Last week, the news was filled the story of "top kill," the effort to plug BP's ruptured oil well. The President talked about it. Every news service covered it. People apparently glued themselves to videos of the well head and the robots down at the sea floor. It made for a good story in every respect but one. Ultimately, "top kill" was a near hoax. Yes, BP was legitimately trying to plug this well. But the odds of them being successful at this effort were very close to zero. It would have been a miracle, the equivalent of heaving a basketball all the way across a court and making a swish. It was actually worse than that. Make the basketball a cube. Shrink a standard rim by five percent. Now you have the odds of top kill working. Top kill was never viable given the conditions at the well; it was simply a cocktail of drilling mud mixed with prayer.
BP had to know this, but for p.r. purposes kept their mouths shut. They were simply trying to buy time. Journalists didn't know this, but they should have. They didn't do their homework. Instead they chose to get caught up in the faux drama. Journalists never mentioned that the odds of success were virtually nil. Essentially they decided to run a hoax story because it was juicier than the reality. They had a great title to work with, "top kill." They had robots. They had gushing oil. It was a story as good as any movie script. Who cared if it was true?
Much of the news is like this. It isn't about real stories at all. It's about some faux narrative. For example, come election time, journalists will focus on poll after poll, trying to treat elections like real horse races. Then they interview people about the poll results. There are articles upon articles that work this angle during elections. They neglect the fact that most of those polls have little scientific validity and underreport their errors. Journalists choose to run with the numbers facts be damned. And if the polls are wrong, journalists get another story: Wow! What an upset!
The same thing will happen during hurricane season. Maps will be shown time and time again projecting the future course of a hurricane hundreds of miles off shore. Those projections are just guesses and they are often wrong. Never mind. Journalists will show them as the real thing, real science at work. It's a combination of being lazy - not checking on just how good the source of these projections are - and wanting to tell a good story no matter what.
I'm not saying journalists are being purposefully dishonest. But the search for narrative leads them to accept baloney as the real thing. It's not always the case that these faux stories involve science or engineering or statistics. That's just when I usually notice them. For example, the New York Times was involved in what ultimately became one of the most deadly hoaxes of the last twenty years: the supposed existence of WMD's in Iraq. VP Cheney fed a reporter baloney. She got caught up in the story and didn't check the facts - after all why oh why would a vice president deliberately lie - and partly because of her lousy work, the US ended up in a war that cost trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives.
Real news is often boring. It involves arcane language in legal documents and sober, dry interactions between politicians and diplomats. But journalists are in the business of sales. The public wants drama. Journalists have to deliver drama. As a result, the real and important news often gets buried on page 23 of a newspaper or on an obscure web site. What about the stuff on the front page? Unfortunately, it is often - like the "top kill" story - a version of the truth that is so dolled up to make it interesting that it's mostly fiction.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
I'd Probably Keep My Mouth Shut Too
"The fact that we had a bunch of mud going up the riser isn't ideal but it's not necessarily indicative of a problem," said spokesman Tom Mueller.
For weeks now, oil has been belching from a blowout in the Gulf. The total volume of oil polluting the ocean has already exceeded that of the famed Exxon Valdez spill. And it's going to get worse. Lots worse. Here's the truth. If you know anything about wells and petroleum engineering, you know there is nothing that can be done to plug this leak in the short term. There is no proven technology out there. There isn't even decent unproven technology out there.
There is one decent solution. Drill some relief wells. It, unfortunately, will be until August before those can be operational. That means another 75 days of more oil belching into the ocean. It's simple, really. The science and technology out there say we have a long ways to go.
What I don't understand is why no one has been straight about this. It would be best if the difficulty of the situation was in the open. Instead, we get nonsense. We've had three Hail Mary attempts by BP to deal with this problem. First we had a cockamamie attempt to contain the well that - duh - failed partly because gas hydrates fouled the engineering. That gas hydrates would be a problem had to be known in advance. BP and its engineers were hoping that despite some basic physics telling them otherwise, a great miracle would happen. It didn't.
Next up was an attempt to siphon off the oil to the ocean surface. This was another - well maybe a miracle will happen and physics will be defied - effort.
As I write this another attempt that disregards physics is happening, the top kill approach. Look at the quote above about how "top kill" is progressing. It isn't. What is undoubtedly happening is that thousands of barrels of drilling mud are being washed into the ocean. That's the "bunch of mud," thousands of barrels.
Today, Obama went on TV to say that he was responsible. Fine. He's responsible. He's a smart man, no doubt. But I never heard of him excelling in fluid mechanics. I don't think he's ever taken a course in petroleum engineering. He says the government is fully engaged. I bet they are. But he isn't saying anything about a quick fix. He's simply trying to deflect criticism.
BP will no doubt come up with other far-fetched approaches in the next couple of months. But basically, the environment down at the ocean floor is hell. It's ten degrees above freezing. The well casing is shot. The area surrounding the casing has been completely compromised and is unstable. The fluid pressures are ridiculously high. The fluids are multi-phase messes that can and will actively change chemically. BP will not succeed in plugging this well until they can pump mud down with relief wells. It just isn't going to happen.
At least Obama isn't trying to talk out his behind and say a solution is just around the corner. I give him a lot of credit for that. He isn't lying. He's not exactly forthcoming about the hopelessness of the situation, but at least he's not making claims he can't back. On the other hand, when BP says they are going to try something new, what they are saying is that they are just trying to distract the public. And where is Steven Chu, Nobel Prize winning Department of Energy head, in all this? He's been awfully quiet.
Now Dr. Chu doesn't know much about well hydraulics and petroleum engineering. But I'm sure he has his contacts. I'm also sure that they've told them more or less what I've written above. There is no known solution. You'll just have to wait. So why isn't he saying just that? What doesn't he simply call a press conference and tell the truth?
The answer is that it's politically unacceptable to tell the public that there are some problems without quick fixes. Some problems are just too hard no matter how much science and technology you throw at them. If Chu would say this - say the truth - he would be ridiculed for being a naysayer. So instead, he keeps his mouth shut.
It's one thing for BP to be PT Barnum-like and assume that the public will believe anything you say. It's quite another for someone with a Nobel Prize in physics to do so. If I were Steven Chu, I'd probably keep my mouth shut too.
For weeks now, oil has been belching from a blowout in the Gulf. The total volume of oil polluting the ocean has already exceeded that of the famed Exxon Valdez spill. And it's going to get worse. Lots worse. Here's the truth. If you know anything about wells and petroleum engineering, you know there is nothing that can be done to plug this leak in the short term. There is no proven technology out there. There isn't even decent unproven technology out there.
There is one decent solution. Drill some relief wells. It, unfortunately, will be until August before those can be operational. That means another 75 days of more oil belching into the ocean. It's simple, really. The science and technology out there say we have a long ways to go.
What I don't understand is why no one has been straight about this. It would be best if the difficulty of the situation was in the open. Instead, we get nonsense. We've had three Hail Mary attempts by BP to deal with this problem. First we had a cockamamie attempt to contain the well that - duh - failed partly because gas hydrates fouled the engineering. That gas hydrates would be a problem had to be known in advance. BP and its engineers were hoping that despite some basic physics telling them otherwise, a great miracle would happen. It didn't.
Next up was an attempt to siphon off the oil to the ocean surface. This was another - well maybe a miracle will happen and physics will be defied - effort.
As I write this another attempt that disregards physics is happening, the top kill approach. Look at the quote above about how "top kill" is progressing. It isn't. What is undoubtedly happening is that thousands of barrels of drilling mud are being washed into the ocean. That's the "bunch of mud," thousands of barrels.
Today, Obama went on TV to say that he was responsible. Fine. He's responsible. He's a smart man, no doubt. But I never heard of him excelling in fluid mechanics. I don't think he's ever taken a course in petroleum engineering. He says the government is fully engaged. I bet they are. But he isn't saying anything about a quick fix. He's simply trying to deflect criticism.
