By the way, my friend has some new postings up on her blog. She works for the government. Hilarity ensures.
La Fugitive blog
Friday, September 29, 2006
100% Perfection
Several people have mentioned recently the fact that NCLB mandates that by 2014, 100% of students score at grade level or above on their reading, math, and science tests. I seem to have lost track of the liberal argument. At the (terminally boring) American Educational Research Association (AERA) conference in May, I attended a workshop which pitted Richard Rothstein against Fredrick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, a free-market conservative think tank in Washington.
Considered by many to be a "great" scholar in our field, Rothstein made an argument that reminded me of one of the last scenes in Schindler's List, where Schindler looks at his ring and says something to the effect of, "I could have saved one more person with this ring." It's a beautiful scene, one that makes you cry at how a hard-driving businessman has become more human at a time when many were becoming less so. Rothstein essentially stated that the problem with charter schools is that while some students will succeed because of innovative teaching practices and market-driven schools looking at their bottom line, some will fail. The question is, how many is acceptable? This is the question Rothstein posed to the audience with the same sort of fatalism as Schindler - the answer he thought to be acceptable is of course, none. So, 100% of our students must be succeeding in schools. And morally, it is unacceptable that we let children fall "through the cracks," or perhaps more aptly, below the bottom line.
However, unlike Schindler's List, lives are not at stake here. And as morally reprehensible or distasteful as it may be to say this, some children, people, students will not make it. Unless we have a comprehensive social welfare system, some people, for whatever reason, will not succeed in life. This is not ideal. No one wants it to be this way. But even in France, with a comprehensive social welfare system, there are street people. I don't know how or if it's possible to create a society which doesn't let people fall though the cracks completely. Maybe lives are at stake, I don't know. But there's a difference between saving someone's life from a racist, fascist death camp and not being able to get a child to read on grade level, Rothstein fatalism aside.
HOWEVER. 100% is what NCLB regulates. This blog entry on The Education Wonks makes the argument that this stipulation de-professionalizes teaching, because no one expects a doctor to be able to cure all of his patients or a lawyer to win all of his cases. Sometimes the more difficult the patient or case, the better skilled the doctor or lawyer is, but also the more likely it is he will fail. (Orshe. Got it. I know, I hate my own gender. Can we just accept that I'm using "he" as a gender neutral pronoun?)
If we're asking that 100% of students score at grade level or above on assessments, then what happens to students with learning disabilities, mentally handicapped students, and the like? Are they excluded from the 100%? (I'm reminded of President Clinton - "It depends on what the meaning of is is.") It depends on the meaning of what 100% is. Does 100% refer only to children who pass the grade prior to the grade where tests are taken? Sometimes holding children back a grade (especially in kindergarten and 1st grade, it seems) can be beneficial. Some children, because of a September birthday, are younger than their grade by almost a year. But can we hold students back merely because they might not be able to help schools make the 100% mark? I wonder if we won't just alter the tests so that 100% of students can pass them.
I agree that we should set high standards, and I agree that schools (and liberals) sometimes fall into the "soft bigotry of low expectations," to quote (gasp!) President Bush. The discussion at the Cato Institute about teacher quality and school choice reminded me of this, because the "liberal" argued that socioeconomically, racially, ethnically, whatever-ly disadvantaged families won't choose as well as advantaged families for their schools. I think the rapid exodus of DC families from public schools proves this wrong. I mean, it doesn't take a college degree to want to get your kid out of a school where the roof leaks and the teacher's lesson plans are yellowed.
I want to look into this a little more. Along with the 15 papers and 400 pages I have to read. But it's all for you, dear reader!
I know I'm a bit all over the place with this entry. I'm trying to piece my thoughts together. I hate to see a child fall through the cracks. And yet I hate the liberal idea that "everyone should just be who they are and express themselves and we should boost their self esteem and say yay you're all honors students." Because not everyone is an honors student. Not everyone should be an honors student. It's almost as if by making this "let's boost everyone's self esteem" argument, we're saying that if you're not an honors student (or a doctor, or a professional who makes $100,000 a year), your value as a person is less. I wish we could find a way to value everyone's worth as a person without everyone needing to be college-educated and reading above grade level. For some, it is simply not possible.
