The census has spent a fortune on advertising. They sent out a letter that said “in a week you’ll get your census, please fill it out” which is unlikely to make the slightest impact in actual response rates, but probably cost $10 million to send out (assuming 300 million Americans at a little over 3 cents each). Not to mention the cost of the actual census itself. And all the information that’s being collected, the government already knows through other agencies.

Perhaps the time has come to end the census, and use that money for things that aren’t entirely redundant…

1) Opportunities for women — Before the feminist revolution, there weren’t many jobs for women. Women could be secretaries, nannies and teachers, and that’s about it. These days, although there is lingering sexism in some fields, for the most part a bright young woman can enter any career that she’d like. Which means that very talented women who previously could only be teachers are now going into other fields. This depletes the talent pool for teachers, and is almost certainly contributing to lower educational achievement. But at the same time, it is wonderful for women, equality, and the country as a whole. Because while it lowers the talent pool for teachers, it increases the talent pool for everything else. I know a number of really talented women who are doing great science, engineering, medicine, law, etc. and in doing so making the country a lot stronger. I should note, that I know there are still a number of very talented teachers out there - I don’t mean to say teachers have no talent, just that some really impressive people who previously would have had to be teachers no longer will go into that career.

2) More people having access to education — Back in the mid-90’s the average SAT score dropped dramatically. This wasn’t because students got stupider. Its because a number of states started requiring all graduating seniors to take the SAT as a means of encouraging them to go to college. What that meant was that a large population of people at the bottom end of the distribution started taking the test - previously they wouldn’t have bothered. This drove the average test scores went down. But at the same time a number of people who would never have thought of themselves as college material and who would therefore not have taken the SAT, actually did quite well, and because of this ended up getting a college education. In other words, while scores went down, it was indicative of greater opportunities for a greater number of students. The hope is that at some point the most disadvantaged students can get equally good education as wealthier students. But even if that isn’t the case right now (and it isn’t) the fact that they’re getting an education at all is a real positive step, even if it does lower our statistics.

3) Other countries have improved education - 50 years ago, there weren’t all that many countries that were able to provide the bulk of their populations with educations. That number has increased, which means there’s more competition for top rankings in international educational progress. This drops our relative ranking in education, but is great for the world, and great for the US. As more countries become more educated, wealth will increase, allowing for larger export markets for US products. More minds will be trained, which will allow for big problems like global warming and cancer treatments to have a larger pool of people working on them. In the age of globalization, innovations don’t have to come from the US for Americans to benefit from them. And at least for now, the US is still a very desirable place to do advanced education and work - which means better students from abroad leads to better higher education and immigrant talent to the U.S. The fact that other countries are more competitive is really good news.

4) What is important to learn — On Monday I was giving a talk in a large auditorium, and the microphone stopped working. Fortunately for me, I was able to rely on my training from high school choir, and vocally project. So people could still hear me. Having taken choir improved my ability to effectively do my job. Nonetheless, not a single international educational achievement scale that I am aware of includes the arts. There are only so many hours in a day, and so there have to be decisions about what to teach students. We could clearly improve our rankings in math education by devoting more of that time to math. But in doing so, we would have to sacrifice other important training. Arts, Physical Education, History, etc. The U.S. educational system provides the most well-rounded education of any system I know of. In many countries, students start specializing in their early teens. What that means is that America has a flexible workforce, that is able to consider different types of knowledge, and creatively combine disciplines. The fact that our scores on discipline specific tests are lower, may actually be a sign that we are doing a better job of being well rounded. Learning how to learn, learning how to find information, learning how to think creatively… these are things I’d much rather be teaching our kids than having them memorize facts and equations.

All this to say, we hear a lot about doom and gloom in education, but there may be some good news hidden in what we are interpreting as bad news…

But after reading some of the specific recommendations and reasoning from particular school board members involved, allow me to add a few secondary points:

1) I’m baffled by how little these people understand the broad disciplines they are “revising”. In particular, check out this quote from the previously linked article:

“In the field of sociology, another conservative member, Barbara Cargill, won passage of an amendment requiring the teaching of “the importance of personal responsibility for life choices” in a section on teen suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders.

