should really have been failed? I would have thought that what is
described here was embezzlement instead?
Sorry if this is not the most productive contribution, but I am wondering.
steve 10.11.16 at 7:12 pm
Corruption is a general term for premeditated unethical actions. Embezzlement would be a specific
criminal change.
J-D 10.11.16 at 8:58 pm
I think it's common for 'corruption' to be used to refer to the misuse of official authority for
private benefit; so if somebody has official authority to expend funds for stipulated purposes,
and misuses that authority to expend some of those funds for a private benefit unconnected with
those stipulated purposes, that could be described as corrupt conduct.
CCNY Drudge 10.12.16 at 12:50 am
What you don't mention but is how despicable it is that a high level administrator tried to set
up two low level employees with no decision authority with a faked document. Yes, CUNY administrators
should be held accountable for their non-action and sticking their heads in the sand, but don't
exonerate the CCNY faculty who closed their eyes for the ethical problems and remained silent,
just because of their comfortable teaching hours under this president or other perks, or just
because they didn't want to rock the boat, just grumble at the water cooler. They had the academic
freedom and union protection, and the majority of them did nothing. They were like the Republican
Party facing Trump.
Karl Kolchack 10.12.16 at 1:01 am
A professional colleague of mine was prosecuted and fired for falsifying a relocation voucher for
a grand total of around $2200. Of course, this was way back in 1991, when such garbage was far
less tolerated that it seems to be these days.
This demonstrates on so many levels how administrators within CUNY are so poorly managed to the
point where they create their own "Game of Thrones." It is no wonder why the current Governor
of New York has a negative opinion of CUNY and wants a deeper look at our administrative levels
across CUNY. You can bet your last dollar that what the former CCNY President has done, has also
infected many of the departments within CCNY and across CUNY. This was no anomaly. The seeds were
planted ions ago and watered by the City and State at the expense of our students CUNY was meant
to help.
Library Love 10.12.16 at 4:37 pm
This sickens me to no end. I'm a librarian at CCNY and I have taken money out of my own pocket
for office supplies etc. for my office and for students. This is just disgusting. I knew she was
up to something but I had no idea it was this bad.
"Everybody agrees that better education and improved skills, for as many people as
possible, is crucial to increasing productivity and living standards and to tackling rising
inequality. But what if everybody is wrong?… As for inequality, we may need to offset it through
overt redistribution, with higher minimum wages or income support unrelated to people's price in the
job market, and through generous provision of high-quality public goods." Of course, Clinton has
already foreclosed this possibility; after all, some of the redistribution would go to "irredeemables."
Mankiw should be the lead negotiator for the administration, explaining to
the dining hall workers why they're paid what they're worth, and no more.
Maybe he could throw in e-access codes to his textbook as a sweetener.
When the great crime of this millennium happened and Jabba the Hut was in
charge of Harvaaaaard, Jabba was getting paid millions to lose billions. Too
bad he wasn't paid tens of millions to increase productivty and lose tens of
billions, wiping the fountainhead of corruption out.
This is absolutely deplorable! These folks had to strike for 35K/yr at
rich-ass Harvard? Unreal.
Why is it that White Collar types have such contempt for Blue Collar people?
I'm sick and tired of being looked down upon, made fun of, and laughed at
because I'm not an office drone. I can't stand how these jokers refer to
themselves as "professionals" all the damned time too, as if the rest of us are
a bunch of amateurs, blathering all the goddamned time about free market this,
free market that, this goodthink cause, that goodthink cause, union bad, gov't
bad, private sector good, yada yada.
Absolutely–an inferiority complex. It's why so many white collar types
drive pick-up trucks. Makes them look like they know how to do something
useful.
Yes, the perfectly unscratched pick-up truck more than a year
old. It's such an epic fail because it's "girly" and they were
going instead for "manly". Either is, no doubt, a fine thing, but
not when epically fail.
Soon the elite will have the race track option for their
supercars, an AV version of track lapping where they strap
themselves into the driver's seat and let the car scare the crap
out of them.
"... Smart young things joining the workforce soon discover that, although they have been selected for their intelligence, they are not expected to use it. They will be assigned routine tasks that they will consider stupid. If they happen to make the mistake of actually using their intelligence, they will be met with pained groans from colleagues and polite warnings from their bosses. After a few years of experience, they will find that the people who get ahead are the stellar practitioners of corporate mindlessness. ..."
"... The Stupidity Paradox ..."
"... they quickly found themselves working long hours on 'boring' and 'pointless' routine work. After a few years of dull tasks, they hoped that they'd move on to more interesting things. But this did not happen. As they rose through the ranks, these ambitious young consultants realised that what was most important was not coming up with a well-thought-through solution. It was keeping clients happy with impressive PowerPoint shows. Those who did insist on carefully thinking through their client's problems often found their ideas unwelcome. If they persisted in using their brains, they were often politely told that the office might not be the place for them. ..."
Each summer, thousands of the best and brightest graduates join the workforce. Their well-above-average
raw intelligence will have been carefully crafted through years at the world's best universities.
After emerging from their selective undergraduate programmes and competitive graduate schools,
these new recruits hope that their jobs will give them ample opportunity to put their intellectual
gifts to work. But they are in for an unpleasant surprise.
Smart young things joining the workforce soon discover that, although they have been selected
for their intelligence, they are not expected to use it. They will be assigned routine tasks that
they will consider stupid. If they happen to make the mistake of actually using their intelligence,
they will be met with pained groans from colleagues and polite warnings from their bosses. After
a few years of experience, they will find that the people who get ahead are the stellar practitioners
of corporate mindlessness.
One well-known firm that Mats Alvesson and I studied for our
book The
Stupidity Paradox (2016) said it employed only the best and the brightest. When these smart
new recruits arrived in the office, they expected great intellectual challenges. However,
they quickly found themselves working long hours on 'boring' and 'pointless' routine work. After
a few years of dull tasks, they hoped that they'd move on to more interesting things. But this
did not happen. As they rose through the ranks, these ambitious young consultants realised that
what was most important was not coming up with a well-thought-through solution. It was keeping
clients happy with impressive PowerPoint shows. Those who did insist on carefully thinking through
their client's problems often found their ideas unwelcome. If they persisted in using their brains,
they were often politely told that the office might not be the place for them.
... ... ...
Organisations hire smart people, but then positively encourage them not to use their intelligence.
Asking difficult questions or thinking in greater depth is seen as a dangerous waste. Talented
employees quickly learn to use their significant intellectual gifts only in the most narrow and
myopic ways.
Those who learn how to switch off their brains are rewarded. By avoiding thinking too much,
they are able to focus on getting things done. Escaping the kind of uncomfortable questions that
thinking brings to light also allows employees to side-step conflict with co-workers. By toeing
the corporate line, thoughtless employees get seen as 'leadership material' and promoted. Smart
people quickly learn that getting ahead means switching off their brains as soon as they step
into the office. ... ... ...
We found many ways that all kinds of organisations positively encouraged intelligent people
not to fully use their intelligence. There were rules and routines that prompted them to focus
energies on complying with bureaucracy instead of doing their jobs. There were
doctors who spent
more time 'playing the tick-box game' than actually caring for patients;
teachers who spent more time negotiating new bureaucratic procedures than teaching children.
We met Hans, a manager in a local government agency: after a visit from a regulator, his office
received a list of 25 issues in need of improvement. So Hans's agency developed 25 new policies
and procedures. The result: the regulator was happy, but there was no change in actual practice.
Such stories showed us how mindless compliance with rules and regulations can detract people from
actually doing their jobs. The doctors, teachers and government officials all knew that the rules
and regulations they spent their days complying with were pointless diversions. However, they
chose not to think about this too much. Instead, they just got on with ticking the boxes.
Another significant source of stupidity in firms we came across was a deep faith in leadership.
In most organisations today, senior executives are not content with just being managers. They
want to be leaders. They see their role as not just running their business but also transforming
their followers. They talk about 'vision', 'belief' and 'authenticity' with great verve. All this
sounds like our office buildings are brimming with would-be Nelson Mandelas. However, when you
take a closer look at what these self-declared leaders spend their days doing, the story is quite
different.
... ... ...
As Jan Wallander, the ex-chairman of Sweden's Handelsbanken, said: 'Business leaders are just
as fashion-conscious as teenage girls choosing jeans.' Many companies adopt the latest management
fads, no matter how unsuitable they are. If Google is doing it, then it's good enough reason to
introduce nearly any practice, from mindfulness to big-data analytics.
,,, ,,, ,,,
One last source of corporate stupidity we came across was company culture. Often, these cultures
imprison employees in narrow ways of viewing the world, such as the common obsession with constant
change.
... ... ...
What's more, people in corporations have short attention spans. Perpetrators of blunders will
likely have moved onwards (often upwards) before their mistakes becomes obvious. 'Always try to
outrun your mistakes' was one middle-manager's key career advice.
... ... ...
In a world where stupidity dominates, looking good is more important than being right. Advanced
practitioners of corporate stupidity often spend less time on the content of their work and more
on its presentation. They know that a decision-maker sees only the PowerPoint show and reads just
the executive summary (if they're lucky). They also realise that most stupid ideas are routinely
accepted when they're presented well. Decision-makers will likely forget much of the content by
the time they walk out the door. And when things go wrong, they can say: 'They didn't read the
fine-print.'
Negotiating corporate stupidity also requires assuming that the boss knows best. This means doing
what your boss wants, no matter how idiotic. What is even more important is that you should do
what your boss's boss wants. You will look like you are loyal and it will save time arguing for
your position. When things go wrong, you can blame your boss.
Working in a stupefied firm often means blinding others with bullshit. A very effective way
to get out of doing anything real is to rely on a flurry of management jargon. Develop strategies,
generate business models, engage in thought leadership. This will get you off the hook of doing
any actual work. It will also make you seem like you are at the cutting edge. When things go wrong,
you can blame the fashionable management idea.
The Guardian is, increasingly (if you'll pardon the phrase) getting on my tits at the moment. Is there anything worse in the
mainstream media than a Progressive In Name Only newspaper?
The BBC's fair and balanced news and current affairs departments (
driven
by its sinister business unit ) are perhaps worse because of its greater reach, but it's a tight race.
Clive, intemperate: The agony of the Guardian is indeed interesting. A while back, I read that its site was the most used among
English-language newspapers, particularly by U.S. readers looking for some balance.
With regard to the U.S. political coverage, and their rah-rah Clintonism, as evinced by the resurrection of the likes of Jill
Abramson, I tend to cut them some slack. I find that many English (in particular, the English) are somewhat tone-deaf about U.S.
culture and folkways. I imagine some Guardian Uxonian editors, who once spent a week in NYC with a side trip to LA, and who have
actually eaten corn on the cob, thinking that they understand the U.S. Constitution and U.S. politics. But they still don't know
how to pronounce Illinois and Arkansas.
The anti-Corbyn hysteria shows detachment from their roots. The Guardian editors should get in a car and head out for a field
trip to Manchester (do they recall Manchester?) to find out more about Brexit and Corbyn. A trip to the English nether-regions
would do them some good.
And yet I can't complain too much: How often do they present Douthat, Bruni, and Brooks as sages?
To keep a little more of that tuition money, the college is considering slightly ratcheting
down financial aid.
They are also going to offer buyouts to a number of employees later
this fall.
"When you have a reduction in your enrollment, you're going to need a proportionate reduction
in faculty and staff,"
Robinson said. "We definitely need to get smaller."
Adding to the problem, there were fewer unrestricted donations - donations that are free to use
for whatever the college might need - than expected last year, but more donations overall.
Gifts that were received were earmarked for specific programs and buildings on campus, not necessarily
for the general fund.
(can't put your name on a general fund)
By next year the college won't be able to break even, but by 2018 Robinson and his team expects
to present a balanced budget to the Board of Trustees.
Despite the budget issues, the college is still on strong footing and is looking ahead, said Alex
Bertoni, spokesperson for the college.
"The college is doing well, and the students here are thriving," he said. "We're going
to continue to invest in the long-term.
" (that long-term does not look good for a lot of
students, to me)
bolding and comments in () mine. I am an eye-roller for sure, and they got a workout here.
The ghastly horror of competition roils the cozy academic cartel:
Georgia Tech's master's [sic] in computer science costs less than one-eighth as much as its
most expensive rival - if you learn online.
With one of the top 10 computer science departments in the nation, according to U.S. News &
World Report, Georgia Tech had a reputation to uphold. So it made the online program as much like
the residential program as possible.
Tuition for a 30-credit master's in computer science from the University of Southern California
runs $57,000. Syracuse, Johns Hopkins and Carnegie Mellon charge over $43,000 for the same degree.
Most prestigious colleges are currently sticking with the model that lets them offer degrees
for $57,000 instead of the roughly $7,000 that it costs at Georgia Tech.
"... the true rate of pay is often around the minimum wage. ..."
"... i was an adjunct professor of urban studies at new york university for 12 years. the entire academic department was staffed by adjuncts and part-time instructors except for the chairman, who was ironically a tenured professor of labor history. ..."
"... Having come up through the academic process and seeing the handwriting on the wall deciding to opt out of trying for an academic career, I think I can comment a bit. ..."
"... First, no one is forcing these folks to be adjuncts. It's their choice. ..."
"... The real issue is one of information and honesty or at least reality over hopeful expectations. When I was an undergrad my professors encouraged me to go to grad school and were pleased when I decided to pursue a Ph.D. They all implied, if not said, that I would be able to then get an academic job. I think they really believed this, but the reality was far different even at that time. By the time I graduated, unemployment in my field was at an all time high. The reality was that only 20-25% of graduates would get "potentially permanent" positions in either academia or research. So, when I finally graduated I posted a letter for the undergraduates informing them of the future in the field. Needless to say the faculty were taken aback, but when they checked they found that my data was correct. ..."
"... Yes, their choice. They can abandon the academic pursuit and choose another career. Most people with advanced degrees do just that. ..."
"... I agree that their are way too many grad students and they become the adjuncts that are desperate for full time jobs. But grad students serve an important purpose as cheap labor, particularly in research universities. ..."
"... What if the point of a review process was to improve teaching methods and get feedback from students about what works and what doesn't? ..."
"... We are looking at the decades long pursuit of making higher education "more like business". The mantra of privatization and that attitude that segments of our society which served the public: schools, universities, hospitals, departments of governments at all levels, etc., would all be better if they were run as businesses has been proven false a million times over. ..."
"... University Boards have, for decades, been stacked with advocates of market based systems which have been imposed on institutions which formerly served their students and the public. Students are no longer viewed as students but as revenue streams. Public funding for higher education has similarly declined as the cult of the marketplace including that institutions serving a public purpose needed to be more self funding. Because forcing them to have more skin in the game would force them to trim the fat and innovate. You know, like Walmart. ..."
"... This is a false hope–especially in higher education. The University, the large corporation, the particular governmental agency, are now beyond internal reform and we all know this in our bones. ..."
"... Somehow we must individually and collectively find the courage and creativity to move, maneuver and survive outside of these institutions–trading in the fear and anxiety of trying to succeed in dying institutions for the fear and anxiety which comes with creating new institutions. ..."
"The work is there," Wangerin tells me, "they just don't want to pay."
A one-time adjunct and contract lecturer myself, I decide to look into the
matter more deeply. Are Wangerin's contentions particular to her own experience
or are they more widely shared across the United States? And if they are, what
does this mean for higher education?
Information, as it turns out, isn't hard to come by. I write one message
to a long-time Twitter contact who also happens to be a contingent faculty member
and my inbox explodes. As I sort through my e-mails a picture of higher education
begins to emerge and, far removed from the conventional image of pipe-smoking
professors in book-lined studies, it is largely one of exploitation and control.
"I am currently teaching one class, and in all honesty, unemployment benefits
pay double that," a community college lecturer who wished to remain anonymous
told me, "I would be better off not teaching at all."
An art professor from Ohio writes in to tell me that she's just thrown in
the towel after more than a decade of work: "My class was canceled two weeks
before classes start and I decided to get my Alternative Educator License and
teach at the high school level."
I hear of a lecturer whose courses were allocated to someone else after he
spoke out about a contract clause that demanded access to his DNA; about an
adjunct who could not afford to pay property taxes on the family home after
20 years of teaching; and of someone who was fired after a student complaint
that he was a "black racist." "Whatever that means," the adjunct reporting the
incident grumbles.
... ... ...
"Education claims to ameliorate class stratification, but it actually reinforces
it," says Alex Kudera, who has taught college writing and literature off the
tenure track for over twenty years.
It's not hard to see what he means. The average adjunct lecturer receives
only
$2700 per course taught. While that amount is sometimes portrayed as easy
money, in addition to time spent in class lecturers must also prepare course
content, create exams and assignments, grade, advise students, and, of course,
travel from campus to campus. When academics are employed on a casual basis,
such activity is not compensated, meaning that the true rate of pay is often
around the minimum wage.
'Academics may enjoy more intellectual freedom than many workers,
but they also have a duty that does not generally fall on others: to research
and to publish the results of that research regardless of how unpopular
it may be.'
Proposal for a joint Econ/Law paper
Thesis : US academia is a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization
Synopsis : using de facto antitrust immunity garnered by its politically
connected administrators, academia relentlessly hikes tuitions as well as
its intake of governmental funding.
Via false and deceptive marketing, students are promised nonexistent
benefits from earning a degree, then subjected to a loan sharking racket
which indebts them for life, at inflated cartelized prices, without informing
them of the non-dischargeability of those debts.
Systemic marketing fraud is further enabled by glossy alumni magazines
touting the achievements of tenured faculty, without divulging that a majority
of classes are taught by adjuncts.
Recommendations : RICO the entire industry; consolidate it; convict
the managers; reopen it under new leadership (former politicians banned
for life), under new legislation prohibiting marketing fraud and loan sharking.
Seems like the logical solution and the only way to avoid actual collapse
of the institutions. This higher education scam can only continue until
parental funds are tapped out, which is this current generation of collage
age families. New entrants into the workforce, on whole, will not be able
to save enough, or have job security to even consider college for their
children.
The social contract that the elite are forging ahead with is the bond
and willingness to be scammed. It is amazing to see their disbelieving expressions
when any form of resistance is encountered. The rational response would
be to ease up on the exploitation, but doesn't seem to be happening. Other
forces will have to be brought to bear.
"non-tenure track teaching staff – commonly referred to as adjuncts and
contingent faculty – now make up approximately 70% of all teaching staff
in American higher education. This means that roughly three out of every
four courses a student takes are taught by someone without job security
who is working on minimal pay."
Is this actually true? If say some adjuncts are full-time other job &
teach only 1 course, some adjuncts are perma-temp FT & teach ~4 courses,
& tenure-track teach ~4 courses; then you could have a situation where say
1 portion of teachers that are adjuncts. The article mentioned 70% of ANY
teachers teaching at least 1 course in a given semester at Universities
are adjuncts
2 portion of courses taught that are taught by adjuncts: A lower number,
say 40% of the courses taught at Univs are taught by adjuncts, due to having
tenure-track Profs teaching ~4 courses & adjuncts teaching ~1 course each.
The author seems to make a logic error assuming that metric #2 is the
same as #1. It may happen to be, but doesn't necessarily need to be.
What actually is the metric #2 number?
I have empathy for the perma-temp FT adjuncts, IMHO it is no different
than perma-temp FT workers in other occupations, despite the prestige of
Unviersities perhaps somewhat masking its practice.
You're right that we don't have enough info to know #2 from the article,
but I also don't know that you've got it quite right.
If full time instructors are half-and-half tenure/tenure-track and adjunct
(for instance), that would mean that 30% of profs are tenure and 30% are
full time adjuncts. That would leave another 40% of the total that are less-than-full
time adjuncts. So you'd have a majority of classes being taught by adjuncts.
But, of course, we need more info to figure it out for sure, but it seems
more likely to me, based on my experience (~ half my classes were taught
by adjuncts during my college days, which were in the late nineties-early
aughties) that adjuncts represent a firm majority of both personnel and
classroom hours.
I'm not an adjunct but I'm a non-tenure track faculty member in the Electrical
and Computer Engineering department at a very large university. I teach
8 technical courses a year (3/3/2) while the tenured faculty teach 3 or
4 (2/1/0). We also have adjuncts who typically teach one course a semester.
I bring this up because it could be that, from the author's perspective,
I still fall into the adjunct category because my contract must be renewed
yearly and the administration can choose not to renew without cause. I would
say that non-tenure track faculty are responsible for about 50% of the courses
in this department but, being in engineering, our department is small relative
to something in the College of Liberal Arts.
This fits in, sort of, to this posting the dean of the B-school, with
a $500K salary, a supposed expert on "risk management" at Syracuse University,
busted in a prostitution sting:
More of a question here, as I see the author teaches in Ireland. If Dr.
Fuller comes below the line I'd be interested to hear her thoughts on whether
the same process is infecting Irish and other European universities. I know
if at least one college administrator in Itelamd who loudly proclaims the
superiority if the US system. One can only wonder why
Superior in what way? Science? Technical research? Economic research?
For the US undergad, adjunct instructors is the norm. (My local community
college has 70% adjunct instructors.). My local University has slightly
less, but uses more experienced gad students to guide less experienced grad
students. In any event, the product/experience has been cheapened.
Nearly half of the nation's undergraduates show almost no gains in
learning in their first two years of college, in large part because
colleges don't make academics a priority, a new report shows.
Morris Berman has pointed out that US college has become a social rather
than a learning experience. I suspect this cultural shift has made academics
themselves replaceable. Does it really matter who babysits these four-year
party retreats?
i was an adjunct professor of urban studies at new york university for
12 years. the entire academic department was staffed by adjuncts and part-time
instructors except for the chairman, who was ironically a tenured professor
of labor history.
my classes were always bursting to seams, we studied contemporary
issues and were focusing on the sub-prime crisis back in 1995. one class
toward the end of my lecture, i wrote the math for my salary on the blackboard.
it came down to twenty-five cents per student per class, a tiny fraction
of their per semester tuition. a student from the business school remarked
that i could probably make more panhandling the same hours outside in washington
square park. everyone laughed. by the time i got back to the department
less than 20 minutes later, the chair invited me into his office. "don't
talk about salary issues with your students. GOT IT!" someone had ratted
me out. guess i spoiled their day. easier to discuss poor people in the
outer boroughs than someone on your doorstep. in the following years i spent
my spare time organizing the first adjunct faculty union. door-to-door,
button-holing adjuncts on the sidewalk or in the hallways. the less experience
they had, the more reluctant they were to get involved for fear of ruining
their chances for a F/T tenure track position. they wouldn't listen, when
i explained, once an adjunct, always an adjunct. after five more years,
they began to see the light and wanted union. then the uaw swooped in, demanding
my lists and fealty. they knew nothing about activism on an urban campus
and didn't want to listen. when i tried to participate in meetings, i was
accused of disrespecting the regional organizer who commuted to the union
hqtrs. from her home in litchfield, ct. at one meeting they told us who
our "friends" were on campus. yep, heading the list was my dept chair, the
good-old red-diaper baby himself. finally, there was a vote, the union won
a shitty package that deliberately excluded any new hires. end of the semester
the dept chair sends me an email, you're fired! meet the new boss, same
as the old boss.
I do this with my students as well, noting that about 10% of their tuition
goes to me, while the rest goes to the University.
I also like to point out that they pay six six times the tuition compared
to what the people running the university did, and that's before you take
into consideration that they didn't have to pay an extra 1K in "fees."
If they simply cut me a check for the percentage of their tuition that
goes to the class, I'd make upwards of 300K a year.
Thanks for sharing your story. I am sorry to hear that you were fired,
apparently for exercising you human & Constitutional right to labor-organize.
The fact that your boss was "a labor history Prof" is worst-tier hypocrisy
& irony. Reminds me of Constitutional Law Prof 0bama, who continually defecates
on the Constitution with his assasination of US citizens overseas program,
NSA bulk spying, etc.
I hope you found an alternative job that had better working conditions
& a fairer boss.
"Tin soldiers and Nixon coming, We're finally on our own. This summer
I hear the drumming, Four dead in Ohio." CSNY
It seems the "social unrest" stemmed from the collective consciousness
permitted by
unrestrained objectivity. The master-client relationship was overwhelmed
by repeated
gestures that breached the ordained demeandor of prostrate obedience.
The balance between confusion and illumination (consciousness) must be
modified!
After all, successful marketing/propaganda begins where consciousness ends
I was fortunate enough (a long time ago) to attend an Ivy League university,
with my brother attending the same two class years ahead of me. I became
frustrated at one point, finding my courses to always be a number of degrees
more abstract in what they were teaching than I had anticipated, and sought
my brother's advice. "Brown," he said, "doesn't make engineers; they make
graduate students." As I would later come to say, we were not taught to
be mathematicians or chemists or historian; we were taught to think like
them. I can't tell you how valuable that approach to education has turn
out to be for me, both professionally and personally, as I've made my way
through life. These are things you don't unlearn.
I think about this whenever I read articles (like this one) about the
direction of education today, especially but not limited to the college
level. These experiences are being lost as we turn our schools into trade
schools and our students into mere mechanics; OK at any situation for which
they have been specifically trained, but kind of useless for those when
that has not been the case. Our elites tell us that this is what the market
wants, but I never see any of them actually asking the students, and when
I check back at the Ivy, I find that the elites still teach their own the
way I was taught. The answer is clear. we are deliberately being divided
by education into a world where the children of the elites, whether they
have earned it or not, will find no intellectual competition from the classes
below them. The Poors really will be stupid, but it will be intentional,
and built in to the Nature and Nurture the elites have allowed them to have.
Excellent comment, Benedict. The art of teaching people how to think
instead of what to think – the educator who can do this is invaluable, now
more than ever.
1. The shift needed to understand the modern University is to think of
it not as an institution of higher learning, but as a processing plant –
it produces "students" and "graduates, and adjuncts are the staff assigned
the role of processors. The model is industrial. Elite institutions of all
sorts have conspired with the University to require professional credentials
for more and more of the occupations they staff, in order to assure large
flows of people pass through. This also means that larger populations are
drawn into the debt system and thereby depoliticized.
2. The most important role an adjunct can play is to bring the issues
associated with the industrializing of the university into the classroom.
Make students aware of the labor situation, and what they're buying.
Explain to them that adjuncts, like nurses in hospitals, are expected to
overperform, and that their overperformance is what props up a diseased,
corrupt institution. It's very, very important for adjuncts not to get caught
up in the official institutional morality that guilts them into overperformance
(hospitals are probably the leader in this respect). How much overperformance
you indulge in is a personal decision, in my view, but it should never be
taken on uncritically.
My own individualized response to this system has been to take on as
many classes as I humanly can, so that a) my wages actually compare to those
of my tenured colleagues, and b) to demonstrate to students by so doing
that the University does not give a shit about their education. No one pays
attention to how many courses I teach or how prepared I am to teach them.
I've taught hundreds of courses (no exaggeration) and no one ever supervises
me or even checks in (It's happened twice in 25 years) .Fact is, I happen
to be prepared, but I stress that that is not at all a concern of the University.
I've been asked to teach courses in subjects where I have absolutely no
expertise, but since I'm teaching undergrads, know how to read, construct
a syllabus, and make compelling arguments, I get by, sometimes even comfortably.
Many get by this way. But it shouldn't be confused with providing student
a good education. And I'm getting too old to maintain the pace, as we all
do.
According to the evaluation numbers I'm somehow still providing students
with an above-average experience in their courses, but I do so full in the
knowledge that I WILL NOT overperform without making the students aware
that that is what unfairly is expected of me, even though I'm given none
of the resources tenured faculty are given. I cancel classes sometimes,
for the express purpose of the fact I need a break (I don;t get sabbaticals).
They almost invariably understand. They also are sometimes infuriated that
this state of affairs persists, though like adjuncts they fear making waves.
3. Tenured faculty are the enemy (unfortunately) or PT faculty. Eevn
the labor activists among them have different class interests than PT faculty
at most large universities. Full-time faculty are dominated by the administration
and feel themselves to be under siege, but one response to this is that
they dominate PT faculty as a means of freeing themselves as much as possible
from the industrial-style teaching of large University life. As a rule,
they are not willing to equitably share the burdens PT faculty face, and
there's no getting around that.
Having come up through the academic process and seeing the handwriting
on the wall deciding to opt out of trying for an academic career, I think
I can comment a bit.
First, no one is forcing these folks to be adjuncts. It's their choice.
The real issue is one of information and honesty or at least reality
over hopeful expectations. When I was an undergrad my professors encouraged
me to go to grad school and were pleased when I decided to pursue a Ph.D.
They all implied, if not said, that I would be able to then get an academic
job. I think they really believed this, but the reality was far different
even at that time. By the time I graduated, unemployment in my field was
at an all time high. The reality was that only 20-25% of graduates would
get "potentially permanent" positions in either academia or research. So,
when I finally graduated I posted a letter for the undergraduates informing
them of the future in the field. Needless to say the faculty were taken
aback, but when they checked they found that my data was correct.
Do these adjuncts believe that a "potentially permanent" position awaits
them if they keep going on their present path? Are they being told that
by the universities? If so, then they are being deceived. Or, is this just
a case of blind optimism and not wanting to give up their dream? In this
case, it goes back to being their choice. Or do they want a career as a
serial adjunct, and just want the job to be better? The this is just typical
employer/employee bargaining and back to their choice.
So, they can agitate for more money, security, authority, etc. which
is what they appear to be doing, or they can leave the field for one that
is more lucrative, which is what the vast majority of us have done.
It's their "choice" to be an adjunct. Really? If there was a true choice
wouldn't the vast majority "choose" to be full-time faculty with benefits
and equivalent pay? Free marketeers keep using the word "choice", but the
choice they offer is usually one where you get to "choose" between homelessness
and and marginal survival at $11 an hour. A mighty impressive choice!
Do they "believe" they're going to get a full-time position, because
realistic career expectations wouldn't help universities get cheap grad
student labor?
Or maybe they end up in grad school like a lot of people I know - because
the job market was so terrible that the idea of staying in school for another
couple of years was their best "choice" at that point in time? Since the
media constantly tells us education is always good, and those who don't
have it will fall behind, the idea that more education isn't always better
comes as a foreign idea to a lot of 22 year olds. An assembly line of cheap
grad student labor then gets funneled into adjunct teaching.
Yes, their choice. They can abandon the academic pursuit and choose another
career. Most people with advanced degrees do just that.
I agree that their are way too many grad students and they become the
adjuncts that are desperate for full time jobs. But grad students serve
an important purpose as cheap labor, particularly in research universities.
Why would they want to give that up? Again, this is an issue of information,
which is why I posted my letter. If undergrads knew the actual prospects
for grad students after they graduate perhaps they would choose a different
path. But, grad school and academia are extremely attractive pursuits for
many people so they readily put up with all the impediments in the hope
of making it as a professor. The reality is that academia has become an
avocation, a hobby, rather than a vocation for most people.
Here's a thought: maybe if our education system weren't built around
fear, we'd be able to present a more united front.
Consider: instructors are tasked with judging students and, if they grade
on the curve, punishing some of them regardless of their skill or effort and
often enough this sorting is accomplished through BS methods like high-stakes,
time-limited testing. So yeah, sometimes students get resentful of the instructors
who get seen as the enemy. And so, they take it out be leaving a bad review.
The reviews, just like the tests and grading systems, are being used
to sort and punish profs. Bad reviews from students can be devastating financially
and career-wise, as detailed in the article. So profs get scared and therefore
fail to ask much of the students, so as to come off as a "nice guy/gal."
The students live in fear and don't learn, and the teachers live in fear
and don't teach. But what if we did things differently?
What if the point of a review process was to improve teaching methods
and get feedback from students about what works and what doesn't? What if
reviews were done in a way aimed at supporting instructors, rather than
censuring them? And what if students were treated the same way. What if,
instead of a reprimand and a shaming, students were given support and encouragement
(more like Evergreen and Sarah Lawrence)?
Maybe then we'd stop being afraid of each other and be able to support
eachother as we demand an answer to the question of how it is that tuitions
keep going up while faculty pay keeps going down. Demand in no uncertain
terms that the top Admins take major pay cuts or step down so their secretary
can take over for them (with a hefty pay raise, of course, but something
reasonable ).
We are looking at the decades long pursuit of making higher education
"more like business". The mantra of privatization and that attitude that
segments of our society which served the public: schools, universities,
hospitals, departments of governments at all levels, etc., would all be
better if they were run as businesses has been proven false a million times
over.
University Boards have, for decades, been stacked with advocates of market
based systems which have been imposed on institutions which formerly served
their students and the public. Students are no longer viewed as students
but as revenue streams. Public funding for higher education has similarly
declined as the cult of the marketplace including that institutions serving
a public purpose needed to be more self funding. Because forcing them to
have more skin in the game would force them to trim the fat and innovate.
You know, like Walmart.
For decades, political contributions bought politicians who in turn mandated
that federal student loans had to be administered by banks, thereby siphoning
off billions, if not tens of billions, of dollars that could have otherwise
gone to students and universities. The politicians also permit these banks
to gouge students on interest rates, to pass laws making it harder or impossible
to discharge loan debt through bankruptcy, or to refinance their loans.
None of these abuses of students served a public interest. All of these
abuses exemplify our current model for how to apply business practices to
higher education.
In the business sense, the only concern a University has for its product
is its relationship to the revenue stream. A little like the charter school
model. Universities have a need for instructors, and in applying the methods
of successful business as it is defined today they will seek to fill that
labor need at the absolute lowest cost achievable. Those who long for the
past are out of luck; universities are never going back. Faculty pay will
keep going down as long there are new warm bodies to take the place of those
who don't like it, and adjuncts will be squeezed for all that can be wrung
from them.
Adjuncts are nameless, faceless, and entirely forgettable as far the
University administration is concerned. The administration will blow as
much smoke up adjunct's asses as needed to keep their slots filled. Adjuncts
are in an abusive relationship, whether they understand it or not. The abuse
is never going to end, as the obstacles are not just the administration
and the university Board, but the politicians, the big donors, and the attitudes
of our society at large.
What you have so precisely described is yet another Ponzi scheme. Of
course it is because that is what post capitalist Capitalism is .
Think
of it like this : there is approximately 7 billion of us living on planet
Earth and between us we can and do produce enough food, clothing and could
produce enough housing ( that's another matter ) for all 7 billion.
So the
problem for the capitalist is how do I create the illusion of scarcity upon
which Capitalism works. Answer : grab by any and every means possible –
legal and illegal , it's all the same thing – the lions share of what already
exists ; in other words steal it . That's the 1 % .
And then con the 99%
into believing resources are scarce etc, etc and bending to the will of
the 1 %.
Most of us continue to hope that we will eventually find a secure/meaningful
position somewhere in one of the major institutions that make-up our society.
This is a false hope–especially in higher education. The University, the large corporation, the particular governmental agency,
are now beyond internal reform and we all know this in our bones.
Somehow we must individually and collectively find the courage and creativity
to move, maneuver and survive outside of these institutions–trading in the
fear and anxiety of trying to succeed in dying institutions for the fear
and anxiety which comes with creating new institutions.
(gizmodo.com)
419
Posted
by manishs
on Tuesday September 06, 2016 @12:40PM
from the
goodbye
dept.
Reader
Joe_Dragon
shares a Gizmodo report:
ITT
Technical Institute is officially closing all of its
campuses following federal sanctions imposed against
the company. The for-profit college announced the
changes in a statement: "It is with profound regret
that we must report that ITT Educational Services,
Inc. will discontinue academic operations at all of
its ITT Technical Institutes
permanently after approximately 50 years of
continuous service
. With what we believe is a
complete disregard by the U.S. Department of
Education for due process to the company, hundreds
of thousands of current students and alumni and more
than 8,000 employees will be negatively affected."
ITT Tech announced it was closing all of its
campuses just one week after it stopped enrolling
students following a federal crackdown on for-profit
colleges. ITT Tech and other higher education
companies like it have been widely criticized for
accepting billions of dollars in government grants
and loans while failing to provide adequate job
training for its students. Last year, ITT Tech
received an estimated $580 million in federal money
(aka taxpayer dollars), according to the Department
of Education.
(computerworld.com)
338
Posted
by manishs
on Friday September 09, 2016 @01:14PM
from the
big-questions
dept.
Earlier this week, University of California
hired India-based IT company HCL to outsource some
of its work offshore
. As part of the
announcement, it announced that it was laying off 17
percent of UCSF's total IT staff. The U.S. lawmaker,
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif) and the IEEE-USA
find the outsourcing job "wrong."
dcblogs
writes:
A decision by the University of
California to lay off IT employees and send their
jobs overseas is under fire from U.S. Rep. Zoe
Lofgren (D-Calif) and the IEEE-USA. "How are they
[the university] going to tell students to go into
STEM fields when they are doing as much as they can
to do a number on the engineers in their
employment?" said U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif).
Peter Eckstein, the president of the IEEE-USA, said
what the university is doing "is just one more sad
example of corporations, a major university system
in this case, importing non-Americans to eliminate
American IT jobs." The university recently informed
about 80 IT workers at its San Francisco campus,
including contract employees and vendor contractors,
that it hired India-based HCL, under a $50 million
contract, to manage infrastructure and
networking-related services. The affected employees
will leave their jobs in February, after they train
their contractor replacements.
Posted
by
BeauHD
on Wednesday September 07, 2016 @11:30PM
from the
outsourced
dept.
dcblogs
writes from a report via Computerworld:
The
University of California is
laying off a group of IT workers at its San
Francisco campus
as part of a plan to move work
offshore. Laying off IT workers as part of a shift
to offshore is somewhere between rare and unheard-of
in the public sector. The layoffs will happen at the
end of February, but before the final day arrives
the IT employees expect to train foreign
replacements from India-based IT services firm HCL.
The firm is working under a university contract
valued at $50 million over five years. This layoff
affects 17% of UCSF's total IT staff, broken down
this way: 49 IT permanent employees will lose their
jobs, along with 12 contract employees and 18 vendor
contractors. This number also includes 18 vacant IT
positions that won't be filled, according to the
university. Governments and publicly supported
institutions, such as UC, have contracted with
offshore outsourcers, but usually it's for new IT
work or to supplement an existing project. The HCL
contract with UCSF can be used by other UC campuses,
which means the layoffs may expand across its 10
campuses. HCL is a top user of H-1B visa workers.
The author goes on to write which I find a bit odd " To me, income inequality
is an overrated problem in American life, and has even propelled the American
entrepreneurial spirit. "
He then seems to imply that maybe there is an emergent, de facto bad outcome:
Yet it remains true that, considering all federal government policies, including
tax exemptions, the rich schools have benefited more than the poor ones -- a
regressive social policy that many would argue is inconsistent with using higher
education as a tool in promoting the American Dream.
Anyway, direct funding of third-level education by federal and state subsidies
seems like a great idea and something that I would be very happy for my tax
dollars to be used towards and -- moreover -- I would be happy paying more
taxes if they were put to such purposes.
"... By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Jointly published with New Economic Perspectives ..."
"... he's pursued abroad many also intuitively believe that there's no one who will hit back harder. There's some of that 'he may be a son-of-a-bitch but he's our son-of-a-bitch' quality to the president's support on national security issues. ..."
"... Hence teachers weren't divisive enough and therefore are/were seen as part of the "problem". ..."
Yves here. One has to wonder if the prosecutorial investment in bringing
down a public school test-cheating ring has less to do with concern about the
students and more to do with charter schools.
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to
Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of
Missouri-Kansas City. Jointly published with
New Economic Perspectives
The New York Times
ran the story on April Fools' Day of a jury convicting educators of gaming
the test numbers and lying about their actions to investigators.
ATLANTA - In a dramatic conclusion to what has been described as the
largest cheating scandal in the nation's history, a jury here on Wednesday
convicted 11 educators for their roles in a standardized test cheating scandal
that tarnished a major school district's reputation and raised broader questions
about the role of high-stakes testing in American schools.
On their eighth day of deliberations, the jurors convicted 11 of the
12 defendants of racketeering, a felony that carries up to 20 years in prison.
Many of the defendants - a mixture of Atlanta public school teachers, testing
coordinators and administrators - were also convicted of other charges,
such as making false statements, that could add years to their sentences.
This was complicated trial that took six months to present and required eight
days of jury deliberations. It was a major commitment of investigative and prosecutorial
resources. But it was not investigated and prosecuted by the FBI and AUSAs,
but by state and local officials. In addition to the trial success, the prosecutors
secured 21 guilty pleas.
Atlanta's public schools, of course, did not engage in "the largest cheating
scandal in the nation's history." The big banks' cheating scandals left the
Atlanta educators in the dust.
The two obvious questions are why the educators cheated and how they got
caught. "High-stakes testing" cannot explain the scandal because we have had
such tests for over 50 years. The article explains the real drivers – compensation,
promotions, fear, and ego (aka "reputation").
"Officials said the cheating allowed employees to collect bonuses and helped
improve the reputations of both Dr. Hall and the perpetually troubled school
district she had led since 1999.
Investigators wrote in the report that Dr. Hall and her aides had 'created
a culture of fear, intimidation and retaliation' that had permitted "cheating
- at all levels - to go unchecked for years."
Any reader familiar with my work should be running over in their mind Citigroup's
vastly larger cheating frauds that senior managers produced by using exactly
the same tactics to produce hundreds of billions of dollars in fraud.
How did people become suspicious and decide to conduct a real investigation?
They realized that the reported results were too good to be true. That too is
directly parallel to Citi, where massive purchases of "liar's" loans known to
be 90% fraudulent supposedly led to massive profits.
The dozen educators who stood trial, including five teachers and a principal,
were indicted in 2013 after years of questions about how Atlanta students
had substantially improved their scores on the
Criterion-Referenced Competency Test, a standardized examination given
throughout Georgia.
In 2009,
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution started publishing a series of articles
that sowed suspicion about the veracity of the test scores, and Gov. Sonny
Perdue ultimately ordered an investigation.
Wow, a newspaper did a series of articles, and documented a scandal built
on deceit. Imagine if the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal were to
do an "unsparing" investigation into banking fraud – and into Attorney General
Eric Holder's refusal to prosecute. What if they actually looked at culpability
in the C-suites?
The inquiry, which was completed in 2011, led to findings that were startling
and unsparing: Investigators concluded that cheating had occurred in at
least 44 schools and that the district had been troubled by "organized and
systemic misconduct." Nearly 180 employees, including 38 principals, were
accused of wrongdoing as part of an effort to inflate test scores and misrepresent
the achievement of Atlanta's students and schools.
The investigators wrote that cheating was particularly ingrained in individual
schools - at one, for instance, a principal wore gloves while she altered
answer sheets - but they also said that the district's top officials, including
Superintendent Beverly L. Hall, bore some responsibility.
Dr. Hall, who died on March 2, insisted that she had done nothing wrong
and that her approach to education, which emphasized data, was not to blame.
"I can't accept that there's a culture of cheating," Dr. Hall
said in an interview in 2011. "What these 178 are accused of is horrific,
but we have over 3,000 teachers."
Of course, Hall's "approach to education" did not "emphasize data" – it emphasized
faux data – like Citi's accounting alchemists under Robert Rubin who
transmuted fraudulent net liabilities (liar's loans) into supposedly wondrously
valuable assets that had zero risk (Super Senior CDO tranches).
A more general point is in order. Atlanta is the culmination of destructive
national trends and failing to mention Houston in the story was unfortunate.
First, the "reinventing government" movement decided the public sector was bad
and the private sector was magnificent and said that the public sector should
adopt private sector approaches including quite specifically "performance pay"
based on quantitative measures. This brought to the public sector the perverse
incentives that were ruining the private sector and about to bring on Enron-era
fraud epidemic and then the most recent three fraud epidemics. Second, we were
assured by proponents of the change that a concern for "reputation" would trump
any perverse incentives. What the proponents failed to see, of course, was that
in both the private and public sectors the way to create a superb reputation
was to report inflated data.
Reputation, instead of the "trump" ensuring good conduct, was a leading motive
to engage in bad conduct. Third, we were told that giving public administrators
far more power to squash teachers was the key to success in education. Lord
Acton warned that absolute power leads to absolute corruption whether in Atlanta
or Citi's C-suite.
Houston should have been mentioned because the modern movement toward educational
fraud began in Houston under Rod Paige – who became Secretary of Education based
on massive fraudulent misrepresentation of data. Paige kicked off the testing
insanity, claiming it would produce objective, fact-based policies based on
what educational measures actually worked. As a famous
takedown of Paige's claims ends – the lesson is that it was too good to
be true. President Bush, however, bought it hook, line, sinker, bobber, rod,
and the boat Paige rowed out in.
In any event, if Fulton County, Georgia can jail educators who lie and gimmick
the data, Holder can send the elite bankers to prison on the same grounds.
lakewoebegoner, April 2, 2015 at 10:41 am
*** One has to wonder if the prosecutorial investment in bringing
down a public school test-cheating ring has less to do with concern
about the students and more to do with charter schools. ***
I believe it's even simpler than that…..prosecuting teachers is perfect
fodder for the local 11 o'clock news-you're prosecuting publiclly paid low-hanging
fruit, the crime is understandable (versus explaining accounting fraud or
intentional misvaluation of assets) and of course-my gosh, think of the
children!
NotTimothyGeithner, April 2, 2015 at 11:07 am
Local DAs have incentive to prosecute large cases, and Holder made sure
to make token plea deals with the banks. A successful state AG who brought
down a major financial player would destroy the Obama Administration just
by existing two years into the first term because there would be no excuse.
Plenty of loyal Team Blue voters if pressed will explain the lack of prosecution
as a GOP plot, but with a counter example in the papers they would be more
demoralized than they are.
RUKidding, April 2, 2015 at 12:11 pm
Neither Team Blue or Team Red voters want to confront reality and truly
see and acknowledge what's going on. The crooks in the District of Criminals
have perfected their Kabuki Show of "hiding" behind each other's skirts
and blaming the other side for all kinds of ills and perfidy. Tribalistic
authoritarians can be lazy and not have to think for themselves and really
DO something; just pass the clicker; lets all watch some "reality" tv show
instead. Talk about the matrix….
An example is my rightwing family members just recently celebrating quite
a bit that Harry Reid has announced his retirement – as IF that'll be this
amazingly good thing. Like: what will happen then? HOW, exactly, will "things
get better" just bc they can't kick Harry Reid around anymore.
Disclaimer: no love lost on my part vis Harry Reid. He's as much of a
crook and worthless waste of space as all of the others, no matter which
Team Jacket they wear. My take? What possible difference will it make if
Reid retires or stays in the Senate indefinitely?
RUKidding, April 2, 2015 at 10:59 am
Teachers have no money. Bankers have a TON of money. Sucks to be in the
99s.
Good comments. Right now, too, teachers have been deliberately painted
to be the evilest of the vile because unions! get paid too much! can't be
fired! blah de blah…. it's something easy for the masses to grasp – all
those dreadful overpaid teachers who can't be fired "robbing" us of our
taxes, while allegedly doing a totally shitty job. Yeah right. Of course
privatized school teachers would most definitely do a "better" jawb.
It's all "look over there!!!!!" while the bankers are the ones robbing
us blind deaf dumb stupid etc.
And yes, Charter Schools! Another way for the crooks at the top to rip
off the 99s! woot!
And the beat down goes on…..
djrichard, April 2, 2015 at 12:09 pm
I remember back when the Supreme Court was debating W vs Gore, I put
it to my neighbors that W would be under the influence of big oil and other
powers that be. One of my neighbors countered that Gore would be under the
influence of teachers. I was the minority opinion in that conversation.
RUKidding, April 2, 2015 at 12:14 pm
No love lost on my part vis Gore, but seriously??? LIke Gore is "under
the influence" of teachers??? Yeah, unions, but really? Like it's just so
ridiculous. Teachers v Big Oil. Uh, er, that's pretty much like David v
Goliath, but in this case Goliath/BigOil has totally crushed David/the 99s.
djrichard, April 2, 2015 at 12:37 pm
I'm surprised I found
this, but I think
this captures it.
Bush's bully-boy campaign tactics play to his strengths, albeit unstated
and unlovely ones. Many of the polls of the president have shown that
while people don't necessarily agree with the specific policies
he's pursued abroad many also intuitively believe that there's no one
who will hit back harder. There's some of that 'he may be a son-of-a-bitch
but he's our son-of-a-bitch' quality to the president's support on national
security issues.
This was from W v Kerry days. But I think the same principle was operating
during W v Gore. During 2004, the idea was to continue to inflict W on the
middle east. During 2000, I think the idea was to inflict W on the "deserving
elements" inside the US (whatever those deserving elements are/were at the
time).
Teachers if anything represent a "big tent" mind-set, one in which there
are no losers, or vice-versa one in which everyone is deserving of winning.
Hence teachers weren't divisive enough and therefore are/were seen as
part of the "problem".
"... In June, 38 community colleges announced plans to make free online materials standard in every course in some degree programs as part of a new effort coordinated by Achieving the Dream. Just a few weeks later, Gov. Jerry Brown of California, a Democrat, signed a 2016-17 budget that includes $5 million for community colleges in the state to create their own ZTC degrees ..."
"... Hal Plotkin, a longtime advocate of open education resources, or OER, says the moves could eventually save students billions of dollars. As he argued in a recent commentary, California's new ZTC program is "easily the most ambitious state-level effort to promote the use of OER in public higher education to date." ..."
The Chronicle of Higher Education By Goldie Blumenstyk July 12, 2016
It's been a big few weeks for the movement to replace commercial textbooks
with free online materials, thanks to the sudden rise of something called the
Zero Textbook Cost degree.
In June, 38 community colleges announced plans to make free online materials
standard in every course in some degree programs as part of a new effort coordinated
by Achieving the Dream. Just a few weeks later, Gov. Jerry Brown of California,
a Democrat, signed a 2016-17 budget that includes $5 million for community colleges
in the state to create their own ZTC degrees.
Hal Plotkin, a longtime advocate of open education resources, or OER,
says the moves could eventually save students billions of dollars. As he argued
in a recent commentary, California's new ZTC program is "easily the most ambitious
state-level effort to promote the use of OER in public higher education to date."
Yet while cheering both the California and Achieving the Dream initiatives,
Mr. Plotkin, a senior open-policy fellow at Creative Commons USA, argues that
college leaders could and should be doing far more to promote the use of free,
openly licensed materials, to prevent publishers from treating students "like
walking cash registers."
"... By Leith van Onselen is an economist and has previously worked at the Australian Treasury, Victorian Treasury, and Goldman Sachs. Originally published at MacroBusiness . ..."
Lambert here: It looks like the United States isn't the only country to have credentialism and
corruption problems in its universities; or too few jobs chasing too much student debt.
By Leith van Onselen is an economist and has previously worked at the Australian Treasury,
Victorian Treasury, and Goldman Sachs. Originally published at
MacroBusiness .
I have complained previously that Australia's universities have turned into 'degree factories',
whereby they teach as many students as possible to accumulate Commonwealth government funding through
HELP/HECS debts. At the same time, quality of teaching, and students' ability to secure subsequent
employment, remain distant priorities.
This view is evidenced by the escalation of total outstanding HELP loans, much of which will never
be repaid, putting increasing pressures on the federal Budget:
... ... ...
There is, however, one segment of society that has benefited greatly from the uncapping of university
places in 2009, which led to a
$2.8 billion taxpayer-funded bonanza for universities: vice chancellors. As reported in The
Australian earlier this week (
here and
here ), vice chancellors have seen their salaries balloon since the demand-driven university
system was implemented, with nine now earning more than $1 million per year:
Nine vice-chancellors earned more than $1 million each last year, with University of Sydney
chief Michael Spence topping the list with a salary package of $1,385,000. [Dr Spence's] salary
package has increased by more than 60 per cent since 2010 when he earned $849,000
In a classic university setting, the point of getting an education . . . is to become educated.
Employment prospects are incidental, as it is assumed that someone who has the capability and
perseverance to attain a degree has learned *how* to learn, how to negotiate the tricky choices
of young adulthood, and how to survive the many perils of academia, would be a good employment
prospect.
'degree factories' Hah. In Michigan we have "dropout" factories that accomplish the same objectives
– full employment at high wages for executives and administrators of said universities. As you
say "Nice work if you can get it!" Better have a phd and connections though .
"... The scholarly publishing world has become quite a racket. I work at a small
community college and our monograph budget has been eaten away over the years due
to the high & continually increasing costs of subscriptions to academic journals,
trade and general magazines. ..."
"... In 2015, Elsevier reported a profit margin of approximately 37% on revenues
of £2.070 billion. ..."
"... I'm sensing a resurgence of the conversation, what with trade pacts and
digital rights and whatnot. How can an abstraction have wants? Information may be
very cheap to reproduce but takes energy to maintain. ..."
As a librarian in Canada, I can tell you that my profession has long
advocated for open access to scholarly research. There are many institutions
with policies that ask or expect their faculty to publish in open access
journal or institutional repositories.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access
The scholarly publishing world has become quite a racket. I work
at a small community college and our monograph budget has been eaten away
over the years due to the high & continually increasing costs of subscriptions
to academic journals, trade and general magazines.
It is crazy that libraries in public institutions are paying so much
money to access research funded wholy or in part by themselves or other
public institutions. Advocating for open access and advising faculty about
their options and advocating that they not give away copyright to big publishers
like Wiley and Elsevier is part of what many academic librarians do these
days.
I'm sensing a resurgence of the conversation, what with trade pacts
and digital rights and whatnot. How can an abstraction have wants? Information
may be very cheap to reproduce but takes energy to maintain.
As a individual who graduated from Nampa(Idaho) High School before 1980,
I find the "Charter School" as a classic neoliberal and libertarian wet
dream. No collective contract interference, the support of Bill Gates(educated
exclusively in private schools) and another crony capitalism scheme. The
public education system has been fu**ked.
Worth noting: The "reformers" (like Michelle Rhee) promote merit pay
(because teachers are so financially motivated), (union-busting) charter
schools and testing, testing, testing as the means to improve educational
outcomes. No science validates this.
Yet with billionaire funding, "reformers" have even made a propaganda
film: "Waiting for Superman" touting Michelle Rhee's "tough love" approach
to school management (she fired lots of D.C. teachers), and holding up Finnish
schools as the ones to emulate.