BP will no doubt come up with other far-fetched approaches in the next couple of months. But basically, the environment down at the ocean floor is hell. It's ten degrees above freezing. The well casing is shot. The area surrounding the casing has been completely compromised and is unstable. The fluid pressures are ridiculously high. The fluids are multi-phase messes that can and will actively change chemically. BP will not succeed in plugging this well until they can pump mud down with relief wells. It just isn't going to happen.
At least Obama isn't trying to talk out his behind and say a solution is just around the corner. I give him a lot of credit for that. He isn't lying. He's not exactly forthcoming about the hopelessness of the situation, but at least he's not making claims he can't back. On the other hand, when BP says they are going to try something new, what they are saying is that they are just trying to distract the public. And where is Steven Chu, Nobel Prize winning Department of Energy head, in all this? He's been awfully quiet.
Now Dr. Chu doesn't know much about well hydraulics and petroleum engineering. But I'm sure he has his contacts. I'm also sure that they've told them more or less what I've written above. There is no known solution. You'll just have to wait. So why isn't he saying just that? What doesn't he simply call a press conference and tell the truth?
The answer is that it's politically unacceptable to tell the public that there are some problems without quick fixes. Some problems are just too hard no matter how much science and technology you throw at them. If Chu would say this - say the truth - he would be ridiculed for being a naysayer. So instead, he keeps his mouth shut.
It's one thing for BP to be PT Barnum-like and assume that the public will believe anything you say. It's quite another for someone with a Nobel Prize in physics to do so. If I were Steven Chu, I'd probably keep my mouth shut too.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
The Oongepatcheket Way of Choosing a College
There's a certain way of living that I don't understand at all. It's driven by purchases of the "right things," almost always overpriced and unnecessary. It's heavily involved in ceremonies that I view as a waste of time. It's all as they say in Yiddish, oongepatchket, overdone to the point of self-parody. For a certain class of people - the upper middle class to very wealthy - it dominates the "process" of how they choose a college.
Want to choose a college? Here's the real deal. There are probably 200 or so very good colleges in the US. They all have about the same quality of professors. They all use the same books. They all get about the same students. Whether you go to college x or college y from those 200, you're going to get about the same education. You might as well go to the one that's the cheapest and closest to home if you like your parents (and the most expensive and furthest from home if you don't). Then have a back up school or two. You're done!
It's very simple. Look at the tuition and average SAT scores of students at a school. If the average SAT score is about 1200 or better (forget the writing section), it's probably a pretty damn good school that gets pretty damn good students. The students get good jobs. It's a legitimate, well-known school. I mean look at this list of schools below:
Caltech, Columbia, Wisconsin, Franklin and Marshall, Dickinson, Harvey Mudd, UC-SD, Bowdoin, Brown, Haverford, Georgia Tech, Vassar, Rochester, Michigan, Dartmouth, North Carolina, Virginia, Claremont, Denison, Colorado, Middlebury, ok I'm tired of typing schools, but I could go on and list another 200 or so.
You get the drift. There are some techie schools on this list that are good for STEM students. There are some public schools on this list that are good if you want to save lots of money on tuition (if you have to take out a huge loan to go to a private school, it isn't worth it, believe me). There are some liberal arts colleges if you don't want TA's. But honestly, the differences in these schools education-wise is small. As I noted above, they use the same books. They have the same types of professors. Pick three schools and you're done.
Should you visit the schools? I did this with my daughter, but in fact I think it's mostly a waste of time. What can you possibly see in a few hours? All schools tend to have lovely campuses. It's random whether you meet someone nice or snobby. It's random whether the weather is good or bad. Don't bother visiting unless you have big bucks to throw around.
Should you take test prep courses? No way. You get about a 30 point boost (Math and Verbal) combined on your SAT from such things. You're paying four figures and wasting tens of hours that you'd be better off using studying for your high school chemistry class. Think about it. What's more important, getting a measly 30 point boost on your SAT or getting an A as opposed to a B+ in chemistry? Plus studying on your own is...free!
Choosing a college should be a no mess, no fuss thing. But it isn't. Somehow, it has become all...oongepatcheket. People pore through college guide books that provide no real information (but earn Fiske and the Princeton Review a lot of money). They look at US News rankings, which quite frankly are a complete scam, to decide which schools are the most prestigious. They hire a college consultant to help them choose and get in a school (I'll gladly offer my services for 2K if you want to throw away your money). They try to make distinctions between schools on hearsay and urban legend that are pure b.s. They take those SAT prep courses even though their SAT scores will barely budge as a result of the time (and expense).
They visit a half dozen or a dozen schools in a whirlwind tour. They obsess over reach schools, safety schools and all kinds of silly distinctions. They fill out a dozen applications. Then they wait with bated breath to open their fat and skinny envelopes.
I don't get it. That's probably 300 hours of time spent on something that should take less than 40 hours. That's probably five thousand dollars of money out the window that could be used for something real...like...tuition! In short, people make a big deal out of not a whole lot. It's college, not a marriage. It's four years, not a lifetime. And trust me, all these schools are cut from the same cloth.
Part of it is status, I guess. It's a coming of age type of ceremony, more or less, for people of a certain socio-economic class to waste their time like this and talk about how they waste their time like this with friends. It's a displaced seriousness about college, really. I guess people are saying, "Look at how important college is to us." But from my standpoint, if you want to show how important college is to you, I have one piece of advice that works in both high school and college: study. The rest is window dressing.
Want to choose a college? Here's the real deal. There are probably 200 or so very good colleges in the US. They all have about the same quality of professors. They all use the same books. They all get about the same students. Whether you go to college x or college y from those 200, you're going to get about the same education. You might as well go to the one that's the cheapest and closest to home if you like your parents (and the most expensive and furthest from home if you don't). Then have a back up school or two. You're done!
It's very simple. Look at the tuition and average SAT scores of students at a school. If the average SAT score is about 1200 or better (forget the writing section), it's probably a pretty damn good school that gets pretty damn good students. The students get good jobs. It's a legitimate, well-known school. I mean look at this list of schools below:
Caltech, Columbia, Wisconsin, Franklin and Marshall, Dickinson, Harvey Mudd, UC-SD, Bowdoin, Brown, Haverford, Georgia Tech, Vassar, Rochester, Michigan, Dartmouth, North Carolina, Virginia, Claremont, Denison, Colorado, Middlebury, ok I'm tired of typing schools, but I could go on and list another 200 or so.
You get the drift. There are some techie schools on this list that are good for STEM students. There are some public schools on this list that are good if you want to save lots of money on tuition (if you have to take out a huge loan to go to a private school, it isn't worth it, believe me). There are some liberal arts colleges if you don't want TA's. But honestly, the differences in these schools education-wise is small. As I noted above, they use the same books. They have the same types of professors. Pick three schools and you're done.
Should you visit the schools? I did this with my daughter, but in fact I think it's mostly a waste of time. What can you possibly see in a few hours? All schools tend to have lovely campuses. It's random whether you meet someone nice or snobby. It's random whether the weather is good or bad. Don't bother visiting unless you have big bucks to throw around.
Should you take test prep courses? No way. You get about a 30 point boost (Math and Verbal) combined on your SAT from such things. You're paying four figures and wasting tens of hours that you'd be better off using studying for your high school chemistry class. Think about it. What's more important, getting a measly 30 point boost on your SAT or getting an A as opposed to a B+ in chemistry? Plus studying on your own is...free!
Choosing a college should be a no mess, no fuss thing. But it isn't. Somehow, it has become all...oongepatcheket. People pore through college guide books that provide no real information (but earn Fiske and the Princeton Review a lot of money). They look at US News rankings, which quite frankly are a complete scam, to decide which schools are the most prestigious. They hire a college consultant to help them choose and get in a school (I'll gladly offer my services for 2K if you want to throw away your money). They try to make distinctions between schools on hearsay and urban legend that are pure b.s. They take those SAT prep courses even though their SAT scores will barely budge as a result of the time (and expense).
