My sister recommended I write about this article in August. Sorry for the delay.
In his opinion piece of July 28, Is Algebra Necessary, Andrew Hacker, a professor emeritus at CUNY lays out his case that learning math in high school and college is pretty pointless. He reminds us that math is often cited as one of the academic reasons that students drop out of high school, and that anecdotal evidence suggests that stumbling over college algebra is the reason many who begin college programs do not go on to earn bachelor degrees.
Are you really saying, Hacker, that if we made degrees easier to get that more people would get degrees? Of course they would. If you didn't have to take math to graduate from college then tons more people would graduate form college. Yay!! What if we cut out foreign languages too? We're cutting out writing papers! College is now just 1 year, and it's all multiple choice pass fail quizzes - and only your top 3 grades count toward your final score. Hooray! Now tons more people can graduate from college.
Andrew Hacker also just doesn't believe that students should have to learn things that they are unlikely to need in their future careers. How they are supposed to know their future careers at the age of 14 (or even 22) I have no idea. He mentions doctors for an example:
Medical schools like Harvard and Johns Hopkins demand calculus of all
their applicants, even if it doesn’t figure in the clinical curriculum,
let alone in subsequent practice. Mathematics is used as a hoop, a
badge, a totem to impress outsiders and elevate a profession’s status.
What about that college French those future doctors learned? Do they use that in practice - because med schools look at those grades too. Do doctors need to know about plate tectonics or Picasso to diagnose gall stones? No, they don't. But that's not the point. Education is, especially at the high school and undergraduate level, about teaching students how to learn and how to think - not just new facts and skills. It's about trying different subjects, and learning what you enjoy and at what you excel. My degrees are in art history. Did I have to sit down and memorize the dates of a bajillion pyramids, Greek vases, and temples? Heck yes. Do I remember them as well as I knew them then? Heck no. Do I use them in my daily life? Oh Hells to the no. But that's not the point. The point is that I know what it takes to sit down and memorize facts and recite them later. I know how to study for a test. I learned how to go to a library and open a book, show up on time, and not piss people off too much. I know how to produce a product to meet a deadline. And those are just skills that you can't learn any other way.
If you don't think algebra is necessary, Hacker, I would like to ask you about Dasmine Cathey. Mr. Cathey was a young man who was recruited to play football for, and graduated from, the University of Memphis despite the fact that he was functionally illiterate when he matriculated. There were a number of tragic things in this young man's life, and I don't judge him, he certainly appears to have many other good qualities, but he was no student. You might be asking how in the world he could have earned a college degree with so little ability to read and write. I certainly have no idea. Using the above link you can read several of his college papers, that he willingly shared. One is entitled: Some Important Womans.
It doesn't get better from there. When asked how he was given passing grades in classes that required reading and writing, the professors that The Chronicle of Higher Education interviewed all said that they wouldn't discuss a particular student with journalists, but that they did award passing (if not quite good) grades if the student showed improvement.
That's one of the important things about math; instructors can't give passing grades just for improvement. The teacher can't take pity on you because you're really trying or because she's a football fan and you are great for the team. Effort and creativity don't matter. It's just about learning the material and producing a product. That's one of the reasons that math can be a handy guide for med school admissions counselors, because you can't BS your way through it. I'm not saying you can BS your way through other subjects, I had to memorize the dates of all those Rembrandts after all, but the above article on Dasmine Cathey is an example of how human instructors are, about how wanting students to do well may make them a bit too forgiving, and how we can't let our desire for more graduates make us lower the bar for all college students. A college degree has to really mean something, and it's not for everybody.
A final note. I hated algebra. It was the lowest grade I got in high school - by far. But I passed algebra, and I have to admit, I honestly do use it from time to time.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Monday, September 17, 2012
I'm Confused, N Y Times, do you think parents should smoke pot or not?
In August of last year, The New York Times published an article by Mosi Secret entitled No Cause for Marijuana Case, but Enough for Child Neglect. It described the case of a single mother in the Bronx who temporarily lost custody of her son and, for an entire year, lost custody of the niece she was raising because a small amount of marijuana belonging to her boyfriend was found in her home. The amount of weed was less than even the minimum amount for a misdemeanor account. Even if it had been enough to actually break the law, it would have only been punishable much like a speeding ticket is punished, with a $100 fine. Nevertheless, Child Protective Services got involved, and her children were taken away. The article goes on to describe the story of a young, black father who occasionally lived in homeless shelters and who lost custody of his daughter when a $5 bag of marijuana was found in his possession, among other alleged reasons. He was smoking it, he claimed, because of the pain of a recent tooth extraction.
The basic premise of the article is that even though marijuana smoking is really only a parking ticket offense in New York City, small amounts that wouldn't even be considered enough for a fine can be enough to find someone to be an unfit parent. The article quoted Michael Fagan, a spokesman for the Administration for Children's Services, "Drug use itself is not child abuse or neglect, but it can put children in danger of neglect or abuse . . . use of cocaine, heroin, or marijuana by a parent of a young child should not be looked into or should simply be ignored is just plain wrong."
Ok, fair enough. No mary jane around small children.
Oh wait! No! Apparently if you're a chic, married, white, and an art dealer - pot makes you a better parent. In an Op-Ed entitled Pot for Parents, art dealer Mark Wolfe described how he can only handle communicating with his three small children after he swapped his previous drug of choice, soda and bourbon, for the pot brownies he talked a doctor into prescribing him for his back pain. Why does he need to be stoned to be a good parent? Because he simply couldn't handle teaching his daughter to draw a Q or taking his children on an airplane if he wasn't baked. He tells us how marijuana makes him a better father:
Deeply embedded voices of authority in my head do still caution that I may be hurting my kids in ways I can’t see. But I just can’t imagine how it could possibly be worse for them than the consequences of their father’s former stress-fueled frustration and withdrawal. When I’m rolling around the floor with my giggling daughters, clicking into an easy dynamic of goofy happiness and love, I feel it’s just what the doctor ordered.
Soooo - let me get this. Wolfe is telling us how weed makes him a better parent? Ok. But that single mom in The Bronx, Penelope Harris said, "I felt like less of a parent, like I had failed my children. It tore me up.” So, Administration for Children's Services - will you be looking into Mark Wolfe's parenting? Will you be putting him in lockup this weekend or taking his children away until he passes a drug test? No, of course not. Because he found a doctor and a legal loophole.
Now, one could say that loophole or not, he didn't break the law, and the other parents did. But bet's not forget, that Ms. Harris didn't actually break any laws either. The amount of pot she had was below the minimum for a crime. The laws work for people like Mark Wolfe. He found a legal way to ingest the same substance, and he gets to flaunt it loud and proud across the Op-Ed page of The New York Times. No, there won't be any visits from the Administration for Children's Services at his apartment. Wolfe claims he needs weed to function because he only has a wife, not a team of cooks and nannies, has three whole children, they live on two modest incomes, and choose to live in an expensive city, and it's tricky to fly. Well, Wolfe, you find it stressful to fly with three small children? You can clearly afford 5 airplane tickets, you're married, and you and your wife are employed - so cry me a freakin' river.
Take it away for us, Mosi Secret of August 2011, "Over all, the rate of marijuana use among whites is twice as high as among blacks and Hispanics in the city, the data show, but defense lawyers said these cases were rarely if ever filed against white parents."
The basic premise of the article is that even though marijuana smoking is really only a parking ticket offense in New York City, small amounts that wouldn't even be considered enough for a fine can be enough to find someone to be an unfit parent. The article quoted Michael Fagan, a spokesman for the Administration for Children's Services, "Drug use itself is not child abuse or neglect, but it can put children in danger of neglect or abuse . . . use of cocaine, heroin, or marijuana by a parent of a young child should not be looked into or should simply be ignored is just plain wrong."
Ok, fair enough. No mary jane around small children.
Oh wait! No! Apparently if you're a chic, married, white, and an art dealer - pot makes you a better parent. In an Op-Ed entitled Pot for Parents, art dealer Mark Wolfe described how he can only handle communicating with his three small children after he swapped his previous drug of choice, soda and bourbon, for the pot brownies he talked a doctor into prescribing him for his back pain. Why does he need to be stoned to be a good parent? Because he simply couldn't handle teaching his daughter to draw a Q or taking his children on an airplane if he wasn't baked. He tells us how marijuana makes him a better father:
Deeply embedded voices of authority in my head do still caution that I may be hurting my kids in ways I can’t see. But I just can’t imagine how it could possibly be worse for them than the consequences of their father’s former stress-fueled frustration and withdrawal. When I’m rolling around the floor with my giggling daughters, clicking into an easy dynamic of goofy happiness and love, I feel it’s just what the doctor ordered.
Soooo - let me get this. Wolfe is telling us how weed makes him a better parent? Ok. But that single mom in The Bronx, Penelope Harris said, "I felt like less of a parent, like I had failed my children. It tore me up.” So, Administration for Children's Services - will you be looking into Mark Wolfe's parenting? Will you be putting him in lockup this weekend or taking his children away until he passes a drug test? No, of course not. Because he found a doctor and a legal loophole.
Now, one could say that loophole or not, he didn't break the law, and the other parents did. But bet's not forget, that Ms. Harris didn't actually break any laws either. The amount of pot she had was below the minimum for a crime. The laws work for people like Mark Wolfe. He found a legal way to ingest the same substance, and he gets to flaunt it loud and proud across the Op-Ed page of The New York Times. No, there won't be any visits from the Administration for Children's Services at his apartment. Wolfe claims he needs weed to function because he only has a wife, not a team of cooks and nannies, has three whole children, they live on two modest incomes, and choose to live in an expensive city, and it's tricky to fly. Well, Wolfe, you find it stressful to fly with three small children? You can clearly afford 5 airplane tickets, you're married, and you and your wife are employed - so cry me a freakin' river.
Take it away for us, Mosi Secret of August 2011, "Over all, the rate of marijuana use among whites is twice as high as among blacks and Hispanics in the city, the data show, but defense lawyers said these cases were rarely if ever filed against white parents."
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Catching up on the Circumcision Question
The New York Times was a few days late and a few dollars short, but they finally admitted that Germany doesn't want to put an end to Jewish and Muslim traditions. They acknowledged that religious circumcision will be legal in Germany as long as it is performed under sterile conditions. I think we should be able to put the lid on this one.