Don't get me wrong, the Finns have great schools. But Waiting for Superman
neglects to mention that the Finnish teachers are well-paid, tenured and
unionized. Curious omissions, no?
So while the "reformers'" tactics fail scientific validation when compared
to educational outcomes, one thing does not fail: Educational outcomes correlate
strongly with levels of childhood poverty.
Finland's childhood poverty rate: 2%. Meanwhile, in the U.S., it's 23%
(and headed north).
Could this entire focus on schools out of their social context, without
any reference to what science says, be a gigantic campaign of misdirection,
distracting Joe Public from the plutocracy we live in?
The other cool thing about schools in Finland is the teachers stay with
their students as they move up in grades.
Years ago the gentleman who created the Finnish system was asked why
he didn't come to Amerika and help our system. The answer was Amerika is
head down and no one in power cares. Doomed
Chaster schools are about one thing, and one thing only. Wall street
gets access to (and takes a cut of) the cash flow stream of our tax money
before it gets to where we wanted it spent. All privatization efforts are
about this same thing.
Secure steady cash flows (and tax levies are one of the largest) have
a valur, and that value can be sold to private investors. That's what Wall
Street does with privatization; sell off the value of our taxes as cash
flow.
All of this means less of your tax money gets to where you want it to
go.
Many people believe that higher education is a de facto scam. Trump University, Donald Trump's
real-estate institution, was a de jure one.
First thing first, Trump University was never a university. When the "school" was established
in 2005, the New York State Education Department warned that it was in violation of state law
for operating without a NYSED license. Trump ignored the warnings. (The institution is now called,
ahem, "Trump Entrepreneur Initiative.") Cue lawsuits.
Trump University is currently the defendant in three lawsuits - two class-action lawsuits filed
in California, and one filed in New York by then-attorney general Eric Schneiderman, who told
CNN's New Day in 2013: "We started looking at Trump University and discovered that it was a classic
bait-and-switch scheme. It was a scam, starting with the fact that it was not a university."
Trump U "students" say the same. In his affidavit, Richard Hewson reported that he and his
wife "concluded that we had paid over $20,000 for nothing, based on our belief in Donald Trump
and the promises made at the [organization's] free seminar and three-day workshop." But "the whole
thing was a scam."
In fact, $20,000 is only a mid-range loss. The lead plaintiff in one of the California suits,
yoga instructor Tarla Makaeff, says she was "scammed" out of $60,000 over the course of her time
in Trump U.
How could that have happened? The New York suit offers a suggestion:
'The free seminars were the first step in a bait and switch to induce prospective students
to enroll in increasingly expensive seminars starting with the three-day $1495 seminar and ultimately
one of respondents' advanced seminars such as the "Gold Elite" program costing $35,000. At the
"free" 90-minute introductory seminars to which Trump University advertisements and solicitations
invited prospective students, Trump University instructors engaged in a methodical, systematic
series of misrepresentations designed to convince students to sign up for the Trump University
three-day seminar at a cost of $1495.'
The Atlantic, which got hold of a 41-page "Private & Confidential" playbook from Trump U, has
attested to the same:
'The playbook says almost nothing about the guest speaker presentations, the ostensible reason
why people showed up to the seminar in the first place. Instead, the playbook focuses on the seminars'
real purpose: to browbeat attendees into purchasing expensive Trump University course packages.'
To do that, instructors touted Trump's own promises: that students would be "mentored" by "handpicked"
real-estate experts, who would use Trump's own real-estate strategies.
But according to the New York complaint, none of the instructors was "handpicked" by Trump,
many of them came from fields having nothing to do with real estate, and Trump "'never' reviewed
any of Trump University's curricula or programming materials." The materials were "in large part
developed by a third-party company that creates and develops materials for an array of motivational
speakers and seminar and timeshare rental companies."
Furthermore, Trump's promises that the three-day seminar ($1,495) would include "access to
'private' or 'hard money' lenders and financing," that it would include a "year-long 'apprenticeship
support' program," and that it would "improve the credit scores" of students were empty.
Those empty promises are the subject of a new series of anti-Trump ads by superPAC American
Future Fund. According to Bob, "I never heard from anybody about giving me a list of hard-money
lenders". Kevin, another Trump U "student," says Trump University "ruined" his credit score. And
according to Sherri, a single mother who participated in Trump U: "It was all supposedly supervised
by Donald Trump, run by Donald Trump. All of it was just a fake."
In fact, Sherri isn't alone. No student ever met the Donald. Despite hints from Trump University
instructors that Trump was "going to be in town," "often drops by," or "might show up," he never
did. As Matt Labash recounted in The Weekly Standard: "At one seminar, attendees were told they'd
get to have their picture taken with Trump. Instead, they ended up getting snapped with his cardboard
cutout." Bob, above, had such an "opportunity".
There could be many more ads to come. The New York lawsuit alone represents some 5,000 victims.
Meanwhile, Trump - who maintains that Trump University was "a terrific school that did a fantastic
job" - has tried to bully his opponents out of the suit. Lawyers for Tarla Makaeff have requested
a protective order from the court "to protect her from further retaliation." According to court
documents, Trump has threatened to sue Makaeff personally, as well as her attorneys. He's already
brought a $100 million counterclaim against the New York attorney general's office.
But it's not working. Trump himself will have to take the witness stand in San Diego federal
court sometime during the election season - and because of the timeline of the cases, a "President
Trump" would be embroiled in these suits long after November.
Meanwhile, if there is any doubt that Trump U was designed to be a scam, The Atlantic puts
that to rest with a few other choice tidbits from that "Private & Confidential" playbook used
by Trump presenters:
'Every university has admission standards and Trump University was no exception. The playbook
spells out the one essential qualification in caps: "ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED IN FULL." Basically,
anyone with a valid credit card was "admitted" to Trump University. . . . If a member of the media
happened to approach the registration table, Trump staffers were instructed not to talk to him
or her under any circumstance. "Reporters are rarely on your side and they are not sympathetic,"
the playbook advises.'
And: At one point, the playbook advises Trump staffers: "If a district attorney arrives on
the scene, contact the appropriate media spokesperson immediately." Sounds legit.
"... The corruption I'm going to describe seems more along the lines of converting a public institution to serve private purposes (assuming higher education to be a public institution, which I do, because education is a public good)[3]. ..."
"... Now, human nature being what it is, a certain amount of empire-building and concern for one's rice bowl has always been inevitable, but when greed for one's self, or one's class, becomes the institutional driver, it's time for a thorough cleansing. ..."
"... New York University students carry some of the highest debt loads in the nation, a fact they are bound to remember through gritted teeth when they read the New York Times report about the school's loans to top faculty for vacation homes in places like Fire Island and the Hamptons. ..."
"... The house, which is owned by John Sexton, the president of New York University, was bought with a $600,000 loan from an N.Y.U. foundation that eventually grew to be $1 million, according to Suffolk County land records. ..."
"... I think this perfectly describes what I've observed with public school superintendents also. They are like 'The Music Man.' Selling dreams that our children will be smarter, better looking, and above average if we just get with the program. While our school district has a local in charge who appears to be here for the long term, a neighboring district had a 'Music Man' or rather, woman, who got the city to float a $10 million bond issue so every fourth grader could have an I-Pad. She then left to do the same (for a higher salary) in another state. Another, much poorer, district nearby wanted to get rid of a super who had allegedly threatened subordinates with bodily harm: they bought out her contract for $300,000. In a county with a population of 20,000 and ten percent unemployment. ..."
"... It is not only at the college level that those in charge are engaging is questionable behavior. It is a society wide problem. ..."
"... To a naive student with no experience in institutional politics, their stories of resentment, gossip, backbiting, and the politics of personal reputational destruction were like a glimpse into an unimagined world. ..."
"... It used to be that there was a saying in academe: the competition is so great because the stakes are so low. But, if there is a path to six or seven figures, now I see that there is serious cash to be banked to justify working in the university racket. ..."
I haven't posted on higher education before, and a series of posts on credentialism really should
focus on the institutions where those credentials are, in the main, granted. But rather than a serious
analytical piece on the state of the university, this will be a light-hearted romp through some spectacular
examples of executive malfeasance at NYU, Baylor, and Penn State.[1] (Tomorrow I'll look at the adjunct
system, and potential effects of
yesterday's NLRB decision . And there will be more posts to come on this topic, as I come to
understand it better.)
Before I begin, though, let's recall Zephyr Teachout's definition of corruption. Not a quid pro
quo - that's the Citizen's United doctrine, now supported by the Clinton campaign - but the use of
public office for private ends. What does corruption look like in a university setting, given that
some universities are private to begin with, and that "ends," in the ancient and tricky academe,
may not always be immediately evident?
Here's a story from the University of Maine, Maine's "flagship" university. Our last President,
Robert Kennedy, gave the contract for sports broadcasting to ClearChannel, thereby moving the profits
out of state, because he took the contract away from Stephen King's radio station (yes, that Stephen
King). Naturally, this ticked King off, and King - up to that point the university's largest donor,
and the funder of many good works round the state, like dental clinics and libraries - decided he
would no longer give to the university. (Kennedy then rotated out to the University of Connecticut,
for a hefty salary increase, where he was shortly
axed by the Regents for a cronyism scandal . Dodged a bullet, there, Maine!)
Dollying back to the larger picture, King came up through the much despised and derided English
Department, in the humanities, which powerful institution forces in the administration and the Board
of Trustees are shifting resources away from, in favor of more pragmatic, "business-friendly," corporate
majors (graduates, that is, that they themselves can hire[2]. Even though King was the university's
largest donor.)
Is there corruption here? I would argue yes, but I'm not sure that Teachout's definition quite
meets the case. The corruption I'm going to describe seems more along the lines of converting
a public institution to serve private purposes (assuming higher education to be a public institution,
which I do, because education is a public good)[3]. This is evident from the King story in two
ways. First, Kennedy is only one of
many university administrators
who stay a couple years at an institution, punch their ticket, and move on to a higher salaried position
elsewhere. Second, optimizing university curricula, grounds, personnel decisions, etc. for corporate
ends is about as corrupt as you can get (as are the concomitant rationalizations and cover-ups that
occur when scandal breaks). Now, human nature being what it is, a certain amount of empire-building
and concern for one's rice bowl has always been inevitable, but when greed for one's self, or one's
class, becomes the institutional driver, it's time for a thorough cleansing.
With that, let's look at the case of John Sexton, once President of NYU. (NYU is an important
nexus for the Democrat nomenklatura , so we'll have more to say about NYU in the future.)
NYU gave president's aspiring actor son apartment on campus
Jed Sexton, whose sole affiliation with NYU was his status as the president's son, for years
enjoyed a spacious faculty apartment while the university experienced a "severe" housing shortage,
The Post has learned.
In spring 2002, NYU ordered that a pair of one-bedroom apartments normally reserved for law
school faculty be combined into a lavish, two-story spread in the heart of Greenwich Village,
property records show.
The Harvard-educated Sexton, who was a 33-year-old aspiring actor at the time, shared the new
duplex with his newlywed wife, Danielle Decrette, for the next five years, according to documents
and people briefed on the situation.
That's despite the fact that NYU officials, just weeks earlier, had warned in a written report
of a "severe housing shortage" for faculty, "especially of larger units."
NYU Offers Top Talent a Path to Beachfront Property
New York University students carry some of the highest debt loads in the nation, a fact
they are bound to remember through gritted teeth when they read the New York Times report about
the school's loans to top faculty for vacation homes in places like Fire Island and the Hamptons.
The loans, which have gone to at least five faculty members in the medical and law schools
as well as university president John Sexton, sometimes get forgiven over time as their recipients
continue to work at the university. Mortgage loans apparently aren't unheard of as compensation
packages for professors and executives in tight real estate markets, but they're usually for homes,
not vacation properties.
From
the New York Times , which broke the story, it seems that Sexton gifted himself a house,
an "an elegant modern beach house that extends across three lots":
The house, which is owned by John Sexton, the president of New York University, was bought
with a $600,000 loan from an N.Y.U. foundation that eventually grew to be $1 million, according
to Suffolk County land records.
Since the late 1990s, at least five medical or law school faculty members at N.Y.U. have received
loans on properties in the Hamptons or Fire Island, in addition to Dr. Sexton.
While that feeling is understandable, it is important to note the economic truth that the markets
for different positions often dictate different levels of compensation, whether that is embodied
in salary payments, loans, or an overarching agreement about terms of employment. And, when we
commit to provide such compensation, we do so only when we are sure
that the benefit to the University far exceeds the cost.
First,
CEO compensation
and shareholder returns are inversely correllated ; even if we grant Dorph's premise, and a corporate
model for the university, it's just not clear that top compensation means top talent. Second, why
doesn't NYU simply pay its talent more? Why complicate matters by bringing in vacation housing?
Why not just write a fatter check? The answer can only be
arbitrage of some sort: NYU giving access to property that otherwise isn't on the market, tax
advantages of some kind, a better rate on the mortgage, or whatever; some way in which NYU uses its
muscle on behalf of the compensated. But that is, precisely, converting a public institution to serve
private purposes. Not to mention Sexton openly using NYU facilities to house his son and for his
own vacation home on Fire Island. Come on. Why is that not self-dealing? And the rest of looks suspiciously
like powerful faculty members feathering their own nests. "Why not? We deserve it."
The 19th and topmost floor of the building will be turned into a master-bedroom suite, where
Dr. Hamilton will have private exits - one from the bedroom and one from the bathroom - onto a
terrace overlooking Washington Square and, to the south, the financial district skyline, according
to documents filed with New York City.
Baylor University, the country's largest Baptist university and a bastion of Christian values,
has just been denounced in
a blistering
report by the
University's Board of Regents for "mishandling" - covering up might be a more apt description
- credible allegations of horrific sexual violence against female students, especially alleged
assaults by members of the football team. The Board of Regents said it was "shocked," "outraged"
and "horrified" by the extent of the acts of sexual violence on the campus, which covered years
2012 through 2015, and the failure of the University to take appropriate action to punish violators
and prevent future violations. The Board issued an "apology to Baylor Nation," fired the football
coach, and "transitioned" (the Regents' term) Baylor's President, Kenneth Starr, to the role of
Chancellor. Starr also was allowed to retain his lucrative Chair and Professorship of constitutional
law at Baylor's law school .
As Baylor's president from 2010 to 2016, the vexing question is the level of Starr's culpability
for the "shocking," "outrageous," and "horrendous" sex scandal. What exactly did Starr know? The
allegations of sexual violence on the campus were rampant and notorious, especially by the football
players. Starr had to know something about the extent of the University's response to the complaints,
and most likely the failure to address these complaints properly. Indeed, there were several Title
IX investigations by the Justice Department at the time that Starr must have known about. Moreover,
there are plenty of egregious examples of sexual violence on the campus that had to have been
reported. In one egregious case, an All-Big 12 football player was accused in 2013 of sexual violence
against a student. Although Waco police contacted university officials, nobody in the university
investigated the case until two years later, after a Title IX investigation was underway, and
media reports highlighted the case. This was after several other Baylor football players were
indicted and convicted of sexual assaults. It was only then that the University hired an outside
investigator. Notably, the headlines also prompted a public outcry, and a candlelight vigil at
Starr's residence.
The Board of Regents Report describes the breadth of the independent investigation into the
university's failure to properly address the University's dereliction. The investigators interviewed
numerous University officials, but there is no mention whether they interviewed Starr, and if
so, what he may have said. Starr may have claimed to be unaware of the repeated failures of
university officials to investigate these complaints, but is that contention credible? Starr presumably
had to know that aggressively investigating these allegations - indeed, as aggressively as he
investigated the sexual misdeeds of President Clinton - might have interfered with his intensive
multi-million dollar fundraising efforts to build a new and lavish football stadium, which opened
in 2014. And Starr may have believed that getting too deep into the mud of the roiling sexual
scandal would undermine the public perception of Baylor's "Christian commitment within a caring
community" - again the Board of Regents' description - as well as compromise the heroic efforts
of the Baylor football team to win a national championship.
So Starr is no longer the university's president. To be sure, it's a demotion of sorts. He
was allowed to keep his Chancellorship, which he just relinquished, but he still gets to keep
his Chair and Professorship at the Law School. One might think this is not a very harsh result,
certainly not if Starr knowingly violated federal law, or by his deliberate indifference allowed
serious criminal conduct to take place at the university he led.
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but Ken Starr is accused of ignoring sexual violence
at Baylor University mostly because doing something about it would have jeopardized a cash cow.
(Note that the disgraced Baylor football coach's salay,
$6 million , was six (6) times college President "Judge Starr." Starr will also retain his position
on the faculty. Priorities!)
The New York Times says what Alternet says , in its own more muffled language:
[Baylor] also fired the football coach, Art Briles, whose ascendant program brought in millions
of dollars in revenue but was dogged by accusations of sexual assault committed by its players
- an increasingly familiar combination in big-time college sports.
Among the firm's findings was that football coaches and athletics administrators at the school
in the central Texas city of Waco had run their own improper investigations into rape claims and
that in some cases they chose not to report such allegations to an administrator outside of athletics.
By running their own "untrained" investigations and meeting directly with a complainant, football
staff "improperly discredited" complainants' claims and "denied them a right to a fair, impartial
and informed investigation."
Starr wanted the revenues. Briles wanted the revenues, the facilities, the salaries, the ticket
to be punched, etc. Again, this is quite directly converting a public institution to serve private
purposes. And like NYU, Baylor appears to have learned nothing. Starr still has a job, and was never
censured. The full report was never released. And
from an ad taken out by Baylor alumni : "Thank You Judge Ken Starr - For your integrity, leadership,
character and humble nature."
ERIC J. BARRON: We actually have launched a whole program, which is titled
" Invent Penn State ," and there are several
different elements of this. One is to do more to incentivize people on campus to get their ideas
out into the marketplace. We have many, many student events that are competitions and have scholarship
funds at the end of it. The second part of it is to add more visibility to our intellectual property.
A third part is to build an ecosystem around our campuses that promote startups and partnerships
with communities.
A general view, in my opinion, is that many universities are focused on this topic as a source
of revenue, not as educational experiences for students and opportunities for them to do startups.
We have a lot of effort on the student side. The minors have expanded. I think we have six or
seven entrepreneurship minors now that are embedded in curriculum for different colleges if you
want. Last year, we started having any student with any major to be able to get all the credits
equivalent to a minor in business. There's a lot on that side plus startup weeks and other activities
with a scholarship side of it.
We have funded but have not yet cut the ribbon on a total of 20 incubators and accelerators
around the state of Pennsylvania associated with our campuses. In March, we cut the ribbon on
what's called Happy Valley Launch Box, which is here in State College, with the idea of having
30 startups in there at any one time. I think we had about 15 before even 30 days. All of these
have gone through some sort of vetting process or competition for which they were winners. It's
growing just left and right. Many of them, we've given them seed money and they've gotten many
times more money from their community and other partners that want to enable the students.
Never mind converting an entire student population into "winners" and "losers."
Never mind that 90% of start-ups
fail . Never mind that when startups succeed, it's as much a matter of luck, and especially the
luck of having been born into the right social network. Thomas Frank has already described Barron's
program, and where it leads. This is
the innovation cult ! Quoting Frank once more:
I just finished Thomas Frank's excellent Listen, Liberal , and he has a great rant about
"innovation," of which I will show a great slab here, from p 186 et seq. Frank even helpfully
quotes the more egregious bullshit tells, so I don't have to highlight them! Do read it in full.
After visiting hollowed out mill town Fall River, Frank goes to Boston:
And:
Let's also leave aside the issue of whether "innovation" culture increases "income inequality."
Suppose Penn State structures its curriculum to optimize for startups (and not for education as such;
critical thinking skills, the construction of narratives, the sciences, research, even (relatively)
humdrum majors like accounting). What happens to the students when 90% of their startups fail,
as history tells us they will? What will they have to fall back on, if everything has been optimized
for startups, and the rest of the university's assets have been stripped?
The future lies ahead on that question. For now, I'm uncertain whether "the innovation" cult is
corrupt as such, or not. Certainly it provides almost limitles opportunities for backscratching,
logrolling, bezzle creation, and so forth. And Barron seems to conceive of it as a big revenue generating
opportunity for Penn State (rather like the football team, if it comes to that). If the program fails,
and is seen to fail, will Penn State learn from the experience? It's hard to know, but
Barron's handling of the fallout from the Sandusky matter does not inspire confidence .
Conclusion
So, what we've got here is an NYU President handing a New York apartment, meant for faculty, to
his son, and what looks rather like powerful faculty members feathering their own nests with cheap
housing; we've got a Baylor President not wanting to cross a powerful and wealthy football team,
even to the extent of failing to handle a rape scandal; and at Penn State we've got a President who's
a member of the "innovation cult," when it's not at all clear this will benefit the student body
as a whole. Have any of these institutions learned from these experiences? No. Are these college
Presidents personally responsible for corruption at their universities - for converting a public
institution to serve private purposes? Sexton and Start, yes. For Barron, the jury is still out.
And these are the institutions of higher education that are granting credentials. Not a good look.
More examples from readers welcome!
NOTES
[1] I should disclose my priors and/or prejudices: I'm a university brat with a humanities
background. Family tradition mandates that I instinctively distrust college administrators, Big
Football, fraternities, and sororities (and, my parents would urge, for very good reasons). Only
the first two will be at issue here.
[2] That is, they're creating hires, as opposed to creating graduates some of whom might be
creative enough to come up with businesses that compete with their own.
[3] If you think that implies that neoliberalism is intrinsically corrupt, since it will put
everything up for sale, including itself, you're not wrong.
'First, Kennedy is only one of many university administrators who stay a couple years at an
institution, punch their ticket, and move on to a higher salaried position elsewhere.'
I think this perfectly describes what I've observed with public school superintendents
also. They are like 'The Music Man.' Selling dreams that our children will be smarter, better
looking, and above average if we just get with the program. While our school district has a local
in charge who appears to be here for the long term, a neighboring district had a 'Music Man' or
rather, woman, who got the city to float a $10 million bond issue so every fourth grader could
have an I-Pad. She then left to do the same (for a higher salary) in another state. Another, much
poorer, district nearby wanted to get rid of a super who had allegedly threatened subordinates
with bodily harm: they bought out her contract for $300,000. In a county with a population of
20,000 and ten percent unemployment.
It is not only at the college level that those in charge are engaging is questionable behavior.
It is a society wide problem.
It is not only at the college level that those in charge are engaging is questionable behavior.
It is a society wide problem.
That is my impression as well-corruption is a society wide problem from top to bottom. The
small town mayors, courts, police, newspapers, insiders, etc may be playing with small potatoes
but corruption is corruption whether it is $1000 or a $1,000,000. I know it can't be everyone
with a little power but way too many. Makes you doubt the whole system.
Greetings from one of those coworking spaces that Mr. Frank took to task in Listen, Liberal
.
Let me tell you a dirty little secret about this place. And, no, I'm not talking about who
left a lunch in the fridge for too long. This is an even dirtier secret. Here it is:
Most of us are not innovators.
That's right. I said it.
The truth is, most of us are working on things that are, well, pretty run of the mill. Guy
behind me is doing digital marketing work for his out-of-state employer, an ad agency. Lady over
there is doing marketing for a resort in Mexico. Oh, and the guy who's my best friend here? We're
both photographers. His other main hustle is graphic design and mine is writing for business.
We have a handful of what could be described as startups, but those businesses are definitely
in the minority.
Well we don't need a sh&t pot full of "innovators" . we need people that can do what they do
well. Does everybody have to create something "new"?? I don't think so.* Edison wasn't the greatest
guy in the world overall, but as he said getting something up is 99% perspiration and only 1%
inspiration – I think he would have spit at the word "innovation", btw.
In fact, he has another lesson for the "innovators" in that a lot of his perspiration was generated
due to his efforts in stealing ideas from other people. Which is going to happen to almost all
of the (if we take their optimistic slices) 10% that do come up with something anybody cares about.
*For a good example, I love the improvement of the American pub scene over the past few decades.
But the best beer and grub isn't the best because it is "innovative" - sometimes it is a bit different,
sometimes not - but because it is very, very well done.
Slim, in your home town town there is one of the perfumed princes that could have fit nicely
into Lambert's post. Us AZ residents are paying neoliberal scumbag a premium price for their "talents"
of enriching themselves.
Oh, brother. Ann Weaver Hart. Don't get me started.
Okay, I am started. So, here goes
A couple of summers ago, I was meeting with a longtime acquaintance and potential client on
the University of Arizona campus. Madame Presidente was about to move her office into Old Main,
which is the UA's oldest building. It's revered as this sacred space. Or something like that.
Any-hoo, I was in a pretty spacious office in a building near Old Main. But my meeting host
told me that Ann Weaver Hart's Old Main *bathroom* was bigger than that office.
Yeesh.
Oh, as for the work space, were you involved in the one that had a pirate theme? Because that
place was - and is - full of pump -n- dump startups.
'King came up through the much despised and derided English Department, in the humanities.'
Although not a product of the English department at my alma mater, Whatsamatta U., I knew some
professors in the department.
To a naive student with no experience in institutional politics, their stories of resentment,
gossip, backbiting, and the politics of personal reputational destruction were like a glimpse
into an unimagined world.
It used to be that there was a saying in academe: the competition is so great because the
stakes are so low. But, if there is a path to six or seven figures, now I see that there is serious
cash to be banked to justify working in the university racket.
Nowadays I bristle when someone describes me as "faculty," even though it's technically correct,
because it papers over the fact that some of the people doing the exact same job as me have full
employment, a full salary, and fringe benefits, where the people in my position get paid per credit
with no benefits. We are "permitted" to buy into university health insurance, at full cost, but
that's the extent of our bennies.
If you're getting to the employment situation in a further post, I'll save my more extensive
comments for that.
Update: one of the articles cited in this essay says Ken Starr resigned from Baylor Law School
and severed all ties with the university this past Friday.
As someone who has a university background, as a grad student in three different universities,
and short stints as a faculty member and an administrator (I was shoved out/left in disgust from
administration)- I attest that this kind of neoliberal thinking, which automatically generates
converting public responsibility to private advantage, is commonplace. As readers here know, the
university is a place where one must strive to present oneself - and simultaneously fool oneself
- as creative and independent-minded within the confines of the matrix. This is most pronounced
in the professional school because they are most beholden to corporate money. A final note: you
will find the best to the worst of humanity in universities.
One more for the honor roll: West Virginia University's former president Michael Garrison,
who ordered the granting of an M.B.A. to moral leper Mylan CEO and Epi-Pen price
optimizer Heather Bresch in 2007,
I have to repeat my favorite historical anecdote here (h/t the late, great Paul Goodman, from
his Compulsory Miseducation, I believe).
It seems that in the summer of 1650, while the faculty was away helping in the fields, Henry
Dunster sold Harvard to a group of Boston businessmen, creating the first Corporation in the New
World, and making himself "President" thereof.
Now Wikipedia claims that Dunster "set up as well as taught Harvard's entire curriculum alone
for many years, graduating the first college class in America, the Class of 1642". So perhaps
Dunster was simply ahead of his time in creating the prototype for Trump University.