They visit a half dozen or a dozen schools in a whirlwind tour. They obsess over reach schools, safety schools and all kinds of silly distinctions. They fill out a dozen applications. Then they wait with bated breath to open their fat and skinny envelopes.
I don't get it. That's probably 300 hours of time spent on something that should take less than 40 hours. That's probably five thousand dollars of money out the window that could be used for something real...like...tuition! In short, people make a big deal out of not a whole lot. It's college, not a marriage. It's four years, not a lifetime. And trust me, all these schools are cut from the same cloth.
Part of it is status, I guess. It's a coming of age type of ceremony, more or less, for people of a certain socio-economic class to waste their time like this and talk about how they waste their time like this with friends. It's a displaced seriousness about college, really. I guess people are saying, "Look at how important college is to us." But from my standpoint, if you want to show how important college is to you, I have one piece of advice that works in both high school and college: study. The rest is window dressing.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Night Clerk
So I'm in NYC with a head cold. I'm staying at a hotel, the kind that gets good reviews in places like Trip Advisor because it's clean and new. But this place is as austere and soulless as any prison and Trip Advisor is strictly for Republicans. Imagine a Comfort Inn right off the highway run by an Indian family in Murfreesboro, TN. One day, like the hotel equivalent of the Beverly Hillbillies, they win the lottery decide go up to Manhattan and build themselves a new hotel. That's what this place is like.
The hotel is five months old. The staff is friendly, but clueless with limited English skills. It's cheap. It attracts the Walmart, Bethlehem, PA kind of crowd, fleshy, lugubrious people in jeans, t-shirts and tennis shoes with their bored teenage kids in tow. Ugh. Yes, I get cranky when I have a head cold. No I didn't pick this place.
Anyhow, I'm not sleeping well because of this head cold. I wake up suddenly at 3:00 heaving and sneezing. I try to stay in bed, but eventually decide that I'm probably not helping my sweetie get a decent night's sleep. So at 4:00 I head downstairs and look at - what else - grading data on my laptop. I've got a nice new data set to look at, over 110 schools and their grade distributions. Here is what I was looking at:
This is cool stuff. You can see how grades are higher at private schools and how colleges and universities grade partly on the basis of their selectivity. That wasn't true fifty years ago. Somehow it just happened collectively on its own. I think it's neat! It's more than neat. This little graph tells the entire story of contemporary college grading in America. It's beautiful! And look at all that grade inflation. Some of these schools give over 90 percent A's and B's. You have to be comatose as a student to not get a B or better.
Think that's boring? Well f*ck you! Like I said, I get cranky when I have a head cold.
Anyhow, I'm looking at this data at 4:00 AM. The hotel doesn't really have a lobby, just a morning breakfast area and a couch next to the desk. I'm on the couch typing away. The night clerk is on the phone talking to some guy. I don't really notice until he asks, "Do you speak English?" His English isn't very good and he's having a hard time understanding the guy on the phone.
So I take the phone. On the line is some goombah from Miami. He's looking for someone named Dominic X, a guest. He's got to talk to him. This is at 4:30 AM on a Sunday morning. "God bless you," he says to me. "That guy can't understand a word of what I'm sayin'." I help the clerk look up the supposed guest's name. But there is no one staying here by the name of Dominic X.
"There's another Comfort Inn in Midtown."
"There is?"
"Yeah, a few blocks away. Maybe Dominic is there."
"Yeah, maybe. Thanks a million." He hangs up. I imagine Dominic sleeping with the fishes.
The night clerk leaves. I move to the breakfast area to make some tea with the microwave. I'm typing on my laptop at 4:45 AM when two women walk in wearing mechanics clothes, one of them on a cell phone.
"Do you have a pen?" She asks.
"Yeah, sure."
She writes some stuff down on a business card then looks at me while she's on hold.
"Do you know where I can get a rent-a-car 'round here?" She asks.
"Now?"
"Yeah right now. I need to drive somewhere."
"I doubt you can find anything. There's probably a Hertz somewhere around here that opens at 5:00 or 6:00."
"Don't wanna wait, you know." She hands my pen back and walks out the door.
At 5AM, six whores walk into the place. "We're here!" One of them announces to me gleefully.
"OK," I say.
"You work here?"
"No."
"Well they told us to go downstairs. Where's that at?"
I point to the door in back. They head there en masse.
At 5:30 AM, a French woman comes down in tears. "I lost my passport and I'm going home today. Did you find it?"
Now the night clerk is back. He doesn't know what to do with the crying French woman. "We don't have any passports," he says, matter of factly. She cries louder.
"You should try the French consulate. They're on Fifth Avenue," I say after doing a quick Google search. But she's inconsolable. She just wants her passport. My first and only evening as a night clerk in a Manhattan Indian hotel has come to an end.
The hotel is five months old. The staff is friendly, but clueless with limited English skills. It's cheap. It attracts the Walmart, Bethlehem, PA kind of crowd, fleshy, lugubrious people in jeans, t-shirts and tennis shoes with their bored teenage kids in tow. Ugh. Yes, I get cranky when I have a head cold. No I didn't pick this place.
Anyhow, I'm not sleeping well because of this head cold. I wake up suddenly at 3:00 heaving and sneezing. I try to stay in bed, but eventually decide that I'm probably not helping my sweetie get a decent night's sleep. So at 4:00 I head downstairs and look at - what else - grading data on my laptop. I've got a nice new data set to look at, over 110 schools and their grade distributions. Here is what I was looking at:
This is cool stuff. You can see how grades are higher at private schools and how colleges and universities grade partly on the basis of their selectivity. That wasn't true fifty years ago. Somehow it just happened collectively on its own. I think it's neat! It's more than neat. This little graph tells the entire story of contemporary college grading in America. It's beautiful! And look at all that grade inflation. Some of these schools give over 90 percent A's and B's. You have to be comatose as a student to not get a B or better.
Think that's boring? Well f*ck you! Like I said, I get cranky when I have a head cold.
Anyhow, I'm looking at this data at 4:00 AM. The hotel doesn't really have a lobby, just a morning breakfast area and a couch next to the desk. I'm on the couch typing away. The night clerk is on the phone talking to some guy. I don't really notice until he asks, "Do you speak English?" His English isn't very good and he's having a hard time understanding the guy on the phone.
So I take the phone. On the line is some goombah from Miami. He's looking for someone named Dominic X, a guest. He's got to talk to him. This is at 4:30 AM on a Sunday morning. "God bless you," he says to me. "That guy can't understand a word of what I'm sayin'." I help the clerk look up the supposed guest's name. But there is no one staying here by the name of Dominic X.
"There's another Comfort Inn in Midtown."
"There is?"
"Yeah, a few blocks away. Maybe Dominic is there."
"Yeah, maybe. Thanks a million." He hangs up. I imagine Dominic sleeping with the fishes.
The night clerk leaves. I move to the breakfast area to make some tea with the microwave. I'm typing on my laptop at 4:45 AM when two women walk in wearing mechanics clothes, one of them on a cell phone.
"Do you have a pen?" She asks.
"Yeah, sure."
She writes some stuff down on a business card then looks at me while she's on hold.
"Do you know where I can get a rent-a-car 'round here?" She asks.
"Now?"
"Yeah right now. I need to drive somewhere."
"I doubt you can find anything. There's probably a Hertz somewhere around here that opens at 5:00 or 6:00."
"Don't wanna wait, you know." She hands my pen back and walks out the door.
At 5AM, six whores walk into the place. "We're here!" One of them announces to me gleefully.
"OK," I say.
"You work here?"
"No."
"Well they told us to go downstairs. Where's that at?"
I point to the door in back. They head there en masse.
At 5:30 AM, a French woman comes down in tears. "I lost my passport and I'm going home today. Did you find it?"
