Are Graduation Important?

Fenster writes:

Two schools of thought on the current crisis in higher education.

They are not mutually exclusive by any means, but there is a definite tension between the two.

On the one hand, we have Bill Gates.  Here is a link to an Atlantic article highlighting a Power Point presentation by Gates on the crisis in higher education.  It appears to me to be  a conventional, even orthodox, reading of the situation and what to do about it.  One delivered via Power Point no less!  With all the crazed innovation out there looking for traction, Gates turns the narrative into one of increasing graduation rates.  Don’t cut budgets further–we’ve cut enough.  And let’s focus on finding ways to increase college completion on time.  But  . . . .

Then there’s Salman Khan, founder of Khan Academy someone Bill Gates thinks a lot of.  Here is his view on the future of credentials.

Here’s what I think it could look like in five years: the learning side will be free, but if and when you want to prove what you know, and get a credential, you would go to a proctoring center [for an exam]. And that would cost something. Let’s say it costs $100 to administer that exam. I could see charging $150 for it. And then you have a $50 margin that you can reinvest on the free-learning side.

I think that is consistent with the mission. You are taking the cost of the credential down from thousands of dollars to hundreds of dollars. And the [software] system would tell them they are ready for it. So no paying tuition for community college and then dropping out, or even finishing the whole thing and saying “Oh, I’m $20,000 in debt and what did I get out of it?”

Now you are like, “Look, there is this micro-credential in basic accounting I can get for $150, and I basically know I am going to pass before I invest that money.” That would be a huge positive for the consumers of education, and it could pay the bills on the learning side.

Note Khan does not equate credentials with graduation and “degree completion on time”.  Now don’t get me wrong: degree completion is, all else being equal, a good thing rather than a bad one.  But obsessing over completion, especially if it diverts attention from more efficient paths, is a blunderbuss approach to the problem, and one that betrays the POV (and interests) of the large institutions that now comprise the higher education sector industry.

Hmm . . . where have I seen this before?

Posted in Education, Technology | 2 Comments

“Margaret”

Fenster writes:

Critics just can’t seem to get enough of re-appraising the long form Heaven’s Gate.  In yesterday’s Boston Globe, Ty Burr added to the buzz with his own long form article, the chief benefit of which was that he used the space to take apart most of the claims to the film’s greatness.  I admire that view but continue to wonder why the fuss when the 219-minute version was available on VHS a few years after the 1980 theatrical release, and with a brief foray back onto the big screen in 2005.  It made me despair of all the talk of greatness revealed if only we could see the Great Artist’s unsullied vision.

Then I secured a DVD with the “extended cut” of Kenneth Lonergan’s Margaret, and revised my cynicism about unsullied work by the great artist.  The three-hour Margaret was, for me, an astonishing experience.

This is the long version that Lonergan was unable to cut back to the 150 minute maximum he had been allowed by the studio.  Martin Scorcese and Thelma Schoonmaker were brought in with scissors to do the deed, with the shorter version seeing theatrical release.

I haven’t seen the theatrical release and don’t know what was cut.  To be fair, the long  version does include lots of subplots, minor character development and musical/visual interludes that one could argue could be cut with little loss of narrative power.  Indeed, one could argue that a conventional narrative would benefit from a fair amount of trimming.  But Lonergan does not seem that interested in  a conventional narrative, and bully for that.  I found myself luxuriating in the meandering and meditative quality that is in ample supply.  I know the old adage about good writers needed to kill what they love with the editor’s pen, but I for one am extremely pleased he spared as much of his vision as he did.

Lonergan’s dialogue is distinctive.  Pinter is a master of the pause and Mamet the fuck-you.  Lonergan is the master of the missed connections in conversation, and of people talking past one another even as they struggle to address the other.  On its face, conversation is about character’s expressing themselves through verbal exchange.  In fact, our own life conversations are all-too-often stunted, running off in unclear directions since the interlocutors are often not clear about what it is they actually wish to reveal, or to express. Good conversation–healthy conversation–is cumulative and iterative.  Many of Lonergan’s characters show a tendency to serial monologues while in apparent conversation.  They just have to say what they have to say.

The performances are stellar.  I don’t usually like Anna Paquin and, truth be told, I didn’t like her here that much.  All the better for that slightly obnoxious and overbearing quality–it is the heart of her character Lisa.  Lisa’s mother is played by Lonergan’s real-life wife, J. Smith-Cameron, a stage actress of apparently some repute (I have never seen her before) who brings the right nuance and depth to the role.  Elsewhere–well, where else will you find Jeannie Berlin, Mark Ruffalo, Jean Reno, Allison Janney, Matt Damon and Matthew Broderick?

I don’t risk spoiling the plot, such as it is, to at least say what it is about.  It’s Woody Allen terrain–Upper West Side.  Lisa, a 17-year old high school student, finds that her way-too-advanced cognitive and intellectual abilities are way outmatched by life.  She witnesses–well, she more than witnesses–a terrible accident, and is set to grapple with the meaning of the event, and her part in it.   Yes, she is a drama queen, and you cringe when she acts out.  Still, there is something gritty and admirable about her struggling, as she tries over and over again to counter the senselessness of events with the few inadequate tools at her disposal.