Shmuel Rosner doesn't agree. He believes that the German ruling against circumcision (and its swift reversal) are just another example of how Europeans are systematically attacking Jewish heritage. The Israeli columnist writes in his Views from Around the World column of August 27, Nip and Tuck?:
I am, however, open to discussing with Jews the benefits and the vices of the practice, including the argument that circumcision should be abandoned or altered to accommodate contemporary understandings of health and human rights.
That said, I am a bit prejudiced. When it comes to the human rights of Jews and to protecting Judaism, I’m still not quite ready to trust non-Jewish Europeans.
Essentially he states that secular governments have no place interfering in Jewish religious rituals. I understand that he feels his religion is being attacked, but secular governments have not only the right - but the duty - to step in on behalf of citizen and resident children if they believe that abuse or neglect is taking place. Yes, Judaism is a religion with a great deal of cultural legitimacy and a history of horrific persecution. But that does not mean that Jewish parents should get to do whatever they want to their children as long as they can find a Rabbi who will back them up.
The New York Times is currently covering the story of New York City's new possible regulation of metzitzah b’peh, or the practice of a mohel cutting off an infant's foreskin and then using his wine-filled mouth to suck the blood from the wound before dribbling wine on the infant's bleeding penis. New York City's one regulation, which will be voted on this week, would be that both parents have to sign a consent form before the procedure. Why? Well, eleven babies have gotten herpes from this procedure since 2004, two died, and two suffered brain damage as a result. Although the consent form sounds like a minor inconvenience, plenty of mohels insist they will perform the procedure as they always have, regardless of New York City's laws and codes.
I know it's a religious practice, but I still think it's fair to say it should be illegal for an adult to put his wine-filled mouth on a bleeding baby penis. And, I'll let you in on a little secret, Shmuel Rosner. I'm a fairly secular person and a weak a feeble woman, but I'm among the group that wouldn't have done so well in 1937 in the very city where I live now. My father was circumcised. My grandfather was circumcised. My father's grandfather was circumcised in the shtetl before getting on a boat headed west. I don't know if Rosner would consider me worth listening to, but here's my opinion on the issue, "NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!! Please please please, secular authorities step in and keep wine away from a child's open wound. Please keep herpes ridden mouths away from an innocent child's penis. Please please please, if a child dies or suffers brain damage because of getting herpes in this way, prosecute that child's parents for abuse. No book or ancient tradition comes before the adequate care of a child!"
If there is to be a sensible debate about circumcision, it must be about the medical and psychological benefits of the procedure - not just the religious ones. There are cases to be made for and against, but to say that anything should be allowed, because it is a religious practice, is just morally lacking. Because for some, a religious practice is allowing an old man to fill his cold sore ridden mouth with wine and give herpes to a baby, causing that baby to actually die of the disease. For some, it is a religious practice, defended by scripture, to hit a seven month old infant with a switch when he cries at night. For some, it's a religious and cultural tradition to slice into the genitals of little girls so that they will not be able to take pleasure in sex when they are adult women.
So please, governments, religious leaders, health care providers, human rights specialists - let's talk about circumcision. Let's do studies, let's interview adult men, let's get statistics written down. Let's talk about community and religious heritage. And then let's talk about if it should be legal and, if so, under what circumstances. This is about the treatment of children and their bodies, and secular governments do have a duty to step in and protect them when needed. We can't just step aside and say that every religious custom should be accepted without question. Because that way leads to innocent children dying of herpes.
Also - Shmuel Rosner, Germany is building (and partly financing) Israel's nuclear submarines. It sounds to me like in the 21st century, they've got your back, Jack.
Shmuel Rosner doesn't agree. He believes that the German ruling against circumcision (and its swift reversal) are just another example of how Europeans are systematically attacking Jewish heritage. The Israeli columnist writes in his Views from Around the World column of August 27, Nip and Tuck?:
I am, however, open to discussing with Jews the benefits and the vices of the practice, including the argument that circumcision should be abandoned or altered to accommodate contemporary understandings of health and human rights.
That said, I am a bit prejudiced. When it comes to the human rights of Jews and to protecting Judaism, I’m still not quite ready to trust non-Jewish Europeans.
Essentially he states that secular governments have no place interfering in Jewish religious rituals. I understand that he feels his religion is being attacked, but secular governments have not only the right - but the duty - to step in on behalf of citizen and resident children if they believe that abuse or neglect is taking place. Yes, Judaism is a religion with a great deal of cultural legitimacy and a history of horrific persecution. But that does not mean that Jewish parents should get to do whatever they want to their children as long as they can find a Rabbi who will back them up.
The New York Times is currently covering the story of New York City's new possible regulation of metzitzah b’peh, or the practice of a mohel cutting off an infant's foreskin and then using his wine-filled mouth to suck the blood from the wound before dribbling wine on the infant's bleeding penis. New York City's one regulation, which will be voted on this week, would be that both parents have to sign a consent form before the procedure. Why? Well, eleven babies have gotten herpes from this procedure since 2004, two died, and two suffered brain damage as a result. Although the consent form sounds like a minor inconvenience, plenty of mohels insist they will perform the procedure as they always have, regardless of New York City's laws and codes.
I know it's a religious practice, but I still think it's fair to say it should be illegal for an adult to put his wine-filled mouth on a bleeding baby penis. And, I'll let you in on a little secret, Shmuel Rosner. I'm a fairly secular person and a weak a feeble woman, but I'm among the group that wouldn't have done so well in 1937 in the very city where I live now. My father was circumcised. My grandfather was circumcised. My father's grandfather was circumcised in the shtetl before getting on a boat headed west. I don't know if Rosner would consider me worth listening to, but here's my opinion on the issue, "NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!! Please please please, secular authorities step in and keep wine away from a child's open wound. Please keep herpes ridden mouths away from an innocent child's penis. Please please please, if a child dies or suffers brain damage because of getting herpes in this way, prosecute that child's parents for abuse. No book or ancient tradition comes before the adequate care of a child!"
If there is to be a sensible debate about circumcision, it must be about the medical and psychological benefits of the procedure - not just the religious ones. There are cases to be made for and against, but to say that anything should be allowed, because it is a religious practice, is just morally lacking. Because for some, a religious practice is allowing an old man to fill his cold sore ridden mouth with wine and give herpes to a baby, causing that baby to actually die of the disease. For some, it is a religious practice, defended by scripture, to hit a seven month old infant with a switch when he cries at night. For some, it's a religious and cultural tradition to slice into the genitals of little girls so that they will not be able to take pleasure in sex when they are adult women.
So please, governments, religious leaders, health care providers, human rights specialists - let's talk about circumcision. Let's do studies, let's interview adult men, let's get statistics written down. Let's talk about community and religious heritage. And then let's talk about if it should be legal and, if so, under what circumstances. This is about the treatment of children and their bodies, and secular governments do have a duty to step in and protect them when needed. We can't just step aside and say that every religious custom should be accepted without question. Because that way leads to innocent children dying of herpes.
Also - Shmuel Rosner, Germany is building (and partly financing) Israel's nuclear submarines. It sounds to me like in the 21st century, they've got your back, Jack.
Friday, August 17, 2012
What are you talking about, Opera Man?
Some opera critic named Zachary Woolfe wrote a ridiculous article for the New York Times Arts Section entitled, "How Hollywood Films are Killing Opera." The movies he mentions are some new Fox Searchlight thing about a troubled teen girl that is titled Margaret, as well as Pretty Woman which opened 22 years ago, and Moonstruck which was made 25 years ago. According to Zach, all the pretty dresses and swanky dates nights depicted in the opera going scenes in these movies make the American Opera going public want old fashioned big sets and screaming sopranos instead of real artistic substance. Woolfe states:
Though both films have been given credit for helping to popularize opera, the idea of the art form they have popularized has profoundly damaged it in this country. The films have taught Americans a particular idea of what opera is, so that is the kind of opera Americans think they want.
Woolfe complains that the opera that Americans demand is less than inventive:
Though both films have been given credit for helping to popularize opera, the idea of the art form they have popularized has profoundly damaged it in this country. The films have taught Americans a particular idea of what opera is, so that is the kind of opera Americans think they want.
Woolfe complains that the opera that Americans demand is less than inventive:
The repertory is largely stagnant, focused on the same small group of
hits. The few big stars who remain — the Plácido Domingos, Renée
Flemings and Anna Netrebkos — are needed to sell almost anything that is
not “Aida,” “Carmen” or “Turandot.” The typical production style is blandly nostalgic escapism rather than
vibrancy or relevance. This was the case through much of America in the
20th century, and there hasn’t been much change so far in the 21st.
Ok, Woolfe, you want something more dynamic in contemporary American opera than what you see a character watch in a movie. Problem is, Zachary, a movie that Cher made when Ronald Reagan was president is not really relevant to much of anything.
What is incredibly relevant, movie-wise, to modern American opera (but which our dear friend Zach forgot to mention) is that since 2006, the Metropolitan Opera in New York has broadcast its operas simultaneously in HD in various movie studios and released them on DVDs. Could HD opera simulcasts make opera more accessible to new audiences? (Hooray!!) Could HD simulcasts cause casting directors to choose opera singers based more on physical attractiveness than singing ability? (Booo!!) Those issues seem way more relevant than mentioning what happened in a fairy tale prostitute movie from the era of the first gulf war.
So, is contemporary modern opera all about big sets, big wigs, big stars, and one more repetitive La Boheme and one more staid old Madame Butterfly? Well, it wasn't in 2007 when I went to see the new American opera Grapes of Wrath to a sold out house without a single dry eye. The CD is out of stock on Amazon. American Opera wasn't stagnant last year when I drive 8 hours to see the new opera Silent Night, which actually put the opera goer in the trenches during World War One and which won its composer a Pulitzer Prize.
To be fair, the last opera I saw in Germany featured a naked octogenarian, a violent gang rape, and a robot-filled sweatshop - and most of that sort of thing isn't too popular in the American opera scene today. But, Zachary Woolfe doesn't mention anything he would like to see contemporary American opera do differently. He just says that movies from over 20 years ago are messing it up. I understand that you may have had a deadline, Zach, but let's try to stick to actual news and analysis in the future.