Considered by many to be a "great" scholar in our field, Rothstein made an argument that reminded me of one of the last scenes in Schindler's List, where Schindler looks at his ring and says something to the effect of, "I could have saved one more person with this ring." It's a beautiful scene, one that makes you cry at how a hard-driving businessman has become more human at a time when many were becoming less so. Rothstein essentially stated that the problem with charter schools is that while some students will succeed because of innovative teaching practices and market-driven schools looking at their bottom line, some will fail. The question is, how many is acceptable? This is the question Rothstein posed to the audience with the same sort of fatalism as Schindler - the answer he thought to be acceptable is of course, none. So, 100% of our students must be succeeding in schools. And morally, it is unacceptable that we let children fall "through the cracks," or perhaps more aptly, below the bottom line.
However, unlike Schindler's List, lives are not at stake here. And as morally reprehensible or distasteful as it may be to say this, some children, people, students will not make it. Unless we have a comprehensive social welfare system, some people, for whatever reason, will not succeed in life. This is not ideal. No one wants it to be this way. But even in France, with a comprehensive social welfare system, there are street people. I don't know how or if it's possible to create a society which doesn't let people fall though the cracks completely. Maybe lives are at stake, I don't know. But there's a difference between saving someone's life from a racist, fascist death camp and not being able to get a child to read on grade level, Rothstein fatalism aside.
HOWEVER. 100% is what NCLB regulates. This blog entry on The Education Wonks makes the argument that this stipulation de-professionalizes teaching, because no one expects a doctor to be able to cure all of his patients or a lawyer to win all of his cases. Sometimes the more difficult the patient or case, the better skilled the doctor or lawyer is, but also the more likely it is he will fail. (Orshe. Got it. I know, I hate my own gender. Can we just accept that I'm using "he" as a gender neutral pronoun?)
If we're asking that 100% of students score at grade level or above on assessments, then what happens to students with learning disabilities, mentally handicapped students, and the like? Are they excluded from the 100%? (I'm reminded of President Clinton - "It depends on what the meaning of is is.") It depends on the meaning of what 100% is. Does 100% refer only to children who pass the grade prior to the grade where tests are taken? Sometimes holding children back a grade (especially in kindergarten and 1st grade, it seems) can be beneficial. Some children, because of a September birthday, are younger than their grade by almost a year. But can we hold students back merely because they might not be able to help schools make the 100% mark? I wonder if we won't just alter the tests so that 100% of students can pass them.
I agree that we should set high standards, and I agree that schools (and liberals) sometimes fall into the "soft bigotry of low expectations," to quote (gasp!) President Bush. The discussion at the Cato Institute about teacher quality and school choice reminded me of this, because the "liberal" argued that socioeconomically, racially, ethnically, whatever-ly disadvantaged families won't choose as well as advantaged families for their schools. I think the rapid exodus of DC families from public schools proves this wrong. I mean, it doesn't take a college degree to want to get your kid out of a school where the roof leaks and the teacher's lesson plans are yellowed.
I want to look into this a little more. Along with the 15 papers and 400 pages I have to read. But it's all for you, dear reader!
I know I'm a bit all over the place with this entry. I'm trying to piece my thoughts together. I hate to see a child fall through the cracks. And yet I hate the liberal idea that "everyone should just be who they are and express themselves and we should boost their self esteem and say yay you're all honors students." Because not everyone is an honors student. Not everyone should be an honors student. It's almost as if by making this "let's boost everyone's self esteem" argument, we're saying that if you're not an honors student (or a doctor, or a professional who makes $100,000 a year), your value as a person is less. I wish we could find a way to value everyone's worth as a person without everyone needing to be college-educated and reading above grade level. For some, it is simply not possible.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
No God Left Behind!!!
Yes! Finally. Although really, this seems more like an Onion article than anything else. Conservatives are really up in arms about this plan to test college students to see if they're learning. It seems to be the culmination of the "Declining by Degrees" phenomenon, which I believe is an attempt to make American think of colleges the way they thought of public schools after 1983's A Nation at Risk. Maybe they don't like liberal professors? They stand to hurt our colleges though, by driving away lucrative foreign students. And don't yell at me about how foreign students should be thought of as more than just money makers. I'm telling you what many college fundraisers are thinking, not what should be.
