The Academic Bubble
alternativeright.com
alternativeright.com
Excuse my completely non-constructive comment, but am I the only one who thinks this topic has been dissected enough?
It's still a hot button issue for me, at least. When I was in 7th grade, my English teacher had us read Macbeth, Northwest Passage, The Last of the Mohicans, The Red Badge of Courage, and other notable works. We discussed them in detail and wrote essays ad nauseum. It was hard, but we were the better for it.
Last year, in my son's Literature class (note; it's not English anymore - it's Literature), they read a smattering of short stories from a brightly illustrated textbook and his sole "book report" was to make a pop-up book from his chosen novel "Percy Jackson and The Last Olympian" (now a major motion picture!). This was typical of many of his classes - plenty of busy work, but thin on substance. His middle school ranks very well by state standards, but it's just not a solid education, in my opinion.
This isn't a generational issue, either. Kids' minds are as pliable now as they were in previous generations, but I don't think the schools push them enough on the right things.
I've created a bunch of my own videos (like Khanacademy but better) and have been teaching online classes for 5 years at a community college. My experience is that roughly 30% of the students pass my class without any interaction from me. They just need to be pointed in the right direction and need to know in what order the topics should be covered.
This fact, coupled with the fact that all elearning websites suck make for an opportunity. I don't know enough about programming to pull off my ideas on what can be done. There are inefficiences in the market but not as much as articles about academe being the next bubble suggest.
There's opportunity here.
"Bubble" might not be a good choice of term for this case because bubbles pop with some dramatic short run consequences. The only way that happens is if the student loan machine suddenly breaks down, and in that case the driving issue will be a broad credit crisis, not the bursting of the education bubble. More realistically diplomas just start "trading" lower and lower over time, as more people and employers simply don't care.
He seems to imply that perhaps grading is not as strict as it used to be, referring to some higher education as "virtuous slacking", but doesn't provide any supporting information to make such a claim.
He calls higher education a status symbol, referencing the increasing prices, mentioning that many take out loans for higher education, briefly going out of his way to mention government. He reinforces with a claim that people go to college because others do, rather than because they've simultaneously converged on the idea that it's a good investment. He doesn't provide any evidence that higher education is actually viewed as a status symbol.
More significantly, though, the author doesn't propose or imply any solution for the system as a whole, or even one of his pain points. The article is vacuous and unfocused. What I've learned from this article: The author doesn't like the current state of higher education, and his mother had to walk uphill both ways to get to school.
Epistemological mastery just leave us knowing. A lot of time we know how to do something, but we just don't do it. Perhaps it is time to start ontological mastery http://ssrn.com/abstract=1392406
Education has less impact these days because kids increaswingly expect to be taught, not to learn. Laziness and the expecttation of employability is just as much the problem as the university tuition rates.
I wouldn't worry about listless youth, I would worry instead on the absolutely horrible investments they're making in education.
"Black Children Do Not Need a Western-style Education"
I, for one, would like to see a little bit more criticism of things being posted to HN, and their sources. Because once people know the HN push-button issues, unquestioning readers can be easily lured down the path to thinking and believing very nasty things.
Despite what the 'logical' HN cannon says, an author's background and intent actually matter very much. It may be popular on HN to assume that only facts matter, but I invite you to read the following piece to see how "facts" (real things that really happened) can be skewered by intent:
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/hbd-human-biodive...
The author cites an article at the NYT which points out that black children are suspended more than whites. He then points out that this suggests black children are more likely to exhibit behavior problems, hindering the education process for better behaved white children. He then advocates segregating black children from white children, except for the minority who have the aptitude for school.
His reasoning and data gathering process seems no worse than most newspaper columns (which are, in general, pretty bad). I don't agree with his conclusion since some of the values he is basing them on differ from mine, but that doesn't mean his facts are wrong.
So how, pray tell, has he skewered facts? And why does that mean we should ignore another author who shares a site with him?
"Blacks are keenly interested in their own racial characteristics."
"Blacks break down the intimacy that can be achieved in the classroom"
"One point on which all blacks agree is that everything is “racis’.”"
"Anyone who teaches blacks soon learns that they have a completely different view of government from whites."
