Courtesy of HNN, I read this article by William O’Neill, which reports that the percentage of American graduates proficient in prose literacy has fallen by around 25%. “Apart from the oldest graduates having died the addition of ten, or at most eleven, graduating classes to the pool of college graduates, meant that the members of these classes had to have scored very badly indeed to drag down the averages of the entire population by so much,” O’Neill reports. “Further, the graduates tested in 1992 were themselves not particularly literate for the declining performance of college students probably dates from somewhere around 1980. Had there been an NAAL in 1970, at a guess, a solid majority of graduates would have been proficient in both prose and document literacy.”
Let us all be horrified with the awfulness of modern universities. “So we have the modern public university on the undergraduate level, where grade inflation is rampant, student skills diminish with every passing year, what passes as teaching is conducted by exploited adjuncts and faculty members who no longer care about standards—for students, that is, the drive for ever-more qualified professors continues unabated. It is a central irony of our situation that while mediocrity among undergraduates is tolerated and even encouraged, the professoriat demands excellence of its members, and of graduate students too as they are potential members.”
Monday, October 26, 2009
University literacy standards
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Sitting atop politics
This morning began with another indictment of Obama on the breakfast table: condemned for compromising too much, for looking too hard for Republican support, for failing to understand the true nature of modern Republicanism. This time it came from David Bromwich, a professor of literature and political thought at Yale, in the London Review of Books. Obama is naive and afraid, Bromwich says:
“His reason for waiting doubtless has something to do with fear. Obama receives four times as many death threats as George W. Bush did. Yet he is also encumbered by the natural wish of the moderate to hold himself close to all the establishments at once: military, financial, legislative, commercial. Ideally, he would like to offend no one. But the conceit of accommodating one’s enemies inch by inch to attain bipartisan consensus seems with Obama almost a delusion in the literal sense: a fixed false belief. How did it come to possess so clever a man?”If you think that all this effort is just about winning over Olympia Snowe, then it probably does seem a bit much. I am as disappointed with anyone over the compromises Obama has made on the vexed questions of the secret services, abuse and secrecy; and I think he could have been smarter in his dealings with Wall Street and been more willing to use the stick (why has anti-trust made no appearance in this debate, yet?).
Nevertheless, may I venture the suggestion that perhaps the clever man is not so stupid, that the accusation of delusion in politics usually equates to a failure by one individual to comprehend why another doesn’t think or act the same way as they do. Underlying this is a further failure: a failure to understand that Americans do not live in a dictatorship, that politics is not in the hands of any single individual – even the president – to direct according to his whim, and that we should probably be glad about it, since every Obama will, sooner or later, be followed by a Bush.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Problems viewing?
One of my readers has been reporting continuing problems viewing this site, loading and adding comments. For the life of me, I've no idea why.
Can I ask, is this a more general problem people are experiencing? If so could you let me know - especially if you have any idea of how I might solve the problem. I wouldn't want to make my ramblings any more inaccessible than they already are...
Peaceniks and warniks
I was planning on avoiding comment on the whole Obama/Nobel thing, until this morning’s op-ed from Ross Douthat in the New York Times landed in my inbox, arguing that the president should have refused the prize. Not content to point out some of the damaging political consequences of Obama's acceptance, Douthat argued that his acceptance was a “travesty”.
Let’s be clear about this: the Nobel Prize has attained a certain universal status because of the broad aspirations it stands for and the many inspiring individuals who have received it. But it is a political tool operated by a small group of politically-driven individuals, not a genuinely universal institution. The Nobel Prize is not the equivalent to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Moreover, the underlying philosophy as laid out by Alfred Nobel reflects a particular view of the road to peace, and one that was to a degree influenced by the traditional Kellogg-Briand style peace efforts that so manifestly failed to avert generalised war twice in the twentieth century. There can be little doubt that the efforts of northern European states to promote reconciliation between warring parties in several regions of the world has been nothing short of amazing, and has at times even worked. But like it or not, what has worked most effectively in the past half century to limit the real danger, global warfare, has been the combination of genuinely multilateral institutions like the United Nations, providing a forum for the negotiation of the coagulated will of the world; and the deterrent effect of nuclear weaponry.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Health care, the story so far
Great summary of this summer's health care from Elizabeth Drew in the New York Review of Books...
"It's apparent that Obama is still learning the differences between campaigning and governing. And sometimes his inexperience shows. His speeches on health care on Labor Day and before Congress a few days later drew on his old rhetorical skills and finally showed some passion, and the one before Congress was his most effective so far in combining both rhetoric and explanation. But it was of interest that Chuck Todd of NBC reported that before he gave those speeches Obama's staff had had to get him "fired up" to take on his critics. Obama, whose high self-esteem is well known among close observers, had previously assumed that a "following," a "movement," would be there without his having to do much to stimulate it.
...









