With all the talk about Floyd Landis (much of which has been incredibly poorly distilled through the various media outlets attempting to cover the story) I think we as a sports/cycling community missed an opportunity to discuss what I think will prove to be a more difficult issue in the long run regarding the treatment of doping in the realm of professional athletics. For those tired of hearing me rant about cycling, I assure you that, while cycling provides the story for this entry, any sports fan will be able to relate to the subject matter.
What we all missed was that, while Floyd was being drawn and quartered (an aptly old-school punishment for a Mennonite) the "Astana 5" were all cleared of any and all allegations against them.
The quick back story: on the day prior to the start of the Tour de France, a list of 28 riders suspected of doping was released by the Spanish press. 9 of these riders were scheduled to start Le Tour the next day, 5 from the Astana-Wurth team. All 9 riders were pulled from their team lineups, per the Code of Ethics. Since this left the Astana squad with only 4 riders, 2 shy of the minimum 6, the team was disqualified and not able to start the race, including pre-race favorite Alexandre Vinokourov, who was not one of the riders in question.
The "Acquital" of the 5 riders involved opens two important questions related to doping in sports: first, where do we draw the line between "innocent until proven guilty" and
"reasonable suspicion" in the sports arena? (in other words, was the UCI right in eliminating the squad on the suspicion of guilt?) and second, now that the Astana team has the legal opportunity to sue for damages related to missing the Tour de France, should they?
My personal response to each of these questions runs directly counter to the collective American consensus, as I generally understand it. Both answers also relate to the general concept of what is "good for the sport."
To the first I say that the UCI was absolutely correct in their response to the allegations. Cycling is a sport that has been fighting the doping scandal since long before Barry Bonds first used the Cream and the Clear, and Jose Canseco became "famous" in tabloid tell-all circles. The Operacion Puerto investigation that the suspensions stemmed from promised to uncover the largest, and hopefully last, major doping ring in the sport. The UCI did what they had to do, for the good of the Tour and for the good of the sport. But to do that, they had to ask themselves what was worse, the possibility of suspending an innocent rider from the biggest race of the year, or allowing a guilty rider to race, and answer the questions later.
In suspending these riders, the UCI made a clear and powerful statement: "DO NOT associate with dopers." Whether actually guilty, or only guilty by association, these riders were "involved" in a scandal that threatened to rock the foundation of the sport. Cycling could no longer bear the weight of the cloud of suspicion (which had apparently itself taken performance enhancers).
To the second question-should the Astana team sue the UCI and the Tour?-I again say, in the best interest of the sport, no. If Astana sues the UCI, they would almost certainly win (at least by the standards of US courts). But what damage does one team's victory have on the sport? The UCI finds itself in a position where it can no longer afford to suspend riders on suspicion alone, no matter how strong the evidence. Next time, when a rider is truly guilty and isn't suspended, the UCI, cycling, and sports fans all lose. I don't envy the Astana riders for what they were put through, but I would beg them, for the sake of the sport, don't sue.
I'd love responses to this post and your thoughts on the questions posted here. I think it provides an interesting opportunity for dialogue both topically related to sports and doping, but also philosophically, in questioning how to govern in consideration of the "greater good" versus "individual liberties." I look forward to your responses.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Foot in mouth?...not quite
Is now the appropriate time for me to put my foot in my mouth, retract my previous post, and ride off into the night with my tail between my legs? In light of recent news that Floyd Landis has tested positive "for testosterone," the knee jerk reaction here is, yes. In a sport overwhelmed by doping scandal, we have reached the point where suspicion is sufficient to condemn.
So I'm not doing it. I'm backing Floyd. All the way. I'm saying it here in my blog, with four of you as my witness. Vive Le Floyd.
How? Why? W.T.F?
Good questions. We'll get to the answer, but first let's explain the case against Floyd (to the best of my knowledge at this point). Let's start with a myth: Floyd tested positive for testosterone. Fact: The evidence against Floyd is an "unusual" ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone (T/E ratio), both naturally produced by the body. The average T/E ratio for males is about 1:1, though a ratio of 2 or 3:1 is well within normal limits. To say that Floyd tested positive for testosterone is a complete fallacy. In fact, the actual levels of testosterone and epitestosterone in Floyd's sample were LOW compared to "normal" results. What triggered that positive was the ratio.
So what's the ratio that triggers an "Adverse Analytical Finding" (AAF - in the parlance of Anti-Doping culture)? Well, until 2005, a 6:1 ratio was the trigger point for a positive result. This ratio was often challenged while it stood, and often athletes won arbitration cases over the 6:1 detection limit. One Swedish study I found tested nearly 9000 individuals. Of these, 28 (about 0.3%) triggered positive results at a 6:1 detection level. However, after further work the team "concluded that among the above 28 cases, only one can be regarded as a clear case of testosterone doping. Although the vast majority of Swedish athletes have urinary T/E ratios below six, there is a subfraction with a constant higher ratio, possibly due to genetic factors."
So what happened in 2005? Well clearly, WADA did the only thing they could do in light of such evidence that the test really doesn't work all that well...they lowered the ratio. Now, the trigger point for an AAF is a 4:1 ratio. You thought we created false negatives before, wait till you see what we do now!! Of course, WADA and sports' respective governing bodies have claimed that lowering the ratio limit has allowed them to catch more cheaters. Guess what, guys? You catch more good guys too. That's what lowering the limit does.
So we trigger a positive result, tipping the scales at just over the 4:1 limit...what now? Well, we do more testing, of course. Or we don't. Seriously. We either perform Isotope Ratio Mass Spectometry (IRMS) which kinda sorta helps a little in maybe showing if the testosterone came from the body or not... or we don't. You may ask, "Well, how do you decide whether or not to do the test?" Simple really, if we're capable of doing the test, we do it. If we're not capable of doing the test, we don't. Admittedly, it's not very scientific, but it sure does make life easier.
I'll stop the explanation there, because I don't know whether IRMS was performed, nor do I know what it revealed assuming it was performed. So I'll stop.
So what now? Well, first Floyd gets his 'B' sample tested by an independent lab to either confirm or disprove the results of the original test. If the 'B' sample comes up positive, which is likely since it came from the same cup of piss, then Floyd is suspended and he gets to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS, or TAS if you're French, and I sincerely hope you're not). At this point, based on the history of appeals related to this test, he has very very good chance of his appeal being granted and the sport of cycling issuing a collective, "my bad."
