Making a declining grade; Academic freedom and grade schemes

So why bother going to University? You can outsource your education and probably get better results. Supposedly fifty percent of Business students cheat.

The raises the question of how valuable a higher education really is.

Some responses, like that of Denis Rancourt, challenge and contest the bums- in- seats approach to mass education. Listening to The Current this morning, its clear that most people like having a clear metric, whether or not it is a useful metric. Giving all A+ upsets some people because the whole debate threatens the perceived reputation of a given University. For Frank Appleyard, a student at the University of Ottawa, was also interviewed by The Current that seemed to be his main concern. Prof Rancourt's point was that the grading system impedes learning, so giving all A+s to his students was a way around that problem. The truth is, fourth year physics students probably like learning about physics, so an automatic A+ probably doesn't encourage laziness. Rancourt argues it opens up a spirit of inquiry, rather than grade chasing.

Stanley Fish, noted this approach to grading constitutes irresponsibility. The counter-arguments  to Prof. Fish's argument are historical(totalitarian and authoritarian states impose limits on how to answer certain questions) and a practical one- a professors job is not to be right, but to be clever. They have to ask questions nobody else has the time or inclination to try and answer. When their research is fruitful, for example, we get new approaches to medicine, as from basic research on genetics. When the freedom to ask these questions is curtailed, answers are imposed, as with Lysenkoism in the former Soviet Union. In a climate of academic freedom the dead ends have been explored and put to rest as with Lamarckism, which was the legitimate but erroneous hypothesis that acquired traits could be passed on genetically.

The university used to provide a place for scholars to ask and explore questions. The answers subsequently were available to who ever wanted them. Students followed along this path. Those who didn't want to become professors didn't bother with University.

Now the BA seems to have replaced the high school diploma. And research is looked upon by government and business as requiring a guaranteed outcome, which misses the point of academic freedom to follow research questions and train future scholars. This education reflects the broadest possible concerns in a given discipline. How could this education but include a political element, even if that politics is of tacit compliance, which is what Anna Maria Tremonte and Stanley fish seem to favour, judging by her interview of Prof's Fish and Rancourt.

Facts or innuendo; Lanny Davis vs Indira Naidoo Harris

Lanny Davis, a friend and advisor to the Clintons, was interviewed by CBC's Indira Naidoo Harris about Hillary Clinton and her potential appointment to US Secretary of State. The interview was on the CBC1 show The Current, this morning. Setting aside the issues of Clinton's qualifications, Mr. Davis absolutely ripped Ms.Harris for using innuendo rather than facts.

It was refreshing to have someone demand facts- especially after the lapses of the CBC as noted in previous posts on this blog. Normally, I find The Current interesting and informative, but this morning they were caught with their pants down- They're too used to defensive guests, I suppose.

UPDATED

a condensed transcript from CBC Radio’s The Current for Friday,
Nov. 21, courtesy the National Post

when objectivity becomes bias; Satire versus truthiness

"The public's frankly gotten frustrated with the convention of objectivity, the idea that you have to present both sides of the story, even if one side is completely bogus," said Niles, citing as an example news reports on global warming in which the views of politicians and lay-skeptics get consideration equal to studies by climate science PhDs. "
-Robert Niles, editor of the Online Journalism Review quoted in Onion Nation, Washington Post
online, Sunday, November 16, 2008

Giving a voice to ninnies encourages more ninnies. And asking how we know who the ninnies are reveals more about the ignorance of journalists than the value of the opinion of the subjects being interviewed. Truthiness, as Stephen Colbert would call it, rather than accuracy; Credibility at the expense of facts.

It's the story: Facts and journalism

"look, don't try to get me to say something I don't believe in"
-Wolf Burnett, marathoner and former Olympic torch bearer.

I heard an interview with Wolf Burnett on the CBC local morning radio show. The host, Mike Finnerty had been trying to get Mr.Burnett to admit there was a political aspect to the Olympic torch relay. This of course in reference to the protests on behalf of Tibet.

The point is that journalist frames the story, rather than reporting. The most egregious example is the Fox news slogan "We report.You decide" Fox regularly beggar's the question by their choices of what they report. But virtually all news gatherers recontextualise news to suit their own "tribal" bias.

Although I feel Mr.Burnett is mistaken that the Olympics is about peace and freedom, I don't appreciate hearing 84 year old holocaust survivors being badgered by journalists. The truth is, the CBC couldn't get an interview with anyone else, say a spokesperson from the Chinese consulate, who would offer a more germane argument as to why the Olympics isn't political. Again the the Olympics have always had political biases . The Third Reich used the 1936 Olympics to promote its racist ideologies(and failed), and the Warsaw Pact nations used them to trumpet its social successes under communist rule.

But the interview this morning was a cheap shot. I'm glad Wolf Burnett called the interviewer on it.

Rolling the Dice on Climate Change

I just read this

Dangerous games: selfishness v altruism on climate change

on the Enviroment Blog over at New scientist magazine. The thrust of that post was that people tend to risk all if they think there is an even chance of personal benefit. This means that if people think they have a 50/50 chance of coming out ahead by not doing anything about climate change well, bring on the Hummers and coal fired generators(even my so-called environmental activist brother idles his truck in summer to keep the ac working, and burns logs in his fireplace year round).

When you consider the proportion of popular press articles arguing for or against climate change(50/50) versus the peer reviewed scientific articles(100% the climate is getting warmer, we are responsible, and the consequences, conservatively speaking, look bad).

Journalistic "Balance" in a broader sense is guilty of a logical fallacy - an appeal to authority(Govier, 1988). The arguements or claims of individuals and organisations that have limited knowledge or a vested interest in presenting false information are give the same weight as that of those whose knowledge is expected to be accurate. Another logical fallacy- an appeal to ignorance("How are we supposed to know, we're journalists, not scientists, so we gave them equal billing) is even more despicable, because it serves to hide bias- 'We report, you decide!"

I admire the polymath, the jack-of-all-trades, those with broad talents- but a press release is not the same as a body of careful scientific research. The individuals presented to give balance, individuals who often are very accomplished in many fields, are not the same as the scientists who do specialised research into this, and other fields of inquiry. Journalists are pandering to our own worst instincts when journalists give equal weight to climate change deniers.


Govier, Judy. A Practical Study of Arguement. Wadsworth, Belmont,CA 1988, p329