Of course not, Frank, but evidently, many do. On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 2:46 PM Frank Wimberly <wimber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My daughter was admitted to the University of Chicago and the University > of Michigan and I never gave either university a gift. > > Frank > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 3:13 PM Merle Lefkoff <merlelefk...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Nick, >> >> I'm a Piketty fan, and he takes on this subject in "Capital" in a variety >> of different ways. For instance, Harvard, Princeton and Yale are so well >> endowed by alumni that they get a 6.2% return and they become what Piketty >> calls "rentiers", people and institutions able to support themselves >> through their capital income. The rentiers gifts get their kids in. And >> this is just one example of the absence of equal opportunity in our most >> prestigious universities. If we "allowed broader segments of the population >> to have access to (these institutions), this would surely be the most >> effective way of increasing wages at the low to medium end of the scale and >> decreasing the upper decile's share of both wages and total income." >> >> I was excited to find, also, Piketty's pairing of climate change and >> "improving educational access" as two of the most challenging issues facing >> humanity. The knowledge that will be needed in the next future is hard to >> imagine, but if we are to keep the peace as the systems continue to >> collapse, we need to get everyone ready to cope. >> >> >> >> >> Later in the book Piketty pairs climate change with the idea of improving >> educational access as two of the greatest “challenges” to the human race. >> Ameliorating schooling is even more important than fixing governmental >> debt: “the more urgent need is to increase our educational capital” (568) >> >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 1:23 PM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Eric, >>> >>> >>> >>> A Marxist would say, I think, although I have barely ever known one, >>> that every act of training is simultaneously an act of indoctrination and >>> class reproduction. If the declaration of independence is correct, what an >>> extraordinary coincidence it is that the children of wealthy well educated >>> people tend to be wealthy and well educated! Well, some would say that >>> that’s because ABILITY is inherited. But that precisely is racism, isn’t >>> it? >>> >>> >>> >>> So if, as our colleagues are starting to assert, technical proficiency >>> is an evanescent benefit, what precisely remains of a “good” education but >>> indoctrination in class values and the inheritance of class benefits? >>> This is NOT for me a rhetorical question, because I gave up on the >>> technical proficiency justification (except perhaps for writing) before I >>> even became a professor. So what WAS it I was conveying to my students >>> all those years, if not the indoctrination of class values and the >>> inheritance of class benefits? Inquiring Readers Want to Know! >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> Nicholas Thompson >>> >>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >>> >>> Clark University >>> >>> thompnicks...@gmail.com >>> >>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Eric Charles >>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 30, 2020 1:02 PM >>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >>> friam@redfish.com> >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] "certain codes of conduct" >>> >>> >>> >>> Come on Nick... outside new disciplines emerging, those who will change >>> a discipline over the next 20 years are typically well embedded within the >>> discipline now. That's kind of how cumulative knowledge construction works. >>> But... to emphasize it a bit more bluntly.... The primary purpose of >>> college isn't to reproduce the professoriate, or produce the next >>> generation of innovators within the professorate: It is to provide a >>> general set of skills (sometimes called the "hidden curriculum"), which >>> provides a baseline of things a person with a college degree can reasonably >>> be expected to be able to do. College is justified by the assertion that >>> you can't really get those skills outside of trying to do something >>> intellectual with some seriousness; what you are trying to be >>> intellectually serious about doesn't matter nearly so much, though >>> obviously some skills will be emphasized more in some areas. >>> >>> >>> >>> Most jobs most people want require "a college degree". They don't >>> require a college degree in anything in particular. That makes sense, IF >>> college degrees are reasonably well correlated with having some set of >>> skills most general employers value in most of their employees. It >>> generally helps to have employees who can read, write, and math at a >>> certain level, who can present things in standard forms orally, >>> graphically, and in