So, there's my defense. We'll see how it holds up. The good news is I'm not alone. It seems that in a cycling community that lately has jumped on every accused, suspected, or rumored doper, there is a surprising amount of support for Floyd. Jonathan Vaughters, the manager of the TIAA-CREF Us Pro team, on Velonews.com:
I believe Floyd is innocent. The majority of T/E tests are over-turned at the CAS level. The guy will probably be proven innocent in eight months time, but in the short-term, the media is killing him. Floyd is basically paying for the sins of all the morons who came before him, who have denied, denied, denied. He's going to take the fall for everyone who has cried wolf before him. He's going to be the guy who gets his head cut off and that's a real tragedy.
From Dirk Demol, director of Team Discovery:
I cannot truly believe that Landis positive. I never imagined anything behind his exploit (to Morzine). As an ex-pro, I know you can have a good day after a bad day and the legs can come back and succeed again. Be careful. The counter-analysis is not yet positive and we shouldn't draw too fast of a conclusion.
Of course, suspicion, surprise, frustration, and doubt rule the day. We live in a guilty until proven innocent era in sporting history, where the shadow of doubt is strong than the light of truth. But we do make mistakes. Just days ago, 5 riders from the Astana-Wurth squad who were disqualified from the Tour de France in the midst of the Operacion Puerta doping scandal were all cleared of any wrong doing. They'll never get their race back, and that's a damn shame, but a necessary product of the sporting environment in which we currently find ourselves. I don't blame the UCI for their suspensions, and even in hindsight, I support that decision. It was done for the good of the race, and for the good of the sport. But we do make mistakes. And only time will tell if Floyd is innocent or guilty. But until I have proof of guilt, I'm standing by his innocence.
So I'm not doing it. I'm backing Floyd. All the way. I'm saying it here in my blog, with four of you as my witness. Vive Le Floyd.
How? Why? W.T.F?
Good questions. We'll get to the answer, but first let's explain the case against Floyd (to the best of my knowledge at this point). Let's start with a myth: Floyd tested positive for testosterone. Fact: The evidence against Floyd is an "unusual" ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone (T/E ratio), both naturally produced by the body. The average T/E ratio for males is about 1:1, though a ratio of 2 or 3:1 is well within normal limits. To say that Floyd tested positive for testosterone is a complete fallacy. In fact, the actual levels of testosterone and epitestosterone in Floyd's sample were LOW compared to "normal" results. What triggered that positive was the ratio.
So what's the ratio that triggers an "Adverse Analytical Finding" (AAF - in the parlance of Anti-Doping culture)? Well, until 2005, a 6:1 ratio was the trigger point for a positive result. This ratio was often challenged while it stood, and often athletes won arbitration cases over the 6:1 detection limit. One Swedish study I found tested nearly 9000 individuals. Of these, 28 (about 0.3%) triggered positive results at a 6:1 detection level. However, after further work the team "concluded that among the above 28 cases, only one can be regarded as a clear case of testosterone doping. Although the vast majority of Swedish athletes have urinary T/E ratios below six, there is a subfraction with a constant higher ratio, possibly due to genetic factors."
So what happened in 2005? Well clearly, WADA did the only thing they could do in light of such evidence that the test really doesn't work all that well...they lowered the ratio. Now, the trigger point for an AAF is a 4:1 ratio. You thought we created false negatives before, wait till you see what we do now!! Of course, WADA and sports' respective governing bodies have claimed that lowering the ratio limit has allowed them to catch more cheaters. Guess what, guys? You catch more good guys too. That's what lowering the limit does.
So we trigger a positive result, tipping the scales at just over the 4:1 limit...what now? Well, we do more testing, of course. Or we don't. Seriously. We either perform Isotope Ratio Mass Spectometry (IRMS) which kinda sorta helps a little in maybe showing if the testosterone came from the body or not... or we don't. You may ask, "Well, how do you decide whether or not to do the test?" Simple really, if we're capable of doing the test, we do it. If we're not capable of doing the test, we don't. Admittedly, it's not very scientific, but it sure does make life easier.
I'll stop the explanation there, because I don't know whether IRMS was performed, nor do I know what it revealed assuming it was performed. So I'll stop.
So what now? Well, first Floyd gets his 'B' sample tested by an independent lab to either confirm or disprove the results of the original test. If the 'B' sample comes up positive, which is likely since it came from the same cup of piss, then Floyd is suspended and he gets to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS, or TAS if you're French, and I sincerely hope you're not). At this point, based on the history of appeals related to this test, he has very very good chance of his appeal being granted and the sport of cycling issuing a collective, "my bad."
So, there's my defense. We'll see how it holds up. The good news is I'm not alone. It seems that in a cycling community that lately has jumped on every accused, suspected, or rumored doper, there is a surprising amount of support for Floyd. Jonathan Vaughters, the manager of the TIAA-CREF Us Pro team, on Velonews.com:
I believe Floyd is innocent. The majority of T/E tests are over-turned at the CAS level. The guy will probably be proven innocent in eight months time, but in the short-term, the media is killing him. Floyd is basically paying for the sins of all the morons who came before him, who have denied, denied, denied. He's going to take the fall for everyone who has cried wolf before him. He's going to be the guy who gets his head cut off and that's a real tragedy.
From Dirk Demol, director of Team Discovery:
I cannot truly believe that Landis positive. I never imagined anything behind his exploit (to Morzine). As an ex-pro, I know you can have a good day after a bad day and the legs can come back and succeed again. Be careful. The counter-analysis is not yet positive and we shouldn't draw too fast of a conclusion.
Of course, suspicion, surprise, frustration, and doubt rule the day. We live in a guilty until proven innocent era in sporting history, where the shadow of doubt is strong than the light of truth. But we do make mistakes. Just days ago, 5 riders from the Astana-Wurth squad who were disqualified from the Tour de France in the midst of the Operacion Puerta doping scandal were all cleared of any wrong doing. They'll never get their race back, and that's a damn shame, but a necessary product of the sporting environment in which we currently find ourselves. I don't blame the UCI for their suspensions, and even in hindsight, I support that decision. It was done for the good of the race, and for the good of the sport. But we do make mistakes. And only time will tell if Floyd is innocent or guilty. But until I have proof of guilt, I'm standing by his innocence.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Back on my 2-wheeled high horse
...or "Celebrating Landismas" for the cycling anointed.
For those who have heard my complaints/ramblings/pleas/explanations/diatribes/other- descriptive-noun-for-long-drawn-out-discourse, yes, this post is absolutely intended to serve as a plug for my favorite Euro-sport, professional cycling.
The 2006 edition of the Tour de France is over, which means 99% of Americans won't have any recollection of who Floyd Landis is, or what he has accomplished, or why we should care in about 3 weeks; which should, oddly enough, be right around the time that Floyd goes under the knife to replace his dying hip. Read that last part again.
