Musing's musings

Oh, bloody hell. Here we go again

Via Shakespeare's Sister, I learn that apparently another batch of education professors needs tenure and/or promotion. That's the only plausible excuse I can think of for why anyone would ever suggest retooling the way English is spelt:

WASHINGTON - When “say,” “they” and “weigh” rhyme, but “bomb,” “comb” and “tomb” don’t, wuudn’t it maek mor sens to spel wurdz the wae thae sound?

Those in favor of simplified spelling say children would learn faster and illiteracy rates would drop. Opponents say a new system would make spelling even more confusing.

I'm with the opponents. The last time something like this was attempted, my sister was just starting school. Some loon thought it would be a good idea to teach her and her classmates to spell English phonetically, using the Initial Teaching Alphabet for the first two or three years of school. After that, they were somehow magically supposed (apparently) to transition to the proper (and admittedly less-than-strictly logical) English spelling rules. End result? My sister and most of her classmates are lousy spellers to this day.

Aleksandr Nikitenko* must be smiling

The Chicago Tribune is reporting that a suburban school district has made students responsible for what they post online in their blogs, MySpace profiles, etc.:

For Libertyville and Vernon Hills High Schools, the changes will mean that all students participating in extracurricular activities, including athletic teams, fine arts groups and school clubs, will have to sign a pledge agreeing that evidence of "illegal or inappropriate" behavior posted on the Internet could be grounds for disciplinary action.

Officials of District 128, which includes the two schools, said about 80 percent of the district's 3,200 students participate in one or more extracurricular activities.

Associate Supt. Prentiss Lea said the changes are part of an effort to get the district community more knowledgeable about the growing Internet blog phenomenon and more aware of the pitfalls of such sites as MySpace.com.

"By adding the blog sites [to the student codes of conduct], we wanted to raise discussions on the issue," he said. "We have taken the first steps to starting that conversation."

They may have a point about needing to raise awareness of and initiate discussions about what goes on in teen cyberspace: I am not in a position to determine the merits of that claim. But I believe Superintendent Lea is gravely mistaken as to the appropriateness of the means by which he has chosen to work toward his stated end. I would go so far as to say that he is not so much attempting to kill a gnat with a thermonuclear weapon as he is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons by raising sunflowers.

Cheaters never prosper

Or do they? At least according to a story in today's New York Times, it's not for want of trying. Desperate students are turning to all manner of high-tech gadgets, it seems, in the perennial quest to do well in college without bothering to do the work:

LOS ANGELES — At the University of California at Los Angeles, a student loaded his class notes into a handheld e-mail device and tried to read them during an exam; a classmate turned him in. At the journalism school at San Jose State University, students were caught using spell check on their laptops when part of the exam was designed to test their ability to spell.

And at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, after students photographed test questions with their cellphone cameras, transmitted them to classmates outside the exam room and got the answers back in text messages, the university put in place a new proctoring system.

"If they'd spend as much time studying," said an exasperated Ron Yasbin, dean of the College of Sciences at U.N.L.V., "they'd all be A students."

I find myself at least a little ambivalent about that last paragraph, however. Of course if students put half as much energy and effort into mastering the course material, they wouldn't have to find ever more creative ways to cheat. The UNLV dean and I are in complete agreement on that front.

My ambivalence derives from the fact that, as the Times article did mention later, a lot of cheating is symptomatic of a deeper problem:

"Some people put a premium on where they're going to go in the future, and all they're thinking about is graduate school and the next step," said Lindsay Nicholas, a third-year student at U.C.L.A. She added that pressure to succeed "sometimes clouds everything and makes people do things that they shouldn't do."

[edit]

David Callahan, author of "The Cheating Culture: Why More Americans Are Doing Wrong to Get Ahead" (Harcourt, 2004), suggested that students today feel more pressure to do well in order to get into graduate or professional school and secure a job.