writing. It generally helps to have employees who can >>> integrate ideas and come up with solutions, who can balance various >>> priorities, who can adapt to arbitrary requirements that a boss or company >>> might impose. It generally helps to have employees who can work >>> productively on team projects, as leaders or followers. Etc., etc. The less >>> college degrees reliably indicate those skills, the less valuable they are >>> (on average). >>> >>> >>> >>> There is a quirky college that revamped it's curriculum a few decades >>> ago to focus on "8 Abilities": Communication, Problem Solving, Social >>> Interaction, Effective Citizenship, Analysis, Valuing, Aesthetic >>> Engagement, and Developing a Global Perspective. It looks like they've gone >>> back a bit towards traditional majors, but still all classes, in all >>> majors, have to explicitly focus on developing at least one of those >>> abilities in the students. (https://www.alverno.edu/Undergraduate) >>> >>> >>> >>> Most colleges are not doing anything so dramatic, but many are still >>> making great strides in helping students figure out skills that >>> others arrive with, so they can at least start from a more even place. See >>> examples here: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/08/04/book-argues-mentoring-programs-should-try-unveil-colleges-hidden-curriculum >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> http://thehub.georgetown.domains/realhub/experience/mastering-the-hidden-curriculum-1-2/ >>> >>> >>> >>> https://college.lclark.edu/live/events/297173-the-hidden-curriculum >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 5:54 PM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, Eric, >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for laying this out. I think some of it’s wrong, but it’s clear >>> and provocative. I apologize to non-academics on the list for my focus on >>> academia. I suppose one might argue that the best thing that might happen >>> to Massachusetts is the dismemberment of Harvard and the distribution of >>> its buildings for housing and it’s endowment for income equalization. But >>> I don’t think so. Not yet, any way. >>> >>> >>> >>> To the extent that psychology and White Psychology and Rich psychology >>> and poor psychology are all the same, and if they all should be or will be >>> the same 20 years from now as they are now, your analysis makes sense. >>> But, while I would like to think that psychology is like physics in that >>> regard, I think I have to admit that it isn’t. So, teaching everybody who >>> comes to, say, the Harvard Psychology Department, the skills of >>> contemporary (mostly white) psychologists, precludes the learning not only >>> of what non-privileged psychologists know, given the drift of things >>> demographically and ideologically, it precludes the learning of what >>> Psychology will be in 20 years. >>> >>> >>> >>> I don’t know what the solution is. Every once in a while a student in >>> my evolution classes would remonstrate with me for not giving equal time to >>> biblical creation theories. I would say, in response, “Because everything >>> I know tells me that they are wrong. Furthermore, I cannot teach what I do >>> not know, and I don’t know those theories. I am not the person to be your >>> teacher if that is what you want to learn.” Now of course, that’s a pretty >>> lame response, but it has the marginal benefit of being honest. >>> >>> >>> >>> But what if we knew, for sure, that the country was going to be run by >>> Baptists in 20 years. Under those conditions, wouldn’t my best response >>> be, “I can’t; you’re right; I resign.” >>> >>> >>> >>> I am sure the metaphor is creepy in some way, but it’s the best I can >>> come up with. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> >>> >>> Nicholas Thompson >>> >>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >>> >>> Clark University >>> >>> thompnicks...@gmail.com >>> >>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Merle Lefkoff >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2020 3:02 PM >>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >>> friam@redfish.com> >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] "certain codes of conduct" >>> >>> >>> >>> Eric, thank you for your reply. Forgive me for suggesting a larger >>> systemic problem, connected for me to the problems in our democratic >>> system, our global economic system, and our international governance >>> system--and also ultimately related to the existential threat of the >>> collapse of the living systems that nurture our species. >>> >>> >>> >>> The democracy and Constitution our founders gave us at the end of the >>> 18th century has structural flaws we have tried to overcome. The global >>> economic system that the victors of WWII gave us at Bretton Woods in 1944 >>> has similar structural flaws that we have also tried (not very hard) to >>> overcome. The United Nations that emerged a year later in 1945 to convene >>> a new international order shares similar structural problems. There is a >>> pattern here. At its core is domination and exclusivity. >>> >>> >>> >>> The present hesitant shifts in the old narratives--and relationships-- >>> that created our major social, economic and political systems are the >>> result of gladiators and dragon-slayers finally targeting the positive >>> feedback loops that keep reinforcing historic institutional design errors. >>> >>> >>> >>> I'll stop here, because I'm even boring myself. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 9:49 PM Eric Charles < >>> eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Nick, the "ire" is perfectly fine. I didn't need to couch my statement >>> in that way, and doing so obviously opened me to Merle's response. >>> >>> >>> >>> Merle, >>> >>> I think the social criticism is generally valid, but as a critique of >>> college in particular it is feeds a general confusion about what college >>> should be about, which ultimately speeds the fall of the system it seeks to >>> reform. >>> >>> >>> >>> One of the obvious legitimate functions of college is indoctrination >>> into a profession. If you don't want to be indoctrinated into a profession >>> that college indoctrinates people into, then college probably isn't for >>> you. If you get out of college not-indoctrinated-into-a-profession, >>> something has gone wrong. For example, if you want to get a degree in >>> psychology, you need to learn to write in some reasonable semblance of APA >>> style. That includes its own horribly arbitrary set of grammar rules, >>> formatting and the like. It is screwed up, in some sense, but it isn't >>> imperialist oppression aimed at minorities. Arbitrary norms are found in >>> all professions, and conforming to them is part of being "professional". >>> Also, if you got a degree in psychology, without anyone forcing you to >>> learn how to approach problems, write reports, criticize articles, etc., in >>> the manner that professional psychologists tend to do those things, >>> something has gone wrong. If you want to think about psychology-related >>> stuff in the way you already think about those things, then don't go to >>> college. If you want to learn to think about them in the way the >>> professional community does, then college might make senes. (Note, I'm *not >>> *saying you have to *agree *with how the professional community does >>> things, just that you should be able to replicate, with some reasonable >>> accuracy, the standard professional approach.) Where you start from doesn't >>> really matter; though the curricula *should *be more adaptive to the >>> starting place of the various students, by the end you should be >>> professional indoctrinated, that's the whole point. >>> >>> >>> >>> In addition, college functions to indoctrinate people into a certain >>> part of society... or at least it used to. Because, traditionally, most >>> college graduates don't get work in exactly the thing they studied, this >>> "hidden curriculum" has often been more important than the obvious >>> curriculum. College graduates should be able to read, write, and math at a >>> certain level, generally think through problems at a certain level, be able >>> to present ideas to an audience in spoken or written form, be able to adapt >>> to arbitrary assignments with a certain level of comfort, be a team leader, >>> be a pro-active follower, etc. Here again, colleges *should *be more >>> adaptive to the starting place of the various students, but that doesn't >>> mean their end point should be abandoned. Here you see big differences >>> between colleges, based on what they are preparing you for. A college like >>> Swathmore or Bucknell is preparing you to be able to do those things for >>> different audiences than Oberlin or Penn State. If you are at a school that >>> is well designed to prepare you for something you don't want to be prepared >>> for... that's not imperialist oppression, that's your having made an >>> unfortunate choice of where to go. >>> >>> >>> >>> Frankly, most colleges currently suck at those two goals, and most other >>> functions you might want them to have. It is easy to find studies showing >>> that lots of people graduate college without high school level reading, >>> writing, and math abilities. It is also easy to find students who graduate >>> with almost no indoctrination into the field of study they were purportedly >>> pursuing. >>> >>> >>> >>> Under those conditions, it is not surprising that people view a college >>> degree as largely symbolic marker, required for entry into the job market >>> or some such nonsense. However, the solution shouldn't be to make college >>> degrees even less indicative of having attained particular skills. The less >>> a college degree indicates having a certain variety of skills, the less >>> value is provided to employers to select based on the presence of a degree, >>> and the less value it gives a college graduate to have a degree. Returning >>> to the indoctrination thing, we can see the (potential) flaw in the >>> criticism of the curriculum. It doesn't make a lot of sense to say, "I >>> really want a degree from Rutgers, because employers value degrees from >>> Rutgers, but I also think Rutgers should change its curriculum to not be so >>> strict in only letting people graduate if they actually have the skills >>> employers value." The value of the degree, particularly to a person trying >>> to get out of a bad situation, is entirely based on its reliably indicating >>> some set of skills, and the ability to write in a semi-formal manner is one >>> of those skills (to return to the more narrow original context). >>> >>> >>> >>> If you formed a solid college curriculum around mastering skills other >>> than those traditionally trained in college, that would be fine (and I >>> think that is what Nick is struggling to get at). And if those skills were >>> valued (economically, or merely for personal growth) then a degree from >>> that college would be a reliable indicator of that specific valuable >>> achievement. But that is very different than allowing students to get >>> through college with whatever skills they arrived with, just because you >>> are afraid that enforcing *any *strict requirements might make you an >>> imperialist monster. The former creates a marketplace for students to >>> choose from, while the latter just guarantees that college degrees continue >>> to become less and less valuable, particularly to the people who most seek >>> to benefit by getting them. >>> >>> >>> (Sorry, that ended up longer than intended.... but it's late... I don't >>> think I can get it tighter right now... and your question deserves a >>> reply.) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 11:21 PM Merle Lefkoff <merlelefk...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> And why, O Eric of a deep understanding, are you not a fan? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 8:17 PM Merle Lefkoff <merlelefk...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Clearly the implicit bias is that all of these reading requirements were >>> written by White men. In an attempt to redress this problem I have noticed >>> lately that the NY Times book review seems to be bending over backwards to >>> review books written by women of color. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:03 PM Frank Wimberly <wimber...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I'm trying to remember my freshman English class. Every other Friday we >>> had to submit a five hundred word essay on the class readings. On alternate >>> Fridays we had to write an in-class paragraph or two on those readings. >>> The readings included the following: >>> >>> >>> >>> Catcher in the Rye by Salinger >>> >>> Victory by Conrad >>> >>> The Republic by Plato >>> >>> All the King's Men by Warren >>> >>> Brave New World by Huxley >>> >>> >>> >>> Numerous essays on personal integrity by various authors. >>> >>> >>> >>> I don't see that any of those had to do with unconscious racism or >>> implicit bias unless the personal integrity essays did. I think I had to >>> read The Invisible Man by Ellison but that may have been in a later year in >>> a political science or US history class at Berkeley. >>> >>> >>> >>> All this was 54 years ago. >>> >>> >>> >>> Frank >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> Frank C. Wimberly >>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, >>> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >>> >>> 505 670-9918 >>> Santa Fe, NM >>> >>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. >>> Center for Emergent Diplomacy >>> emergentdiplomacy.org >>> >>> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA >>> >>> >>> mobile: (303) 859-5609 >>> skype: merle.lelfkoff2 >>> >>> twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. >>> Center for Emergent Diplomacy >>> emergentdiplomacy.org >>> >>> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA >>> >>> >>> mobile: (303) 859-5609 >>> skype: merle.lelfkoff2 >>> >>> twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff >>> >>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. >>> Center for Emergent Diplomacy >>> emergentdiplomacy.org >>> >>> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA >>> >>> >>> mobile: (303) 859-5609 >>> skype: merle.lelfkoff2 >>> >>> twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff >>> >>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> >> >> >> -- >> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. >> Center for Emergent Diplomacy >> emergentdiplomacy.org >> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA >> >> mobile: (303) 859-5609 >> skype: merle.lelfkoff2 >> twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > -- Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. Center for Emergent Diplomacy emergentdiplomacy.org Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA mobile: (303) 859-5609 skype: merle.lelfkoff2 twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
