Zen and the Art of Administration?

A sometimes all too true satire.

http://insidehighered.com/views/2007/12/28/galef

The Seeing Tongue?

Since it's the brain that "sees," not the eyes, it turns out that other senses "see" as well. Fascinating.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010901/bob14.asp

How to handle pressure?

The basic idea is that anxiety appears to cause problems when it makes us concentrate too much on all of the variables going into whatever we're doing. When we focus on one basic concept or visualization, then anxiety actually seems to improve performance.

http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2007/12/psychology-of-choking-under-pressure.html

Debating the increase in standardized testing

Basically, the conclusion appears to be that we need more "good" tests, not just more tests. What defines a "good" test, of course, is harder to get at.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/what-should-be-done-about-standardized-tests-a-freakonomics-quorum/#more-2126

Academic intimidation

Thomas Sowell can be a pretty pungent preacher at times, but I think he's basically correct on this one, as the decline of Antioch College has made clear.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/academic_intimidation.html

Campaign prognostications

I must admit to being much more interested in this particular presidential campaign than I would normally be for three reasons. First, everything is so up in the air. Second, I know the Huckabees personally (Janet worked with me on JBU's Academics Committee of the board of trustees). Third, the parties have espoused such differing positions that I believe this will be a more important election than usual (though Washington gridlock will likely blunt the eventual impact of whatever choice is made).

Before I give my current predictions, I should add the prediction that I should have made in July. Back then, I was looking at prediction markets such as Intrade, and I considered seriously putting $100 on Huckabee back when he was trading at 2% to win in Iowa. Normally, you shouldn't "bet" on any market unless you have "information asymetry" on your side, but because I knew Huckabee personally, I felt that I had such an advantage, and I figured that if he ever could break through into some kind of public limelight, he would catch fire, particularly with Evangelicals in Iowa. That's exactly what's happened. And if I'd actually made my bet, which I didn't, mostly out of laziness, I'd be looking at a 3500% increase in my Huckabee "portfolio" (which is currently trading at 70% to win in Iowa). So much for that extra Christmas cash!

So where does the Republican nominating campaign go from here? The conventional wisdom has been that Huckabee (earlier it was Thompson) is battling with Romney for the social conservative wing of the party while Guliani is battling McCain for the economic/political/foreign policy wing of the party. The winner of these two semi-final rounds will face off on Super-Duper Tuesday (February 5) for all of the marbles.

I've been saying for awhile, however, that this analysis is misguided. The real race is between Huckabee and Romney on the Republican side. The only writer who seems to be on the right track, from my perspective, is David Brooks of the NY Times who seems to "get" why Huckabee is doing well and why he's plausible (most conservative writers, such as Lowry, Will, etc. are looking down their elitist noses way too much for my tastes). His take has been that this is shaping up to be a "postwar" election, which is why "nice guy" centrists who focus on domestic issues and are "fresh faces" are doing well. On the Democratic side, that's Obama (and witness his recent uptick in the polls), and on the Republican side, that's Huckabee and (maybe?) Romney (it should have been Thompson, but he blew his chance). Guiliani, McCain, Edwards, and Clinton fail on two or more of these counts, so in the long run, they'll fail.

That's the overarching narrative. How does this work in practice? Huckabee and Obama win Iowa. Obama is already close in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and his Iowa victory gets him over the hump in these two states as well and from there to the eventual nomination. Huckabee's Iowa victory solidifies later wins in South Carolina and Florida. But Romney still wins New Hampshire and maybe Michigan (edging out Huckabee). At that point, Thompson, McCain, and even Guliani are knocked out. Romney and Huckabee then duke it out the rest of the way. The vitriol of the Republican establishment against Huckabee, however, eventually undoes him, and Romney wins a close race. But with Romney being seen as the less genuine of the two, Obama cruises to victory.

That's my scenario, at any rate. Of course, with Romney trading at 22.4% and Obama trading at 36% to win the Democratic nomination on InTrade, if I bet $100 on each today, and my scenario came true, I would increase my portfolio by about 350% in six months. Or maybe I'll stick with being lazy and not actually bet anything but just say "I told you so" if I turn out to be correct.

Spirituality in college students

Basically, college students care about spiritual development, but they're not getting much guidance from most faculty in these matters. Religious observance and volunteer work do decline during college, but I've seen other studies that appear to show that both activities decline even more in the non-college cohort. This report is sure to ruffle some feathers in the secular academy.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/12/18/spirituality

The Brain on Faith?

