Anecdotal Evidence, True or False, Can’t Help Us

It comes as little surprise to me that one of the leaders of the school reform movement is a serial fabulist. The entire movement is built on an edifice of plausible-sounding narratives that are always revealed to be empty when you give them a skeptical reading. On issue after issue within education, the education reform movement writ large has embraced the pleasant unreality of convenient stories over the messy work of gathering evidence responsibly and using it to improve public policy. So that Joel Klein lied about his background doesn’t surprise me; he’s just acting out personally the tendency of the movement writ large. (Perhaps this will shame The Atlantic out of letting him write advertising copy for his privatized reform efforts, which is like letting Ronald McDonald write pieces in your magazine about how McDonald’s hamburgers are delicious and affordable.)

What I am a little bit more surprised about is the fact that so many people are acting as though it’s the lies in his story that render it an improper point of discussion, and not the fact that it is a single piece of anecdotal evidence and thus useless for directing public policy. At the very best, Klein’s story would be a single data point. Arrayed against it is a large and growing body of empirical data that demonstrates that many of the reform movement’s favored policies– charter schools, merit pay, ease in firing teachers– has negligible effect on education outcomes, despite the promises of that movement.

Check this out from theProspectarticle:

As proof, Klein—and others for him—cites his life story in what has become a stump speech for his brand of school reform. Again and again, Klein recounts his own deprived childhood and how it was a public-school teacher who plucked him from a path to mediocrity or worse. He offers his autobiography as evidence that poverty is no bar to success and that today’s disadvantaged children fail only because they are not rescued by inspiring teachers like those from whom Klein himself had benefitted.

OK. Even if Klein’s story were true, and he was a poor kid who lived in a bad neighborhood like he says, this single story couldn’t tell us anything of responsible use when it comes to our public policy. If this story is really being used as evidence, the people taking it seriously probably shouldn’t be making important decisions about education. And if Richard Rothstein is right (and his piece is really a wonderful work of meticulous journalism), and the conventional wisdom has been deeply impacted by Klein’s story… well, that’s insane and scary.

There are multiple reasons to oppose charter schools, merit pay, teacher union busting, and private school vouchers, many related to fair labor practices, accountability when using public money, and local control of local schools. But the most obvious and salient reason is that none of them work to improve educational outcomes in the way that school reformers claim. That’s what any responsible assessment of the extant social science– rigorously conducted, appropriately sampled– tells us. That would be true whether or not one of the people growing rich off of the reform movement personally lived the plot of a Dickens novel. What happened to one guy is irrelevant. What matters is the crushing weight of all the numbers.

Early Life and Literacy

This short piece from the Times illustrates a point I’ve been making for a long time: a lot of our educational difficulties probably stem from inequality in prerequisite skills that are developed prior to formal schooling. Or perhaps skills isn’t even the proper term, as what we’re talking about might best be understood as acquired rather than learned. The article points out that language and literacy skills are both hugely determinative of future success and largely developed prior to formal education.

As the education theorist E. D. Hirsch recently wrote in a review of Paul Tough’s new book, “How Children Succeed,” there is strong evidence that increasing the general knowledge and vocabulary of a child before age 6 is the single highest correlate with later success. Schools have an enormously hard time pushing through the deficiencies with which many children arrive.

As I wrote here at BJ earlier this year, ” Literacy skills, in particular, are likely dependent on students meeting certain thresholds of relevant exposure at a particular age. It’s possible, in other words, that an energetic and bright teacher might have a huge impact on a student who has already developed the prerequisite reading skills but have essentially no chance with a student who lacks them.” Of particular interest– and particularly discouraging– is the possibility that this dynamic is the product of a critical neurological period during which the developing brain is unusually receptive to syntactic conditioning. This would be discouraging because it might suggest a permanency to early-life educational disadvantage.

I think this sort of thing demonstrates the inadequacy of our educational discourse. First, it really should give pause to anyone who is among the “blame teachers first” crowd; how can a teacher be blamed for the results of processes that begin, at the latest, during the toddler stage? But more to the point, it demonstrates that our educational outputs are conditioned by a host of factors that are really beyond society’s control. We don’t take children from their parents, and of course we shouldn’t. But a growing body of evidence suggests that parental input at the earliest stage of life have a huge impact on the success of children. How do we square that with our egalitarian aspirations, when we know that not all parents are made equal? I don’t have an answer, except for this: to protect all of our people from disadvantage through a robust and generous social safety net.