Update:
I tweeted Zach Woolfe to ask why he mentioned Pretty Woman and Moonstruck but not the new MET HD simulcasts. He deleted my tweet.
Update:
I tweeted Zach Woolfe to ask why he mentioned Pretty Woman and Moonstruck but not the new MET HD simulcasts. He deleted my tweet.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Please don't play with Peruvian orphans for a week and then go home
Forgive my recent absence from writing, but I was on vacation for the last 10 days. This morning I headed directly for the New York Times online travel section to happily plan my next vacation, and what to my wandering eyes should appear but Jennifer Conlin's article, "Volunteer Trips: Is Your Family Ready?" In this article Conlin discusses voluntourism, a fad where wealthy people from the western world take their privileged children to slums to impoverished countries and get an eye opening experience.
Conlin discusses how to be prepared to find an American-trained doctor should the need arise, how to protect your children when things get too real, and how your teen's fancy college admissions counselor might actually advise him or her NOT to talk about the experience in a college application essay. The most offensive though, is how she cautions parents (if they plan on a safari or beach extension as well) to do the luxurious part of the vacation FIRST before the volunteering part. That way, your child won't feel like he should send his rack of lamb to the starving family he left behind 10 hours earlier.
I am glad that wealthy people want to help the developing world. That's really great. But nowhere in this article does Conlin seem to be aware that these voluntourism trips may do more harm than good for exactly the people they are supposed to help. They tourists themselves feel fantastic afterword. They spend a great deal of money, learn about the world, and can feel good about themselves for helping. Maybe it helps their kids get into college too. Maybe they sound a bit more awesome over the water cooler at work. Although the New York Times hasn't quite caught on, other news outlets have expressed concern that these trips may be actually detrimental to the so called "aid" recipients.
The article shows a photo of a volunteer woman playing with two orphans in Peru. What about when she leaves? The Human Sciences Research Council tells us that it can be detrimental for orphans, who have already had hard lives, to get attached a string of caregivers who move on after a few weeks, never to return. What if a volunteer does a low skilled job for free, thus taking a paying job away from a local person. What if a volunteer freaks out and has to be evacuated? It happens all the time. The New York Times article mentions a girl who breaks her wrist and requires the services of an American-trained physician. What local person had to wait so that the volunteer girl was treated? There are plenty of voluntourism companies who will let you pay for the privilege of teaching English. You're their customers after all, not the students you're trying to help. But what if you're a really bad, untrained teacher who does nothing to help the kids because what they need is a trained and long term teacher with a real lesson plan? Do people in need really want some rich person from halfway across the world who doesn't speak their language or understand their culture waltzing in and very crappily building a part of a school for 10 days? Isn't there someone local around to hand out the school supplies or the goats?
An executive profiled in the article spent $16,780 (excluding airfare which was probably at least $3000 more) to go with her husband and nine-year-old twins to Kenya to lug water around, make beads, and help build part of a school for a few days. Now, say you're an aid organization in Kenya wanting to build a school. Would you rather have two middle-aged non-construction workers and two nine-year-olds, who can't speak your language and who need to be fed and housed, come and help you for 10 days, or would you rather have $20,000 to hire local construction workers? Sure, that family could have donated $20,000 instead of going on vacation that year, which would have been a much greater act of altruism, but then the children wouldn't have gotten to have their "eye opening experience" to talk about at school the next fall.
I heartily believe that privileged children should know about the rest of the world. Have them get minimum wage jobs, read books and watch documentaries about the less privileged, and give money to good causes. But let's also not forget that no matter where you are in America or how rich your town, somebody in your community needs help. The first rule of helping, though, is that it's not about the helper - it's about the person in need. Kids can learn this lesson at home without hogging all the good local doctors and traumatizing orphans. There are certainly poverty and need in the United States. The woman who lives next door has cancer, and your teenagers want to bake her cookies and walk her dog? Tough titties - it's not about them. What if what she really needs is rides to and from chemotherapy and your 17-year-old could drive her? What if what she really needs is somebody to mow her lawn, and your 13-year-old could do it? Can a nine-year-old really help build a building in any reasonable way? Oh hell no. Would you want to be in a school built by a nine-year-old? But a nine-year-old can take a summer job pet sitting for the house across the street when the family goes on vacation and donate half of the $100 she makes to a worthy charity. She'll learn how good giving feels, and the charity will probably be happier to have the $50 than a nine-year-old around to "help" for a few days.
I'm all for volunteering and giving time and money. But, the New York Times, let's come to realize (as so many other news outlets have) that hugging orphans for a week before abandoning them to the next rich tourist is not helping this world in a proper, sustainable, and long-lasting way - it's about stroking the tourist's ego and conscience.
Conlin discusses how to be prepared to find an American-trained doctor should the need arise, how to protect your children when things get too real, and how your teen's fancy college admissions counselor might actually advise him or her NOT to talk about the experience in a college application essay. The most offensive though, is how she cautions parents (if they plan on a safari or beach extension as well) to do the luxurious part of the vacation FIRST before the volunteering part. That way, your child won't feel like he should send his rack of lamb to the starving family he left behind 10 hours earlier.
I am glad that wealthy people want to help the developing world. That's really great. But nowhere in this article does Conlin seem to be aware that these voluntourism trips may do more harm than good for exactly the people they are supposed to help. They tourists themselves feel fantastic afterword. They spend a great deal of money, learn about the world, and can feel good about themselves for helping. Maybe it helps their kids get into college too. Maybe they sound a bit more awesome over the water cooler at work. Although the New York Times hasn't quite caught on, other news outlets have expressed concern that these trips may be actually detrimental to the so called "aid" recipients.
The article shows a photo of a volunteer woman playing with two orphans in Peru. What about when she leaves? The Human Sciences Research Council tells us that it can be detrimental for orphans, who have already had hard lives, to get attached a string of caregivers who move on after a few weeks, never to return. What if a volunteer does a low skilled job for free, thus taking a paying job away from a local person. What if a volunteer freaks out and has to be evacuated? It happens all the time. The New York Times article mentions a girl who breaks her wrist and requires the services of an American-trained physician. What local person had to wait so that the volunteer girl was treated? There are plenty of voluntourism companies who will let you pay for the privilege of teaching English. You're their customers after all, not the students you're trying to help. But what if you're a really bad, untrained teacher who does nothing to help the kids because what they need is a trained and long term teacher with a real lesson plan? Do people in need really want some rich person from halfway across the world who doesn't speak their language or understand their culture waltzing in and very crappily building a part of a school for 10 days? Isn't there someone local around to hand out the school supplies or the goats?
An executive profiled in the article spent $16,780 (excluding airfare which was probably at least $3000 more) to go with her husband and nine-year-old twins to Kenya to lug water around, make beads, and help build part of a school for a few days. Now, say you're an aid organization in Kenya wanting to build a school. Would you rather have two middle-aged non-construction workers and two nine-year-olds, who can't speak your language and who need to be fed and housed, come and help you for 10 days, or would you rather have $20,000 to hire local construction workers? Sure, that family could have donated $20,000 instead of going on vacation that year, which would have been a much greater act of altruism, but then the children wouldn't have gotten to have their "eye opening experience" to talk about at school the next fall.
I heartily believe that privileged children should know about the rest of the world. Have them get minimum wage jobs, read books and watch documentaries about the less privileged, and give money to good causes. But let's also not forget that no matter where you are in America or how rich your town, somebody in your community needs help. The first rule of helping, though, is that it's not about the helper - it's about the person in need. Kids can learn this lesson at home without hogging all the good local doctors and traumatizing orphans. There are certainly poverty and need in the United States. The woman who lives next door has cancer, and your teenagers want to bake her cookies and walk her dog? Tough titties - it's not about them. What if what she really needs is rides to and from chemotherapy and your 17-year-old could drive her? What if what she really needs is somebody to mow her lawn, and your 13-year-old could do it? Can a nine-year-old really help build a building in any reasonable way? Oh hell no. Would you want to be in a school built by a nine-year-old? But a nine-year-old can take a summer job pet sitting for the house across the street when the family goes on vacation and donate half of the $100 she makes to a worthy charity. She'll learn how good giving feels, and the charity will probably be happier to have the $50 than a nine-year-old around to "help" for a few days.
I'm all for volunteering and giving time and money. But, the New York Times, let's come to realize (as so many other news outlets have) that hugging orphans for a week before abandoning them to the next rich tourist is not helping this world in a proper, sustainable, and long-lasting way - it's about stroking the tourist's ego and conscience.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
You know how outraged your were on behalf of the Jews and Muslims in Germany? You forgot the follow up.
The New York Times (and many others) took notice last month when a local court in Cologne ruled that circumcision of underage boys was tantamount to grievous bodily harm and should be forbidden. Adult men would, naturally, be able to choose their own religions and are permitted to do what they wanted with their foreskins. This ruling regarded a case where a Muslim 4 year old, in accordance with a Muslim tradition, was circumcised. Although the child was circumcised by a doctor and under proper conditions, mistakes were made, and the child was wounded and suffered excessive bleeding.
Of course, this ruling was very controversial. Jewish tradition dictates that male infants be circumcised on the eighth day after birth, and the German government tried to wipe all Jews off the face of the earth a mere 70 years ago. The ruling was also tough to take for Germany's largest immigrant group, Muslim Turks, who even if they may have been born, raised, and educated in Germany, speak perfect German and little to no Turkish, are often considered to be and treated as outsiders. It's a very difficult subject. Does this ruling imply that Germans want to protect all children in Germany, even Jewish and Muslim children, or is it proof positive that Germany wants those who are not Christians to pack up and leave? The New York Times had a Motherlode section about it. They even had a Room for Debate column about it with opinions by a few doctors and other very important people. The commenters completely lost it, as naturally internet commenters are known to do. A variety of opinions from "religious liberty should be protected - they are trying to kill all the Jews again" to "circumcision is mutilation, good for the Germans" were expressed. Then The New York Times published a tug-at-your-heartstrings piece about this family suggesting that now Jews and Muslims in Germany are not going to be able to get their children circumcised in hospitals, by doctors under sterile conditions and covered by health insurance, that they will instead resort to getting their sons' foreskins removed by shady practitioners in back alleys - as unlikely as that seems.