Now the night clerk is back. He doesn't know what to do with the crying French woman. "We don't have any passports," he says, matter of factly. She cries louder.
"You should try the French consulate. They're on Fifth Avenue," I say after doing a quick Google search. But she's inconsolable. She just wants her passport. My first and only evening as a night clerk in a Manhattan Indian hotel has come to an end.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
They Know, They Know
I was emailing back and forth with a college president from one of those highly ranked US News schools about - what else - grade inflation. He or she is someone I've met once. Like usual, I asked that person my standard question. How did we screw up undergraduate education so fast?
The quality of higher education in the US has not always been particularly good. In the 19th century it was, in fact, abysmal. But Charles William Eliot turned Harvard around and his actions seemed to influence higher education across the country. Undergraduate education became a serious business. Robert Maynard Hutchins then carried the torch and provided national leadership while president and chancellor at Chicago in the early to middle 20th century. Certainly, you could still find examples of schools that were country clubs for the wealthy during that era, but for most, undergraduate education required real work.
Then Sputnik came along in the 1950's and suddenly the United States became paranoid that the Russians were beating us in science and technology. We ratcheted up our efforts in higher education even more. The quality of our undergraduate education was the finest in the world by far.
For some reason with the onset of the Vietnam War, the quality of higher education in the US began to wane. We have continued to go downward. We require less work of our students. At Duke for example, undergraduates studied 34 hours a week in the 1960s. Now they are down to 11 hours a week. We give far higher grades for far less effort. Students are less literate. They are less engaged in the process of learning than they have ever been (at least ever since surveys of student engagement have been made).
It's not all bad. We've decided that if you really need to know something for your job or your MCAT, we'll teach you that. So organic chemistry is likely still a bear of a class, although grades are higher than they've ever been. Also if you do possess burning intellectual curiosity, we'll let you read all the books we assign and do all the research you want to write profound and insightful papers; it's just that those that don't do all that reading and write b.s. in their papers might get an A, too.
A couple of weeks ago I was at Stanford talking to some undergraduates about what they did day to day. These were very articulate, smart and happy students. There was one engineer in the crowd. He/she talked about spending 20 hours a week on just one class. I think that was an exaggeration, but I got the drift. The other three were in the humanities. They noted that their classes didn't require much work, but their days were filled with lots of activities, clubs and sports.
I smiled. It sounded like summer camp. How did we screw up so fast?
That's what I asked Mr./Ms. College President. The answer?
"The weakening of undergraduate education was not due to a thousand cuts, nor just one cause. To me, there were several (for private universities)
1. Faculty cowardice - (among some) Many faculty just do not want to argue with students about grades.
2. The quest for good teaching evaluations. I would guess that the correlation between high grades awarded and enthusiastic teacher evaluations is quite high almost everywhere.
3. Political correctness and the mania to support "self-esteem" of students.
4. Precipitous decline of honor codes almost everywhere, so that cheating is rampant.
5. The spread of "spinus dissaperanus," a viral disease that robs university leaders of whatever spine they had before becoming leaders.
6. Governing board failures, due partly to the fact that prospective board members eagerly seek the social status that comes with university board membership.
7. Growing lack of diversity in faculty philosophical views.
And many more."
He/she knows we've screwed up. My guess is that most if not all college presidents know we've screwed up. But they won't say so publicly. It would be a public relations disaster to make such an admission. Privately, they may try to work on the edges to improve education and make it more serious. Working on the edges, though, won't solve this problem.
What will? College presidents need to publicly admit what they know is true. That's what Charles William Eliot did at Harvard. That's what Robert Maynard Hutchins did at Chicago. They screamed and told the truth. Others listened. Until we find another national leader willing to take such risks, we can expect undergraduate education to continue its downward slide.
The quality of higher education in the US has not always been particularly good. In the 19th century it was, in fact, abysmal. But Charles William Eliot turned Harvard around and his actions seemed to influence higher education across the country. Undergraduate education became a serious business. Robert Maynard Hutchins then carried the torch and provided national leadership while president and chancellor at Chicago in the early to middle 20th century. Certainly, you could still find examples of schools that were country clubs for the wealthy during that era, but for most, undergraduate education required real work.
Then Sputnik came along in the 1950's and suddenly the United States became paranoid that the Russians were beating us in science and technology. We ratcheted up our efforts in higher education even more. The quality of our undergraduate education was the finest in the world by far.
For some reason with the onset of the Vietnam War, the quality of higher education in the US began to wane. We have continued to go downward. We require less work of our students. At Duke for example, undergraduates studied 34 hours a week in the 1960s. Now they are down to 11 hours a week. We give far higher grades for far less effort. Students are less literate. They are less engaged in the process of learning than they have ever been (at least ever since surveys of student engagement have been made).
It's not all bad. We've decided that if you really need to know something for your job or your MCAT, we'll teach you that. So organic chemistry is likely still a bear of a class, although grades are higher than they've ever been. Also if you do possess burning intellectual curiosity, we'll let you read all the books we assign and do all the research you want to write profound and insightful papers; it's just that those that don't do all that reading and write b.s. in their papers might get an A, too.
A couple of weeks ago I was at Stanford talking to some undergraduates about what they did day to day. These were very articulate, smart and happy students. There was one engineer in the crowd. He/she talked about spending 20 hours a week on just one class. I think that was an exaggeration, but I got the drift. The other three were in the humanities. They noted that their classes didn't require much work, but their days were filled with lots of activities, clubs and sports.
I smiled. It sounded like summer camp. How did we screw up so fast?
That's what I asked Mr./Ms. College President. The answer?
"The weakening of undergraduate education was not due to a thousand cuts, nor just one cause. To me, there were several (for private universities)
1. Faculty cowardice - (among some) Many faculty just do not want to argue with students about grades.
2. The quest for good teaching evaluations. I would guess that the correlation between high grades awarded and enthusiastic teacher evaluations is quite high almost everywhere.
3. Political correctness and the mania to support "self-esteem" of students.
4. Precipitous decline of honor codes almost everywhere, so that cheating is rampant.
5. The spread of "spinus dissaperanus," a viral disease that robs university leaders of whatever spine they had before becoming leaders.
6. Governing board failures, due partly to the fact that prospective board members eagerly seek the social status that comes with university board membership.
7. Growing lack of diversity in faculty philosophical views.
And many more."
He/she knows we've screwed up. My guess is that most if not all college presidents know we've screwed up. But they won't say so publicly. It would be a public relations disaster to make such an admission. Privately, they may try to work on the edges to improve education and make it more serious. Working on the edges, though, won't solve this problem.
What will? College presidents need to publicly admit what they know is true. That's what Charles William Eliot did at Harvard. That's what Robert Maynard Hutchins did at Chicago. They screamed and told the truth. Others listened. Until we find another national leader willing to take such risks, we can expect undergraduate education to continue its downward slide.
Monday, May 17, 2010
My Wile E. Coyote Moment
As a kid I wasn't big on language. I didn't talk or read much. Mostly, I played sports and worked on algebra problems in my head that I made up for fun (I was a geek well before the word was invented). I think my indifference to reading mostly stemmed from my lack of identity with any of the American kids in children's books. I would ask my teachers, "Do people really live like this?" When they said yes, I was more than a bit incredulous. But I did love TV, especially cartoons and my favorite was The Roadrunner.
There was something about Wile E. Coyote's efforts chasing The Roadrunner that I found enthralling. Who knows why? And of course there was always that "ah hah, uh oh" moment in those things when Wile E. knew that he was in deep, deep trouble. The fuse for the dynamite somehow would spark just when he was right next to the pile of sticks. He'd be chasing The Roadrunner on some mesa and suddenly find himself over a cliff's edge, suspended in mid-air just long enough to come to the realization that he was going to sink fast.