Liberals, no doubt, will be angry too, but for completely different reasons. I generally think that a "this costs too much money and we don't need it" works better than, "We shouldn't pressure underprepared college students into selecting a career path or major too soon," as one of my colleagues was just arguing. I don't know, I think that liberals overplay the "oh, poor underprivileged, unprepared student" hand. I think we need to give people more credit. This also comes under why I am starting to think more about school choice as an option. But more on that later.
Ok, so to sum up... here's what you should check out.
"No God Left Behind - Why Not?" (Durden, W. Inside Higher Ed. September 21, 2006.)
"Ivory Tower Overhaul: How to Fix American Higher Ed." Policy Forum. (Cato Institute. September 27, 2006.)
Liberals, no doubt, will be angry too, but for completely different reasons. I generally think that a "this costs too much money and we don't need it" works better than, "We shouldn't pressure underprepared college students into selecting a career path or major too soon," as one of my colleagues was just arguing. I don't know, I think that liberals overplay the "oh, poor underprivileged, unprepared student" hand. I think we need to give people more credit. This also comes under why I am starting to think more about school choice as an option. But more on that later.
Ok, so to sum up... here's what you should check out.
"No God Left Behind - Why Not?" (Durden, W. Inside Higher Ed. September 21, 2006.)
"Ivory Tower Overhaul: How to Fix American Higher Ed." Policy Forum. (Cato Institute. September 27, 2006.)
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
On the blog again...
I know, my last post was about 5 minutes ago. And now I have that Willie Nelson song in my head, but as it was played in the "NORML" public service announcement everyone used to play on WUTS, the Sewanee radio station. I had a show entirely of French music. It was cool. Anyway, totally off topic....
Conservatives are disagreeing with each other about a national curriculum and national test. Some, like William Bennett and Rod Paige have come out for both, while Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute is totally against. Basically, conservatives can't decide if now that they have power over, oh, everything, if they should use the power or if they should stick to their principles and root for small government - even if it means they can't give all their buddies jobs. I think it's easy to see how and why they no longer want "small government" and less spending.
Read the articles and see what you think. Personally, I like the idea of a national curriculum. Shakespeare for everyone! Algebra and geometry for everyone! French for everyone! Grammar for everyone! Latin for everyone! Wow, the fun I could have making up a national curriculum. Little tykes everywhere memorizing Latin poetry. It's a beautiful thing.
"They're All Federal Educators Now." (McCluskey, N. National Review Online. September 25th, 2006).
"Why We Need a National School Test." (Bennett, W. J. and Rod Paige. The Washington Post. September 21st, 2006. Page A25.)
Conservatives are disagreeing with each other about a national curriculum and national test. Some, like William Bennett and Rod Paige have come out for both, while Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute is totally against. Basically, conservatives can't decide if now that they have power over, oh, everything, if they should use the power or if they should stick to their principles and root for small government - even if it means they can't give all their buddies jobs. I think it's easy to see how and why they no longer want "small government" and less spending.
Read the articles and see what you think. Personally, I like the idea of a national curriculum. Shakespeare for everyone! Algebra and geometry for everyone! French for everyone! Grammar for everyone! Latin for everyone! Wow, the fun I could have making up a national curriculum. Little tykes everywhere memorizing Latin poetry. It's a beautiful thing.
"They're All Federal Educators Now." (McCluskey, N. National Review Online. September 25th, 2006).
"Why We Need a National School Test." (Bennett, W. J. and Rod Paige. The Washington Post. September 21st, 2006. Page A25.)
News Roundup
Normally, I would never read USA Today. At college we called it the "picture pages" and ignored it as it sat in our dining hall begging to be read. Be that as it may, while picking up my free copy of the New York Times (thanks, College Readership Program!) I grabbed the USA Today when I saw the headline "College overhaul called 'overdue.'"
My first whiff of this particular story came from the Cato Institute. I went there on Monday for a discussion on teacher quality (the Cato conclusion being, free market education will solve the problem. How predictable. Although school choice is sounding better and better to me... I'll have to write about that at another juncture.) Anyway, they hate Spellings plan to create a "national database to track how well students learn" because of the huge federal involvement in education it will create. Think billions of dollars... to survey a system that has often been called the "crown jewel" of American education and attracts thousands (more?) students from all around the world.