Good for The New York Times for covering this issue and discussing it. But they forgot the end of the story. Which is that German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that circumcision and religious freedom would be protected. She said that Jewish and Muslim culture would be safe and welcomed in Germany. The lower house of parliament passed legislation saying that Jews and Muslims could circumcise their sons. Yet somehow, after all that worrying, The New York Times did not cover these important developments. This oversight upsets me because I believe The New York Times is giving the American public an incorrect view of Germany and the condition of German Muslims and Jews in the 21st century. I think the paper should have alerted their readership that all the worrying should be over.
But before I go, I would like to address the ruling itself. We cannot forget that a German court in a major city did say that, before the age of consent, non medically necessary circumcision should be considered child abuse. Many people see this ruling as an attempt to criminalize Jewish and Muslim cultural traditions, normalize Christian and secular German society, and make Jews and Muslims feel unwelcome. That may be part of it, but I don't think it's the main reasoning behind the original ruling. I believe that the ruling was an indication of two phenomena: the increasing unpopularity of circumcision in general and the German tendency toward defending the rights of the child over the rights of the parents.
I'm not an expert on family life in Germany, I certainly haven't lived here long enough. But it seems to me that there is absolutely no contest between a parent's rights and a child's rights in this country. German parents cannot homeschool their children, the Germans believe that all children have a right to go to a school with curricula that have been subject to review by someone other than their parents. Although religious schools are always an option, they still have to be approved. German parents are not allowed to spank their children. German children can only be given names that are on a very extensive list of approved names. The name must be appropriate, a genuine name and not a random noun or adjective, and must reflect the child's gender. What if mom is Chinese, dad is German, and the couple want to give their son a Chinese name that's not on the German list? Fine - but rest assured the Germans will be checking with the Chinese consulate to make sure that the name is an appropriate name in China for a male. In other words, you can't name your child Apple, Moon, or Gi'zelle in Germany. Americans see these things, typically, as parents not having the right to educate, discipline, and name their children how and what they want. Germans see it as protecting the right of the child to be educated properly, be free from violence, and be given a proper and dignified name. It's just a different way of looking at things, and I can see the merits of both sides. It's one thing to let an adult change his name to Tree Bark Ass Face as long as you insist that, as a kid, his legal name will be something like Arthur. It's also another thing to let an adult man have a healthy piece of skin removed as a religious rite as long as his parents didn't have the right to do it to him when he was a baby.
The other phenomenon I think played a part in the original ruling is just the fact that circumcision just isn't as popular as it used to be, even among populations that used to be its strongest supporters. Most of the American men of my generation were circumcised. Many members of my generation of Americans are having children now, and not as many of the sons are circumcised as their fathers. As it is among the rest of Americans, circumcision popularity is falling among American Jews. On top of the fact that I know a few Jewish parents who have decided not to have their sons circumcised, there is an online community. More and more people just feel a little weird about removing something healthy and natural from their sons genitals, even if it's a tradition (religious or secular) to do so, and even if they know many perfectly happy and sexually content men who were circumcised as infants. The vast majority of Jews and Muslims still circumcise their sons, but it'll probably be a little less popular every year.
I certainly can't see into the future, but it sure looks to me like the practice of circumcision may have peaked in popularity. My guess is that after (and this could be decades) the population will stop really circumcising its sons very much, then doctors will start discouraging it, and it will slowly be legally restricted in various areas to boys over 16 or so, and then only with the written recommendation of a religious leader or something. But for now, the religious rite of infant circumcision is protected in Germany. Way to go, New York Times, you got us all wound up and upset and then totally missed the conclusion.
Of course, this ruling was very controversial. Jewish tradition dictates that male infants be circumcised on the eighth day after birth, and the German government tried to wipe all Jews off the face of the earth a mere 70 years ago. The ruling was also tough to take for Germany's largest immigrant group, Muslim Turks, who even if they may have been born, raised, and educated in Germany, speak perfect German and little to no Turkish, are often considered to be and treated as outsiders. It's a very difficult subject. Does this ruling imply that Germans want to protect all children in Germany, even Jewish and Muslim children, or is it proof positive that Germany wants those who are not Christians to pack up and leave? The New York Times had a Motherlode section about it. They even had a Room for Debate column about it with opinions by a few doctors and other very important people. The commenters completely lost it, as naturally internet commenters are known to do. A variety of opinions from "religious liberty should be protected - they are trying to kill all the Jews again" to "circumcision is mutilation, good for the Germans" were expressed. Then The New York Times published a tug-at-your-heartstrings piece about this family suggesting that now Jews and Muslims in Germany are not going to be able to get their children circumcised in hospitals, by doctors under sterile conditions and covered by health insurance, that they will instead resort to getting their sons' foreskins removed by shady practitioners in back alleys - as unlikely as that seems.
Good for The New York Times for covering this issue and discussing it. But they forgot the end of the story. Which is that German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that circumcision and religious freedom would be protected. She said that Jewish and Muslim culture would be safe and welcomed in Germany. The lower house of parliament passed legislation saying that Jews and Muslims could circumcise their sons. Yet somehow, after all that worrying, The New York Times did not cover these important developments. This oversight upsets me because I believe The New York Times is giving the American public an incorrect view of Germany and the condition of German Muslims and Jews in the 21st century. I think the paper should have alerted their readership that all the worrying should be over.
But before I go, I would like to address the ruling itself. We cannot forget that a German court in a major city did say that, before the age of consent, non medically necessary circumcision should be considered child abuse. Many people see this ruling as an attempt to criminalize Jewish and Muslim cultural traditions, normalize Christian and secular German society, and make Jews and Muslims feel unwelcome. That may be part of it, but I don't think it's the main reasoning behind the original ruling. I believe that the ruling was an indication of two phenomena: the increasing unpopularity of circumcision in general and the German tendency toward defending the rights of the child over the rights of the parents.
I'm not an expert on family life in Germany, I certainly haven't lived here long enough. But it seems to me that there is absolutely no contest between a parent's rights and a child's rights in this country. German parents cannot homeschool their children, the Germans believe that all children have a right to go to a school with curricula that have been subject to review by someone other than their parents. Although religious schools are always an option, they still have to be approved. German parents are not allowed to spank their children. German children can only be given names that are on a very extensive list of approved names. The name must be appropriate, a genuine name and not a random noun or adjective, and must reflect the child's gender. What if mom is Chinese, dad is German, and the couple want to give their son a Chinese name that's not on the German list? Fine - but rest assured the Germans will be checking with the Chinese consulate to make sure that the name is an appropriate name in China for a male. In other words, you can't name your child Apple, Moon, or Gi'zelle in Germany. Americans see these things, typically, as parents not having the right to educate, discipline, and name their children how and what they want. Germans see it as protecting the right of the child to be educated properly, be free from violence, and be given a proper and dignified name. It's just a different way of looking at things, and I can see the merits of both sides. It's one thing to let an adult change his name to Tree Bark Ass Face as long as you insist that, as a kid, his legal name will be something like Arthur. It's also another thing to let an adult man have a healthy piece of skin removed as a religious rite as long as his parents didn't have the right to do it to him when he was a baby.
The other phenomenon I think played a part in the original ruling is just the fact that circumcision just isn't as popular as it used to be, even among populations that used to be its strongest supporters. Most of the American men of my generation were circumcised. Many members of my generation of Americans are having children now, and not as many of the sons are circumcised as their fathers. As it is among the rest of Americans, circumcision popularity is falling among American Jews. On top of the fact that I know a few Jewish parents who have decided not to have their sons circumcised, there is an online community. More and more people just feel a little weird about removing something healthy and natural from their sons genitals, even if it's a tradition (religious or secular) to do so, and even if they know many perfectly happy and sexually content men who were circumcised as infants. The vast majority of Jews and Muslims still circumcise their sons, but it'll probably be a little less popular every year.
I certainly can't see into the future, but it sure looks to me like the practice of circumcision may have peaked in popularity. My guess is that after (and this could be decades) the population will stop really circumcising its sons very much, then doctors will start discouraging it, and it will slowly be legally restricted in various areas to boys over 16 or so, and then only with the written recommendation of a religious leader or something. But for now, the religious rite of infant circumcision is protected in Germany. Way to go, New York Times, you got us all wound up and upset and then totally missed the conclusion.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Drunk Australians
Chuck Klosterman is off to a bang up start as the new writer of The Ethicist column. In his column of July 6, 2012, Exit-Row Exigencies, an Australian man writes in to ask if it is ethical for a passenger seated in an airplane's exit row to get blindingly intoxicated. Klosterman essentially says it's not great - but it's so not a big deal because the chance that the intoxicated man will be the only person on a plane who can open a door and that he will be too blotto to do so is infinitesimal.
Fair enough, Chuck - but what he actually included in this little answer was, "From a practical standpoint, I would trust an intoxicated Australian more than most sober Americans."
Apparently there is no editor at the illustrious New York Times who has the know how to say, "Chuckie-baby, your tongue-in-cheek jab at sober Americans does not actually help answer the man's question, is in all kinds of poor taste, and shows just how amazingly unfunny you can be."
Fair enough, Chuck - but what he actually included in this little answer was, "From a practical standpoint, I would trust an intoxicated Australian more than most sober Americans."
Apparently there is no editor at the illustrious New York Times who has the know how to say, "Chuckie-baby, your tongue-in-cheek jab at sober Americans does not actually help answer the man's question, is in all kinds of poor taste, and shows just how amazingly unfunny you can be."
Friday, July 6, 2012
You're asking the wrong question about the boys
New York Times Op-Ed columnist David Brooks column, Honor Code, of July 5th, 2012 discusses the achievement gap between boys and girls. Brooks describes how males are falling behind in a variety of subjects and attend and graduate college in far smaller numbers than do females. Brooks worries that boys who don't fit in to the current sharing and sitting still culture are given Ritalin and told they are bad kids. The real answer, accord to the non-teacher Brooks, is for schools to celebrate, "Not just teachers who honor environmental virtues, but teachers who
honor military virtues; not just curriculums that teach how to share,
but curriculums that teach how to win and how to lose."
Forgive me, dearest David, but do you actually remember school? School is all about winners and losers! Yes, there are friends in school. But from the first day of pre-kindergarten, school is about who wins the spelling bee, who makes the honor roll, who has the coolest backpack, who makes the basketball team, who gets the solo in the school musical, who gets a date to the dance. What did you study in history class? Because I learned about military victories - not how everybody just got along in some giant love-in.
