One aspect of our currently shitty economy that really bothers me is the mortgage crisis. I hate the greed of the banks to approve huge mortgages without even check people's income. I hate the greed of the people who needed homes that were obviously out of their price range. Sure, a lot of people got hurt when the home value decreased or when when they got laid off. They could have planned better, but it was largely unexpected. Others couldn't pay when the variable interest rate went up. They should have better understood the deal, but they couldn't have known exactly how high the rate would end up being. But others admit that they couldn't pay the mortgage to begin with. What were those people thinking? The only explanation to me is greed and materialism. They wanted a nice house and were too blinded by that desire to think it through.
Today, I read this story in The Washington Post. Apparently, the biggest home built by the TV show "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" is being foreclosed on. How could that happen? The family didn't have to pay a mortgage. They were given money to pay the property taxes. They were even given money to put their kids through college. They should have been happy and financially stable. Why then the foreclosure? Well, apparently, they used this gift home as collateral on a $450,000 loan that they now can’t pay. Pure Greed.
Now, I must admit that I’m a quite the consumer myself. I’m often buying stuff I don’t need. I’m trying to be better about that, but it’s how I was raised. With stuff. However, I was also raised not to go into debt. I use credit cards, but I pay them off monthly. My car is currently paid off, which is why I don’t intend to buy another for a while. Sure, I used to have a mortgage. (It was pure luck that I sold before the market crashed.) But I had bought a home that was no bigger than what I needed (an 800 sq. ft. condo) with a mortgage payment that left plenty of extra income for other expenses as well as discretionary spending. I always “pay myself first” by having retirement and other savings pulled out of my bank account before I even see it. I have lots of clothes, but few are designer (unless bought used or on serious sale). I have a modest car.
I’m not a good representative for minimalism. (Something that, largely for environmental reasons I’m working to change.) But I can be an example of living within my means. And I'm proud of that.
Too many people look at debt as a fact of life. I like to look at debt as a last resort for something important that I couldn't otherwise have right now: an education, a home. And even then, just because I can get a loan doesn't mean I should take it. If you are going to sign up for a 30 year mortgage you should start by making a rough financial 30 year plan. You say you can't think that far ahead? Then you shouldn't be taken on debt beyond time periods you can imagine.
People say renting is throwing money away, but those people must not be looking at the truth in lending page of their mortgage document. Interest payments are throwing money away too. At least with renting I can walk away with 60 days notice.
Showing posts with label idiocracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label idiocracy. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Will technology be the death of teaching?
I was reading an article about a system called StraighterLine that is starting to be used at some colleges. The system posts self-guided course materials, and provides online access to a tutor if the student has trouble with the work. Essentially it’s a online class without a professor.
I could see this being effective for a very straight-forward class with concrete methods and definite solutions, such as algebra, but I can’t see this being effective for anything requiring complex analysis and abstract thinking. Sure such a course could be placed online. Those students who already have the skills would do just fine. But I don’t believe those other students could nurture those skills without direct interaction with a skilled teacher.
I’m not against online learning. I think it expands learning opportunities beyond geographic boundaries and, in some cases, makes it more economically accessible as well. And, I’m definitely not saying that online learning needs to mimic “old school” (literally) model. Some professors are creatively using technologies such as podcasts, blogs, and Twitter to the benefit of their students.
I worry about the model that pulls teaching out of it. Sure there have often been self-directed study models used in schools, but they were usually reserved for advanced students who were already surpassing their peers and who had the skills, motivation, and focus to learn on their own. Usually this occurred off to the side of another class, so the cost was the same for both sets of students.
A model such as StraighterLine scares me it is economically desirable. The cost of tutors (even enough to provide 24x7 coverage) is going to be cheaper than a professor’s salary. I fear a pressure to expand this usage to more and more classes. Sure this model may not work with some types of classes, but there is always the option to offer fewer of those other types of classes.
The risk is another “No Child Left Behind.” NCLB hurt arts curricula because it bases a school’s funding on standardized testable reading and math skills; therefore, reading and math often emphasized to the sacrifice of everything else. If an instructorless online system is significantly cheaper than other options, mightn’t schools be similarly compelled to focus on those classes that can be taught in that way?