I haven't had too many of those kinds of moments myself. But the other day I was racing to catch the commuter train. The station is about a mile and a half from my house. I ran, carrying my laptop bag and made it in 13 minutes, including waiting for a light across a highway. Not bad. I looked down the track when I got to the station. There it was, the 11:37 approaching. Whew! I'd made it. I was proud of myself. I casually went to the ticket machine to get my one way ticket (you used to be able to purchase tickets on the train, but not anymore).
I was having trouble with the machine taking my cash, but I wasn't worried. I had a good two minutes to spare. I used my credit card. Again, the machine was balking. I still wasn't worried. Eventually, my ticket came out. I looked up and saw the train slowing to a stop and smiled. Why I'll just walk over the tracks and get on the train like always...
Then I noticed. You can't just walk over the tracks anymore. There's a six foot high fence separating the north and south bound trains that's been there for what...two years? I'd forgotten!
I frantically waved to the conductor. He pretended I wasn't there. I sprinted thirty yards to the new (well two years new) tunnel, ran underneath the tracks, and sprinted 25 years back up to the tracks when I heard the train pull away.
That's when I remembered the Looney Tunes cartoons. I was Wile E. Coyote. The train was The Roadrunner. And like dear old Wile E., I had just punked myself.
There was something about Wile E. Coyote's efforts chasing The Roadrunner that I found enthralling. Who knows why? And of course there was always that "ah hah, uh oh" moment in those things when Wile E. knew that he was in deep, deep trouble. The fuse for the dynamite somehow would spark just when he was right next to the pile of sticks. He'd be chasing The Roadrunner on some mesa and suddenly find himself over a cliff's edge, suspended in mid-air just long enough to come to the realization that he was going to sink fast.
I haven't had too many of those kinds of moments myself. But the other day I was racing to catch the commuter train. The station is about a mile and a half from my house. I ran, carrying my laptop bag and made it in 13 minutes, including waiting for a light across a highway. Not bad. I looked down the track when I got to the station. There it was, the 11:37 approaching. Whew! I'd made it. I was proud of myself. I casually went to the ticket machine to get my one way ticket (you used to be able to purchase tickets on the train, but not anymore).
I was having trouble with the machine taking my cash, but I wasn't worried. I had a good two minutes to spare. I used my credit card. Again, the machine was balking. I still wasn't worried. Eventually, my ticket came out. I looked up and saw the train slowing to a stop and smiled. Why I'll just walk over the tracks and get on the train like always...
Then I noticed. You can't just walk over the tracks anymore. There's a six foot high fence separating the north and south bound trains that's been there for what...two years? I'd forgotten!
I frantically waved to the conductor. He pretended I wasn't there. I sprinted thirty yards to the new (well two years new) tunnel, ran underneath the tracks, and sprinted 25 years back up to the tracks when I heard the train pull away.
That's when I remembered the Looney Tunes cartoons. I was Wile E. Coyote. The train was The Roadrunner. And like dear old Wile E., I had just punked myself.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
NY Times Grade Inflation Q&A, Extended Answer
The NY Times will be posting a bunch of answers to some questions addressed to me about grade inflation. I'll link to it when they come up. One question required a lengthy answer that was more than a little on the nerdy side (OK, all the answers are on the nerdy side, I admit; but this one was more so than the others). Here it is.
Craig St. Louis May 4th, 2010 12:46 pm
Question:
The first two are trivial questions. I looked at two datasets simply because I'm interested in them.
1. Some of your data is inconsisent. Half of the data from MIT comes before freshman year was made pass / fail. Half comes from after. You acknowledge that the difference results in approximately 0.1 grade points. Did you normalize the GPAs to take this into account?
2. Boston College's data seems to have little utility. First, they are estimates (based on your overall sample), not real GPAs. Second, you know that some of the data is wrong: your source mentions that the 2007 GPA was over 3.4, while you record 3.35. Why not throw out the dataset?
3. What variables did you control for? Incoming class math SAT scores? Verbal? Dropout rates? Rejection rates? If any is rising, rising GPAs make sense. In fact, one of your conclusions seems to support this: "Non-selective public schools (typically with 15 percent rejection rates or less) with GPAs in the 2.8 range or less tend to have only modest grade inflation. Some have none."
4. Other control variables: Percent of foreign students? Percent of students in the sciences and engineering disciplines?
5. What explains the differences between your results and Adelman's? Is it because he is sampling students, not schools? Does he therefore catch community colleges and dropouts?
Answer:
You are asking questions that are probably best answered in an education research forum. But they are excellent questions. For those that don’t want to wade through the numbers and jargon, here is a brief summary of my answers.
A) We make adjustments in data so that all GPAs measure the same thing, the average grade awarded to all undergraduates.
B) Dr. Adelman has disputed, on the basis of transcripts from about 30,000 college students nationwide from the early 1970s through much of the 1990s, that grade inflation is significant at four-year schools. There are, in fact, many similarities between Dr. Adelman's observations and ours over the time window of his data collection. But because we sample over a much longer time period, about 75 years, and we have much more current data, we can identify long-term and current trends that Dr. Adelman cannot see. I am confident that there is no real substantive difference between his work and ours. He just needs more current data. When and if he gets those data, I am certain that many of his disputes over our results will end.
More detail can be found below.
• We didn’t want to artificially inflate MIT data by ignoring first-year students, so we included them by adjusting yearly GPAs downward using the 1999 first year student data as a calibration tool.
• Boston College data came after our article was published. They weren’t included in our study. That said, we have additional data from Boston College that we don’t have permission to publish. The “over 3.4” GPA number you quote is the median for graduates, not the average GPA computed from the average grade awarded, which includes first -year through senior students. The median GPA of graduates will be higher.
• In determining differences in grading between private and public schools, we looked at two relationships: average grade awarded versus combined average Math and Verbal SAT scores; average grade awarded versus school selectivity (an average of percent rejected, percent of students with a high school GPA greater than 3.75, and percent who graduated in the top 10 percent of their class). As might be expected they produced similar results. We made no adjustments in the creation of Figure 1 of our article, which was reprinted in the NY Times Economix blog; that figure presents simple averages of the data.
• There were no other control variables aside from sometimes grouping schools by their focus/type: private liberal arts, science/engineering, public commuter, public flagship and public satellite.
• Adelman looked at a completely different and much shorter dataset than us. Adelman looked at college transcripts from about 30,000 students total who graduated from high school in 1972, 1982 and 1992. In contrast, we looked at reported historical GPAs from over 80 schools – all of them four-year colleges - across the country and recently reported GPAs from over 160 schools – again all four-year colleges – with a combined enrollment of over 2,000,000 students.
That all said, there is actually quite a bit of agreement between our analysis and Adelman’s analysis. Adelman shows a drop in GPA between the mid-1970s and mid-1980s. We see a similar drop. Adelman shows a rise in GPA between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s. We see a similar rise. Before the 1970s, Adelman has no data, but our analysis is in strong agreement with other historical studies on college grades from the 1940s through the 1970s. After the 1990s, Adelman has no data.
If Adelman believes he doesn’t see evidence of grade inflation from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, I can sort of see why given the information he has. For the first half of his sampling period, grades did actually drop. I agree. The second half showed a rise, which he has apparently has interpreted as a mix of a change in grading habits – a move to non-letter grades – and cyclic behavior in grading. But it wasn’t cyclic. Grades continued to rise past the mid-1990s through at least the late 2000s. He didn’t have the data to know this.
But it is Adelman’s insistence that any data he didn’t collect must not be valid that gets him into trouble. The last time Adelman had new data Pluto was still a planet. Obama wasn’t even a politician. A lot changes with time. One thing that has changed is that grades are up. There is no doubt.
There are, indeed, differences between Adelman’s and our analysis that stem from different sampling. Many of his transcripts come from junior college students. We don’t sample those students in our paper. Many of his students drop out. In contrast, we do have dropouts in our records, but our population of junior and senior students likely remains proportionally higher. Adelman’s last estimated GPA’s are far lower than those observed in four-year colleges today, but I am confident that much of this difference is due to: 1) his GPA's being weighed down by dropouts and junior college transcripts; 2) significant grade inflation over the intervening years. Plus his sample size is so small that it creates problems.
