It's just an allosaur in front of my site name and a depiction of my move from California to Alberta
Oh yeah, the Murphy-ism for this blog is: "Everybody should believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink."
Sunday, November 30, 2003
Those of you who lived on 9 Mac last year may possible remember the brick that I painted. I modified it in photoshop and here it is. I think I may use it as my logo.
It's just an allosaur in front of my site name and a depiction of my move from California to Alberta
Oh yeah, the Murphy-ism for this blog is: "Everybody should believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink."
It's just an allosaur in front of my site name and a depiction of my move from California to Alberta
Oh yeah, the Murphy-ism for this blog is: "Everybody should believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink."
Murphy's Laws
I'm going to start incorporating 1 or 2 of Murphy's laws into my blogs on a regular basis. For those of you who don't know, Murphy's most famous law is that "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, at the worst possible time."
And in the spirit of the comments that I always get, the other law for today is: "Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate."
And in the spirit of the comments that I always get, the other law for today is: "Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate."
Saturday, November 29, 2003
Academiarchy
Are you a College or University student? Do you reside in Canada or the United states? Are you apathetic about political issues because they have little or no bearing on your life? Tired of the Province/ State or Country being run by idiots? If you are, you're not alone, and although this may sound like the tag line for a new support group, I think that it describes a large swath of the population. There is no reason why high school drop outs should make decisions for University Students. There is no reason why the freedoms of individuals should be impeded by the closed-mindedness of biased individuals (on the right or left). There is no reason why social programs should go to extremes only to fail and why people seeking a sustainable balance between a pre-industrial like environment and the economy should be regarded as inconsiquential hippies.
So what tools does the educated population of North America have to combat idiocy? That's simple: perswasive logical thinking, the scientific method and money. There is a reason why technoscience networks have done so well in recent years. It's because the people making the decisions would benifit from an increase in total knowledge and power throughout the network. For example, big companies benefit if scientific research conducted at universities produces technological advances which make them a profit. The University benefits from getting reserch funding for its students and professors. If someone who holds a position at a university also holds a position on the corporate board of a large company, then that person can direct the way money is distributed to the various universities and may influence how much is given. If somebody from the university or the large company is also an advisor to the government, then he or she can direct the way budget decisions affect the universities and the amount of freedom given to the companies. If the companies make higher profits, then economy will be doing better, and the government will prosper. But lets take this a step further, what if instead of only a few people contributing to the decision making process, many did.
What I'm proposing is an academic political party. One that serves academia and its other supporters. Bill 43 here in Alberta will allow the government to raise student tuition substantially from year to year dispite the fact that the province is one of the richest in the country. The Studen Union's efforts to combat the bill were abismal. They threw a bbq to raise awareness but didn't acutally discuss any of the details of the bill or really educate the student body. There was simply no motivation amongst the students. But this bill doesn't only affect the U of Alberta, it also affects the U of Calgary, and U of Lethbridge, not to mention smaller institutions. Each of the universities has a student body of thousands. The U of A alone has over 25,000 students, and although I'm not sure of the numbers, I'm pretty sure that the U of C and U of L combined have at least that many and probably more. At each of the Universities, nearly every body is a member of the student union and dues are paid to this union. But what if the unions unified and became the Alberta student Union. There would probably be 60,000 members. Now suppose that $2 of each of these student's dues were used to support sympathetic political candidates; those with ties to the Universities and would be looking out for student interests. Fliers and posters would be distributed about campus encouraging the vote and mentioning specific candidates' pros and cons. It is difficult to change the minds of people in office, but not that hard to replace them at the next election.
But what if this was done at the National level? In canada, there are 6 provinces that would have significant student populations. If each contributes 60,000 students, at $2 per student, then roughly $720,000 or even $1million dollars in campaign influence, and 360,000 potential voters. In many states, the affects would be even greater. California alone has over 20 public universities and many private ones, all with enormous student populations. Consider also all of the parents of these students, many of them fitting the bill and paying the taxes that directly fund the universities. At $2 per year, don't you think that they would be willing to help institute money saving practices that might also better educate their children. Consider also the parents of many university bound 11th and 12th graders. Share holders in companies affected by the university research will also be deeply interested. Of course, a candidate needs more of a platform than just education reform. A few of my suggestions will appear in future blogs.
