Sometimes it's valuable to keep track of things that got tepid reviews, so that I won't spend my limited time slogging through them.
Two in that category:
War of Necessity, War of Choice by Richard Haass. Reviewer Geoffrey Wheatcroft opines that it covers little new ground.
The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work, by Alain de Botton. Botton is bored by his interviewees, which makes the book mocking and condescending. We can't all be famous French essayists, surely. I'd much rather read the Crawford book about the joys of shopwork - in fact I am planning on it.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Industrial giants
As usual, great richness in this week's NY Times Book Review section. I'm intrigued by Gavin Weightman's The Industrial Revolutionaries: The Making of the Modern World 1776-1914. The basic thesis is that the Industrial Revolution should be viewed as a series of opportunities taken with emerging technologies and infrastructures, rather than quantum leaps by Great Men. We see much further when we stand on the shoulders of giants, etc.
The reviewer, Stephen Mihm, faults the book only for its failed attempt to draw grand unifying theories out of the stories of individuals.
The reviewer, Stephen Mihm, faults the book only for its failed attempt to draw grand unifying theories out of the stories of individuals.
some informal empirical evidence about recycling
I have been trying to walk a bit (about 1.5 miles, I'd guess) every day - not easy in the perma-rain we have been experiencing for the last several weeks. Today is trash/recycling day in the hood.
1.Recycling rates are highest in the single-family areas inhabited by retirees. (They also have the least trash - like one tiny bag per household.)
2.Recycling rates are almost non-existent in the two-family and three-family areas. I could be all sanctimonious about this (because we recycle extensively) but there is a strand of thinking that says that curbside recycling is mainly just a eco-feel-good mechanism for the middle class. What we need to do is have/use/buy less stuff in the first place.
3.Most of what is being recycled in my neighborhood is plastic. That's bottles for water, milk, juice, and sports-type drinks, as well as plastic containers for food (like the ones berries come in). Also some styrofoam, like doggy-bag containers - I didn't know those were recyclable. Very little paper. We, on the other hand, recycle a LOT of paper, with our two daily papers plus the NYT Sunday, and now I'm recycling junk mail too. This is apparently not the common thing. Very little glass and metal.
4.At around 3:30 this morning, the bottle harvesters came through. There is an old guy with a shopping cart who makes the rounds around dinnertime on Mondays and sometimes makes a second pass early Tuesday. This was more organized: in a car, quick, and relatively quiet (I've been known to go down and yell if they make a racket). When I checked the bins this morning, all the redeemables were gone.
5.I will be interested to see if the regular trash dudes pick up my neighbor's yard waste. They aren't supposed to, but sometimes they do. (Although not usually from my neighbor; there is some sort of favoritism thing going on perhaps.) Yep, the yard waste is being taken! Score one for the neighbors!
6.All our trash was taken. We put a lot of wood out this week, left over from the garage cleanout 2 weeks ago. Next up: the shed cleanout. Summer vacation fun never ceases!
1.Recycling rates are highest in the single-family areas inhabited by retirees. (They also have the least trash - like one tiny bag per household.)
2.Recycling rates are almost non-existent in the two-family and three-family areas. I could be all sanctimonious about this (because we recycle extensively) but there is a strand of thinking that says that curbside recycling is mainly just a eco-feel-good mechanism for the middle class. What we need to do is have/use/buy less stuff in the first place.
3.Most of what is being recycled in my neighborhood is plastic. That's bottles for water, milk, juice, and sports-type drinks, as well as plastic containers for food (like the ones berries come in). Also some styrofoam, like doggy-bag containers - I didn't know those were recyclable. Very little paper. We, on the other hand, recycle a LOT of paper, with our two daily papers plus the NYT Sunday, and now I'm recycling junk mail too. This is apparently not the common thing. Very little glass and metal.
4.At around 3:30 this morning, the bottle harvesters came through. There is an old guy with a shopping cart who makes the rounds around dinnertime on Mondays and sometimes makes a second pass early Tuesday. This was more organized: in a car, quick, and relatively quiet (I've been known to go down and yell if they make a racket). When I checked the bins this morning, all the redeemables were gone.
5.I will be interested to see if the regular trash dudes pick up my neighbor's yard waste. They aren't supposed to, but sometimes they do. (Although not usually from my neighbor; there is some sort of favoritism thing going on perhaps.) Yep, the yard waste is being taken! Score one for the neighbors!
6.All our trash was taken. We put a lot of wood out this week, left over from the garage cleanout 2 weeks ago. Next up: the shed cleanout. Summer vacation fun never ceases!
Monday, June 29, 2009
Bait and Switch: a second look
I was too hasty in my previous post. The last chapter of Barbara Ehrenreich's Bait and Switch contains some provocative ideas. (Come to think of it, this was the problem with Nickeled and Dimed too - her analysis of her experience, in the final chapter, was a lot more interesting than the bland details of the indignities she suffered. Sometimes common experiences aren't bonding; they are just boring.)
Some observations:
1.If we can generalize from her experience and those of the job-seekers she met, corporate America is as age-biased as ever. This is a bigger and bigger problem on 2 fronts: there will be more and more middle-aged people in America; and people will work more and more years to close the pension gap and the impending blow-up of Social Security.
2.The old Weberian idea that "you work hard and you will be rewarded" is no longer true (if it ever was, although it's very much the foundation of the 20th century middle-class psyche) and white-collar workers, no less than blue-collar workers, have to adjust to uncertainty and a rapidly changing occupational mix. Their main loyalty must be to themselves (and their brand) because they will not get any loyalty from their corporation - they are completely expendable.
3.The white-collar unemployed could be a powerful force for social and economic change in this country. They have skills, education, intelligence, resources, access. Yet they tend to be marginalized into self-help job-seeking groups of the many kinds she journals. Moreover, the attitudes and activities of these job-seeking groups reinforce passivity, victimhood, isolation, and silence. Unemployment continues to be shameful, especially for white-collar workers, and especially for men.