Administrators in academia hold themselves to the same high ethical standards as officials
in government. In other words, they do whatever they can get away with, and then sputter about
future "transparency," and "doing better," when their misdeeds come to light.
This blather from Austin, Texas, could just as well have come from Washington, D.C.:
"I've read the report a half-dozen times in totality, and I found no willful misconduct
, no criminal activity on the part of any of the folks at the University of Texas
at Austin, and have told the Board of Regents that I intend to take no disciplinary action,"
he said.
"Can we do things better? You bet," he continued. "Should we have been more transparent?
Absolutely. Are we going to get this fixed? No doubt about it."
Mr. Powers pushed back against the report's suggestion that he had not been forthcoming,
saying he had been "truthful and not evasive" in his dealings with investigators.
My $2c; apologies that they're a bit unpolished: One question you/we might ponder is how (a
desire for) obvious nepotism engenders privatization, versus more "principled" demands
for privatization of public goods/services. To give a very brief summary of the developments since
WWII inspired by my reading of David Harvey's The Enigma of Capital : privatization became
important once western economies 'matured', because of how this meant that there were ever fewer
(obvious) opportunities for growth. And secondly because, once more and more people started getting
degrees, there was an explosion in the number of people who were "trained" (only) for middle/upper
management positions; for who there was fairly little demand in public institutions, probably
because workers had decent unions/voice, so that the people who ran those places couldn't easily
justify managerial metastasis and the taking away of job-related autonomy (to create demand for
"decision-makers") by creating cultures of institutionalized distrust (via yammering about the
importance of "accountability"). (Though the latter was/is still an issue, it gets worse the more
neoliberalized the organizational mode gets, because of neoliberalisms implicit (rational-actor)
misanthropic world view.) Those developments strike me as separate from the more narcissistic
( professional class/meritocratic-reasoning )-related forms of corruption/grift/etc. that
you discuss above, though.
(To clarify, Harvey doesn't talk about professionalization; that's just me combining observations
made by Graeber with those made by Tom Frank in Listen, Liberal .)
Harvey's book is great; as for Frank & Graeber, I was thinking of Graeber's remarks about what
he (in Debt) calls the crisis of inclusion (which he's also talked about elsewhere, e.g. in the
Army of Altruists essay in Revolutions in Reverse ). Graeber there (as I assume you recall)
only talks about the fact that those who don't belong to what Frank calls the professional class
(and those who self-identify with them), only have the army and the church open to them if they
wish to pursue goals other than accumulating money/power; yet the higher-ed explosion must've
also had enormous consequences for the supply of people with managerial and similar training.
But I only started pondering that question recently, after reading Frank woke me up to the obvious.
How about Cooper Union president Jamshed Bharucha - who managed to screw up the school's endowment
that had been in place since 1859. Check out the movie "Ivory Tower".
NYU is a school run by money, and it's so transparent that for a board populated by billionaires,
run by a press-shy guy who helped a lot of them become billionaires, that they prop up the flamboyant
Sexton's supposed fundraising abilities and
"imperial" presidency. Fortunately for Sexton and NYU, he's paid enough money to take the
press's lashings like a good boy.
But surely such a mediocre pedant isn't the mastermind behind the bloated, technocratic, real
estate development company and vanity project (which also offers classes, which are taught by
#publicintellectuals).
Pam Martens has written several posts at Wallstreetonparade talking about NYU's corruption,
connections to Wall St, and Jack Lew. Don't have links handy but easy to Google.
I would like to point out that Chancellors Linda Katehi (UC Davis)and Nicholas Dirks (UC Berkeley)
have both recently resigned under pressure from UC Top Honcho Janet Napolitano. It seems Administrator
transgressions (impunity and self-dealing) are finding its way into the "sunlight".
Some people starting up can get "small loans" of $1,000,000 from the old man and have those
kinds of resources to fall back on if they flop. The other 99.99% of us? Not so much. How is this
innovation dogma supposed to work for those of us who can't buy our way into the Creative Class?
Stress kill. Stress combined with mental overload is even more dangerous.
Notable quotes:
"... One in three female students in the UK has a mental health problem, a survey suggests. This compared with about a fifth of male undergraduates, the YouGov survey of 1,061 students found. Overall, some 27% of the students said they had a mental health problem. ..."
"... Of those surveyed, 30% of males and 27% of females said they would not feel comfortable in talking about their mental illness with friends or family. ..."
One in three female students in the UK has a mental health problem,
a survey suggests. This compared with about a fifth of male undergraduates,
the YouGov survey of 1,061 students found. Overall, some 27% of the students said they had a mental health problem. This rose to 45% among
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students.
Universities UK said institutions were working hard to develop good services that linked in with
the NHS.
Of those students who said they had a mental health problem:
In May,
statistics published by the ONS showed student suicides had risen to their highest level since
numbers were first recorded in 2007.
These figures - for 2014 - showed there were 130 suicides in England and Wales among full-time
students aged 18 or above. Of those, 97 deaths were for male students and 33 were females.
There has been concern about the level of mental health support services provided by universities. But the survey showed students were broadly aware of the mental health services offered by their
universities.
Seeking help
Anyone affected by mental health issues can contact a number of organisations, such as:
Some 18% of students had already made contact with university mental health services, and, of
those who had, nearly nine out of 10 had seen a counsellor.
Of those surveyed, 30% of males and 27% of females said they would not feel comfortable in talking
about their mental illness with friends or family.
Challenging stigmas
Chief executive of Universities UK Nicola Dandridge said universities took student mental health
"very seriously". "For some students, an unfamiliar higher education environment can be stressful, particularly
for those who already have an underlying illness. "Some students are reluctant to disclose their difficulties, which can also present a challenge
for universities seeking to support them."
But she added that the development of policies and anti-stigma campaigns was beginning to address
these issues. "The challenge for universities is to build on the support services and external links that exist
already, enabling referral to the NHS where necessary," she said. "It is important to remember that university wellbeing services, however excellent, cannot replace
the specialised care that the NHS provides for students with mental illnesses."
Universities UK also said it had issued guidance to all universities last year with advice on
dealing with students with mental health issues.
What's happening is the same what happed with them in the USSR. Only Party (in case of
neoliberalism replace the Party with "financial oligarchy") sanctioned content can be taught
and the stress is on neoclassical economics as this is one of the foundation of neoliberalism (along
with liberalism, Ann Rand, and similar psudo theories).
Notable quotes:
"... Chipping away at the humanities in schools jeopardizes the issues of social justice in education. Arguably, it is safe to say that the humanities and any liberal arts program are undervalued specifically because they involve knowledges, practices and traditions that usually cannot adhere to immediate short-term use ..."
The number of college students majoring in
English, according to some contested reports, has plummeted. In general, the humanities are taking
a back seat to more "pragmatic" majors in college. Students, apparently, are thinking more about
jobs than about general learning. Given this trend, should schools be scaling back on the humanities?
... ... ...
Some might say that since top universities like MIT have decided to focus on management, business
analytics, finance and mathematical economics (or trading), secondary schools should follow suit.
It would be a mistake, however, for secondary schools to cave to this argument and scale back on
the humanities.
The piece goes on to explain how, back in 2010, MSNBC anchor
Tamron Hall said, "Students
wanting to take up majors like art history and literature are now making the jump to more-specialized
fields like business and economics, and it's getting worse." This comment was juxtaposed with a chart
that indicated a spiral. Prominent New York Times journalist
David Brooks also jumped on the bandwagon when he remarked, "The humanities [have] turned from
an inward to an outward focus." The "sky is falling" myth then led to serious underfunding, becoming
a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bérubé argues that mainstream accounts of the decline of the humanities in undergraduate education
are "factually, stubbornly, determinedly wrong." He says there was a plummet, but it was between
1970 and 1980.
In reality, English isn't dying; it's just that at one time, it was unprecedentedly popular. English
majors rose from
17,000
to 64,000 over a span of 30 years, from 1940 to 1970, and then declined to 34,000 by the 1990s.
This does not mark a death to the humanities.
Are fields like art history and literature really "elite, niche-market affairs that will render
students unemployable," as Bérubé argues? Are students abandoning the humanities because they are
"callow,
market-driven careerists?" No, this is not true. Bérubé states that "undergraduate enrollment
in the humanities have held steady since 1980 (in relation to all degree holders, and in relation
to the larger age cohort), and undergraduate enrollments in the arts and humanities combined are
almost precisely where they were in 1970."
... ... ...
Chipping away at the humanities in schools jeopardizes the issues of social justice in education.
Arguably, it is safe to say that the humanities and any liberal arts program are undervalued specifically
because they involve knowledges, practices and traditions that usually cannot adhere to immediate
short-term use by preservation seeking administrations and teachers.
... .,. ...
Dan Falcone has a master's degree in modern US history from LaSalle University in Philadelphia and
currently teaches secondary education. He has interviewed Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, Richard Falk,
William Blum, Medea Benjamin and Lawrence Davidson. He resides in Washington, DC.
"... In the USA, those at the bottom collaborate based on the 'promise' that the American Dream offers them a shot at the top, if they hold the party line. ..."
"... What they do not realize is that the "party" counts on the weight of their mass to hold that line for THEMSELVES ALONE. The people who back it all are thrown under the bus with great regularity. They never see it until the wheel roll over them and by that time they have sucked millions of others into the illusion that they are the "one" special one who will make it from the bottom and be welcomed as a peer into the 1%. ..."
"... It is not so surprising. Hope is a hard thing to kill and an easy thing to exploit. ..."
"... He is being sued for "deceptive business practices" which is to do with the content of his so-called University courses. You can be a snake oil salesman and pressure people into buying more expensive stuff, but you can't sell them lemons. There are consumer protection laws to prevent that, and that's what these lawsuits are doing. ..."
"... 'Just following orders', which is basically what you are trying to justify, in a business context, has been discredited as a modus operandi and is not a legal defence (hence the lawsuit, with which I wish them the very best of luck). ..."
"... Meanwhile, the more one learns about the judge and the more this judge is in conflict of interest (IMO). This judge is for open borders and illegal immigration, is a strong advocate for La Raza (yes, that anti-White and pro-illegal Mexican hate group), has links to the Clintons (Hillary) and appointed two prosecutors to the case who are extremely generous donators towards Hillary, including paying her significant $ for speeches. ..."
"... Though, I think, not everybody who attends boarding school becomes a sociopath. But sociopathy runs in families. And sociopathic parents tend to put kids into boarding school or reformatory for that matter. Just to get rid off them. ..."
"... In such a naked, dog-eat-dog society, there should also be no personal bankruptcy protection or ring-fencing for those who fail in business. All their assets siezed to pay off creditors. Not sure Trump would be so keen on that. ..."
"... Shamelessness is not a crime in the USA, but crime (fraud) is still a crime. ..."
"... Nothing will come out of this, that will effect the election. The practices documented in the papers released is a high pressure sales tactic which are used by many. The focus should be on what Trump stands for and bring the fight to him. Hillary Clinton is the wrong person in the wrong year to be able to take on Trump. She is flawed beyond repair, and is fighting not to lose, so careful with her words that they don't resonate. ..."
"... He's being sued, so it's a civil case. Documents can be made public if it's in the public interest to know about them. And when it looks very much like a con man is on his way to the Whitehouse, I'd call that a big yes for public interest. ..."
"... Killary attacks the MANY women who accuse her husband of rape, lies to the grand jury over White Water, to congress and the people about Benghazi, runs guns to ISIS, takes money from Saudi Arabia the worst women's rights violator, lies about being shot at landing in Bosnia, approves uranium mining deal to Russian concerns while SOS and receives millions to her foundation at the same time, starts an unregistered hedge find in Columbia of all places, takes millions from banks and you fault Trump for greed and making his own way without influence peddling while in public office. ..."
"... A snake oil salesman, a 'boiler room' operator, a phishing scammer, that's all Trump is. Honestly, is there any lie this sociopath could not tell? Is there any con game too crooked and despicable for even him? ..."
"... Sounds like a third world country with no social contract other than the "opportunity" to exploit one another. ..."
"... HRC was paid $385,000 for 3 speeches given to Goldman Sachs, nearly 10 times what the Trump 3 day course costs per person. Based on the speeches we hear from HRC, what could have been in these speeches that made them so valuable? Afterward there may have been the same buyer's remorse felt by Trump-course attendees. The comments that say that the U.S. is full of scams like this are on target, starting with the $1 lottery ticket. It is the dream that brought and brings people to the U.S., and if it turns out to be an expensive nightmare, the answer is "caveat emptor." ..."
More than 400 pages of released Trump University files describe how staff should target
financial weaknesses to sell high-priced real estate courses
A federal judge has given the world an unprecedented glimpse into the ruthless business practices
Donald Trump used to build his business empire.
US district court judge Gonzalo Curiel on Tuesday made public more than 400 pages of Trump University
"playbooks" describing how Trump staff should target prospective students' weaknesses to encourage
them to sign up for a $34,995 Gold Elite three-day package.
Trump University staff were instructed to get people to pile on credit card debt and to target their
financial weaknesses in an attempt to sell them the high-priced real estate courses.
The documents contained an undated "personal message" from Trump to new enrollees at the school:
"Only doers get rich. I know that in these three packed days, you will learn everything to make a
million dollars within the next 12 months."
The courses are now subject to legal proceedings from unhappy clients.
This shows someone who was absolutely shameless in his willingness to lie
to people - Eric Schneiderman
Judge Curiel released the documents, which are central to a class-action lawsuit against Trump
University in California, despite sustaining repeated public attacks from Trump, who had fought to
keep the details secret.
Curiel ruled that the documents were in the public interest now that Trump is "the front-runner in
the Republican nomination in the 2016 presidential race, and has placed the integrity of these court
proceedings at issue".
... ... ...
The playbook contains long sections telling Trump U team members how to identify buyers and push
them to sign up for the most expensive package, and to put the cost on their credit cards.
"If they can afford the gold elite don't allow them to think about doing anything besides the
gold elite," the document states.
If potential students hesitate, teachers are told to read this script.
As one of your mentors for the last three days, it's time for me to push you out of your comfort
zone. It's time for you to be 100% honest with yourself. You've had your entire adult life
to accomplish your financial goals. I'm looking at your profile and you're not even close to
where you need to be, much less where you want to be. It's time you fix your broken plan, bring
in Mr. Trump's top instructors and certified millionaire mentors and allow us to put you and
keep you on the right track. Your plan is BROKEN and WE WILL help you fix it. Remember you
have to be 100% honest with yourself!
Trump University staff are instructed in how to persuade students to put the cost of the course
on their credit cards, even if they have just battled to pay off debts.
Do you like living paycheck to paycheck? ... Do you enjoy seeing everyone else but yourself
in their dream houses and driving their dreams cars with huge checking accounts? Those people
saw an opportunity, and didn't make excuses, like what you're doing now.
Trump staff are told to spend lunch breaks in sign-up seminars "planting seeds" in potential students
minds about how their lives won't improve unless they join the programme. They are also told to ask
students personal questions to discover weaknesses that could be exploited to help seal the deal.
Collect personalized information that you can utilize during closing time. (For example: are
they a single parent of three children that may need money for food? Or are they a middle-aged
commuter that is tired of traveling for 2 hours to work each day?)
New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman, who has also
sued Trump University
, renewed his attacks on Trump on Tuesday. "You are not allowed to protect
the trade secrets of a three-card Monte game," Schneiderman said ahead of the document's release.
"If you look at the facts of this case, this shows someone who was absolutely shameless in his willingness
to lie to people, to say whatever it took to induce them into his phony seminars," Schneiderman said.
Urban2 -> Karlyn Isaak Lotney
1 Jun 2016 09:17
This is no more of a fraud then lotion for baldness or pills for losing weight. Or anything else
being sold for that matter. And it's district attorney that is using terms like shamelessness
and lying. Those are defamatory terms, not legal.
Jonathan Shearer -> Susan Victoria
1 Jun 2016 09:14
Could you please name the prosecutors, giving dates and amounts of these donations? Can I have
verified quote from Curiel where he expresses his STRONG support for La Raza? Exactly what are
these "links" to Hillary?
No judge is in favor of illegal immigration, though he may be in favor of changes to law to
change the status of illegal immigrant and/or to make legal immigration easier. Judges are not
in favor of illegal activity.
Let's make America honest and verifiable (again).
Urban2 -> CaptainRogers
1 Jun 2016 09:13
If it were a civil case, they wouldn't have been in possession of Trump's internal documents.
Besides nothing would stop the plaintiffs from disclosing documents themselves. Public interest
would therefor not even be an issue. Now of course I'm not aware of all the intricacies, but it
does look sinister. At least to me.
Sanibel -> Paul Freeman
1 Jun 2016 09:10
"And I think that they want a president who is not afraid of making tough, ruthless decisions
(in America's interests)." The US already does that with poor defenseless countries. Problem is
if Trump tries that with powerful countries( with nukes like China) it may not end so well...
SakkiSelznick Susan Victoria 1 Jun 2016 09:10
"Collect personalized information that you can utilize during closing time. (For example: are
they a single parent of three children that may need money for food?" The judge didn't write that.
Mr. Trump's university did.
Debra Smith -> J Nagarya
1 Jun 2016 09:10
In the USA, those at the bottom collaborate based on the 'promise' that the American Dream
offers them a shot at the top, if they hold the party line.
What they do not realize is that the "party" counts on the weight of their mass to hold
that line for THEMSELVES ALONE. The people who back it all are thrown under the bus with great
regularity. They never see it until the wheel roll over them and by that time they have sucked
millions of others into the illusion that they are the "one" special one who will make it from
the bottom and be welcomed as a peer into the 1%.
It is not so surprising. Hope is a hard thing to kill and an easy thing to exploit.
SakkiSelznick -> RogerColin
1 Jun 2016 09:07
A sales playbook that teaches seeking out "a single parent with three kids who struggles to buy
food" and targeting them for credit card debt" is not only cruel but illegal. And it's far from
buying low and selling high.
tonichicago -> Wordblind
1 Jun 2016 09:07
He appeals to those who hate "big government". Ironically, they don't seem to realise that his
threats to curtail the "nasty and dishonest" press simply mean that we will end up with unfettered
government. There will be no accounting to anyone.
tonichicago -> Aaron Rosier
1 Jun 2016 09:04
He is being sued for "deceptive business practices" which is to do with the content of his
so-called University courses. You can be a snake oil salesman and pressure people into buying
more expensive stuff, but you can't sell them lemons. There are consumer protection laws to prevent
that, and that's what these lawsuits are doing.
He sold them all a bill of goods.
Debra Smith -> downhillracer117
1 Jun 2016 09:01
You have hit at the crux of the matter.
This is TEAM BASED. Americans are indoctrinated to TEAM from very early in life. Every sport
event, the high school team, the prom and everything in college life is TEAM BASED. You are "in"
or you are "out" (meaning human or not human) by the colour of your jersey. Truth, justice, facts,
are all dismissed based on what team you belong to.
ID446302
1 Jun 2016 09:00
An American success story? Exceptionalism to its core. Hidden in the shadows of our IRS and our
exceptional judicial, until you threaten the political establishment by running for president.
J Nagarya -> bobkolker
1 Jun 2016 09:00
He is being sued NOW, and he is attacking the judge because he KNOWS he is being exposed for the
crook he is.
Stop defending criminality: he is being sued for his tactics because they are NOT legal.
Pay attention to the news reports on his methods, as exposed in the Trump "University" materials
he DIDN'T WANT released, but which now the court has released as result of his baseless slanders
against the judge presiding over the case because HE KNOWS they expose his criminality.
keepsmiling -> Echocell
1 Jun 2016 09:00
Hate to tell you this, but what was written in the playbook is called "sales techniques."
It's used by every company on the planet that has a product to sell. Don't hate the player,
hate the game (capitalism).
'Just following orders', which is basically what you are trying to justify, in a business
context, has been discredited as a modus operandi and is not a legal defence (hence the lawsuit,
with which I wish them the very best of luck).
You have to fight the players - 'capitalism' is too nebulous a concept to 'fight', so you end
up not seeing the wood for the trees. Exposing them one at a time is fine - it's all part of the
big picture and is educational. There's a lot of educating to be done with regard to Trump's followers.
Susan Victoria
1 Jun 2016 08:56
Here we go again... the public will be fed a series of quotes, almost all taken out of context,
designed to bash Trump and spread even more hate.
Meanwhile, the more one learns about the judge and the more this judge is in conflict of
interest (IMO). This judge is for open borders and illegal immigration, is a strong advocate for
La Raza (yes, that anti-White and pro-illegal Mexican hate group), has links to the Clintons (Hillary)
and appointed two prosecutors to the case who are extremely generous donators towards Hillary,
including paying her significant $ for speeches.
Very interesting testimony coming out of Clinton's deposed staff re her email server, including
she didn't have a password... the mysterious fire... and more. But who cares? Trump-bashing is
the order of the day.
youssou -> Ortho
1 Jun 2016 08:53
Lol interesting theory ... ;-)
I had to google it ... and yes: http://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-military-academy-closes-2015-9?IR=T
Though, I think, not everybody who attends boarding school becomes a sociopath. But sociopathy
runs in families. And sociopathic parents tend to put kids into boarding school or reformatory
for that matter. Just to get rid off them.
Guthrum -> MartinMckay
1 Jun 2016 08:49
In such a naked, dog-eat-dog society, there should also be no personal bankruptcy protection
or ring-fencing for those who fail in business. All their assets siezed to pay off creditors.
Not sure Trump would be so keen on that.
To do otherwise would be rewarding failure, using the state to prop up losers.
AntonZ1 -> BiggyZ
1 Jun 2016 08:49
Donald Trump University is not a religion. Drumpf is more cult leader than religious scholar.
Karlyn Isaak Lotney Urban2
1 Jun 2016 08:47
Shamelessness is not a crime in the USA, but crime (fraud) is still a crime.
ClearItUp
1 Jun 2016 08:45
Nothing will come out of this, that will effect the election. The practices documented in
the papers released is a high pressure sales tactic which are used by many. The focus should be
on what Trump stands for and bring the fight to him. Hillary Clinton is the wrong person in the
wrong year to be able to take on Trump. She is flawed beyond repair, and is fighting not to lose,
so careful with her words that they don't resonate.
CaptainRogers -> Urban2
1 Jun 2016 08:44
He's being sued, so it's a civil case. Documents can be made public if it's in the public
interest to know about them. And when it looks very much like a con man is on his way to the Whitehouse,
I'd call that a big yes for public interest.
Tom Voloshen
1 Jun 2016 08:42
Killary attacks the MANY women who accuse her husband of rape, lies to the grand jury over
White Water, to congress and the people about Benghazi, runs guns to ISIS, takes money from Saudi
Arabia the worst women's rights violator, lies about being shot at landing in Bosnia, approves
uranium mining deal to Russian concerns while SOS and receives millions to her foundation at the
same time, starts an unregistered hedge find in Columbia of all places, takes millions from banks
and you fault Trump for greed and making his own way without influence peddling while in public
office.
OpineOpiner
1 Jun 2016 08:40
A snake oil salesman, a 'boiler room' operator, a phishing scammer, that's all Trump is. Honestly,
is there any lie this sociopath could not tell? Is there any con game too crooked and despicable
for even him?
PostTrotskyite -> MartinMckay
1 Jun 2016 08:36
Sounds like a third world country with no social contract other than the "opportunity" to
exploit one another.
Btw, supplanting content with the cheer leading, rhetoric, hate, and cheap one liners is the
creed of the Trumpeteers.
AntonZ1 -> Aaron Rosier
1 Jun 2016 08:34
A 'predatory capitalist' is a thief, no matter how "biased" or "naive" you are.
Aaron Rosier -> ElfenLied2
1 Jun 2016 08:28
Clinton is already tirelessly working to drive voters away with her beams of blind arrogance,
pretentiousness, divisiveness, unwillingness to accept/acknowledge consequence of her glaring
failures of judgement, the naked pandering, the belligerent "campaign theme", and of course all
of the old hits (Slick Billy and the Slimers, NAFTA, welfare reform, KXL, TPP, Fracking, Wall
Street Transcripts, etc).
Donald Trump will feast on Clinton's garbage, while slowly moderating his platform positions,
and steering his rhetoric slowly back to professional (from simpleton).
karmarama -> elemenohpee
1 Jun 2016 08:21
You seem to misunderstand me. Like several other posters on this thread, I am suggesting that
Trump's practices are part of the wider world of business, and not so far from normal (not, in
my view the same as 'acceptable') practices. The use of the name 'University' was certainly fraud,
but why was it not caught right away by whoever is in charge of that in the US? His sales pitch,
while pretty sleazy, is not far away from normal practice in brokerage, real-estate, holiday sales
and many other areas of business, including the bottom of the education industry - indeed, doesn't
every university 'oversell' itself to students, hence the need for independent surveys, and aren't
there a host of 'degree for sale' schools in the US?
As a socialist I consider it all to be 'unacceptable', and I hope you don't take me for a Trump
supporter, which I suspect you do. He is even more unacceptable than the Bush clan was! However
those who are using this to smear Trump are walking a tightrope between 'normal' and 'fraud' when
I think that the distinction is not at all clear.
ID673139 -> Carl123
1 Jun 2016 08:18
Clinton has a pretty shady past as well, like covering up potential rape allegations for Bill.
I'm not saying it is a defence at all, but as soon as Trump becomes a presidential candidate
suddenly its front page news. He not done anything illegal, and if your so upset over these business
practices why not look at the industry as a whole and people who do skin people with these practices.
I said it before with Clinton or Trump either of them is a bad choice for president.
bbqtv -> ConnecticutNutmeg
1 Jun 2016 08:18
Student loans are encouraged even for courses & "degrees" that have no future earning potential.
Colleges & universities increase non teaching & non research "staff" using these funds because
they have money to spend for which there is NO accounting. [Why do you need to hire two assistants?
So I don't have to teach!"
ConnecticutNutmeg
1 Jun 2016 08:10
Trump U. apparently targeted adults-not teenagers.
If only all the millions of students who were coerced by high school guidance counselors and
campus administrators to sign contracts for government student loans, and are now on the hook
for hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt without any good job prospects in this Obama economy,
could sue the government for failing them as these students are suing Trump. Many of these students
had no business going on to college and many drop out without getting the degree-but they still
owe the money.
By having the students sign these loan agreements (not their parents) , government considers
college students adults . But when it comes time to repay these loans, all of a sudden all the
Democrats whine about these poor kids and their debt. Make up your mind. Are they old enough to
take on the responsibility of signing a contract or not? If not, perhaps they should not be given
the ballot either.
Muz Murray -> c0n0r
1 Jun 2016 08:03
Just about everything, if past presidents and their cronies are anything to go by. They are in
it for the business of making money and feathering their own nests, while blithely blabbering
about doing it 'for America.'
Martin Cohen
1 Jun 2016 07:55
I just don't understand how the US has wound up with a Clinton or Trump choice. Can the electorate
be so politically disengaged as to allow one of these two into the most powerful job in the Western
world? If Trump is simply the anti-establishment protest vote, that is all very well but someone
as divisive and offensive as him can never unite a country. There are already protests on the
streets that thankfully haven't turned too violent yet but it won't take much for heavily armed
riot police to trigger something unthinkable. Being President always seemed to be a unifying job
that commanded loyalty and respect even from staunch opponents. I always admired that about the
Presidency. I don't see much evidence of it these days. Has respect for politics and politicians
reached at an all time low in The States too? Trump isn't the answer, nor is a shady Clinton.