So what tools does the educated population of North America have to combat idiocy? That's simple: perswasive logical thinking, the scientific method and money. There is a reason why technoscience networks have done so well in recent years. It's because the people making the decisions would benifit from an increase in total knowledge and power throughout the network. For example, big companies benefit if scientific research conducted at universities produces technological advances which make them a profit. The University benefits from getting reserch funding for its students and professors. If someone who holds a position at a university also holds a position on the corporate board of a large company, then that person can direct the way money is distributed to the various universities and may influence how much is given. If somebody from the university or the large company is also an advisor to the government, then he or she can direct the way budget decisions affect the universities and the amount of freedom given to the companies. If the companies make higher profits, then economy will be doing better, and the government will prosper. But lets take this a step further, what if instead of only a few people contributing to the decision making process, many did.
What I'm proposing is an academic political party. One that serves academia and its other supporters. Bill 43 here in Alberta will allow the government to raise student tuition substantially from year to year dispite the fact that the province is one of the richest in the country. The Studen Union's efforts to combat the bill were abismal. They threw a bbq to raise awareness but didn't acutally discuss any of the details of the bill or really educate the student body. There was simply no motivation amongst the students. But this bill doesn't only affect the U of Alberta, it also affects the U of Calgary, and U of Lethbridge, not to mention smaller institutions. Each of the universities has a student body of thousands. The U of A alone has over 25,000 students, and although I'm not sure of the numbers, I'm pretty sure that the U of C and U of L combined have at least that many and probably more. At each of the Universities, nearly every body is a member of the student union and dues are paid to this union. But what if the unions unified and became the Alberta student Union. There would probably be 60,000 members. Now suppose that $2 of each of these student's dues were used to support sympathetic political candidates; those with ties to the Universities and would be looking out for student interests. Fliers and posters would be distributed about campus encouraging the vote and mentioning specific candidates' pros and cons. It is difficult to change the minds of people in office, but not that hard to replace them at the next election.
But what if this was done at the National level? In canada, there are 6 provinces that would have significant student populations. If each contributes 60,000 students, at $2 per student, then roughly $720,000 or even $1million dollars in campaign influence, and 360,000 potential voters. In many states, the affects would be even greater. California alone has over 20 public universities and many private ones, all with enormous student populations. Consider also all of the parents of these students, many of them fitting the bill and paying the taxes that directly fund the universities. At $2 per year, don't you think that they would be willing to help institute money saving practices that might also better educate their children. Consider also the parents of many university bound 11th and 12th graders. Share holders in companies affected by the university research will also be deeply interested. Of course, a candidate needs more of a platform than just education reform. A few of my suggestions will appear in future blogs.
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Professions of a Dangerous Mind
What would you do if you met a chemist? Kill it, run from it, feed it warm cookies and milk? Whatever you do don't get into a philosophical argument with it. Chemists deal with scales and numbers of things that are entirely outside the realm of normal human existence. When the number of something becomes extraordinarily large, the probability of seemingly impossible things goes up. This makes it rather possible for chemists to observe phenomena that are quite strange. For instance, the probability of any molecule to accumulate enough kinetic energy to burst its way out of the system is tiny. However, when you have 602,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules, or one Mole as chemists call it, then there will be molecules escaping all over the place. If you have a rock on a beach, there is a probability that it will somehow accumulate enough energy among all of its molecules to shoot into outer space completely at random, defying gravity. However gravity and the friction of air and many other factor such as other obstacles get in its way, and the rocks on the beach tend to sort such that the largest rocks are in the area of greatest wave energy and the smaller ones will accumulate in areas right at the border where the waves can no longer affect them. Now, there is no particular reason why one rock comes incontact with one particular region of water, it is acting in a random way. But not totally random, it is controlled randomness. It seems silly to assume that any rock will ever spontaneously jump into space, but a chemist argues that it is thermodynamically possible.