A brief review of history for those who may not be completely up to speed. Yesterday, Floyd Landis, a Mennonite from rural Pennsylvania (think barn-raisin', goat-grazin', busted-hip-not-phasin') became the third American in history to win the world's greatest bike race. Numbers like that perpetuate the myth that cycling is not an American sport. Third ever...in the 100+ year history of Le Tour...not really our thing I guess.
Guess again. 3 is an amazing number when you consider that Greg LeMond was the first American to do it, just 20 years ago in 1986. (Note: another thing LeMond was first at was using those funny little aero-bars for time trials and doing the wind tunnel testing that Lance Armstrong made famous - because, damnit, when we do something, we damnwell do it right.) In the 21 editions of Le Tour since LeMond's breakthrough victory, the 3 American champs have totalled 11 wins. 11. In 21 years. Not too shabby.
(As an aside: believe it or not, America, there was a time when cycling was more popular than baseball, basketball, and football combined...of course, that's mainly because the three markedly American sports had not yet been invented, but what's a few hundred years of history between friends?)
Ok, back to Floyd. His performance this year has been billed as the greatest championship performance in the modern history of the sport. What Landis did on Thursday, erasing all but :30 seconds of an 8:08 deficit on a single, balls-to-the-wall, brutally calculating, and savagely dominating performance, over a sinlge day in the Alps, may in fact be the greatest performance in a generation, not just in cycling, but in all of sports.
How can I possibly make that claim? Let's break it down.
1. Landis did it alone. Nobody followed. Nobody helped. Nobody could. In professional cycling, a solo break is a suicide mission. They don't succeed. Not for 150 km. Consider this: drafting in the peloton requires the riders in the pack to expend as much as 40% less energy than a solo rider will use.
2. He did it following one of the most devestating bonks in recent memory, on a climb that once bonked no less that the great Lance himself. A quick summary of Floyd's power numbers for his attack: One the first climb of the day, he averaged 340 watts as he rode away from the entire peloton, with no one able to hold his wheel. On an average day, this is a typical number for most riders in the peloton, but after two next-to-impossible days in the Alps, it's quite the output. On the next climb, as Landis closed the 10 minute gap to the day's earlier breakaway of 11 riders, he averaged an uber-climber 370 watts. But Floyd wasn't finished. On the 3rd major climb of the day, Floyd stretched his lead on the peloton from just over 4 minutes, to more than 8 minutes. His average output for this push: an incredible-by-any-standard, 390 watts! What does that number mean? Let's make a comparison to Landis himself the day before. During his "bonk" up La Toussuire, Landis averaged a meager 260 watt average. On a flat road this translates to about 19-20 miles per hour...a ride well within even my range (albeit not at the end of the stage they had just completed). So the very next day, Floyd upped his wattage by 50%. That 390 watt value?...about what Floyd would do for a 50 km time-trial. Not so much after 100 km solo attack in brutal heat with a chasing peloton on the third consecutive alpine stage. Unreal. Period.
3. He was being chased. Floyd Landis is a dangerous rider. He is a rider no one wanted to let back into the race. All day long the teams of Oscar Periero, Carlos Sastre, and Andreas Kloden chased and chased and chased as hard as they could to pull Floyd back. And with no less than 20 riders busting-tail to bring him back, he kept gaining ground. He was not only stronger than everyone in the pack, he was stronger than the entire pack. In a sport where synergy in the name of the game, where teams rule and the pack is relentless, Floyd took them all on.
4. They all knew it was coming. Word on the pave is that the entire peloton knew Floyd was planning to attack, and they were all scared. Allegedly, a number of riders road alongside Floyd at the early part of the stage, and literally begged him not to attack. They couldn't defend and they knew it. To the beggars, Floyd only threw the barest crumb, " Go drink some Coke, cause we're leaving on the first climb if you want to come."
5. He did it without any significant support from his team. In a race that we Americans have grown used to seeing dominated by the blue-train of the Postal Service/Discovery Channel Team, Landis' Phonak team was suspect at best, and dismally unable to protect their leader at worst. Make no bones about it. This is a team sport. The riders who earned the podium alongside Landis, and the next few who just missed, all had incredibly strong teams. Floyd didn't. Period. He won this race on his own.
6. Did I mention his hip? On good days he can barely walk. On bad days, he's lucky to get out of bed. And he just won the most grueling endurance event on the planet. His hip is dying. After a crash three years ago, he had 3 pins inserted into the desimated bone that remained. The bone never recovered. One leg is an inch shorted than the other from the surgeries. THe bone in that leg has slowly worn away all the cartiledge that cushions the joint. All that's left is a jagged bone, literally pins and needles, tearing away at the bone on the other end of the socket. There's no easy days, only one's where the pain is marginally less unbearable.
He plans to have the hip replaced within a month and says he'll defend his Tour title next year. The surgery he'll have is the same one the Bo Jackson had 15 years ago. Yes, the medicine is better now, and the procedure much safer, but Bo was no slouch, and the surgery eventually spelled the end of his career. Now Floyd, well known as the toughest SOB in the professional peloton says he'll be back from the surgery, with a new hip to defend next year. You know what? I have no doubt he'll do it.
Floyd Landis isn't going anywhere, and neither is American cycling. We're here to stay. This is a beautiful sport rich in tradition, history, and honor. And for anyone who says it's not a tough sport, ask Floyd.
For those who have heard my complaints/ramblings/pleas/explanations/diatribes/other- descriptive-noun-for-long-drawn-out-discourse, yes, this post is absolutely intended to serve as a plug for my favorite Euro-sport, professional cycling.
The 2006 edition of the Tour de France is over, which means 99% of Americans won't have any recollection of who Floyd Landis is, or what he has accomplished, or why we should care in about 3 weeks; which should, oddly enough, be right around the time that Floyd goes under the knife to replace his dying hip. Read that last part again.
A brief review of history for those who may not be completely up to speed. Yesterday, Floyd Landis, a Mennonite from rural Pennsylvania (think barn-raisin', goat-grazin', busted-hip-not-phasin') became the third American in history to win the world's greatest bike race. Numbers like that perpetuate the myth that cycling is not an American sport. Third ever...in the 100+ year history of Le Tour...not really our thing I guess.
Guess again. 3 is an amazing number when you consider that Greg LeMond was the first American to do it, just 20 years ago in 1986. (Note: another thing LeMond was first at was using those funny little aero-bars for time trials and doing the wind tunnel testing that Lance Armstrong made famous - because, damnit, when we do something, we damnwell do it right.) In the 21 editions of Le Tour since LeMond's breakthrough victory, the 3 American champs have totalled 11 wins. 11. In 21 years. Not too shabby.
(As an aside: believe it or not, America, there was a time when cycling was more popular than baseball, basketball, and football combined...of course, that's mainly because the three markedly American sports had not yet been invented, but what's a few hundred years of history between friends?)
Ok, back to Floyd. His performance this year has been billed as the greatest championship performance in the modern history of the sport. What Landis did on Thursday, erasing all but :30 seconds of an 8:08 deficit on a single, balls-to-the-wall, brutally calculating, and savagely dominating performance, over a sinlge day in the Alps, may in fact be the greatest performance in a generation, not just in cycling, but in all of sports.
How can I possibly make that claim? Let's break it down.
1. Landis did it alone. Nobody followed. Nobody helped. Nobody could. In professional cycling, a solo break is a suicide mission. They don't succeed. Not for 150 km. Consider this: drafting in the peloton requires the riders in the pack to expend as much as 40% less energy than a solo rider will use.
2. He did it following one of the most devestating bonks in recent memory, on a climb that once bonked no less that the great Lance himself. A quick summary of Floyd's power numbers for his attack: One the first climb of the day, he averaged 340 watts as he rode away from the entire peloton, with no one able to hold his wheel. On an average day, this is a typical number for most riders in the peloton, but after two next-to-impossible days in the Alps, it's quite the output. On the next climb, as Landis closed the 10 minute gap to the day's earlier breakaway of 11 riders, he averaged an uber-climber 370 watts. But Floyd wasn't finished. On the 3rd major climb of the day, Floyd stretched his lead on the peloton from just over 4 minutes, to more than 8 minutes. His average output for this push: an incredible-by-any-standard, 390 watts! What does that number mean? Let's make a comparison to Landis himself the day before. During his "bonk" up La Toussuire, Landis averaged a meager 260 watt average. On a flat road this translates to about 19-20 miles per hour...a ride well within even my range (albeit not at the end of the stage they had just completed). So the very next day, Floyd upped his wattage by 50%. That 390 watt value?...about what Floyd would do for a 50 km time-trial. Not so much after 100 km solo attack in brutal heat with a chasing peloton on the third consecutive alpine stage. Unreal. Period.
3. He was being chased. Floyd Landis is a dangerous rider. He is a rider no one wanted to let back into the race. All day long the teams of Oscar Periero, Carlos Sastre, and Andreas Kloden chased and chased and chased as hard as they could to pull Floyd back. And with no less than 20 riders busting-tail to bring him back, he kept gaining ground. He was not only stronger than everyone in the pack, he was stronger than the entire pack. In a sport where synergy in the name of the game, where teams rule and the pack is relentless, Floyd took them all on.
4. They all knew it was coming. Word on the pave is that the entire peloton knew Floyd was planning to attack, and they were all scared. Allegedly, a number of riders road alongside Floyd at the early part of the stage, and literally begged him not to attack. They couldn't defend and they knew it. To the beggars, Floyd only threw the barest crumb, " Go drink some Coke, cause we're leaving on the first climb if you want to come."
5. He did it without any significant support from his team. In a race that we Americans have grown used to seeing dominated by the blue-train of the Postal Service/Discovery Channel Team, Landis' Phonak team was suspect at best, and dismally unable to protect their leader at worst. Make no bones about it. This is a team sport. The riders who earned the podium alongside Landis, and the next few who just missed, all had incredibly strong teams. Floyd didn't. Period. He won this race on his own.
6. Did I mention his hip? On good days he can barely walk. On bad days, he's lucky to get out of bed. And he just won the most grueling endurance event on the planet. His hip is dying. After a crash three years ago, he had 3 pins inserted into the desimated bone that remained. The bone never recovered. One leg is an inch shorted than the other from the surgeries. THe bone in that leg has slowly worn away all the cartiledge that cushions the joint. All that's left is a jagged bone, literally pins and needles, tearing away at the bone on the other end of the socket. There's no easy days, only one's where the pain is marginally less unbearable.
He plans to have the hip replaced within a month and says he'll defend his Tour title next year. The surgery he'll have is the same one the Bo Jackson had 15 years ago. Yes, the medicine is better now, and the procedure much safer, but Bo was no slouch, and the surgery eventually spelled the end of his career. Now Floyd, well known as the toughest SOB in the professional peloton says he'll be back from the surgery, with a new hip to defend next year. You know what? I have no doubt he'll do it.
Floyd Landis isn't going anywhere, and neither is American cycling. We're here to stay. This is a beautiful sport rich in tradition, history, and honor. And for anyone who says it's not a tough sport, ask Floyd.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
WOW it's been a while...
It's been so long that I've practically forgotten that this whole blogging adventure even existed. So long in fact that the thought of catching up to speed on my life since the end of Lent is more than overwhelming...it borders on impossible.
So, where do I start? Probably right where I left off. As most of you probably know, I'm living in wonderful Aiken, SC for the summer...in the middle of suburban hell, only without any "urbia" to be a suburbia of. I'm working for Milliken in Barnwell, SC - the "Gateway to the Low Country" as the town self-describes. It has been, well, interesting.
This summer has been nothing short of an awakening. At times, I've been overwhelmed by the sense of loneliness that I feel down here. I'm learning very quickly what it means to be a Marylander. I've long known that to my "Yankee" friends from the north, we are considered southerners; now I find out just how much of a Yankee I really am. If this is what it means to be "Southern" then I am riding on the roof of that bus at best. So I find myself in the middle, like Switzerland; not northern enough to be a Yankee, or Southern enough to have any desire to "rise again."
I've found that my bike is my refuge. I owe a great debt to the folks I met in Seattle a few years ago, not only for my bike itself, but for giving me my first taste of cycling culture. I have since become a fanatic. From my own personal riding and training, to following the pro peloton online (standard cable in Aiken doesn't carry OLN, so my dreams of Tour fanaticism are currently set on simmer) cycling has become an outlet for me as exercise, competitive outlet, and mental escape.
So that's life outside of work. Inside work, the story is somewhat similar. The job is proving a valuable experience, not to mention a test of my patience and personal fortitude on a daily basis. It would be a gross understatement to say it's not what I had expected, but it has given me numerous insights into my future aspirations. Primarily, I'm focused more than ever on product development and marketing, because I find that the manufacturing environment is not one that I personally thrive in. I could say more, but I'll save it for another time.
I don't mean to sound overly negative about this summer, because I don't look at it in that way. I've merely found out how possible it is to feel like a stranger in your own country; which is a truly remarkable realization. I think I'll leave it at that for now, as this entry is scattered enough in theme and mood to confuse even those who know me best. Any of the topics I've covered here could (and well may) be a topic for an entry entry of its own.
Till next time, take care and God bless.
So, where do I start? Probably right where I left off. As most of you probably know, I'm living in wonderful Aiken, SC for the summer...in the middle of suburban hell, only without any "urbia" to be a suburbia of. I'm working for Milliken in Barnwell, SC - the "Gateway to the Low Country" as the town self-describes. It has been, well, interesting.
This summer has been nothing short of an awakening. At times, I've been overwhelmed by the sense of loneliness that I feel down here. I'm learning very quickly what it means to be a Marylander. I've long known that to my "Yankee" friends from the north, we are considered southerners; now I find out just how much of a Yankee I really am. If this is what it means to be "Southern" then I am riding on the roof of that bus at best. So I find myself in the middle, like Switzerland; not northern enough to be a Yankee, or Southern enough to have any desire to "rise again."
I've found that my bike is my refuge. I owe a great debt to the folks I met in Seattle a few years ago, not only for my bike itself, but for giving me my first taste of cycling culture. I have since become a fanatic. From my own personal riding and training, to following the pro peloton online (standard cable in Aiken doesn't carry OLN, so my dreams of Tour fanaticism are currently set on simmer) cycling has become an outlet for me as exercise, competitive outlet, and mental escape.
So that's life outside of work. Inside work, the story is somewhat similar. The job is proving a valuable experience, not to mention a test of my patience and personal fortitude on a daily basis. It would be a gross understatement to say it's not what I had expected, but it has given me numerous insights into my future aspirations. Primarily, I'm focused more than ever on product development and marketing, because I find that the manufacturing environment is not one that I personally thrive in. I could say more, but I'll save it for another time.
I don't mean to sound overly negative about this summer, because I don't look at it in that way. I've merely found out how possible it is to feel like a stranger in your own country; which is a truly remarkable realization. I think I'll leave it at that for now, as this entry is scattered enough in theme and mood to confuse even those who know me best. Any of the topics I've covered here could (and well may) be a topic for an entry entry of its own.
Till next time, take care and God bless.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
So about this no talking thing...
Here's the update on the whole Lenten silence thing (Hopefully this will satisfy Hack). For those of you who don't know, after a few weeks of what I felt was fruitful progress, the whole thing fell apart. I struggled with it for a while and really wanted to continue in the effort, but on the whole, I really felt that the whole practice was backfiring in a lot of ways.
Sometime in the third and fourth week of Lent, I needed to consider my goals for this whole thing and evaluate what was happening in reality. I wanted to learn how to listen better...but without my response, many people had essentially stopped talking to me. I wanted to remove myself from the center of conversations...and everytime I had something valuable to say, my miming and charading put the focus on my Lenten fast, rather than the conversation. Something wasn't working.
Of course, I had to ask myself, am I just being weak and undisciplined, and of course, there's definitely a good amount of affirmative response to that question. Not talking was hard, especially for me. But my decision to start talking again wasn't so much about the fact that I wanted to talk, as the fact that not talking really wasn't proving all that fruitful.
On top of the fact that I wasn't getting what I wanted out of it, there were several other problems I was having. First, not talking is incredibly socially awkward, and rather rude, especially when people aren't aware of the situation. Second, not talking works just fine in group settings, but in one-on-one situations, it can be rather offputting, for both myself and the other person. Part of me wished that wasn't the case. It'd be nice to be able to sit with people in silence and not have it be uncomfortable, and in some cases that's very possible, but by and large, our culture demands conversation and dialogue in a number of settings.
The third prblem I was having was that I was meeting a large number of new people. I was still very new to the community at the Doggett Center (Catholic Campus Ministry here at State) and was trying to get more involved. My relation to the Catholic Church is very much based on the value of community. The Church for me is much more about the people than anything else. I was finding it very difficult to integrate myself into the Doggett community in silence.
So basically, the silence thing worked for the first few weeks and I really did get a lot out of it. Probably the most valuable thing I learned during that time was simply that a significant amount of what I say on a daily basis really doesn't need to be said. I had a pretty good understanding of that going into Lent, but I really gained an appreciation for it. Forced to mime things and put a great deal of effort into making a point, you learn just how valuable each statement you make actually is. Guess what...most of it's not worth the effort, but there are some things that you'd give pretty much anything to express. Maybe that's the greatest bit of all of this. The fact that some things bring so much joy and excitement that you can't help but share them, the fact that we as humans are a social, communal group, and that some things just don't hold much meaning until you're able to share them with those you care about.
So that's that, another Lent, and some more good stuff to learn. It didn't last the whole time, but it was still a very valuable experience, and I learned even more about how valuable community really is.
Sometime in the third and fourth week of Lent, I needed to consider my goals for this whole thing and evaluate what was happening in reality. I wanted to learn how to listen better...but without my response, many people had essentially stopped talking to me. I wanted to remove myself from the center of conversations...and everytime I had something valuable to say, my miming and charading put the focus on my Lenten fast, rather than the conversation. Something wasn't working.
Of course, I had to ask myself, am I just being weak and undisciplined, and of course, there's definitely a good amount of affirmative response to that question. Not talking was hard, especially for me. But my decision to start talking again wasn't so much about the fact that I wanted to talk, as the fact that not talking really wasn't proving all that fruitful.
On top of the fact that I wasn't getting what I wanted out of it, there were several other problems I was having. First, not talking is incredibly socially awkward, and rather rude, especially when people aren't aware of the situation. Second, not talking works just fine in group settings, but in one-on-one situations, it can be rather offputting, for both myself and the other person. Part of me wished that wasn't the case. It'd be nice to be able to sit with people in silence and not have it be uncomfortable, and in some cases that's very possible, but by and large, our culture demands conversation and dialogue in a number of settings.
The third prblem I was having was that I was meeting a large number of new people. I was still very new to the community at the Doggett Center (Catholic Campus Ministry here at State) and was trying to get more involved. My relation to the Catholic Church is very much based on the value of community. The Church for me is much more about the people than anything else. I was finding it very difficult to integrate myself into the Doggett community in silence.
So basically, the silence thing worked for the first few weeks and I really did get a lot out of it. Probably the most valuable thing I learned during that time was simply that a significant amount of what I say on a daily basis really doesn't need to be said. I had a pretty good understanding of that going into Lent, but I really gained an appreciation for it. Forced to mime things and put a great deal of effort into making a point, you learn just how valuable each statement you make actually is. Guess what...most of it's not worth the effort, but there are some things that you'd give pretty much anything to express. Maybe that's the greatest bit of all of this. The fact that some things bring so much joy and excitement that you can't help but share them, the fact that we as humans are a social, communal group, and that some things just don't hold much meaning until you're able to share them with those you care about.
So that's that, another Lent, and some more good stuff to learn. It didn't last the whole time, but it was still a very valuable experience, and I learned even more about how valuable community really is.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Mikey Likes It
Let me start this post by saying, "Thank you," to all the folks who have supported my fast from social speaking for Lent. It's the first Sunday of Lent which puts me officially 10% of the way there, and if the final 36 days are as fruitful as the first 4, I'm going to get a lot out of this.
I want to share one particular experience that stands out from my first day of silence. As with any conscious-effort fasting, I've had a few slips of the tongue in these first few days, but the first one was note worthy and, I think, illustrates a really cool development in the world of Craig.
My first slip up was a reflex response to say, "God bless you," when my friend Melissa sneezed. I hope that this doesn't strike anyone as a particularly upsetting slip up, if I can even consider it that. (After all, the point of this whole thing is to learn to listen, not to be rude, and in the case of saying things like "God bless you" or "Please and Thank you," I can hardly see a moral dilemma here regarding my Lenten fast.) The reason I found this particular reflex response noteworthy is because it was just that--reflexive.
So what? Well here's the back story: 4ish years ago, I was climbing with a good friend, Mikey Guarraia. We were working together through a project that he had put up in the gym that neither of us had been able to send. About 2/3 of the way through the climb, Mikey's looking really strong, and I'm convinced that he's going to send. Then Mikey sneezes. The sneeze doesn't pull Mikey off the climb, and I breathe a sigh of relief. Sweet, he's gonna finish it! Then he releases from the wall, hangs on the rope and stares down at me. "What's up?" I ask. "Um, what about 'God bless you, Mikey'?" he replies. Hhmmmm, hadn't really thought of it.
Probably doesn't sound like much of a story, but at that moment I became far more aware of how important little things like saying "God bless you" can be. Mikey was someone I had a great deal of respect for and to see him so disappointed and upset struck a chord with me. I made a conscious effort to start saying "God bless you." It was hard at first. It started by me hearing someone sneeze, and hearing someone else say "God bless you," and me thinking, "Damn, I missed it." Eventually I started to get it. And now, I'm happy to say, that my first slip in my 40 days without social speech was the say "God bless you" as a knee jerk reaction.
This is a simple illustration of personal growth--the same kind of personal growth that I hope to get out of this Lenten experience. Maybe I'll learn to be a better listener, maybe I'll learn to think more before I speak instead of just saying the first thing that comes to my mind, maybe it'll be a totally different outcome. Personal growth isn't always planned or expected; it comes from experiences, some you can predict, others come out of left field, like Mikey's stare while dangling 20 feet above me.
So that was my first realization this Lent, that in some small way, I'm a more polite person than I was 4 years ago. To me, knowing that makes this whole effort of Lent more promising and more rewarding. So thank you all for your support and kind words, and God bless you.
I want to share one particular experience that stands out from my first day of silence. As with any conscious-effort fasting, I've had a few slips of the tongue in these first few days, but the first one was note worthy and, I think, illustrates a really cool development in the world of Craig.
My first slip up was a reflex response to say, "God bless you," when my friend Melissa sneezed. I hope that this doesn't strike anyone as a particularly upsetting slip up, if I can even consider it that. (After all, the point of this whole thing is to learn to listen, not to be rude, and in the case of saying things like "God bless you" or "Please and Thank you," I can hardly see a moral dilemma here regarding my Lenten fast.) The reason I found this particular reflex response noteworthy is because it was just that--reflexive.
So what? Well here's the back story: 4ish years ago, I was climbing with a good friend, Mikey Guarraia. We were working together through a project that he had put up in the gym that neither of us had been able to send. About 2/3 of the way through the climb, Mikey's looking really strong, and I'm convinced that he's going to send. Then Mikey sneezes. The sneeze doesn't pull Mikey off the climb, and I breathe a sigh of relief. Sweet, he's gonna finish it! Then he releases from the wall, hangs on the rope and stares down at me. "What's up?" I ask. "Um, what about 'God bless you, Mikey'?" he replies. Hhmmmm, hadn't really thought of it.
Probably doesn't sound like much of a story, but at that moment I became far more aware of how important little things like saying "God bless you" can be. Mikey was someone I had a great deal of respect for and to see him so disappointed and upset struck a chord with me. I made a conscious effort to start saying "God bless you." It was hard at first. It started by me hearing someone sneeze, and hearing someone else say "God bless you," and me thinking, "Damn, I missed it." Eventually I started to get it. And now, I'm happy to say, that my first slip in my 40 days without social speech was the say "God bless you" as a knee jerk reaction.
This is a simple illustration of personal growth--the same kind of personal growth that I hope to get out of this Lenten experience. Maybe I'll learn to be a better listener, maybe I'll learn to think more before I speak instead of just saying the first thing that comes to my mind, maybe it'll be a totally different outcome. Personal growth isn't always planned or expected; it comes from experiences, some you can predict, others come out of left field, like Mikey's stare while dangling 20 feet above me.
So that was my first realization this Lent, that in some small way, I'm a more polite person than I was 4 years ago. To me, knowing that makes this whole effort of Lent more promising and more rewarding. So thank you all for your support and kind words, and God bless you.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Lenten Fasting
February 14th would have been my grandfather's 76th birthday. It's still odd to say the words "would have been" because his passing is still so recent, and this is still a year of "firsts since..." The past week has given me plenty of time to think about my relationship with him; a relationship that I credit as being the most influential on who I have become, and who I am continuing to become. With this thought in mind, I've recently been reminded of a conversation I had with my grandfather several years ago about church, religion, and the afterlife. I was a newly confirmed Catholic, and he never had much use for church. That's not to say he lacked faith. In fact, I'd venture to say he was one of the mostly deeply spiritual people I've ever had the pleasure to know. Yet, every Sunday, as my grandmother headed off to church, he'd head for his garden. "I'd rather be in my garden experiencing and doing God's work than at church listening to some version of God's Word."
I recall asking him what he believed about the afterlife. Where do we go from here? What's next? I'll always remember his answer because I believe it illustrated beautifully how he related to God. He told me that he didn't believe that we were alone in the universe, that this planet, and our lives were not so special. He believed that there were other "earths" with life on them, and that when we passed on, we had the opportunity to review our lives, and gain an understanding of where we went right and where we went wrong. Then, we'd be re-incarnated on another planet (either in some other "dimension" or simply on the other side of the universe), and given another chance to do it right. This process would continue, eh believed, until we managed to "get it right." Then we'd have the chance to move on to heaven. I don't know if he realized at the time how Buddhist his belief sounded, but it always rang true to me with a deep sense of awe for creation, and respect for God's work, and what is expected of us as God's children. There was no hell, only second chances, third chances, and so on (after all, we have an eternity)
One thing I'll always remember about my Granddad was that he was a man of action. He'd teach by doing, not by telling. In the family, I think I'll always be remembered as the grandson who posed the question, "Well, Granddad, what are we going to do that's unusual today?" Usually the story is told to illustrate my curiosity, but I've come to think that it's truly more telling of who he was, and who he was teaching me to be. I never would've thought to ask him what story he'd tell me, or what lessons he might be able to share with me, but always what opportunity we had to do something new.
So here's the question...what on earth does all this have to do with Lenten fasting?
I'm a talker, always have been and probably always will be. Of course, if you're reading this, you probably know that already. I've been told that 75% of all communication is non-verbal, and yet, in my life I remain skeptical (maybe it's 50/50). So, in light of the famous quote from St Francis, "Preach the Gospel at all times; if necessary use words," I've decided to give up speaking for Lent. I'm hoping that this sacrifice will teach me two things: first, to become a better listener, and second to learn to express myself and my beliefs through actions. Too often I find myself thinking of the next clever thing to say rather than listening to what is being said. I love a debate more than anyone I know, and can talk circles around almost any argument (Granddad always encouraged me to be a lawyer). I think now it's time to learn more about listening, about the values, experiences, opinions, and beliefs of others. This is an opportunity for action. A time where my opinions can take the backseat and other people can share their thoughts and ideas with me freely (without interruption or correction, as I'm so prone to do).
Those who I've mentioned this to think I'm crazy. I thought I'd die when I went of a 4 day silent retreat, how will I last 40? Maybe that's the challenge. This Lent thing isn't supposed to be easy. It's supposed to be a sacrifice. It's supposed to make you a better person. Hopefully, this year it will.
I have to note a few "exceptions" since so many people also like to tell me "Craig, you can't just give up speaking, you have classes and presentations." Since giving up speaking as a graduate student is not particularly feasible, I will allow myself to speak in class and formal settings where to refrain from speaking would be both disrespectful and detrimental to my educational experience. As April said, "So, you're really just giving up fun talking." Yes.
Also, two other instances merit exception. When asked of his thoughts on fasting rituals, Jesus responded "Can you make the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; in those days they will fast." (Lk 5:34,35) Times of celebration are not times for fasting. In light of this, I think it's only appropriate that I speak during my camping trip in Asheville with Annette, as a time to be reconnected with an old friend, and to "catch up" (plus it's rude to camp with someone for 3 days and not speak to them). Also, when my mother and grandmother visit at the end of March, the same rule will apply. In each of these events, I will take care to give priority to listening, and speak only as much as is required by the circumstances. In order to balance these events out, I will carry my fast from speaking into Sundays which are traditionally "feast days" celebrating the Easter Resurrection.
Ok, so that's the plan. You can call my cell during Lent, and I will say hello and goodbye and nothing else in between (except perhaps a grunt to acknowledge that I'm following along and have not hung up the phone) so be prepared to talk. My AIM will be on. You can leave messages but don't anticipate a response. Email still works, and I will respond to those in a business appropriate way, following the same rules I've established for classes and meetings.
I'm really hoping that this proves a beneficial and growth filled period of fasting. (Don't worry, I still have a week and a half to get some talking in before this all starts)
I recall asking him what he believed about the afterlife. Where do we go from here? What's next? I'll always remember his answer because I believe it illustrated beautifully how he related to God. He told me that he didn't believe that we were alone in the universe, that this planet, and our lives were not so special. He believed that there were other "earths" with life on them, and that when we passed on, we had the opportunity to review our lives, and gain an understanding of where we went right and where we went wrong. Then, we'd be re-incarnated on another planet (either in some other "dimension" or simply on the other side of the universe), and given another chance to do it right. This process would continue, eh believed, until we managed to "get it right." Then we'd have the chance to move on to heaven. I don't know if he realized at the time how Buddhist his belief sounded, but it always rang true to me with a deep sense of awe for creation, and respect for God's work, and what is expected of us as God's children. There was no hell, only second chances, third chances, and so on (after all, we have an eternity)
One thing I'll always remember about my Granddad was that he was a man of action. He'd teach by doing, not by telling. In the family, I think I'll always be remembered as the grandson who posed the question, "Well, Granddad, what are we going to do that's unusual today?" Usually the story is told to illustrate my curiosity, but I've come to think that it's truly more telling of who he was, and who he was teaching me to be. I never would've thought to ask him what story he'd tell me, or what lessons he might be able to share with me, but always what opportunity we had to do something new.
So here's the question...what on earth does all this have to do with Lenten fasting?
I'm a talker, always have been and probably always will be. Of course, if you're reading this, you probably know that already. I've been told that 75% of all communication is non-verbal, and yet, in my life I remain skeptical (maybe it's 50/50). So, in light of the famous quote from St Francis, "Preach the Gospel at all times; if necessary use words," I've decided to give up speaking for Lent. I'm hoping that this sacrifice will teach me two things: first, to become a better listener, and second to learn to express myself and my beliefs through actions. Too often I find myself thinking of the next clever thing to say rather than listening to what is being said. I love a debate more than anyone I know, and can talk circles around almost any argument (Granddad always encouraged me to be a lawyer). I think now it's time to learn more about listening, about the values, experiences, opinions, and beliefs of others. This is an opportunity for action. A time where my opinions can take the backseat and other people can share their thoughts and ideas with me freely (without interruption or correction, as I'm so prone to do).
Those who I've mentioned this to think I'm crazy. I thought I'd die when I went of a 4 day silent retreat, how will I last 40? Maybe that's the challenge. This Lent thing isn't supposed to be easy. It's supposed to be a sacrifice. It's supposed to make you a better person. Hopefully, this year it will.
I have to note a few "exceptions" since so many people also like to tell me "Craig, you can't just give up speaking, you have classes and presentations." Since giving up speaking as a graduate student is not particularly feasible, I will allow myself to speak in class and formal settings where to refrain from speaking would be both disrespectful and detrimental to my educational experience. As April said, "So, you're really just giving up fun talking." Yes.
Also, two other instances merit exception. When asked of his thoughts on fasting rituals, Jesus responded "Can you make the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; in those days they will fast." (Lk 5:34,35) Times of celebration are not times for fasting. In light of this, I think it's only appropriate that I speak during my camping trip in Asheville with Annette, as a time to be reconnected with an old friend, and to "catch up" (plus it's rude to camp with someone for 3 days and not speak to them). Also, when my mother and grandmother visit at the end of March, the same rule will apply. In each of these events, I will take care to give priority to listening, and speak only as much as is required by the circumstances. In order to balance these events out, I will carry my fast from speaking into Sundays which are traditionally "feast days" celebrating the Easter Resurrection.
Ok, so that's the plan. You can call my cell during Lent, and I will say hello and goodbye and nothing else in between (except perhaps a grunt to acknowledge that I'm following along and have not hung up the phone) so be prepared to talk. My AIM will be on. You can leave messages but don't anticipate a response. Email still works, and I will respond to those in a business appropriate way, following the same rules I've established for classes and meetings.
I'm really hoping that this proves a beneficial and growth filled period of fasting. (Don't worry, I still have a week and a half to get some talking in before this all starts)
Friday, February 03, 2006
Education in America...what does it all mean?
Most talks of education are full of buzzwords and silly ideas about how to make sure that every child receives the same education. We have congressional idiots creating things like the "No Child Left Behind Act" which has proven to be good for little besides giving teachers incentive to cheat on behalf of their students to either gain funding for their schools or avoid scores based probation (if you want to see it in writing just ask and i'll send you the article). I've grown increasingly frustrated with the grade inflation that's occurred in this country. There once was a time when intelligent people graduated high school and got good job, the truly special folks went on to college and were rewarded for it with high level jobs, and master's degrees and phd's held remarkable value. Now, everyone is expected to graduate high school, everyone who wants a job must go to college to get the jobs they used to give high school graduates, and a master's degree is pretty much the usual. It's essential the beauty of capitalism...colleges get to make more money off of more people, businesses save money because they theoretically have to train people less (read:"invest less in their people"), and students get to live off their parents longer. It's a win win win situation, right? Well sure, unless you count the truly intelligent people who actually would like to receive an education for their money and maybe graduate from college with some idea of how to function.
I'm reminded of the quote from George Orwell's Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." I often get accused of being arrogant or "an asshole" for saying thngs like this, but it's true. If you want to understand why American students are falling behind the rest of the world, start looking at the highest level students and how they are held back to be taught the same curriculum as everyone else, and I think you'll soon see where a large part of the problem lies.
(Disclaimer: I don't believe that the phrase "All men are created equal" was inteded to be used as liberally as it often is. I do, however believe that all men should be given the same opportunity for things such as education, and on that level are equal. This is what I'm talking about. We shouldn't reward schools that perform well and punish those that don't...we should treat all schools equally, (regardless of location, socioeconomic background of the students, minority population, etc) in terms of funding, and quality of teachers (which we certainly don't currently do). Rather, we should reward students who perform well on tests by giving them a more rigorous and challenging curriculum, challenging them to fulfill their potential, instead of draggin everyone collectively toward some governmentally defined center.)
(Disclaimer to the disclaimer: I also think that parents need to be held more accoutnable for the education of their children. To put it bluntly, I don't think anyone would be surprised to find out that very often dumb kids come from dumb parents, but we all seem shocked when dumb kinds come from smart parents, or smart kids pop up out of underfunded schools.)
So where is this all going...no where really. But I would like to say this: I think the biggest problem in the American education system is not with the grade schools, but with the colleges and universities. These are supposed to be "institutions of higher education," and in many cases they disappoint. If we're going to force some sort of standard curriculum on students, it should be at college, not at grade school. I say this because you should leave college with the ability to analyze a probelm and form an intelligent thought.
Here's my proposed first semester curriculum for all college students: 3 credits of discrete methods and logic (the nature of true, and false, decision making, and logical thinking), 3 credits of dimensional analysis (so that when you get out of college and some one gives you X cm/rev and Y rev/min and asks you what the speed is in cm/min, you don't need to try to remember a bunch of equations, realize you don't remember them and stare blankly at the page, but you know automatically that if you mulitply the numbers together the revs cancel out and you get the right answer...more importantly you know that adding them together makes no sense at all), 3 credits of debate (so that you can form a coherent arguement and hold a reasonably intelligent conversation), and finally, 3 credits of writing (not creative writing, or technical writing...I'm talking about sentence structure, grammar, and how to develop a paragraph, since aparently we aren;t teaching this in grade school any more.) One 3 credit elective about the real world (Possible titles: "How to find a job: Resumes and Interview Skills," "Managing your Finances" (I could've used this one honestly), or "Most People Are Idiots: How to Deal with them Effectively" (again, I needed this one).
15 credits on how to approach thought and life in an intelligent, rational, and understandable way. I don't think that's too much to expect from a college graduate. Do you?
I'm reminded of the quote from George Orwell's Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." I often get accused of being arrogant or "an asshole" for saying thngs like this, but it's true. If you want to understand why American students are falling behind the rest of the world, start looking at the highest level students and how they are held back to be taught the same curriculum as everyone else, and I think you'll soon see where a large part of the problem lies.
(Disclaimer: I don't believe that the phrase "All men are created equal" was inteded to be used as liberally as it often is. I do, however believe that all men should be given the same opportunity for things such as education, and on that level are equal. This is what I'm talking about. We shouldn't reward schools that perform well and punish those that don't...we should treat all schools equally, (regardless of location, socioeconomic background of the students, minority population, etc) in terms of funding, and quality of teachers (which we certainly don't currently do). Rather, we should reward students who perform well on tests by giving them a more rigorous and challenging curriculum, challenging them to fulfill their potential, instead of draggin everyone collectively toward some governmentally defined center.)
(Disclaimer to the disclaimer: I also think that parents need to be held more accoutnable for the education of their children. To put it bluntly, I don't think anyone would be surprised to find out that very often dumb kids come from dumb parents, but we all seem shocked when dumb kinds come from smart parents, or smart kids pop up out of underfunded schools.)
So where is this all going...no where really. But I would like to say this: I think the biggest problem in the American education system is not with the grade schools, but with the colleges and universities. These are supposed to be "institutions of higher education," and in many cases they disappoint. If we're going to force some sort of standard curriculum on students, it should be at college, not at grade school. I say this because you should leave college with the ability to analyze a probelm and form an intelligent thought.
Here's my proposed first semester curriculum for all college students: 3 credits of discrete methods and logic (the nature of true, and false, decision making, and logical thinking), 3 credits of dimensional analysis (so that when you get out of college and some one gives you X cm/rev and Y rev/min and asks you what the speed is in cm/min, you don't need to try to remember a bunch of equations, realize you don't remember them and stare blankly at the page, but you know automatically that if you mulitply the numbers together the revs cancel out and you get the right answer...more importantly you know that adding them together makes no sense at all), 3 credits of debate (so that you can form a coherent arguement and hold a reasonably intelligent conversation), and finally, 3 credits of writing (not creative writing, or technical writing...I'm talking about sentence structure, grammar, and how to develop a paragraph, since aparently we aren;t teaching this in grade school any more.) One 3 credit elective about the real world (Possible titles: "How to find a job: Resumes and Interview Skills," "Managing your Finances" (I could've used this one honestly), or "Most People Are Idiots: How to Deal with them Effectively" (again, I needed this one).
15 credits on how to approach thought and life in an intelligent, rational, and understandable way. I don't think that's too much to expect from a college graduate. Do you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)