4.Current corporate infrastructure (and accountability to shareholders) rewards job-cutting, which betters the short-term bottom line. No CEO ever got atta-boys from his board by saving jobs or cutting his own perks so that subordinates could remain employed.
5.Corporations blather endlessly about diversity and teamwork, but in fact LACK of diversity and individualism are what get you ahead.
6.Many of the so-called professions of corporate America don't have clearly defined tasks and barriers to entry (marketing, say, or PR) and thus employees in those fields are vulnerable to the perceptions, rather than the realities, of those evaluating them.
It would be useful to think about how these points could be tested and operationalized, as a part of the larger project of looking at sectoral shifts in labor markets.
Some observations:
1.If we can generalize from her experience and those of the job-seekers she met, corporate America is as age-biased as ever. This is a bigger and bigger problem on 2 fronts: there will be more and more middle-aged people in America; and people will work more and more years to close the pension gap and the impending blow-up of Social Security.
2.The old Weberian idea that "you work hard and you will be rewarded" is no longer true (if it ever was, although it's very much the foundation of the 20th century middle-class psyche) and white-collar workers, no less than blue-collar workers, have to adjust to uncertainty and a rapidly changing occupational mix. Their main loyalty must be to themselves (and their brand) because they will not get any loyalty from their corporation - they are completely expendable.
3.The white-collar unemployed could be a powerful force for social and economic change in this country. They have skills, education, intelligence, resources, access. Yet they tend to be marginalized into self-help job-seeking groups of the many kinds she journals. Moreover, the attitudes and activities of these job-seeking groups reinforce passivity, victimhood, isolation, and silence. Unemployment continues to be shameful, especially for white-collar workers, and especially for men.
4.Current corporate infrastructure (and accountability to shareholders) rewards job-cutting, which betters the short-term bottom line. No CEO ever got atta-boys from his board by saving jobs or cutting his own perks so that subordinates could remain employed.
5.Corporations blather endlessly about diversity and teamwork, but in fact LACK of diversity and individualism are what get you ahead.
6.Many of the so-called professions of corporate America don't have clearly defined tasks and barriers to entry (marketing, say, or PR) and thus employees in those fields are vulnerable to the perceptions, rather than the realities, of those evaluating them.
It would be useful to think about how these points could be tested and operationalized, as a part of the larger project of looking at sectoral shifts in labor markets.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Bait and Switch...
...is the name of a book by Barbara Ehrenreich about the soul-sucking depression of the white-collar unemployed (even before the current financial melt-down; imagine if she were researching and writing it now!).
On impulse* I picked up a copy for $2 at the Friends of the Library booksale this morning, and am about 2/3 through.
It is so thoroughly a downer that I believe I will throw it away when I am finished. I can feel its bad karma seeping through the house. I NEVER throw books away; I've only done it once before, and that was after the pure revulsion of reading the first several chapters of Bret Easton Ellis's American Psycho. I saw his Glamorama at the library this morning too and gave it a wide berth. Yuck, yuck, YUCK.
*I am planning on using a chapter from Nickeled and Dimed in my economic geography class this fall, but Bait and Switch is mainly about those who profiteer from "coaching" the unemployed on networking, dressing-for-success, resume-writing, etc. They are a seamy and exploitive (although pathetic) bunch. Ewww.
On impulse* I picked up a copy for $2 at the Friends of the Library booksale this morning, and am about 2/3 through.
It is so thoroughly a downer that I believe I will throw it away when I am finished. I can feel its bad karma seeping through the house. I NEVER throw books away; I've only done it once before, and that was after the pure revulsion of reading the first several chapters of Bret Easton Ellis's American Psycho. I saw his Glamorama at the library this morning too and gave it a wide berth. Yuck, yuck, YUCK.
*I am planning on using a chapter from Nickeled and Dimed in my economic geography class this fall, but Bait and Switch is mainly about those who profiteer from "coaching" the unemployed on networking, dressing-for-success, resume-writing, etc. They are a seamy and exploitive (although pathetic) bunch. Ewww.
Friday, June 26, 2009
The kid could sing and dance. And almost crash the Internet
RIP Michael Jackson, 1958-2009. Wow! - I think of him as a young adult, though ageless. Yet he was older than I. A boy-child: ever-thinner, ever-whiter, and thus ever less threatening. I saw him a few years ago on TV on one of those E-rehabilitation shows and his speaking voice was that of a shy 10-year-old’s. Perhaps it’s naïve, but I always thought he was truly misunderstood, a simple song-and-dance kid exploited by the craven media. All the sexy dancing was that of a kid, doing the steps, not informed by adult passion. He was incredibly talented, yet all that was turned into breathless fodder for the hungry celebrity press.
He was an entertainer who knew his craft: yet a figure of pathos in recent years on the tabloid stage. I hope his wealth and fame were able to bring him joy in his last years. (I doubt it though, poor soul.)
He was an entertainer who knew his craft: yet a figure of pathos in recent years on the tabloid stage. I hope his wealth and fame were able to bring him joy in his last years. (I doubt it though, poor soul.)
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The purpose of college
Somewhere last night I flew by a blog entry that spoke of the choice that higher education must make to survive: between teaching students to think and training them for employment. The cynical among us (no, not me, never!) would suggest that those are antithetical - because, really, the last thing the Workplace Bosses want is people to think critically: questioning authority and all that. Yet I think it's incredibly dangerous and impoverishing to cast this as a choice. Students need to learn stuff - facts, theories, techniques, skills - but they also need to learn how to place all that in context, which for me is really the substance of critical thinking.