But I digress, that's not my real issue with David Brooks' column. First of all, the achievement gap has been discussed in numerous news articles for years and years. Somebody points out about how boys are falling behind girls in reading, college attendance, perfect posture, whatever. The other side points out that at age 14, girls may be better at analyzing poetry about daffodils, but it's the boys who are going to have higher powered jobs and making more money 20 years later. Nobody ever gets anywhere.
I think that the media keeps having the same discussion, and it's the wrong one. I don't think that boys are falling behind girls, at least not in the way everybody keeps describing. I don't think it's relevant to compare boys to girls in this way. I think we should be comparing boys to other boys.
Sure, female college students outnumber male college students - overall. But males students outnumber female students at Harvard Business School. If you look at the most competitive programs, the achievement gap disappears. There were 82 Rhodes Scholars in 2012, 40 were women, 42 were men. The achievement gap was nowhere to be seen. When it comes to who owns commercial and licensed patents, only 5.5% are owned by women. Now let's look at the far end of the spectrum, specifically people on death row awaiting execution for a capital crime. At the end of 2011, less than 2% of prisoners scheduled to be executed were women.
My point is that males are not falling behind females. Young women are just taking advantage of educational opportunities their grandmothers may not have had. Young men aren't falling behind young women. Young men are becoming more stratified. Young men go to elite business schools, and they get into gang fights. They become millionaires, and they become deadbeat dads. And most of the ladies are somewhere in between those two extremes.
A few other things have happened to American society since this so called "achievement gap" started getting some attention. The first is the growing percentage of Americans (mostly American men) behind bars since around 1980. This isn't because crime is out of control so much as due to mandatory long sentences for drug crimes. When a man is in jail, his children suffer tremendously. Perhaps, although I have no figures to back this up, his sons suffer most of all without a male roll model. Additionally, American society itself has become financially far more stratified than in previous decades. If a young man can't rely on a secure, well-paying manufacturing job to provide for a family (as he possibly could have in 1955) he may see little use in straightening up and flying right.
Boys aren't falling behind girls. They are just mirroring what is happening in society as a whole. A few of them will win the science fair, and many more will just drop out. And the average is slipping. When compared to the more middle-of-the-road females, boys are, on average, dropping. Much the way the average American household income doesn't have the same buying power it did in 1975, the average school boy's test scores are going down. If you want to see boys do better in school, maybe it would be helpful if the adult men weren't in prison. Maybe it would be helpful if the adult men could make a decent wage at a reasonable job.
Yes, David Brooks, I agree with you. Schools do need a culture change. But schools don't need to focus on celebrating toughness and physical exertion and winning - they already do that. The message to a group of 12 year olds should not be: any one of you could be the next President/founder of facebook/rock star. The message should be: with a little hard work and playing by the rules, even if you aren't the best at math/baseball/spelling, you'll still be able to get a decent job and have a good life. And (here's the tricky part) it has to be true.
Forgive me, dearest David, but do you actually remember school? School is all about winners and losers! Yes, there are friends in school. But from the first day of pre-kindergarten, school is about who wins the spelling bee, who makes the honor roll, who has the coolest backpack, who makes the basketball team, who gets the solo in the school musical, who gets a date to the dance. What did you study in history class? Because I learned about military victories - not how everybody just got along in some giant love-in.
But I digress, that's not my real issue with David Brooks' column. First of all, the achievement gap has been discussed in numerous news articles for years and years. Somebody points out about how boys are falling behind girls in reading, college attendance, perfect posture, whatever. The other side points out that at age 14, girls may be better at analyzing poetry about daffodils, but it's the boys who are going to have higher powered jobs and making more money 20 years later. Nobody ever gets anywhere.
I think that the media keeps having the same discussion, and it's the wrong one. I don't think that boys are falling behind girls, at least not in the way everybody keeps describing. I don't think it's relevant to compare boys to girls in this way. I think we should be comparing boys to other boys.
Sure, female college students outnumber male college students - overall. But males students outnumber female students at Harvard Business School. If you look at the most competitive programs, the achievement gap disappears. There were 82 Rhodes Scholars in 2012, 40 were women, 42 were men. The achievement gap was nowhere to be seen. When it comes to who owns commercial and licensed patents, only 5.5% are owned by women. Now let's look at the far end of the spectrum, specifically people on death row awaiting execution for a capital crime. At the end of 2011, less than 2% of prisoners scheduled to be executed were women.
My point is that males are not falling behind females. Young women are just taking advantage of educational opportunities their grandmothers may not have had. Young men aren't falling behind young women. Young men are becoming more stratified. Young men go to elite business schools, and they get into gang fights. They become millionaires, and they become deadbeat dads. And most of the ladies are somewhere in between those two extremes.
A few other things have happened to American society since this so called "achievement gap" started getting some attention. The first is the growing percentage of Americans (mostly American men) behind bars since around 1980. This isn't because crime is out of control so much as due to mandatory long sentences for drug crimes. When a man is in jail, his children suffer tremendously. Perhaps, although I have no figures to back this up, his sons suffer most of all without a male roll model. Additionally, American society itself has become financially far more stratified than in previous decades. If a young man can't rely on a secure, well-paying manufacturing job to provide for a family (as he possibly could have in 1955) he may see little use in straightening up and flying right.
Boys aren't falling behind girls. They are just mirroring what is happening in society as a whole. A few of them will win the science fair, and many more will just drop out. And the average is slipping. When compared to the more middle-of-the-road females, boys are, on average, dropping. Much the way the average American household income doesn't have the same buying power it did in 1975, the average school boy's test scores are going down. If you want to see boys do better in school, maybe it would be helpful if the adult men weren't in prison. Maybe it would be helpful if the adult men could make a decent wage at a reasonable job.
Yes, David Brooks, I agree with you. Schools do need a culture change. But schools don't need to focus on celebrating toughness and physical exertion and winning - they already do that. The message to a group of 12 year olds should not be: any one of you could be the next President/founder of facebook/rock star. The message should be: with a little hard work and playing by the rules, even if you aren't the best at math/baseball/spelling, you'll still be able to get a decent job and have a good life. And (here's the tricky part) it has to be true.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Maybe you'll understand student loans one of these days, NYT
The New York Times ventured again into the student loan abyss with a June 27th editorial, The Deal on Student Loans. Basically, the Times used the editorial to fuss at congress for not figuring out sooner how to keep the current student loan interest rate at 3.4% instead of climbing back up to 6.8%. Naturally, Republicans and Democrats had to bitch at each other until the 11th hour before finally figuring out how to do what needed to be done, and the loans will stay at 3.4% for another year and another D vs. R showdown.
Fine - it's a grand thing that the student loan interest rate is staying at 3.4%. Groovy. Still not the real problem. The real problem is that college costs WAY MORE than it used to. College costs have grown much, much faster than inflation. MUCHMUCHMUCHMUCHMUCH faster. My alma mater (and again, I am very devoted) will cost current students, assuming they need to buy an occasional textbook or new pair of underpants, a quarter of a million dollars for 4 years.
When will we say too much? When will parents say, "You know what, I'm going to give my child a quarter of a million dollars to buy a Subway's Sandwiches franchise instead of sending him to college, and let's see how he compares to that philosophy major in 10 years." I know that college graduates earn more money than those who are not college graduates. But at some point, the financial drain of college will start to be more than the financial rewards of going to college. At some point, college graduates will suffer buyer's remorse. At some point, smart kids will stay out of college because it is honestly an intelligent decision to do so. At some point, smart parents will convince their smart kids not to go to college because they are honestly making smart decisions. That day would suck - and let's hope this trend can be stopped before we get there.
As one NYTimes commenter calling himself E. T. Bass beautifully summed up the problem:
STILL MISSES MAIN POINT
Interest is one thing. C-o-s-t in the big deal. Until costs are restrained -- most of this is just useless.
C-o-s-t.
Fine - it's a grand thing that the student loan interest rate is staying at 3.4%. Groovy. Still not the real problem. The real problem is that college costs WAY MORE than it used to. College costs have grown much, much faster than inflation. MUCHMUCHMUCHMUCHMUCH faster. My alma mater (and again, I am very devoted) will cost current students, assuming they need to buy an occasional textbook or new pair of underpants, a quarter of a million dollars for 4 years.
When will we say too much? When will parents say, "You know what, I'm going to give my child a quarter of a million dollars to buy a Subway's Sandwiches franchise instead of sending him to college, and let's see how he compares to that philosophy major in 10 years." I know that college graduates earn more money than those who are not college graduates. But at some point, the financial drain of college will start to be more than the financial rewards of going to college. At some point, college graduates will suffer buyer's remorse. At some point, smart kids will stay out of college because it is honestly an intelligent decision to do so. At some point, smart parents will convince their smart kids not to go to college because they are honestly making smart decisions. That day would suck - and let's hope this trend can be stopped before we get there.
As one NYTimes commenter calling himself E. T. Bass beautifully summed up the problem:
STILL MISSES MAIN POINT
Interest is one thing. C-o-s-t in the big deal. Until costs are restrained -- most of this is just useless.
C-o-s-t.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Actually, the Germans are unlikely to shoot themselves in the foot
I have to admit, I'm not an expert in macro economics. I'm just a person who tries to stay informed about world events and who is (at present) an American on the ground in Germany. Please, dear readers, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that some smaller, weaker countries, like Greece, were able to borrow money like never before once they started to share the Euro currency with bigger, richer countries like Germany. So, now that we are in a horrible recession, Greece has borrowed its way into oblivion and is having trouble making payments not only because it borrowed more than it could comfortably pay back, but because austerity measures resulted in a further slowing down of the economy (not to mention personal hardship and lapses in services) and the rampant tax evasion in Greece isn't helping either. Also, nobody thinks Greece will pay up, so borrowing rates are sky-high. Am I right? Please, do tell me if I'm missing something here.
Germany, by far the strongest and richest country on the Euro, is supposed to keep bailing out the weaker economies of Greece and (possibly) soon to be Italy, Spain, and Portugal. The Germans seem to keep saying, "We've given them enough money, it's time for them to get their act together. We have our act together, we pay our darn taxes and work until 67." The Euro is a bit of a mess, and the leaders are now in Belgium trying to figure out what to do next.