It's funny how Democrats and "Liberal" (as in "free market") Republicans are beginning to see eye-to-eye on things. Like how I believe things like gay marriage (and maybe abortion?) should be left to the states - wasn't that the Republican mantra of yore? States rights? Sometimes I don't know whether Democrats have come to these conclusions via reasoned, thoughtful avenues or if it's just knee-jerk reactions to Republican positions. Anyway.
Well, Barak Obama is on campus today campaigning for Ben Cardin. Wish I could go!
My first whiff of this particular story came from the Cato Institute. I went there on Monday for a discussion on teacher quality (the Cato conclusion being, free market education will solve the problem. How predictable. Although school choice is sounding better and better to me... I'll have to write about that at another juncture.) Anyway, they hate Spellings plan to create a "national database to track how well students learn" because of the huge federal involvement in education it will create. Think billions of dollars... to survey a system that has often been called the "crown jewel" of American education and attracts thousands (more?) students from all around the world.
It's funny how Democrats and "Liberal" (as in "free market") Republicans are beginning to see eye-to-eye on things. Like how I believe things like gay marriage (and maybe abortion?) should be left to the states - wasn't that the Republican mantra of yore? States rights? Sometimes I don't know whether Democrats have come to these conclusions via reasoned, thoughtful avenues or if it's just knee-jerk reactions to Republican positions. Anyway.
Well, Barak Obama is on campus today campaigning for Ben Cardin. Wish I could go!
Monday, September 25, 2006
Blogging made easy?
You know what I want? I want blogging to be easier. I want, when I'm reading a blog post, to be able to click on something that will automatically go to my blog, make a link to that post, and then write something about it. For example, I saw some sort of blog entry on a bilingual education blog that began with "Did you know that in most other countries outside of the United States, a second language is compulsory at the elementary level?" and I wanted to comment, um, get a new argument, because no one cares about that one. Did you all see what happened when the Supreme Court cited international examples in deciding the case about minor executions? (or was it mentally handicapped people executions? I don't remember.) In any case, no one cares what the heck (I would be more vulgar, you know me, but this is public space. Restraint.) they do in other countries, so find a new argument.
Well, I can't blog, eat, and fight off my cat from my dinner anymore. So someone make blogging easier. Please.
Well, I can't blog, eat, and fight off my cat from my dinner anymore. So someone make blogging easier. Please.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Teacher Preparation called less than ideal
This article will create a firestorm in my school, I'm sure. He came out with an article regarding the dearth of good programs for school principals and superintendents, and someone sent a link to in on our listserv. Suffice to say that certain people (the same ones who get up in arms anytime you suggest tolerance) attacked him ruthlessly, and then insulted him for being white and male and heterosexual.
I haven't read the whole report (it's quite long, but I am going to try), but the article gives a synopsis and introduction to the criticism. I like that at one point the NCATE president said,
Anyway, like I said, I haven't read the whole report. Some of the criticisms expressed in the article about his methodology seem a bpicayuneyne. I think that if they want to say how great teacher schools are, then go out and do a study yourselves. Don't complain and criticize without something to back it up - that's what a lot of the dummies in my program do. Knee-jerk, knee-jerk.
"Prominent Teacher-Educator Assails Teacher Assails Field, Suggests New Accrediting Body in Report" (Honawar, V. Education Week. September 20th, 2006.)
I haven't read the whole report (it's quite long, but I am going to try), but the article gives a synopsis and introduction to the criticism. I like that at one point the NCATE president said,
“We might all wish that elite institutions would produce a more significant share of America’s teachers, but given the current economics of higher education and the teaching profession, that has never occurred in the past, nor does it appear likely to happen any time in the foreseeable future,”but Levine actually cited as one his top schools Alverno College Milwaukeekee, and two state schools, Emporia State University in Kansas, the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. Um, not exactly all "elite." I mean, maybe a little more elite than Valencia Community College, but it's not as if they're all Ivys. Alverno accepts students who generally are not well prepared and then turns them into good teachers, according to Levine. Not an impossible task, I would think. I content that sometimes "ill prepared" students, or those with learning disabilities, can make great teachers because they understand what it's like to struggle in school. My cousin struggled with reading, and now she's a reading teacher - who better to help children with difficulties learn that someone who has been there herself? (I'm very proud of my cousin, by the way. I think she rocks.)