"Blacks are extraordinarily quick to take offense."
"But the real black is not on television..."
There's no way you can take these statements and say they are anything but flat-out racist. It's one thing to say "This is my experience in a certain school with black students" and it's another thing entirely to say "Blacks are." If the author is telling the truth, then he mentions many "facts" of his experience.
However, he doesn't settle for merely reporting it as his experience. He skewers those facts - with intent - into de-personalized blanket statements.
Which are clearly and irrefutably racist:
"Racism is the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
Him allowing that there might be a few "specially sensitive blacks" doesn't excuse him from racism.
Now, again, the author of the "essay" in question quoted this other author more than at length -- he quoted him in full. While he studiously did not MENTION the entire essay length piece embedded in his blog post, he clearly condones it. There's no way around it: racist, of the highest degree.
In fact, I don't think you even are trying to argue against his reasoning. I think you are instead attempting to lull us into a false sense of sharing an identity with you. And that, according to all kinds of psychological research, can end up with us conforming to your other ideals as well -- if we believe they go part and parcel together, we will, on some level, strive for consistency [1].
You are hoping that if we pay a lot of attention to Alex Kurtagic being racist, we will share an identity with you ("I'm not racist at all"). Then, based on a shared identity, we will assume that Scott Locklin's opinions must be wrong, without even examining the content of his argument.
I think HN is smarter than that [2].
[1] Yes, I did steal that paragraph.
[2] I realize I'm playing the same game ahoyhere is.
My point is that extremists in one area also hold non-extremist beliefs in other areas. That can lull you into a false sense of sharing an identity with them. And that, according to all kinds of psychological research, can end up with you conforming to their other ideals as well -- if you believe they go part and parcel together, you will, on some level, strive for consistency.
That's why you have to be aware of who's saying what, and why, and what you read, and how you feel about it.
Regarding the nanotech article: http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2010/09/scott... I was wondering myself why that article got so many upvotes.
Oh, really? The burden of proof lies on your shoulders. More to the point: citation needed.
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/the-case-f...
It's extremely revealing that he suggests Mel Gibson's attitude toward women as exemplary.
His articles on class structure expose a rather violent imagination about how best to conduct social intercourse:
"There are two ways of getting along with a lower class person at least to a limited extent. The first way is to beat the [expletive] out of them. They deserve it anyway, and most people lick the boots that kick them."
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/zeitgeist/social-...
Good grief.
Deleted comment
Locklin was no more making a defense for the skirt than I was making a criticism of it. His position is that the proper state of a woman is to wear dresses and skirts, and that the only possible reason for wearing pants is that she's ashamed of her gender. His position, in other words, is that women should be easily identifiable by a uniform. This is part of his preference for women who are subservient and can be kept in what he feels is their proper place.
That you attempt to frame this in terms of liberty reveals that you recognize the shamefulness of this attitude. Well, shame on you.
On class wars: Locklin proposes to "get along with a lower class person" by beating them until they "lick the boots that kick them". Even if class warfare were inescapable, Locklin's views offer no insight except into the violence of his own imagination, and my point was simply that.
You may think your views are legitimatized in seeing them written by someone who claims intellectual authority (even while railing against the institutions who credit it), but the rest of us recognize them for what they truly are: crude, violent, and misogynistic. You are right on this much: I'm not convinced we can fairly add racism to that list, but I'd hardly be surprised to be proven wrong.
Or, by the direct author (and not the one wholly quoted), "It is clear that the few who purchased Black slaves in their day made a lamentable choice." -- and he doesn't mean that, oh, I don't know, slavery is immoral. He means it was a lamentable choice because the goods were bad apples that now will spoil the bunch.
Does this article's presence on the same site invalidate the thesis of another article? No. But does it put everything argued into question? Yes. Because there's no such thing as "the facts." You cannot ever have all the facts. The map is not the territory.
Therefore, you must the consider the motives of anyone who presents "facts" to you -- because they had to pick and choose, and could not represent all facts (map, territory), and why did they pick the ones they picked?
Dry-humping the idea of pure logic doesn't work in a non-platonic world where you can never, ever have all the facts. Context matters. Source matters. Motive, intent, and background matter -- a lot.