April 21, 2008.  Minimizing Problems:  The Too-Cheery Attitude

[Note:  I'm starting to give titles to blog entries so that readers can tell roughly what they're about.  It's gotten so I can't find old stuff myself.]

One of the recurrent themes in my manuscript-in-progress, The Joy of Grumbling, is that optimists are lousy problem-solvers because they tend to deny that problems exist.  I must expand this to include the idea that saying we have a problem and then denying the seriousness of the problem has much the same effect.

What caused this reflection is that some of my friends josh me constantly about what a gloomy cynic I am.  That's OK because I sort of enjoy my role as "The Curmudgeon," and I grumble with gusto.  In my view, half-hearted grumbling is ineffective; you don't stop a charging bull with a spitball.  What aggravates me is when folks nod in agreement as I rant, agree that "yes, we need to do something about that," and then declare, "But it's not as bad as you say it is."

This came up recently in an exchange of e-mails with a friend in which I was once again rattling off details – experiences, anecdotes, reading, observations, data, the works – in an attempt to prove that American education is in the pits.  I'll skip the details and jump to the finale.  Toward the end, I offered some proposals to correct the situation, including reinstatement of a core curriculum, abandoning the notion that the sole purpose of education is to increase one's earning power, eliminating "social promotion," abolishing tenure, and a number of other specific ideas.  My friend wrote back that he agreed with all of my proposals but disagreed that the situation was as bleak as I painted it.

Now, most of my proposals are dramatic departures from current practices; some are the direct opposite of what the schools are now doing.  Implementing even a few of them would require a major overhaul of the system and would necessitate pulling up some embedded educational philosophies from the roots.  That's not going to happen if one doesn't think that the situation is very, very serious.  It's exasperating when people agree with all the ideas that one has to correct a problem and then turn around and say that it isn't really such a serious problem.  That is tantamount to saying, "I agree with all the actions that you suggest, but we don't need to take these actions."

That's what comes of the "everything will work itself out eventually" viewpoint of the eternal optimists.  These people cling tenaciously to the life preserver of hope in a stormy sea; when it's pointed out that land is 300 yards away and that they can reach it by letting go of the life preserver and swimming for it, they say, "No, let's just hang in here and float.  We'll get there eventually."  If we suggest that there's at least an equal chance that the storm will carry us further out, they return to their optimism:  "No, that cannot happen."

I not only disagree with people who deny or minimize obvious problems; I have difficulty respecting them as well.  These are the individuals who shun the word problem altogether and call everything a situation, as if calling it something else will make it go away.  That word game betrays how they think.  A situation is something that passes with time; it corrects itself.  A problem is something that demands action; it requires us to do something.

Therefore, I disrespect the people who try to rationalize problems out of existence.  They are not just being unrealistically optimisitic but lazy and selfish as well.  Rationalizing is a cop-out that allows them to do nothing; they can also safely say with impunity that any "situation" that doesn't directly affect them is of no concern.  These are people who don't just ignore problems; they help to cause problems.  They are like the bad drivers who are themselves rarely in accidents but who create the conditions on the roads that cause accidents.

April 29, 2008.  Questions About Schools and Tools

I don't have much firsthand knowledge of what's going on in the secondary schools today.  I've written extensively about what I assume to be true based on the work of my college students, what they tell me, and what I read, I admit that I haven't had direct contact since our daughter graduated from high school nearly two decades ago.

On thing is certain, however.  They aren't anything like the school I remember.  What brought this up this evening was that my college freshmen were writing an in-class final essay for English 101.  Most of our composition classes are conducted in classrooms with access to computers, so even the in-class essays are typewritten – or, in contemporary jargon, keyboarded.  Mine is one of the few sections in which in-class papers are handwritten, though I strongly recommend using a computer for out-of-class work.

I was taken aback, however, when several students asked if they could write their essays in pencil.  I suppose I've been remiss in that I have accepted essays in pencil during the semester.  However, this particular essay was essentially a final exam; I just assumed that students would use ink.  Back in the Jurassic Age when I went to school, it was taken for granted that once we got beyond elementary school, we would write examination papers in ink.  Pencils were for little kids.

Naturally, I've focused on my students' mental tools more than on the physical tools that they use, but now I wonder whether I should be paying more attention.  When high school students don't have access to computers, are they allowed to use pencils, even on exams?  Should they be?

May 5, 2008.  Gas Prices:  What's Wrong with This Picture?

I just came from a meeting where everyone was grumbling about the price of gas.  We all know that oil prices have skyrocketed, and we realize that the principle of supply and demand is in play here.  Still, I don't get it.  If this is a national crisis that is playing havoc with the economy, why are the oil companies making record-breaking profits.  I figure that the dollars they're raking in are the dollars we're paying at the pump.  Why are we pointing all fingers at the Arabs for jacking up the price of oil or the Chinese for consuming more than they used to?  Shouldn't some fingers be pointing at the oil barons of Exxon et al.?

I also don't understand why two of the three presidential candidates are endorsing a summertime "gas holiday" by suspending tax on gas by 18 cents a gallon.  That money would come from the fund that is used to maintain and repair roads, so it's a short-sighted band-aid that will hurt in the long run, especially if it encourages more consumption.  Isn't excessive consumption supposed to be part of the problem?  Then, again, I do understand it.  It's called pandering in in a presidential year.  It's called assuming that the public is too stupid to see through it.  Perhaps people are.  Perhaps they'll vote for a candidate because he or she saved them $2 on their trip to the beach, even if it means more axel-breaking potholes and bridges on the verge of collapse – not to mention more loot for the oil companies.  Could it also be because these candidates depend on the profiteers for their campaign donations?  Of course not.  They're just trying to save good old Joe Middle-Class American a few (and I mean a few) bucks.

If people are buying this one, I've got a bridge to sell them.  It's in bad shape and may collapse any day now, but it's a real bargain.

I will happily pay $5 a gallon for gas as long as I have a guarantee that the profits of the oil companies are the same as they are at $3 a gallon – and that extra $2 goes into something worthwhile such as healthcare or energy research.