Or perhaps it’s a good thing. Certainly we have all been taught by people who provided nothing more valuable than what StraighterLine provides. Perhaps it is those people who would be forced to find other work. Perhaps those teachers who truly engage and inspire, those who use the technology to enhance their lessons, who treat a classroom as a collaborative arena or thought—perhaps those wonderful people will still teach classes. Perhaps students will soon take them. Perhaps finding out there is an actual teacher tied to a course will be a signal that this is exceptional material taught in an exceptional way.
Courses that challenge the brain beyond its ability to regurgitate, be the subject art or philosophy or astrophysics, are the vital to ensuring that our future includes thinkers rather than an entire generation of human data processors.
I could see this being effective for a very straight-forward class with concrete methods and definite solutions, such as algebra, but I can’t see this being effective for anything requiring complex analysis and abstract thinking. Sure such a course could be placed online. Those students who already have the skills would do just fine. But I don’t believe those other students could nurture those skills without direct interaction with a skilled teacher.
I’m not against online learning. I think it expands learning opportunities beyond geographic boundaries and, in some cases, makes it more economically accessible as well. And, I’m definitely not saying that online learning needs to mimic “old school” (literally) model. Some professors are creatively using technologies such as podcasts, blogs, and Twitter to the benefit of their students.
I worry about the model that pulls teaching out of it. Sure there have often been self-directed study models used in schools, but they were usually reserved for advanced students who were already surpassing their peers and who had the skills, motivation, and focus to learn on their own. Usually this occurred off to the side of another class, so the cost was the same for both sets of students.
A model such as StraighterLine scares me it is economically desirable. The cost of tutors (even enough to provide 24x7 coverage) is going to be cheaper than a professor’s salary. I fear a pressure to expand this usage to more and more classes. Sure this model may not work with some types of classes, but there is always the option to offer fewer of those other types of classes.
The risk is another “No Child Left Behind.” NCLB hurt arts curricula because it bases a school’s funding on standardized testable reading and math skills; therefore, reading and math often emphasized to the sacrifice of everything else. If an instructorless online system is significantly cheaper than other options, mightn’t schools be similarly compelled to focus on those classes that can be taught in that way?
Or perhaps it’s a good thing. Certainly we have all been taught by people who provided nothing more valuable than what StraighterLine provides. Perhaps it is those people who would be forced to find other work. Perhaps those teachers who truly engage and inspire, those who use the technology to enhance their lessons, who treat a classroom as a collaborative arena or thought—perhaps those wonderful people will still teach classes. Perhaps students will soon take them. Perhaps finding out there is an actual teacher tied to a course will be a signal that this is exceptional material taught in an exceptional way.
Courses that challenge the brain beyond its ability to regurgitate, be the subject art or philosophy or astrophysics, are the vital to ensuring that our future includes thinkers rather than an entire generation of human data processors.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Cultural Degeneration
I don't want to write about the issues of the writers' strike. Who's right, who's wrong. I don't want to get into that. What I'm thinking about is the cultural impact of the writers' strike. The on-going nature of the strike is now going to impact the fall television season as well and the movie industry could begin to be impacted by the dearth of scripts as well. So, my question is what will this do to American culture?
Sadly, a precious minority of our society may look for quality entertainment elsewhere: quality tv or movies they may have missed; foreign tv and movies; books; or (dare I say it?) theatre. But I fear that hordes of couch potatoes will take what they are given. More reality shows! Re-runs of comedies they've seen so many times they know the words by heart! Even more reality shows (preferably focussing on people doing stupid or embarassing things).
It reminds me of the movie Idiocracy. In it, two people of average (or probably slightly below average) intelligence get sent to the future where they are by far the most intelligent people in the country. The scenario is that over the years the intellectual set were too focussed on career and accomplishments to have children; whereas, the undereducated popped out more kids than they could afford. (Eerily plausible.) The result is a society of where the most popular tv show is "Ow, My Balls," and they water plants with a sports drink because the commercials tell them to.
Sure, Idiocracy is a comedy, but it scares me. A lot.
Maybe this is just because I am the poster child for erudition. I have two master's degrees (and would like to take more classes). I have a strong affinity for non-musical theatre. I love words, perhaps even more than sentences. I definitely wouldn't say that all of society should be a nerd like me. But a world full of the blissfully ignorant is a nightmare to me. But I see this nightmare more and more in my waking hours. With the writers' strike continuing I would not be surprised to see "Ow, My Balls" as part of the Fox fall line up.
I must admit that my tastes are not always as highfalutin as this post may make them see. I watch some fluffy reality shows and bad crime dramas. But not all the time. I use these things to give my mind a much needed rest. But I am sure to work out my brain before it rests. All rest and no workout creates apathy. Is that where we are going?