Bobby Jindal’s Voucher Schools: American Indians On the Trail of Tears Were Just Coming to Jesus

Part of the deal with libertarianism, in my experience, is that you get to embrace the “me first” economic school while still holding your nose about those churchy rubes in mainstream conservatism. You get all of that welfare mother hating without that anti-science, apocalyptic aftertaste. The only problem is that you always end up supporting social conservatives anyway. I can’t tell you how many people have acted all hurt and offended when I point out that the Koch brothers are just garden variety Republicans. Also too, libertarians get offended when you point out that, however many position papers they published on the police state, Cato’s biggest effect on the world is to elect Republicans– and there’s nothing the GOP likes as much as unfettered police power. It’s tense, is what I’m saying.

One issue that libertarians and social conservatives can always agree on is voucher schools, right? Get the government out of our government schools! Let the benevolent power of the market fix all of our problems. Including the problem where our students are taught that the massacre of American Indians and the Klan weren’t so cool. From Indian Country:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s voucher program to privatize public education has come under fire recently for spending state tax dollars to teach Bible-based curriculum. An August 7 post on MotherJones.com, a news outlet covering the 2012 elections, took a look at the program and 14 “wacky facts” kids will learn under the state’s new program.

One of those “facts” is that “God used the Trail of Tears to bring many Indians to Christ.” The tidbit comes from a 1994 A Beka Book, which offers Christian education materials, titled America: Land I Love.

Another “fact” the schools will teach is that the Ku Klux Klan “in some areas of the country tried to be a means of reform, fighting the decline in morality and using the symbol of the cross. Klan targets were bootleggers, wife-beaters, and immoral movies. In some communities it achieved a certain respectability as it worked with politicians.” That information comes from United States History for Christian Schools (Bob Jones University Press, 2001).

I’m told some people like their arguments in graph form

I posted all of these earlier in the year. I’m just going to leave them here.

Pursuant to the preceding:

(source: NCELA)

(source: National Center for Education Statistics)

What’s the mixture?

It’s looking like a mutually beneficial deal is coming soon in the Chicago teacher strike, and I’m glad if so. Matt Yglesias has a post up that I think is really worth reading. One of the things that I’ve been trying to tease out in this discussion is a contradiction within the conventional, shall we say, market friendly progressive take. Many in the ed reform world both a) claim that American teaching is suffering from a serious dearth of talent and b) oppose the Chicago teacher union in their strike. I find this problematic, particularly when it comes from those who typically express value in purely monetary terms: if you think that a given occupation has failed to attract talented enough workers, simultaneously arguing to make the job worse is counterproductive. Yglesias avoids this, to his considerable credit, by arguing that the teachers are well paid and deserving.

As he says

What I think this drives home is that not only is Chicago compensating its teachers unusually generously, but Chicago is right to do so. The national average teacher is paid a low amount for a college graduate, which is not a smart way to try to attract and retain the best possible teachers. Chicago, by being unusually generous, is offering a level of compensation that seems modestly above average for a college graduate. That’s exactly what I would want to see from my city—a real effort to invest the money necessary to hire and retain quality people.

One thing Yglesias might have mentioned is that, by almost any measure, Chicago is a particularly difficult environment in which to teach. 90% of Chicago public school students are eligible for federal school lunch subsidies, and I don’t need to tell anyone the considerable educational disadvantage associated with low socioeconomic status. Chicago has also been subject to a recent spate of truly terrible violence, and has crime and violent crime rates that have not decline at the rates of many other major American cities. It’s a tough, tough job.

The question is where we go from here. Yglesias rightly identifies the issue of standardized testing as a major source of contention.

The city wants to make test-based, “value-added” models of teacher performance a very important part of retention and compensation policies. The union, reflecting the views of most classroom teachers, hates that idea. And here’s the crux of the matter. Chicago’s teachers aren’t living lives of luxury, but the city really is investing in paying them an above-average amount. Now it wants to ensure that it’s not just investing a lot of money but investing that money in quality. Chicago teachers don’t want to be subjected to that kind of regime and reject the premise that the test-based model the city’s elected officials favor is a good proxy for quality.

