Before I get into the topic of today, which is the unfortunately nepotistic relationship between my alma mater and the Bush Administration, there are two things that need to be said.

First, when you have time, go read this article in today’s New York Times, which tells the story of one of the Iraqi oil pipelines that a Halliburton subsidiary called KBR was supposed to rebuild.

Second, I want to apologize on behalf of Rice University, and say that it really is a great school despite everything I’m about to tell you. It’s a moderate (it leans Democrat, but not heavily) university, it has a great social environment, and great academics. It’s also significantly cheaper than just about any other university of its caliber. So if we are complicit in any of the following, we’re very sorry.
Continue reading »

 

I’ve been grappling with this question all day, and have yet to come up with a reasonable answer:

Are the Public Schools supposed to prepare people to work in the real world? Or are they supposed to create an environment that is most conducive to learning? Or is it some of both?

That question was prompted by two things. First was the (black) Omaha State Senator who proposed an amendment (which passed) to a state-wide school redistricting and busing law that would separate Omaha’s school district into three separate districts drawn explicitly along racial lines. Second was this article in the New York Times on the four remaining all-male colleges.

Both the all-male colleges and the State of Nebraska are basically arguing that people learn better when surrounded by others who are like them, and that education can more easily be tailored to the needs of the students in less diverse environments. Critics say that this misses the point, and that it is just as important to teach people to interact with different people and operate in diverse environments. I can understand both arguments, but I definitely lean towards the latter.

Still, I’ve known several people to go to all women’s schools (high school or college) who had positive experiences there; and my understanding was that at least some of the benefit of those experiences derived from the single-sex environment. So, am I missing something here? Furthermore, isn’t the diversity argument also an argument against “honors tracks” and for forcing children of a variety of intellectual abilities to interact with each other in the classroom, even if that means that none of the children learn as well as they otherwise would? In other words, can diversity be taken too far?

 

In my copy of the Boston Globe today, I was confronted with the headline “State widens teaching of abstinence“. Apparently, Gov. Mitt Romney, in his continuing attempts to demonstrate to the Religious Right that a Mormon from Massachusetts is actually one of their guys, announced yesterday that “the state will funnel nearly $1 million in federal funds to a faith-based organization to teach abstinence to public middle school students”. The organization is Healthy Futures, which promotes an abstinence-only sex education curriculum. In his statement, Gov. Romney explained the grant this way: “We teach sex education, but there’s no portion of sex education which talks about the advantages of waiting… We’re saying let’s provide an opportunity for parents and school districts to add abstinence to the curriculum. It’s not about abstinence only. It’s abstinence also.” This is one of the most common myths about sex education–that traditional sex-ed doesn’t discuss abstinence–and seems to be the largest impetus for this particular usage of federal money. So, I thought it would be nice to actually put that myth to the test.
Continue reading »

 

In case you hadn’t heard, Chinese President Hu Jintao is meeting with President Bush in the Oval Office this morning. As one might expect, this has ignited the usual chorus of people concerned that the United States is losing its competitive edge, or that China is becoming a global threat, or that they will soon be more powerful than us. So I thought this would be a perfect time to remind everyone out there about two key facts:

Fact #1: The United States will not remain the most powerful country in the world, either economically or militarily, forever.

Fact #2: No other country in the world will catch up to us any time soon.
Continue reading »

 

Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, respectively of Harvard and Chicago, recently released a working paper that has caused quite a bit of controversy lately. Unfortunately, most of that controversy has revolved around whether or not Mr. Walt or Mr. Mearsheimer are anti-Semitic because they dared to criticize Israeli policies and to blame the United States’ virtually unmitigated support for Israel on the strong support that Israel receives from the pro-Israeli lobby, the neo-conservative movement, and the Religious Right. Unfortunately, Walt and Mearsheimer focus their paper on “The Lobby”, as they call it, which gives their paper a conspiratorial tone that plays into the hands of their critics. Furthermore, they blow right past the most interesting, and useful, question: is American support for Israel actually counterproductive?
Continue reading »

© 2012 leftfielder.org login Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha