He’s a political science Ph.D. you know…
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them,” – George Orwell.
“We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm,” – George Orwell.
Finding the right path between those two insights is our challenge. Always.
So says Mark Taylor in a New York Times op-ed.
Most graduate programs in American universities produce a product for which there is no market (candidates for teaching positions that do not exist) and develop skills for which there is diminishing demand (research in subfields within subfields and publication in journals read by no one other than a few like-minded colleagues), all at a rapidly rising cost (sometimes well over $100,000 in student loans).
His piece questions the efficacy of graduate education, but many of his prescriptions could also be applied to undergraduate programs. The gist of his concerns is that we’ve tilted so far in our graduate training toward academic specialization that our product has become idiosyncratic, unrewarding, and irrelevant to the larger society. This graduate training spills over to undergraduate teaching by reproducing a structure that keeps academic work in departmental silos. Here are a few of his suggestions for transforming the university:
Restructure the curriculum, beginning with graduate programs and proceeding as quickly as possible to undergraduate programs. The division-of-labor model of separate departments is obsolete and must be replaced with a curriculum structured like a web or complex adaptive network.
I personally love the use of the complex adaptive network metaphor. Some of my students are working on a project where they would gather our faculty’s research interests, code them and conduct a cluster or network analysis to determine cross-disciplinary commonalities. From there you could create learning communities of faculty and students that could then be linked to similar clusters around the world.
This complex adaptive system approach to developing a curriculum seems to be where our students live. I’ve had 2-3 students inquire about getting a Ph.D. and they all are drawn to interdisciplinary programs. Knowing what I know about the biases in academia, I’ve tried to encourage them to go for more traditional disciplinary-based programs so that they have more flexibility on the academic job market, but to little effect.
I submit that our challenge is that Web 2.0 has stripped from the academy it’s monopoly on knowledge. Young people’s unfettered access to information (of both dubious and stellar quality) places greater demands on the university as an institution to be as flexible as Google in how we organize knowledge and information. When an institution comes to a student with a major checklist or an undergraduate curriculum checklist, an increasingly common response is to see it as an arbitrary set of hoops to jump rather than a carefully considered set of courses. In other words, it looks like Yahoo circa 1996 (i.e. knowledge organized in pre-selected categories).
.
Instead, our students expect the academy to have the same customizability, flexibility, and functionality of the Web searches they do everyday.
Which leads me to Taylor’s second prescription:
Abolish permanent departments, even for undergraduate education, and create problem-focused programs. These constantly evolving programs would have sunset clauses, and every seven years each one should be evaluated and either abolished, continued or significantly changed.
I’m inclined to agree with Michael Berube on this one — we should be careful not to conflate department with discipline. People can still operate within the structure of a department and pursue an interdisciplinary agenda (like a political scientist blog hosted by a Sociology association). I think completely untethering academics from disciplinary moorings is probably a bit too extreme and unnecessary in my view. There are some real benefits to being rooted in a “discipline.” You could accomplish Taylor’s goal by increasing the number of joint appointments or developing “programs” or “emphases” that get at the same objectives. Besides, if we abolished departments, what type of evaluation/peer review process would replace it?
Despite these reservations, I think the academy does require a serious rethink in no small part because the nature of idea dissemination has changed so radically. The larger question might be whether we should try to respond in kind or should we take William F. Buckley’s advice for budding conservatives and “stand athwart history yelling stop”!
I’d be curious to hear what others think.
Notes from north of 49ºN
While the Vancouver Canucks advance in their bid for the Stanley Cup, the British Columbia provincial election is heating up, as the NDP has pulled within 2 points (39/41 +/- 3.4) of the not-so-liberal BC Liberal Party. The Green Party is running a distant third at 13%.
One of the big election issues is the Carbon Tax, which is a tax on pollution. It puts a price on the social costs of environmental degradation {negative externalities}. The carbon tax was initiated last year in BC, which should give Obama insights into his plans to address carbon reduction. {Obama’s already talking of a nationwide “cap and trade” policy.}
BC Carbon Tax & The Economic Sociology of the Environment
The BC carbon tax claims to be revenue neutral, meaning it returns the tax in the form of lower personal and corporate income tax. The tax shuffles funds around in the following manner where one-third of the carbon tax revenues are paid by individuals and two-thirds by industry, while two-thirds of the tax reductions benefit individuals and one-third benefit business. A fairness issue arises, as some businesses can pass the tax along to consumers, depending on the elasticity of demand. The carbon tax is initially (effective 7/1/08) $10 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions (2.41¢ per litre on gasoline), but will increase each year after until 2012 to a final price of $30 per tonne (7.2¢ per litre). For US readers, this is currently 7.68¢ US per gallon of gasoline and will go up to 22.9¢ in 2012 (4/30/2009 exchange rate).
One of the issues brought up is that while the BC Liberal Party is imposing a tax on pollution, it’s allowing the export of carbon-producing fuels to leave the province untaxed. In addition, the government is allowing offshore drilling for oil as part of their energy policy. This is opening up the BC Liberals to charges of hypocrisy.
So, in the past 10 months, what has been the effect? I think it’s impossible to gauge the results, given that gasoline prices have gone down and the BC economy is in a recession, although with lower unemployment than Washington, Oregon, and California. I have to admit I am skeptical that the BC Liberal’s carbon tax policy will actually reduce carbon emissions. Why? This Canadian Dimension editorial introduces a paradox::
“By way of comparison, the average retail price of gas in Canada, adjusted for inflation, has risen forty percent in the past five years. The increase is the equivalent of $120 per tonne of emissions — four times as much as the maximum tax proposed in B.C.
But consumption did not decline. In fact, during the same period both gasoline sales and greenhouse-gas emissions rose to record levels…
In short, the B.C. carbon tax is regressive, shifting ever more of the province’s tax burden onto working people, while reducing taxes on corporations. It will do nothing to cut emissions or slow global warming.”–“B.C.’s Carbon Tax: A Regressive Hoax” from Canadian Dimension (4/30/2008)
How can this be? Are the economists that off-base?
As an economic sociologist, with a BA in the dismal science, I know at least some of the answers. Increasing prices through a Pigouvian tax without consumption/production alternatives offers no incentives to alter behaviour away from carbon emitting activities.
A Northwestern sociologist, Monica Prasad, offered this interesting observation::
“The one country in which carbon taxes have led to a large decrease in emissions is Denmark, whose per capita carbon dioxide emissions were nearly 15 percent lower in 2005 than in 1990. And Denmark accomplished this while posting a remarkably strong economic record and without relying on nuclear power.”
—“On Carbon, Tax and Don’t Spend,” NYT (3/25/08)
How did Denmark do it? According to Prasad, Danish policymakers subsidized environmental innovation by businesses and investing heavily in alternatives. The idea here is to give incentives to move consumers and businesses away from carbon emission generating technologies towards renewable ones. As a sociologist, I’m wary of talk of “pricing” carbon, as it attempts to reduce natural capital (i.e., the environment) with financial capital and the assignment of property rights, politicizing economic activity along the lines of power and wealth. I’d much rather see policy aimed at moving towards a different technological curve, away from carbon, along with an increase in investments in public infrastructure (e.g., mass transit in cities/suburbs) that offers alternatives to carbon-heavy practices.
The Politics of Carbon: “Axe the Tax”
Carole James, leader of the NDP, has been advocating dumping the carbon tax in favour of a “cap and trade” approach, the direction Obama is leaning towards. The NDP “axe the tax” stance was costing them politically, despite the tax being unpopular, as environmental groups criticized the move. In this election, there are 85 seats up for grabs. While the Green Party may siphon off votes from the NDP, it is very unlikely that a single seat will go to the Greens. Given the overall BC Liberal Party stance on the environment, environmentalists may have a tough choice on May 12. The carbon tax may fade away as a key issue, as the economy and issues of ethics and integrity might come front and center, but perhaps the economy and the environment will become an intertwined issue.
I’d like to see policies in BC and elsewhere move towards weaning citizens away from carbon. A recent Wired Magazine article goes over many of the issues involved in green technologies, including who will pay for the costs of innovation. I think the BC Liberal carbon tax isn’t the best policy, as I don’t see it reducing carbon emissions and is mute on carbon-emitting fuels being exported and untaxed. Whichever party wins, I see the BC government as playing a key role in spurring behavior changes through investments and incentives, but who will foot the bill, particularly given a tight budget?
last one today…I promise. Don’t unsubscribe 🙂
What Americans say the need (from Pew via Felix Salmon)
88% need a car? Take that New Urbanists! What’s more telling about this poll is the decline across the board in the number of people who report “needing things.” Although, C’mon only 8% of you say you need your Flat Screen TV’s! Only 4% need Ipods! Where are our priorities!
From Chris Orr at TNR’s The Plank
Scientific proof that it is no longer possible to satirize the GOP:
This study investigated biased message processing of political satire in The Colbert Report and the influence of political ideology on perceptions of Stephen Colbert. Results indicate that political ideology influences biased processing of ambiguous political messages and source in late-night comedy. Using data from an experiment (N = 332), we found that individual-level political ideology significantly predicted perceptions of Colbert’s political ideology. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements.
So when I’m pretending to be Pat Buchanan or Noam Chomsky in class to get a response from students, the ideological ones think I’m serious?
Racial musings from Byron York at the Washington Examiner
Byron York:
Obama’s sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are.
Go read the article…it’s a laundry list of policy areas where Blacks think Obama is doing a better job than do Whites. Ergo, Blacks support Obama’s policies because of some unreflective groupthink that reasoned, critically minded White people do not suffer from (sheesh)! What is it about this issue that makes otherwise reasonable conservatives like Byron York get a case of the knuckleheads? Do we have to repeat the same statistics over and over again. African-Americans are overwhelmingly LIBERAL DEMOCRATS! The decidedly un-black John Kerry got over 90% of the Black vote in 2004? Let’s reword York passage from above:
Byron York:
John Kerry’s sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are.
or, let’s try this one:
Byron York:
Ronald Reagan’s sky-high ratings among White people make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are.
Seriously, is there even any evidence that there’s a policy incongruence between Obama and the vast majority of the African American electorate?
The US Supreme court just ruled on a case {5-4}, upholding the FCC citing of the network for violating decency rules. The incidents stemmed from live broadcasts and involved Cher and Nicole Ritchie blurting out expletives during Billboard Music Awards in the early 200s. Here’s the Cher “incident,” where she’s receiving an award and responding to her critics. Nicole Ritchie’s transgressions involved banter with then-BFF Paris Hilton::
“Paris Hilton: Now Nicole, remember, this is a live show, watch the bad language.
Nicole Richie: Okay, God.
Paris Hilton: It feels so good to be standing here tonight.
Nicole Richie: Yeah, instead of standing in mud and . Why do they even call it “The Simple Life?” Have you ever tried to get cow shit out of a Prada purse? It’s not so fucking simple.”
–“FCC v. Fox Television Stations,” Bill Long
Those really interested can view the oral arguments in Fox Television v. FCC in the 3rd. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under the George W. Bush administration, the FCC made it a point to uphold decency rules. Some critics argued that the FCC wasn’t applying standards uniformly. Broadcast TV airings of Saving Private Ryan, full of “f-bombs” managed to make it through without scrutiny. The FCC has been a target for years on the topic of censorship and their “oversight” on the public airwaves. Comedian, George Carlin, made a name for himself with his “7 Words” schtick that’s a commentary on the FCC.
The Power of the Word in the Age of YouTube
In this case, Justice Scalia stated, “Even when used as an expletive, the F-word’s power to insult and offend derives from its sexual meaning.” On the dissenting side, Justice Stevens countered with, “The FCC’s shifting and impermissibly vague indecency policy only imperils these broadcasters and muddles the regulatory landscape.” Stevens noted with more than a bit of irony that the FCC polices for words with loose, at best, associations with sex and excrement, but has no issue with commercials for erectile dysfunction or going to the bathroom.
Bill Long makes a valid point, in my opinion, by bringing up the Internet and YouTube. Indecent content abounds online, with easy access and largely unfettered by regulatory bodies. What is the point of the FCC upholding decency standards? What exactly are they? Apparently, you cannot say expletives, but you can sell all the sexual innuendo sex you want::
Warning:: content may be offensive & idiotic
I’ve been up in Canada all week, a land far more lenient than the US in terms of content restriction. The FCC equivalent, the CRTC, tends to only intervene in serious or controversial matters. So, in Canada, you can drop an F-bomb, but not between 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM. So, when the Trailer Park Boys comes on at 6:00PM, it’s bleeped, but not at midnight. Those unfamiliar with the TBP…enjoy. This one goes out to Justice Scalia::
Warning:: content may be offensive & idiotic, but funny.
I could spend a few paragraphs detailing my view on Arlen Specter’s party-switch bombshell today, but Nate Silver summarizes it perfectly in one pithy sentence:
Why should the Democrats settle for a Liberdem when they can probably get Pennsylvanians to elect a mainline Democrat along the lines of Bob Casey?
Seems the Dems are calculating that Arlen Specter as an independent (which would probably have been plan B) is too formidable an opponent in their efforts to flip the seat, so if ya’ can’t beat ’em….
But as Glenn Greenwald aptly points out:
(1) The idea that Specter is a “liberal” Republican or even a “moderate” reflects how far to the Right both the GOP and our overall political spectrum has shifted.
Consider Specter’s most significant votes over the last eight years, ones cast in favor of such definitive right-wing measures as: the war on Iraq, the Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act renewal, confirmation of virtually every controversial Bush appointee, retroactive telecom immunity, warrantless eavesdropping expansions, and Bush tax cuts (several times). Time and again during the Bush era, Specter stood with Republicans on the most controversial and consequential issues.
Edit: As rkatclu (one of our frequent commenters) points out, The Corner at National Review has a different take:
RE: Arlen Specter [Mark Hemingway]
I read that he was switching parties, but I was disappointed to learn he’s still a Democrat.
With the GOP in freefall is this the right time for the Dems to be playing defense?
I’m ready to risk some potential embarrassment and admit my ignorance outright: I don’t understand the word “meme” — at all. I have seen the word used quite frequently (including by some TC contributors) and have read several definitions. But I just don’t get it. My hope is that some of our more erudite readers and contributors can explain it to me.
Here’s what I’ve been able to pick up so far:
-It is a widely repeated or imitated cultural idea, image, or practice.
-It supposedly acts in a manner similar to a gene, in the sense that through vast repetitions, more environmentally “fit” versions of the meme gain greater sticking power.
-With reference to the Internet, it often just means “fad.”
Some questions I have:
-Aren’t we just talking about the social reproduction of culture here — something that happens in everyday socialization?
-What is the unit of a “meme?” How does one delineate the parameters of a “meme” within a sea of culture?
-What on earth would make us think that culture is evolutionary, rather than just constantly changing without particular order?
-Isn’t the word “meme” just an attempt to make discussions of culture sound more sciencey?
Death is common to us all; torture is a choice,” – Maggie Gallagher.