We need politics and our politicians to once again embrace the concept of public service, morality
and the precise rule of law. It would have been tremendous if more principled candidates had emerged
victorious and given a much needed shot of public confidence in such a maligned vocation. I fear
for the future. We may have stopped the cycle of European wars but globally it's more dangerous
than ever. A competent steady hand on the tiller is what's needed now, especially in America.
Paul Freeman
1 Jun 2016 07:47
Unfortunately, american's tend to believe that businesses should be ruthless - except, of course,
if it is them who has been the victim of a ruthless scam. And I think that they want a president
who is not afraid of making tough, ruthless decisions (in America's interests). So it would not
surprise me if these revelation actually boost Trump's popularity.
Tommo68 -> HardboiledChicken
1 Jun 2016 07:39
anyone who can stump up 35 grand for a three day course doesn't need the course in the first place...
HiramsMaxim -> garth25
1 Jun 2016 07:11
I'm not going to analyse all 50 States. US elections come down to a very few swing States.
Those three are the most important.
The "Latino" vote in Florida is primarily not Mexican. Assuming legal immigrants will automatically
support illegals from a different country is probably not wise. The real power in Florida is the
retirees, although as Florida's population continues to grow, that is diminishing.
I very much doubt bill Clinton can capture white rural voters from Trump.
Clinton has nowhere near the support that Obama had among black voters. And, it doesn't do any
good to win California with a bigger margin, the electoral votes remain the same.
I have no idea what the outcome will be, but I can say that Mrs. Clinton's huge lead has evaporated
in about a month.
Tom Voloshen -> Maharaja Brovinda Singh
1 Jun 2016 07:09
We came we saw he died...the human Killary.....
Tom Voloshen 1 Jun 2016 07:09
The US keeps the the piece around the world using 720 military bases in foreign countries under
the direction of people like Killary and the result is 15 years of war, death, destruction, millions
dead, countries dissolved, missile batteries ringing Russia, our economy debt/GDP equal to Greece
with NO END INSIGHT.....and you speak about Trump's lack of success? Lets talk of Killary's, Obama's,
Bush's, Billy's....vote for anyone but Killary.
RussZimm
1 Jun 2016 07:07
HRC was paid $385,000 for 3 speeches given to Goldman Sachs, nearly 10 times what the Trump
3 day course costs per person. Based on the speeches we hear from HRC, what could have been in
these speeches that made them so valuable? Afterward there may have been the same buyer's remorse
felt by Trump-course attendees. The comments that say that the U.S. is full of scams like this
are on target, starting with the $1 lottery ticket. It is the dream that brought and brings people
to the U.S., and if it turns out to be an expensive nightmare, the answer is "caveat emptor."
Karen Poyser -> HardboiledChicken
1 Jun 2016 07:06
What a horrible way to see the world! These are vulnerable people being prayed upon, desperation
can make people do stupid things. Considering all the ''american dream'' capitalist propaganda
thrust on people from the minute they are old enough to comprehend, its surprising more don't
fall for this sort of thing.
tempestteacup
1 Jun 2016 07:27
Am I alone in finding the steady drip of tidbits regarding Trump's business practices interminable?
It is not news and it is not even particularly illuminating. This is all known grown that merely
lends him greater exposure and entrenches his supporters in their view that he is the victim of
an establishment conspiracy to smear, discredit and misunderstand.
Meanwhile, we have next to nothing on the devastating IG report on Clinton's e-mail server. We
have almost no analysis on how the Republican Party is quietly, begrudgingly, rallying around
Trump at exactly the moment that the Democrats are doing the opposite and degenerating into a
fractious mess because they meretriciously anointing a terrible candidate 18 months ago.
Trump has received millions of votes. He has decimated a crowded Republican field, most of them
smooth political operators with huge financial backing. This did not happen because there are
millions of racists in America. It is because we are entering a potentially bloody phase in America's
Culture Wars, with an increasingly mindless adherence to identity politics pitted against the
historic grievances of a working class that now feels abandoned by the left (Bernie notwithstanding).
Anything about that, instead of fanning the flames of Trump's Plot Against America-style campaign?
*tumbleweed*
edithamy -> ljonesjr
1 Jun 2016 06:48
Salesman uses corrupt and illegal sales techniques to generate sales would be even more of
a shock headline.
The real problem here is that Obama got elected, who had such a checkered past yet the media
have him a pass. The media is still giving Hillary a pass.
At least with Trump, by the time he gets in office, I have a feeling he will be thoroughly vetted.
What a nice change from having no clue about the man in the White House for the last 8 years!
Was he born in Kenya as a book jacket reported? Was he born in Hawaii as a dubious birth certificate
stated? Who was his mom? Who was is dad? Who were his mentors? Where did he go to school? What
were his grades? Lots of questions that we were told several answers to, but he was NEVER really
vetted by the press, only anointed.
I'd rather know for sure what I'm getting! I think I know how ruthless Trump is...even before
this article....that's why I'm voting for him.
"... we are now feeding the growth of the "underclass" by lifting ever higher and out of reach the upward mobility ladder, once the banner of opportunity now fallen behind the supposedly sclerotic welfare states of Europe. ..."
"... The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism (neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist. ..."
"... Selected Skeptical Comments ..."
"... seanseamour asks "What does that have to do with education?" and answers "Everything if one considers the elitist trend…" This question & answer all but brings tears to my eyes. It is so utterly on point. My own experience of it, if I may say so, comes from inside the belly of the beast. As a child and a product of America's elite universities (I have degrees from Harvard and Yale, and my dad, Richard B. Sewall, was a beloved English prof at Yale for 42 years), I could spend all morning detailing the shameful roles played by America's torchbearing universities – Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc – in utterly abandoning their historic responsibility as educators to maintaining the health of the nation's public school system.* ..."
"... And as I suspect seanseymour would agree, when a nation loses public education, it loses everything. ..."
"... accountable ..."
"... And I hear a few others saying that Americans are too dumbed down, too busy, too polarized or too just plain stupid to make intelligent, constructive use of a non-partisan, problem-solving Civic Media. But I would not underestimate the intelligence of Americans when they can give their considered input – by vote, by comment or by active participation – in public forums that are as exciting and well managed as an NFL game or a Word Series final. ..."
Posted on
June 2, 2016 by Yves
Smith Yves here. The first comment came in on a post that had gone cold, and I thought it was
so revealing that it needed to be seen widely. The second is a synchronistic complement.
As much as I carry on about the isolation of the Acela-riding classes from the acute distress
in much of the US, I only have a very distant feel for it. For instance, I grew up moving through
many small towns where a paper mill was a major, and in some cases, the biggest local employer. Those
mill jobs were well paid and the workers could buy houses, cars, and had pensions. One of my brothers
works for a paper mill that should have been world competitive through his retirement, but it's been
wrecked by a series of private equity owners, starting with Cerberus, and in now in bankruptcy. The
town in which he lives, Escanaba, Michigan, has lost over 20% of its population since the mid 1980s.
Similarly, my uncle lived below the poverty line in Maine, lobstering until his knees gave out. But
he had a fully paid for house he had inherited, and access to VA hospitals and doctors, so it could
have been a lot worse. But Maine is a poor state, so even visiting there as a tourist in the summers,
it's not hard to see the signs of struggle even in those who are getting by.
The first comment gives a window into the hidden desperation in America that is showing up in
statistics like increasing opioid addiction and suicides, rather than in accounts of how and why
so many people are suffering. I hope readers will add their own observations in comments.
We recently took three months to travel the southern US from coast to coast. As an expat
for the past twenty years, beyond the eye opening experience it left us in a state of shock.
From a homeless man convulsing in the last throes of hypothermia (been there) behind a fuel
station in Houston (the couldn't care less attendant's only preoccupation getting our RV off
his premises), to the general squalor of near-homelessness such as the emergence of "American
favelas" a block away from gated communities or affluent ran areas, to transformation of RV
parks into permanent residencies for the foreclosed who have but their trailer or RV left,
to social study one can engage while queuing at the cash registers of a Walmart before beneficiaries
of SNAP.
Stopping to take the time to talk and attempt to understand their predicament and their
beliefs as to the cause of their plight is a dizzying experience in and of itself. For a moment
I felt transposed to the times of the Cold War, when the Iron Curtain dialectics fuzzed the
perception of that other world to the west with a structured set of beliefs designed to blacken
that horizon as well as establish a righteous belief in their own existential paradigm.
What does that have to do with education? Everything if one considers the elitist trend
that is slowly setting the framework of tomorrow's society. For years I have felt there is
a silent "un-avowed conspiracy", why the seeming redundancy, because it is empirically driven
as a by-product of capitalism's surge and like a self-redeeming discount on a store shelf crystalizes
a group identity of think-alike know-little or nothing frustrated citizens easily corralled
by a Fox or Trump piper. We have re-rcreated the conditions or rather the reality of "Poverty
In America" barely half a century after its first diagnostic with one major difference :
we are now feeding the growth of the "underclass" by lifting ever higher and out of reach
the upward mobility ladder, once the banner of opportunity now fallen behind the supposedly
sclerotic welfare states of Europe.
So Richard Cohen now fears American voters because of Trump. Well, on Diane Reem today (NPR)
was a discussion on why fascist parties are growing in Europe. Both Cohen and the clowns on
NPR missed the forest for the trees. The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the
US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or
is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers
are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals
are trying to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for
corporate profit. In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought
on by neoliberalism (neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go
hand-in-hand). The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources
and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in
Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course
the people will lean fascist.
In the US we don't have the refugees, but the neoliberalism is further along and more damaging.
There's no mystery here or in Europe, just the natural effects of governments failing to represent
real people in favor of useless eater rich.
Make the people into commodities, endanger their washes and job security, impose austerity,
and tale in floods of refugees. Of COURSE Europeans stay leaning fascist.
What a comment from seanseamour. And the "hoisting" of it to high visibility at the site is
a testament to the worth of Naked Capitalism.
seanseamour asks "What does that have to do with education?" and answers "Everything if
one considers the elitist trend…" This question & answer all but brings tears to my eyes. It is
so utterly on point. My own experience of it, if I may say so, comes from inside the belly of
the beast. As a child and a product of America's elite universities (I have degrees from Harvard
and Yale, and my dad, Richard B. Sewall, was a beloved English prof at Yale for 42 years), I could
spend all morning detailing the shameful roles played by America's torchbearing universities –
Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc – in utterly abandoning their historic responsibility as educators
to maintaining the health of the nation's public school system.*
And as I suspect seanseymour would agree, when a nation loses public education, it loses
everything.
But I don't want to spend all morning doing that because I'm convinced that it's not too late
for America to rescue itself from maelstrom in which it finds itself today. (Poe's "Maelstrom"
story, cherished by Marshall McLuhan, is supremely relevant today.)
To turn America around, I don't look to education – that system is too far gone to save itself,
let alone the rest of the country – but rather to the nation's media: to the all-powerful public
communication system that certainly has the interactive technical capabilities to put citizens
and governments in touch with each other on the government decisions that shape the futures of
communities large and small.
For this to happen, however, people like the us – readers of Naked Capitalism – need to stop
moaning and groaning about the damage done by the neoliberals and start building an issue-centered,
citizen-participatory, non-partisan, prime-time Civic Media strong enough to
give all Americans an informed voice in the government decisions that affect their lives. This
Civic media would exist to make citizens and governments responsive and accountable
to each other in shaping futures of all three communities – local, state and national – of
which every one of us is a member.
Pie in the sky? Not when you think hard about it. A huge majority of Americans would welcome
this Civic Media. Many yearn for it. This means that a market exists for it: a Market of the Whole
of all members of any community, local, state and national. This audience is large enough to rival
those generated by media coverage of pro sports teams, and believe it or not much of the growth
of this Civic media could be productively modeled on the growth of media coverage of pro sports
teams. This Civic Media would attract the interest of major advertisers, especially those who
see value in non-partisan programming dedicated to getting America moving forward again. Dynamic,
issue-centered, problem-solving public forums, some modeled on voter-driven reality TV contests
like The Voice or Dancing with the Stars, could be underwritten by a "rainbow" spectrum of funders,
commercial, public, personal and even government sources.
So people take hope! Be positive! Love is all we need, etc. The need for for a saving alternative
to the money-driven personality contests into which our politics has descended this election year
is literally staring us all in the face from our TV, cellphone and computer screens. This is no
time to sit back and complain, it's a time to start working to build a new way of connecting ourselves
so we can reverse America's rapid decline.
OK, so I hear some of you saying, corporate America will never let this Civic Media get off
the ground. My short answer to this is that corporations do what makes money for them, and in
today's despairing political climate there's money to be made in sponsoring something truly positive,
patriotic and constructive. And I hear a few others saying that Americans are too dumbed down,
too busy, too polarized or too just plain stupid to make intelligent, constructive use of a non-partisan,
problem-solving Civic Media. But I would not underestimate the intelligence of Americans when
they can give their considered input – by vote, by comment or by active participation – in public
forums that are as exciting and well managed as an NFL game or a Word Series final.
seanseymour, thanks for your insights and thanks, Yves, for putting them where we can see them.
A TV mockumentary about the underpaid, overworked, and funny lives of middle school teachers.
An audiovisual club films their favorite teachers as they educate horrible human beings known as
teenagers.
"Get Educated" is a half-hour mockumentary about teachers learning how to educate. Growing up,
we never looked at teachers as actual human beings, but "Get Educated" shows that teachers are
people too. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they mess up, and sometimes they have to party.
"Get Educated" takes place at Millard Fillmore Middle School in the most underdog city in
America, Buffalo, NY. The show also focuses on the students and the growing pains of being a
teenager.
This series is packed full of comedy, conflict, puberty, sarcasm, puppy love, real love,
menopause, and life lessons from both students and teachers. "Get Educated" exemplifies how
student-teacher relationships can mold the people we become.
That's a pretty typical education sharks tactics. This was (and still is) an epidemic that
started in late 90th with the peak around 2007 (coincided with the subprime mortgages peak). May be
slightly longer. Not all students were innocent in this case. Most knew what they are buying. That includes
some Obama staffers and several Department of homeland security employees.
Diploma mills under Bush II were really like yet another sub-prime mortgage boom. Trump was a very
small fish in this business but probably the desire to milk his name prevailed over caution. the
most notorious hunted for people who can get government grant and then loaded them with additional debt
up to the neck. Now Trump is in the spotlight and will pay the damages althouth it is unlcear
to me if the students were engaged in "career enhancing" move or were defrauded. One strong point in
defense of Trump is that his university offered no degree. That can get him off the hook.
The most significant shift in higher education over the past two decades has been the emergence
of for-profit colleges and universities. These online and storefront institutions lure students with
promises of fast degrees and "guaranteed" job placement, but what they deliver is often something quite
different. In this provocative history of for-profit higher education, historian and educational researcher
A. J. Angulo tells the remarkable and often sordid story of these "diploma mills," which target low-income
and nontraditional students while scooping up a disproportionate amount of federal student aid.
Tapping into a little-known history with big implications, Angulo takes readers on a lively journey
that begins with the apprenticeship system of colonial America and ends with today's politically savvy
$35 billion multinational for-profit industry. He traces the transformation of nineteenth-century reading
and writing schools into "commercial" and "business" colleges, explores the early twentieth century's
move toward professionalization and progressivism, and explains why the GI Bill prompted a surge of
new for-profit institutions. He also shows how well-founded concerns about profit-seeking in higher
education have evolved over the centuries and argues that financial gaming and maneuvering by these
institutions threatens to destabilize the entire federal student aid program.
This is the first sweeping narrative history to explain why for-profits have mattered to students,
taxpayers, lawmakers, and the many others who have viewed higher education as part of the American dream.
Diploma Mills speaks to today's concerns by shedding light on unmistakable conflicts of interest
long associated with this scandal-plagued class of colleges and universities.
Notable quotes:
"... I would think that Trump gave all of those students a lesson that they should never forget, a fool and his money are soon parted. Who pays 36 grand to go to an unacredited school, to learn what they could get for free at the local library? ..."
"... "The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan." ..."
"... "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States. and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured through the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge. ..."
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump is playing defense on at least one issue these
days: his role in a now-defunct real estate seminar business called Trump University.
At a rally in Arkansas on Saturday, Trump took a break from his stump speech to downplay a class-action
civil lawsuit pending against the business, which was founded by Trump and offered students instruction
on real estate investments.
"It's a small deal, very small," Trump said of the suit, which could force him to take the stand
this summer.
Trump specifically railed against the judge in the case, and at one point noted the judge's Hispanic
ethnicity.
Trump claimed the case should have been thrown out years ago, "but because it was me and because
there's a hostility toward me by the judge - tremendous hostility - beyond belief." He then noted,
as an aside: "I believe he happens to be Spanish, which is fine. He's Hispanic - which is fine."
A message left for the judge, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, was not immediately returned.
Curiel is a judge in the Southern District of California and based in San Diego.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, whose office has filed a separate civil $40 million
complaint against Trump University in state court, accused Trump of "racial demagoguery." Schneiderman
sued Trump University in 2013 alleging it committed fraud and fleeced 5,000 people out of millions
of dollars.
"I will not engage in a debate about ongoing litigation," Schneiderman said in a statement issued
after Trump made his comments. "But there is no place in this process for racial demagoguery directed
at respected members of the judiciary."
Schneiderman noted that New York's state Supreme Court ruled that Trump University operated illegally
in New York as an unlicensed educational institution.
Trump University emerged as a campaign issue at Thursday's GOP debate, raised by Florida Sen.
Marco Rubio.
"There are people who borrowed $36,000 to go to Trump University, and they're suing now - $36,000
to go to a university that's a fake school," Rubio said. "And you know what they got? They got to
take a picture with a cardboard cutout of Donald Trump."
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz jumped in, adding: "It's a fraud case. ... I want you to think about, if this
man is the nominee, having the Republican nominee on the stand in court, being cross-examined about
whether he committed fraud."
Schneiderman's suit alleges that Trump University falsely promoted itself as an educational institution
even after the state education department warned it to stop. The complaint accuses Trump of falsely
promising that Trump University students would receive intense training from experts hand-picked
by Trump himself.
During breaks in the seminars, Schneiderman's complaint alleges, participants were urged to call
their credit card companies and ask to increase their credit limits. Once the credit lines were secured,
Trump University staff tried to persuade students to pay for additional services.
Separate from Schneiderman's complaint, Trump University students have sued. According to the
California class-action complaint in front of Curiel, a one-year apprenticeship that Trump University
students were promised ended after students paid for a three-day seminar. Attendees who were promised
a personal photo with Trump received only the chance to take a photo with a cardboard cutout. And
many instructors were bankrupt real estate investors.
Trump, at the rally, dismissed the cases as the work of "a sleazebag law firm" and suggested that
Schneiderman's intervention was politically motivated.
"I could've settled this suit numerous times. Could settle it now. But I don't like settling suits,"
Trump said.
Chris
I would think that Trump gave all of those students a lesson that they should never
forget, a fool and his money are soon parted. Who pays 36 grand to go to an unacredited
school, to learn what they could get for free at the local library?
Do you really need someone to say, For next week, read chapters 5-9" ? And now that you
have your lesson in "real life" go forth and prosper. And you should quicky recoup your
tuition because you will run into people that lack you knowledge.
Commenter
The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any
other force.- Adolf Hitler
I'm a bit of a P. T. Barnum. I make stars out of everyone. - Trump
There's a sucker born every minute. - P.T. Barnum
Commenter
"The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their
power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must
be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the
public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan." Adolf dead, enter the
Trump. Make American great again!
Margy
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States. and there always has been. The
strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured through the false notion that democracy means that 'my
ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
J
Trump university proved there is a sucker born every minute.
Joe
Trump univ sounds like it was a school that taught real estate investing as an off shoot of
trumps tv show. Nothing said it was an accredited degree college. No real estate license
school is and they all have 3 day courses to learn real estate then you have to take a state
test to get your license. You can go to a regular school that costs $100 or spend $36k at
trump univ. it's the same class. It all sounds like a PR stunt .
factChecker
Cheating thousands of people, just trying to better themselves, out of millions of $ might
be unimportant to Trump. That is the problem. He has no conscience.
Big Al
Ignorance is investing your money in a non certified educational institution because it is
pitched by a so called "celebrity". If you do something foolish, dumb or stupid own up to it
and use it as a learning experience. Don't expect others to pay for your mistakes.
If there was a single event that galvanized conservative donors to
try to wrest control of higher education in America, it might have been the uprising at Cornell
University on April 20, 1969. That afternoon, during parents' weekend at the Ithaca...
"system designed to force everyone in an institution or business into an entrepreneurial role."
is pure neoliberalism, not so much of libertarian ideology. What they are doing is imitation
Bolsheviks rape of academic community in the USA with Bolshevism replaced by neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... The school originally cofounded by Bob Love an associate of Charles's father Fred Koch from the John Birch Society became embroiled in an "acrimonious uprising" after Charles Koch in his role as chairman of the school's executive council applied techniques from his Market-Based Management system, a system designed to force everyone in an institution or business into an entrepreneurial role. ..."
"... Charles stepped down from the board of trustees citing, among other reasons, the school's refusal to integrate his management style. But in a sign of just how much influence he exerted over the school; Richard Fink, one of Charles's key advisors and an architect of Market-Based Management was installed as Collegiate's interim head. The outrage ran so deep that, as Fink tried to tamp down the uproar, he was hung in effigy around campus." ..."
"... Fink, who received his PHD in economics from Rutgers later moved to George Mason, a public university in Virginia, to start the Koch sponsored Mercatus Institute. Fink figures prominently in Koch efforts to control and dictate to charities and educational facilities receiving Koch support. Another Koch sponsored enterprise, the Institute for Humane Studies, caused similar disruptions when it was relocated to George Mason. Schulman reports, ..."
"... They also started running scholarship application essays through a computer to measure how many times the 'right names' (Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Rand, Bastiat, etc.) were mentioned – regardless of what was said about them!" (The preceding quotes come from pages 250-251 Sons of Wichita: How the Koch Brothers Became America's Most Powerful and Private Dynasty). ..."
"... In a YouTube video seminar, Professor Boettke characterizes himself as "a doctrinaire free-marketer." In the same memo, Professor Lopez lists his association with IHS. Presumably then both professors are familiar with the sort of metrics and deliverables that are integral to Koch's Market-Based Management system. ..."
"... Both Schulman's book and Jane Mayer's new book "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right" go into great detail about the various organizations sponsored and funded by Charles and David Koch. ..."
"... From Americans for Prosperity to academic institutions similar to Mercatus, the Kochs have been active in funding organizations that promote specific ideologies. For better or worse that is something endemic in both our politics and apparently our public universities. Lately Charles Koch has been quite vocal in bemoaning the fact that his political contributions have not yielded an appropriate return on investment as demonstrated in a recent interview in the Financial Times where he said, ..."
"... What is perhaps more troubling is in academic settings the Kochs have sought to exercise an extraordinary degree of control. ..."
"... " . . . Cato Institute, Mercatus, and the dozens of other free-market, antiregulatory policy shops that Charles, David, and their foundations have supported over the years . . . churned out reports position papers, and op-eds arguing for the privatization of Social Security; fingering public employee unions for causing state budget crises; attempting to debunk climate science; and making the case for slashing the welfare system and Medicaid." ..."
"... Over the years the gifts from the Koch Foundation to various universities have faced increased scrutiny. The contract with Florida State clearly went against basic academic ethics. There is nothing however to indicate that Charles Koch has retreated in his desire to instill his radical brand of libertarianism into the institutions that create public policy and the universities that provide the research that helps support policy decisions. What has perhaps changed is that Mr. Koch, his foundation, and those he supports have become ever more sophisticated in capturing an outsized amount of influence. ..."
"... The contract may not allow veto power but if the structure of the program and the hiring are filtered through products of Koch programs, we may have a distinction without a difference. Charles Koch and his assistants like Richard Fink have been very clear about their intent and goals. It does not take a great deal of research to uncover statements that clearly speak to intent to indoctrinate. Ad hoc denials aside there is no reason not to take Mr. Koch's word. ..."
"... There is a certain irony bordering on outright cognitive dissonance when the economics department of a publicly funded university embraces a set of theories that denies the need for public education and treats such public funding as an affront to the market. If scrutinizing this proposal puts us onto a slippery slope then accepting it simply sends us to the bottom of the slope. ..."
"... My first introduction to the idea that society needs to remodel its self as business or that business is the better model for society's organization started with Reagan. I believe he/they ran on the idea that government needed to be more like business. ..."
"... Unfortunately, people believed it as it went along with the "government is the problem" meme. ..."
"... All of this I believe can be summed up with how I view Milton Friedman's work as simply mind the money and everything else will be taken care of. That is the free market ideology. ..."
"... Daniel: I don't recall my introduction to the 'run government as a business' idea, per se. I well remember Reagan and his 'the government is always the problem, never the solution' BS. ..."
"... I can't recall where I read it, but years ago came across a quote by someone esteemed, that pretty much said, "The reason for government is that there will always be services people want and need that, when provided, would never be a profitable venture, so the business world will never provide them. Hence, the government must be that provider." ..."
Mark Jamison has been a guest columnist of the Smoky Mountain News on several occasions now arguing
against the addition of the Koch sponsored Center for Free Enterprise. This is another well written
expose of why this addition should not be allowed at Western Carolina University. I would point out
the flip-flopping going on as Chancellor Belcher glosses over in his explanation of mistakes being
made. In earlier statements by Dr. Robert Lopez, the Provost, and the Trustees, the procedure was
followed.
To give this the coverage needed both Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism and Angry Bear have been
covering this issue. "UnKoch My Campus" has also picked up on Western Carolina University.
In "Sons of Wichita", his detailed and heavily sourced biography of the Koch family, Daniel
Schulman relates a story about Charles Koch's attempt to apply his libertarian management theory
known as Market-Based Management to Wichita Collegiate, the private school located across the street
from the Koch compound. The school originally cofounded by Bob Love an associate of Charles's
father Fred Koch from the John Birch Society became embroiled in an "acrimonious uprising" after
Charles Koch in his role as chairman of the school's executive council applied techniques from his
Market-Based Management system, a system designed to force everyone in an institution or business
into an entrepreneurial role.
Schulman relates how Koch and other trustees meddled in hiring decisions and caused the abrupt
resignation of a well-liked headmaster. "Incensed parents threatened to pull their children from
the school; faculty members quit; students wore black in protest. Charles stepped down from the
board of trustees citing, among other reasons, the school's refusal to integrate his management style.
But in a sign of just how much influence he exerted over the school; Richard Fink, one of Charles's
key advisors and an architect of Market-Based Management was installed as Collegiate's interim head.
The outrage ran so deep that, as Fink tried to tamp down the uproar, he was hung in effigy around
campus."
Fink, who received his PHD in economics from Rutgers later moved to George Mason, a public
university in Virginia, to start the Koch sponsored Mercatus Institute. Fink figures prominently
in Koch efforts to control and dictate to charities and educational facilities receiving Koch support.