Adelman has hardly any transcripts (about 200 to 350 for each time period) from those that attend highly selective schools, and I am certain that his estimates for both average GPAs and average percent A’s through F’s awarded to those students are not accurate. For example, Adelman estimates that for highly selective schools in the mid-1990s, A’s were 38 percent of all letter grades. But 1994 grading data from schools indicate that on average, 44 percent of all letter grades awarded at Bowdoin, Brown, Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, Pennsylvania, Pomona, Princeton, and Whitman were A’s.
In contrast, for students that attend four-year colleges that aren’t highly selective, our data and Adelman’s data (when looked at in terms of percent A’s through F’s or average grade awarded), can be in strong agreement, especially if we adjust for likely differences in the average SAT scores of our samples. For example, Adelman’s estimate of percent A’s awarded (relative to all letter grades) for selective schools in the mid-1990s was thirty-five percent. Our number for 1994? Thirty-four percent. This could be coincidence - Adelman's sample size even for this group of students is still rather paltry - but I think not.
By 2004, however, A’s accounted for about forty-two percent of all letter grades at selective schools in our database. Adelman doesn’t have any data for that year or any real data past the mid-1990s. His last data come from 1992 high school graduates.
That’s been the fallacy of Adelman’s assessments for the last decade. He’s been making statements without anything close to current data. Even back in the 1990's when his data were current, he made a bad guess that the rise in grades from the mid-1980's to mid-1990's was temporary.
Time doesn't stand still. Neither do grades. Should Adelman or someone at the Department of Education take the time to look at a statistically meaningful sample of college transcripts from high school graduates in the early to mid-2000s, this "controversy" will end.
Craig St. Louis May 4th, 2010 12:46 pm
Question:
The first two are trivial questions. I looked at two datasets simply because I'm interested in them.
1. Some of your data is inconsisent. Half of the data from MIT comes before freshman year was made pass / fail. Half comes from after. You acknowledge that the difference results in approximately 0.1 grade points. Did you normalize the GPAs to take this into account?
2. Boston College's data seems to have little utility. First, they are estimates (based on your overall sample), not real GPAs. Second, you know that some of the data is wrong: your source mentions that the 2007 GPA was over 3.4, while you record 3.35. Why not throw out the dataset?
3. What variables did you control for? Incoming class math SAT scores? Verbal? Dropout rates? Rejection rates? If any is rising, rising GPAs make sense. In fact, one of your conclusions seems to support this: "Non-selective public schools (typically with 15 percent rejection rates or less) with GPAs in the 2.8 range or less tend to have only modest grade inflation. Some have none."
4. Other control variables: Percent of foreign students? Percent of students in the sciences and engineering disciplines?
5. What explains the differences between your results and Adelman's? Is it because he is sampling students, not schools? Does he therefore catch community colleges and dropouts?
Answer:
You are asking questions that are probably best answered in an education research forum. But they are excellent questions. For those that don’t want to wade through the numbers and jargon, here is a brief summary of my answers.
A) We make adjustments in data so that all GPAs measure the same thing, the average grade awarded to all undergraduates.
B) Dr. Adelman has disputed, on the basis of transcripts from about 30,000 college students nationwide from the early 1970s through much of the 1990s, that grade inflation is significant at four-year schools. There are, in fact, many similarities between Dr. Adelman's observations and ours over the time window of his data collection. But because we sample over a much longer time period, about 75 years, and we have much more current data, we can identify long-term and current trends that Dr. Adelman cannot see. I am confident that there is no real substantive difference between his work and ours. He just needs more current data. When and if he gets those data, I am certain that many of his disputes over our results will end.
More detail can be found below.
• We didn’t want to artificially inflate MIT data by ignoring first-year students, so we included them by adjusting yearly GPAs downward using the 1999 first year student data as a calibration tool.
• Boston College data came after our article was published. They weren’t included in our study. That said, we have additional data from Boston College that we don’t have permission to publish. The “over 3.4” GPA number you quote is the median for graduates, not the average GPA computed from the average grade awarded, which includes first -year through senior students. The median GPA of graduates will be higher.
• In determining differences in grading between private and public schools, we looked at two relationships: average grade awarded versus combined average Math and Verbal SAT scores; average grade awarded versus school selectivity (an average of percent rejected, percent of students with a high school GPA greater than 3.75, and percent who graduated in the top 10 percent of their class). As might be expected they produced similar results. We made no adjustments in the creation of Figure 1 of our article, which was reprinted in the NY Times Economix blog; that figure presents simple averages of the data.
• There were no other control variables aside from sometimes grouping schools by their focus/type: private liberal arts, science/engineering, public commuter, public flagship and public satellite.
• Adelman looked at a completely different and much shorter dataset than us. Adelman looked at college transcripts from about 30,000 students total who graduated from high school in 1972, 1982 and 1992. In contrast, we looked at reported historical GPAs from over 80 schools – all of them four-year colleges - across the country and recently reported GPAs from over 160 schools – again all four-year colleges – with a combined enrollment of over 2,000,000 students.
That all said, there is actually quite a bit of agreement between our analysis and Adelman’s analysis. Adelman shows a drop in GPA between the mid-1970s and mid-1980s. We see a similar drop. Adelman shows a rise in GPA between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s. We see a similar rise. Before the 1970s, Adelman has no data, but our analysis is in strong agreement with other historical studies on college grades from the 1940s through the 1970s. After the 1990s, Adelman has no data.
If Adelman believes he doesn’t see evidence of grade inflation from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, I can sort of see why given the information he has. For the first half of his sampling period, grades did actually drop. I agree. The second half showed a rise, which he has apparently has interpreted as a mix of a change in grading habits – a move to non-letter grades – and cyclic behavior in grading. But it wasn’t cyclic. Grades continued to rise past the mid-1990s through at least the late 2000s. He didn’t have the data to know this.
But it is Adelman’s insistence that any data he didn’t collect must not be valid that gets him into trouble. The last time Adelman had new data Pluto was still a planet. Obama wasn’t even a politician. A lot changes with time. One thing that has changed is that grades are up. There is no doubt.
There are, indeed, differences between Adelman’s and our analysis that stem from different sampling. Many of his transcripts come from junior college students. We don’t sample those students in our paper. Many of his students drop out. In contrast, we do have dropouts in our records, but our population of junior and senior students likely remains proportionally higher. Adelman’s last estimated GPA’s are far lower than those observed in four-year colleges today, but I am confident that much of this difference is due to: 1) his GPA's being weighed down by dropouts and junior college transcripts; 2) significant grade inflation over the intervening years. Plus his sample size is so small that it creates problems.
Adelman has hardly any transcripts (about 200 to 350 for each time period) from those that attend highly selective schools, and I am certain that his estimates for both average GPAs and average percent A’s through F’s awarded to those students are not accurate. For example, Adelman estimates that for highly selective schools in the mid-1990s, A’s were 38 percent of all letter grades. But 1994 grading data from schools indicate that on average, 44 percent of all letter grades awarded at Bowdoin, Brown, Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, Pennsylvania, Pomona, Princeton, and Whitman were A’s.
In contrast, for students that attend four-year colleges that aren’t highly selective, our data and Adelman’s data (when looked at in terms of percent A’s through F’s or average grade awarded), can be in strong agreement, especially if we adjust for likely differences in the average SAT scores of our samples. For example, Adelman’s estimate of percent A’s awarded (relative to all letter grades) for selective schools in the mid-1990s was thirty-five percent. Our number for 1994? Thirty-four percent. This could be coincidence - Adelman's sample size even for this group of students is still rather paltry - but I think not.
By 2004, however, A’s accounted for about forty-two percent of all letter grades at selective schools in our database. Adelman doesn’t have any data for that year or any real data past the mid-1990s. His last data come from 1992 high school graduates.