Again, credit where due: this is a fair and evenhanded gloss. And it really is the rub: what portion of a student’s educational output is student-derived and what portion is teacher-derived? My frustration with a lot of education reformers is that they, at an extreme, find that question somehow disqualifying in and of itself, or otherwise treat it as a dodge, a ruse, or a kind of wagon circling. (Yglesias is occasionally guilty of the latter.) The trouble is that divining the exact mixture is, well, really goddamn hard. Probably impossible on a per-student basis; the confounding variables are just too numerous. For myself– and I will risk saying that my opinion is not uneducated– I am confident both that the teacher side of the mix for the average student  is far from nothing, but also that the general assumption places far too much power in the hands of teachers to determine student outcomes. I also believe that the mixture is probably not static or universal. Literacy skills, in particular, are likely dependent on students meeting certain thresholds of relevant exposure at a particular age. It’s possible, in other words, that an energetic and bright teacher might have a huge impact on a student who has already developed the prerequisite reading skills but have essentially no chance with a student who lacks them.

Yglesias’s economic intuitions, which frequently contribute to really valuable analysis of current events, fail him here because of these dynamics. A teacher’s control over his students just isn’t the same as a factory worker’s control over a widget. That’s why, for example, merit pay has such a poor track record. (Here’s an informative blog post, written by someone who is frequently critical of teacher unions.) I truly believe that a large part of a better educational discourse is just getting past analogy to conventional economics.

Inferential statistics are powerful.

One of the contentious aspects of the Chicago teacher strike is the role of standardized testing. As is typical of the reform movement, the Chicago school district is pushing for even more standardized testing. Teachers are resistant for a variety of reasons. Research suggests that increased standardized testing does not improve student outcomes, although those results must still be considered preliminary. Time spent “teaching to the test”– an inevitable consequence of high-stakes testing– robs students and teachers of the most valuable educational resource. What’s more, it is a simple fact that more standardized testing leads to more cheating, fraud, and abuse, from students, teachers, and administrators alike. That is not a normative statement; it is an empirical statement. Finally, there is widespread anecdotal evidence of the extreme psychological and emotional costs that repeated high-stakes, high-pressure testing has on children.

I would just like to add an important element to this: we don’t need to test everyone every year to have an extremely accurate picture of how our students are performing. People say that we need to know where our students stand and if they’re improving. And indeed we do! But we can find that information without subjecting all of our students to stressful testing that takes away valuable class time and invites considerable negative washback. Appropriately stratified samples, carefully selected, can tell us what we need to know about districts, states, and the nation. And we can express the accuracy of that information with mathematical precision using statistics like standard error and confidence intervals.

As Dr. Stephen Krashen, Professor Emeritus in Education at the University of Southern California– someone whose expertise and credentials are beyond reproach– has said, “One function of such tests is to compare groups and investigate factors related to high achievement, which works if tests are valid and are low-stakes and thus do not encourage cheating. But we don’t have to test every child in every grade every year…. When you go to doctors, they don’t take all your blood; they take only a sample.” We have developed validity and reliability tests, measures of statistical error, and processes for accounting for that error precisely so that we don’t have to check everyone. And lest you think that checking everyone is necessarily more accurate than extrapolating from samples, that’s not the case, even if we assume the validity of the test in assessing its given construct.

I can only conclude two things: first, that people simply don’t understand the power and accuracy of inferential statistics to describe complex realities like student academic achievement; and second, that people resist extrapolation out of the impression that this it offers a less effective bludgeon with which to attack teachers.

Look, I consider myself a quantitative researcher, among other things, and I hope to publish on questions of language testing and assessment. I just this past week agreed to peer review for a major language assessment journal. I’m not opposed to testing entirely, not at all. But their limitations are real, their negative consequences empirically verified, and most importantly, their primary strength ignored when they are used on all the kids, all the time. For our data collection, testing all kids twice during their educational careers, as the gold standard NAEP tests do, in addition to targeted stratified samples that can be minimally intrusive, is more than enough. If the purpose of testing isn’t data collection, but rather having an instrument to assault teachers, well, that’s a total betrayal of our children and our educational system.

Making a Job Worse Is a Brilliant Strategy for Attracting the Best Talent

The discussion about the Chicago strike is filled with people parsing the numbers about how much teachers make and whether it is too little or too much or just right. But having that conversation is conceding exactly the point we shouldn’t concede. It assumes that, for public employees and no one else, there is a certain amount that is just too much for the job. If you run a sex toy factory and make $250K a year, you’re a lion of capitalism. If you drive a city bus and you claw your way up to $38K a year, well, you’re a lucky ducky who has got to be put in his or her place.

So here’s Ezra Klein, doing his typically noncommittal thing, giving us his estimates of what Chicago public school teachers make. There’s a very direct and simple question, inspired by Corey Robin: how much do you make, Ezra? I’m willing to bet that Ezra Klein makes more than the median Chicago public teacher. I’m willing to bet that he in fact makes significantly more. I’m willing to bet that Klein makes something like what a lot of educated, upwardly-mobile young professionals living in Chicago make– the ones who, we are all supposed to assume, should be making several times what their peers who go to teach in inner city schools make.