"The rational incentives to cheat for college students have grown dramatically, even as the strength of character needed to resist those temptations has weakened somewhat," Mr. Callahan said.

A bit of the ol' in-out

It seems to be the day in Left Blogistan when we talk about sex. (Or at least sex education.) Andrea has a post up on the topic, as do both the inimitable and snarky TBogg and Shakespeare's Sister. A very brief recap: the Republicans are agin' the idea (of sex education, certainly; probably also sex, at least of the non-procreative-and-outside-of-marriage variety--but even within those parameters I have my doubts). The Concerned Disconcerting Women of America say "Pooh-pooh to your facts and statistics. We just know we're right and you're wrong, no matter what the numbers say.

I say it's precisely that attitude that's at the root of the problem. And of course the problem is, as the old saw has it, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." "A little knowledge" is about as good a description of the content of what passes for sex education in this country in the present epoch. Certainly that was the case back in the Dark Ages when I was a freshman in high school, and I very much doubt matters have significantly improved since then--a supposition that is confirmed by everything I read today in the linked posts above.

Nam et ipsa scientia potestas*

Jason Johnson, the honors student dismissed from the University of the Cumberlands for being gay, has reached a settlement with the school:

Johnson attended until school officials found out he was gay from a posting on his MySpace.com page. Johnson who is an honor student..says the school was going to give him failing grades in all classes because he was expelled.

Tuesday, Johnson's attorney and the school settled...reversing the decision and allowing Johnson to keep the grades he had in classes at the time of his expulsion.

Part of me is disappointed he didn't sue the rat bastards for every red cent he could lay hands on. And given that the linked story goes on to say that Johnson claimed there was no policy on "permissible" sexual orientations in the student handbook he was given when he first enrolled, I think he'd have had a fair chance at winning. Normally, a student is only bound to abide by the rules and program requirements that were in effect at the time s/he matriculated--unless the college does due diligence to announce the rule change and makes some arrangements for grandfathering it in, or unless the student him/herself formally petitions to follow a different catalog. The university can't just quietly change the rules in mid-stream and then expect everyone to have noticed.

Why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing

(And the corollary to the post title is, of course, "Why more information--and education--is a Good Thing.")

An interesting discussion today over at Big Orange, on some legislation working its way through the Republican-controlled Congress that has the potential to muss the regalia of academics all across America. But it's not the legislation I want to talk about. You should totally go read DarkSyde's diary and the articles it links to. Then come back here and read this post (which is developed from several of my comments on that dKos thread).

No wonder I'm warped

So the tighty righties are at it again:

COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) - A central Missouri high school drama teacher whose spring play was canceled after complaints about tawdry content in one of her previous productions will resign rather than face a possible firing.

"It became too much to not be able to speak my mind or defend my students without fear or retribution,'' said Fulton High School teacher Wendy DeVore.

DeVore's students were to perform Arthur Miller's "The Crucible,'' a drama set during the 17th Century Salem witch trials.

But after a handful of Callaway Christian Church members complained about scenes in the fall musical "Grease'' that showed teens smoking, drinking and kissing, Superintendent Mark Enderle told DeVore to find a more family-friendly substitute.

DeVore chose Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream,'' a classic romantic comedy with its own dicey subject matter, including suicide, rape and losing one's virginity.

DeVore, 31, a six-year veteran teacher, said administrators told her that her annual contract might not be renewed.

"Maybe I need to find a school that's a better match,'' she said.

Or maybe people in the United States need to get a fucking clue and throw the theocrats out of office. These people control both houses of Congress, the White House, whole swathes of the federal judiciary, and far more local government entities--including school boards--than I like to think about. Yet as Mustang Bobby noted earlier today, to hear them talk you'd think they were "...two steps away from being thrown into concentration camps by the baby-killers, the secular humanists, and the queers."

Never mind!