No, this is not all about the decline of the tv line up. But I see (hopefully over-pessimisstically) the decline in intellectual entertainment as symptomatic of general ignorance. General ignorance begets prejudice, intolerance, and irrational fear. Those things create a society fraught with tension and violence. That is what I fear. People can watch whtat they want.
But it's tied together, isn't it? I think back to when I started listening to NPR in the mornings. (Yes, I am that snobby.) I was listening to the radio morning show full of stupid humor. Before hitting my coffeee fill stupid humor can be just right. However, that day I remember listening to the callers. Things that were obvious jokes to me and the djs were being taken as fact by the callers. This is how they were learning about the world. That scared me. I switched to NPR, which can be annoyingly smug, but I felt like I was no longer supporting the propagation of ignorance.
Phew. This is longer than I thought it would be, so I'll wrap up.
Okay. I'm 34 and childless, like those people who caused the decline in Idiocracy. But I believe that's not because of my career or my intellectual pursuits but because it took me a while to find the guy I fell in love with. Regardless, we do intend to have children. But what will the world be like for those children? Will the school yard talk be all about last night's episode of "Ow, My Balls?" Will there still be art and beauty? If so, will it be prevalent or will it be hard to find? Will conversation and debate still be possible?
Hopefully I'm being overly nihilistic. But I am worried. But, hey, did you see the crazy American Idol rejects the other night?
Sadly, a precious minority of our society may look for quality entertainment elsewhere: quality tv or movies they may have missed; foreign tv and movies; books; or (dare I say it?) theatre. But I fear that hordes of couch potatoes will take what they are given. More reality shows! Re-runs of comedies they've seen so many times they know the words by heart! Even more reality shows (preferably focussing on people doing stupid or embarassing things).
It reminds me of the movie Idiocracy. In it, two people of average (or probably slightly below average) intelligence get sent to the future where they are by far the most intelligent people in the country. The scenario is that over the years the intellectual set were too focussed on career and accomplishments to have children; whereas, the undereducated popped out more kids than they could afford. (Eerily plausible.) The result is a society of where the most popular tv show is "Ow, My Balls," and they water plants with a sports drink because the commercials tell them to.
Sure, Idiocracy is a comedy, but it scares me. A lot.
Maybe this is just because I am the poster child for erudition. I have two master's degrees (and would like to take more classes). I have a strong affinity for non-musical theatre. I love words, perhaps even more than sentences. I definitely wouldn't say that all of society should be a nerd like me. But a world full of the blissfully ignorant is a nightmare to me. But I see this nightmare more and more in my waking hours. With the writers' strike continuing I would not be surprised to see "Ow, My Balls" as part of the Fox fall line up.
I must admit that my tastes are not always as highfalutin as this post may make them see. I watch some fluffy reality shows and bad crime dramas. But not all the time. I use these things to give my mind a much needed rest. But I am sure to work out my brain before it rests. All rest and no workout creates apathy. Is that where we are going?
No, this is not all about the decline of the tv line up. But I see (hopefully over-pessimisstically) the decline in intellectual entertainment as symptomatic of general ignorance. General ignorance begets prejudice, intolerance, and irrational fear. Those things create a society fraught with tension and violence. That is what I fear. People can watch whtat they want.
But it's tied together, isn't it? I think back to when I started listening to NPR in the mornings. (Yes, I am that snobby.) I was listening to the radio morning show full of stupid humor. Before hitting my coffeee fill stupid humor can be just right. However, that day I remember listening to the callers. Things that were obvious jokes to me and the djs were being taken as fact by the callers. This is how they were learning about the world. That scared me. I switched to NPR, which can be annoyingly smug, but I felt like I was no longer supporting the propagation of ignorance.
Phew. This is longer than I thought it would be, so I'll wrap up.
Okay. I'm 34 and childless, like those people who caused the decline in Idiocracy. But I believe that's not because of my career or my intellectual pursuits but because it took me a while to find the guy I fell in love with. Regardless, we do intend to have children. But what will the world be like for those children? Will the school yard talk be all about last night's episode of "Ow, My Balls?" Will there still be art and beauty? If so, will it be prevalent or will it be hard to find? Will conversation and debate still be possible?
Hopefully I'm being overly nihilistic. But I am worried. But, hey, did you see the crazy American Idol rejects the other night?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