So what about life? It seems astronomically improbable that anything as complex as a human being, or even an amoeba could randomly assemble itself. But then there's that issue of a system again. In this case, the system actually helps create the complex organism. If the building blocks of life are created, then one might think that it would be random for them to assemble themselves. Initially it would be. But some compounds would be able to affect the probability that more of that compound would be made. Bingo! Reproduction: Life. Random variation generated in these compounds would result in differential reproductive success, the very essence of evolution by natural selection. It is by this method that a complex organism can be created.
Just so you know, this little lesson was spawned by a discussion with a chemist about a Japanese toy robotic cat. The chemist claimed that it would be possible for that cat to spontaneously Asimov somewhere in the universe. Okay, in a universe that is infinite in time and space and matter, this might be possible. Of course the chemist points out that the universe is only infinite in space. The chemist argues his points so ardently that he even compares the formation of the cat to that of life. The probability of that cat assembling is far smaller than that of life. Its possible but not probable. Of course, robot cats exist, so one might also argue that it was by the sum of naturally selective processes acting on random chance that the cat was in fact assembled. Hmmm, if he weren't dead, I wonder what Douglas Adams would have to say on the matter.
So just remember, if you happen to meet a chemist, don't argue with it. It does not bear a pragmatic view of the universe. It will use its knowledge of semantics to its advantage and nothing will actually be accomplished by arguing with it.
So what about life? It seems astronomically improbable that anything as complex as a human being, or even an amoeba could randomly assemble itself. But then there's that issue of a system again. In this case, the system actually helps create the complex organism. If the building blocks of life are created, then one might think that it would be random for them to assemble themselves. Initially it would be. But some compounds would be able to affect the probability that more of that compound would be made. Bingo! Reproduction: Life. Random variation generated in these compounds would result in differential reproductive success, the very essence of evolution by natural selection. It is by this method that a complex organism can be created.
Just so you know, this little lesson was spawned by a discussion with a chemist about a Japanese toy robotic cat. The chemist claimed that it would be possible for that cat to spontaneously Asimov somewhere in the universe. Okay, in a universe that is infinite in time and space and matter, this might be possible. Of course the chemist points out that the universe is only infinite in space. The chemist argues his points so ardently that he even compares the formation of the cat to that of life. The probability of that cat assembling is far smaller than that of life. Its possible but not probable. Of course, robot cats exist, so one might also argue that it was by the sum of naturally selective processes acting on random chance that the cat was in fact assembled. Hmmm, if he weren't dead, I wonder what Douglas Adams would have to say on the matter.
So just remember, if you happen to meet a chemist, don't argue with it. It does not bear a pragmatic view of the universe. It will use its knowledge of semantics to its advantage and nothing will actually be accomplished by arguing with it.
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Violent Toys?
Once again the Lion and Lamb project, a group of concerned parents have put out their "Dirty Dozen" list of toys and games that they think promote violence among children by teaching them that violence is fun. Well guess what the top three are: Ninja turtles, Transformers and Power Rangers. When did we get transported back to the early 90's? I remember having Ninja turtle toys as a kid. My brother had them too, and power rangers. One of my good friends still loves the transformers genra. To say that these toys and games make children violent is abserd. If that were true then kids our age would be alot more violent than they are today.
But what about Columbine and all the other school shootings. Those were kids our age. People have tried to blame that on so many things that it should be a crime. Marylin Manson, rap, lax gun laws, Movies, TV, American History, black people, white people, South Park, etc. So why not throw in the toys that we grew up with? What difference could it make. None. Kids who don't understand that they're playing make believe or who's parent's don't teach them that are going to end up messed up anyway. Freud may not have been right about alot of the specifics of his theories, but he was right about the fact that sex and violence are huge pre-obsessions in the human mind. He should have gone into marketing instead of psychology, he would have made a killing. In fact, if you want to know what companies to invest in every year, invest in those which are getting this free publicity. How violent they are is only an indication of how successful they'll be.
People view this action group as playing a vital role in alerting parents to the hidden future risks that these play things pose. After all, as GI Joe used to say "knowing is half the battle." Informed parents won't want to buy these dangerous toys. Give me a break. Only an irresponsible parent who wouldn't care what this group would have to say would buy their kid a toy without understanding all of its potentially violent implications. If the kid says "buy me ..." and the parent does, what kind of parent is that.
So where does this leave Leonardo, Optimus Prime and the gang? These characters have been favorites for nearly 20 years. I know an engaged couple who is actually intentionally buying Ninja turtle toys so that their kids will be able to play with them in the future in the event that they are no longer sold. Heck, at least its better than the pacifying, mind numbing drivel that's on Canadian television.
But what about Columbine and all the other school shootings. Those were kids our age. People have tried to blame that on so many things that it should be a crime. Marylin Manson, rap, lax gun laws, Movies, TV, American History, black people, white people, South Park, etc. So why not throw in the toys that we grew up with? What difference could it make. None. Kids who don't understand that they're playing make believe or who's parent's don't teach them that are going to end up messed up anyway. Freud may not have been right about alot of the specifics of his theories, but he was right about the fact that sex and violence are huge pre-obsessions in the human mind. He should have gone into marketing instead of psychology, he would have made a killing. In fact, if you want to know what companies to invest in every year, invest in those which are getting this free publicity. How violent they are is only an indication of how successful they'll be.
People view this action group as playing a vital role in alerting parents to the hidden future risks that these play things pose. After all, as GI Joe used to say "knowing is half the battle." Informed parents won't want to buy these dangerous toys. Give me a break. Only an irresponsible parent who wouldn't care what this group would have to say would buy their kid a toy without understanding all of its potentially violent implications. If the kid says "buy me ..." and the parent does, what kind of parent is that.
So where does this leave Leonardo, Optimus Prime and the gang? These characters have been favorites for nearly 20 years. I know an engaged couple who is actually intentionally buying Ninja turtle toys so that their kids will be able to play with them in the future in the event that they are no longer sold. Heck, at least its better than the pacifying, mind numbing drivel that's on Canadian television.
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Props.
A while ago I wrote a letter to Gregory S. Paul, noted reconstruction artist for dinosaur skulls, asking if he'd help out my research by sending me larger virsions of his works so that I could measure them. After a couple of weeks I had received no reply and had determined to ask him about it when I would see him at SVP. He told me there that he haden't even given my letter a second look but that it wouldn't be a problem to send me some copies of the drawings. After SVP I continued to wait. About a month later an envelope arive containing a number of copies of skull reconstructions and my original letter with ceterain requests crossed out and notes with some of them explaining why the drawings weren't reliable for analysis. If for some reason he happens to search his own name on google and happens to find this website. Thanks man. Of course, I have quite the long list of people to acknowledge if or when I ever get published. hmmm, I wonder if the review board will look at it as original research or synthesis from a survey of the literature.
Friday, November 14, 2003
are you pondering what I'm pondering?
Still cleaning out my computer, here's some more stuff I found:
1. Did you ever wonder about those people who spend $2.00 apiece
on those little bottles of Evian water? Try spelling Evian backwards.
NAÏVE
2. Isn't making a smoking section in a restaurant like making a
peeing section in a swimming pool?
3. OK...so if the Jacksonville Jaguars are known as the "Jags"
and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are known as the "Bucs", what does that make
the Tennessee Titans ?
4. If 4 out of 5 people SUFFER from diarrhea ... does that mean
that one enjoys it?
5. There are three religious truths:
1. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
2. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the
Christian faith.
3. Baptists do not recognize each other in the liquor store or at Hooters.
6.If you take an Oriental person and spin him around several
times, does he become disoriented?
7. If people from Poland are called Poles, why aren't people from Holland
called Holes?
8. Why do we say something is out of whack? What's a whack?
9. Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?
10. If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?
11. If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
12. When someone asks you, "A penny for your thoughts" and you
put your two cents in . . . what happens to the other penny?
13. Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?
14. Why do croutons come in airtight packages? Aren't they just
stale bread to begin with?
15. Why is a person who plays the piano called a pianist but a
person who drives a race car not called a racist?
16. Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?
17. Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?
18. If lawyers are disbarred and clergymen defrocked, doesn't it
follow that electricians can be delighted, musicians denoted, cowboys
deranged, models deposed, tree surgeons debarked, and dry cleaners
depressed?
19. If Fed Ex and UPS were to merge, would they call it Fed UP?
20. Do Lipton Tea employees take coffee breaks?
21. What hair color do they put on the driver's licenses of bald men?
22. I thought about how mothers feed their babies with tiny
little spoons and forks so I wondered what do Chinese mothers use?
Toothpicks?
23. Why do they put pictures of criminals up in the Post Office?
What are we supposed to do, write to them? Why don't they just put their
pictures on the postage stamps so the mailmen can look for them while they
deliver the mail?
24 If it's true that we are here to help others, then what exactly are the
others here for?
25You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive
26. Is it good if a vacuum really sucks?
27. Why is the third hand on the watch called the second hand?
28. If a word is misspelled in the dictionary, how would we ever know?
29. If Webster wrote the first dictionary, where did he find the words?
30. Why does "slow down" and "slow up" mean the same thing?
31. Why does "fat chance" and "slim chance" mean the same thing?
32. Why do "tug" boats push their barges?
33. Why do we sing "Take me out to the ball game" when we are
already there?
35. Why are they called "stands" when they are made for sitting?
36. Why is it called "after dark" when it really is "after light"?
37. Doesn't "expecting the unexpected" make the unexpected
expected?
38. Why is "phonics" not spelled the way it sounds?
39. If work is so terrific, why do they have to pay you to do it?
40. If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?
41. If you are cross-eyed and have dyslexia, can you read all right?
42. Why is bra singular and panties plural?
43. Why do you press harder on the buttons of a remote control when
you know the batteries are dead?
44. Why do we put suits in garment bags and garments in a suitcase?
45. How come abbreviated is such a long word?
46. Why do we wash bath towels? Aren't we clean when we use
them?
47. Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?
48. Why do they call it a TV set when you only have one?
49. Christmas is weird. What other time of the year do you sit in
front of a dead tree and eat candy out of your socks?
1. Did you ever wonder about those people who spend $2.00 apiece
on those little bottles of Evian water? Try spelling Evian backwards.
NAÏVE
2. Isn't making a smoking section in a restaurant like making a
peeing section in a swimming pool?
3. OK...so if the Jacksonville Jaguars are known as the "Jags"
and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are known as the "Bucs", what does that make
the Tennessee Titans ?
4. If 4 out of 5 people SUFFER from diarrhea ... does that mean
that one enjoys it?
5. There are three religious truths:
1. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
2. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the
Christian faith.
3. Baptists do not recognize each other in the liquor store or at Hooters.
6.If you take an Oriental person and spin him around several
times, does he become disoriented?
7. If people from Poland are called Poles, why aren't people from Holland
called Holes?
8. Why do we say something is out of whack? What's a whack?
9. Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?
10. If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?
11. If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
12. When someone asks you, "A penny for your thoughts" and you
put your two cents in . . . what happens to the other penny?
13. Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?
14. Why do croutons come in airtight packages? Aren't they just
stale bread to begin with?
15. Why is a person who plays the piano called a pianist but a
person who drives a race car not called a racist?
16. Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?
17. Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?
18. If lawyers are disbarred and clergymen defrocked, doesn't it
follow that electricians can be delighted, musicians denoted, cowboys
deranged, models deposed, tree surgeons debarked, and dry cleaners
depressed?
19. If Fed Ex and UPS were to merge, would they call it Fed UP?
20. Do Lipton Tea employees take coffee breaks?
21. What hair color do they put on the driver's licenses of bald men?
22. I thought about how mothers feed their babies with tiny
little spoons and forks so I wondered what do Chinese mothers use?
Toothpicks?
23. Why do they put pictures of criminals up in the Post Office?
What are we supposed to do, write to them? Why don't they just put their
pictures on the postage stamps so the mailmen can look for them while they
deliver the mail?
24 If it's true that we are here to help others, then what exactly are the
others here for?
25You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive
26. Is it good if a vacuum really sucks?
27. Why is the third hand on the watch called the second hand?
28. If a word is misspelled in the dictionary, how would we ever know?
29. If Webster wrote the first dictionary, where did he find the words?
30. Why does "slow down" and "slow up" mean the same thing?
31. Why does "fat chance" and "slim chance" mean the same thing?
32. Why do "tug" boats push their barges?
33. Why do we sing "Take me out to the ball game" when we are
already there?