Anyway, like I said, I haven't read the whole report. Some of the criticisms expressed in the article about his methodology seem a bpicayuneyne. I think that if they want to say how great teacher schools are, then go out and do a study yourselves. Don't complain and criticize without something to back it up - that's what a lot of the dummies in my program do. Knee-jerk, knee-jerk.
"Prominent Teacher-Educator Assails Teacher Assails Field, Suggests New Accrediting Body in Report" (Honawar, V. Education Week. September 20th, 2006.)
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Bloglines!!!
A new way to keep up with your favorite blogs (like Symbol and Substance!!!)
Click on bloglines.com and log in - you can get a feed of all your favorite blogs and read them in one place. It's awesome if you like to read several blogs and are sooo pressed for time like a busy grad student. (Kidding. I realize many of you are MUCH busier than I.)
In any case, it's really worth a look, especially since you can subscribe to my blog! You won't get my lovely columns pic I worked so hard on, but you can see what I'm up to. As well as many other fun blogs... basically, if it's a blog, you can subscribe to it.
Click on bloglines.com and log in - you can get a feed of all your favorite blogs and read them in one place. It's awesome if you like to read several blogs and are sooo pressed for time like a busy grad student. (Kidding. I realize many of you are MUCH busier than I.)
In any case, it's really worth a look, especially since you can subscribe to my blog! You won't get my lovely columns pic I worked so hard on, but you can see what I'm up to. As well as many other fun blogs... basically, if it's a blog, you can subscribe to it.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Blogologizing
Every time I post now, I feel guilty for not posting more often. And I can say that it's not getting any better. Arg. In any case, I'm still here - just back from Martha's Vineyard at a wedding that cost in the range of half a million to throw... it was spectacular. And fun. And all I did was eat. The drinking wasn't even what make me feel yucky by the end, it was all the lobster I ate. Imagine - too much lobster. What a world I live in. In any case, lobster. Yum. By the end I was popping a lot of Alka-Seltzer. And I think I gained about 8 pounds. But it was lovely. When various other guests email out pictures, I will post some! How about that? I think there were lots of me laughing and eating. And a few drinking (I had my own personal bartender at one point). And some kissing my boyfriend. All highly recommendable pastimes.
In any case, one of these days I'll get back into writing about education. But after a very romantic wedding in Martha's Vineyard, who wants to think about human capital?
In any case, one of these days I'll get back into writing about education. But after a very romantic wedding in Martha's Vineyard, who wants to think about human capital?
Tuesday, September 5, 2006
More and More
Please don't start thinking I take only an un-nuanced, flag-waving view of America. I never knew what everyone was talking about when they said that once you left your country for a foreign one, you appreciated America so much more. I appreciated certain things about America - actual diversity, a respect for forming a line, professors who don't assign you books that are out of print, bookstores where you can actually buy your textbooks (no hunting in 15 different bookstores around the city), over the counter acne medication, etc. Weird what you appreciate, isn't it? Maybe if I had been in Mali or Vietnam I would have thought about it differently. There are fewer amenities there. But France was great.
One thing I hate about America is how easy it is to be fat. Our gluttonous attitude of "more is more" makes us eat more, buy more, use more, throw away more. I'm in a constant war with myself over "I NEEEEED this!" and "Don't be a conspicuous consumer! It all eventually goes to the trash anyway!" I was buying some items in the drugstore today and really attempted to limit myself to the smaller package of what I needed - it's difficult, because in America we're taught that more is less expensive. It probably is, but then we have so much crap lying around. Don't get me wrong, I love Costco (great olive oil!), but do I really need 14 razor heads for my razor? Or 2 gallons of mayonnaise?
This slide show in Forbes online illustrates the point quite nicely. Look how expensive it is to eat healthily! I was relieved to see that the average single American spends $54.44 a week on food - I thought this was crazy, but apparently I'm relatively normal. I aim for more in the $30 range, but you can only eat so many pounds of rice and beans. Life of a grad student. In any case, these diets are pricey. Now, the slide show says that the cost is based on New York City prices, which means you can subtract about 15-20 from the total bill to see what it would cost in your area, but they're still well over what the average American spends on food. And yet how much of our population is considered obese? I think 2/3rds are overweight, and 1/3 of that is obese, or something like that. And it's not because people are eating good food. It's because good food is just so damn expensive. Combine that with a "more more more" American attitude (hey, we power the economy! by going ridiculously into debt! yayayayay!), and you get a lot of fat people. I think everyone should just take up smoking again. It's so much cooler than being fat.