One school is premiering a new way of teaching based on introducing students to disciplinary ways of thinking (read about it here, http://bohemianseacoast.blogspot.com/2009/05/teaching-concepts.html) - and yes, that's the same model of teaching that Harvard just dumped in their revamp of the core curriculum, see my June 2 entry). The questions faculty should be asking themselves in this model go like this:
1. What is the main purpose [goal] of geography?
2. What questions [problems, issues] does geography ask?
3. What information [data, facts, experiences] is most useful to geographers?
4. What possible conclusions [interpretations, inferences] do geographers draw?
5. What concepts [theories, principles, models] are used by geographers?
6. What assumptions do geographers make?
7. What are some of the consequences [implications] of the work of geography?
8. What is the point of view of the geographer?
I find that students are super-bored by this sort of epistemological navel-gazing. Not that that means we shouldn't teach it. But how to teach it effectively? I think you have to model real-world problems or issues in which it is useful to think about these questions.
But really, I don't have many ideas about how to do this. And unfortunately, during the regular academic year, my brain is just not set up to think this way.
One school is premiering a new way of teaching based on introducing students to disciplinary ways of thinking (read about it here, http://bohemianseacoast.blogspot.com/2009/05/teaching-concepts.html) - and yes, that's the same model of teaching that Harvard just dumped in their revamp of the core curriculum, see my June 2 entry). The questions faculty should be asking themselves in this model go like this:
1. What is the main purpose [goal] of geography?
2. What questions [problems, issues] does geography ask?
3. What information [data, facts, experiences] is most useful to geographers?
4. What possible conclusions [interpretations, inferences] do geographers draw?
5. What concepts [theories, principles, models] are used by geographers?
6. What assumptions do geographers make?
7. What are some of the consequences [implications] of the work of geography?
8. What is the point of view of the geographer?
I find that students are super-bored by this sort of epistemological navel-gazing. Not that that means we shouldn't teach it. But how to teach it effectively? I think you have to model real-world problems or issues in which it is useful to think about these questions.
But really, I don't have many ideas about how to do this. And unfortunately, during the regular academic year, my brain is just not set up to think this way.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
resistance is futile
I have been working for about a month on reconfiguring one of my courses from classroom-based, 15-week semester to online-based, 4.5 week semester.
Our course management software (Blackboard) has it's own weird logic: that's the kindest I can be. I suppose though that it's like any other software package written by a group of people. You have to work with it for a long while before you begin to discern its interior logic so that using it becomes more intuitive. I am anticipating that students will have a lot of problems using it too, and that those difficulties will interfere with learning. Starting on Monday, we'll see how it goes.
Our course management software (Blackboard) has it's own weird logic: that's the kindest I can be. I suppose though that it's like any other software package written by a group of people. You have to work with it for a long while before you begin to discern its interior logic so that using it becomes more intuitive. I am anticipating that students will have a lot of problems using it too, and that those difficulties will interfere with learning. Starting on Monday, we'll see how it goes.
Monday, June 22, 2009
planning and preserving the post-industrial city
I've recently joined a couple of community organizations involved in 1) historic preservation; and 2) local planning. Of course, this responds to the third leg of the academic footstool (teaching, research, service) but is also, on a personal level, a way to give back to the community I've been so invested in for so many years. I have strong technical skills in these arenas and quite a bit of experience with organizational dynamics so I am hopeful of being able to make meaningful contributions after a brief start-up, "new kid" phase.
It feels weird to come back into the civic arena after 7 years away. Many of the players are still the same, and as I gather, the game is still the same. (I noticed in the Midwest, at a Planning Commission meeting, that the game was the same out there too - so there may be regional differences in exactly HOW things get done, but the basic tasks, the personal inclinations, and the personal and ideological conflicts remain essentially the same. This was a bummer for me, but partly because I was so soured on the provincialism and narrow thinking of the Northeast at the time.)
Some features of that game:
1. A constant tension between individual rights and community ideals about a greater good that trumps individual freedoms. In planning, these freedoms mostly center around rights of property, and when I teach my segment on planning law, I speak of the boundary between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community and how that boundary is always shifting in current case law. Both of my organizations are pretty sensitive to the right of the individual to do what she will with her property, and they are relatively transparent about the thinking process that produces that sensitivity, which is interesting to observe.
2. (Relatedly) A very pragmatic understanding of the limits of power of the particular organization, and a great unwillingness to come anywhere near the line of unconstitutionality. (As an advocate for community ideals over the individual right to, say, trash the environment, I do hope, eventually, for greater risk-taking here.)
3. (Sadly) An entrenchment in "The System" that tends to reproduce the same sorts of thinking and decision-making again and again. In part this is a familiarity with process and a comfort with the same old faces that tends to favor a go-along, get-along approach. No one wants to be the obnoxious one who makes the process come to a grinding halt. I'm told that the organization members are mostly long-time members; and that newer (and younger) members have served a short time and then moved on. That hints at frustration or simple recognition that change is not immediately possible.
4. Relatively transparent debate about competition for scarce resources. This isn't new, but the economic downturn makes it more salient than ever. People really have to think about what is worthwhile and what is MOST IMPORTANT.
Despite all this, I am optimistic that there are ways to use the skills I have to make a difference, in ways that were not really clear to me in my previous engagements with these organizations. Time will tell.
It feels weird to come back into the civic arena after 7 years away. Many of the players are still the same, and as I gather, the game is still the same. (I noticed in the Midwest, at a Planning Commission meeting, that the game was the same out there too - so there may be regional differences in exactly HOW things get done, but the basic tasks, the personal inclinations, and the personal and ideological conflicts remain essentially the same. This was a bummer for me, but partly because I was so soured on the provincialism and narrow thinking of the Northeast at the time.)
Some features of that game:
1. A constant tension between individual rights and community ideals about a greater good that trumps individual freedoms. In planning, these freedoms mostly center around rights of property, and when I teach my segment on planning law, I speak of the boundary between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community and how that boundary is always shifting in current case law. Both of my organizations are pretty sensitive to the right of the individual to do what she will with her property, and they are relatively transparent about the thinking process that produces that sensitivity, which is interesting to observe.