The story I blogged on a week ago, about a student in Massachusetts having been visited by agents from the Department of Homeland Security because he allegedly requested a copy of Quotations from Chairman Mao through interlibrary loan, has been unmasked as a hoax. I applaud the professors who fact-checked the story and uncovered the truth, and I feel sorry for the student in question, who may have been motivated, according to the linked article, by a need to feel popular. He should get help, and I expect, though the university will rightly not comment on the matter because of privacy concerns, he will also suffer a few adverse consequences for his actions.

But there is a bigger issue to confront here as well: that being the fact that this story mushroomed into an international incident in a matter of hours. I don't think there was any intent to deceive us on the part of the media, who were reporting as fact information they had reason to believe was factual--and who have done their due diligence and reported on the debunking of the original story. What does it say, however, about how far the United States has fallen in the five years since the Shrubbery took over the White House, that hundreds (or hundreds of thousands) of people from all over the world--your 'umble correspondent included--didn't even bat an eyelid at the tale spun by this student?

Once upon a time, half a century ago at the height of the Red Scare for instance, the story would have been utterly plausible--and probably would never have hit print, because everyone would have believed the kid had gotten what was coming to him (and the newspapers would probably have worried about attracting unwanted attention from the feds themselves, too). But those were different times, and the laws have changed since then.

But then we started to hear rumblings about torture in U.S. detention facilities, and pictures came to light showing several instances of what sure looked like it. Bush and his minions pooh-poohed, and slapped a few hands way down the food chain to make it look good. Then came allegations that many of the prominent Republicans at the head of that party, and also in the circle of advisers (and donors) around the president had been getting rich through kickbacks, payoffs, bribes, money-laundering, and no-bid contracts. Again, the administration's response was to downplay the allegations, until they blew up in their faces. Finally, we heard that the administration had been illegally spying on, not only foreigners but U.S. citizens--and again the Shrubbery has attempted to shoot the messenger rather than do anything about the contents of the message.

Is it any real wonder, then, that so many people could find such an outrageous story plausible? It certainly fits with the pattern of abuses committed by the president and the people closest to him documented to date--and that's the thing about this story that truly sucks rocks. We've become used to thinking of our government as a bullying, cheating, lying bunch of crooks who'd sell their own grandmothers into a Turkish brothel if they thought it would win them a political advantage, or bring in enough money to help them buy some more clout.

So much for "restoring honor and dignity" to the White House, eh? Can I please have a government in this country again that is worthy of my trust and respect--and which will not abuse that trust and respect at every turn simply to further its own selfish ends? Pretty please?

So why hasn't anyone come knocking on MY door?

I don't know whether to be amazed, disgusted, worried, furious, or some combination of all of the above at this story (since revealed to be a hoax):

A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book."

Two history professors at UMass Dartmouth, Brian Glyn Williams and Robert Pontbriand, said the student told them he requested the book through the UMass Dartmouth library's interlibrary loan program.

The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said.

The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is on a "watch list," and that his background, which included significant time abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further. "I tell my students to go to the direct source, and so he asked for the official Peking version of the book," Professor Pontbriand said. "Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring inter-library loans, because that's what triggered the visit, as I understand it."

Like, OMG, I might have to, you know, learn something!

Via Jeff at Culture Kitchen I became aware of what can only be described as People's Exhibit #1 for why general education courses are an absolute necessity in higher education. A woman with the unfortunate name of Stacey Perk, a junior at the University of Iowa majoring in American studies and journalism whines:

A problem exists within the high-school education system: It doesn't prepare students for their careers.

Here's the clue phone for you, Stacey. High school isn't supposed to "prepare students for their careers," at least not in the sense that you seem to mean. High school is supposed to give you the basic tools that every citizen needs to be productive in the world. That includes things like being able to read well enough to understand a driver's test or a ballot initiative, being able to handle balancing your checkbook and understanding the interest rate structure on your mortgage application, and being able to recognize logical flaws in advertisements and political stump speeches. A high school education is also supposed to prepare one to go on--whether to college or to an apprenticeship or technical school if one chooses not to take the higher education route.