On June 26, Op-Ed contributors Kenneth Griffin and Anil Kashyap wrote the article, "To Save the Euro, Leave It" suggesting that instead of Greece (for example) leaving the Euro, that Germany should instead leave. That's all "thinking outside the box" and sexy and off the wall and compelling and everything - but I can't see how you could actually talk the Germans into it. The writers' idea is that once the Germans returned to the Deutschmark, the Euro would become instantly weaker, and the exports of Euro countries would become much cheaper and more competitive. Additionally, a weaker Euro, "Would not solve the debt burdens of southern European countries, but it would give them needed breathing room to restructure their economies, reform labor markets, collect more taxes and reassure investors." Please, pray tell, how would a weaker Euro allow a debt-strapped country to collect more taxes? Tax evasion will somehow cease to be a problem with a weaker Euro, and all those Greek billionaires will allow the tax man into their giant offshore mattresses?
But let's leave that aside for the moment. The basic idea of this article is that Germany could fix things by leaving the Euro and going back to the Deutschmark. That way, the Mark would be strong, the Euro would instantly be weaker, and other Euro country exports would instantly become more competitive than German exports abroad. Apparently, once Germany would leave the Euro, Griffin and Kashyap believe that international companies will immediately start investing in tons of factories in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece, as the newly depressed Euro will allow companies to hire people to make widgets at low low prices and sell beach-front condos at low low prices too. Apparently Germany would just have to deal with not having exports that were as competitive. I very much doubt that Italian/Greek/Spanish/Portuguese exports would take off at such a pace, but let's say (for the sake of argument) that the writers might be onto something.
There's just one thing I have to ask dearest Kash and Griff, "What 's in it for Germany?" Unlike the United States, Germany is a net exporting country. Exporting German goods is a major part of the German economy and the German culture. K and G admit it's going to be painful for the Germans, at least at first, stating: "Germany’s industrial base would unquestionably endure hardship in the transition to a stronger currency . . . Over time, the industrial base of Germany would adapt and move forward."
Griffin and Kashyap are Harvard and MIT trained financial geniuses in Chicago, and I'm sure either one of them could crush me with a single thought. But last week I was at a public school here in the German city where I live, a public school in a tough neighborhood. I go there once a week to help any kid who wants some free extra help with English, and sometimes I look through the extra textbooks left for teacher reference. There are many high schools, such as the one at which I volunteer, that train students for highly specialized factory jobs. And their textbooks are amazing. They go on and on about how wonderful it is that Germany is a next exporting country. How great it is that MADE IN GERMANY is an international sign of high quality and excellent craftsmanship. How the students will go on to work in a factory and become part of this proud tradition. Most of the kids I work with won't go to college, but they will have good paying, steady, well-respected factory jobs because Germany protects its factories, it's factory workers, and its export culture.
Those three English words, MADE IN GERMANY, are all over the place. Because English is more widely understood that German, the proud saying is always in English, but all the Germans understand it. Is the local soccer team playing a game against a Spanish team? You'll see a sign with a picture of a Seville orange over a MADE IN SPAIN sign next to a picture of a steel orange juicer over a MADE IN GERMANY sign. There are even contemporary art shows called MADE IN GERMANY that showcase sculptures and paintings by local artists. I'm confused. Why would Germany voluntarily leave the Euro and make life harder for all the people who make German exports? Why? Why would Germany so blatantly act against its own financial interest?
I don't doubt that Kashyap and Griffin are brilliant financial minds. And I know that something must be done about Greece, and something must be done about the Euro. But, I believe they are mistaken if they think Germany is going to endanger its net exporting status just to help its neighbors. Nobody wants to keep bailing out other countries. But if it's between forking out another huge bailout or crippling German exports for the next 50 years, I think I know which one Germany's going to pick. The Germans didn't even finish paying off their World War 1 reparations until 2010 - so they seem to be able to grit their teeth and write a check. It doesn't mean that they are going to let Bavarian Motor Works (BMW) become Athenian Motor Works. The MADE IN GERMANY culture is deeper than Kashyap and Griffin seem to realize. The Germans are going to make sure that 20 year old German factory worker has a job before they worry that a 20 year old Spanish factory worker has a job. And really, can you blame them?
Germany, by far the strongest and richest country on the Euro, is supposed to keep bailing out the weaker economies of Greece and (possibly) soon to be Italy, Spain, and Portugal. The Germans seem to keep saying, "We've given them enough money, it's time for them to get their act together. We have our act together, we pay our darn taxes and work until 67." The Euro is a bit of a mess, and the leaders are now in Belgium trying to figure out what to do next.
On June 26, Op-Ed contributors Kenneth Griffin and Anil Kashyap wrote the article, "To Save the Euro, Leave It" suggesting that instead of Greece (for example) leaving the Euro, that Germany should instead leave. That's all "thinking outside the box" and sexy and off the wall and compelling and everything - but I can't see how you could actually talk the Germans into it. The writers' idea is that once the Germans returned to the Deutschmark, the Euro would become instantly weaker, and the exports of Euro countries would become much cheaper and more competitive. Additionally, a weaker Euro, "Would not solve the debt burdens of southern European countries, but it would give them needed breathing room to restructure their economies, reform labor markets, collect more taxes and reassure investors." Please, pray tell, how would a weaker Euro allow a debt-strapped country to collect more taxes? Tax evasion will somehow cease to be a problem with a weaker Euro, and all those Greek billionaires will allow the tax man into their giant offshore mattresses?
But let's leave that aside for the moment. The basic idea of this article is that Germany could fix things by leaving the Euro and going back to the Deutschmark. That way, the Mark would be strong, the Euro would instantly be weaker, and other Euro country exports would instantly become more competitive than German exports abroad. Apparently, once Germany would leave the Euro, Griffin and Kashyap believe that international companies will immediately start investing in tons of factories in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece, as the newly depressed Euro will allow companies to hire people to make widgets at low low prices and sell beach-front condos at low low prices too. Apparently Germany would just have to deal with not having exports that were as competitive. I very much doubt that Italian/Greek/Spanish/Portuguese exports would take off at such a pace, but let's say (for the sake of argument) that the writers might be onto something.
There's just one thing I have to ask dearest Kash and Griff, "What 's in it for Germany?" Unlike the United States, Germany is a net exporting country. Exporting German goods is a major part of the German economy and the German culture. K and G admit it's going to be painful for the Germans, at least at first, stating: "Germany’s industrial base would unquestionably endure hardship in the transition to a stronger currency . . . Over time, the industrial base of Germany would adapt and move forward."
Griffin and Kashyap are Harvard and MIT trained financial geniuses in Chicago, and I'm sure either one of them could crush me with a single thought. But last week I was at a public school here in the German city where I live, a public school in a tough neighborhood. I go there once a week to help any kid who wants some free extra help with English, and sometimes I look through the extra textbooks left for teacher reference. There are many high schools, such as the one at which I volunteer, that train students for highly specialized factory jobs. And their textbooks are amazing. They go on and on about how wonderful it is that Germany is a next exporting country. How great it is that MADE IN GERMANY is an international sign of high quality and excellent craftsmanship. How the students will go on to work in a factory and become part of this proud tradition. Most of the kids I work with won't go to college, but they will have good paying, steady, well-respected factory jobs because Germany protects its factories, it's factory workers, and its export culture.
Those three English words, MADE IN GERMANY, are all over the place. Because English is more widely understood that German, the proud saying is always in English, but all the Germans understand it. Is the local soccer team playing a game against a Spanish team? You'll see a sign with a picture of a Seville orange over a MADE IN SPAIN sign next to a picture of a steel orange juicer over a MADE IN GERMANY sign. There are even contemporary art shows called MADE IN GERMANY that showcase sculptures and paintings by local artists. I'm confused. Why would Germany voluntarily leave the Euro and make life harder for all the people who make German exports? Why? Why would Germany so blatantly act against its own financial interest?
I don't doubt that Kashyap and Griffin are brilliant financial minds. And I know that something must be done about Greece, and something must be done about the Euro. But, I believe they are mistaken if they think Germany is going to endanger its net exporting status just to help its neighbors. Nobody wants to keep bailing out other countries. But if it's between forking out another huge bailout or crippling German exports for the next 50 years, I think I know which one Germany's going to pick. The Germans didn't even finish paying off their World War 1 reparations until 2010 - so they seem to be able to grit their teeth and write a check. It doesn't mean that they are going to let Bavarian Motor Works (BMW) become Athenian Motor Works. The MADE IN GERMANY culture is deeper than Kashyap and Griffin seem to realize. The Germans are going to make sure that 20 year old German factory worker has a job before they worry that a 20 year old Spanish factory worker has a job. And really, can you blame them?
Monday, June 18, 2012
STEM Education - the word is getting out (kind of)
Dearest readers - as you know - I went off on a huge rant about how the United States trains plenty of young people in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. So many, in fact, that many of my friends with higher degrees in STEM subjects are having trouble finding work. Nevertheless, various politicians and news outlets (I'm looking at you New York Times) seem to think that it is the gospel truth that America doesn't have enough scientists, and gosh darn it, it would just be 1960 again if only we could just make science more fun for kids!
Slate, an online news magazine that I really respect, decided to put their two misinformed cents in and asked their readers to suggest ways to get American kids interested in science, because having more scientists will just fix all our problems. Naturally, this prompted a letter to the editor from me that the entire premise of this project is flawed. Naturally, I never heard back.
However, Slate must have gotten some sort of message from somewhere, because today they posted an opinion piece by an actual scientist! Actual, working scientists had been suspiciously lacking from the "getting kids into science will fix all our problems" song. Derek Lowe, an actual chemist, wrote a fascinating article tellingly titled, "We don't need more scientists - we need better ones." To summarize for you, he lets us know that there are plenty of American scientists who are underemployed, and that it won't help to add 1000 mediocre scientific minds when you need 1 genius. He talks about the outsourcing of many routine scientific jobs, and how it isn't a good time, economically, to be a mediocre scientist. He also worries that the next Isaac Newton might be in an area with inadequate scientific education, so he ends up being a farmer instead of unraveling the secrets of the universe. He also worries that the greatest American mathematical minds are working in finance instead of mathematics. Funny how absolutely sane, rational, and reasonable an actual scientist sounds. He also states that there is no scientists shortage:
We don’t need as many scientists as we can get just because they’re scientists. Does a bowl of soup need all the salt it can get? We need all the excellent ones we can find, without shoveling in people who’d just as soon be doing something else.