2. (Relatedly) A very pragmatic understanding of the limits of power of the particular organization, and a great unwillingness to come anywhere near the line of unconstitutionality. (As an advocate for community ideals over the individual right to, say, trash the environment, I do hope, eventually, for greater risk-taking here.)
3. (Sadly) An entrenchment in "The System" that tends to reproduce the same sorts of thinking and decision-making again and again. In part this is a familiarity with process and a comfort with the same old faces that tends to favor a go-along, get-along approach. No one wants to be the obnoxious one who makes the process come to a grinding halt. I'm told that the organization members are mostly long-time members; and that newer (and younger) members have served a short time and then moved on. That hints at frustration or simple recognition that change is not immediately possible.
4. Relatively transparent debate about competition for scarce resources. This isn't new, but the economic downturn makes it more salient than ever. People really have to think about what is worthwhile and what is MOST IMPORTANT.
Despite all this, I am optimistic that there are ways to use the skills I have to make a difference, in ways that were not really clear to me in my previous engagements with these organizations. Time will tell.
Friday, June 19, 2009
World War II books
One of the things I thought I'd do last summer (and didn't) was inventory all my old projects and try to update some of them into publishable articles. I did some of the inventory but never any more research or writing.
This comes to mind because every so often I see an article or image or whatever that reminds me of once having invested a lot of effort in time in a particular subject.
Today's tickler was WW2. I had done a lot of work on the journalist/writer Martha Gellhorn a few years ago, with an eye to pitching a collection of her work. I spend more time with my dad now, who reminisces often about the war. My sister is writing his story.
Some graphic novels on the subject: the very famous "Maus" by Art Spiegelman. Now, "A Good and Decent Man,"part 1 of a projected trilogy called "You'll Never Know" by Carol Tyler.
Another book for interesting reading (not a graphic novel) is Red Orchestra: the story of the Berlin underground and the circle of friends who resisted Hitler. Anne Nelson, the author, is a journalism professor (Columbia) and has spent time living under totalitarianism in various places in the world.
Last, Masters and commanders: how four titans won the war in the west 1941-1945 by Andrew Roberts. An insider look (lots of diaries and other archival material) at the interpersonal relationships between leaders (FDR and Churchill) and their top commanders, and how the commanders had to work together to make sure their respective bosses didn't implement dangerouly wrong military strategy.
This comes to mind because every so often I see an article or image or whatever that reminds me of once having invested a lot of effort in time in a particular subject.
Today's tickler was WW2. I had done a lot of work on the journalist/writer Martha Gellhorn a few years ago, with an eye to pitching a collection of her work. I spend more time with my dad now, who reminisces often about the war. My sister is writing his story.
Some graphic novels on the subject: the very famous "Maus" by Art Spiegelman. Now, "A Good and Decent Man,"part 1 of a projected trilogy called "You'll Never Know" by Carol Tyler.
Another book for interesting reading (not a graphic novel) is Red Orchestra: the story of the Berlin underground and the circle of friends who resisted Hitler. Anne Nelson, the author, is a journalism professor (Columbia) and has spent time living under totalitarianism in various places in the world.
Last, Masters and commanders: how four titans won the war in the west 1941-1945 by Andrew Roberts. An insider look (lots of diaries and other archival material) at the interpersonal relationships between leaders (FDR and Churchill) and their top commanders, and how the commanders had to work together to make sure their respective bosses didn't implement dangerouly wrong military strategy.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
The Green Fuse
Yesterday I cut the grass with the new Reflective Professor-powered reel mower. It moves like a dream, but gives a more informal cut than a rotary mower. (The sparser the grass blades, the greater the likelihood that they'll just be brushed down, only to spring up again uncut. Overseeding is indicated to build up density, as is hand-weeding. (I could write a passage about the meditative power of hand-weeding.).)
I think I am ok with all this. The funny thing is that with an RP-powered mower, I stop often to do other things, whereas with the gas-fired mower, I was more "on task." (Simpsons reference: "that dog has a fluffy tail; that man is my exact double!") So now I stop for branches, and stones, and a weird birdcall, and some weeding, a shaft of sunlight, a thought in the ether, whatever. Focus has never been my strong suit!
Bonus: upper-arm soreness, which means, muscle-toning in progress. Vive la verte!
Tomorrow: some thoughts on my new service to my community. I am working through a draft now!
I think I am ok with all this. The funny thing is that with an RP-powered mower, I stop often to do other things, whereas with the gas-fired mower, I was more "on task." (Simpsons reference: "that dog has a fluffy tail; that man is my exact double!") So now I stop for branches, and stones, and a weird birdcall, and some weeding, a shaft of sunlight, a thought in the ether, whatever. Focus has never been my strong suit!
Bonus: upper-arm soreness, which means, muscle-toning in progress. Vive la verte!
Tomorrow: some thoughts on my new service to my community. I am working through a draft now!
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Ottoman Empire
I am a little weak on Eastern European history as it relates to the Ottomans. Therefore, a new book by Andrew Wheatcroft titled The Enemy of the Gate: Habsburgs, Ottomans and the Battle for Europe might be helpful. It's reviewed in this week's (6/14) New York Times book section by Eric Ormsby.
Ormsby's problem with it is that it's very Euro-centric, describing the Ottomans as fierce warriors (and thereby perpetuating certain stereotypes). Yet the basic outline of history would still be useful.
Ormsby's problem with it is that it's very Euro-centric, describing the Ottomans as fierce warriors (and thereby perpetuating certain stereotypes). Yet the basic outline of history would still be useful.
film about globalization of food
I am not very good about keeping lists of films where I need them so that I can find a reference when I want to.