“The topic of sociology tends to blame society for everything,” Ms. Cargill said.”

Someone sit that fool of a woman (lest anyone think that I am resorting simply to ad hominem attacks, let me clarify that I’m using the Biblical definition of fool here, see Proverbs 18:2) and explain to her that the whole point of sociology is to explain changes in societal trends over time. Of course individual behavior matters, BUT THAT’S NOT THE POINT OF SOCIOLOGY!!!!!!!!!!

Her action is akin to forcing doctors in medical school studying lung disorders to be reminded that “smoking is a personal choice”. It’s true: but it is also completely besides the point, and only distracts from the subject at hand.

2) Technical definitions matter. In particular:

“They also replaced the word “capitalism” throughout their texts with the “free-enterprise system.”

“Let’s face it, capitalism does have a negative connotation,” said one conservative member, Terri Leo. “You know, ‘capitalist pig!’ ””

Someone needs to explain to this fool that words allow us to communicate with other people. Capitalism is a particular term when used in Economics and has a clear, well understood definition, with shades of meaning that “free-enterprise system” lacks–not to mention the lack of succinctness. Yes, language evolves, and we ought to avoid using offensive language. But capitalism is an idea; it can’t be offended.

3) The explicit partisanship here is sickening:

“He [Don McElroy] also made sure that textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported.

“Republicans need a little credit for that,” he said. “I think it’s going to surprise some students.””

Well, Don McElroy, DDS, you are absolutely correct that many Northern Republicans supported the Civil Rights act. Many of those same Republicans supported Nelson Rockefeller in his bids for president. Many of them were subsequently trashed by the Conservative movement that McElroy seems to have so much fondness for. Oh, and does he also want to remind the students that most of the Southern Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights movement fled the Democratic Party and were welcomed with open arms by the GOP leadership, including his beloved Ronald Reagan? Or that many of those people became leaders within their new party, including such notable GOP partly leaders as Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and Trent Lott?

Somehow I’m guessing he wants to avoid those subjects.

Fools. And not just fools: bad conservatives. Whatever happened to parents controlling what their own children are learning, and not government bureaucrats or ignorant politicians? Or are those only slogans that conservatives pull out when Democrats get elected?

(If Mike goes long enough without giving me positive examples of good leftfielder posts, eventually my posts devolve into things like this…)

I don’t know the mechanism for doing this sort of spying - maybe you need cooperation from the cell service provider for this to be possible. But it also seems possible that some clever electrical engineering students at my university are secretly listening in at faculty meetings…

I’ve been helping my parents determine when to start receiving benefits, and the more I look at the system, the more broken it seems. No wonder it’s heading towards bankruptcy…

A half hour goes by with no incident, but then two teenage girls come into the restaurant. Maybe the dog didn’t like their perfume or clothing - I’m not sure what happened. But suddenly the dog jumps up, starts barking, growling and bearing its teeth at the two (very frightened) teenagers. The owner of the dog is telling it to hush, but the dog isn’t listening, straining at its leash in what appears to be an attempt to attack the girls. The hostess is forced to put the girls at a back corner table well away from the dog before it quiets down.

So, here is my question. Does anybody know what rules/laws govern service animals? Obviously you can’t refuse service to somebody because they are handicapped. But can you refuse to allow their animal in the restaurant, which amounts to the same thing? And what if that animal acts up, or harasses other customers. Are you allowed to kick the animal out (which forces the handicapped person to leave too, so is tantamount to kicking out the disabled fellow)?

I’ve been pondering what the right way to handle this is. On one hand, I don’t like the idea of discrimination against the disabled. On the other, this incident could be really bad for business - I’ll bet those girls won’t head back to that restaurant again after the scare that they had. And what if the dog were to defecate or otherwise threaten the sanitation of the restaurant. I’m trying to think of a way that the rights of the disabled and the rights of other clientele and the proprietor can coexist. So far I’ve come up blank, but I’d be interested in hearing what y’all have to say.