I also really liked one of the comments from a man calling himself Scientific_American. The first and last sentences of his comment were, "I'm an academic researcher, with a focus on cancer research, and I 100% agree with this post . . . the very idea that there isn't enough people is the field is laughable."
Alright, Slate may have broken the story. What's the next news outlet that's going to catch on?
Slate, an online news magazine that I really respect, decided to put their two misinformed cents in and asked their readers to suggest ways to get American kids interested in science, because having more scientists will just fix all our problems. Naturally, this prompted a letter to the editor from me that the entire premise of this project is flawed. Naturally, I never heard back.
However, Slate must have gotten some sort of message from somewhere, because today they posted an opinion piece by an actual scientist! Actual, working scientists had been suspiciously lacking from the "getting kids into science will fix all our problems" song. Derek Lowe, an actual chemist, wrote a fascinating article tellingly titled, "We don't need more scientists - we need better ones." To summarize for you, he lets us know that there are plenty of American scientists who are underemployed, and that it won't help to add 1000 mediocre scientific minds when you need 1 genius. He talks about the outsourcing of many routine scientific jobs, and how it isn't a good time, economically, to be a mediocre scientist. He also worries that the next Isaac Newton might be in an area with inadequate scientific education, so he ends up being a farmer instead of unraveling the secrets of the universe. He also worries that the greatest American mathematical minds are working in finance instead of mathematics. Funny how absolutely sane, rational, and reasonable an actual scientist sounds. He also states that there is no scientists shortage:
We don’t need as many scientists as we can get just because they’re scientists. Does a bowl of soup need all the salt it can get? We need all the excellent ones we can find, without shoveling in people who’d just as soon be doing something else.
I also really liked one of the comments from a man calling himself Scientific_American. The first and last sentences of his comment were, "I'm an academic researcher, with a focus on cancer research, and I 100% agree with this post . . . the very idea that there isn't enough people is the field is laughable."
Alright, Slate may have broken the story. What's the next news outlet that's going to catch on?
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Nobody's with you on this, dude
Clemens Wergin of Berlin wrote on June 15, 2012 in the New York Times Op-Ed section in a piece entitled "Go, Fight, but don't Win" in which he tells us that although he is German, he does not want Germany to win the current European Soccer Championship. He feels that Europe is getting a little anxiety ridden about the Germans using their good economy (at present the strongest of all countries on the Euro) to dominate the continent politically. Therefore, it would be a sign of German humility to graciously lose the games - or at least not try to hard to win.
Well, Wergin, I'm going to tell you 2 things, please stick with me, friend.
1. Nobody is with you on this
Almost every car, tricycle, wheelchair, and shop window that I see is sporting the German flag right now. When the Germans beat the Dutch, people were literally celebrating on the street in front of my apartment building. And I don't really live on that busy of a street. (Way to publish a non-representative, not at all news opinion, NYTimes)
2. Soccer doesn't start or end international conflicts
If I'm wrong, please let me know - I am willing to learn. But wars are not started or finished on the soccer pitch. Yes, sports are important, especially to a nation's identity. They just aren't that important politically. Sports can't end an economic recession. Whoever wins, at the end of the European Soccer Championship, the Germans are still going to have their strong economy, and Greece is still going to be in the middle of a giant disaster. Yes, there are people who live and breathe soccer. There are people glued to TV screens, and there are people yelling in stadiums. There are people who will cry and scream and get drunk and tell their grandchildren about it one day. But there isn't a sane adult human being in this world who would trade a steady paycheck in a stable country for a little ball kicked into a large net.
Well, Wergin, I'm going to tell you 2 things, please stick with me, friend.
1. Nobody is with you on this
Almost every car, tricycle, wheelchair, and shop window that I see is sporting the German flag right now. When the Germans beat the Dutch, people were literally celebrating on the street in front of my apartment building. And I don't really live on that busy of a street. (Way to publish a non-representative, not at all news opinion, NYTimes)
2. Soccer doesn't start or end international conflicts
If I'm wrong, please let me know - I am willing to learn. But wars are not started or finished on the soccer pitch. Yes, sports are important, especially to a nation's identity. They just aren't that important politically. Sports can't end an economic recession. Whoever wins, at the end of the European Soccer Championship, the Germans are still going to have their strong economy, and Greece is still going to be in the middle of a giant disaster. Yes, there are people who live and breathe soccer. There are people glued to TV screens, and there are people yelling in stadiums. There are people who will cry and scream and get drunk and tell their grandchildren about it one day. But there isn't a sane adult human being in this world who would trade a steady paycheck in a stable country for a little ball kicked into a large net.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
32 Innovations =That Will NOT Change Your Tomorrow (at least 24 won't)
The
New York Times’ June 1st, 2012 article “32 Innovations That Will Change Your Tomorrow” is absolutely fascinating. Nevertheless, I think it’s some predictions really misguided. Scientific progress is
inevitable, certainly, and that’s a very good thing. But seriously – some inventions are just The
Segway – they just don’t add much of anything we didn’t have before. I have used the numbers that appear in the NYTimes article.
Here are the 24 they got wrong of the 32 Innovations
that Will Change Tomorrow:
1.
Electricity
Generating Clothes.
Sorry, NYT, but scientific clothes don’t seem to catch on. Those color-changing-with-light t-shirts from
the 80’s sank like a stone. Unless we’re
talking about gear for performance athletes, it’s the celebs and the fashion
industry who set clothing trends, not some guy in a lab. We’re going to have to have a serious energy
crisis before people start using their pants to change their cell phones.
2.
The
New Coffee.
Guys, coffee is already fantastic.
If you start putting Seville oranges and toasted almonds and berries
into it, you’ve just made tea. Which is
also already as good as it’s going to get.
I don’t think there big areas to improve coffee – it’s already WAY
popular.
3.
Analytical
Work Out Underpants. Here’s
the quote, “The hope . . . is that when you see data telling you just how inert
you really are, you’ll be inspired to lead a less sedentary life.” Hahahahaha!
People already have that data in the form of what they see in the
mirror, how they feel, and what their doctor tells them. If they don’t pay attention to that data, why
would they listen to their underpants?
4.
Giant
Touch Screen Kitchen Tables/Cabinets/Counters. This is basically a room size computer
monitor in the kitchen. How many people are
there who need to work at a room size computer monitor while at the same time cooking
meals? Seriously? How many people? Do you really think the average home cook is
going to shell out tens of thousands of collars for Tom Cruise’s Minority
Report computer wall? Why? To go on a virtual tour of ancient
Mesopotamia while making pancakes?
5.
Shampoo/
Conditioning/ Hair Drying Machine. This would be cool. Except it would probably pull your hair in
uncomfortable ways and it would be 7000% more expensive than just washing your
hair yourself. Remember that giant financial
crisis? Does it sound like a good time
to try to get people to pay 7000% more for the same thing they have been doing perfectly
well since they were kids?
6.
Cars
that have computer abilities to reduce traffic congestion. This would be awesome – but again – giant financial
crisis. An even cheaper way to reduce traffic
congestion: take a bus, a train, or a bike.
7. 8. 9. Better
Bike. Awesome ideas. I like the anti-theft handlebars that wouldn’t
allow a thief to steer the bike. But
please tell me how it’s that much better than the $5 bike lock I already have? Again – giant financial crisis, and I already
own the $5 bike lock.
11. Better
Climate in Airplanes. Awesome! But it’s just a few hours, so I’m still going
with the less comfortable airline if it’s cheaper.
12. Subway
Straps that are also video games. No
thanks! We have enough access to games
on all our 400 mobile devices!
13. Anti-Slouch
Computer Screen. People don’t love
it when their office furniture tells them to sit like a lady. Office furniture is NOT grandma.
14. The
SpeechJammer. This gizmo shoots
something at the target that scrambles his or her brain temporarily so that he
or she can’t speak for a few seconds.
Here’s what’s going to happen.
Assholes will get this gizmo. Someone
won’t be able to yell, “Look out for that Bus,” and someone will die. Then they will all be outlawed. Also, wouldn’t using it be denying someone
his or her freedom of speech?
15. The Idea
of Being Nice to Employees. Nobody
ever thought of niceness before in the history of human society!!! Thank you for that!!!
16. Your
unique bodily movements as iPhone password.
Never let a friend/your child/stranger in an emergency use your phone
again!
17. Less
Safe Playgrounds. Ummm – seriously? Even if children like them better, cities and
schools are not lining up to knowingly build more dangerous playgrounds so that
they can be sued when kids break their heads open.
18. Lying to
Athletes to get them to perform better.
Again, litigation, my friend.
People don’t like being lied to.
If it’s ok to lie to a 21 year old kid to get him to run faster, is it
also ok to lie to a 21 year old kid about how likely he is to suffer brain
damage if he gets one more concussion?
20. Fake
Chemical Booze that won’t give you a hangover. I don’t know, maybe this will catch on. It may also result in a gigantic increase in
binge drinking.
21. The Mind-Reading
Shopping Cart. This is a shopping
cart that follows you around the store, points you towards products on your
list, and chides you if you buy oreos when you are supposed to be going low
carb. Ok, it sounds cool. Would I pay more for my groceries to get to
use a cool cart over a regular one?
Maybe – but I’d probably only do that once and then go get the same
groceries cheaper elsewhere. Also – hate
to break it to you, mind-reading shopping cart inventors – but it’s WAY better
for grocery store (financially) when their customers buy impulse items that
weren’t on their lists and stray from their diets.
23. Teeth
Microchips. These are daily,
disposable microchips that tell your dentist if you have plaque. Now, how is this better than going to the
dentist every 6 months? Alao, two things,
teeth sensor inventors: people don’t
like this dentist as big brother idea, and they aren’t going to be too crazy
about accidentally swallowing lots of mini computer chips.
26. Household
cleaners that point out nasty bacteria so you can clean the hell out of
them. Is this really a problem? Are that many people really getting sick from
E.coli in their bathrooms? Are they the
kind of people who would buy and then use this product? Maybe it will be fantastic. I can see it being useful in a lab, but is
there really a need for this at home?
28. Better
TV Dinners. Maybe these TV dinners
will be way tastier than previous ones. It’ll
probably still be much cheaper and healthier to cook at home. But, like so many things that add to the
obesity epidemic, it might be a runaway financial success.
29. Yogurt
in a strawberry pouch. This idea is
essentially making food packaging that comes in an edible container. Do people want to eat their food in something
called Wikicells? I don’t know. But like number 28 and so many other things
that add to the obesity epidemic, it might be a runaway financial success.
30. Garden Sensors that water and put pesticides
on your plants. This could be
cool. Also, it gives you more time to
eat your wikicell yogurt in your giant room size monitor kitchen. Never will people have to get some fresh air
or eat non-chemical-laced food again.
31. Robo-Petting. Petting a little strip of “smart fur” to get
the same blood pressure lowering benefits as petting Fido is not going to
work. Because, sex is a great stress
reliever too. And the people who pet
pieces of faux fur will never have sex again.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Student Loan Discolsure - hahahahaha
The New York Times, we need to have a little talk about your Editorial of May 22, 2012, "Full Disclosure for Student Borrowers." In this editorial, the paper states that outstanding student debt is a huge problem in America. (Which it is, as more money is owed in America on Student Loans than on Credit Cards, and Student Loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy - but I digress) The editorial goes on to describe a student who has no hope of paying her $120,000 in undergraduate loans, and states that the remedy for this student loan crisis is to make sure that colleges and universities are up front and clear about what loans are, what grants are, and what repaying a loan is going to look like.
The last three sentences of the editorial sum up the New York Times' thesis nicely:
The last three sentences of the editorial sum up the New York Times' thesis nicely:
Congress should also require schools to
provide in-depth, annual loan counseling to students and set criteria
for the information that must be provided. All schools should be
required to disclose annually the average debt load of their graduates. Before students borrow to pay for their education, they need to understand the obligations they are taking on, and how long it will take
to pay them off.
Don't get me wrong, I completely agree. Students and their families should be much better informed, and annualy informed, about the loans they are taking out. I agree.
But that's not the real problem. The REAL problem is that a college education costs far and away more than it ever did before, and far and away more than it should. I am 30 now, and I went to college in the fall of 2000, when I was 18. I was very lucky to have been accepted by a highly selective private college, and I could not be more devoted to the place - which I absolutely loved and still love. When I first matriculated, it cost around $32,000 a year. I had everything you could ask for. Small classes where the professors knew my name. There was a recreational gym nicer than any gym I could afford now. There were outstanding lab facilities, the grounds were spotless, the library well funded. I studied abroad in London for a semester for the same price as normal tuition. There were countless sports teams, there were countless campus plays. My senior year I lived in a townhouse, which was owned by the college and for which my parents paid regular dorm fees, that had 2 bathrooms, 1 full kitchen, cable tv, and a washer/dryer - all for 4 students. I had everything. We couldn't go half a week without a famous speaker coming to campus to talk to us or an amazing band or arts organization coming to perform. I only wish I'd taken advantage of it all at the time!
So here's how it is now. That $32,000 a year is, adjusted for inflation, now around $41,600 in 2012 dollars. Ok, fine. That's a gigantic pile of money. True. However, the actual fees at my beloved alma mater will be almost $56,000 for the upcoming school year. What is that extra $14,400 per year buying? I, honestly, don't have the faintest idea. Smarter and better informed folks than I have spilled plenty of ink trying to figure that one out.
The real problem isn't loans, although providing loan counseling and making them dischargeable in bankruptcy would ease the burdens of many. The real problem is that (for virtually all but the richest Americans) income is not increasing relative to inflation, and the cost of college is increasing much faster than inflation. Higher education costs are just taking up more and more of a family's budget. It just can't keep going on forever until a college education for one child requires average income parents to save 30% of their salaries for 18 years. It just can't. Cancelling the cable tv (as one NYT editorial online commenter suggested) isn't going to enable families to save enough. We, as a society, need to make sure that any qualified student,
regardless of his or her parents' income, has the opportunity to earn a
college degree without crippling debt.
The other issue at hand is that 18 year olds, kids who have been told for 18 years that they will fly as high as their dreams, are not going to be good judges of their own abilities to pay loans back. It doesn't matter how much disclosure they get. Their parents are often even more clueless. Of course every parent thinks his or her little darling is going to get a high paying job at 22 or go on to medical school. He was on the football team! She was editor of the year book! If a bank wouldn't loan an 18 year old $120,000 to start a business, why would the federal government loan her $120,000 to go to school to get a BA in anthropology? Heck - a bank wouldn't give an unsecured loan to an 18 year old for $23,300 (the average student loan amount) to start a business.
Yes, disclosure about student loans would help. I don't disagree. But the real problem is the soaring cost of higher education. Kids (and they are kids) will continue to take out these loans, because that's the only choice they have to get an education. And let's not kid ourselves, the vast majority of good, physically safe, and well paying jobs go to college graduates. Some of these kids will take out as much in loans as the forces that be let them. And many of those who borrow much more responsibly will never be able to pay their loans back. If you tell an 18 year old and his parents that he's going to need to get a job that pays $75,000 a year after graduation to pay his loans back and, um, eat - he'll still take out the loans, because they think he'll be one of the few to get that $75,000 a year job at the age of 22. It's magical thinking - and WE ALL suffer from it.
I appreciate that you are paying attention to the Student Loan crisis, The New York Times. But you missed the target with this one.
Yes, disclosure about student loans would help. I don't disagree. But the real problem is the soaring cost of higher education. Kids (and they are kids) will continue to take out these loans, because that's the only choice they have to get an education. And let's not kid ourselves, the vast majority of good, physically safe, and well paying jobs go to college graduates. Some of these kids will take out as much in loans as the forces that be let them. And many of those who borrow much more responsibly will never be able to pay their loans back. If you tell an 18 year old and his parents that he's going to need to get a job that pays $75,000 a year after graduation to pay his loans back and, um, eat - he'll still take out the loans, because they think he'll be one of the few to get that $75,000 a year job at the age of 22. It's magical thinking - and WE ALL suffer from it.
I appreciate that you are paying attention to the Student Loan crisis, The New York Times. But you missed the target with this one.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Are You For Real?
The May 18th The Ethicist
column was written by Andrew Light, Director for Philosophy and Public Policy
at George Mason University and a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. I don’t doubt that Andrew Light is a
brilliant man who does some important work.
However, when he wrote this column, he was all out of whack.
A woman wrote to The Ethicist explaining that
her elderly parents want her to become her 40 year old brother’s legal
guardian. Her brother needs a guardian
because he became heavily involved with drugs and alcohol as a teenager, has
suffered brain damage as a result, and has spent the last 25 years of his life
in and out of prison, halfway houses, and rehabilitation centers. She has been estranged from him for
years. It is very clear from her letter
that she does not want to be her brother’s legal guardian because he’s a mess,
she has been estranged from him for years, she lives a 7 hour drive from where
he is, and – here’s the kicker – because she’s a single mother with a demanding
job. But, he is her brother, and she
wants to help her parents. She also has
no intention (and with good reason) of never letting him in her home or near
her child.
Thankfully, Andrew
Light says that she should feel free to turn down her parents’ request if she
believes doing so would endanger her child.
Thank goodness. But, he goes on
from there. He talks all about how he
would rather give his son a kidney than a stranger a kidney, like that’s
somehow surprising or relevant to anything.
He also says that he does feel that she has more of a duty to her
brother than she does to most people, because he is her brother, and she should
do what she can to help him as long as it doesn’t endanger her daughter. Because, he says:
Just as you may have a
stronger moral obligation to your brother than to anyone on the street, you
certainly also have equally strong, if not stronger, obligations to your
daughter.
I’m sorry, but who the what what?! What do you mean “equally strong, if not
stronger”?!! The daughter comes
first. FIRST first first first
first! I can’t tell you how far down the
list estranged adult siblings are, but they are WAY behind one’s children. All he needed to say was that if she felt she
couldn’t be a good mother and a guardian to her brother, than being a good
mother comes first. Period. End of discussion. No need to feel guilty. Believe me, a single mother with a demanding
job is probably (like most mothers) already beating herself up about something.
Nevertheless, he
decides to throw a little wood on that being a good mother/daughter/sister
guilt fire. After rambling a bit about
an NYU philosopher, Light closes his response with:
Even though you’re
alienated from your brother now, I hope there was something in your past that
brought you together. Now you ought to try to draw on that experience of being
a sibling and do the best that you can in a difficult situation.
Light, dear friend, are you telling me that remembering
when he shared his peanut butter with her 35 years ago is going to do anything
to ease the fact that he has spent over half his life in and out of jail? I don’t know, Light, I kind of feel like
people sometimes become estranged for a reason.
Assuming there are some fond memories left, they are probably greatly
overshadowed by very tragic, if not horrific, memories. If you don’t understand that, then you’ve
probably never known somebody who has anything like the kinds of problems that
this woman’s brother has.
But
I also think that we need to face the facts here. This woman is a single mother with a demanding
job who lives 7 hours away. Her brother
has an incurable problem and will never be able to live alone as a stable
member of society. Even if she really
wanted very much to be his guardian, I still do not think it would be ethical
for her to agree to do it. She just
doesn’t have the time to have a demanding job, be a good single mother, and be
the legal guardian to an incurable adult patient 7 hours away. In this case, as in so many cases, it is most
ethical for the family to leave the patient in the care of trained
professionals. A professional social
worker, assigned by an offical and located near her brother, would be a far more
appropriate guardian.
Andrew
Light, this woman wrote to you to ask if it was ethical if she admits to her
parents that she’s not superwoman. She
wanted The Ethicist to say it’s ok if she chooses to care for her own child,
her career, and her own sanity before she cares for the junkie brother she hasn’t
seen in years. Most people would have
done just that. You told her it was only
ok, if she had to, just as long as she thinks about it, thinks about it hard, thinks
about any good childhood memories, and thinks of anything – even the tiniest
thing – she could possibly do for her brother, because she does have an
obligation towards him. A single mother
with a demanding job came for help, and you gave her a whole bunch more baggage
to lug around for no purpose at all. And
that, Andrew, I find to be unethical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)