Consumerism in Education

As an educator, I read articles on education: its current state, where it’s going, style’s of teaching, etc. Often these articles refer, derisively, to the creep of consumerism into education. The complaint is that too many students have the view that since they are paying for the class, they should get an A or more direct control over the classroom itself. In my experience there is a lot of truth to this complaint; many students do have this view.

The complaint is, however, misplaced. The consumerism of the students, per se, doesn’t bother me or strike me as problematic. After all, education is a service that is being sold. Students are buying (and consuming) this service. Indeed, I often think of myself qua teacher as an entrepreneur. Consumerism becomes problematic in education when students (and others: parents, administrators, educators, politicians, etc.) have the wrong idea of what is being consumed.

When students view their purchase as the purchase of an A or even the purchase of an ‘education’, they are misunderstanding (with partial culpability to the institutions themselves) their purchase. Educational institutions are selling access and opportunity for education; the student has to get that education himself. An analogy to personal fitness training is apt here. If Sally purchases a year of personal fitness training at her local gym, she is not buying fitness; she is buying access to a trainer who has knowledge about fitness and can direct her efforts towards her goals. She is buying the access to facilities and equipment. She is purchasing the opportunity to get herself fit. If Sally became upset because the trainer was pushing her and challenging her during her sessions or because she failed to reach her fitness goals due to her own sloth or lack of effort then Sally is seriously misplacing her disappointment.

The same applies for education. When Tommy pays tuition at an education institution he is purchasing access to experts who can direct him towards his goals (and even help him determine these goals); he is purchasing access to facilities such as libraries and research centers. He is buying the opportunity to get an education, but he has to work to achieve these goals, much like Sally has to work to achieve her fitness goals.

If more students viewed education in this way, consumerism would be a benefit to them and to educators. Paying for one’s own education provides a powerful incentive to actually do the work that will help in achieving one’s goals. Even for the more apathetic students, I think the attitude would shift from “I paid for the credits, give me the A” to “I paid for the credits, I better do something about it”. This would be similar to the experience many have after buying a gym membership: “well, I paid for the membership; I might as well make use of it”.

So what causes students to have the wrong idea about what they are buying? The causes are many. In part, I think the institutions themselves contribute to this with the way they sell their services (either to students directly or the taxpayers that are actually paying for the education) and the way they structure their institutions. I think politicians represent a college education in this way—as some consumable that needs to be distributed to each member of society. The drive to get everyone a college education means that many students at colleges don’t want to be there (at least not for the right reasons), but are there because of incentives, parental or social pressures, and the like. They are told they need to get a college diploma to get a good job and so they want a college diploma. Many student, thus, don’t want (or care about) an education; they just want the document that says they can now get a good job. In other words, they want a union card, not an education.

I am not sure how to break this attitude. But, I think a start is for educators to do a better job of setting the right expectations for students.

Kristol: It's Our War

William Kristol, of the Weekly Standard, has a good piece on why Israel's fight with Hizbollah is part of the wider struggle against Islamo-fascism; that is, the US (and the West) against Iran.

Just call me Prez

According to this website, the celebrities I most resemble are Sean Astin, Haley Osment, Gabriel Bryne, Ronaldo, Lance Armstrong, Patrick Swayze, George W Bush, Matt Dillon, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Matt Ruffalo. I've gotten Matt Dillon before...but Oswald?? Do I look like a crazied patsy assassin?

Hat tip to Joe 'Hilary Duff' Duarte for the website.

Good News!

My review of Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl's Norms of Liberty is scheduled to be published by The Independent Review in their Winter 2007 issue (mailed in December). Yippie!

Some What I am Reading Updates

I finished the biography of Belichick. A very good read with lots of interesting information about the development of the team, and of Belichick as a coach. I would have like to have seen more in the later years where he was building and coaching the Patriots. It was much more focused on his earlier years--but given the title (The Education of a Coach) of the book that makes sense.