Is what Klein makes too much? People will tell you that’s an absurd question, since he’s a journalist. I don’t begrudge Klein a dime of what he makes. I almost certainly want him to pay more of it back in taxes, but then I imagine that he thinks his own tax rates are too low. The point is: Ezra Klein is allowed, in our culture, to pursue as high a wage as he can. Public sector employees in general and teachers in particular are extended no such luxury. The question is both moral (do we value our teachers and our public employees, and do they have the right to pursue the best standard of living they can achieve) and practical (how can we claim to value education while working tirelessly to make educating a worse career). Leaving aside the ugly optics of legions of DC and NYC journos and pundits clucking their tongues at public servants who make much less than they do– this is supposed to make teaching a more attractive profession… how, exactly?

People believe that we are suffering from a lack of talent and drive in our teacher ranks. As you all know, I don’t agree, and I find the empirical evidence far, far more indicative of student-side demographic effects causing poor educational performance. But suppose the other side is correct. How the fuck are we going to fix a talent deficit when the self-same people work relentlessly to make teaching a less attractive profession? There’s a simple reality facing any talented, driven young graduate who is considering teaching as a profession: you know that our media and our politicians are always going to want to make your job worse. That’s reality. We have had decades of educational discourse dominated by the idea that our teachers are shiftless, incompetent swindlers. What rational person would prefer that over the alternatives available to people who are smart and hardworking?

I taught a brilliant young biology major a couple years ago. He mentioned in office hours once that he had always been attracted to teaching. I pressed him on why he didn’t consider the profession. And, being a polite kid, he deflected. Because of course, why on earth would he pursue a profession that pays next to nothing compared to what he could get in the private sector, where the benefits are getting relentlessly eroded, and where politicians and writers will hound you for life from their comfortable positions in DC and New York? I know, I know: the children, the children. Yes, some teachers work because they are inspired to create positive change. Well, I’m sorry, but that’s not a plan. That is not a recipe for a teaching corps of the size we need in this country. (Here’s a wild idea: send Klein, Dylan Matthews, Reihan Salam, Matt Yglesias, Josh Barro, etc., out to teach in inner city public schools. I wonder why they aren’t out there now, since they care so very much for the children?)

The reality is that you can’t be pro-education and anti-educator. Not just in the sense that you shouldn’t be, ethically, although I certainly believe that. I mean the notion that you can say that you care about education while working relentlessly to attack our actual teachers is nonsensical. If you want to attack our teachers as “overpaid,” OK. Go ahead. But you don’t get to pretend that you give a shit about education. If you don’t have a problem with celebrity dog trainers who make 7 figures or personal stylists who make $5,000 a consultation or people who sell artisanal moonshine for $400 a bottle, but you have a problem with teachers working in one of the most difficult teaching environments in the country making $75K a year, hey, alright. But save me the platitudes. Save me your chest-beating and your weeping for the children, the children. Quality health insurance, pensions, job security, a strong union to represent your self-interest: these are the only tools we have to attract people into this profession, when so many other educated professions make so much more. Advocate the end of those benefits and you declare yourself an enemy of education. You make it plain that you don’t actually value it with the only currency we care about in this culture, hard cash. You are saying that you don’t really value what you say you value. Period.

In this capitalist system of ours, what people make is a statement about how much society values what they do. Honey Boo Boo Child will make more this year than most Chicago teachers, and our friends in the media think they make too much. That’s all you need to know. If you think that people should be willing to teach for less, than shut your mouth and go apply to teach in Chicago yourself.

Update: The post in question was written by Dylan Matthews, not Ezra Klein; it ran under Klein’s Wonkbook section at the WaPo. I apologize for the error.

Inflection points

I hope to have something of considerable substance up about the Chicago teachers’ union strike up in the next three days, specifically looking at the empirical evidence concerning teachers’ unions, student demographics, and academic performance. (For example: complaining about the high school dropout rates at Chicago Public Schools without mentioning that 90% of Chicago’s public school students are eligible for subsidized lunch is unhelpful at best, dishonest at worst.) But I wanted to take a minute and say, simply: this is where the rubber meets the road. I think you should pay very close attention to this strike and how the usual suspects talk about it. The issues at hand here are very basic and vastly important, for the future of the left. I know that people tire of the meta discussions, but I think that it’s always important to define what we believe and who we stand with. These questions are existential in the broadest sense.

It doesn’t take a wild guess to know that I stand with the picketing teachers. It also probably won’t surprise you to know that rising neoliberal wunderkind Dylan Matthews, writing to his patron’s large readership, has come out on the other side. People are going to take sides and those sides will tell you everything– about their grasp on empiricism and social science, their respect for working people and labor, and whether they are willing to extend American abundance to public employees.

Do you think that teaching should be a high-status position that carries with it a decent wage and the chance for meaningful pay raises? Or do you want to continue the relentless assault on the profession? That is the essential question at stake here.

Update: Corey Robin is essential here.

Tweet It, Like It, Drop Copies of It From an Airplane

Forgive me for posting just to link to something, but I’ve wanted to share this for awhile. It’s a blog post by Greg Laden on the constantly expressed “correlation is not causation” line. I don’t think a day goes by that I don’t hear someone online respond to data by saying “correlation does not imply causation!” as if that were an argument against any specific claim, rather than a vague and frequently unhelpful truism. Laden:

 Sometimes, we have reason to believe that two things co-vary because of one or more external causes. Aridity in one region of the world is correlated with higher rainfall in another reason of the world, and it turns out that both meteorological variations are caused by the effects of the Pacific El Nino. Quite often, especially in complex systems like are often dealt with in the social sciences, we can replicate correlations among various phenomena but we may have multiple ideas about what the causal structure underlying the phenomenon at hand may be. Repeated observations rule out random associations or meaninglessness in the data, but we are faced with multiple alternative models for where to put the causal arrows. In other words, we’re pretty sure there is a “causal link” somewhere, but we can’t see, or agree amongst ourselves, on what it is.

I can, for example, show you a correlation between the percentage of a given school’s students that utilize the free lunch program and that school’s performance on certain standardized tests of academic performance. Now: does whether a student eats his or her lunch for free cause him or her to perform worse on a standardized test? Of course not. We are using that as a convenient, easily-accessible and highly effective proxy for socioeconomic status. But even then, are we claiming that it’s actually the money (or lack thereof) in a parent’s bank account that causes academic deficiency? Of course not. We are assuming a line of influence from an observable and influential variable that frequently results in a given outcome, even though we are still unsure about every discrete step within that line of influence. We are pointing out that a complex, multivariate phenomenon like the relationship between parental income and student performance can nevertheless be understood as producing certain consistently observable consequences through which we can make educated decisions about our policy.

To look at such a correlation and say “poverty is definitely the sole cause of this particular student’s performance on this standardized test” or “all students from poverty will score similarly on a standardized test” would indeed be stupid; but who is suggesting such things? And it is, in my opinion, equally stupid to look at the remarkably consistent and robust correlation between socioeconomic status and educational performance and respond by saying, “well, correlation is not causation, so we just have to consider these as separate phenomena.” Like Laden says: don’t be a dumbass. Use your head; use common sense. Because frankly, if we are afraid to speak about correlation because of the true but frequently irrelevant fact that it doesn’t ensure causation, our jobs as both students of reality and citizens of the world become vastly harder.

Read the whole thing.

The Party of Petty Resentment

Can you imagine– can you imagine– if a leading Democrat deliberately dissed the intended honorees of, say, Memorial Day? Can you imagine how the mainstream media would report on it?

Eric Cantor, it almost goes without saying, has never worked a day in his life. A career politician, as so many haters of government are, his only work in the private sector was spent in the family business that he was lucky enough to be born into. It takes a special kind of shamelessness to mock workers with talk of “earning your own success” when working for your Daddy’s business is the closest you’ve ever come to honest labor. What a childish, classless display.

Tonight I drink for everyone who ever worked and suffered for it, the people who built the country that Cantor and his party exploit. The dignity of our working people is beyond the cheap insults of the Eric Cantors of the world.

Bias Is As Bias Does

Jon Chait’s peculiar, pointless wander through Hollywood’s liberal bias says a lot, I guess, about a lot– about mainstream liberalism’s passionate self-hatred, about liberal commentators’ refusal to straightforwardly express the superiority of their values (as conservatives have done to incredible political effect), and about what a weird form of toothless cultural liberalism New York Magazine now represents.

I find Chait’s repeated claim that conservatives are no longer fighting the culture war against Hollywood to be self-evidently absurd. We’re living in a world with Big Hollywood and An American Carol and Archbishop Dolan and seemingly hundreds of conservative groups that “monitor” Hollywood and televsion…. Michael Medved, quoted credulously and at length in the piece, enjoys national prominence. The Parents Television Council makes national news just about every month. It’s a bizarre claim, the kind that you can only make if you are living the secluded, myopic life that you think you’re critiquing.

But I’ll leave that fight to others. For my part, I just want to point out the incoherence of trying to talk about bias as an expression of anything other than the preferences of the person making the claim. Chait wants us to take conservative claims of cultural bias in Hollywood seriously. He wants to suggest that bias is somehow illegitimate even if he doesn’t agree with the perspective of those claiming bias. “Imagine that large chunks of your entertainment mocked your values and even transformed once-uncontroversial beliefs of yours into a kind of bigotry that might be greeted with revulsion. You’d probably be angry, too.”

You’ll note that conservatives would never undertake a similar project; you are not going to find a conservative writer concern trolling about the massive conservative bias in our military, or in our corporate world, despite the fact that both of these are vastly more powerful forces than Hollywood. Nor will you hear conservatives worrying aloud about the conservative bias of American Christianity, or sports media, or video games. The reason, of course, is that these biases are not seen as bias at all, but just the way things are. To conservatives and ostensibly liberal worriers like Chait, bias is only and ever liberal. Liberal bias in our African American studies programs is a problem to be solved. Conservative bias in the chambers of commerce? Hey, that’s life.

The truth is that there is no vantage point from which you can observe bias that isn’t your own contingent, ideological perspective. Nor are complaints about bias qua bias ever consistently applied. After all, I too hate Hollywood’s biases. I hate Hollywood’s bias towards capitalism, towards simplistic Manicheanism, towards militarism, towards the notion that all problems can be solved through violence, towards the very idea of righteous violence. I hate that Hollywood acts as if every happy life ends in romantic coupling, or that every happy couple has to maintain sexual monogamy, or that raising children is necessarily the endpoint of the good life. I hate Hollywood’s cultural colonialism, its sexism, its heteronormativity, its treatment of gender confusion as comedic. I hate Hollywood for its empty, useless cultural liberalism that suggests that structural changes are never necessary. I hate its bias towards the establishment.

Now: there’s nothing inherently different between my claims of bias and conservative claims of bias. And yet knowing Jon Chait’s work, I can say with certainty that he would never take my complaints seriously in the same way that he takes conservative complaints seriously. He would not ask you to put yourself in my shoes. In fact, as he is the kind of Very Serious liberal that merely dislikes those to his right but passionately hates those to his left, he would be far more likely to treat my complaints with straightforward contempt– which of course is merely to say that he is, himself, biased, as we all are. That’s the problem with claims of bias: there’s no way to stand outside of yourself. Better just to advocate for what you think of as right. (You know what I call more gay characters on television, more nontraditional families in movies, more anti-big business narratives out there? Moral progress.)

Oh, by the way, since it wouldn’t be a piece of neoliberal big think without some flat factual errors: Chait claims that “In Red Dawn, the paranoid 1984 action film about a Communist invasion of America, the Cuban commander of the occupying Communist forces (don’t ask) ultimately lets rebel leader Patrick Swayze go free, and the story ends with a meditation on the evils of war.”

And here’s IMDB’s transcript of the end of that movie:

Erica: [closing narration] I never saw the Eckert Brothers again. In time, this war – like every other war – ended. But I never forgot. And I come to this place often, when no one else does.

[we see "Partisan Rock," with its memorial plaque, which she reads for us]

Erica: “… In the early days of World War 3, guerillas – mostly children – placed the names of their lost upon this rock. They fought here alone and gave up their lives, so that this nation should not perish from the earth.”

Yeah, it’s straight out of Eugene Debs.

Another Casualty of the Administrative Invasion of the University

People are often surprised at how adamant I am that cutting administrative costs is a huge part of making college less expensive. Surely, the administrative costs– which means, to a very large degree, the salaries of administrators and the number of administrators employed– can’t be that much higher than they once were, right?

They can be. And it’s a huge, huge problem.

Here’s one of the saddest stories I’ve read about in ages. The University of Georgia’s student run newspaper, The Red and Black, is a no-bullshit great student newspaper. Or was. Yesterday the entire student leadership walked out, thanks to a paternalistic and heavy-handed Board of Directors who are uncomfortable with actual journalism. In a heartbreaking open letter from the former Editor in Chief:

The newspaper has always been a student-run operation, but recently, we began feeling serious pressure from people who were not students. In less than a month, The Red & Black has hired more than 10 permanent staff with veto power over students’ decisions.

In a draft outlining the “expectations of editorial director at The Red & Black,” a member of The Red & Black’s Board of Directors stated the newspaper needs a balance of good and bad. Under “Bad,” it says, “Content that catches people or organizations doing bad things. I guess this is ‘journalism.’ If in question, have more GOOD than BAD.” I took great offense to that, but the board member just told me this is simply a draft. But one thing that would not change is that the former editorial adviser, now the editorial director, would see all content before it is published online and in print. For years, students have had final approval of the paper followed by a critique by the adviser only after articles were published. However, from now on, that will not be the case. Recently, editors have felt pressure to assign stories they didn’t agree with, take “grip and grin” photos and compromise the design of the paper.

It’s totally disgraceful for a great, student-run– and thus student-centered– program be forced to bow down to ten pencil pushers who almost certainly got their jobs because they know somebody with connections. And for it to happen in a way that threatens journalistic independence is shameful. (For context, my public high school’s student newspaper was also quite acclaimed, and we enjoyed more editorial independence than is described in the letter.) Why is this happening?

It’s hard for people outside of the university system to understand just how many layers of useless bureaucracy have been added in recent decades. There are more buildings filled with more people with vague and redundant titles at the average university now, it’s incredible. Completing minor tasks gets you shuffled through the byzantine architecture of a vast bureaucracy. Jobs that were once performed as part of the duties of the professoriate have now been shuffled off to administrators who have no educational experience and no educational credentials, resulting in a massive hiring binge; meanwhile, the ranks of tenure track faculty continue to shrink, to say nothing of stagnant wages among the actual educators.

The bureaucratic takeover is more pronounced in public universities because of the explicitly political nature of recent changes in their structure. Republican state lawmakers realized that public universities could be a tool to enforce their political ends, but first, they needed to stack the deck by filling them with cronies. And fill them they have, as typical estimates for the increase in the number of college administrators from the late 1990s to the late 2000s are typically between 30-40%. This court-packing has multiple benefits for conservative state apparatchiks: college administrative jobs are a nice bit of influence to peddle, and these administrators can act as loyalists when there is a conflict with faculty and students. I’m afraid that, if there’s a major change in a university in the last decade,  it’s more likely to have come from a petty functionary than from someone in the actual faculty. You’d be amazed at how much control these administrators truly have.

This article from the Washington Monthly gives you a good overview; it’s an adapted excerpt by Benjamin Ginsberg from his book The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why it Matters. If you’re interested in these topics I highly recommend it.

Update: Here’s the actual, disgraceful memo. “I guess this is ‘journalism.’” “Things we will not tolerate: Liable.”

Update II: Twitter has suspended the account the editorial board started, @redanddead815. No word as to why.

William Saletan’s Love for Paul Ryan is Based on Fantasy

In American national politics, it doesn’t get much more extreme than Paul Ryan, or the Ryan-Romney budget. That’s reality. Mitt Romney taking on Ryan as his running mate is like Barack Obama taking on Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich. The Ryan-Romney budget is one of the most extreme policy proposals in the history of our country, as extreme as the PATRIOT act or the Alien and Sedition acts– wartime legislation that drew on national panic. Romney’s purported strength is that he’s a moderate technocrat, a can-do businessman who will use his fiscal prudence and New England moderation to help get our national house in order without, you know, letting New Orleans get swallowed by the sea or accidentally invading Turks and Caicos. This is, of course, bullshit; Romney is neither a moderate nor a technocrat nor a fiscal conservative nor a particularly skillful executive. The Ryan nomination is merely the coup de grace, the last confirmation that Romney is an extremist beholden to a mad, extremist wing of a mad, extremist party. This is not business as usual; this is arch-conservatism by any measure.

The question is whether our media will tell the truth about this extremism. If Obama was actually to nominate Sanders or Kucinich, our political media would report on it as if the President had personally sodomized Lady Liberty while reciting The Communist Manifesto and paying children to go gay. Romney’s nomination of the even-more-extreme Paul Ryan has mostly been met with observations about Ryan’s good looks and his supposed seriousness and “wonkiness.” In the war for the Presidency of 2012, one of the key battles will be over this issue exactly: will our comprehensive failure of a new media tell the truth about the extremism of Romney, Ryan, and the Ryan-Romney budget? Will those of us opposed to Republican extremism be able to call a spade a spade and spread the word about the Romney ticket’s ultra-conservative policies?

Today we get William Saletan, Slate’s Official Correspondent on You’re a Slut and I’m in Charge of Your Uterus, waxing orgasmic about Paul Ryan. Ryan, you see, is the way a Republican “should be.” I take it that part of the point here is that those mature, centrist types like Saletan believe that we’re best served if our politicians fill predetermined roles based on vague and artificial standards, as if choosing elected officials is no different than a casting call for some shitty movie. So, you see, what the Republic needs is not for the party that is correct on the merits to succeed; what the USA needs, instead, is for someone to fill the role of Meta-Republican. That this is a vision of politics that should be reserved for children and imbeciles, I take as self-evident, but it’s almost entertaining to see someone lay their dysfunctional political ethos out there. Hey, Billy– supporting politicians based on how well they’d play the role of generic Republican on The West Wing is fucking insane.

Ah, but the specifics! The details! For, indeed, Paul Ryan is a details man. (Except that he isn’t.) Let’s get to them.

More »

B-b-b-but teh deficits!

Sorry to continue with the deluge of Paul Ryan posts, but– when your idiot cousin inevitably talks about how serious Paul Ryan is, thanks to being such a deficit warrior, please refer him to this handy chart. It was prepared by the indispensable MSNBC show, Up with Chris Hayes. Click the photo for the source.

Once Again, On Student Loan Bubbles

We are in something of a crisis, although a frequently overblown one, when it comes to student loan debt. I have written at great length about ways both to lower the cost of college and to help those who are struggling under the weight of student loan debt. However, I firmly believe that this problem needs to be understood as a humanitarian one which has the chief problem of hurting people who don’t have to be hurt, and not as an asset bubble which could cause ripple effects that sink the rest of the economy.

I think the urge to call a student loan debt bubble is based on multiple factors. First, we have bubbles on the brain, for obvious reasons, and calling bubbles has become a hallmark of lazy journalism and commentary. Second, this is a favored argument of  conservatives, and libertarians, who don’t like government subsidizing education and largely hate the professoriate and dislike what they perceive to be the politics of the university system. Finally, you get it from Gawker, which is always eager to call other people chumps, as part of its basic financial model which trades stroking its readership for clicks.

What contributes to conventional asset bubbles, whether they be in condos or tulips or stocks? There’s a few key factors that don’t apply at all to student loan debt.  Assets in typical asset bubbles are transferable and they are appreciable and they are held by private entities.

Take the housing bubble. It’s the go-go 2000s. Financialization has attracted a massive amount of investment capital. Why? Because rates of return are so high. Why? Because you can speculate, in part. What can you speculate on? You can speculate on assets that can appreciate and that can be transferred. So take a house and a mortgage. I’m Joe SubPrime. I want to buy a house. The mortgage company is hungry for more business, as is the bank that buys the loan as part of a big CDO, as is the hedge fund that wants to make bets about the value of that CDO. Everybody wants me to get the house, so I do. Being SubPrime, I can’t actually afford to pay the mortgage. But, crucially, the mortgage is backed by the collateral of the house, an asset which can appreciate itself. There is a value to the collateral, in other words, that is independent of the value of the loan. This is supposed to make mortgages safer for the banks than unsecured debt like credit card or student loan debt, where the only enforcement mechanism is the negative impact on a borrower’s credit report.

But, as we know, in practice the collateral of the physical property made mortgages far riskier. Because the value of the real estate kept going up, borrowers could keep refinancing their loans (and often, their lifestyles). And in the event that someone did default, the banks could take their real estate at a time when that was a valuable asset. Everything was groovy, save for those poor squares who got predatory loans they couldn’t afford, as long as everybody believed that housing values could only go up. For as long as housing prices were rising, the bubble expanded and expanded and expanded….

That, really, is the fundamental bubble mechanism that cause the financial crisis, the (bizarre in hindsight) conventional wisdom that housing prices couldn’t go down. Once it became clear that housing was overvalued in some places, it punctured the market and brought prices down almost everywhere. That meant that individual borrowers now couldn’t refinance to stay ahead of their payments, which led them to default, which pumped the now-cratering housing market full of foreclosures, left in the hands of banks who couldn’t sell them and who suddenly had previously-valuable CDO assets reduced to nothing, causing banks to approach failure, forcing them to discontinue their normal operations like lending to businesses, which forced those businesses to downsize dramatically or fold altogether, sending millions into the job market and dramatically slowing the growth of our economy.

The basic mechanism, in all of this, was based on the misconception that the collateral associated with the mortgages could not depreciate. In other words, the housing bubble was just that, a bubble in housing and not in mortgages.

More »