When called out by an older friend for being a drama queen, her response:

Lisa

You think I am making this into a dramatic situation because it is dramatic?. . .

Emily

I think you are very young.

Lisa

What does that have to do with anything? If anything it means I care more than someone that’s older.  Because this kind of thing has never happened to me before.

And as it turns out, there is some truth to what she is saying.  The adults don’t have a ton to add to her learning, save to point out that life involves a certain getting used to.

Daniel Kahneman has written, “the world makes much less sense than you think. The coherence comes mostly from the way your mind works.” In a sense, Margaret is just another coming of age story, though it is one that shows quite plainly what is gained and what is lost in the forging of mental constructs we refer to as maturation.

Posted in Movies | 9 Comments

Ad o’ th’ Day

Fenster writes:

What do you suppose honey isn’t doing?  And to whom?  And who is going to do it instead? And is it being done at the time the picture was taken?

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Question Lady Question

What do you think makes for a great bar?

Posted in Personal reflections | 5 Comments

Montaigne: Patron Saint of UR, Godfather of Blogging

Blowhard, Esq. writes:

As these two posts alluded to, I just finished reading Sarah Bakewell’s excellent biography of the French writer Michel de Montaigne. Continue reading

Posted in Books Publishing and Writing, Education, Philosophy and Religion, The Good Life | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

“Life Without Principle”

Fabrizio del Wrongo writes:

Johnnie To’s latest, entitled “Life Without Principle,” combines the financial-and-business-sector setting of his last film, the romantic comedy “Don’t Go Breaking My Heart,” with his customary gangster milieu. It’s organized around the Greek debt crisis, which To uses to highlight his familiar themes of loyalty, risk, chance, and human interdependence. Money rules the day here, and as you might expect it’s a capricious mistress: the characters wish for it, curse it, bet on it, kill for it. But To avoids making simplistic moral points. Rather, he uses money as he did the missing gun in his 2003 “PTU” — as a device to connect the characters and spur them to interaction. Aiding him in this is a switchback structure, blatantly lifted from “Pulp Fiction,” which artfully overlaps each storyline and underscores how cause and effect play out within the plot. (Rarely have the whims of financial markets been so cleverly compared to the fickleness that characterizes everyday human relationships.) As with most of To’s films, there’s little here that will impress as high art, but the movie sings in its calm precision, its quietly modulated tone. Johnnie To has more control over what he puts on screen than just about any director currently working.

Posted in Movies, Politics and Economics | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

This Might Be the Worst Thing I’ve Ever Read

Blowhard, Esq. writes:

Sometimes, you come across something so jaw-droppingly bad that the ridiculous awfulness must be shared. This is the first page of The Adventures of Lucky Pierre by Robert Coover:

Me, if I continue any further.

BTW, the author is a graduate of the University of Chicago and a literature professor at Brown.

(H/T to ghostinmarble who naively purchased this at the recommendation of a bookstore clerk and is currently plotting her revenge.)

Posted in Books Publishing and Writing, Education | Tagged , , | 29 Comments

Question Lady Question

Do you think ambiguity has been destroyed by emoticons?

Posted in Personal reflections | 4 Comments

Girliness, Alive and Well on the Internet

Fabrizio del Wrongo writes:

The culture doesn’t provide for much in the way of girliness these days. Have you noticed? I guess I should define what I mean by girliness, but I’m not sure I can whittle it down to a list of qualities, and I’m not sure I want to. Nor do I think it’s necessary that I spell everything out for you. I think you all know what I’m talking about anyway: you’re familiar with the butt-kicking babe character that’s so common in the movies, and you probably live near at least one lantern-jawed teen who competes on the women’s lacrosse squad at your local high school. Maybe she’s even kicked sand in your face and swiped your girlfriend. These are the predominant female archetypes of our culture, for better or for worse. Why have women begun to strenuously emulate traditional male models? It’s an interesting question, one that I don’t have an answer to. Maybe it’s something in the water that nudges ’em down that path. Or maybe it’s like Halloween for them — a chance to play dress-up and assume a role. Or maybe they’re just falling in line with what they see on television. It occurs to me that perhaps the biggest driver of female behavior in recent memory, “Sex and the City,” featured a troupe of women who acted not like girls but like gay men. And though gay men are a lot of wonderful things, they’re not exactly girly. Continue reading

Posted in Performers, Personal reflections, Sex, Women men and fashion | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 19 Comments

Fact Du Jour

Paleo Retiree writes:

“Between 1950 and 1953, New York City spent $143 million on schools, $4 million on libraries, $70 million on hospitals, and $172 million on highways … Other cities went further.”

I found the quote in this new book.

Posted in Architecture, Politics and Economics | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments