Society

The Elitism of Hackschooling, Unschooling, and other Fads

by

On the surface, this is a perfectly valid perspective on education.

“Hackschooling” is clearly working out perfectly well for this kid, and I don’t have any doubt that his education is probably far superior to what the median American kid receives. But the secret sauce in this education stew isn’t some cutting-edge theory. It’s actually just the lavish expenditure of time, money, and human capital to purchase a cutting-edge education most families cannot afford.

Think about it this way: public education is designed to capture economies of scale. Want to educate a whole country: design one curriculum and teach it to all of them. When you upgrade from public education by spending more money what you’re basically getting is a combination of prestige and personalization. Personalization works because of smaller teacher:student ratios, but also because the expense of private education means you end up with a much more homogenuous student body, and so the educational experience can be customized to a greater extent. You spend money, you get personalized education.

The thing to realize is that this “unschooling” (or “hackschooling” or whatever) is not any different. It’s the exact same idea, but taken to the extreme. Sure, there might not be a huge outlay of cash, but there is definitely a huge outlay of time. We’re talking about a student:teacher ratio of something like 1:3 or 1:4 (depending on the number of kids involved) and you can only swing that if you’ve got a single-earner making enough to support the whole family. You might not be writing a check to a private school for tuition, but you are having one spouse opt to not bring home a paycheck at all. That’s the tuition of homeschool.

But there’s more to it than that. A lot of the experiences this kid talks about are clearly not experiences you can get if your family is not well-connected and knowledgeable. At 13-years old I couldn’t have gotten a job at all, much less an internship at a quirky specialist manufacturer of some kind. The best I could swing was a job as a janitor when I hit 14 and it was legally allowed. Your parents have to have the social circle and the know-how to set up these awesome experiences, and that’s basically a requirement of human capital.

I’m not criticizing this family’s choices. I think that homeschooling is awesome when done right. What I’m criticizing is the kind of snake-oil approach that says there’s some kind of theory or trick to awesome education. There isn’t. Not really. It’s just a question of quantity of resources that you have to throw at the problem. And, from that perspective, this kid’s education is about the most elite and expensive you can imagine. Good for him that his parents can afford it, but let’s not kid ourselves about the price tag. For most Americans: it’s out of your reach.

The Passing of Nelson Mandela, 1918-2013

by

Nelson Mandela died today at 95. There is an excellent interactive piece in The New York Times documenting Mandela’s life and achievements. Another NYT article provides a moving quote from President Obama:

His commitment to transfer power and reconcile with those who jailed him set an example that all humanity should aspire to,” a grim President Obama said Thursday evening, describing Mr. Mandela as an “influential, courageous and profoundly good” man who inspired millions — including himself — to a spirit of reconciliation.

Read more

Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era

by

I was recently revisiting some of the research by economist Thomas C. Leonard of Princeton University on eugenics and economics during the Progressive Era. Leonard is currently working on a book entitled Excluding Inferior Workers: Eugenic Influences on Economic Reform in the Progressive Era. I had nearly forgotten about the excellent slide-show he produced for his book’s research. For those who have an interest in economic history–especially the Progressive Era’s influence on America’s economic thinking–these slides are definitely worth reading.

Pope Francis: Lost in Translation

by

Priest and blogger Father John Zuhlsdorf argues on his blog that part of Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation may have been mistranslated. The Spanish reads,

54. En este contexto, algunos todavía defienden las teorías del «derrame», que suponen que todo crecimiento económico, favorecido por la libertad de mercado, logra provocar por sí mismo mayor equidad e inclusión social en el mundo.

The official English is translated as

In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.

However, por si’ mismo (translated as “inevitably” above) actually means “by itself.” In other words, the Pope is saying the assumption that “economic growth, encouraged by free markets, will by itself succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world” is false. As Father Zuhlsdorf puts it,

But the real point here is that in EG 54 the author says that “trickle down” economics cannot by itself produce the desired result. That is, of course, correct. No economic plan will solve the problems of the poor by itself.  Economic plans must be carried out by people who have good, solid morals and values.

Easy for things to get lost in translation.

Gender Essentialism and Complementarity

by

2013-12-03 Male Female Brain

The Independent has an article on a study about the hardwired difference between male and female brains. According to the article, men have more connection going from front-to-back and women have more going from side-to-side, and this might explain superior male motor skills and superior female verbal skills. The argument is that these characteristics are genetic, not behavioral, and this would be a point for gender essentialism, which is the idea that gender is to a great degree biologically determined and not merely a social construct.

I also thought it was interesting that the researchers were quoted on gender complementarity several times, such as:

These maps show us a stark difference – and complementarity – in the architecture of the human brain.

And:

It’s quite striking how complementary the brains of women and men really are.

Of course in an ideal world science is not politicized, but at a minimum this article is a good place to explain the conservative view on gender equality. The most simplistic interpretation of gender equality, of course, is gender sameness. Differences between the sexes are downplayed or relegated to secondary importance. (Man vs. woman, right-handed vs. left-handed… whatever.) But conservatives hold a different view, which is that men and women are equal but different. The derogatory term for that would be something like “separate but equal”, but conservatives would use the term “complementary,” meaning that men and women are different but that these differences are not about better vs. worse, but are merely two halves of a puzzle that works best when both pieces are given equal consideration despite their different natures.

The Night of the Living Dead

by

Last year, I posted a piece at The Slow Hunch on Black Friday. Does the post-Thanksgiving binge represent the most base form of materialism? Maybe not (at least not completely). Check out my post to see why.

Good News, Pope Francis

by

The media has exploded over Pope Francis’ recent apostolic exhortation. In it, he denounced social and economic inequality, which he declared are “the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation” and “trickle-down theories.”[ref]Economist Thomas Sowell has claimed, “No such theory [i.e. trickle-down] has been found in even the most voluminous and learned histories of economic theories…Yet this non-existent theory has become the object of denunciations from the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post to the political arena…It is a classic example of arguing against a caricature instead of confronting the argument actually made.” (Sowell, “Trickle-Down” Theory and “Tax Cuts for the Rich”. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 2012, 1-2.)[/ref] The media hailed it as an anti-capitalist proclamation, while virtually ignoring other important factors like his attack on abortion.[ref]”Among the vulnerable for whom the Church wishes to care with particular love and concern are unborn children, the most defenceless and innocent among us. Nowadays efforts are made to deny them their human dignity and to do with them whatever one pleases, taking their lives and passing laws preventing anyone from standing in the way of this. Frequently, as a way of ridiculing the Church’s effort to defend their lives, attempts are made to present her position as ideological, obscurantist and conservative. Yet this defence of unborn life is closely linked to the defence of each and every other human right. It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development. Human beings are ends in themselves and never a means of resolving other problems. Once this conviction disappears, so do solid and lasting foundations for the defence of human rights, which would always be subject to the passing whims of the powers that be. Reason alone is sufficient to recognize the inviolable value of each single human life, but if we also look at the issue from the standpoint of faith, “every violation of the personal dignity of the human being cries out in vengeance to God and is an offence against the creator of the individual”. Precisely because this involves the internal consistency of our message about the value of the human person, the Church cannot be expected to change her position on this question. I want to be completely honest in this regard. This is not something subject to alleged reforms or “modernizations”. It is not “progressive” to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life. On the other hand, it is also true that we have done little to adequately accompany women in very difficult situations, where abortion appears as a quick solution to their profound anguish, especially when the life developing within them is the result of rape or a situation of extreme poverty. Who can remain unmoved before such painful situations?” (#213-214)[/ref] While some are seeing Francis’ remarks as radical, it is virtually the same message found in, say, the exhortations of John XXIII (1961) or Leo XIII (1891). This just reinforces Nathaniel’s point in his post “Meet the New Catholicism, Same as the Old Catholicism.”