I started Parker's "Blue Screen", the latest Sunny Randall. So far, so good. She meets Jesse Stone, and the book starts off recalling some events from the Spenser book where Spenser meets Jesse. So these are all the same universe, so it's only a matter of time before Sunny and Spenser meet.

Bidinotto on Atlas Movie

Robert has some nice tidbits about the Atlas Movie at his blog.

Seminar Comments and Follow-up

Just got back from TOC’s Summer Seminar at Chapman University. I had a wonderful week and the seminar was excellent. The program was top-notch this year, with not a single presentation (save one) that I was disappointed in. I reconnected with old friends and made several new ones.

The big event of this year’s program was of course the ‘meet n’ greet’ with Howard and Karen Baldwin. The Baldwin’s are the principals of the Baldwin Entertainment Group (of Ray fame) which is producing the Atlas Shrugged movie. For more than an hour, the Baldwin’s graciously fielded questions from the crowd which was eager to give its suggestions (both positive and negative). I was very impressed with the Baldwins, in particular Karen Baldwin. They appear to be fully committed to making this movie--and more importantly making it right.

Now that they have signed with Lionsgate for distribution and production, the next step is to hire a director and then start to do casting. They said they are talking to directors, Vadim Perelman (House of Sand and Fog) as the one name I can remember. I have heard mostly good things about House of Sand and Fog, but I’ve never seen it. They also appear very close to casting Angelina Jolie for Dagny--they apparently have had many conversations with her about it. I know many would not be happy with this choice--but Jolie can pull it off and she’ll drive audiences to the theaters world wide.

One last tidbit about the Atlas movie: they are planning a trilogy, with the first part to beginning filming in the Spring.

The two best talks I attended: Tim Sandefur’s Eminent Domain Abuse: Its Philosophical Roots; and Susan Wake’s Overcoming Ethical Relativism in the College Classroom.

I didn’t attend Barbara Branden’s Rage and Objectivism; but I heard nothing but good things about it. Another talk I didn’t attend but which was very well received was Bidinotto’s The Anatomy of Cooperation. I’ve ordered both audios, so I hope to find out what I missed.

The one disappointing session was the joint interview of the Brandens by Duncan Scott. I wasn’t sure of the point of the session prior to going, and I am still not. The questions were for the most part uninteresting and basically softballs; there was nothing said that hadn’t already been said a hundred times before. As a philosopher, I will be glad when Objectivism can be discussed and studied without having to deal with irrelevancies from 40 years ago. Let’s get down to the business of understanding philosophy and making our lives happier and more prosperous.

All in all, a great conference and a great week.

Guster: Ganging Up on The Sun

Guster has a new album out: Ganging Up on The Sun. I've been listening to it quite a bit in the last few days (It arrived on Monday).

This album is very different than previous Guster albums: a different sound, one much more eclectic, though at times too conventional/poppy. The biggest difference in the sound is the lack of Brian's bongos. I really miss them, and I found some of the songs a bit on the plain/conventional side without them.

The first two songs are also too mellow and don't set the right tone for the rest of the album. I've found that if I start on the third track, the whole album sounds better.

I've also noticed a lot of musical influences. Some of the songs have a very Beatlesque sound; a few others were reminsicent of Asia (or more poppy Yes). One Song, Ruby Falls -- one of the songs I really like -- even has a Grateful Dead a la Terrapin Station thing going on.

The Captain is a song with a lot of that Guster energy. Manifest Destiny was an early release track, so I have heard it before; it too has a lot of that Guster energy. The New Underground is a song with some early 80's Yes overtones. I'll have more comments on the songs later after I listen to them more.

Like with the last few albums, I've found that you have to listen to the album a number of times to get a feel for it before you can really judge it. The songs have a tendency to grow on you and get better. I think this is in part to their exploration of a new sound (especially as the bongos have been fading out). It's a bit like that adage about fighting the last war. When you first come to listen to the album, you are still thinking of the past album and that colors the way you react to the new album. Once you get the new album in your system on its own terms, you are able to judge it.