35. Why are they called "stands" when they are made for sitting?
36. Why is it called "after dark" when it really is "after light"?
37. Doesn't "expecting the unexpected" make the unexpected
expected?
38. Why is "phonics" not spelled the way it sounds?
39. If work is so terrific, why do they have to pay you to do it?
40. If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?
41. If you are cross-eyed and have dyslexia, can you read all right?
42. Why is bra singular and panties plural?
43. Why do you press harder on the buttons of a remote control when
you know the batteries are dead?
44. Why do we put suits in garment bags and garments in a suitcase?
45. How come abbreviated is such a long word?
46. Why do we wash bath towels? Aren't we clean when we use
them?
47. Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?
48. Why do they call it a TV set when you only have one?
49. Christmas is weird. What other time of the year do you sit in
front of a dead tree and eat candy out of your socks?
still true
I was going through some old word files, deleting as I went when I found a rant that I wrote tow years ago. Just because its out of date doesn't mean that it isn't true. It is as follows:
I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy and subjectivity of the English teachers across North America. Students are encouraged to be free thinkers and to write what they feel is true, while at the same time, nearly every honors level student in High School knows that good grades are generated by telling the teacher exactly what it wants to hear, which means regurgitating the prof?s lectures back to them. If a student writes a scalding critique of one of the teacher?s favorite books as an assignment, then that student will receive poor marks, nearly regardless of how well written that critique was. A prof will mask his or her subjectivity with arguments that the student made unfounded claims, or that the student had missed essential parts of the literature. Nobody gives a damn about what a person has to say on a subject until they can add five letters to their name: Dr. and Ph. D. A title which is given almost too liberally to literature majors.
A Science major must contribute genuinely new information, or scientifically valid theory to the world of science before they can be given their doctorate. A literature major rehashes what somebody more eloquent than themselves once wrote and claims that merely having an elevated understanding of how to bolster syntax or B.S. gives them the right to that esteemed title. Yet I don?t quite blame the system itself entirely. I also blame interpretive literature. Authors of the works that English majors analyze almost never, ever come out and tell people what they mean by their works. Instead they beat around the bush and pass the responsibility of deciphering their incomprehensible drivel to poor English students who often don?t give a damn that Coleridge?s opium addiction is particularly symbolic of the Romantic movement. The guy was a drug addict, the fact that he chose to write while stoned shouldn't make him any more significant than the guy on the corner who mumbles to himself.
To make English 101 a prerequisite for degrees in the sciences, business, engineering, and many other majors is absurd. Students are forced to pay to take classes that they would much rather not take, and has no bearing on their future carriers. To pay dozens of English Profs to lecture to students who memorize the material long enough to pass the exams, is a waste of student dollars and time. I, as an English student will not take anything from this class that was not taught to me in High School.
I propose a major restructuring of how language arts are taught. Instead of English 101, students should be required to take courses which will be beneficial to them in the pursuit of their particular fields. Science students should take courses on how to write stand up research reports and grant proposals, and read about scientific philosophy and ethics. Business majors should read books like the five rings, and interesting books about how to succeed in business, or the biography of Andrew Carnegie. I?m not even sure if Engineers should even have to take an English course.
The idea of the University which deliberately tries to put out a well rounded person is one which was never truly practiced and is an ideal which seems to be preserved only by the English department. Every other department sets students on a course of grater and grater specialization. This is a pragmatic course of action. It is not practical for a sedimentologist to also have an understanding of seventeenth century French poetry unless it is his hobby. Second year English courses are not even a requirement for Science students, so why force first year students into a course which makes some of them bitter enough to write one page rants in their free time?
I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy and subjectivity of the English teachers across North America. Students are encouraged to be free thinkers and to write what they feel is true, while at the same time, nearly every honors level student in High School knows that good grades are generated by telling the teacher exactly what it wants to hear, which means regurgitating the prof?s lectures back to them. If a student writes a scalding critique of one of the teacher?s favorite books as an assignment, then that student will receive poor marks, nearly regardless of how well written that critique was. A prof will mask his or her subjectivity with arguments that the student made unfounded claims, or that the student had missed essential parts of the literature. Nobody gives a damn about what a person has to say on a subject until they can add five letters to their name: Dr. and Ph. D. A title which is given almost too liberally to literature majors.
A Science major must contribute genuinely new information, or scientifically valid theory to the world of science before they can be given their doctorate. A literature major rehashes what somebody more eloquent than themselves once wrote and claims that merely having an elevated understanding of how to bolster syntax or B.S. gives them the right to that esteemed title. Yet I don?t quite blame the system itself entirely. I also blame interpretive literature. Authors of the works that English majors analyze almost never, ever come out and tell people what they mean by their works. Instead they beat around the bush and pass the responsibility of deciphering their incomprehensible drivel to poor English students who often don?t give a damn that Coleridge?s opium addiction is particularly symbolic of the Romantic movement. The guy was a drug addict, the fact that he chose to write while stoned shouldn't make him any more significant than the guy on the corner who mumbles to himself.
To make English 101 a prerequisite for degrees in the sciences, business, engineering, and many other majors is absurd. Students are forced to pay to take classes that they would much rather not take, and has no bearing on their future carriers. To pay dozens of English Profs to lecture to students who memorize the material long enough to pass the exams, is a waste of student dollars and time. I, as an English student will not take anything from this class that was not taught to me in High School.
I propose a major restructuring of how language arts are taught. Instead of English 101, students should be required to take courses which will be beneficial to them in the pursuit of their particular fields. Science students should take courses on how to write stand up research reports and grant proposals, and read about scientific philosophy and ethics. Business majors should read books like the five rings, and interesting books about how to succeed in business, or the biography of Andrew Carnegie. I?m not even sure if Engineers should even have to take an English course.
The idea of the University which deliberately tries to put out a well rounded person is one which was never truly practiced and is an ideal which seems to be preserved only by the English department. Every other department sets students on a course of grater and grater specialization. This is a pragmatic course of action. It is not practical for a sedimentologist to also have an understanding of seventeenth century French poetry unless it is his hobby. Second year English courses are not even a requirement for Science students, so why force first year students into a course which makes some of them bitter enough to write one page rants in their free time?
Thursday, November 06, 2003
Midas Touch
Allan has on several occasions remarked that as a great super villain, one would plunge the world into insufficient lighting. This would not be a horible blight on humanity, this would merely be an inconvenience. Sure things would be a little more dangerous for some people but the general effect would be that it is merely annoying. My life for the last while seems to be characterized by this sort of long string of irritating inconvieniences. I suppose that it all started when I tried to move from Edmonton to Drumheller. I'm sure that if one wanted to hear about my agrivating fight with U-haul or my infuriating dealings with my various landlords and the canadian human resources dept and immegrations, the easiest way would be to comment and ask. The most recent string of vexations appears to revolve around my uncanny ability to cause things to break. As far back as I can remember, things spontaneously break when I touch them. Chalk it up to clumsyness if you will, but consider the following. When I was younger, getting onto my bike one day the welding that held the brake apparatus to the handle bars suddenly broke. This summer I had the distinct pleasure of being alowed to examine some of the fine fossils in the collections of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology. I was working specifically on Tyrranosaur skull material. One of the great fossils personally worked on by the famous Dr. Phillip Currie is the partial skull of Gorgosaurus Libratus. While puting the support jacket back on after taking photos (unfortunately without the label in the picture), the lacrymal (large bone in front of the eye) fell off. The base broke away cleanly merely under the force of gravity. In another instance I was working on the finest maxilla of the best and biggest Daspletosaurus torosus at the museum. Moments after taking a picure of the maxilla with the premaxilla in place in order to give an idea of the proper articulation between the two bones, the longest tooth (quite possibly the finest tooth I've ever seen on a non T. rex) fell off. Unlike the lacrymal that fell off, the base of the tooth turned to powder. I'm not quite sure that Jim Gardener won't kill me the next time I see him. On a day camp in which the children are allowed to dig at a moch dig site where there happens to be real amber, a child found a particularly large pice of cretaceous amber. I told him to give it to me to put into the vile that we kept amber in. The force of the stone hitting my hand from two inches above was enough to reduce it to dust.
Recently, i have noticed that the quality of TV reception decreases dramatically when I enter the room.
Recently, i have noticed that the quality of TV reception decreases dramatically when I enter the room.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)