That’s been the fallacy of Adelman’s assessments for the last decade. He’s been making statements without anything close to current data. Even back in the 1990's when his data were current, he made a bad guess that the rise in grades from the mid-1980's to mid-1990's was temporary.
Time doesn't stand still. Neither do grades. Should Adelman or someone at the Department of Education take the time to look at a statistically meaningful sample of college transcripts from high school graduates in the early to mid-2000s, this "controversy" will end.
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Western Still Lives, Sort Of
I was reading about the coming out of country singer Chely Wright the other day in the NY Times. Pop music writing is funny, actually; the tendency is to intellectualize the music to such a degree that the articles read like self-parody. I don't understand why they just don't treat the music for what it actually is. It's pop, not Beethoven. And country music is about entertaining Republicans, nothing more, nothing less.
For a few years, I wrote a slew of country songs for the country music market. None were ever recorded, although a couple came close. I'd visit record companies regularly and talk to their A&R people, pitching songs. Somehow, they always let me in their offices and spent time listening to my tunes. Then the record industry collapsed because of downloading. By the mid-2000's even Republican rednecks figured out they didn't have to buy music anymore. Country music record companies shrank and shrank. By the time I stopped visiting Nashville about two years ago, there were perhaps two A&R people attached to each major record company and a few companies had closed shop altogether. Some had merged. The offices were filled with empty desks. No one was looking for outside songs.
The bottom line is that I know country music fairly well. I can't say that I like most of it, but I know it. The music is always dull and most of the male singers can't really sing. Every once in a while, though, a great lyric will somehow make it through all the filters. Anyhow, I'd heard about Chely Wright not being quite "like the rest of us" a couple of years ago. Being gay doesn't fly in Nashville. Her record company would occasionally put out rumors about her almost being engaged to this or that country singer. The last rumor they pitched that I remember was her "almost" being engaged to Brad Paisley. Then she was dropped from her label and the pretense ended.
In Nashville, quite a few people assumed I was gay. Why? I was from San Francisco. Usually, I wore a black sport coat. I wore a top coat in the winter. I spoke using complete sentences. I shaved every day. An occasional girl would hit on me, and I'd say no. Therefore...I must be gay! A guy who was a songwriter with a string of hits came up to me once and said he had "nothing against gay people," that he wrote with gay songwriters all the time. He was being sincere, I could tell. A songwriter is allowed to be "different." But a performer? Never.
Chely Wright never had much of a country music career. Like most female singers, she had a brief run fueled by one hit. Women generally just don't last in today's country music. It's the guys that have the best shot at a long term career. The girls can hang on until they hit their late 30's or so if they are lucky. But then they are forgotten.
But men, it's a whole different thing with them. They can get crows feet. They wear cowboy hats to cover their bald spots. They do have to make some effort to stay in shape, but they can perform and be adored well into their 50's and maybe even into their 60's. And they can be gay just so long they deny, deny, deny.
What is the appeal of these long in tooth but buff men like Kenny Chesney, Tim McGraw, and George Straight? We don't have Westerns anymore; not on TV, not in the movies. But America, especially Republican America, does need its cowboys. Roy Rogers and John Wayne played virile men for forever. The public loved their familiar, chiseled, if sagging faces. So it is with their country stars. Plus gay or not, Kenny Chesney works like a demon on stage; he knows his audience and puts on a great show for them.
But just like you don't really see women in Westerns unless they are floozies in bars, women don't have a real place in country music. That wasn't always true, but it is true today. Women are an accessory. The real story is about the men. And Chely Wright? If she had managed to buck the odds and stayed a star - the country music equivalent of Miss Kitty on Gunsmoke - there is no way on Earth she'd be coming out.
A country music star has to play a role. Not many of them actually live that role. There are a few that do, people like Jamey Johnson and Josh Turner. But most country singers are just acting. They are providing a fantasy to their audience not unlike the fantasy of Western movies. That fantasy doesn't include Democrats. As the Dixie Chicks know well, it sure as hell doesn't include criticism of a Republican president. And it doesn't include gays. Well maybe if Kenny C. ever came out it would; you never know.
For a few years, I wrote a slew of country songs for the country music market. None were ever recorded, although a couple came close. I'd visit record companies regularly and talk to their A&R people, pitching songs. Somehow, they always let me in their offices and spent time listening to my tunes. Then the record industry collapsed because of downloading. By the mid-2000's even Republican rednecks figured out they didn't have to buy music anymore. Country music record companies shrank and shrank. By the time I stopped visiting Nashville about two years ago, there were perhaps two A&R people attached to each major record company and a few companies had closed shop altogether. Some had merged. The offices were filled with empty desks. No one was looking for outside songs.
The bottom line is that I know country music fairly well. I can't say that I like most of it, but I know it. The music is always dull and most of the male singers can't really sing. Every once in a while, though, a great lyric will somehow make it through all the filters. Anyhow, I'd heard about Chely Wright not being quite "like the rest of us" a couple of years ago. Being gay doesn't fly in Nashville. Her record company would occasionally put out rumors about her almost being engaged to this or that country singer. The last rumor they pitched that I remember was her "almost" being engaged to Brad Paisley. Then she was dropped from her label and the pretense ended.
In Nashville, quite a few people assumed I was gay. Why? I was from San Francisco. Usually, I wore a black sport coat. I wore a top coat in the winter. I spoke using complete sentences. I shaved every day. An occasional girl would hit on me, and I'd say no. Therefore...I must be gay! A guy who was a songwriter with a string of hits came up to me once and said he had "nothing against gay people," that he wrote with gay songwriters all the time. He was being sincere, I could tell. A songwriter is allowed to be "different." But a performer? Never.
Chely Wright never had much of a country music career. Like most female singers, she had a brief run fueled by one hit. Women generally just don't last in today's country music. It's the guys that have the best shot at a long term career. The girls can hang on until they hit their late 30's or so if they are lucky. But then they are forgotten.
But men, it's a whole different thing with them. They can get crows feet. They wear cowboy hats to cover their bald spots. They do have to make some effort to stay in shape, but they can perform and be adored well into their 50's and maybe even into their 60's. And they can be gay just so long they deny, deny, deny.
What is the appeal of these long in tooth but buff men like Kenny Chesney, Tim McGraw, and George Straight? We don't have Westerns anymore; not on TV, not in the movies. But America, especially Republican America, does need its cowboys. Roy Rogers and John Wayne played virile men for forever. The public loved their familiar, chiseled, if sagging faces. So it is with their country stars. Plus gay or not, Kenny Chesney works like a demon on stage; he knows his audience and puts on a great show for them.
But just like you don't really see women in Westerns unless they are floozies in bars, women don't have a real place in country music. That wasn't always true, but it is true today. Women are an accessory. The real story is about the men. And Chely Wright? If she had managed to buck the odds and stayed a star - the country music equivalent of Miss Kitty on Gunsmoke - there is no way on Earth she'd be coming out.
A country music star has to play a role. Not many of them actually live that role. There are a few that do, people like Jamey Johnson and Josh Turner. But most country singers are just acting. They are providing a fantasy to their audience not unlike the fantasy of Western movies. That fantasy doesn't include Democrats. As the Dixie Chicks know well, it sure as hell doesn't include criticism of a Republican president. And it doesn't include gays. Well maybe if Kenny C. ever came out it would; you never know.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
New Tricks
Over time, I've developed a certain routine to my days. It's a bit eccentric, but it works great and I figured out when I was 40 that being eccentric is part of being happy (my mother told me this when I was in my 20s, but I didn't believe her). I like to read the Times every morning. I like to do the crossword if I feel I can finish it in 30 minutes or less. I love Grape Nuts for breakfast, especially with pomegranates on top. I like to eat dinner around 7:00 PM. I don't like to talk until about 1:00 PM (lunch if pressed). I try to write 500 words a day on something, anything. I try to get on my bike every day if the weather is nice (today is nice).