Overall, it's no Parachute or Lost and Gone, but I like the album and I am looking forward to listening to it more.

Condi

Andrew Sullivan -- always an interesting and entertaining read -- has an article up UK Times about Condi Rice and how her influence in the White House is apparently gaining. I don't know that much about Rice, but something about her impresses me. Though not aggressive in the public eye, she seems like a very tough cookie with brains to back it up.

I think there is a high probablity that Condi will be at least the VP candidate in 2008, especially if Hillary is on the Dems ticket.

Harry Potter e a filosofia

This is old news, but I had not yet posted it. Harry Potter and Philosophy is available in a Spanish Portuguse language edition as Harry Potter e a Filosofia. (Update 6/18: So much for my knowledge of Spanish--this is Portuguese!)

It's also now available in a Korean language edition. I couldn't find a link to this though--not that I could read it anyway!

Updates (or why I've disappeared)

PhD update: I've moved comps prep to the back burner to work on some other projects. But next up is an essay by Hilary Putnam and Christine Swanton's book: Virtue Ethics

Summer Seminar update: I am plugging away at my 3-part talk on Locke, Hume, and Rand. I'll be giving an abridged version of this talk at AO on June 24th.

Norms of Liberty review update: I've got some more revisions to do on this review before I send it to The Independent Review.

Teaching Company update: I've started watching the Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning course. So far, it's interesting. Fairly basic stuff, but that's what I expected.

I will be teaching ASU's "Principles of Sound Reasoning" course this summer--so I thought watching this course would be a nice refresher. I also hope to use it as a resource: both in terms of examples for class and for possible clips during class.

Teaching update: As I said above, I'll be teaching PHI 103: Principles of Sound Reasoning during the 2nd Summer Session. I'll be using David Kelley's Art of Reasoning as the course text. Thanks to generous support from TOC, I won't be teaching in the next academic year so that I can focus my energies on the dissertation and getting a job.

'Just for Fun' reading update: I've started reading David Halberstam's The Education of a Coach. It's a biography of Bill Belichick, the greatest coach (of the greatest team) in the NFL. So far, its excellent. A lot of attention is paid to Belichick's father, a well-respected football scout and coach in his own right. Interestingly for me as a moral philosophy is the important role of moral character in both Belichicks. Next up will be a fiction work, probably Dennis Lehane's Gone, Baby, Gone

Amusing First Line

It's not quite "Call me Ishmael" or "Howard Roark laughed", but this was an amusing first line to a newsreport in the Boston Herald:

"For much of last night’s game, Yankee Stadium took on the feel of Southie on St. Patrick’s Day due to the number of Bostonians left loaded in public."

It's amusing because the Red Sox left 15 men on base last night, and had the bases loaded at least three times during the game (without scoring).

'Course the Sox still won.

I broke down this week and got MLB.TV. There is a distinct possibility that this could push the completion of my Ph.d back by 6 months. (just kidding--I hope).

Go Sox!

Sox take 2 out of 3 in the Bronx. Yippie!!

The New Unabomber

In today's WSJ editorial (registration required), they compare Ahmadinejad's lettter to Bush -- in terms of the psychological frame of mind of the author -- to the Unabomber's Manifesto.

Great Quote

"The president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map"”

— Shimon Peres

The Israeli Vice Premier, in an interview
(from Time Magazine's Quote of the Day )

George Bush: Christian Socialist

The other morning I was listening to the Cato Institute's book forum "Imposter: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy". (Event information and download). This is a new book by Bruce Bartlett criticizing Bush's domestic policies for greatly expanding the federal government in size and power (even more than FDR!). He was joined by noted author and commentatory Andrew Sullivan. Cato asked the Bush Administration to send someone to counter--but the administration declined. It was a very interesting and educational forum. I am not sure I regret voting for Bush in the last election (given the options) but I wouldn't be able to vote for him again (if that were even an option).