Atheist attack-dog Sam Harris has produced an interesting brain study that appears to show that we "believe" in objective truths such as 2+2=4 in much the same way we "believe" in aliens or maybe . . . God? That's the subject of his next study.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1694723,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

The Growing Anti-Child Movement?

An interesting reflection in this advent season on the growing anti-population movement.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/child-birth-homeless-1942317-year-

The Future of Engineering Education?

The basic argument is that Engineering is going through a similar transition to what earlier occurred with lawyers and doctors, in which professional training occurs at the graduate level and in which the undergraduate degree is less directly relevant. Engineers end up being more well-rounded and less cogs in a machine.

I'm personally doubtful that this will occur as quickly as this study implies it should because the off-shore marketplace for engineers is more robust than it is for doctors and lawyers (I'm willing to hire a low-paid engineer from India to design my toaster, but I'm less willing to "go cheap" when it comes to my health or my legal advice), therefore the barriers for entry to be an engineer are going to be considerably lower.

http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/12/986n.htm

Instant Sex and the Demise of Romantic Love

Interesting piece on how the "Instant Sex" culture has undermined the development of individuals (maturity defined by the ability to delay gratification) and culture as a whole (romantic love being at the root of much of our great art, literature, and music).

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/462wtjth.asp

Debating the Death Penalty

In the 90s, executions went up and murders went down. Correlation or causation? That's the question.

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i16/16b00401.htm

Loving and being good at your job not correlated?

This one strikes me as counterintuitive and also counter much of what I have advised students and faculty over the years. Hmm . . .

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/love-your-job-that-doesnt-mean-youre-better-at-it/

Academic freedom regarding evolution?

Anti-Darwinians get black-balled at secular institutions and Darwinians get similar treatment at CCCU institutions. Perhaps not all that surprising but also a somewhat sad commentary on our current intellectual conversation.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/12/10/evolution

The wisdom and folly of Schumpeter

A solid review of a well-received book explaining why Schumpeter's economic understanding of "creative destruction" is central to our modern world but why Schumpeter's political understanding of the supposed failings of democracy may not be as worthwhile or valid.

http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i15/15b00801.htm

Another conservative critique of NCLB

The concern from the right has been that NCLB is primarily about increasing federal control of what should rightfully be the business of the state and local communities. In theory NCLB could provide rational standards that would improve all education, but in practice, that hasn't really happened, and instead, we've just gotten more federal government intrusion without much real benefit.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/getting_past_no_child.html

Another book on the PC University

There have been a lot of these books over the last couple of decades on this topic, but this one seems more reasonable than most.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/07/AR2007120701618.html

Does Class Size Matter?

The gist of this article is that it might, particularly in certain types of courses and circumstances, but we're making a very big case about changes in education (that smaller classes are automatically better) on the basis of very little real evidence. Are there not ways to teach large sections just as effectively for certain outcomes (content knowledge, for instance) as for small sections? Most likely, but not much real study has been put into the topic to know for sure.

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/12/06/barwick

Divorce bad for the environment?

The economic logic is straightforward (more divorces, more households, more energy usage), but not much talked about.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071204/ap_on_sc/divorce_environment;_ylt=Avj6qeL_M5qs7qfTCBO0hd.s0NUE

The Dangerous Wealth of the Ivies?

I've often wondered whether we're approaching a bipolar world where 1% of our population is educated at the Ivies Plus Two (Stanford & MIT) and lives in a completely different world than the rest of us. Two of my cousins graduated from Yale, live in San Francisco, work in the art world, and one is getting married on Martha's Vineyard next summer. I doubt they think of themselves as part of the "1%," but it sure looks that way to the rest of us.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_50/b4062038784589.htm?chan=magazine+channel_in+depth

Does "The Golden Compass" Promote Atheism?

This CNN piece argues both sides. Other reviews I've read in the mainstream media have also tried to walk the fence.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/03/golden.compass.religion.ap/index.html

It's been a long time since I read the trilogy, but I remember interpreting these books through the lens of my father's work on Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita." In that classic novel, the basic divide is between those who believe in the supernatural and those who don't. As much as Pullman may himself argue for atheism, the characters in his books have "souls," encounter what appear to be supernatural beings, and respond in some mystical way to the Holy Spirit (in the form of "Dust"). I therefore tended to see the books as perhaps unwittingly reinforcing basic spiritual messages, granted through the very critical lens of how Pullman sees contemporary religion explaining those spiritual messages (with his very individualistic, anti-clerical themes). In short, I'm looking forward to seeing the movies and maybe rereading the books.