But here's one for teaching globalization of food: "Our Daily Bread" (2005), Austrian, Nikolaus Geyrhalter. According to a viewer, the film "exposes current food production processes in a manner likely far more unsettling" [than films reviewed by Kim Severson in an article titled "Eat, Drink, Think, Change" in the 6/7/09 New York Times].
Wonder if it's subtitled?
But here's one for teaching globalization of food: "Our Daily Bread" (2005), Austrian, Nikolaus Geyrhalter. According to a viewer, the film "exposes current food production processes in a manner likely far more unsettling" [than films reviewed by Kim Severson in an article titled "Eat, Drink, Think, Change" in the 6/7/09 New York Times].
Wonder if it's subtitled?
Thinking different(ly)
B and I approach problem-solving (especially in the material world) in very different ways. I don't think this is a Venus-Mars thing - although maybe I am wrong.
If 200 pounds needs to be carried from Point A to Point B, B will grab it, gloveless and equipment-less, and wrastle it over there in a single, dramatic but probably painful trip. I will make 20 trips and carry 10 pounds each time, taking probably 10x as long. Before I start, I'll have changed into appropriate clothing and found my work gloves.
I am careful, slow, reflective, and protective of my body. I do everything in small increments, using as few materials as possible. B puts his whole soul into everything, using materials and equipment and his body with gusto. (Resulting in extra destruction and sometimes injury.)
I think this also plays out in intellectual tasks. For example, I would rather dispose of 100 emails a day for 10 days than spend a giant block of time disposing of 1000 in a single setting, as B would prefer. I would rather write every day for an hour and do that for 2 weeks than try to crank out a rough draft in a single marathon day.
Probably we both need to learn from each other. It helps me to consider what a larger, more ambitious intervention would be (even if I choose the usual small-scale one). Probably he would be helped by thinking and planning and starting small.
If 200 pounds needs to be carried from Point A to Point B, B will grab it, gloveless and equipment-less, and wrastle it over there in a single, dramatic but probably painful trip. I will make 20 trips and carry 10 pounds each time, taking probably 10x as long. Before I start, I'll have changed into appropriate clothing and found my work gloves.
I am careful, slow, reflective, and protective of my body. I do everything in small increments, using as few materials as possible. B puts his whole soul into everything, using materials and equipment and his body with gusto. (Resulting in extra destruction and sometimes injury.)
I think this also plays out in intellectual tasks. For example, I would rather dispose of 100 emails a day for 10 days than spend a giant block of time disposing of 1000 in a single setting, as B would prefer. I would rather write every day for an hour and do that for 2 weeks than try to crank out a rough draft in a single marathon day.
Probably we both need to learn from each other. It helps me to consider what a larger, more ambitious intervention would be (even if I choose the usual small-scale one). Probably he would be helped by thinking and planning and starting small.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Stuff and less of it
We have a couple of rainy-day projects lined up for when we can't stand staring at the computer screens anymore, and one of those was cleaning up the basement, which we did today.
Normally, I treat such projects as "free" shopping expeditions, because I discover old junk that I either forgot I had (ooh, cool!) or find leftovers from other people that maybe can be reused or repurposed.
The basement was soooo gross, though, that I wasn't tempted in the slightest to save anything or repurpose or fix up or clean up ANYTHING. And it was oddly liberating.
(Pity the trash dudes, who will have to deal with it next trash day.)
Normally, I treat such projects as "free" shopping expeditions, because I discover old junk that I either forgot I had (ooh, cool!) or find leftovers from other people that maybe can be reused or repurposed.
The basement was soooo gross, though, that I wasn't tempted in the slightest to save anything or repurpose or fix up or clean up ANYTHING. And it was oddly liberating.
(Pity the trash dudes, who will have to deal with it next trash day.)
Friday, June 12, 2009
Archiving: the email edition
So, I have a really old laptop - 6+ years old. And it runs reeeeeallly slowwwwly.
(I'll stop typing that way now.) Part of the problem, I thought, might be the 2300 messages in my inbox, which load everytime I open up Outlook. So I've been deleting or moving them, 100 a day. I am down to less than 500.
My plan is to archive them so that when I'm in the Home, I can relive the glory years. But what criteria to use to save or delete? I asked B, and he saves everything. I decided to delete anything that was just about logistics; time-sensitive materials (like conference announcements, CFPs and the like); and the plethora of weblinks that people love to send their friends, since already the links are likely no good. (I am back to 2005.) Everything else I am saving.
It's a bit of a nostalgia trip to skim through all this old stuff and read what preoccupied us all in grad school. I feel as though I've just been talking to all my friends. I can see myself enjoying a trip down memory lane every 5 years or so. Reading through all the emails is a window into the the daily triumphs and setbacks that tend to fall out of memory.
Also I've been thinking of memory lately because a friend is working on an architectural competition to design a house for the age of film. It's a maddeningly simple brief, and we've been talking about the universe of implications. For me, film is the illusion of being/moving "in" 3D space in a way that pictorial space (whether painting or still photo) can't achieve. Thus I think the age of film has potentially interesting implications for new ways in which space can be conceptualized and designed.
That's pretty basic - there is also the idea of film as narrative, and most vexingly, the possibility of film as memory. I see film more as a dream state or individual imaginary than as a collective, but of course there are various theories of psychology that posit the existence of collective memories.
Further, how can we talk about film as a generalization? What does 'Terminator' have in common with 'Chelovek s kinoapparatom'? What sorts of common narratives or collective memories are at work here? And how does the intervention of the filmmaker in staging, lighting, arranging shots etc all complicate these concepts?
(I'll stop typing that way now.) Part of the problem, I thought, might be the 2300 messages in my inbox, which load everytime I open up Outlook. So I've been deleting or moving them, 100 a day. I am down to less than 500.
My plan is to archive them so that when I'm in the Home, I can relive the glory years. But what criteria to use to save or delete? I asked B, and he saves everything. I decided to delete anything that was just about logistics; time-sensitive materials (like conference announcements, CFPs and the like); and the plethora of weblinks that people love to send their friends, since already the links are likely no good. (I am back to 2005.) Everything else I am saving.
It's a bit of a nostalgia trip to skim through all this old stuff and read what preoccupied us all in grad school. I feel as though I've just been talking to all my friends. I can see myself enjoying a trip down memory lane every 5 years or so. Reading through all the emails is a window into the the daily triumphs and setbacks that tend to fall out of memory.
Also I've been thinking of memory lately because a friend is working on an architectural competition to design a house for the age of film. It's a maddeningly simple brief, and we've been talking about the universe of implications. For me, film is the illusion of being/moving "in" 3D space in a way that pictorial space (whether painting or still photo) can't achieve. Thus I think the age of film has potentially interesting implications for new ways in which space can be conceptualized and designed.
That's pretty basic - there is also the idea of film as narrative, and most vexingly, the possibility of film as memory. I see film more as a dream state or individual imaginary than as a collective, but of course there are various theories of psychology that posit the existence of collective memories.
Further, how can we talk about film as a generalization? What does 'Terminator' have in common with 'Chelovek s kinoapparatom'? What sorts of common narratives or collective memories are at work here? And how does the intervention of the filmmaker in staging, lighting, arranging shots etc all complicate these concepts?
Thursday, June 11, 2009
meta-cognition
Much of the "New Pedagogy" is about getting students to reflect on what they are learning, how they are learning, and I suppose why it all matters: thinking about thinking, in other words.
So, for example, in the first bit of my online course, I don't just tell them what the course goals are (as I would do in an "Old Pedagogy" course). I share my goals, and then I ask them to write about what THEIR learning goals are. I am curious to see how this will work - in the past I've asked students to write briefly about what they hope to learn in the course, and I usually get variants of "everything about Human Geography." Usually they don't really know what human geography is (and who could expect them to?) so they really don't know what to say. I am hoping that thinking about their own learning goals will produce thoughts that are more useful.
We'll see.
So, for example, in the first bit of my online course, I don't just tell them what the course goals are (as I would do in an "Old Pedagogy" course). I share my goals, and then I ask them to write about what THEIR learning goals are. I am curious to see how this will work - in the past I've asked students to write briefly about what they hope to learn in the course, and I usually get variants of "everything about Human Geography." Usually they don't really know what human geography is (and who could expect them to?) so they really don't know what to say. I am hoping that thinking about their own learning goals will produce thoughts that are more useful.
We'll see.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
early morning walk
Yesterday I woke up before 5 and since I couldn't get back to sleep, I got up and did my sometime "walk around the block." It takes 23.5 minutes, so I'd say it's about 1.5 miles. I don't power-walk, but neither do I stroll. I am looking for moderate exertion, and the feeling of being totally alive.
What an experience! We were expecting rain yesterday, but the sun was rising just over the horizon, and the looming clouds tinted the sky all shades of pink, purple and orange. The birds were singing and for a stretch I felt that I was the only person in the world. Usually I associate that thought with various apocalyptic and thus scary notions, but yesterday it really felt cool and wonderful. June is a great time to get up early.
(Of course, when I got home, the clouds rolled in, it got cold and damp in the house, and I crawled into bed for another 2.5 hours of sleep. So much for carpe'ing the diem.)
What an experience! We were expecting rain yesterday, but the sun was rising just over the horizon, and the looming clouds tinted the sky all shades of pink, purple and orange. The birds were singing and for a stretch I felt that I was the only person in the world. Usually I associate that thought with various apocalyptic and thus scary notions, but yesterday it really felt cool and wonderful. June is a great time to get up early.
(Of course, when I got home, the clouds rolled in, it got cold and damp in the house, and I crawled into bed for another 2.5 hours of sleep. So much for carpe'ing the diem.)
Monday, June 8, 2009
RIP lawnmower
The reel mower STILL hasn't been delivered (what up with that??) but today we brought home my sister-in-law's mower, cleaned it up, gassed it up, and cut the rest of the grass.
When I finished, I taped a sign on the ol' mower -- "motor runs; blade cuts; wheel-well worn through" -- and left it at the curb, as it is trash day tomorrow. B. put it on craigslist as a freebie drive-by. In exactly 63 minutes, it was gone. I am sad; I was really fond of it.
Maybe the guy is just going to sell it for the scrap metal, but I like thinking that he can fix it up, or use it for parts. I like the idea that things I can't use anymore (because I am too unhandy to fix them) can be useful to someone else, and I love that the internet and websites like craigslist help put stuff and potential users together. (Also, the people who cruise the streets on trash night - hey, I've been there too.)
I was anxious to get the grass cut because it's supposed to rain the rest of the week, and the grass would otherwise be a foot tall by Saturday!
When I finished, I taped a sign on the ol' mower -- "motor runs; blade cuts; wheel-well worn through" -- and left it at the curb, as it is trash day tomorrow. B. put it on craigslist as a freebie drive-by. In exactly 63 minutes, it was gone. I am sad; I was really fond of it.
Maybe the guy is just going to sell it for the scrap metal, but I like thinking that he can fix it up, or use it for parts. I like the idea that things I can't use anymore (because I am too unhandy to fix them) can be useful to someone else, and I love that the internet and websites like craigslist help put stuff and potential users together. (Also, the people who cruise the streets on trash night - hey, I've been there too.)
I was anxious to get the grass cut because it's supposed to rain the rest of the week, and the grass would otherwise be a foot tall by Saturday!
Sunday, June 7, 2009
pedal to the metal
David Byrne had a book review of Pedaling Revolution: How Cyclists are Changing American Cities by Jeff Mapes in last week's New York Times. (Yes, THAT David Byrne.) According to the bio blurb at the end of the review, Byrne has a book called Bicycle Diaries coming out in the fall.
I did some local cycling in grad school, although I felt ridiculous at my age pedaling around the city. The generously wide streets, explicit bike lanes and general lack of road rage in the Midwest made it comfortable. I hesitate to do the same here: roads are maxed out with cars and the drivers deliberately don't want to share the road. Creating bike lanes on city streets seems like an unnecessary pitting of drivers against cyclists (there is only so much real estate) but more than that it's the culture of driving. We've made driving too easy - like sitting on your couch watching TV. When it's harder (curvy roads; narrow lanes) drivers can't deal with it, and that's when accidents happen.
(Don't even get me started on cell phones and texting. What I see in my commute! - incredible.)
I did some local cycling in grad school, although I felt ridiculous at my age pedaling around the city. The generously wide streets, explicit bike lanes and general lack of road rage in the Midwest made it comfortable. I hesitate to do the same here: roads are maxed out with cars and the drivers deliberately don't want to share the road. Creating bike lanes on city streets seems like an unnecessary pitting of drivers against cyclists (there is only so much real estate) but more than that it's the culture of driving. We've made driving too easy - like sitting on your couch watching TV. When it's harder (curvy roads; narrow lanes) drivers can't deal with it, and that's when accidents happen.
(Don't even get me started on cell phones and texting. What I see in my commute! - incredible.)
Friday, June 5, 2009
things fall apart
I've been babying my 18-year-old gas-powered lawnmower along ever since the end of last season while I wait for the new reel mower to arrive. It's hard to start, stalls frequently, and the blade has never been sharpened. (B and I disagree on whether the oil and sparkplug have EVER been changed: I say no.)
Yesterday, the left rear wheel fell off, as it has been threatening to do for some time. The metal body of the mower is completely worn through around the hole where the wheel attaches, and since the wheel is only bolted on (no axle), the wheel assembly can just slide right out. B tried to undo the assembly so that we could use a giant washer to plug the hole, but the wheel assembly was fused together with 18 years of rust, dirt and grease, so no dice there. He improvised a solution with a bunch of wire, but that didn't last 10 feet.
What to do? Buy another gas mower new? Seems crazy, when we just shelled out $$ for the reel mower. Find one used? Seems crazy to pay $100 for someone else's trash. Finally, an inspiration! B's sister wanted to give us her mower (2 years old) because she has a service. I had declined at first, but now I believe I will take her up on it. Win-win: she wanted it out of the house; I need a part-time gas mower!
I have another series of rants forthcoming about small plastic do-hickeys that snap off and render whole appliances useless,* but I really can't complain about metal corrosion on a tool that's been used hard for 18 years. (Well, I COULD complain...but I won't.)
*Braun coffeemaker; air pump for balance ball.
Yesterday, the left rear wheel fell off, as it has been threatening to do for some time. The metal body of the mower is completely worn through around the hole where the wheel attaches, and since the wheel is only bolted on (no axle), the wheel assembly can just slide right out. B tried to undo the assembly so that we could use a giant washer to plug the hole, but the wheel assembly was fused together with 18 years of rust, dirt and grease, so no dice there. He improvised a solution with a bunch of wire, but that didn't last 10 feet.
What to do? Buy another gas mower new? Seems crazy, when we just shelled out $$ for the reel mower. Find one used? Seems crazy to pay $100 for someone else's trash. Finally, an inspiration! B's sister wanted to give us her mower (2 years old) because she has a service. I had declined at first, but now I believe I will take her up on it. Win-win: she wanted it out of the house; I need a part-time gas mower!
I have another series of rants forthcoming about small plastic do-hickeys that snap off and render whole appliances useless,* but I really can't complain about metal corrosion on a tool that's been used hard for 18 years. (Well, I COULD complain...but I won't.)
*Braun coffeemaker; air pump for balance ball.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
summer term versus regular term
Summer courses meet for 5 weeks rather than the usual 15 during the Fall and Spring terms.
If we use the American higher ed rule-of-thumb guideline for in-class to out-of-class work (2 hours of homework for every hour spent in class), then for my usual courses, a student should spend 4 hours a week in my classroom and an additional 8 hours reading and doing assignments. When I asked about the institutional culture on this point at New Faculty Orientation a couple of years ago, after one of the administrators had been going on and on about the need for rigorous standards, he basically admitted (in not so many words) that the expectation at my institution was considerably less. HOW much less, he would not say.
(Thank you very much for THAT guide to cultural norms, dude. I believe they call it "don't ask don't tell" in other contexts.)
So now comes the summer course. Forget for a moment that it's online and thus that students already expect it to be easier and/or less work. If it meets for 1/3 the time as a regular-term course and students get the same amount of credit as for a regular-term course, then they should be putting in 12 x 3 = 36 hours a week on my course.
Yeah, like THAT could possibly happen. Yet another one of the institutional lies of higher ed.
I want to be a LEETLE more rigorous than the norm, but I don't want to go crazy.
If we use the American higher ed rule-of-thumb guideline for in-class to out-of-class work (2 hours of homework for every hour spent in class), then for my usual courses, a student should spend 4 hours a week in my classroom and an additional 8 hours reading and doing assignments. When I asked about the institutional culture on this point at New Faculty Orientation a couple of years ago, after one of the administrators had been going on and on about the need for rigorous standards, he basically admitted (in not so many words) that the expectation at my institution was considerably less. HOW much less, he would not say.
(Thank you very much for THAT guide to cultural norms, dude. I believe they call it "don't ask don't tell" in other contexts.)
So now comes the summer course. Forget for a moment that it's online and thus that students already expect it to be easier and/or less work. If it meets for 1/3 the time as a regular-term course and students get the same amount of credit as for a regular-term course, then they should be putting in 12 x 3 = 36 hours a week on my course.