Anyway, Sullivan had a great comment characterizing Bush as a Christian Socialist. This seems incredibly apt. By this, Sullivan meant that Bush has used the power of government to enact (or try to enact) his Christian cultural and social vision. Another important point made in the forum discussion is that this also explains the (welfare/egalitarian) liberal hatred of Bush even though he's enacted or adopted most of their domestic program and got more it done than Clinton. The hatred of Bush is not over what he is doing -- it is over the why.

Atlas, Pitt, and Jolie

It's being report all over that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are interested in playing Galt and Dagny in the adaption of Atlas Shrugged. (link, link) Also, in an important step making it more likely that the movie will actually be made, Lions Gate has acquired worldwide distrubtion rights for the movie. This is a fairly big deal given that Lions Gate is coming off the Crash Academy Award win and is about to hit it big again with Akeelah and the Bee. They have also had big successes with their horror films Saw and Saw II and of course Fahreneit 9/11 because Michael Moore is a scary).

I am not sure what I think about Pitt playing Galt. But that's also an impossibly hard role to cast I've always liked Densel Washington). I see Pitt more as Rearden if they want to make Rearden younger (though one blog commentator has that role going to Billy Bob if Pitt gets Galt. I guess that means Johnny Lee Miller has to play Francisco).

Jolie as Dagny could definitely work. She's sexy, beautiful, tough, and intelligent.

Firefly Season Two??!?!!

An independent group of producers is trying to buy the rights to Firefly to produce a second season. I have no idea if they'd be able to keep the same cast (essential, I think, to the project). I am hopeful!

To help the project, take the survey.

Speaking of Iran...

The Jerusalem Post today quotes Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying "Open the doors (of Europe) and let the Jews go back to their own countries"

One wonders if Ahmadinejad is willing to allow the Jews that fled Iran after 1948 to return to Iran? Is he saying that the Arab countries, such as Algeria, Iraq, Egypt, Morocco, etc., should open their collective doors to the half a million Jews that where forced to flee those countries after 1948?

A Deal for Iran?

I am, more or less, in agreement with libertarianism as a political viewpoint. The less part more often than not arises in regards to foreign policy and international relations. Libertarians tend towards some form of non-interventionism or isolationism. I tend to have a wider view of acceptable and appropriate foreign interventions on the part of the US military. This is why I was a bit surprised by my agreement with a recent Cato Institute commentary on Iran.

Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, and Justin Logan, a foreign policy analyst at Cato, penned a commentary calling for the US to offer a diplomatic deal to Iran. The deal essential is:

The United States should offer Iran full normalization of relations, including a public promise not to attack it, restored diplomatic relations, and normalized economic relations. In return, Iran would need to give up any prospect of building a nuclear arsenal. Iran would be required to immediately open its existing nuclear program to unfettered international inspections.

If Iran would accept such a deal and abide by it, this would be a phenomenal break through. It would peacefully resolve an extremely dangerous situation, and would show that the Iran is more reasonable than it appears.

There are problems, as noted by Carpenter and Logan, with the deal. It smacks of appeasement. Also, one has to wonder how well inspections can prevent the nuclear program from continuing. But in the end, if the deal was accepted and implemented, it would make it much more difficult for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. As for the appeasement, it certainly may lead other countries to pursue a nuclear weapons program to get such deals with the US--but is that such a bad thing? Regimes agreeing to forgo nuclear weapons for normal diplomatic and economic relations with the US seems like a good idea.

Unfortunately, I have no doubt that Iran would soundly and quickly reject such a deal--or would accept but then renege on it. Carpenter and Logan write "If they refused the deal, there would be only one conclusion to draw: Tehran is irreversibly determined to develop nuclear weapons." Since I believe this is the actual goal of Tehran, I would fully expect them to reject such a deal.