You'd think after more than 50 years on this planet, I'd have figured out everything I need to know more or less. All the wrinkles (metaphorical not real) should have been ironed out. But that's not true. I'm still, much to my surprise, coming up with little tricks to make my life just a little better. And those tricks have nothing to do with a better laptop, better phone or anything you plug into a wall. They are much simpler than that.
For instance, I used to have a problem with charge card receipts. Those things would pile up in a bowl on my dresser. The dresser would eventually overflow. Then I'd look at my dresser, dismayed. What a mess. I'd finally look at the receipts one by one to see if I needed to keep any. This pattern would repeat three to four times a year.
Anyhow, one day I borrowed a friend's truck to haul some stuff and noticed that he didn't keep his receipts in a bowl. Oh no. He kept them in his truck cabin, years of them. There were piles of paper everywhere. I looked at some of his charge receipts on the truck floor. One was dated 1993. I was surprised the ink was still visible.
When I got done with the truck, I decided to do the guy a favor and get it cleaned. Clearly it had been awhile. He was neither pleased nor displeased.
I went home and thought, that stupid bowl of mine is like his truck. I can do better. I'll take out two envelopes. In one envelope I'll put charge receipts from the current month. And then when the next month comes along, I'll put the new receipts in the second envelope. When the third month comes along, I'll just dump the receipts that are more than two months old. Voila! I had a system. Now why didn't I think of that before?
Then recently, for some strange reason I decided to buy a whole chicken. It was on special, 99 cents a pound. It was free range. There are just the two of us, I know. Why do I need a whole chicken? But I thought, what the hell. I'll cut it in half. I'll roast half of it and put the other half in the freezer.
I hadn't roasted a chicken, half or whole, in probably 30 years. I'd forgotten. It tastes better than those cut up pieces of legs and whatnot you buy in a packet. Lots better. And no we don't need a half chicken for dinner, either. But now after dinner, I have a whole breast to make sandwiches out of for a couple of days. We have a tastier dinner. We have great lunches following. Why didn't I think of this before?
You get better at living. Little by little. You really do. Your body doesn't move as fast. But you don't sweat the details. You don't get upset over things that used to drive you nuts. And you still keep coming up with decent ideas. Now if only I could fix this tendinitis in my elbow...
You'd think after more than 50 years on this planet, I'd have figured out everything I need to know more or less. All the wrinkles (metaphorical not real) should have been ironed out. But that's not true. I'm still, much to my surprise, coming up with little tricks to make my life just a little better. And those tricks have nothing to do with a better laptop, better phone or anything you plug into a wall. They are much simpler than that.
For instance, I used to have a problem with charge card receipts. Those things would pile up in a bowl on my dresser. The dresser would eventually overflow. Then I'd look at my dresser, dismayed. What a mess. I'd finally look at the receipts one by one to see if I needed to keep any. This pattern would repeat three to four times a year.
Anyhow, one day I borrowed a friend's truck to haul some stuff and noticed that he didn't keep his receipts in a bowl. Oh no. He kept them in his truck cabin, years of them. There were piles of paper everywhere. I looked at some of his charge receipts on the truck floor. One was dated 1993. I was surprised the ink was still visible.
When I got done with the truck, I decided to do the guy a favor and get it cleaned. Clearly it had been awhile. He was neither pleased nor displeased.
I went home and thought, that stupid bowl of mine is like his truck. I can do better. I'll take out two envelopes. In one envelope I'll put charge receipts from the current month. And then when the next month comes along, I'll put the new receipts in the second envelope. When the third month comes along, I'll just dump the receipts that are more than two months old. Voila! I had a system. Now why didn't I think of that before?
Then recently, for some strange reason I decided to buy a whole chicken. It was on special, 99 cents a pound. It was free range. There are just the two of us, I know. Why do I need a whole chicken? But I thought, what the hell. I'll cut it in half. I'll roast half of it and put the other half in the freezer.
I hadn't roasted a chicken, half or whole, in probably 30 years. I'd forgotten. It tastes better than those cut up pieces of legs and whatnot you buy in a packet. Lots better. And no we don't need a half chicken for dinner, either. But now after dinner, I have a whole breast to make sandwiches out of for a couple of days. We have a tastier dinner. We have great lunches following. Why didn't I think of this before?
You get better at living. Little by little. You really do. Your body doesn't move as fast. But you don't sweat the details. You don't get upset over things that used to drive you nuts. And you still keep coming up with decent ideas. Now if only I could fix this tendinitis in my elbow...
Monday, May 03, 2010
Liberal or Conservative, We All Want To Spend
I don't think that journalists really understand this movement, which is why descriptions of it are so damn fuzzy. I don't think that members of the Tea Party understand what they are about either. They seem to want a strong military, a strong police force, no immigrants, and lots of prisons. They seem to think they are paying way too much for the services they want.
I don't really understand the "too much taxes" complaint at all. I'm paying lower taxes as a percentage of my income than I ever have in my entire life. I know that if I would go to any other developed country I would be paying easily double the taxes I'm paying now. We have it made in the shade tax-wise in this country. We don't pay our bills, get loans for trillions from borrowing from places like the Chinese government, and as a result pay little for all of our wonderful services.
I'm fundamentally a data-based person. I wanted to know why in the world these Tea Party people are so angry. Is there any basis to it? So I got some data quick and dirty on federal government spending from 1962 to 2006 and plotted it up. I divided it into three categories. First there are conservative causes, bombs, soldiers, cops, and roads. Second there are liberal causes, environment, energy conservation, and social services. Third there are our big entitlement programs that the public - at least the elderly and soon to be elderly - never wants to cut, Medicare and Social Security. I plotted those categories up above.
Yes, spending keeps going up and up. But so does family income (not in inflation adjusted dollars, but in real dollars). So does the GDP. So does the population. If we had reasonable levels of taxation - far below Europe but above what we're paying now - we wouldn't have to borrow all that money from the Chinese.
Looking at that chart, I can see why the Tea Party types are angry. The growth in budget items favored by liberals has gone up a lot faster than the spending on bombs, soldiers and cops. But looking at those numbers, it seems that the difference was created by "peace dividend" of the Clinton years. Social service "liberal" spending growth was only slightly curtailed during the Reagan years. Fundamentally, we keep spending more because people want more services. Conservatives want more bombs and cops. Liberals want more schools and environmental protection. Growth is exponential across the board.
In the George W. Bush years, all of government grew. Liberals, according to these numbers, should have been happy. We were spending money on social services. Conservatives should have been happy too. We were pouring hundreds of billions of new dollars in defense. And taxes were low. We were getting all these services at a cost of virtually nothing.
My own view is that the Tea Party's complaints are phony. They weren't complaining when Bush was spending money far faster than revenue on both liberal and conservative causes. Why are they complaining now? As far as I can tell, it's just another way for a bunch of white conservative Christians to mix racism with resentment. Times are bad and when bad times happen, you need a scapegoat. Obama is guilty of two things: governing during a severe recession that he didn't cause; governing while black.
Will we curtail our growth in government spending? I think the real question is do Americans want all the social services they've acquired over the last fifty years? We already ran this experiment and mostly answered this question about 15 years ago. The Republicans shut down the Federal government in an effort to show the public that all those services weren't necessary.
That effort backfired. The Republicans were thrown out of office and their congressional leader, Newt Gingrich, left in disgrace. I don't think we need to re-run this experiment. It would be like making a sequel to the movie Ishtar. Or bringing back the Yugo.
Conservative or liberal, we do want all those services. We just don't want to pay for them. In that respect, the Tea Party is no less infantile than the general public. Supposedly about 20 percent of this country feels they belong to the Tea Party. That was about the same percentage that loved George Wallace way back when. It's the same crowd. The same anger. The same resentment. I have no doubt that if Obama was white or if this country wasn't mired in a recession, the Tea Party protesters would be nowhere present.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)