Another Koch sponsored enterprise, the Institute for Humane Studies, caused similar disruptions when
it was relocated to George Mason. Schulman reports,
"The mission of IHS is to groom libertarian intellectuals by doling out scholarships, sponsoring
seminars, and placing students in like-minded organizations."
Simply providing funding for the promotion of his libertarian ideology was not enough for Charles
Koch though. Roderick Long, a philosophy professor from Auburn and an affiliate of IHS is quoted
as saying, "Massive micromanagement ensued." Long went on to say, "the management began to do things
like increasing the size of student seminars, packing them in, and then giving the students a political
questionnaire at the beginning of the week and another one at the end, to measure how much their
political beliefs shifted over the course of the week. (Woe betide any student who needs more than
a week to mull new ideas prior to conversion.) They also started running scholarship application
essays through a computer to measure how many times the 'right names' (Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Rand,
Bastiat, etc.) were mentioned – regardless of what was said about them!" (The preceding quotes come
from pages 250-251 Sons of Wichita: How the Koch Brothers Became America's Most Powerful and Private
Dynasty).
It should be noted that Professor Long is no liberal. He edits "The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies"
and is a member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, an organization that promotes the theories of
the dean of Austrian economics.
Both Professor Lopez and Professor Gochenour are products of the George Mason program and Mercatus.
In his memo to Andrew Gillen of the Charles Koch Foundation Professor Lopez characterizes the other
members of the WCU economics department indicating Professor Gochenour was a student of "Boettke
and Caplan". In a YouTube video seminar, Professor Boettke characterizes himself as "a doctrinaire
free-marketer." In the same memo, Professor Lopez lists his association with IHS. Presumably then
both professors are familiar with the sort of metrics and deliverables that are integral to Koch's
Market-Based Management system.
Both Schulman's book and Jane Mayer's new book "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires
Behind the Rise of the Radical Right" go into great detail about the various organizations sponsored
and funded by Charles and David Koch.
From Americans for Prosperity to academic institutions similar to Mercatus, the Kochs have
been active in funding organizations that promote specific ideologies. For better or worse that is
something endemic in both our politics and apparently our public universities. Lately Charles Koch
has been quite vocal in bemoaning the fact that his political contributions have not yielded an appropriate
return on investment as demonstrated in a recent interview in the Financial Times where he said,
"You'd think we could have more influence."
What is perhaps more troubling is in academic settings the Kochs have sought to exercise an
extraordinary degree of control. Between 2007 and 2011 Charles Koch has pumped $31 million into
universities for scholarships and programs (within that number the $2 million to WCU seems significant).
At Florida State the contract with the university provide $1.5 million to hire two professors included
a clause giving the Koch Foundation over the candidates.
The plan Charles Koch with the aid of Richard Fink has enacted is called a "Structure of Social
Change" – a sort of business plan for the marketing of ideas. Fink has said about the plan:
"When we apply this model to the realm of ideas and social change, at the higher stages we
have the investment in the intellectual raw materials, that is, the exploration and production
of abstract concepts and theories. In the public policy arena, these still come primarily (though
not exclusively) from the research done by scholars at our universities." (my emphasis)
As Schulman reports,
" . . . Cato Institute, Mercatus, and the dozens of other free-market, antiregulatory policy
shops that Charles, David, and their foundations have supported over the years . . . churned out
reports position papers, and op-eds arguing for the privatization of Social Security; fingering
public employee unions for causing state budget crises; attempting to debunk climate science;
and making the case for slashing the welfare system and Medicaid."
The book that Professor Lopez published for the broad market, "Madmen, Intellectuals and Academic
Scribblers: The Economic Engine of Political Change" follows closely to the program Fink articulates.
Over the years the gifts from the Koch Foundation to various universities have faced increased
scrutiny. The contract with Florida State clearly went against basic academic ethics. There is nothing
however to indicate that Charles Koch has retreated in his desire to instill his radical brand of
libertarianism into the institutions that create public policy and the universities that provide
the research that helps support policy decisions. What has perhaps changed is that Mr. Koch, his
foundation, and those he supports have become ever more sophisticated in capturing an outsized amount
of influence.
Chancellor Belcher assures us there were mistakes made in the presentation of the current proposal
but that the proposal itself meets all the basic criteria for acceptance. The fact that Professor
Lopez advertised positions before official acceptance and outside normal channels raises significant
questions.The contract may not allow veto power but if the structure of the program
and the hiring are filtered through products of Koch programs, we may have a distinction without
a difference. Charles Koch and his assistants like Richard Fink have been very clear about their
intent and goals. It does not take a great deal of research to uncover statements that clearly speak
to intent to indoctrinate. Ad hoc denials aside there is no reason not to take Mr. Koch's word.
Chancellor Belcher suggests the bringing of a stronger level of scrutiny to the Koch proposal
pushes us down a slippery slope. The chancellor is no naïf and surely he knows that in a complicated
world we are often presented with slippery slopes – that is why judgment, ethics, and scrutiny exist.
Dogmatic and doctrinaire disciplines give a skewed and distorted picture of the world as an either
or, or black or white scenario. Hayek, Mises, and other doctrinaire believers in the creed of the
free-market tell us the choice is either markets or Stalinism, an inexorable "Road to Serfdom." Tennyson
tells us,
"There lives more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in half the creeds."
There is a certain irony bordering on outright cognitive dissonance when the economics department
of a publicly funded university embraces a set of theories that denies the need for public education
and treats such public funding as an affront to the market. If scrutinizing this proposal puts us
onto a slippery slope then accepting it simply sends us to the bottom of the slope.
This is a very good review of their efforts thanks. I was born in Wichita 1960 and escaped
to Texas in 1996 so very familiar with their ongoing influence there.
They essentially control the state GOP and thus the state government there. There are many resonances
with their academic efforts, including a GOP Loyalty oath. It hasn't gone well.
beene, February 15, 2016 6:44 am
People, see no difference in Koch's efforts and those who promote neoliberalism, or free trade.
We have these because too advance in our higher learning schools you must support the above to
advance your career.
For even a person with limited educations knows the above only cause debt for the nation and
ever limiting opportunities for the majority of the population.
For anyone interest in what actually enriches a nation and the majority of the population I
would recommend a scholarly study done by Ha-Joon Chang and another by Ian Fletcher.
Perfect timing. I am currently reading "Dark Money", and am, frankly, terrified. Not so much
for what the Kochs have been up to, but at how little most of America is interested, or cares
to understand the mosaic.
The Kochs, Charles, especially have been masterful at flying beneath the radar of the average
American. For instance, to the extent we recognize our public schools have a problem, we've been
too quick to buy into the idea that it's because they aren't 'run like a business'. But once you
dig just a bit, you can see the tentacles of the "Kochtapus" everywhere.
(Jane Mayer's description of the cold, calculating upbringing of the Koch boys is chilling.
One wonders why they didn't end up as serial killers? Again, Charles, especially. He appears to
have totally dominated the scene, once he go too big to be beaten by his father.)
Margaret Spellings gave a speech last week where she tried to down-play her history with for-profit
education, among other things. It will be interesting to see how the UNC system survives this
next phase……
Jack , February 15, 2016 12:47 pm
"One wonders why they didn't end up as serial killers? Again, Charles, especially." Sandi
What makes you say that they are not? In their own indirect manner they have managed to kill
democracy in America and cooperation within its political system.
Daniel Becker, February 15, 2016 1:12 pm
Sandi,
My first introduction to the idea that society needs to remodel its self as business or
that business is the better model for society's organization started with Reagan. I believe
he/they ran on the idea that government needed to be more like business.
Unfortunately, people believed it as it went along with the "government is the problem"
meme.
All of this I believe can be summed up with how I view Milton Friedman's work as simply
mind the money and everything else will be taken care of. That is the free market ideology.
Sandi, February 15, 2016 1:30 pm
Jack: Point taken. You're right, of course.
Daniel: I don't recall my introduction to the 'run government as a business' idea, per se.
I well remember Reagan and his 'the government is always the problem, never the solution' BS.
Since both my parents came up in the Depression, I knew how much good had been done by
government programs, and, as a boomer, I could see it all around me; from the space race to
the Civil Rights movement. I guess I took it for granted that that was the way the world was
supposed to work. But I can see how that freaked out a lot of conservatives, both economically
and socially.
I can't recall where I read it, but years ago came across a quote by someone esteemed,
that pretty much said, "The reason for government is that there will always be services people
want and need that, when provided, would never be a profitable venture, so the business world
will never provide them. Hence, the government must be that provider."
My apologies to whomever the source was (Ben Franklin?) for the paraphrase. But the idea
resonated with me as true, and I still believe it.
Mr. Bartlett: Just a quick note of appreciation – I've enjoyed your writings over the years.
Sandi, February 15, 2016 1:38 pm
PS Daniel:
All of this I believe can be summed up with how I view Milton Friedman's work as simply
mind the money and everything else will be taken care of. That is the free market ideology.
In re-reading this about minding the money, I couldn't help but think about the entirely
different interpretation we got on this idea from Deep Throat…
William Ryan, February 15, 2016 1:51 pm
Unfortunately the slippery slope picture is much larger then just the Koch bros. To fix the
inequality that is growing like a cancer in our society we must #1 establish the wealth tax.
(see Wikipedia). #2 establish the progressive income tax. #3 establish the inheritance tax. #4
establish the transaction tax on trading. We must do all this before the oligarchs establish
the robot police force. For more detail please go see todays D-Kos "Another Chart Shows How
Bad We' re Screwed" also be sure to read the many fine comments there…
Mark Jamison, February 15, 2016 3:19 pm
Mr. Bartlett,
From Schulman's Sons of Wichita: "Fink was a twenty-seven year old doctoral student at New
York University, which at the time had the country's lone graduate program focused on Austrian
economics. Fink had done his undergrad work at Rutgers….. As he worked towards his Ph.D. Fink
taught pert-time at Rutgers, …"
From Doherty's "Radicals for Capitalism" – A Grinder student and economics professor from
Rutgers named Richard Fink, with Koch's support, launched an Austrian program that came to be
called the Center for Study of Market Processes. It began at Rutgers and in 1980 relocated to
George Mason University, where it has evolved into the Mercatus Center.
"... Sure the myth of meritocracy and American exceptionalism is all over public education, however, Im not sure this is the fault of teachers themselves. Public curriculum is now mostly controlled from without, and teachers are largely constrained as to what they can teach, when they can teach it, and how. The constant battery of tests really limits the freedom teachers have in offering a variety of materials, because if those kids dont produce exactly what the test maker is looking for, it could be their job on the line. You cant teach bell hooks, if you dont have a teaching job to begin with. ..."
"... Too true! I keep returning to Paul Goodmans classic screed, Compulsory Miseducation . 1964. Crapification has been with us a long time. We are now harvesting its rotten fruits. ..."
"... I only wish American teachers had anywhere near as much agency as you think they do! Are you aware who controls the curriculum, and how politicized this is? While I taught in the nations largest public school system, it was under mayoral control. His education chancellors were mostly non-educators (a lawyer, and, most briefly and notoriously, a publisher), and hired private contractors and spent millions of public money on charters. ..."
"... The curriculum has been hijacked by the Common Core, which dictates which materials can be covered, and how it can be covered. ..."
today's Republicans and defending teachers(and firefighters and police) to the very last stand.
Yes, public education is one of the foundations of our country, and should never be 'privatized'(um,
stolen) to a political bidder. But also, teachers(and f's and p's) generally make outstanding
salaries, paid for by property taxes, and have their retirement funded, and are allowed to strike
to add more whenever they like. Oh, then they can retire after 20-30 years and still receive significant
pension benefits.
The 'everyone pays' for the select few is a problem in this country, and is never discussed
in any media that I see.
Teachers' personal money is the most common source of funding for classroom projects. On average,
teachers spent a total of $398 on school supplies in 2009-2010 and an additional $538 on educational
materials." The total expended that year by the nation's 3.7 million teachers? A whopping $3.5
billion.
And it's not just teachers. According to the Summer 2012 issue of NEA Today, the newsmagazine
of the National Education Association, 66 percent of education support professionals – a category
that includes bus drivers, custodians, lunchroom staff, secretaries, security guards and skilled
trades people – dig into their pockets to help kids in need. Their expenditures? An average of
$216 per employee per year."
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/12504-public-school-teachers-spend-billions-of-their-own-money-on-student-needs
(sigh) too often i hear people complain about property taxes & schools…now dayz i suggest we
all stop paying the tax and enjoy the short life span the bored & uneducated kids will rein on
us!
I have a general antipathy towards teachers; no matter how well intentioned they are, ultimately
they're still responsible for indoctrinating the world-view and cultural myths required for children
to become good corporate state consumers/employees. No matter how progressive and enlightened
the curriculum, nor how lavish the facilities and small the class sizes, Howard Zinn won't be
taught.
I won't say that all education is bad–but compared to what passes for education now in America,
I believe that our students and society would be better off if we had no education at all, since
what we have now is leading society and humanity off a cliff. Therefore the only real problem
I have with breaking up teachers unions and closing schools is that they'll probably be replaced
with something even more corporate and soul-destroying.
I think you're blaming the wrong people for this.
Sure the myth of meritocracy and American
exceptionalism is all over public education, however, I'm not sure this is the fault of teachers
themselves. Public curriculum is now mostly controlled from without, and teachers are largely
constrained as to what they can teach, when they can teach it, and how. The constant battery of
tests really limits the freedom teachers have in offering a variety of materials, because if those
kids don't produce exactly what the test maker is looking for, it could be their job on the line.
You can't teach bell hooks, if you don't have a teaching job to begin with.
teachers are largely constrained as to what they can teach
Well that's exactly my point. Teachers are ultimately servants to the corporate state. They
have little to no free will themselves. They will train their students to be model employees and
insatiable consumers–who love America because patriotism, or they will be fired.
I'm not blaming them for their lot. Teaching is certainly a crappy, and unappreciated job in
this society–and there is something admirable about someone who chooses to wear such a hair shirt,
even if there is no point to it. I'm saying that the whole apparatus of public education in America
should be radically redone, and until it's redone this whole institutional (public and private)
education debacle should be suspended immediately. The cultural/social monoculture it's creating
is a genuine danger to humanity.
Too true! I keep returning to Paul Goodman's classic screed,
Compulsory Miseducation
. 1964. Crapification has been with us a long time. We are now harvesting its rotten fruits.
All the Trump supporters (and let us not forget, e.g., Spiro Agnew, superhero vanquisher
of the nattering nabobs, and
his
minions), all those B and C and D and F students who now
can vote away the pensions of the teachers who gave the voters those grades. .
Jgordon, your comment begs a lot of questions. I'll try to address them. As a former New York
City teacher, I'd like to share my views.
I only wish American teachers had anywhere near as much agency as you think they do! Are
you aware who controls the curriculum, and how politicized this is? While I taught in the nation's
largest public school system, it was under mayoral control. His education chancellors were mostly
non-educators (a lawyer, and, most briefly and notoriously, a publisher), and hired private contractors
and spent millions of public money on charters.
Since you mentioned it, what about what is taught, and who controls that?
The curriculum
has been hijacked by the Common Core, which dictates which materials can be covered, and how it
can be covered.
This was developed by many non-educators who don't have a clue about how
children and adolescents learn, and this is reflected by the abysmally low test scores, even in
regions where there were no problems before. Even before the Common Core, you have the New York
States Regents exams, which trivializes history, making it impossible to teach properly, unless
you want to risk your job (remember, low test scores, bad ratings).
Furthermore, you mention that teachers don't teach Howard Zinn. Well, I'm shocked at how many
enlightened, left-leaning teachers I met in the States, considering the huge propaganda campaign
waged against progressive thinking, that most certainly did not end with the McCarthy era in the
1950's! So you're working in a nation which has actively tried to target, and even destroy, the
careers of people left-leaning or sympathetic to "enemies of the State." I always felt like I
was one unpopular move away from becoming a New York Post headline, for daring to challenge the
mainstream perception of Hugo Chavez and for discussing why many consider Bush a war criminal.
I have had to deal with complaints from principals and parents. I soldiered on for years, but
after awhile, your health suffers.
Also, keep in mind that history teachers in New York must somehow manage to teach a ridiculously
overloaded curriculum. They cannot choose to stop everything and really teach in a more meaningful
way, because they are judged by their students' test scores. They mustn't anger their administrators
and superintendents, who are scared of politicians and parents. I would love to have had more
freedom to teach the way I wanted to, most of the time. To cover a worthwhile secondary source
like Zinn means having the time and resources to do that. Also, it means that you will be supported
by your administrators and parents. This is extremely difficult, even in a state like New York,
which is not nearly as open-minded as it claims to be.
Covering historians like Zinn would also be easier if we had some control over our classroom
materials. Who do chooses and writes the textbooks? Many textbook authors must please Texas, the
largest state. This does not exactly encourage, shall we say, the most progressive thinking. Teachers
often have to fight to just get their photocopies done, and straight lecturing is forbidden. So
they have to rely on the texts their buildings provide them. Teachers also get a bit paranoid,
since anything - ANYTHING can get them smeared in papers like the New York Post and the The New
York Daily News. So I agree that Zinn's views should be a part of the curriculum, but much of
TPTB aren't exactly on my side.
You also need to understand that if the US doesn't produce mostly progressive economists, university
presidents, politicians, lawyers and citizens…why would teachers be so different? The US, with
a mainstream press that promotes Hillary Clinton as the ideal presidential candidate, is not exactly
a hotbed of innovative thinking. Teachers aren't magical people, despite what Hollywood tells
us, which features teachers that can somehow transform poor, hungry students into academic stars,
fueled by charisma, sugary snacks, and iron will alone.
Thank you for bearing with me this far (if you that's the case). I know so many talented teachers
in New York who seemed to work themselves so hard, so it kind of kills me to read these kinds
of blanket statements. Forget Hollywood's hackneyed portrayal of teachers. For me, the real miracle
is that after all of the hatred, union-busting, conservative propaganda, deprofessionalisation,
…the real miracle is that there still are some fantastic teachers in the field.
The key idea of neoliberal university if to view students as customers and the degree as a product
to sell.
Notable quotes:
"... The university of North Carolina at Chapel Hill now faces one year of probation from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges as a result of a report that documents " widespread and long-lasting academic fraud at the university ." ..."
"... Students are increasingly perceived as customers ..."
"... the "product" the university is selling as a degree rather than an education, so it does seem counter productive to risk losing a customer for something so insignificant as failing to go to class. ..."
"... Today's college students may be ignorant, but they aren't stupid. They take the measure of an institution pretty quickly. They can smell hypocrisy, and if they have to pay tens of thousands of dollars a year for the dubious privilege of uninterrupted olfactory assault, they'll very likely develop the moral equivalent of olfactory fatigue. ..."
It isn't only athletes who get the benefit of such "no-show" courses. Small academic programs
and departments struggling to survive occasionally come up with such courses as a way of boosting
their numbers of majors. Even Harvard is now having to grapple with the question of whether their
"General
Education" program has had the effect of encouraging students to take easy courses.
Universities will bend over backwards not to fail a student–so long as he or she is actually paying
tuition. I know of a case of a professor who was told by the director of the program in which the
professor teaches to "take some responsibility" for the fact that some of this professor's students
were failing a course. Apparently, the professor was expected to find a way to ensure that all
the students passed the course. Fortunately, the professor is tenured, and hence had to freedom to
refuse to do more than to try to help the students actually LEARN the material. Would an adjunct
have felt free to do the same thing?
Students are increasingly perceived as customers and some administrators, and even some faculty,
appear to conceive the "product" the university is selling as a degree rather than an education,
so it does seem counter productive to risk losing a customer for something so insignificant as failing
to go to class.
Failing to pay tuition, however, is a different matter. Faculty are sometimes instructed not to
allow students to attend courses if they have not paid their tuition by the beginning of the term
(which, because of the glacial slowness of some financial aid programs, is frequently a problem).
There's been a lot of discussion recently about how
all students need to be
taught ethics in college. Of course you can't require everyone to take the standard ethics class
that is taught in the philosophy department. That would be too much work. If you suddenly are going
to require that everyone at your university take ethics, well, you'd better dumb it down, so students
won't object.
Keep it rigorous, or dumb it down, requiring students to take an ethics course is unlikely to
make them more ethical. The thing is, you rarely make people ethical by teaching them ethics. You
can help them to better understand the complexities of some ethical dilemmas and you can arm them
with theoretical language they can use to defend choices they probably would have made anyway, but
that doesn't make them better people so much as it makes them happier people.
Moral character is largely formed by the time students enter college. It isn't entirely formed,
of course, so what happens to students in college can affect their moral development. People
are so profoundly social that they continue to develop their conceptions of what is acceptable behavior
throughout their entire lives. Aristotle recognized that. That's why he asserted that ethics was
a subset of politics. If you want people to behave well, you have to organize your society in such
a way that it sends a clear message concerning the behavior it approves of and the behavior it condemns.
If the leaders of a given society want people to be honest and responsible, then they have to exemplify
these character traits themselves, and then reward citizens who emulate their example.
Universities would do a much better job of shaping students' characters in positive ways if instead
of requiring students to take dumbed-down ethics classes, they gave a damn about ethics themselves,
if they cared more about actually delivering the product they purport to be selling, rather than
giving mere lip service to it. Many universities are now delivering degrees that are effectively
equivalent to the indulgences sold by the Catholic church in the middle ages: expensive, but otherwise
meaningless, pieces of paper.
Today's college students may be ignorant, but they aren't stupid. They take the measure of an
institution pretty quickly. They can smell hypocrisy, and if they have to pay tens of thousands of
dollars a year for the dubious privilege of uninterrupted olfactory assault, they'll very likely
develop the moral equivalent of olfactory fatigue. The message that, sadly, is all too often driven
home to students today is that none of the traditional human values that educational institutions
purport to preserve and foster, including learning in the broadest sense, really matter. The message
they all to often receive now is that nothing really matters but money.
Massive open online courses (MOOCs) are often characterized as remedies to educational disparities
related to social class. Using data from 68 MOOCs offered by Harvard and MIT between 2012 and
2014, we found that course participants from the United States tended to live in more-affluent
and better-educated neighborhoods than the average U.S. resident. Among those who did register
for courses, students with greater socioeconomic resources were more likely to earn a certificate.
Furthermore, these differences in MOOC access and completion were larger for adolescents and young
adults, the traditional ages where people find on-ramps into science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) coursework and careers. Our findings raise concerns that MOOCs and similar
approaches to online learning can exacerbate rather than reduce disparities in educational outcomes
related to socioeconomic status.
Lambert Strether, December 3, 2015 at 3:17 pm
That's not a bug. It's a feature.
jrs, December 3, 2015 at 5:40 pm
Well that's pretty much the same charge that could be leveled against most higher
education. It makes disparities worse, maybe less so community colleges, I don't know.
cwaltz, December 3, 2015 at 6:16 pm
I wonder how much of that is due to inability to access the web in neighborhoods that are
less affluent?
An online course isn't going to help me if mom or dad can't afford to pay for internet.
Bob Haugen, December 3, 2015 at 8:06 pm
Most education in the world now, whether in classrooms or MOOCs, is oriented toward
improving the personal capital of the upwardly striving. There is no "make yourself a better
citizen" or "improve your community" curriculum.
likbez, December 3, 2015 at 10:47 pm
"Most education in the world now, whether in classrooms or MOOCs, is oriented toward
improving the personal capital of the upwardly striving."
Very true. Thank you !
This is the essence of neoliberal transformation of the university education.
"... ...It might seem counterintuitive that lack of access to credit results in delinquency-seemingly a problem of "too much debt." But in fact, lack of access to credit and delinquency are two sides of the same coin. Nearly everyone needs access to credit markets to meet basic economic needs, and if they can't get loans through competitive, transparent financial networks, poor people are more likely to be subjected to exploitative credit arrangements in the form of very high rates and other onerous terms and penalties, including on student loans. That disadvantage interacts with and is magnified by their lack of labor market opportunities. The result is exactly what we see across time and space: high delinquency rates for those with the least access to credit markets. ..."
The geography of student debt is very different than the geography of delinquency. Take the Washington, D.C. metro region. In
zip codes with high average loan balances (western and central Washington, D.C.), delinquency rates are lower. Within the District
of Columbia, median income is highest in these parts of the city. Similar results–low delinquency rates in high-debt areas–can be
seen for Chicago, as well. (See Figure 1.)
...What explains this relationship? There appear to be two possible, and mutually consistent, theories. First, although graduate
students take out the largest student loans, they are able to carry large debt burdens thanks to their higher salaries post-graduation.
Second, the rise in the number of students borrowing relatively small amounts for
for-profit colleges has augmented the cumulative debt load, but because these borrowers face poor labor market outcomes and lower
earnings upon graduation (if they do in fact graduate),
their
delinquency rates are much higher. This is further complicated by the fact that these for-profit college attendees generally
come from lower-income families who may not be able to help with loan repayments.
The inverse relationship between delinquency and income is not surprising, especially when considering that problems of credit
access have disproportionately affected poor and minority populations in the past.
...It might seem counterintuitive that lack of access to credit results in delinquency-seemingly a problem of "too much debt."
But in fact, lack of access to credit and delinquency are two sides of the same coin. Nearly everyone needs access to credit markets
to meet basic economic needs, and if they can't get loans through competitive, transparent financial networks, poor people are more
likely to be subjected to exploitative credit arrangements in the form of very high rates and other onerous terms and penalties,
including on student loans. That disadvantage interacts with and is magnified by their lack of labor market opportunities. The result
is exactly what we see across time and space: high delinquency rates for those with the least access to credit markets.
...For user-friendliness, we assign each of these student debt scale variables a qualitative category. If average loan balance
on the map is "somewhat high," for example, then it means that a zip code's average loan balance is between 25 and 35 percent higher
than the national average of $24,271. Similarly, if the delinquency reads "very low," it corresponds to a scale level between 0.067
and 0.091.
Figure 6 summarizes the relationship between each of the scale variables' levels and their qualitative description.
Americans are,
compared
with populations of other countries, particularly enthusiastic about the idea of meritocracy, a system
that rewards merit (ability
+ effort) with success. Americans are
more likely to believe that people are rewarded for their intelligence and skills and are less
likely to believe that family wealth plays a key role in getting ahead. And Americans' support for
meritocratic principles has
remained
stable over the last two decades despite growing economic inequality, recessions, and the fact
that there is
less mobility in the United States than in most other industrialized countries.
This strong
commitment to meritocratic ideals can lead to suspicion of efforts that aim to support particular
demographic groups. For example,
initiatives designed to recruit or provide development opportunities to under-represented groups
often come under attack as "reverse discrimination." Some companies even
justify
not having diversity policies by highlighting their commitment to meritocracy. If a company evaluates
people on their skills, abilities, and merit, without consideration of their gender, race, sexuality
etc., and managers are objective in their assessments then there is no need for diversity policies,
the thinking goes.
But is this true? Do commitments to meritocracy and objectivity lead to more fair workplaces?
Emilio J. Castilla, a professor
at MIT's Sloan School of Management, has explored how meritocratic ideals and HR practices like pay-for-performance
play out in organizations, and he's come to some unexpected conclusions.
In one company study,
Castilla examined almost 9,000 employees who worked as support-staff at a large service-sector company.
The company was committed to diversity and had implemented a merit-driven compensation system intended
to reward high-level performance and to reward all employees equitably.
But Castilla's analysis revealed some very non-meritocratic outcomes. Women, ethnic minorities,
and non-U.S.-born employees received a smaller increase in compensation compared with white men,
despite holding the same jobs, working in the same units, having the same supervisors, the same human
capital, and importantly, receiving the same performance score. Despite stating that "performance
is the primary bases for all salary increases," the reality was that women, minorities, and those
born outside the U.S. needed "to work harder and obtain higher performance scores in order to receive
similar salary increases to white men."
Neoliberal college is not about education. It is about getting wealthy a head start to enforce
and strengthen separation between the elite and the rest. Other can only complain... But
that e fact is the many large companies invite for interview for open positions only of Ivy
Leagues graduates. Other do not need to apply. So it is mostly about "Class A" and "Class B"
citizens. Talent and hard work can buy buy a ticket for vertical mobility (see some stories below),
but that was true in any society. Actually mobility in the USA is below average, despite MSM
non-stop brainwashing of the USA citizens about "the land of opportunities", the "American Dream",
etc. And exorbitant salaries of University brass is a norm now. you can't change that
without changing the neoliberal system as a whole. they are no longer bound by academic ethics. Like
Wall Streeters, want to get the most of the life, no matter by what means (the
end justifies the means mentality). They are masters of the universe. Others (aka suckers) can
go to hell.
Notable quotes:
"... Dealing with swiftly mounting student loan debt has been a focus of candidates vying for the White House in 2016. Democratic hopeful Bernie Sanders has vowed to make tuition free at public universities and colleges, and has pledged to cut interest rates for student loans. ..."
"... I can see having a low, federally-subsidized interest rate on these loans....which I seem to recall having on some of my loans, but anyone wanting anything for free can take a hike, IMHO. ..."
"... Ever visit a university in a country that has free college education for its' citizens? It's pretty austere. These kids need to think past the clever sound bytes and really consider the effect of what they are asking for. ..."
"... What really needs to be addressed is the skyrocketing cost of college education PERIOD! At the rate it's going up pretty soon only the children of billionaires will be able to afford to go to college. ..."
"... College tuition cannot be allowed to just continue to escalate. ..."
"... If a high school grad can't explain in detail how much cash is needed, and how spending all that cash and time for education is going to provide a positive return on investment, he or she should not be going to college. This should be near the top of things that teens learn in high school. ..."
"... I get really cynical about all graduates claiming they had no idea how much their loans were going to cost them. ..."
"... If you didn't bother to read your loan docs before signing, or research likely monthly payments for your loan, that's your fault! ..."
"... College costs went up far faster than inflation, often because colleges built fancy sports and living facilities...because they figured out these same millennials pick colleges based on those things. ..."
"... The standard tours take students through fancy facilities that have nothing to do with quality of education. Add declining teaching loads that have decreased from 12 class hours to 3 class hours per week for a professor in the past 25 years and the rise in overhead for non-academic administration overhead positions like chief diversity and inclusion officer and you have expensive college. ..."
"... These 'loans' are now almost all, Pell Grant underwritten. Cannot Bankrupt on, co-signers and students can lose their Social Security money if defaulting. 1.5 trillion$ of these loans have been packaged, like Home Loans, derivative. What happens to peoples retirement accounts when their Funds have investments in them, what happens to the Primary Dealers when the derivatives bubble bursts? ..."
"... Where it is free, but only to the select, the performers, most American Students would not qualify in other countries for advanced Ed. ..."
Students held rallies on college campuses across the United States on Thursday to protest
ballooning student loan debt for higher education and rally for tuition-free public colleges and
a minimum wage hike for campus workers.
The demonstrations, dubbed the Million Student March, were planned just two days after thousands
of fast-food workers took to the streets in a nationwide day of action pushing for a $15-an-hour
minimum wage and union rights for the industry.
About 50 students from Boston-area colleges gathered at Northeastern University carrying signs
that read "Degrees not receipts" and "Is this a school or a corporation?"
"The student debt crisis is awful. Change starts when people demand it in the street. Not in the
White House," said Elan Axelbank, 20, a third year student at Northeastern, who said he was a
co-founder of the national action.
... ... ...
"I want to graduate without debt," said Ashley Allison, a 22-year-old student at Boston's
Bunker Hill Community College, at the Northeastern rally. "Community college has been kind to me,
but if I want to go on, I have to take on debt."
Dealing with swiftly mounting student loan debt has been a focus of candidates vying for the
White House in 2016. Democratic hopeful Bernie Sanders has vowed to make tuition free at public
universities and colleges, and has pledged to cut interest rates for student loans.
... ... ...
Andrew Jackson
Free taxpayer supported public education means more college administrators earning $200,000
or more, more faculty earning $100,000 or more working 8 months a year and more $300
textbooks. Higher education costs are a direct correlation to Federal Student Loans subsiding
college bureaucracies, exorbitant salaries for college administrators and faculty.
terrance
What fantasy world do these people live in. There is nothing for free and if you borrow
tens of thousands of dollars you can't expect later that someone else will pick up your tab.
Pucker up bucky, it is your responsibility.
Furthermore, a lot of this money didn't go to education. I have read where people went back
to school so they could borrow money to pay their rent, or even their car payments. As for 15
dollars an hour to sling burgers, grow up.
sjc
Having been out of college for a few years, I am curious. I went to a State University.
Tuition was high, I had to take loans, I drove a cheap 10 yr old vehicle, but it didn't kill
me. My total debt was about the price of a decent new car back then.
Today, the average student loan debt after graduation is just under $30,000. Around the
price of a new car. And these kids are trying to tell us that this is too much of a burden???
Look around any campus these days, and you will see lots of $30,000 cars in the parking lots.
I can see having a low, federally-subsidized interest rate on these loans....which I
seem to recall having on some of my loans, but anyone wanting anything for free can take a
hike, IMHO.
Meed
Careful what you wish for, kiddies. It's simple math and simple economics (things I learned
in school while studying instead of protesting). Every university has a maximum number of
students it can support, based on the number and capacity of dorms, classrooms, faculty, etc.
The tuition rates have always closely matched the amount of easily-accessed loans available
- the easier the access to loans, the higher tuition is. The simple reason is that the
universities raise tuition rates to manage the demand for their limited resources, and can
always raise rates when there is more demand than there are openings for incoming students.
Thanks to the windfall from that high tuition, today's universities have student unions,
recreation facilities, gyms, pools, and lots of amenities to attract students. Imagine what
they will offer when they can't jack up the tuition. Ever visit a university in a country
that has "free" college education for its' citizens? It's pretty austere. These kids need to
think past the clever sound bytes and really consider the effect of what they are asking for.
matthew
Oddly enough, a majority of these students attend colleges who has sport teams sponsored by
Nike, Under Armour, Adidas, or Reebok. So, should theses companies atop providing the uniforms
and equipment free of charge and donate the money to make more scholarships available? Then
the student athletes can purchase their own gear on their own dime. Where one group attains,
another must lose. Let this be debated on college campuses and watch the students divide
themselves. We will find out what is most important to them.
JB
What really needs to be addressed is the skyrocketing cost of college education PERIOD!
At the rate it's going up pretty soon only the children of billionaires will be able to afford
to go to college.
Some junk yard dog investigative journalist needs to dig into the rising cost of college
education and identify the cause. Once the cause are understood then something can be done to
make college more affordable. College tuition cannot be allowed to just continue to
escalate.
just sayin'
Seriously how do we let our children out of high school without enough information to
decide if going to college is actually a good investment? If a high school grad can't
explain in detail how much cash is needed, and how spending all that cash and time for
education is going to provide a positive return on investment, he or she should not be going
to college. This should be near the top of things that teens learn in high school.
pcs
I get really cynical about all graduates claiming they had no idea how much their loans
were going to cost them. I mean, they had enough math skills to be accepted, then
graduate, from college. If you didn't bother to read your loan docs before signing, or
research likely monthly payments for your loan, that's your fault!
E
College costs went up far faster than inflation, often because colleges built fancy
sports and living facilities...because they figured out these same millennials pick colleges
based on those things. If you tour colleges, and I toured many in the past few years with
my kids, you don't see a classroom or lab unless you ask.
The standard tours take students through fancy facilities that have nothing to do with
quality of education. Add declining teaching loads that have decreased from 12 class hours to
3 class hours per week for a professor in the past 25 years and the rise in overhead for
non-academic administration overhead positions like "chief diversity and inclusion officer"
and you have expensive college.
If students want a cheap education, go to the junior college for general ed classes then
transfer to a four-year school. It is not glamorous but it yields a quality education without
a fortune in debt.
Rich
Getting an education is obviously the biggest scam in history!!!! Look at who controls
education. Look at all the Universities presidents last names then you will know what they
are. I can't say it here on Yahoo because they will take my comments out for speaking the
truth. These presidents make millions of $$$$$ a year off of students and parents who are
slaves and work hard to pay those tuitions. Not only that but look at the owners last names of
the Loan
50 CAL
Universities are money munching machines with no regard for how the students will repay the
loans. Universities annually raise tuition rates(much of which is unnecessary) with no regard
of how these young minds full of mush are going to repay the crushing debt, nor do they care.
Locally one university just opened a 15 million dollar athletic center, which brings up the
question, why did they need this? With that kind of cash to throw around, what wasn't at least
some used to keep tuitions affordable?
Mike D
These 'loans' are now almost all, Pell Grant underwritten. Cannot Bankrupt on,
co-signers and students can lose their Social Security money if defaulting. 1.5 trillion$ of
these loans have been packaged, like Home Loans, derivative.
What happens to peoples retirement accounts when their Funds have investments in them, what
happens to the Primary Dealers when the derivatives bubble bursts?
How are these loans to be made 'free' if existing loans bear interest? If the student of
'free education' defaults, doesn't graduate, will he owe money-will his parent, or will the
'free school' simply become a dumping ground for the youth without direction, simply housed in
college's dorm rooms?
Lots of questions and two things to keep in mind, the Banks and Teaching institutes love the
idea of 'free', the students are believing there might be a free ride.. ignoring schools and
Banks don't, won't and never do anything for free.
This is not going to turn out well for consumers. Sure, Household payments of Education may
drop, but the Institution of Education cannot keep even its slim success rate it has now. I
don't know how educators managed to turn education into a purely self gratifying industry,
giving anything to purchasers they wished for that Education loan, but never ever ever, has
underwriting by the Central improved the quality of business. Complete underwriting of the
important system of education at the Fed level will be a disaster.
There will be almost zero accountability for institutes and students, we will have a more
expensive system that turns out the worst grads.
Don't try believing that other countries abilities with free Ed can be duplicated here..
not without serious socialism, a condition where qualifying for Ed advancement is determined
by the Central.
Where it is free, but only to the select, the performers, most American Students would
not qualify in other countries for advanced Ed. Blanket quals are almost a condition
here, American Students are in for a serious surprise. They will not be so able to buy/loan
their way to college and have to excel to get into college.
The joke is on the American student.
Jim
i was one of seven children- i worked my way through four years of undergrad and three
years of grad school with my parents only being able to pay health insurance and car
insurance- i worked shelving books, busing tables, delivering pizzas and for the last five
years as a parimutuel clerk at dog and horsetracks- i never got to go on spring break, do a
semester at sea or take classes in europe- i graduated debt free from public universities-
have no sympathy for a bunch of whiny brats who have to drive better cars than their
professors and believe they are entitled to special treatment- get a job and quit acting like
a bunch of welfare queens who feel they deserve entitlements
Linda
My son is in college. Because grandpa saved his money over the years, he volunteered to pay
for college costs. We hope to continue the tradition with our grandchildren and carefully save
our money as well. We don't live high or purchase new. He will graduate zero dollars in debt.
My son's college roommate comes from a very wealthy family. They own a plane - two houses -
dad works on Wall Street - mom is a Doctor. He has to pay for his own education and gets loans
for everything. His parents simply don't have the cash to pay for his education.
It's priorities people! If something is worth it, you'll make it happen.
James Maguire's
article raises some interesting questions as to why teaching Java to first
year CS / IT students is a bad idea. The article mentions both Ada and Pascal
– neither of which really "took off" outside of the States, with the former
being used mainly by contractors of the US Dept. of Defense.
This is my own, personal, extension to the article – which I agree with –
and why first year students should be taught C in first year. I'm biased though,
I learned C as my first language and extensively use C or C++ in
projects.
Java is a very high level language that has interesting features that make
it easier for programmers. The two main points, that I like about Java, are
libraries (although libraries exist for C / C++ ) and memory management.
Libraries
Libraries are fantastic. They offer an API and abstract a metric fuck tonne
of work that a programmer doesn't care about. I don't care how
the library works inside, just that I have a way of putting in input and getting
expected output (see my post on
abstraction).
I've extensively used libraries, even this week, for audio codec decoding. Libraries
mean not reinventing the wheel and reusing code (something students are discouraged
from doing, as it's plagiarism, yet in the real world you are rewarded). Again,
starting with C means that you appreciate the libraries more.
Memory Management
Managing your programs memory manually is a pain in the hole. We all know
this after spending countless hours finding memory leaks in our programs. Java's
inbuilt memory management tool is great – it saves me from having to do it.
However, if I had have learned Java first, I would assume (for a short amount
of time) that all languages managed memory for you or that
all languages were shite compared to Java because they don't
manage memory for you. Going from a "lesser" language like C to Java makes you
appreciate the memory manager
What's so great about C?
In the context of a first language to teach students, C is perfect. C is
Relatively simple
Procedural
Lacks OOP features, which confuse freshers
Low level
Fast
Imperative
Weakly typed
Easy to get bugs
Java is a complex language that will spoil a first year student. However,
as noted, CS / IT courses need to keep student retention rates high. As an example,
my first year class was about 60 people, final year was 8. There are ways to
keep students, possibly with other, easier, languages in the second semester
of first year – so that students don't hate the subject when choosing the next
years subject post exams.
Conversely, I could say that you should teach Java in first
year and expand on more difficult languages like C or assembler (which should
be taught side by side, in my mind) later down the line – keeping retention
high in the initial years, and drilling down with each successive semester to
more systems level programming.
There's a time and place for Java, which I believe is third year or final
year. This will keep Java fresh in the students mind while they are going job
hunting after leaving the bosom of academia. This will give them a good head
start, as most companies are Java houses in Ireland.
In
computer science, abstraction is the process by which
data and
programs are defined with a
representation similar to its meaning (semantics),
while hiding away the
implementation details. Abstraction tries to reduce and factor out details
so that the
programmer
can focus on a few concepts at a time. A system can have several abstraction
layers whereby different meanings and amounts of detail are exposed
to the programmer. For example,
low-level abstraction layers expose details of the
hardware
where the program is
run, while high-level layers deal with the
business
logic of the program.
That might be a bit too wordy for some people, and not at all clear. Here's
my analogy of abstraction.
Abstraction is like a car
A car has a few features that makes it unique.
A steering wheel
Accelerator
Brake
Clutch
Transmission (Automatic or Manual)
If someone can drive a Manual transmission car, they can drive any Manual
transmission car. Automatic drivers, sadly, cannot drive a Manual transmission
drivers without "relearing" the car. That is an aside, we'll assume that all
cars are Manual transmission cars – as is the case in Ireland for most cars.
Since I can drive my car, which is a Mitsubishi Pajero, that means that I
can drive your car – a Honda Civic, Toyota Yaris, Volkswagen Passat.
All I need to know, in order to drive a car – any car – is how to use the
breaks, accelerator, steering wheel, clutch and transmission. Since I already
know this in my car, I can abstract away your car and it's
controls.
I do not need to know the inner workings of your car in
order to drive it, just the controls. I don't need to know how exactly the breaks
work in your car, only that they work. I don't need to know, that your car has
a turbo charger, only that when I push the accelerator, the car moves. I also
don't need to know the exact revs that I should gear up or gear down (although
that would be better on the engine!)
Virtually all controls are the same. Standardization means that the clutch,
break and accelerator are all in the same place, regardless of the car. This
means that I do not need to relearn how a car works. To me, a car is
just a car, and is interchangeable with any other car.
Abstraction means not caring
As a programmer, or someone using a third party API (for example), abstraction
means not caring how the inner workings of some function works
– Linked list data structure, variable names inside the function, the sorting
algorithm used, etc – just that I have a standard (preferable unchanging) interface
to do whatever I need to do.
Abstraction can be taught of as a black box. For input, you get output. That
shouldn't be the case, but often is. We need abstraction so that, as a programmer,
we can concentrate on other aspects of the program – this is the corner-stone
for large scale, multi developer, software projects.
Education is not the only cause of inequality, but it's part of the problem:
Are
American schools making inequality worse?, American Educational Research Association: The
answer appears to be yes. Schooling plays a surprisingly large role in short-changing the nation's
most economically disadvantaged students of critical math skills, according to a
study published today in Educational Researcher, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Educational
Research Association.
Findings from the study indicate that unequal access to rigorous mathematics
content is widening the gap in performance on a prominent international math literacy test between
low- and high-income students, not only in the United States but in countries worldwide.
Using data from the 2012..., researchers from Michigan State University and OECD confirmed
not only that low-income students are more likely to be exposed to weaker math content in schools,
but also that a substantial share of the gap in math performance between economically advantaged
and disadvantaged students is related to those curricular inequalities. ...
"Our findings support previous research by showing that affluent students are consistently
provided with greater opportunity to learn more rigorous content, and that students who are exposed
to higher-level math have a better ability to apply it to addressing real-world situations of
contemporary adult life, such as calculating interest, discounts, and estimating the required
amount of carpeting for a room," said Schmidt, a University Distinguished Professor of Statistics
and Education at Michigan State University. "But now we know just how important content inequality
is in contributing to performance gaps between privileged and underprivileged students."
In the United States, over one-third of the social class-related gap in student performance
on the math literacy test was associated with unequal access to rigorous content. The other two-thirds
was associated directly with students' family and community background. ...
"Because of differences in content exposure for low- and high-income students in this country,
the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer," said Schmidt. "The belief that schools
are the great equalizer, helping students overcome the inequalities of poverty, is a myth."
Burroughs, a senior research associate at Michigan State University, noted that the findings
have major implications for school officials, given that content exposure is far more subject
to school policies than are broader socioeconomic conditions.
Anonymous -> Anonymous...
do you think schools in China/India have funding on the level you are implicitly arguing for?
As Eva Maskovich is showing in NYC - it takes better teachers, not more money.
pgl -> Anonymous...
I live in NYC
"According to Success Academy Charter Schools founder and President Eva Moskowitz".
Ah yes - the charter school crowd. As in Mayor Bloomberg's push for privatizing our public
education system. They have a lot of really dishonest ads attacking our new mayor. So you are
with these privatization freaks? Go figure!
Anonymous -> kthomas...
I am an Asian immigrant who came to the US to pursue the American dream. My education allowed
me to run circles around most students at the university. I ended up with triple major and a post
grad degree. So, go ahead. call the rigorous schooling horrifying all you want. It is silly to
raise kids in an ultra sheltered environment. The jobs are going to go where qualified highly
productive people who want less money are. Then they will have to face reality anyway. We can
sit here and argue about it all we want. The truth is that kids in Asia can do the job I started
with sitting there better for a fraction of the cost here. And this is a job requiring advanced
degrees.
Anonymous -> Anonymous...
And you can add Eastern Europe to Asia. The competition is going to degrade our standard of
living as it has whether we like it or not.
DrDick -> Anonymous...
Sorry, but this is pure BS. We are talking about the presence of AP, foreign language, and
advanced math classes. Having new textbooks and enough textbooks for all students, class sizes,
laboratory equipment for science classes, and building maintenance, among many other very significant
differences.
yes. they spend on things that count. instead of hockey rinks and olympics standard gyms for
toddlers.
DrDick -> Anonymous...
None of which are characteristic of public schools. Have you ever even visited reality? Charter
schools suck up a much greater share of available public resources and further starve the schools
serving the poor and minorities, as happened in Chicago. Unlike you, I believe in fact based decision
making.
" The new school year has been marred for many students all over the country by severe budget
cuts, shuttered schools, and decimated staff. Philadelphia, where students went back to school
Monday, is seeing some of the most extreme effects of these budget cuts.
Nine thousand students will attend 53 different schools today than they did last fall after
24 were closed down. Class sizes have ballooned in many schools, with parents reporting as many
as 48 students in one classroom. Meanwhile, the district laid off 3,859 employees over the summer.
A new policy also eliminates guidance counselors from schools with fewer than 600 students,
which is about 60 percent of Philadelphia schools. Now one counselor will be responsible for five
or six schools at once. Arts and sports programs have also been sacrificed.
Philly's new barebones regime was implemented after Gov. Tom Corbett (R) and the Republican-dominated
legislature cut $961 million from the basic education budget, or 12 percent overall. Federal stimulus
funds cushioned schools from state cuts for a couple of years, but they are now dwindling.
The district is struggling to fill a $304 million deficit. In order to open schools on time,
the state gave an extra $2 million in funding and the city borrowed $50 million. Corbett is also
withholding a $45 million state grant until teachers unions agree to concessions of about $133
million in a new labor pact. The district plans to sell 31 shuttered school properties. "
"All Australian private schools receive some commonwealth government funding. So they are technically
all "Charter" schools although the term is not used in Australia."
Charter schools are precisely what Milton Friedman recommended. He has the integrity to call
this privatization. Anonymous does not. Funded by taxpayers but these schools are for profit entities.
Anonymous - have the courage to admit your agenda next time.
ilsm -> pgl...
Charter schools are like privatized arsenals, all cost cutting, profit and no performance.
US privatized the arsenals starting after WW I when a lot of "qui tammers" got to send arms
to the Brits.
How long before the charter industry complex has enough unwarranted influence to ruin education?
djb -> Anonymous...
the charter schools cherry pick the best students and they don't deal with problem kids
this I known, they do poorly especially in new York city
as pgl said it is the fact that schools are fund locally that is the problem
to use a favorite right wing phrase
public education is an "unfunded mandate"
it should be paid for by the federal government
then all the mostly right wing politician could use property tax for divide and conquer politics
and funding can go where it is needed
djb -> djb...
then all the mostly right wing politician could NO LONGER use property tax for divide and conquer
politics
DrDick -> pgl...
I think this is the primary issue. The schools in my hometown of 30K, national headquarters
for Phillips Petroleum with a major research facility at the time, were excellent and most students
went to college. Elsewhere in Oklahoma, students from similar sized towns were barely literate
when they graduated. The primary reliance on local funding guarantees perpetuation of inequalities
and the failure of the poor. This is exacerbated in larger communities by differential funding
and resources allocated to schools within the district. When I lived in Chicago, Lincoln Park
High School, in an affluent neighborhood, had world class programs. Meanwhile, schools on the
predominately black west side and south side were literally falling apart with peeling lead paint
and asbestos insulation falling on the students (along with occasional pieces of the cielings).
"...I found that we spent more time talking about how we were going to be make a difference rather
than learning how to be effective teachers who could ultimately "make a difference.""
"...It is strange that TFA felt the need to use such manipulative methods of drumming up enthusiasm on
a group of well-educated individuals already committed to their organization."
"...Trying to balance the demands and expectations of both my school and TFA was challenging,
especially when both parties were extremely focused on data and standardized testing to the detriment
of what my young students needed."
"...It is interesting to note here that corps members are "managed" by TFA, as if they were
commodities, rather than "guided" or "mentored.""
"...Rather than creating critically thinking informed
citizens (was there ever a point in American history when it was ever about that?), our educational
system seems from the ground up designed to produce obedient, and not especially curious, cogs.
"
By Jessica Millen, who graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 2013. She was a
2013 Teach For America (TFA) corps member in New Orleans, where she taught third grade. She currently
works as a preschool teacher in
South Bend, Indiana
Editor's note: In the decade and a half of its existence,
Teach For America has trained upwards of 50,000 individuals to enter classrooms nationwide and "make
a difference" in the lives of children - usually those living in poverty. But the question of how
prepared these individuals are to deal with the realities faced by the children they teach and meet
their educational needs has long been in question.
In the following excerpt, taken from an essay in the newly published book,
Teach For America Counter-Narratives: Alumni Speak Up and Speak Out, one former TFA
corps member shares her account of her time with the organization, alleging that TFA both "preyed
on [her] naïveté of the lived realities of urban schooling" and"exploited [her] desire
to 'make a difference.'" Her disillusionment with the organization and its educational philosophy
grew so deep, in fact, that she resigned after just 6 months.
The Bait
On the urging of a friend and campus recruiter, I applied to join TFA in October of
my senior year at the University of Notre Dame. After a multipart interview process, I was accepted
into the program's Greater New Orleans region. Soon afterwards, TFA began to effectively use social
networks to bolster my desire to join. Former classmates and undergraduate campus recruiters reached
out and stressed how wonderful it was that I had gotten into such a selective organization. My interviewer
called to congratulate me on a job well done. After being bombarded with so many congratulations,
I couldn't help but feel proud that I had passed through such a selective hiring process.
The official TFA recruiter on my campus held events for accepted corps members after
each hiring deadline, offering free drinks and appetizers at an on-campus restaurant. I found it
strange how much money TFA, a nonprofit organization, spent on us. We wore name tags, ate food, and
discussed our excitement about the upcoming school year. Our recruiter, like the other TFA corps
members and staff who had reached out to me, stressed the "prestige" of the program and how much
TFA would help us in the future. He himself was a former TFA corps member who taught for 3 years
before joining the recruiting arm of the organization. I found his enthusiasm for TFA contagious
as he pointed out TFA's connections with graduate schools and the numerous opportunities that would
be afforded to us post-TFA.
At the time, I was impressed by how many corps members were still involved in public
education. According to TFA, more than 775 alumni were in school leadership positions at schools
across the country (Teach For America, 2012a). I was glad to hear that TFA wasn't always just used
as a stepping stone to more lucrative careers; information on the TFA website boasted that as of
August 2013, 78% of alumni from the Greater New Orleans region were still in education (Teach For
America, 2012b). I didn't bother to look up the evidence behind TFA's claims. I trusted that the
information from this professional organization that seemed to care so much about children was ethically
collected, compiled, and reported. I now know that the organization's assertion that "Teach For America
corps members help their students achieve academic gains equal to or larger than teachers from other
preparation programs, according to the most recent and rigorous studies on teacher effectiveness"
(Teach For America, 2012c) is, at best, extremely misleading. Reviews of the research cited by TFA
to back its claims of corps member effectiveness ultimately reveal a less favorable picture; the
majority of studies listed by TFA are not peer-reviewed, are problematic, and/or produced mixed results
(Kovacs & Slate-Young, 2013; Vasquez Heilig & Jez, 2014).
But taking TFA's claims of effectiveness at face value, I continued to be wooed by the
organization. Besides the free events hosted by the campus recruiter, TFA offered additional financial
incentives to make the bait even sweeter. I remember gushing to my parents that I would not only
receive a full teacher's salary, but also get funding to cover the transitional costs of moving and
living during the summer before I began teaching. As an indebted college student, it seemed that,
on top of using my skills and education to serve in public education, I was making a solid financial
decision in joining TFA. Such tantalizing benefits convinced me that not only was I making a strong
move for my future, but I would also be "making a difference" in the lives of low-income and minority
students. As a young, well-educated, idealistic student, I took the bait-hook, line and sinker.
The "Training"
After a 7-hour drive to TFA's summer training Institute in Atlanta, I was excited to
begin. Although I had been warned that Institute could be an overwhelming experience, the intensity
of our schedule was still surprising. Breakfast at 5:30 am, followed by a full day at our school
sites, a quick dinner, additional training sessions in the evening, and then trying to complete the
next day's lesson plans was the perfect recipe for sleep deprivation, and left little time to process
all this new information.
During this training, the organization's "you'll be making a difference" message became
more insistent. Each morning, after being bused to our school site in the early morning, we were
greeted by our school director. After signing in, we all gathered in our school site's library to
begin our morning with an inspirational video. Over the course of those 5 weeks we watched what seemed
to be every single well-known, inspirational education video on YouTube. We saw Kid President's "Pep
Talk to Teachers and Students!", listened to Taylor Mali tell us "What Teachers Make," watched Sir
Ken Robinson's animation video "Changing Education Paradigms," and many, many more.
Their model was working! At the time, I was inspired and eager to be in the classroom.
Here I was, part of this great movement that was going to make a difference! So swept up in the staff
members' fervor, I did not stop to think about why we were being shown all these inspirational and
emotionally charged messages, or what they would ultimately contribute to my ability to be a competent,
caring, and effective teacher.
It didn't end with just morning bursts of "let's change the world." Throughout our training
sessions, we were often shown videos of real TFA teachers working in their classrooms. They were
always uplifting clips, showing well-behaved students and enthusiastic teachers. We were told they
had started just like us at one point in time, although the teachers' educational backgrounds were
never divulged. We were never shown any videos of "bad" teachers or teachers who were struggling,
nor did we see how teachers deal with students who are challenging behaviorally, or even defiant.
And we were certainly never shown how to handle students' physical altercations or emotional breakdowns.
I had expected more hands-on training throughout the program. But with only a half hour
to an hour and half in front of students each day, I found that we spent more time talking about
how we were going to be make a difference rather than learning how to be effective teachers who could
ultimately "make a difference."
In addition to watching inspirational videos, we listened to many TFA staff members
give talks about the rewarding nature of teaching. They showed us pictures of themselves and their
students and told stories of how they had impacted their students' lives. These peppy speakers were
extremely positive, only occasionally using vague phrasing to describe teaching as "the hardest thing
you'll ever do." There was no delving into why it was the "hardest thing I would ever do." nor was
there space to ask the speakers to elaborate. While I recognize that it might be difficult to convey
the specific challenges that come with the first year of teaching, when such uplifting testimony
is paired with only examples of successful TFA teachers, it was easy and safe for me to assume that
I would soon begin "making a difference" once I entered the classroom on my own.
The "making a difference" message was not limited to our sessions in classroom management
and pedagogy. During our training, we attended two huge pep rallies, one at the beginning and one
at the end of Institute. As the Atlanta Institute hosted multiple TFA regions, the auditorium was
packed. At the opening rally we were greeted by a huge PowerPoint slide declaring "One Day," highlighting
TFA's mantra that "One day all children will have access to an excellent education." The title of
the evening's program was "Your Role in the Movement for Educational Equity." After listening to
speakers thank us for undertaking the journey we were about to begin, I felt excited. It seemed like
TFA was an organization that was actually making a tangible difference in communities across the
United States.
Before the closing pep rally, each school site's corps members created a chant to be
shared with the full assembly. Most corps members had purchased t-shirts for their school sites,
and as we filed in to our assigned school site spaces, the chanting began. Huge groups of matching
corps members were on their feet, yelling at the top of their lungs the cheers they had written.
Soon, the TFA staff running the rally began to moderate the cheering, shouting each school site's
name and encouraging each group to be louder than the rest. After more peppy speakers, a student
brass band played the corps members out, matching the same frenzied enthusiasm that the hundreds
of young, soon-to-be teachers had displayed. In retrospect, the techniques used at these rallies
made it feel more like a multilevel marketing convention than a gathering of thoughtful educators.
It is strange that TFA felt the need to use such manipulative methods of drumming up enthusiasm on
a group of well-educated individuals already committed to their organization.
The Switch
After those 5 weeks of training, I was alone in a classroom with 27 eight- and nine-year-olds.
I had no idea what to do with the rigorous and inflexible curriculum modalities that dictated what
I taught and when. There was nothing in our training that indicated our teaching lives would be so
scripted and controlled. Moreover, I was confused by strict administrative policies that were completely
developmentally inappropriate; for instance, my third graders were allowed only 20 minutes of recess,
once a week. Again, there was no mention of what to do when school-wide policies were completely
incongruent with what I knew at this point to be developmentally appropriate practices.
Trying to balance the demands and expectations of both my school and TFA was challenging,
especially when both parties were extremely focused on data and standardized testing to the detriment
of what my young students needed. This made it difficult for me to realize my vision of schooling.
While I understood the necessity of assessment and its usefulness in gauging how much students know,
and therefore in future lesson planning, both my school and TFA's focus on testing overshadowed my
legitimate concerns for students' emotional and social well-being and academic growth beyond what
could be measured in omnipresent assessments. I had to prepare my students for weekly and quarterly
testing, on top of looming state-mandated tests that would also measure my success as a teacher.
The pressure from both the state and district to raise student test scores manifested in my administration's
extreme concern with test scores and maximizing instructional time not only in specific subjects
but also to specific isolated skill sets, always to the detriment of exploring other important areas
of elementary education, such as exposure to culture, creative and scientific thinking, music, and
art.
Armed only with TFA's strictly behaviorist methods of classroom management, I was unprepared
for many of the issues I faced, and my classroom quickly spiraled out of control. From my 5 weeks
of training, I was knowledgeable only about behaviorist management methods that focused on giving
clear directions, narrating student behavior when they were following directions, and then giving
consequences to those students not complying. These management methods were presented as best practices
during our training; no other alternatives were mentioned.
After attempting to use TFA's preferred classroom management system in my own classroom,
I realized that the behaviorist theory of management was not working for my students or for me. When
I expressed these feelings to TFA staff members, however, my concerns were ignored and brushed aside.
In one meeting with my real-time coach from TFA, who had 4 years of teaching experience, I expressed
how uncomfortable I was with forcing my students to remain seated all the time. My coach insisted
that students learn best when they are seated. He then noticed that, according to the scripted conversation
template from TFA, we had gone over the allotted time for this portion of our meeting. Rather than
continuing a conversation that could have helped me understand TFA's position, he decided that following
the prescribed conversation model was more important and ended the discussion. Looking back, it is
easy to see why I felt that I was not being supported or listened to by TFA staff. Suddenly, I found
myself hearing a different story than the one I was told during the application and training process.
Now, instead of "making a difference," I was told I was "making excuses," by not believing in myself
enough and not being the leader of my classroom.
I met with my TFA manager of teacher leadership development (MTLD) every so often for
a check-in. It is interesting to note here that corps members are "managed" by TFA, as if they were
commodities, rather than "guided" or "mentored." At one of these meetings, my MTLD told me she wanted
me to have lunch with all my students, so that I could work on "building relationships." I had already
begun to have lunch with small groups of students occasionally, but I was having trouble finding
the time to eat with students every day, given the other demands on my time as a new educator. When
I brought up what I thought were legitimate concerns-the fact that I had only 25 minutes for lunch,
which included dropping off/picking up my students at the cafeteria, and that my administration had
concerns about me "rewarding" students who often were not following school rules (eating with students
was seen as a reward, not simply a good practice to develop relationships)-my TFA manager told me,
"I'm hearing a lot of excuses from you."
In addition to telling me that I was making excuses, my manager also said that I did
not believe in myself enough. As a confident young woman who had had a successful experience at Institute,
where I was told, "Your students are going to be so lucky to have you" and "You're doing so well,"
I knew I could be an excellent teacher. I believed in my students and their potential, and had a
wealth of knowledge about education, children, and learning, largely from my undergraduate studies.
My end-of-Institute award was for "believing in your students." To be told I didn't believe in my
students or myself was insulting, and not the type of support I expected to receive from TFA staff
members.
TFA staff members repeatedly told me that I was not being the leader of my classroom,
in the sense that I did not have strict control over my students' bodily movements. Within TFA's
model of behavioral control, I was expected to have all of my students sitting in their seats at
all times, and to accomplish this particular aspect of classroom management by consistently giving
consequences. On an intellectual level, I recognized that giving consequences was a necessary part
of their management system. It was not that I was incapable of giving my students consequences; the
problem was that my vision of schooling did not include a classroom where the teacher is all-powerful,
all-knowledgeable, and in strict control at all times. What I was beginning to understand was that
there was no room in their model for my vision; in fact, my vision was completely contrary to their
understanding of how schooling should be conducted and why. TFA's Teaching as Leadership model is
based upon the idea that teachers are responsible for everything that happens inside of the classroom,
regardless of whether or not you agree with the techniques and content you are being forced to adopt
(Farr, 2010).
My frustration deepened when TFA staff ignored the fact that there were other factors
at work in and out of my classroom that affected student behavior and achievement. I was unable to
choose curriculum or what was taught when. TFA's model of behavioral control and TFA staff instructed
me to use extremely scripted sets of phrases, limiting my freedom to develop my own style of classroom
instruction that suited my unique context. In addition to this, TFA staff ignored the life circumstances
of many of my students. I could not change the circumstances that led Jerome to bring a roach-infested
notebook to school, or the fact that Peter's mother told him to "get his lick back," meaning that
if someone hits him, he should hit back. Whenever I tried to bring up the lived realities of my students'
lives and the real challenges they faced, once again, I was told I was "making excuses." Despite
my having personal knowledge of my students and their families, my voice and ultimately my potential
to use alternative methods and ideas for creating a more learner-centered, productive environment
was repeatedly pushed aside, as it contradicted TFA talking points.
In the end, I decided to leave. I could not, in good conscience, continue to work for
an organization whose guiding educational philosophy varied so greatly from my own. It was not a
decision I made lightly, leaving the very students I was trying to love and teach. But after I decided
to leave, there came a small moment when I knew I had made the right choice. As I was waiting on
duty for the last of the buses to arrive, Sarah caught my eye. She and her younger brother were role-playing
the teacher-student relationship and the words coming out of Sarah's mouth broke my heart: "You're
receiving a consequence! You have earned a lunch detention. You get a consequence!" These are the
words and phrases she had heard me use repeatedly, again and again, over and over, as I strove to
enact my MTLD's mandate to give lots of consequences. I had spent 3 months with this child and all
I taught her about what it means to be a teacher is that a teacher gives consequences. This was devastating
to me, and it was then that I realized that the bait and switch was complete.
cripes
John Taylor Gatto, the underappreciated and ailing critic of our mis-education system, and
holder of numerous teaching awards, had this to say about american schooling:
"School is about learning to wait your turn, however long it takes to come, if ever. And how
to submit with a show of enthusiasm to the judgment of strangers, even if they are wrong, even
if your enthusiasm is phony."
"Children learn what they live. Put kids in a class and they will live out their lives in an
invisible cage, isolated from their chance at community; interrupt kids with bells and horns all
the time and they will learn that nothing is important or worth finishing; ridicule them and they
will retreat from human association; shame them and they will find a hundred ways to get even.
The habits taught in large-scale organizations are deadly."
"Our form of compulsory schooling is an invention of the State of Massachusetts around 1850.
It was resisted - sometimes with guns - by an estimated eighty percent of the Massachusetts population,
the last outpost in Barnstable on Cape Cod not surrendering its children until the 1880s, when
the area was seized by militia and children marched to school under guard."
sets forth in 440 pages of gruesome detail the development of american education by the managerial
industrialists.
According to William Torrey Harris, U.S. Commissioner of Education from 1889 to 1906:
"Ninety-nine [students] out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in
prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom. This is not an
accident but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is
the subsumption of the individual. –The Philosphy of Education (1906)
From the horse's mouth.
flora, August 19, 2015 at 2:41 am
Sounds like TFA teaches both the college kids and the poor school kids to know their place.
That's an education …of sorts.
The worst sort.
washunate, August 19, 2015 at 11:25 am
Yep.
jgordon, August 19, 2015 at 4:48 am
I can entirely sympathize. Back in the 80s and 90s when I was going through public schools
in Florida my experience wasn't quite as bad as what Jessica was forced to inflict on students;
but it was still bad enough for me to come out of the school system with an enduring hatred for
organized education and authority in general. And the soul-destroying nature of formal education
has only been more perfected since then.
What exactly is the point of education anyway? Rather than creating critically thinking informed
citizens (was there ever a point in American history when it was ever about that?), our educational
system seems from the ground up designed to produce obedient, and not especially curious, cogs.
The fundamental programming inputted into the young by our culture is, at it's route, ultimately
destructive and suicidal to our species. Even an "improved" education system would still attempt
to impart that programming. It's in our cultural DNA. To my thinking, no education at all would
be much preferable.
jrs, August 19, 2015 at 4:50 am
It's often suggested that the problem with "teach to test" and run-away testing is that kids
do not learn to think but only to pass tests. That may be, but maybe, we also overemphasize the
intellect. The kids are ALSO at that point not being taught a lot ELSE … like how to empathize
and contribute as part of a community etc.. Perhaps that is exactly what teach to test was designed
to destroy in it's quest for not just a stupid but a soulless populace (I'm not presupposing some
prior Eden in schooling existed, just that things can get worse).
But it's barely noticeable, unless you read people who pleaded for this and plead they did, I'm
currently reading Alfred Adler.
But at any rate a system as described above can not be accidental can it? It can not run contrary
to so much accumulated knowledge and do it all out of mere ignorance … malice and deliberate design
seem far more plausible.
She doesn't sound like she really taught as some worst of the worst inner city schools though,
as the conditions described while bad for a lot of bureaucratic reasons, are not bad enough. Because
I've heard to teach at the worst inner city schools is to encounter not just bureaucratic but
societal failure, complete dysfunction in the environments the kids come from.
But at any rate she's lied to like a student suckered into a for-profit colleges sales pitch (though
that suckers poorer people generally), then subjected to what sounds more like a cult indoctrination
than anything (no sleeping, really? that's a brainwashing technique). And yes the rallies, I've
occasionally had them in the corporate world, she's kind to link them to MLM, I immediately link
them to a certain German historical demagogue.
Uahsenaa, August 19, 2015 at 9:23 am
It doesn't have to be deliberate or the result of malice, actually. Public education in the
U.S. is the servant of many masters, all of which have varying knowledge of educational methods
(often none) and span a broad ideological spectrum. You have a federal government which mandates
(Common Core) while providing neither the funding nor a terribly clear sense of how one might
satisfy those requirements. Then you have state education departments/boards who actually pay
the bills and so have their own list of demands that a) must respond to federal mandates while
b) adding another layer of requirement and obfuscation. Then there are local school boards, typically
elected, who control a different set of funding, and so have their own layer of demands and obfuscations.
Then you have the administrators, from the superintendent (what is this, a prison?) down to principals
and counselors, whose ethos stems largely from the desire to maintain order above all else, which
is why you get silly things like elaborate rules as to how much skin a teenage girl can show.
The dysfunction results, from how all these interact rather poorly. To use my own example, Iowa
City has a liberal-ish school board (meaning a stark divide between conservative midwestern types
and card carrying Marxists), a very conservative state legislature that talks a good game on education
but always manages to find a new tax cut to justify underfunding things, and a federal government
whose educational guidelines actively discourage thinking beyond what you see right in front of
you, whether it's a passage from Beloved or a set of equations to integrate. All of these masters
must be served, so a great deal of time is wasted just trying to figure out how you manage to
have a curriculum at all while still satisfying demands. Students, then, are herded from one assessment
to another with little sense of why they are doing so. The administrators make clear, though,
that your options as a student are to sit the test or sit in detention.
washunate, August 19, 2015 at 12:37 pm
It doesn't have to be deliberate or the result of malice, actually.
Agreed, it doesn't have to be. But most of the assault on public education is.
TheCatSaid, August 19, 2015 at 10:41 am
Good article. John Holt is another giant. Reading his observations about what is really being
learned in classrooms forever changed how I do many things, literally overnight.
washunate, August 19, 2015 at 11:23 am
Great read. I think we will get more and more of these stories as the assault on locally
controlled, neighborhood public schools reaches its climax in the US. There is virtually
nothing left that someone would recognize of 'public school' from 30 or 40 years ago in all but
the wealthiest school districts.
The ability of the charter school movement to undermine the value of public schooling and public
school teachers over the past quarter century by getting lots of enthused temp workers into public
schools whie creaming lower cost, compliant students out of public schools was brilliant strategy.
It's almost like TFA and KIPP have been literally working hand in hand…
Michael Fiorillo, August 19, 2015 at 1:49 pm
Not "almost" working hand in hand, but far more intimately than that, literally and figuratively:
Richard Barth, President of the KIPP Foundation, is married to TFA's founder, Wendy Kopp.
The founders of KIPP are also TFA alums, natch…
EmilianoZ, August 19, 2015 at 1:55 pm
This article is a bait and switch itself. There's nothing about scabbing here. It's mainly
about a teacher who disagrees with the strict disciplinarian methods of TFA.
The most interesting part is about the training, especially the inordinate amount of pep talks,
pep events the trainee was subjected to. When did corporate culture become so much about pep?
I've had to endure a few sessions myself. I've always found them very embarrassing.
RalphR, August 19, 2015 at 2:12 pm
If you don't understand that Teach for America itself is a mechanism for recruiting scabbers,
you are sorely lacking in basic perceptual skills. I don't have a problem with reminding people
of TFA's real aims along with discussing more specific shortcomings.
jrs, August 19, 2015 at 3:00 pm
In the corporate world such rallies have sent me into an unable to work for the rest of the
day depression (short lived of course), even though I came in expecting to work. There's something
deeply degrading and insulting to one's basic human dignity in being subjected to that stuff,
that even work that is menial and/or pointless doesn't equal!
washunate, August 19, 2015 at 6:58 pm
I agree, but I think it's what makes these kinds of essays powerful and poignant. This is not
some activist railing against TFA. This is someone who, as she describes in the training, was
already committed to the organization. It's like observing that even Ron Paul knows the drug war
is bad. TFA is so bad that even people who genuinely think that TFA is doing tangible good end
up disgusted by it when they reflect upon what they are experiencing.
TruthAddict, August 19, 2015 at 2:26 pm
My wife went through the TFA program. What a nightmare that was, it nearly broke her emotionally
and spiritually.
Just another predatory corporation that subsists on exploitation of the most vulnerable and inexperienced
members of society. Funny thing was, the main TFA office was located In the same building, on
the same floor, as the local dept of education office. How that was managed would be an interesting
story. What do they call mergers of private corps and public institutions again?
TheCatSaid, August 19, 2015 at 10:40 pm
"What do they call mergers of private corps and public institutions again?"
"[Elida Gonzalez, the] now-23-year-old daughter of a farm worker
from Santa Maria, Calif., signed up with 13th Avenue Funding, borrowing $15,000 to complete her bachelor's
degree at the University of California, Santa Cruz. The Sacramento-based nonprofit group agreed to
fund her college expenses in exchange for a share of her future earnings in an arrangement called
an income-share agreement" [Yahoo
News].
Yikes. "[There are] a variety of government, university and market-based experiments
with such income-share agreements, in which investors essentially buy stock in the students. At stake:
a fundamental shift in the way Americans finance higher education." "'It feels icky to me,' said
David Bergeron, a former Obama White House education adviser."
Well, sharecropping, indentured servitude, serfdom, and slavey are all "icky." Let's just hope
Gonzalez's "income share" agreement - note the word "share," again - doesn't include a contract for,
er, personal services….
... taxes constitute a form
of class warfare waged by the state against ... In New Jersey, ... Chantal Mouffe's Liberal
Socialism," Journal of Composition ...
Neoliberal
transformation is not simply a top-down process. Neoliberal hegemony at the global level has
an ally in the Indian elite in producing class-biased economic ...
Neoliberal Education ... This is the upper middle class reproducing itself by pouring
enormous ... Do you see this neo-liberal narrative creating new dogma ...
The class politics of neoliberalism. Review by ... Capitalist classes believed that ... Its
new forms in the neoliberal period include structural adjustment ...
Class and generation under neoliberalism Ben Little Three stories Angry - but at what? thump,
thump … thump, thump, THUD It's 1 am, and that's the noise of my ...
B. Curtis: Class, neoliberalism and New Zealand 3 The failure to recognise the link
between neoliberalism and neo-colonialism in the case of New Zealand, is the case ...
LIBERALISM AND SOCIAL CONTROL: THE NEWCLASS' WILL TO POWER. Kevin A. Carson . Twentieth
century liberalism, as an ideology of social control, goes back to the ...
A false political consciousness is leading many working and middle class people to support
neoliberal ... Neoliberalism provides the basis for a newclass ...
class,neo-liberalism,and
health ... The neo-liberal policies accompanying these trends led to ... what follows,I use the
idea of global capitalism as a new
The First Neoliberals. ... which was middle-class ... Perhaps that is why Jonathan
Chait cannot tell the difference between liberalism and neoliberalism. The new ...
Republicans recruited
popular support with what Reagan called an "unswerving commitment to freedom" even as newneoliberal policies ... the white working class, ...
Class, Capital and Education
in this Neoliberal and Neoconservative Period Dave Hill Professor of Education Policy at the
University of Northampton, UK
Neoliberalism
is an ideology which emerged in Central Europe during the ... The New Middle Class and
the Changing Social Base of Neoliberalism: a First Approximation.
Nowadays middle class
values largely conform to the neoliberal ideology that has dominated economic discourse for the
past 35 years. In light of our current "fiscal ...
A Brief History of Neoliberalism [David Harvey] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.
Neoliberalism--the doctrine that market exchange is an ethic in ...
The Uses of Neoliberalism
167 surprising finding, of course (isn't it precisely because they are on the losing end of things that
we call them "powerless" in ...
Neoliberalism, a Class Project J. Mercille et al., Deepening Neoliberalism, Austerity, ...
that the newneoliberal orthodoxy was consolidated and extended and
Hillary Clinton lost the
US presidential election against Donald Trump because a working-class revolt in the country against
neoliberal economics, an ...
Thinking through David
Harvey's theorisation ... He focuses attention on the class nature of the neoliberal ...
He argues that neoliberalism is a distinct and new ...
So what is neoliberalism? Wikipedia has an excellent article on neoliberalism that every democrat
should read, but for our purposes we can distill neoliberalism to a ...
Neoliberalism, the broad set of ideas positing the market and market-centered values as the
ultimate "civilizing" agent at home and abroad, has now structured our
muse.jhu.edu/article/524123
The Neoliberal Arts ... facing
the failure of their own class in the form of the Great Depression, succeeded in superseding
themselves and creating a new ...
6 Ways Neoliberal
Education Reform May Be ... This past August at the State University of New ... multivariate
problem rooted in larger class structures and ...
Neoliberalism, Globalization, Financialization:
Understanding Post-1980 Capitalism by David M. Kotz Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts
Amherst
Neoliberalism and Education Reform edited by E. Wayne Ross University of British Columbia Rich Gibson
San Diego State University HAMPTON PRESS, INC. CRESSKILL, NEW JERSEY
The neo-liberal nomenclature
is an ... then employers would be falling over each other to employ these new ... 18 Responses
to The neo-liberalclass warfare on ...
A SHORT LITERATURE
REVIEW OF NEOLIBERALISM AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER Panos Papadongonas ... elite class power
by means of new processes of class formation.
Is Neoliberalism the New Gilded Age? ... people left out of society as wealth surges upwards
whilst middle class jobs, ... A Neoliberal Spring is Almost Guaranteed.
Race, Class, and the Neoliberal Scourge BY LESTER SPENCE N ... haps based on the
New Jack City character played by Chris Rock) rather than on Republicans or big business.
New Zealand's
modern socially-liberal ideology was established by the Fourth Labour Government at the same time as
it implemented a radical neoliberal economic agenda.
David F. Noble, 1998. "Digital Diploma Mills: The Automation of Higher Education,"
First Monday,
volume 3, number 1 (January), at
http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_1/noble/,
accessed 4 March 2002.
David F. Noble, 1998. "Digital Diploma Mills: The Automation of Higher Education," First Monday,
volume 3, number 1 (January), at
http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_1/noble/,
accessed 4 March 2002.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
In reality, standing alone with election fraud notwithstanding , last October's lockstep decision by an entire news industry to suppress the starkly headline-worthy scandals around Hunter Biden's laptop, along with all other negative stories about Joe Biden, accounts directly for 17% of Biden voters who would have abandoned him " had they known the facts about one or more of these news stories." Because those lost votes "would have changed the outcome in all six of the swing states won by Joe Biden," re-electing Trump, burying those stories was first-degree election interference.
Dr Lisa McKenzie Dr Lisa McKenzie is a working-class academic. She grew up in a coal-mining town in Nottinghamshire and became politicized through the 1984 miners' strike with her family. At 31, she went to the University of Nottingham and did an undergraduate degree in sociology. Dr McKenzie lectures in sociology at the University of Durham and is the author of 'Getting By: Estates, Class and Culture in Austerity Britain.' She's a political activist, writer and thinker. Follow her on Twitter @redrumlisa . Dr Lisa McKenzie is a working-class academic. She grew up in a coal-mining town in Nottinghamshire and became politicized through the 1984 miners' strike with her family. At 31, she went to the University of Nottingham and did an undergraduate degree in sociology. Dr McKenzie lectures in sociology at the University of Durham and is the author of 'Getting By: Estates, Class and Culture in Austerity Britain.' She's a political activist, writer and thinker. Follow her on Twitter @redrumlisa . 21 Jun, 2020 07:11 Get short URL
© Getty Images / Joe Sohm / Visions of America/ Universal Images Group Follow RT on
I've spent the last 20 years of my life working with and supporting working class people to get into higher education. Today I'm wondering whether I've been right to do so. I remember my first day at University. I was 31 and had gone to Nottingham University, part of the so-called elite Russell Group, from an access course for mature students. I had no idea what I was walking into. I didn't know anyone who had been to university, and had spent the years since I left school working mainly on piece work in a factory making women's tights.
Removing Rhodes statue would be a total whitewash of both British and African history
As a UC Berkeley professor and a person of color, I REFUSE TO SERVE the Democratic party and #BLM – and so should you
Here, the data are showing us something that we find to be very interesting. Namely, that those who spend more money on a low-ROI bachelor's degree often find their careers to be more 'meaningful' than your average engineer. Does this mean there's an inverse relationship between spiritual fulfillment and monetary compensation when it comes to ones' career path? Possibly. But would like to suggest another possible explanation.
During this period, we have witnessed a huge national decline in well-paid middle class jobs in the manufacturing sector and other sources of employment for those lacking college degrees, with median American wages having been stagnant or declining for the last forty years. Meanwhile, there has been an astonishing concentration of wealth at the top, with America's richest 1 percent now possessing nearly as much net wealth as the bottom 95 percent. [2]
What a bunch of morons !!!