By the by, I have been writing my blog entries in Writely, and I love it. It's a web-based word processor, so it gives you the feeling that you're working on your computer at home, but with more mobility. In any case, it doesn't seem to allow me to post titles, so.. I apologize. The entries have had titles, but whatever. I'm sure you could really care less. But in any case, check out Writely. It wrocks. Hahahaha.
One thing I hate about America is how easy it is to be fat. Our gluttonous attitude of "more is more" makes us eat more, buy more, use more, throw away more. I'm in a constant war with myself over "I NEEEEED this!" and "Don't be a conspicuous consumer! It all eventually goes to the trash anyway!" I was buying some items in the drugstore today and really attempted to limit myself to the smaller package of what I needed - it's difficult, because in America we're taught that more is less expensive. It probably is, but then we have so much crap lying around. Don't get me wrong, I love Costco (great olive oil!), but do I really need 14 razor heads for my razor? Or 2 gallons of mayonnaise?
This slide show in Forbes online illustrates the point quite nicely. Look how expensive it is to eat healthily! I was relieved to see that the average single American spends $54.44 a week on food - I thought this was crazy, but apparently I'm relatively normal. I aim for more in the $30 range, but you can only eat so many pounds of rice and beans. Life of a grad student. In any case, these diets are pricey. Now, the slide show says that the cost is based on New York City prices, which means you can subtract about 15-20 from the total bill to see what it would cost in your area, but they're still well over what the average American spends on food. And yet how much of our population is considered obese? I think 2/3rds are overweight, and 1/3 of that is obese, or something like that. And it's not because people are eating good food. It's because good food is just so damn expensive. Combine that with a "more more more" American attitude (hey, we power the economy! by going ridiculously into debt! yayayayay!), and you get a lot of fat people. I think everyone should just take up smoking again. It's so much cooler than being fat.
By the by, I have been writing my blog entries in Writely, and I love it. It's a web-based word processor, so it gives you the feeling that you're working on your computer at home, but with more mobility. In any case, it doesn't seem to allow me to post titles, so.. I apologize. The entries have had titles, but whatever. I'm sure you could really care less. But in any case, check out Writely. It wrocks. Hahahaha.
Monday, September 4, 2006
I'm reading an article for my Culture in Education class, and it has started to annoy me a bit. The article itself seems to be of that vaguely defined and hard-to-pin-down "Blame American First" school of thought conservatives love to throw at liberals. I think it's a bit more subtle than that, but since I work with many foreign language and international "area" studies types, it's one I encounter often in subtle ways. I would say that it's an attempt at cultural sensitivity, but ends up being a sort of obtuse and non-reflective slam on our own culture as a way of being sensitive to others.
Take the article I'm reading, an excerpt from Understanding Cultural Differences: Germans, French, and Americans. It's written for business people, and perhaps I should limit my thinking to them. Even so, the article says that we are a "low context" culture, meaning that more information we communicate lies in the actual code or words we say (or materials, etc) than it does in a sort of implicit understanding between us. I disagree. I'll give an example from today. B and I went to hit some balls at the public golf course at Haines Point. (Sidebar: I'm combining hitting golf balls with my breathing exercises and finding that it works quite well! Inhale on the swing, exhale as I hit the ball, watch it fly!). I asked him what I should wear, and he said that there's no dress code, but I would probably want to wear shorts.
When we got there, we were eating hot dogs and watching people when he commented, "It doesn't matter what you wear here, but it so matters what you wear." He came last week with some friends and arrived late for their tee time, but the starters golf carted him out to where his friends were. He could see that they sized him up when he arrived, and he "passed" in a polo shirt and golf shoes. He said that when someone comes in a t-shirt and sloppy clothes, it takes them 1/2 an hour longer to play, because people aren't as friendly.