Yeah, like THAT could possibly happen. Yet another one of the institutional lies of higher ed.
I want to be a LEETLE more rigorous than the norm, but I don't want to go crazy.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
General education in the liberal arts college
Liberal arts colleges have for decades prescribed a distribution of courses taken across a range of liberal arts disciplines, in order to help create the "well-educated person" with exposure to concepts and ideas that the citizenry "should" know.
When I was an undergraduate, this requirement was extremely minimal: 2 courses each in humanities; social sciences; and natural sciences. I don't recall that specific courses were listed; I think you could just take anything. Since you majored in SOMETHING, two of your major courses counted in one of the three areas, so really, the distribution requirements only amounted to four courses outside what you might ordinarily be interested in.
Harvard revised its distribution requirements in 2007. (I'm a bit late to the party, here, but this is important for me in the light of ongoing discussions at my own college about our revisions to general education.) Whereas the prior incarnation, called the Core Curriculum, was intended to introduce discipline-specific ways of thinking, the new general-education curriculum "introduces undergraduates to ways of thinking about the world that will shape their lives beyond college" (Harvard Magazine Jan-Feb 2009; p. 51).
I find this shift in intentions extremely interesting. The former is abstract, an intellectual exercise of sorts; the latter is applications-oriented, practical, real-world, implicitly interdisciplinary.
At my college, we have a vast GenEd system: 12 specific educational goals to be met through a menu of specific courses that meet those goals. Between the weird scheduling blocks, the four-credit system (don't even get me started!), more-specific requirements for GenEd for some majors, and other scheduling issues like field study for teaching preparation, students often have a difficult time completing these requirements, and they tend to make decisions based on what fits in their schedules rather than what courses might best for their educational programs. More fundamentally, students do not understand the purpose of GenEd, and understanding is further hindered by the way that advisers tend to talk about the program: "git yer GenEds out of the way early."
In essence, GenEd is reduced to a bunch of boxes that must be checked off on a form required for graduation. There is little explicit discussion of the REASONS for GenEd. However, if you DO look into the rationales, you find it's along the old models. For example, many of my courses meet the social sciences goal: "an understanding of the principles of behavioral and social sciences and/or institutions, together with a critical appreciation of how scientific knowledge has been constructed, including methods of validating the results of scientific inquiry in studying human behavior." Notice how this is all about epistemologies and methods that are expected to be discipline-specific, as opposed to an issue-specific or problem-specific approach.
In my view, this is one reason why GenEd doesn't resonate with students. It is framed on ways of thinking rather than on problems/issues students might face.
When I was an undergraduate, this requirement was extremely minimal: 2 courses each in humanities; social sciences; and natural sciences. I don't recall that specific courses were listed; I think you could just take anything. Since you majored in SOMETHING, two of your major courses counted in one of the three areas, so really, the distribution requirements only amounted to four courses outside what you might ordinarily be interested in.
Harvard revised its distribution requirements in 2007. (I'm a bit late to the party, here, but this is important for me in the light of ongoing discussions at my own college about our revisions to general education.) Whereas the prior incarnation, called the Core Curriculum, was intended to introduce discipline-specific ways of thinking, the new general-education curriculum "introduces undergraduates to ways of thinking about the world that will shape their lives beyond college" (Harvard Magazine Jan-Feb 2009; p. 51).
I find this shift in intentions extremely interesting. The former is abstract, an intellectual exercise of sorts; the latter is applications-oriented, practical, real-world, implicitly interdisciplinary.
At my college, we have a vast GenEd system: 12 specific educational goals to be met through a menu of specific courses that meet those goals. Between the weird scheduling blocks, the four-credit system (don't even get me started!), more-specific requirements for GenEd for some majors, and other scheduling issues like field study for teaching preparation, students often have a difficult time completing these requirements, and they tend to make decisions based on what fits in their schedules rather than what courses might best for their educational programs. More fundamentally, students do not understand the purpose of GenEd, and understanding is further hindered by the way that advisers tend to talk about the program: "git yer GenEds out of the way early."
In essence, GenEd is reduced to a bunch of boxes that must be checked off on a form required for graduation. There is little explicit discussion of the REASONS for GenEd. However, if you DO look into the rationales, you find it's along the old models. For example, many of my courses meet the social sciences goal: "an understanding of the principles of behavioral and social sciences and/or institutions, together with a critical appreciation of how scientific knowledge has been constructed, including methods of validating the results of scientific inquiry in studying human behavior." Notice how this is all about epistemologies and methods that are expected to be discipline-specific, as opposed to an issue-specific or problem-specific approach.
In my view, this is one reason why GenEd doesn't resonate with students. It is framed on ways of thinking rather than on problems/issues students might face.
miscellany from recent reading
Here are some possibilities for various teaching projects:
1.Alex MacLean, Over: the American Landscape at the Tipping Point (Abrams). Aerial photos on the (destruction of the) American landscape.
2.Michael A. Wolf. The Zoning of America: Euclid v. Ambler. UP of Kansas. Good if I ever get to teach planning law. (Not that I really need a primer on Euclid v. Ambler, which I read every time I teach a short segment on planning law.)
3. Michael Porter. On Competition (Harvard Biz Press). I'm attracted by the description of it as brisk outline of his principles, followed by some real-world applications.
1.Alex MacLean, Over: the American Landscape at the Tipping Point (Abrams). Aerial photos on the (destruction of the) American landscape.
2.Michael A. Wolf. The Zoning of America: Euclid v. Ambler. UP of Kansas. Good if I ever get to teach planning law. (Not that I really need a primer on Euclid v. Ambler, which I read every time I teach a short segment on planning law.)
3. Michael Porter. On Competition (Harvard Biz Press). I'm attracted by the description of it as brisk outline of his principles, followed by some real-world applications.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)