But I have some good news for Pope Francis and the media: things have been getting better for some time. The world isn’t quite on its way to hell in a handbasket. Furthermore, it was the “autonomy of the marketplace” that achieved one of the major Millennium Development Goals of halving global poverty five years early. And as I’ve noted before, global inequality is actually decreasing. A brand new study supports past research by demonstrating that–though inequality is still high and increasing within countries (not just in America)–global inequality has seen an unprecedented decline.

(Above graph provided by GMU’s Robin Hanson)

This is not to say that all is well. There is much, much more to be done. But these are positive trends; trends that caused one journalist to declare 2012 (at the dawn of 2013) the best year ever. We have seen incredible progress over the past couple centuries. If we want to address social ills like those Pope Francis spoke of, we should look to those policies (and yes, ideologies) that have made these positive trends possible.

Funny Maps, American Ignorance, and Common Humanity

by

A series of humorous posts of clueless individuals trying to fill in maps has been making the rounds recently. The first one I saw was an Australian trying to fill in a map of US states.

2013-11-27 Australian Attemp
A for effort?

Next up, BuzzFeed asked a bunch of Brits to try the same task in honor of the Thanksgiving holiday. Their results weren’t any better.

Hey, at least the Aussie tried to name every state!
Hey, at least the Aussie tried to name every state!
Poor Nebraska has been demoted to "Who Cares?"
Poor Nebraska has been demoted to “Who Cares?”

Then there’s the BoredPanda version which takes the other approach by asking a bunch of Americans to try and label European countries with predictable results. 

Read more

GQ: Quit Watching Porn

by
Scene from the new film "Don Jon," which addresses porn and porn addiction.
Scene from the new film “Don Jon,” which addresses porn and porn addiction.

Given the pervasiveness of porn in our culture, I figured I’d be one of a lone voice of marginalized weirdos for stating that it’s bad and people should knock it off. And yet, on the heels of Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s “Don Jon”, GQ has an article called 10 Reasons Why You Should Quit Watching Porn. There aren’t a lot of new scientific details in the article, and all the reasons come down to mostly “it’s bad for your sex life.” Perhaps not the noblest of reasons, but perfectly valid and quite pragmatic. It’s nice to see this issue dragged into the spotlight of mainstream attention.

The Pope Preaches Fairness, Is A Radical

by

117049-pope-francisPope Francis’ recent “apostolic exhortation” criticizes certain aspects of modern society, championing equality and policies that guarantee opportunity and basic welfare.

Naturally, the Pope’s words are being and will be co-opted by the left as a long-awaited attack against conservative ideals and a tacit approval of redistributive policies, not excluding socialist positions.

While I can’t, myself, read the Pope’s document (my guess is because it hasn’t been translated to English), reading what’s being said in the news about it leads me to believe Pope Francis is not sanctioning socialism or anything like it, but rather calling for society to back away from “idolatry” in the form of obsession with wealth and status, which isn’t what I would consider to be an earth-shattering pronouncement. He asks for people to make giving to those less fortunate than themselves a priority, and for politicians to ensure everyone in their society has access to what most people around the world would consider to be basic necessities (education, employment and health care).

Perhaps the most potentially divisive comment made in the exhortation is, ironically, the Pope’s call for closing the inequality gap. I’m not sure what solutions he offers for fixing that problem, but it’s perhaps what the Pope points to as a cause for the gap’s existence that is the most interesting:

“As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems,” he wrote.

I don’t think many people are seriously arguing for absolutely unregulated markets, so I’m not sure what this statement is meant to accomplish, nor why it is (at least, going from the comments sections on the various outlets reporting this) being interpreted by leftists as a socialist call-to-arms and a radical departure from everyday Christian culture which, with its emphasis on personal liberty, responsibility and autonomy, is in their minds a spiteful dismissal of or, at best, indifference to the plight of the disenfranchised.

While I applaud Pope Francis’ for attempting to place emphasis on helping the less fortunate and shedding the pursuit of wealth at the expense of others, I’m more interested in learning what solutions he proposes to addressing what are, in fact, human failings, not unique to any corner of any political spectrum.