I want to use this as a chance to reflect upon love, and on being single. The thing is, for many people, love just isn’t in the cards. There is a small, but non-negligible percentage of the population that will never find love. Most of our culture is predicated on the notion of finding meaning in life through romantic relationships. But for those of us who don’t get to live out that cultural meme, where can we look for models of a fulfilling life without romance?

The most obvious choice is in religion. In particular, priests, monks and nuns of various faiths forgo the possibility of coupling up in the name of serving G-d. They find meaning through their relationship with their deity rather than their relationship with a romantic partner. Indeed, one need not be cloistered to find meaning through faith, nor even be single.

Others find meaning in seeking knowledge or producing art. There are a few examples in movies and literature of this. Although, they are often depicted as a ‘tortured soul’ or ‘obsessed’ or some such. It isn’t typically portrayed in a flattering light, but it is, none the less, given attention as a lifestyle by media outlets.

Rarer, but more positively portrayed are the folks who spend their lives giving back to their communities. Typically this is linked to religion, but not always - especially with regard to teaching. There are several movies that come to mind showing teachers so dedicated to their students that the students serve as their families.

Aside from that, I don’t see much in the way of positive role models for how to live a fulfilling life alone. It seems a pity. There are some of us who will never find love, and in addition to all the other drawbacks, we are made to feel inferior because romantic love is held up in our culture as such an important ideal. It would be great if more attention were paid to alternative paths to fulfillment. (Not to mention helping widows and widowers that have to adjust to life after the loss of a loved one, and find meaning through other avenues).

This is not the first time the DSM has been revised this new version with be the fifth instantiation (DSM-V). It undergoes revisions every 10-15 years to update in accordance to research in the field. The idea is to make it conform as closely to scientific knowledge about the mind and brain as possible. But it is unavoidably political. Homosexuality, for example, used to be classified as a psychological disorder requiring treatment and possibly being committed. Recent versions of the DSM have not included sexual orientation. You can see why the newest revision is drawing the scrutiny of many activists.

Issues can be subtler than that, though. Insurance will typically only cover treatment for disorders that are in the DSM. Which leads to all sorts of problems for patients suffering from conditions that don’t fit the symptoms for any standard disorders. Here’s an interesting article on Orthorexia (not currently in the DSM - pathological obsession with healthy eating) which isn’t covered by insurance. Insurance does need guidelines on what are legitimate conditions, and the DSM is the natural source for that, but this makes it’s revision political.

The DSM has broader funding implications as well. Researchers will find it much easier to get NIH grants if they study conditions already in the DSM. Which lessens the likelihood of things outside the DSM being identified to the point where they can be included in future revisions. Moreover, accessibility to many government assistance programs hinges upon DSM categories. Right now, Autism and Aspergers are separate categories - but the DSM revisions may lump them together. This means that government autism programs will be open to a new population.

There are also stigmatizing and helpful effects of labels. If I say that Mike is a slow writer that’s all well and good. But if I say he suffers from Bradyscribia (a condition I just made up but etymologically accurate…) people will treat him differently. There are strong stigmas attached to psychological disorders. At the same time, the label might encourage Mike to seek help, or come to grips with how slowly he writes. What is, and isn’t in the DSM has important consequences.

It would be ideal to just “go with the science”. The problem is, the science is rarely cut and dry, and abnormality is to a large part socially constructed. E.g. Pathological obsession over healthy eating is almost certainly unique to today’s nutrition obsessed media culture. Plus, as described above regarding research dollars, sometimes the labels influence what data we have access to.

So, on the whole, since the DSM-V draft has been released, expect to see a lot of discussion/debate over what’s included, and what’s not. The question of the extent to which practical and social concerns should influence a medical text is a challenging one, and something that we’ll be hearing a lot about in the coming weeks.