I think that anyone who thinks America is a low-context culture has not spent much time around WASPs. I had a friend who talked a lot about "white priviledge" in her class, and this is what it means. B and I aren't WASPs, but we "pass" as them all the time due to the way we speak, the way we dress, our understated manner, and our generally non-offensive good looks. Having all of that is as good as gold some days, and hell yes I benefit from "White Privledge." I benefit from more than just that - I benefit from looking like someone from the upper classes, even though I'm not. If that's not high context, I don't know what is. I'm sure other cultures within the American one have similar was of judging how you "fit" as well, but I'm not as aware of them because that's not where I "belong." Even in business, to say that there's a lack of "context," I think it shows a lack of understanding about American business culture. Maybe these researchers never got out on the golf course with the business types they were studying, or never went to a cocktail party where lawyers brought their wives (or husbands, I suppose) along. All of that provides the context for American businessmen. Oops, people. I'm so politically incorrect.
I know I'm going to probably have to nod and smile while everyone talks about how great other cultures are and how "artificial" our high context behavior of calling someone by their first name is. I don't understand how that's artificial - I think it carries an incredible amount of context, and I think that calling it artificial denigrates the context in our culture.
Take the article I'm reading, an excerpt from Understanding Cultural Differences: Germans, French, and Americans. It's written for business people, and perhaps I should limit my thinking to them. Even so, the article says that we are a "low context" culture, meaning that more information we communicate lies in the actual code or words we say (or materials, etc) than it does in a sort of implicit understanding between us. I disagree. I'll give an example from today. B and I went to hit some balls at the public golf course at Haines Point. (Sidebar: I'm combining hitting golf balls with my breathing exercises and finding that it works quite well! Inhale on the swing, exhale as I hit the ball, watch it fly!). I asked him what I should wear, and he said that there's no dress code, but I would probably want to wear shorts.
When we got there, we were eating hot dogs and watching people when he commented, "It doesn't matter what you wear here, but it so matters what you wear." He came last week with some friends and arrived late for their tee time, but the starters golf carted him out to where his friends were. He could see that they sized him up when he arrived, and he "passed" in a polo shirt and golf shoes. He said that when someone comes in a t-shirt and sloppy clothes, it takes them 1/2 an hour longer to play, because people aren't as friendly.
I think that anyone who thinks America is a low-context culture has not spent much time around WASPs. I had a friend who talked a lot about "white priviledge" in her class, and this is what it means. B and I aren't WASPs, but we "pass" as them all the time due to the way we speak, the way we dress, our understated manner, and our generally non-offensive good looks. Having all of that is as good as gold some days, and hell yes I benefit from "White Privledge." I benefit from more than just that - I benefit from looking like someone from the upper classes, even though I'm not. If that's not high context, I don't know what is. I'm sure other cultures within the American one have similar was of judging how you "fit" as well, but I'm not as aware of them because that's not where I "belong." Even in business, to say that there's a lack of "context," I think it shows a lack of understanding about American business culture. Maybe these researchers never got out on the golf course with the business types they were studying, or never went to a cocktail party where lawyers brought their wives (or husbands, I suppose) along. All of that provides the context for American businessmen. Oops, people. I'm so politically incorrect.
I know I'm going to probably have to nod and smile while everyone talks about how great other cultures are and how "artificial" our high context behavior of calling someone by their first name is. I don't understand how that's artificial - I think it carries an incredible amount of context, and I think that calling it artificial denigrates the context in our culture.
Friday, September 1, 2006
When people say "Take a chill pill," they're usually talking to people like me. And I can say, I need one today. It's a little tough being on the firing line during the first week of school. Between students freaking out/almost crying/hyperventilating/being REALLY dumb sometimes, I feel like I need a week at the beach. And then there's the fun people who come into my office in suits demanding that I tell them where their whatever event is. As it happens, it's in the school of public policy. How would I know where it is? This is the business school. It's not my fault you're dumb. I wish I had a button that could make rude people disappear.
Just so you know, if you call a place and are polite to the person answering the phone, then you will get a lot further with them. Everyone has a double standard - if you smile and are polite, you can often get people to do a lot more for you. It also helps to be persistent in a polite way, because the squeaky wheel that you really like always gets the oil.
Just so you know, if you call a place and are polite to the person answering the phone, then you will get a lot further with them. Everyone has a double standard - if you smile and are polite, you can often get people to do a lot more for you. It also helps to be persistent in a polite way, because the squeaky wheel that you really like always gets the oil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)